GM Lounge - Bartenders Answer All Your Questions

[Haibane]

Following on from what you said there Sasha, I find the problem is slightly differently oriented (forgive the pun).

I have tried to run games based on various balances of sexualities and in my experience you cannot easily mix them. A group game can be hetero (and this often seems to mean male=straight, female=bi!), or f/f or m/m but almost never can it be mixed. Once a few prospective players show an interest and begin discussing m/m action, for example, all the other orientations stay away, rather than joining in and suggesting "Is there scope for some f/f in here too?" I have also been in groups where, for example, dominant females in a school setting have submissve males as their victims and that setting of course drives away all the alpha males and many sub females so you end up with a very limited pool of potential players, no amount of 'players wanted' promotion can overcome. It is logical that prospective players read the players wanted thread and at once understand the scope of the game and know it isn't for them. This of course is a good thing in that a player may not get into a game they later discover covers subjects they are not comfortable with but it does surprise me that as a female who does dominant roles often, I get asked by male players to do 1-on-1s with them quite often, yet when its a group game of the same format, these same players never show an interest.

[Chrystal]

I have noticed this to a lesser extent.

A game I started late last year (that just folded - I think that's a record for me - more than a month) was open to all players of all orientations. I got three male players sign up, two of whom created female characters. I had a grand total of three male characters, and fifteen or so female ones.

I think it comes from me being a lesbian, the guys just assume they aren't getting any action, and the straight girls assume I'm going to be chasing them... Or something? I dunno.

In a previous idea that never got off the ground at all, I had two gay guys sign up and everyone else vanished! It seems homophobia is alive and well, it just pretends not to be!

Not sure if this is related, but the other thing I dislike, as a gay female, is guys who create a female character in the hope of getting into my knickers - and yes it happens, I can cite a specific instance. The guy in question got himself banned over something else entirely, which made my day at the time! What I really love is when the otherwise hetero male player creates a female character with a view to getting some f/f action, only to find her being pursued by a male character.

Sorry, one of my pet peeves there.

The way I've come up with to prevent this situation is to have character AND player orientation in the char sheet. Thus the player can specify that his or her apparently straight character is actually only to be pursued by members of the same gender, or whatever...

[Sure]

Not sure if this is related, but the other thing I dislike, as a gay female, is guys who create a female character in the hope of getting into my knickers - and yes it happens, I can cite a specific instance. The guy in question got himself banned over something else entirely, which made my day at the time! What I really love is when the otherwise hetero male player creates a female character with a view to getting some f/f action, only to find her being pursued by a male character.

So you wonder why you don't get straight players in an RP with a lot of homosexual players, but you have a problem with straight people playing homosexual characters if they pursue your character? Because I'm fairly sure that would be part of the problem right there.

Anyway, I'd say the reason these groups tend to segregate is because, if the RP's ultimate goal is sex, then every character of an incompatible orientation is effectively a character that does not exist. If there is a game with seven characters, only one of who is straight, that straight character will not get any. If its a game with ten characters, four of whom are straight, those four basically have to play among themselves in regards to sex. Now, if we're talking about a deep and involving plot, that's another matter, but I suspect that thought is always in the back of player's heads. But that's a total guess, and might well be wrong.

[HockeyGod]

I have played in 4 group games in E that had a mix of sexual orientations and they all worked well. I guess it does depend on the premise of the game as Sure is suggesting. A game I find myself in currently is mostly non-sexual and as far as I can tell there are 3 gay/bi characters in it.

[Chrystal]

I see your point...

Actually, I have no real objection to guys playing girls or girls playing guys, and I am quite happy to rp with a straight guy who is playing a gay girl for the duration. What I object to is when the straight guy creates the lesbian character specifically to rp with me, to the exclusion of all the other characters in the story!

Yes, I know it's conceited of me to say that, but as I said, it has happened.

But your point about the oil-and-water nature of the gay and straight communities is well made. I do sometimes wish I was bi, just so I could help bridge the gap a little, and also because I do miss out on a lot of great stories and great RPers As Haibane said, the "straight" RP usually assumes that most of the women are bi. It's odd but in my experience on E, most are! (Subjective opinion, so please don't jump down my throat!) I've encountered far more bi women than pure straight or pure gay.

