Some issues I've had with online campaigns thus far has been the assumption that whatever I'm doing will involve some kind of "gotcha" mechanic. Even if it should appear as much, the players should assume that if I've arranged to corner them somehow, it's in my mind to get them out of it just as quickly. I had an incident with my first online campaign where the players were repeatedly warned about an area of the map that was overrun with hostiles; they persevered forward just the same, until I trapped them in a house, surrounded by an impossible to manage number of enemy, to send the message that yes, I was serious, there were a great many enemy about. Then, before I could demonstrate the trap door and secret exit to the trap, which had been part of my plan all along (I merely wanted to press that my earlier warnings were well met), one of the players rebelled viciously, claiming that I had broken my DM's obligation, the one I'd always stood by. That went back and forth for a time, the player quit, while I was quietly stunned by how easily a cliched 1920s serial-based plot sequence could be so easily misunderstood. I supposed ever after that there were things I could do in a real life running, with the trust earned therefrom, that I could not do in text online. I don't wish to make that same mistake again, and I do wish for my motives to be clear, thus my efforts here to outline this at length.
Another issue I found was the players' tendency to express their intent in the future tense, rather than the present. For example, "We will go to the dungeon," rather that "We go..." Or, "We want to attack the enemy," versus "We attack..."
Wanting to do something is not doing it, nor is saying that at some future point we're going to do a thing. Yet when I brought this up, I found myself facing a rather stubborn resistance to the use of the present tense. I suppose it's defensive; by framing things as "we will do" as opposed to "we do," the players arranged an emotional difference between wanting to commit to an action rather than actually committing. As a DM, however, it puts me in a difficult situation.
First, if I'm to assume that the future tense is the same as the present, that removes the future tense as an option for the players. They might, for example, really mean that its something they "will do," just not yet. My assumption is bound to create misunderstandings, and so I'd prefer that we separate the two tenses clearly. However, this requires the players to discipline themselves; to understand that if they say "we will," I plan to take them at their word and assume they're standing where they are and doing nothing. I have tried to hold this line... only to find players becoming upset about it, that "of course" they meant that they were doing it, and that I'm being unnecessarily particular.
D&D is a game of language. As such, language matters. It's a bad habit to express things in future tense when we mean the present. I want my players to be aware of it.
I bring these things up because they cause conflict. In the first case I'm assumed to have an agenda, to "get the party," when I don't, and in the second, that I'm being pedantic when I demand people speak English properly. I don't have an agenda, and I do expect people to speak properly. And I'm saying so now with the expectation that these things are going to arise, because in the three previous campaigns I've run online, they did.
I don't expect my players will be interested in asking questions about my running style here, but perhaps others might like to, so I'm opening the door to that.
Wanting to do something is not doing it, nor is saying that at some future point we're going to do a thing. Yet when I brought this up, I found myself facing a rather stubborn resistance to the use of the present tense. I suppose it's defensive; by framing things as "we will do" as opposed to "we do," the players arranged an emotional difference between wanting to commit to an action rather than actually committing. As a DM, however, it puts me in a difficult situation.
First, if I'm to assume that the future tense is the same as the present, that removes the future tense as an option for the players. They might, for example, really mean that its something they "will do," just not yet. My assumption is bound to create misunderstandings, and so I'd prefer that we separate the two tenses clearly. However, this requires the players to discipline themselves; to understand that if they say "we will," I plan to take them at their word and assume they're standing where they are and doing nothing. I have tried to hold this line... only to find players becoming upset about it, that "of course" they meant that they were doing it, and that I'm being unnecessarily particular.
D&D is a game of language. As such, language matters. It's a bad habit to express things in future tense when we mean the present. I want my players to be aware of it.
I bring these things up because they cause conflict. In the first case I'm assumed to have an agenda, to "get the party," when I don't, and in the second, that I'm being pedantic when I demand people speak English properly. I don't have an agenda, and I do expect people to speak properly. And I'm saying so now with the expectation that these things are going to arise, because in the three previous campaigns I've run online, they did.
I don't expect my players will be interested in asking questions about my running style here, but perhaps others might like to, so I'm opening the door to that.
