PDA

View Full Version : Retraining players



WarKitty
2011-02-20, 10:55 AM
Yes, that title is meant to say "players," not "characters." What's going on is that some of my players seem to have a video-game mentality issue. They assume that everything they encounter is a level-appropriate challenge and that they should never have to run away. They're also convinced that every single NPC who is not a shopkeeper is going to try to kill them at the first opportunity. This goes double for any NPC that does something the PC's don't like, no matter how minor. They also assume that every single item is trapped or cursed. I can sort of understand where they get the first assumption - last game was pretty much all level-appropriate encounters, but they also mostly stayed on the plot rails. I warned them this game would be different in that regard. The other two I frankly have no idea where they're getting it. The only NPC that has tried to kill the players after being friendly was the one they randomly decided was evil and attacked unprovoked. There was only one session last game where I made extensive use of traps - the fortress of a hostile, paranoid spellcaster.

How do I demonstrate to my players that most of the world is not in fact out to kill them and they do not need to spend all their time trying to figure out if Joe Farmer is really a demon in disguise?

Seatbelt
2011-02-20, 11:02 AM
If they're trap paranoid and its slowing down gameplay, don't use traps. Alternately inform them that if there are traps in a dungeon you will let them know to look for it (IE the questgiver will warn them that there are may dangerous traps or something).

Kill them. Often. Don't let them reload the savegame. They'll either learn to run away or quit, and then you can find new players. :P

true_shinken
2011-02-20, 11:03 AM
What's going on is that some of my players seem to have a video-game mentality issue. They assume that everything they encounter is a level-appropriate challenge and that they should never have to run away.

Have them play videogames where this is not true, like most survival horror games.

Eldan
2011-02-20, 11:12 AM
Run a long detective adventure where there is no fighting?

Yora
2011-02-20, 11:14 AM
This is something that is propagated by the rules of D&D themselves. This system constantly tells you "you kill stuff to become more powerful and able to kill more stuff."

One simple trick that works wonders and doesn't require much change to an ongoing game, is to not give XP for defeated enemies. Of curse, the players have to know that. Tell them that every session they will be given a fixed amount of XP and a bonus depending on how well they handled certain obstacles they had faced. If they kill a thousand monsters during the session or none at all, the XP for the characters will be just the same.
Or even more simpler and radical, don't give any XP and simply tell them their characters have gained a level when you think it's appropriate for what they accomplished during the last adventures. Which I also think, should not be very often. Every 4 or 5 sessions at the most.

A more drastic solution, which might be neccessary in some cases, is to start a new campaign. And tell them right from the beginning, before creating character, that this campaign will not be about fighting monsters. It will be about solving political conflicts, exploring almost empty ruins, or something like that. Of course, you'd have to follow this concept and really don't do a lot of combat encounters. Maybe one or at the most two or three in a session.
In that case, I would also recommend to consider making it an E6 game. The world is just set up in a way that even small critters can take down the greatest heroes, and there are just some creatures in the world, that mortals simply can't take down by force. When you're 4th level and have to defeat a dragon that killed hundreds of seasoned soldiers and eats other powerful monsters for breakfast, it's just obvious that you have no chance to kill it by hacking at it with a punny masterwork longsword.

Making Dungeons based on traps may seem like a nice change at first, but I think it makes things even worse, because of this very doubtfull blessing of the Disable Device skill. If you play by the rules, a Trap can be found by rolling for the Search skill and then rolling for the Disable Device skill. No need at all to think outside the rules. The Tomb of Horror was originally written for parties that don't have a character who can disarm all traps with a single d20 roll. Traps can work on a lock and occasinally pressure triggers that lock the door behind the characters. But when you want the players to start thinking outside the rules, you have to face them with situations in which they can see what will kill them if they set the trap of, and have to get creative in finding ways to make the trap unable to function.
For example don't do it like this:
Rogue: I roll Disable Traps. 18.
DM: Okay, you take small scisors to cut the cord connecting the leaver to the stopper on the gas vial.
Instead, do it like this:
Rogue: I take small scisors and try to cut the cord connecting the leaver to the stopper on the gas vial.
DM: Okay, roll Disable Device.
Rogue: 18.
DM: You carefully cut the cord with a single snip and thankfully the stopper didn't come loose.
Much more interesting.

