GMs: Typical Player/GM Bad Habits

[Coin]

@faraday said in GMs: Typical Player/GM Bad Habits:

@Coin said in GMs: Typical Player/GM Bad Habits:

Let me roll to find the right avenue of investigation or interaction.

There has to be a balance though. Everyone realizes that players don't have the same skills as their PCs. But without players making decisions as to the approach, everything boils down to just dice with no actual storytelling.

I play a lot of Shadowrun, which is often built around heists. Rolls are used to give you tips as to the feasibility of various approaches, but ultimately planning the heist is the whole point of the game. If you just boiled it down to "I roll to figure out what's the best way into this building" and then "I roll to figure out if we succeeded" then it's no fun.

Combat is often done this way too in most games. The GM doesn't make you roll to figure out what the best attack is. You choose the attack, and the dice tell you whether it worked. I don't see why investigation/bluffing/etc. should work fundamentally differently.

Yes, but there's a fundamental difference between, "we are using a tactic that may or may not work, and even if it doesn't work, moves the story along" (as could happen with planning a bad heist and having it go pear-sheped) and "we are taking a tactic that will lead nowhere, the storyteller knows it, and does not provide further avenues for progress". If you tack on a (common) smug comment about how "evil I am, bwahahah, I'm the most evil ST ever, bwahahaha" from the GM because they feel they are so smart because no one can figure out their plot, and you've you got a pretty frustrating time.

[Ghost]

@faraday said in GMs: Typical Player/GM Bad Habits:

If you just boiled it down to "I roll to figure out what's the best way into this building"

You touched on this and I wanted to say, I think this is super important to think/focus on, IMO.

All too often, GMs railroad, envision specific methods that are the only solution to their riddle, or punish players for making decisions that the GM may think are stupid.

I find that most of the time a player tries so hard to do nothing until they can coax the GM to tell them exactly which key will unlock the next level, its because of the above. Sometimes it's just a powergamer looking to slam dunk a one-roll solution to a problem, but overall I think players get into this bad habit as a result of being used to GMs who railroad or try to force them to guess the sole solution.

So everything you're saying, in my opinion, is solid advice for building gamers who think for their solutions and to get out of the bad habit of always trying to find the golden ticket solution.

[Ghost]

Also, I'll help keep players from fishing by telling them before they roll whether or not the roll is feasible.

For example, if a floating/levitating platform is 1000 feet up without wires or cables and they cant jump up and grab it, I'll let them know it's obvious that they'd need some way other than jumping to get up there.

[faraday]

@Ghost said in GMs: Typical Player/GM Bad Habits:

All too often, GMs railroad, envision specific methods that are the only solution to their riddle, or punish players for making decisions that the GM may think are stupid.

Yeah, I agree with what you and @Coin said. Like I said in my first post, I think it's a balance. The GM's job is to enable the players to progress in the story, not to stump them, beat them, or railroad them. If they come up with a viable angle that you didn't consider - run with it. If they're going down the completely wrong path - either run with that in a fun way, too, or redirect them, or just handwave it not working out.

At the same time, I think players need to be willing to do some modicum of research into the world and the characters they're playing, and not rely on the GM to give them all the answers because they rolled well. You don't pick up a James Patterson murder mystery expecting the investigation to be written like "And then Alex Cross found some clues!" We get that it's fiction and it's not going to be perfect. We get that not all players/writers are experts in their subject matter. Anyone who's read a book or watched a TV show or movie in their life is quite adept at dealing with this phenomenon. But the good writers at least put forth the effort to make it believable.

[mietze]

I actually have a lot of tolerance for GM styles, as a player.

I really super appreciate scene and game runners though, who are communicative about their styles and up front.

What I mean by this:

• Not baiting and switching. If something is going to be a spectating scene vs participatory, disclose that. I think people are afraid that if everyone knows that it's participatory nobody will come, and it's true you will draw a different crowd, but it'll be people who are prepared to enjoy it for what it is (or people who can't be assed to read). But do not bill something as participatory when it's not going to be.

