New answers tagged

3

A group of 8-9 players is HUGE. You can run three games with that many people. Consider splitting the group Splitting may be controversial and there are people who would tell you it's more work. It is in fact less work when you have to prepare for a smaller group, but it would be a good idea to find another GM. You group sounds perfect for a standard 2x(GM+...


5

I call this "Open World" versus "Story Arc." Obviously both styles are fine but I've seen this problem as well. The sides get a little tired of each other. If you want to bring your wanderers into the story I suggest you tie some plot points to their characters' history. Or rather, add their history to the plot points. Examples are to add in mid-crawl ...


4

I have had more than one group like this, some like the overall "GRAND STORY" while others like the individual choice/freedom aspect. With a group that large: You could split up the group, though that would mean more work on your side as a GM/DM. Continue doing what you are doing. The best solution I have found is exactly what you are doing, a little ...


0

My choice would ultimately be #1 - Find a different group. Ron Edwards' GNS theory talks about Gamists, Narrativists and Simulationists. Everyone sits somewhere a little different on the scale, with some people being extreme towards one end. For example, I'm a hardcore narrativist with a side dash of simulationist. I play for story. I care nothing about '...


14

This is something of an "auxiliary answer" because most of the question has been answered already, but I feel the need to add: Some people just don't enjoy intraparty conflict, even on a mild level. They want everyone to get along and have a good time. These same people will not enjoy competitive or 'diplomatic' board games. So when discussing this with ...


6

Make it clear it's not a party game Right from the start and Out Of Character, be clear that intra-party conflict is not only a thing, but encouraged. Setup conflicts during character generation Ask leading questions when setting up relationships between characters. "What did Alice steal from you that you desperately want back?" "What did Bob do that has ...


7

In my experience, we stopped with that "forced group thinking" when we were first exposed to games where characters can be diametrically opposed. My first game of the genre was Steve Jackson's In Nomine. The setting was a one shot (adventure, not session. This spanned a couple of sessions) where there were multiple factions of angels and demons in a town ...


2

Give the players secret side quests / objectives with attendant rewards (XP, magic items, etc). Personally I think GURPS has better mechanics for this style of gameplay than D&D. In GURPS, characters are built with psychological/social/physical advantages and disadvantages which they are required to roleplay. Experience is awarded by the GM on the ...


13

In the character creation process, give them (or guide them toward) goals that are overlapping and diverging although not necessarily diametrically opposing. (You can give them opposing goals, but that may lead to more conflict than you want, and set-up a win-lose dynamic.) Another way of saying this is to give multiple PCs stakes in the same NPC or in-...


18

I'd recommend trying to organize a few sessions playing board games where players have more structured opposed agendas (Battlestar Galactica, Shadows Over Camelot and Dead of Winter are 3 that spring to mind). Then ask them if they want to try a similar idea in a pencil-and-paper RPG. It's possible they just don't want to play these types of games though, so ...


1

Suggest a single night campaign Offer it up as an experiment to the group (and don't drop it on them the night of the campaign). I've developed a one night scenario and I want to do an experiment in which everyone plays in character (or everyone is immersed in the game or whatever criteria you want to impose). Who's in? If someone is definitely not ...


2

It has been my repeated experience that if you want to set the tone for a game, then "easing into it" is exactly the wrong way to go about it. If anything, you want to be very clear about your expectations from the start and (if you have buy-in from the players) very firm in your guidance up front. I have found it to be much easier to get everyone mostly ...


5

I think that the main thing is to manage the game in such a way that the players are gently encouraged to invest more in their characters. The fact that they give them joke names etc doesn't necessarily mean that won't take it seriously in the long run and looking at it objectively 'Swordly McAxeface' may not necessarily be less silly that 'Azkar of Noth'...


3

One thing you can try is play seriously yourself. For example, if they goof off in front of NPCs, let the NPCs react realistically. Say, you've got an NPC that has a quest for the players. He wants the players to do something important like rescue his family. So now the players goof off, do weird things and generally don't seem trustworthy. So now have the ...


0

Just because they're having fun, doesn't mean they aren't taking it seriously. From what you're written above, and I don't mean this to be harsh, the core problem actually seems to be you. You want to play a serious, by the book campaign with consequences and foreboding. They want to play a light and comical campaign that's about social interaction. ...


13

This may have been mentioned on this site before: Talk to the Players Gaming is a social activity and like all social activities people participate with differing goals and objectives. You need to establish if yours and theirs are compatible and, if so, what level of compromise each of you needs to make. The time-honoured method people use for this is ...



Top 50 recent answers are included