You were probably trying too hard to work with him. Maybe you should have taken the tactic, “Fine, you don’t want to get involved in the interesting stuff? Then your character can do boring stuff.”
Let him sit there and watch the other players participating in intrigue and adventure. And every once in a while, say, “Oh, and your character? He spent the day watching TV.” At some point, he’ll give up his loner ways and seek out the company of the people having all the fun.
And then there’s Second Life Gor. Adventure and fighting in a fantasy world, and hot slavegirls violating every norm of civilized human conduct for shits and giggles! So much fun!
I prefer women who kick ass, think you.
The iteration of Second Life Gor that I play, Gor Evolved, is full of them. We adjusted the rules to allow women warriors and of course there are the panther girls. Slavegirls and slaveboys too. It’s kind of “pick your brand of fun and play.”
If you say so. If you don’t mind I’d rather discuss something else.
This. Unlike a controlled video game, there aren’t limits to what you can at least try. You can pretty much do anything you want to do (and so can everyone else, which makes it very interesting…) You can also take on character roles that are nothing at all like your real life personality.
We started playing online with some close friends last year, and am still in the middle of my first quest. I am a dragonborn Paladin on a mission to unite disparate cultures - another cool thing is that your complex history is known only to your character and half the fun is seeing the other characters take shape as you learn more about them.
And the complete and utter randomness of it all. We found a nest of drakes, and instead of killing them, as would be the standard RPG option, one of the players decided to charm them, what the hell? They followed my husband’s character around (to his dismay) for days and days. Finally we arrived at the castle and reported on our failed quest, and as a consolation prize we gave the lord the pet drakes. During our last event, we found a satyr from another realm who despised our land so much he was begging for death. Everyone was going to keep talking to him but my character was so overwhelmed by the man’s agony she just drew her sword and ran him through. Collective gasps from all players. We burned the body and threw it out to sea with some decent rites. As long as it makes sense within the context of the world, you can freakin’ do anything.
When I had a character like that (an assassin who would wander off to kill someone whenever the other characters were following a plot hook)…ended up holding him to a higher standard than the rest of the party - players who generally followed plot hooks, even if they went off on a side adventure of their own, I’d fudge dice in their favour, if they did something that wasn’t entirely stupid I’d ignore consequences of not covering all the angles (like the other assassin not cleaning up after herself), or just have things break in their favour, because it’s more fun for everybody if they don’t spend the next session in jail. (Their one jailbreak…required a lot of fudging because the assassin who didn’t suck was the only one who had any clue how to handle the situation.) But, using a very recognizable signature weapon to kill a civilian while the rest of the party (including the evil Drow assassin who (with the consent of all players involved) once murdered a party member in his sleep*) followed one of the plot hooks…that’ll get the city watch after your ass, since I’m not going to pretend you’re not going to be an obvious suspect, like I might for the others.
He eventually wandered off just before I kicked him out.
That plot actually didn’t work out, though…by the time the party killed one of the bosses (and not the one they were supposed to, either (a low-level vampire) - they allied with him), he’d left the group due to real life commitments.
Fair enough–but unlike the real world, there are wizards casting fireballs.
My goal when I run games isn’t to simulate the real world. Rather, it’s to tell really fun stories. And the PCs are the characters about whom we’ll be telling the stories, so yeah, we’ll focus on events that they affect and that affect them.
I certainly understand that a lot of folks like sandbox games. They don’t do it for me. I much prefer games with a heavy narrative focus, just like I prefer books with a heavy narrative focus.
An example of what I mean about a story that’s totally unpredictable: tonight we played our normal campaign, except we used mostly different characters (representatives of five different noble houses vying for favor from a single PC), and we used the most excellent Fiasco rules (“A game of powerful ambition and poor impulse control”).
I played a cross between Dr. Strangelove’s Jack D. Ripper and Viserys, a scheming wizard convinced that necromancers were everywhere. Someone else played a horrible pedophile noble. Someone else played a spoiled teenage prince who relentlessly ass-kissed anyone he thought could do him a favor.
All of us were just trying to win the favor of the PC, but by the end of the game, we’d managed to get the teenager’s arm bitten off by a skeleton dragon he’d inadvertantly summoned, get the pedophile murdered and turned into a nasty undead spirit inhabiting the body of a little girl (it’s a Japanese themed game, creepy little girls are de rigueur), and get me completely discredited to the point of exile when I correctly but impoliticly accused the princeling of causing this major screwup.