I have played in 4 group games in E that had a mix of sexual orientations and they all worked well. I guess it does depend on the premise of the game as Sure is suggesting. A game I find myself in currently is mostly non-sexual and as far as I can tell there are 3 gay/bi characters in it.

Hmm... I enjoy non-sexual type games and have tried running a few in the past. I never seem to attract the sort of player I really want in the game - that is, the sort who are interested in the scenario and want to keep the thing going!

I'm thinking of doing my next one by invitation only... (Anyone here wants in, then just say!)

[Beguile's Mistress]

Most of my group game experience is of the Mafia style in the non-adult forums.  Because they are elimination games they do have and end and are usually a lot of fun.  I read some of the games here and on other sites and I've noticed that when the emphasis is on the story the game gets more attention from the players and a more diverse player base.  When the emphasis is on sex the players tend to segregate and they also tend to drop out once they get what they came for.

Of course, whether sex or plot is the driver of the game I've seen GMs wreck a game for several reasons.  Some GMs start a game and back out of the play.  Others start a game for the sole purpose of getting it on with as many players as they can.  Once they lose interes in doing that the game dies.  These games suffer because the GM doesn't do their job, which is to direct the game, be a catalyst in various relationships or drive the NPCs to make the story interesting for the players.

A few times I've also seen games that were starting out well die because the GM(s) held the reins tightly and would not give up control.  They had a vision for the game and resisted all efforts of the players to have a say in plot development.

Through simple observation I've come to the conclusion that sex-driven stories will attract those of like minds and stories with an attentive and flexible GM that are plot driven will have a better chance of survival.  There are times where you'll have an excellent GM but the players don't cooperate at all, real life interferes with too many players or the timing of the game falls in a bad place on the calendar.

It seems that it takes a near perfect storm of GMs, players and plot to have a successful game.

[NileGoddess]

Of course, whether sex or plot is the driver of the game I've seen GMs wreck a game for several reasons.  Some GMs start a game and back out of the play.  Others start a game for the sole purpose of getting it on with as many players as they can.  Once they lose interes in doing that the game dies.  These games suffer because the GM doesn't do their job, which is to direct the game, be a catalyst in various relationships or drive the NPCs to make the story interesting for the players.

If I could only tell you the stories of my experience with this...I honestly don't get why someone starts a game, then doesn't even have the desire to do anything with the idea.

A few times I've also seen games that were starting out well die because the GM(s) held the reins tightly and would not give up control.  They had a vision for the game and resisted all efforts of the players to have a say in plot development.

...and I've been more than guilty of this on more than one occasion, ranging from simple inexperience to actually doing things like being to pushy or strict on some things. I guess the best way to learn is through trial and error. I'm sure not to repeat the mistakes I made in the past with future games. While the GM has the most authority, and therefore is probably the strongest pillar, a couple of bad players can be just as devastating to a delicately balanced game.

[Thufir Hawat]

In a previous idea that never got off the ground at all, I had two gay guys sign up and everyone else vanished! It seems homophobia is alive and well, it just pretends not to be!

Might it be that they just didn't want to play with them? I've got a couple of people on E. that I don't want to play with myself. If I see them joining a game, I might well drop out. The reason has nothing to do with their orientation, which is "straight" in half those cases, and everything to do with their roleplaying styles.
Maybe it was homophobia in your case, I don't know. I know for sure I can't roleplay a gay scene, although I've managed to roleplay a straight female NPC in a sex scene, a bi female, and a straight male.

When the emphasis is on sex the players tend to segregate and they also tend to drop out once they get what they came for.

Isn't it logical? When you came here to roleplay a given scene, the game might as well die after your roleplayed through it. It's like an end condition in Monopoly.

Of course, whether sex or plot is the driver of the game I've seen GMs wreck a game for several reasons.  Some GMs start a game and back out of the play.

That one is the hardest to get for me until late.
Then I had to drop a game, although I elected to put it on hold. I just grew disappointed with the genre and the setting. But since it has continued on and on for over half an year, well, I don't want to drop it completely.
Still, there are many reasons the GM might drop a game. And it's often hard to find a replacement.