Jay R
2011-02-20, 11:16 AM
How do I demonstrate to my players that most of the world is not in fact out to kill them and they do not need to spend all their time trying to figure out if Joe Farmer is really a demon in disguise?

If Joe Framer is worth experience points or has money, they may be being greedy, rather than paranoid.

The solution for this is for murder to have consequences. What were their alignments? Note the past tense. They attacked somebody unprovoked -- they are now Evil. Perhaps this guy's ghost appears before a paladin to demand justice,

As long as they can get experience and/or loot with no repercussions, they will continue on this path.

Ideally, if they announce that they are going to attack somebody else unprovoked, they should get a Wisdom check, and if any of them make it, they should be reminded that this is a clearly immoral act, that will make them outlaws if anybody ever finds out.

Maybe some high-level priest has already found out about it. (Witnesses or not, the gods did see it.) They may be arrested and threatened with capital punishment, unless they accept a quest in expiation of their sins. Maybe they should be required to donate half their treasure for the next year to his family.

Either their actions must have consequences, or there's no reason to change.

Alternatively, if they want to play evil outlaws, send somebody after them and run a game of evil outlaws.

It's important that the players and the DM be on the same page. Ultimately, if they want to play evil characters, and you don't want to run it that way, you may have to abandon the game

true_shinken
2011-02-20, 11:19 AM
This is something that is propagated by the rules of D&D themselves. This system constantly tells you "you kill stuff to become more powerful and able to kill more stuff."
Except that's not how the system is supposed to work. You get more XP for overcoming challenges. Some books, such as Enemies and Allies, even state outright that you don't get XP for randomly picking fights. Overcoming a challenge =/= looking for trouble.

WarKitty
2011-02-20, 11:19 AM
If they're trap paranoid and its slowing down gameplay, don't use traps. Alternately inform them that if there are traps in a dungeon you will let them know to look for it (IE the questgiver will warn them that there are may dangerous traps or something).

Kill them. Often. Don't let them reload the savegame. They'll either learn to run away or quit, and then you can find new players. :P

They haven't seen traps since the second session. Which was months ago. They seem to have the mentality that the longer they go without traps, the more it means there's something really deadly up ahead.

They're also getting levels for completing quests, without using any form of xp system. We've been doing that for a while. They're in a new campaign where they've already been told it's an open world that will react realistically to their presence, frequently by not caring.

It's getting to where it's hard to get them to do anything because they're so busy being paranoid about the NPC's that they won't take quest hooks on the assumption that it must be a trap.

Edit: The unprovoked attack was a one-off thing, to be fair. They're generally playing as good to neutral characters. They don't usually attack unprovoked. They just spend all their time trying to figure out what this NPC's *real* motives are, what he's hiding, and what traps he has in store for them.

dsmiles
2011-02-20, 11:21 AM
Let them run headfirst into a TPK.

Have the authorities be WAY more powerful than they are, and let them suffer the consequences of their actions.

Set them on fire.

Run an entire adventure with no combat.

Run an entire adventure with no traps.

WarKitty
2011-02-20, 11:22 AM
Run an entire adventure with no combat.

Run an entire adventure with no traps.

Would you believe I have? Seriously, they haven't seen traps for at least ten sessions. And not a huge amount of combat.

Yora
2011-02-20, 11:25 AM
One very important thing: Tell them what you expect them to do. Lots of cases of players attacking everything are caused by the players thinking they are supposed to do it.