• Timing expectations. Is this a no limits time clock for poses (as in the person can start writing WHEN its their turn and spend however long (30 minutes? Hour? More?) they want to write it up? Or is it a timed countdown to pose/respond/roll or be skipped? I personally really love it when the expectations are stated up front because it helps me gauge whether or not I have the bandwith to be there.

• Slots. Are they limited? Will that limit be adhered to, or is it totally wide open?

• Start times/late arrivals. How are they kept/dealt with? There's no right answer here, but again, I find it helpful as a player to have that stated up front, just so it helps set expectations appropriately.

Once I've experienced a GM for a couple of times usually I have all my answers to the above, but when I see someone proactively giving guidelines/expecations it's really impressive and even if I decide the parameters aren't for me at that time? I always feel like my time as a person has been respected.

Player pet peeves of mine:

Not reading the guidelines/expectations that are put out in the PrP/Scene advertisement/sign up thingy. Or paying attention to the GM OOC comments about any of that stuff in the beginning.

People not showing up until 30-60 minutes in with NO warning or communication who then are combative or upset at me when I tell them that we've moved on from an easy entry point for them and I will not disrespect others' time by shoehorning them in awkwardly. If people give me heads up in advance I can make arrangements. On the fly, not so much. I usually do not wait more than 15 minutes for stragglers. And once I give up a limited slot to someone on the waiting list, I do not let the original back in unless there was some communication in advance and an arrangement has been made. Most people don't argue it, but there are some and they're really super aggressively annoying.

[Ghost]

@mietze said in GMs: Typical Player/GM Bad Habits:

Player pet peeves of mine:

So, with the topic in mind, what is your suggestion to aid these people into being better players? Do you think there is anything a GM can do to reinforce people showing up on time or not reading the outline of the event? If these are what you feel are bad player habits at the gaming table or mush session, this thread is looking for constructive tricks and tips to mitigate/correct those bad habits. What have you tried to curb those bad habits and have you had any good results to share?

[mietze]

@Ghost I stated that when I wrote my post as part of it. Largely I enforce stated guidelines (and I communicate that up front). Usually if you do that people will be more aware the next time or they will never sign up for your stuff again. You cannot make anyone read or be time respectful but you can mitigate their impact, explain why, and hope that it sinks in.

[Ghost]

@mietze You know, I remember seeing it plenty and hear about it still from time to time; the person who signs up for the Pro super quick, even if they're not equipped or involved with the PrP, so the valid people get bumped. Those, or definitely the people who dont pay attention to the content/post/details/come because a friend is in the scene/etc

I hesitate to say that maybe there's a better way, like include in the prp signup a quick one-sentence explanation of how their character would be involved. Probably wouldn't go over well though if PrP runners got to pick their players.

I think it's fair to say it would be considered respectful to pay attention and put in effort when someone runs scenes for you.

[Roz]

@Ghost said in GMs: Typical Player/GM Bad Habits:

I hesitate to say that maybe there's a better way, like include in the prp signup a quick one-sentence explanation of how their character would be involved. Probably wouldn't go over well though if PrP runners got to pick their players.

That's so fucking nuts to me. I know exactly what you mean, and you're right that people would get salty, but that salt would be straight-up bullshit. If a PRP runner has a lot of demand, they should be able to pick from the volunteers whoever might be best suited and most fun for the plot they have in mind. But I also hate the signup system that boils down to "first come, first serve," because it just favors -- whoever's online when the event gets announced.

[Ghost]

@Roz said in GMs: Typical Player/GM Bad Habits:

@Ghost said in GMs: Typical Player/GM Bad Habits:

I hesitate to say that maybe there's a better way, like include in the prp signup a quick one-sentence explanation of how their character would be involved. Probably wouldn't go over well though if PrP runners got to pick their players.