Others start a game for the sole purpose of getting it on with as many players as they can.  Once they lose interes in doing that the game dies.

Same thing as the players dropping out after getting some sex, I'd say.

These games suffer because the GM doesn't do their job, which is to direct the game, be a catalyst in various relationships or drive the NPCs to make the story interesting for the players.

I might have a slightly different definition of the GM's job, but I totally agree with the overall point. The definition is not for here nor now.

A few times I've also seen games that were starting out well die because the GM(s) held the reins tightly and would not give up control.  They had a vision for the game and resisted all efforts of the players to have a say in plot development.

Seen that too many times as well. Alas, railroading is alive and well, and this style is even being promoted by some people as the right approach to gaming and storytelling.
However, it means the game is no longer "our story" and the GM doesn't give the co-writers full authorial rights. They only get to add minor details. It's only natural many people would drop out.

Through simple observation I've come to the conclusion that sex-driven stories will attract those of like minds and stories with an attentive and flexible GM that are plot driven will have a better chance of survival.  There are times where you'll have an excellent GM but the players don't cooperate at all, real life interferes with too many players or the timing of the game falls in a bad place on the calendar.

All of this is supported by my experience as well.

It seems that it takes a near perfect storm of GMs, players and plot to have a successful game.

Maybe, but it still happens, and it's great when it does ;).

[Chrystal]

Okay, so, based on the two previous posts, there is obviously a delicate balance between letting players run off and take a game in a direction that is totally contrary to the original plot, and allowing players their "full authorial rights". (Great term there, Mr Mentat).

So, we have a plot based (rather than smut based) game, in which the GM has outlined the plot in some detail, and the players know what is expected. If they drop out at that point, then it's obvious they don't like the plot.

However, if they stay on and keep posting, it should be a fair assumption that they at least want to see how the plot develops?

Allowing players to run with their own ideas can potentially derail a plot based game, but there is an old saying: "No plan survives contact with the enemy". I feel that as GM one must be flexible enough to allow players to go off at tangents or do things you aren't expecting, but at the same time, these unanticipated events need to have consequences that affect the entire story and the player(s) in question need to be made aware of this and allowed to edit their posts if they so desire. That said, I'm a firm believer in "You killed it you eat it", or "You made the bed, you lie in it".

Thus if a player (or players) go(es) off on a tangent, I will allow it, but detail the consequences on them and the other characters.

[NileGoddess]

So, we have a plot based (rather than smut based) game, in which the GM has outlined the plot in some detail, and the players know what is expected. If they drop out at that point, then it's obvious they don't like the plot.

One would think that would be the case, but if that is true, then why did they join the game in the first place. I'm a firm believer that many people cannot, in fact, budget their time correctly. It's rude, because they go off and treat things like the flavor of the day, with no consideration to the impact it might have on the group. I'm guilty of that in my earlier time on this site, but now I make it a point to join only if I know I can commit 100%.

Allowing players to run with their own ideas can potentially derail a plot based game, but there is an old saying: "No plan survives contact with the enemy". I feel that as GM one must be flexible enough to allow players to go off at tangents or do things you aren't expecting, but at the same time, these unanticipated events need to have consequences that affect the entire story and the player(s) in question need to be made aware of this and allowed to edit their posts if they so desire. That said, I'm a firm believer in "You killed it you eat it", or "You made the bed, you lie in it".

The freedom to bend things to make a more interesting story is well within the rights of the players, especially if it's in consensus with the overall plot. It's not an excuse to try and rise above the rules, make exceptions to your characters, or blatantly ignore things like character builds and rules out of laziness/maliciousness. So the GM needs to be firm with the plot, but doesn't have to choke it.

[Chrystal]

One would think that would be the case, but if that is true, then why did they join the game in the first place. I'm a firm believer that many people cannot, in fact, budget their time correctly. It's rude, because they go off and treat things like the flavor of the day, with no consideration to the impact it might have on the group. I'm guilty of that in my earlier time on this site, but now I make it a point to join only if I know I can commit 100%.