It was tremendous fun (okay, full disclosure, if no other player ever brings up pedophilia in a game I’ll be fine with that–Christ, dude), and completely not what any of us were expecting to happen.
Sounds good to me. My goal isn’t to simulate the real world, but a “real” world, meaning coherent and plausible on its own terms. To tell stories of and within that world. And of course the PCs are the “focus”–we spend the entire game talking about what the PCs experience!
Did you just completely contradict yourself?
I like easy battles and being led around by the nose. The group I play with is more interested in the social experience (beer, scotch, bourbon, sometimes wine - and cheesy poofs) than the gaming, and the style suits what we are there for. We don’t want to be clever and figure things out (and when we are expected to, it takes FOREVER). We want to roll dice and kill something - and since at any given moment at least two people aren’t paying attention - we don’t want it to be so challenging that “the cleric had too much to drink” is the reason the whole party is dead. Lots of narrative structure? I’ll read a book or watch a movie. I want a little narrative structure and to make comments about how sucky my dice rolls are all night.
Yeah, maybe. I dunno - as the DM, I find it pretty hard to live with players obviously not being satisfied or enjoying what you’re doing. We aim to please, don’t we ? And when that happens, I tend to blame myself rather than them (in fact, I do that pretty consistently, in all walks of life :)).
Besides, he was a good guy otherwise, I enjoyed shooting the shit with him outside the game. I dunno, man. Like I said, I don’t think I really grokked the guy, then RL got in the way of the campaign and I never saw him again. Life goes on.
As you please.
It’s really stretching to call that a contradiction; I’m not even sure I’m seeing what you think might be one. If you’re suggesting that my preference for a heavy narrative focus contradicts my enjoyment of a game where nobody knows what’s going to happen, that’s a non sequitur. The game I described had a very clear narrative structure (peaceful meeting; flashbacks establishing danger; foreshadowing; minor conflicts; eruption of major conflict; denouement). It’s just that nobody knew what it would be in advance.
So you’re saying you’d like to DM, then?
Skald probably would make a better DM than a player. I mean, that’s basically what he’s doing when he posts one of his bizarre hypothetical questions-- Just add dice. Though I imagine he’d make a pretty good player, too. I’ll bet nobody would ever dare make fun of one of his bards.
What is the difference between a DM and a player? I’m gathering that the DM doesn’t participate in the adventure.
Just wanted to add quick mention of the WATCHMEN role-playing module, where the guy playing Eddie Blake is supposed to go into another room for brief side plots with the DM during the adventure; they note that this is often bad for group role-play, as it can make other players irritated and suspicious, but here is meant to do that – because, hey, if you’ve read the comic, the whole point is that they have private agendas and don’t see eye-to-eye on a lot of things and wouldn’t work well as a team.
The way I explain it to total newbies is this: every player but one chooses a single protagonist (in a troupe-style story) to play. They’ll see the world from that character’s point of view, and they’ll describe what that character attempts to do. Their actions will change the story.
The last player is the Game Master, Storyteller, Dungeon Master, Computer, etc. (the specific term depends on the game). That player doesn’t play a protagonist. Instead, they play the entire rest of the world: antagonists, supporting characters, animals, weather, chemistry, physics (such as they are in the world), etc. They have, within a set of constraints, final say-so over whether the protagonists are successful in their attempted actions. They generally devise the problems that the protagonists set out to overcome.
The interaction among all the players, but especially between each regular player and the DM, determine the story.
It’s not generally an antogonistic relationship; rather, everyone should be working together to create maximum fun, which usually means trying to create maximum awesomeness in the story.
This is an important point to stress. The DM is simultaneously trying to make the players fail, and hoping that they succeed. He’s supposed to challenge them, but he also has to make sure the challenges can be overcome. The skill of the DM is generally the biggest determiner of how fun the game is (though, of course, all the players have some impact on that).
The DM knows all the spoilers.
Edit:
I DM’d an AD&D campaign while on WestPAC, so you could say I had a captive audience.
Reading all the other posts here, though, and I realise I sucked. We had fun amongst friends, though, which I guess is the main goal after all.