Frustrated GM
Christoph Boeckle:
Hello Paul
Thanks for the specifications. I think Callan has a good path to explore. Indeed, it's not quite clear to me how the players decide that they don't get enough money. Are any of these games clear about what mission rewards should be? If yes, are you following the rules (or advice) and telling the players that they shouldn't complain because that's what the game is like? If the games are clear and you're not following the guidelines, why not?
When do you decide that you don't like a campaign any more? How do you justify not continuing? What happens when you stop a campaign (as you said, after two or three missions)? What is the players reaction? Why do they agree on starting again and again, isn't that boring? Could it be that they actually prefer creating characters instead of playing a long time?
Nightwing:
I just love to haggle for everything. Is this the price for the execution of the mission, whether the price for the goods. If I say that prices are as in the book they say, "You're the GM, after all, you can change the amount."
We stop playing - when I prepare a scenario they claim that it is too risky or too low price.
They do not like to create new characters - they want to play the old characters. With the same motivations. I am sure that if I gave them the money to say: "Ok, we have the money, we need not now be brawlers, we can hire mercenaries.
Filip Luszczyk:
Did you consider, like, not playing with them?
You may be friends, but it clearly doesn't work. There must be some other gamers in your area and online gaming is always an option. There's no reason to feel chained to your immediate social environment.
Callan S.:
Quote from: Nightwing on April 13, 2012, 04:48:05 AM
I just love to haggle for everything. Is this the price for the execution of the mission, whether the price for the goods. If I say that prices are as in the book they say, "You're the GM, after all, you can change the amount."
We stop playing - when I prepare a scenario they claim that it is too risky or too low price.
Yeah, but this shows how the games cannot actually handle what you've decided to do - haggling is dependent on the other person being able to walk away. But when the players walk away, it annoys you and they are bored.
Frankly I don't know how risk adverse these players are - perhaps consider asking them to write up a scenario so they can give you an example of what sort of game they'd like to play.
If they can't be bothered writing up even a rough version of such a scenario, well - that attitude works in boardgames where the entire structure is complete and there is no creativeness needed. But it doesn't work in roleplaying. D&D has some boardgame versions out at the moment. Indeed, if they sit down to the boardgame and try and say 'it's too risky', then they are simply incapable of gaming, really.
In the end they sound like the kind of players who never, ever want their PC's to die (they just want the illusion PC's can die). Potentially adding some sort of works every time instant escape magic (like a town portal from diablo) might make things work out, and perhaps the uncertainty of play rests on something other than potential PC death (like maybe potentially losing cash, or missing out on gaining alot of cash).
If you don't like the idea of no PC death but they hate PC death, then in terms of gaming you are not compatable. It's like you like music type X and they like music type Y. Friends sometimes have very different tastes.
Quote
They do not like to create new characters - they want to play the old characters. With the same motivations. I am sure that if I gave them the money to say: "Ok, we have the money, we need not now be brawlers, we can hire mercenaries.
That'd definately be some evidence towards them being never-want-my-PC-to-die gamers.
It's entirely possible to do that sort of gaming (their assets/the mercs can potentially die for them, ala red shirts dying instead of Kirk).
But as said, if you as GM really want potential PC death but they don't, you just don't want the same thing.
And it has to be said, they have characters they like, that they risk losing. As Game Master, what do you risk losing in game? Nothing. It is a bit lop sided at best.
stefoid:
Based on the theory that unhappy characters are motivated and interesting characters, why not just let them have their riches? Let them have as much riches as they can et , til they are choking on riches and all the problems that you start introducing because they are 'the richest around' - the thieves both white collar and blue collar, the organised criminals, the government tax men (is there a difference?), the gold digging mistresses....
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page