That's so fucking nuts to me. I know exactly what you mean, and you're right that people would get salty, but that salt would be straight-up bullshit. If a PRP runner has a lot of demand, they should be able to pick from the volunteers whoever might be best suited and most fun for the plot they have in mind. But I also hate the signup system that boils down to "first come, first serve," because it just favors -- whoever's online when the event gets announced.

Right. Realistically it'd be great for a GM to weed out the "I'm bored and just wanna play" people from the people who have a distinct reason to be involved in the PrP, but ho-leeee-shit it would not go over well.

But then again I've dropped OUT of PrPs because another player I knew needed the scene more than me. I'd like to see more of that, too. Maybe ask "hey this person didn't sign up in time, but the PrP is currently important to their stuff. Anyone keen to give up their seat?"

[surreality]

@Ghost said in GMs: Typical Player/GM Bad Habits:

But then again I've dropped OUT of PrPs because another player I knew needed the scene more than me. I'd like to see more of that, too. Maybe ask "hey this person didn't sign up in time, but the PrP is currently important to their stuff. Anyone keen to give up their seat?"

I've done this, too. If I was GMing something like this and saw this happen, were it in my power to do so, I'd probably toss that player a small XP thing for good-sport-ness.

[mietze]

I have seen people only being allowed to sign up for public GMed scenes once in a certain time period, or that is the stated expectation but have rarely seen it enforced.

[Auspice]

While I was online / free more a few weeks back, I often put a caveat in my sign-ups (thank you Fara for the comment option in +events) that I'd drop in favor of people more suitable.

But the first come first serve is maddening. Because I've been there (we all have I imagine) when the same person or few people signed up for eeeeeverything and we just always...missed...the train. Always.

And I've been the ST with a random group that makes no sense who demands I adapt the whole scene.

As someone now who can only play on weekends and where my sign up window is very narrow (not that I'm playing anywhere rn since Notion sadly closed :(), I'd be all for providing a sentence as to why my char fits in. It'd give me a greater opportunity over luck of being present when the event gets posted. And as an ST, I'd like being able to choose from who might fit best.

Would it lead to favoritism? Maybe. But nothing stops people from sitting in RP Rooms and running only for their bffs as it is. So they'd be a real special asshole if they use an open events system just to flaunt choosing their buddies when they could run private events.

[Ghost]

@surreality said in GMs: Typical Player/GM Bad Habits:

@Ghost said in GMs: Typical Player/GM Bad Habits:

But then again I've dropped OUT of PrPs because another player I knew needed the scene more than me. I'd like to see more of that, too. Maybe ask "hey this person didn't sign up in time, but the PrP is currently important to their stuff. Anyone keen to give up their seat?"

I've done this, too. If I was GMing something like this and saw this happen, were it in my power to do so, I'd probably toss that player a small XP thing for good-sport-ness.

Maybe if xp is the draw for rando people signing up for PrPs they have little care for, maybe a little compensation could be the answer. I mentioned a while back in some other thread something like a "PrP token" for giving up your spot, and each PrP has 1 slot for a "token holder" and if no one spends that token to get in 48 hours before the PrP then it goes to first bidder. Limited to 1 token per 3 months per player or something.

Just an idea.

[mietze]

And sadly, the last time I played on a game with non-social-only public st events, people would sign up like crazy and then not show up. So I like the waitlist. I will say that when I ruthlessly enforced my expectations as a ST people were much more prompt/polite/attentive/on time and I had less issues with checked out people. I even removed people midway through for non response. I just think if you really respect your players' time over time the players that fit your expectations gravitate more to you.

[Roz]

@mietze Yeah, I'm not surprised. I know I as a player definitely remember when a GM has clear expectations and enforces them. And it makes me very much want to be on their PRPs again in the future, because it indicates a philosophy of respecting the overall group's time.