I agree to a certain extent, but I also believe that if one finds something entertaining, one will make the time to enjoy it. I have found that a lot of people will sign up to a RP expressing an interest, only to drop out when they find out a bit more about it. This may be counter-productive to a certain extent, but I hate investing a vast amount of effort in putting together a really detailed recruitment thread only to have no interest expressed whatever! So I tend to put up a skeleton, and see what sort of reaction I get, then flesh the idea out if I get a few nibbles.

Of course, people who thought the idea was vaguely interesting in it's bare bones may not find it so appealing when they read the fine print... And of course there are those who think "Oh, this sounds good," but then realise that it is going in a totally different direction than they had expected and drop out.

(And then there are those who just plane forget to post... *Stares at a certain friend who just admitted such in IM*).

The freedom to bend things to make a more interesting story is well within the rights of the players, especially if it's in consensus with the overall plot. It's not an excuse to try and rise above the rules, make exceptions to your characters, or blatantly ignore things like character builds and rules out of laziness/maliciousness. So the GM needs to be firm with the plot, but doesn't have to choke it.

So, in the case of a plot that has a specific goal (McGuffin?) What should be the GM's line when a player or players go off to explore the impenetrable forest to the North, instead of following the Yellow Brick Road that leads to the Silver City in the South where The Grand Poobah will offer to pay them handsomely if they will rescue his daughter from the Wicked Witch of the East?

(Just for example)

Is it permissible to post in the OOC thread "You're going the wrong way!" or should one be more subtle and have a vast army of orcs backed by dragons and ice giants appear out of the woods...?

[TheGlyphstone]

Is it permissible to post in the OOC thread "You're going the wrong way!" or should one be more subtle and have a vast army of orcs backed by dragons and ice giants appear out of the woods...?

That's about as 'subtle' as a sledgehammer to the face, and probably about as welcome. ;)

[Sasha]

That's about as 'subtle' as a sledgehammer to the face, and probably about as welcome. ;)

I don't know now ....giving the right game ....a load of orcs , dragons ...giants ...oh my . Kind of like zombies ....I used to love playing them . I be all for the surprise . Unless I was playing my nossie and then the poor girl would be vicious  for the time it took for the first body she noticed to be dead . Then that dratted flaw would kick in and she would start collecting the bodies. Her new friends to have tea with .

Come to think of it I rather miss playing her . Be nice to have a OWOD game a foot .

[Chrystal]

Yeah, I was being Ironic...

I guess the question is, which is the better method: Posting in the OOC thread asking the player(s) in question to get back on track - or if it's just one player, sending a PM asking him or her to edit, or exercising GM's prerogative to make the route yyou want the player(s) to take the only available one...?

[HairyHeretic]

You can always try dropping in an npc or event to get them moving in the right direction. Or transport the plot device ahead of them so they're moving in the right direction :)

[TheGlyphstone]

It should always be done OOC - whether that's openly or via PM varies, but throwing up arbitrary obstacles to 'herd' the players towards your story just smacks of bad DMing. Like Sasha said, sometimes the plot can be tweaked; the wizard's tower might be in the Mountains of Terror, but he decided to visit his summer home in the Forest of Doom and brought the captured princess with him.

If you really can't relocate key things, and if you have decent people for players, telling them "yeah, I don't have anything prepared for the Forest of Doom because the plot expects you to go to the Mountains of Terror" will usually get cooperation and IC justification on their part to go where they should. Invisible walls, or their variant of unbeatable monster armies who exist only as a 'No PCs allowed' sign, is a trope of and should be restricted to video games where there is no DM to adapt to players.

[NileGoddess]

It should always be done OOC - whether that's openly or via PM varies, but throwing up arbitrary obstacles to 'herd' the players towards your story just smacks of bad DMing. Like Sasha said, sometimes the plot can be tweaked; the wizard's tower might be in the Mountains of Terror, but he decided to visit his summer home in the Forest of Doom and brought the captured princess with him.

