This has probably all been said before, but here's my two cents (Canadian) worth:
If, for some reason, you're not having fun (and it's quite obvious that the source of the problem is that your players aren't compatible with your gaming style), then one of two things need to happen:
1. The offending players need to leave the group. Since it seems that all of them are being sods, this is probably not the best solution.
Depends on whether they're really this unruly in real-life, or just that they can't seem to flow with what Silverthorn is trying to do. If the former, ask 'em to shape up or ship out ... I bet you're not the only one in the group who thinks of the this way. If the latter, then the Narrator needs to learn to roll with the punches and come up with something the players like.
2. You need to find a new group.
This seems more likely. From having read only a few of the posts in this thread, it sounds like a genuine incompatibility between Silverthorn's goals and those of the group. Chances are, each player will side with the majority...it's just human nature.
If you want to keep trying with your current group, see if you can institute a couple of rules:
1. No distractions: IOW, TV is off, and music must be acceptable to everybody in the group, or else it goes off, too. Another option is to trade music days. Each person gets his/her turn choice of music for one session.
2. Have everyone give you a list of games they like to play, then find a couple that everyone can live with....then ask that they stay within the bounds of teamwork when playing those games.
If that works, great. If not, then chuck the entire lot of them and find ppl who you'll actually have fun gaming with.
I've always been of the opinion that a gaming group only works if everyone agrees on the limits BEFORE the first session. It's certainly fair of the GM/Narrator to ask for players to come ready to play; if they can't find the time because something's on TV, or what have you, then they should definitely miss out when it comes to rewarding them at the end of an adventure. When my players have skipped out for these sort of reasons, I've held their characters back from advancement at a normal pace, to reflect that if the player isn't devoted to the game, thew character isn't devoted to the cause either.
OTOH, I've never seen truly heavy-handed tactics work all that well. Narrators are not, as much as we'd like to think otherwise, gods. Any good adventure worth its salt will develop out of the collaborative efforts of the whole, not a single POV
Silverthorn, you gave the example of your players not wanting to form a superhero team, despite the fact that you based the whole premise of the adventure on a team being in place. SInce peoples is odd, you gotta roll wid da punches... change up some of the elements so that you guide the players into seeing the wisdom of playing as a team... if they still doin't get to that point, then there's nothing wrong with letting 'em fail. Point out, as the omniscient voice of reason, that they might've saved the world, if only they'd pooled their resources.
IOW, work WITH the players; don't expect them to work FOR you. You have an idea how the story should go, but when you introduce one or more "rational" minds, you're bound to see variations crop up... some excellent, some crap. Dat's jus' de way she rolls, boyo.
AND, if all else fails, find a new group, yes. There's bound to be players out there who share philosophies.
Reply With Quote