[mietze]

I think too as an ST you have to develop a thick skin about accusations of favoritism. I did have some people fuss about my requirements as far as timed response and that I wasn't being fair. Unless you are the ONLY person running events and stuff though, I'm not sure you should worry about doing something to fit everyone's style.

As a player I also try to keep that in mind. That it is okay for me to be disappointed and bummed out that I can't participate because something is too fast/too slow/too large/at a time I can't make it. And if you want to be STing for a while without burning out you need to know/set your limits and kind if learn to listen but then let go when people are upset if they're beyond that. There is such a bottomless pit of need vs available time for STs, you have to pace yourself. It would be nice if players were more aware but I am not sure how realistic that is, and you cant really stop people from venting their frustration to/at/around you.

[faraday]

@mietze said in GMs: Typical Player/GM Bad Habits:

Unless you are the ONLY person running events and stuff though, I'm not sure you should worry about doing something to fit everyone's style.

Even if you are, you shouldn't worry about doing something to fit everyone's style. It's okay if a game is not for everyone. Nowhere did staff sign up to say "I must entertain everyone who logs into my game equally". Fairly, yes, according to whatever rules you set forth for your game. But as I remind my kids daily, "fair" is not a synonym for "equal".

[Apollonius]

GMs that cater to either one individual or to the lowest common denominator ("We want everyone to feel included/have fun") at the expense of the rest of the PCs. I'll focus on the latter.

Inclusion in a plot is not in itself bad. There is a lot to be said about a GM who can get a random room of strangers together towards building a story together. The problem is when the GM has to or wants to drag the weakest player along (whether s/he is not an appropriate PC for that scene, whether s/he has no real business in that milieu, and/or s/he is not well regarded in a given scene, IC or OOC). Obviously this is more endemic to MUs than TT but it's frustrating when a GM allows the weakest or most obnoxious player dominate the discourse because the GM feels sorry or otherwise wants to include that player into the game.

It's like that unpopular kid in school that you had to invite to your birthday party. No one liked the kid, he smells, and tells awful jokes about murdering babies, but you have to work him in and expend energy dealing with that kid to make him feel like he fits in, often by alienating the birthday kid and everyone else. My That kid's parents would be way more popular and wouldn't tank their kid's social standing by just not inviting that classmate who ends up being a meth abuser domestic violence local in later life.

Hypothetically of course.

[BlondeBot]

@Pyrephox said in GMs: Typical Player/GM Bad Habits:

When I am the Player, from GMs:

No-selling character skills and abilities. I don't want or expect a single PC ability to be an instant win button on any scenario, but the times when GMs have shut down or bent over backwards to decide a character's extremely relevant skills/abilities Just Don't Work because they didn't think about them when building the challenge is kinda silly. And makes me grumpy. This definitely ties into the school of thought of "Social skills aren't 'mind control', so you will never persuade an NPC to ever give up anything that they don't want to or to back down when I want a combat or to do anything against their best interests, no matter how the rules for the skills are written or how well you roll," but it's not exclusive to that.

Just...let PCs be good at their stuff. A single case of 'oh my, the telepath meets someone immune to mind-reading' can be fun, dramatic, and honestly pretty amazing if it's played well. But the fifth time in as many sessions? At that point, it's just frustration and boredom.

This. This. This. This. This. This. THIIIIIIS.

I get it, it's frustrating AF when a PC with a certain build can wreck your carefully-crafted plot, or a single, off-the-wall, amazing idea or bit of teamwork ingenuity turns an overwhelming encounter into a trivial one.

But for the love of Crom, let your players SHINE when they do something awesome. Let them have that win. You don't need to bring their personal kryptonite to every single scene. If it's becomming that much of an issue, where one player is dominating everything with his unkillable build, discuss it with them, let them know other players need to shine, too.

Even just make something partially work, or start to become effective without quite winning. But do not absolutely just no-sell every single character you have there because you don't want the scenario to be too easy. Your Big Bad is not the star of the show, the PCs are.