On a separate site, I knew a GM who was trying to get rid of a very troublesome player. Not because of his roleplaying, but because in real life he was just a punk who treated the cast like garbage. Plus, he had an attitude problem. So his first attempt to get rid of him was to simply put him in a situation he couldn't get out of; he was certainly going to be rent apart by monsters. Of course, this player suddenly and effortlessly dispatched everything, and continued as he had been. So, the point I'm trying to make is that sometimes players have no intention to follow the rules, and will continue if they think they are getting away with it.

Approaching them OOC, or through PM, is the best way to confront them with it. Otherwise, 'herding', as Glyphstone said, just drags things out needlessly and unsuccessfully.

[Chrystal]

mmhmm.

I was thinking something along those lines myself, but it's good to hear it confirmed by those with more experience.

Of course, if the players, OOC, say "Well okay, but we've started this way, we cant really just all decide to turn around, that would be out of character", then some sort of incentive might be justified. I guess it depends on the group and the number of posts.

I suppose that, if the bulk of the group is going the right way, and one obstinate character is insisting on heading off alone into the uncharted wilds (I've done that before with a character, after discussing the situation with the GM) then the best thing to do is let them, and hope their little side adventure doesn't distract too much from the main story!

The problem is, if the character(s) heading the wrong way refuse to rejoin the group and are crucial to the plot!

[TheGlyphstone]

The problem there would be that you trusted a plot-crucial role to a player you weren't certain of their reliability.

As for the party OOC saying they're already going another direction, finding an IC reason to direct them can work, but it has to be something less blatant than the invisible wall. Depending on how much plot is pre-planned versus improvised, it can be easier to just sideshelve the plot originally intended and create something new.

[Thufir Hawat]

Okay, so, based on the two previous posts, there is obviously a delicate balance between letting players run off and take a game in a direction that is totally contrary to the original plot, and allowing players their "full authorial rights". (Great term there, Mr Mentat).

So, we have a plot based (rather than smut based) game, in which the GM has outlined the plot in some detail, and the players know what is expected. If they drop out at that point, then it's obvious they don't like the plot.

However, if they stay on and keep posting, it should be a fair assumption that they at least want to see how the plot develops?

Thank you, Chrystal, but I can't claim the term is my invention. I picked it up from the discussions with some friends that are into story-game roleplaying ;).
And on your question, that's where terms like railroading come into being! Is the adventure moving on rails, and the GM knows where it's going, but nobody else can change the direction? In that case, they can only decide how long to stop at any given place, maybe get off the train for a while to examine the surroundings, but not for too long.
Whether the group believes that's giving enough importance to their "authorial contribution to the story", or not, is another matter. Like, some people will enjoy this style, for others that's reason enough to drop your game, with or without explanation.
In short, that's an OOC issue, and trying to solve it via IC action is counterproductive. Bring it up OOC, definitely!

"Guys, the plot requires you to go north, not south. Are you interested in continuing with the game we started originally?"
Mind you, when asking this question, it's better to be prepared that the answer can well be "no, screw the MacGuffin, we're off to explore the world"!
And it might well be for the better. I mean, if they're doing something else, and aren't doing it just to spite you, probably they have a cool idea in mind? Maybe you don't see it, or are seriously puzzled what's so cool about it! But the players are finding it cool, aren't they? (And if they aren't, meaning most of them are still interested in the story, the group backing you up means most players would get the hint that they're spoiling everyone's fun. But let's assume the group actually wants to go to the Mountains of Doom, not the Forest of Creepiness ;D).
Personally, I'd roll with it and see what happens. Some of my best games I ran this way. I never know, nor care, what the PCs are going to do next. That's up to the players.
I know what the NPCs are going to do next, though. Because that stuff is up to me >:)! The NPCs have agendas, and presumably, so do the PCs, or why am I running a game for such indistinct individuals that don't want anything?
When the two agendas collide, as they inevitably do, you get conflict, clashes, duels, murders, witty repartees, poison, seduction, manipulation, magic, true love, sacrifice, cheating, courtly plots, corporate mergers, and anything else you need. Mix and match as you see fit!
And here's the little trick. Wherever they go, there will be my NPCs, and if they go in the mountain, the mountain is an NPC the GM controls as well! You've read the LotR, I'm sure, so remember the scene where the mountain resists the Fellowship with blizzards?
I'm sure you get the hint here.
That also means you can't throw me off the plot, ever. You can't avoid having a story. You can change what the story is, how it develops, and how it ends, because it's not my story, it's our story, and I respect your contributions as a co-author. I can use different NPCs, and describe different locations, and the players will have different impact. To use the earlier example, if they go to the Mountains of Doom, as I expected them to, they might struggle with blizzards for survival, meet the locals, fight their champion, become chiefs, and forge them into an undefeated army to conquer the valley.
If they go to the Forest of Creepiness, they might meet man-eating plants, silkworms that feast on flesh of sacrificed humans, the elephant king, and the crazed cultists of forgotten demon cults that provide the aforementioned sacrifices. They might ally with the elephant king to crush the cultists, and burn down their unholy place, or join them, participate in untold orgies, and either become true converts, or find a moment to strike at the hearth of the cult by killing off the leading priest during a ceremony, which brings forth the demonic masters who start eating the cultists before returning to their dimension. Then they'd only have to survive while the masters can remain in our realm, without being eaten, or get eaten with them, knowing they have warded off a great threat to everything good and holy!
Yeah, I can't tell which one is better. But either way, this is the story of some characters who set off to explore the wilderness at some point.

