Quote:
Originally Posted by Embassy of Time
I think this is the exact main problem! Now, how to deal with it....
|
On one hand, I don't want to say that there are no wrong answers in roleplaying. In most campaigns, there are wrong answers: player versus player is a wrong answer, and so is anything even on the edge of sexual harassment, and I'm sure other examples could be listed.
But on the other hand, the broad meta-rules for roleplaying amount to (a) as Gregor Vorbarra says in the Vorkosigan novels, "Let's see what happens" and (b) you should try to think what your character would do in the presented situation.
Have you considered actually discussing with your players the idea that roleplaying is an environment where they have a broad freedom to imagine what their characters would do, that there are no defined-in-advance "right answers," and that as a GM, you will be really happy if a player comes up with an action that addresses a situation, but in a way you hadn't anticipated? Can you talk with them at the meta-level? Or is that demanding too much reflective self-awareness of them?
One other thing I can think of: If the game has anything like psychological traits---in GURPS, both traits that amount to moral codes and those that amount to psychological disadvantages (with self-control numbers) or quirks, you might suggest that the look at what's on their character sheet as a definition of the role they're going to play. If, for example, their character has Code of Honor (Gentleman) and Chummy, you have someone who really likes to be with people, who probably spends as much time as possible hanging out with their friends, but who insists on doing the right thing---you've practically got Bertie Wooster or another member of the Drones!