At least, that's my approach. It's strongly character-focused, and the plot just follows the characters. There are other approaches as well, but they lack the main advantage I see here.
Namely, whatever the story ends up being like, it will fit the characters, and they wouldn't feel like someone forced them to take part in this adventure.

[BraveEarth]

Err you guys touched upon it earlier but I don't think you went over it extensively... What do you do when you want to keep the timeline moving in your game and not run into the 6 months= 1 day scenarios. Yet still allow for character interaction to take place and have relationships develop?

[TheGlyphstone]

You know, I was going to ask that myself once we had exhausted this line of discussion. In the game I'm currently co-running, we have a structured time rule of 1 day = 2 weeks. 7 days is devoted to the 8AM-8PM 'day' shift, and 7 days to the 8P-8A 'night' shift. For major setpiece battles and plot events, we switch to Comic Book Time, but structured time has worked out decently well.

[LunarSage]

I just have a few weeks go by every so often when it seems appropriate.

[Sasha]

I must be odd ....I rather enjoy it when the story line moves in a direction I was not anticipating .

Like you expect them to camp for the night and they decide to go explore the caves instead . Well I didn't have any caves in my setting ....but seems like there are some now . So what should they find in the cave . Creative juices begin to flow ...

Is it treasure buried down in there ....a sleeping bear to stumble over ....maybe that dressed skeleton with a map clenched in his hand . <Directions to the place I intended them to go ....or ...not > 

Sometimes a little outside the box thinking is good . A little improvisational side story tossed in so be it , if the whole group is into it anyways . Sometimes you have a split ...maybe only a few go to explore the caves and others stay to camp out for the night .  Well this is fun now two things can happen .

To me allowing players to add to game is rewarding sometimes to the GM , frustrating sometimes ....but overcoming it is rather fun to me . If it is as stated above one individual that just don't seem to get the just of what is going on or just seems to like to toss monkey wrenches every time you turn around . I would suggest going to a pm to get a better understanding of his methods or reasoning . Most of the time one can work with others , sometimes though that is just the game a player likes to play . Disruptions should be tolerated to an extent anyways in my mind and expected sooner or later .

I think each case ends up with its own set of circumstances . One time I asked the player would you like to make this a branched off solo story instead of continuing with the group . He accepted that offer and actually became one of my favorite people to play with in the end . Go figure that one out .

[HockeyGod]

Err you guys touched upon it earlier but I don't think you went over it extensively... What do you do when you want to keep the timeline moving in your game and not run into the 6 months= 1 day scenarios. Yet still allow for character interaction to take place and have relationships develop?

I've done it a few ways...

1. I give a note that the day will be changing in 1 week and everything needs to be wrapped up.
2. We have prescribed time periods of "day" and "night" and they shift every week to keep things going.
3. The idea of "fuzzy time." I don't like this one, but some RPs use it - they don't put on time constraints and you have to clearly note the time period in your post.