Except that's not how the system is supposed to work. You get more XP for overcoming challenges. Some books, such as Enemies and Allies, even state outright that you don't get XP for randomly picking fights. Overcoming a challenge =/= looking for trouble.
But the question was how to make the game more enjoyable for everyone. When the rules are a leading cause of dissatisfaction, it seems completely viable to change them.

dsmiles
2011-02-20, 11:26 AM
Would you believe I have? Seriously, they haven't seen traps for at least ten sessions. And not a huge amount of combat.Looks like you're left with setting them on fire. :smallwink:

WarKitty
2011-02-20, 11:27 AM
One very important thing: Tell them what you expect them to do. Lots of cases of players attacking everything are caused by the players thinking they are supposed to do it.

But the question was how to make the game more enjoyable for everyone. When the rules are a leading cause of dissatisfaction, it seems completely viable to change them.

I've actually done that one too. Part of the issue is also I have a set of very different players. This is two players out of five that are causing the issues.

true_shinken
2011-02-20, 11:30 AM
But the question was how to make the game more enjoyable for everyone. When the rules are a leading cause of dissatisfaction, it seems completely viable to change them.
But you don't need to change the rules. You just need to follow them.

See, if you say "I'm gonna beat him for the XP" you don't actually get XP. That's not a challenge, it's simply metagaming. If you convince an NPC to help you do something and that something pertains the adventure, you get XP. That's the rules for how XP work, you don't need a houserule for that.

Yora
2011-02-20, 11:35 AM
Okay, so here the ugly possibility: They don't want to play the game you want to run.
Not to say this situation can be saved, but there is the very real possibility, that you don't want to play the same game. Either side A gets their way and side B is unhappy, the other way round, or both try to play the game like they want it at the same time and both sides are unhappy.
If you can't agree on a type of game that you all enjoy, it seems better to not continue the group in the configuation it is now.

I had this once in the planning phase of a multiple-DM game, and one of the DMs just had a very different idea of what kind of games he wants to run. So we talked about it and agreed that we should run our games seperately. Was the most satisfactory solution for everyone, and he was a nice guy whose games we did enjoy.

Greensleeves
2011-02-20, 11:49 AM
If I've understood this correctly, the issue is not that they attack everything the see, but that they are overly paranoid. They see every NPC as someone who's just out to get them, every plot hook as a trap, every nook and cranny contains a deadly secret etc.

My solution would be to ask them to start playing their characters. If the character suspects something wonky, ask them to roll a Sense Motive check. When it invariably turns up as "You get the feeling everything is just as he says" they'll have to play on that, even if the players suspect something different. It can become hilarious when the characters are forced to continue on without extra super special security measures and the players are convinced they're going to die.

Basically, have them stop meta-game and start playing their characters, who probably aren't as paranoid.

WarKitty
2011-02-20, 11:55 AM
If I've understood this correctly, the issue is not that they attack everything the see, but that they are overly paranoid. They see every NPC as someone who's just out to get them, every plot hook as a trap, every nook and cranny contains a deadly secret etc.

My solution would be to ask them to start playing their characters. If the character suspects something wonky, ask them to roll a Sense Motive check. When it invariably turns up as "You get the feeling everything is just as he says" they'll have to play on that, even if the players suspect something different. It can become hilarious when the characters are forced to continue on without extra super special security measures and the players are convinced they're going to die.

Basically, have them stop meta-game and start playing their characters, who probably aren't as paranoid.

Pretty much this. They're not too attack-happy, they just see everyone and everything as out to get them. Any NPC that doesn't immediately do what they want is secretly in league with the enemy. The king didn't hire them because they were the best in the land (at level 11, they really are the best in the land), he hired them because he secretly wants to lure them into a trap. Every magic item is really cursed. Which, honestly, is more the style of the other DM our group has, so that's probably where they're getting it from.

Asheram
2011-02-20, 12:11 PM
Pretty much this. They're not too attack-happy, they just see everyone and everything as out to get them. Any NPC that doesn't immediately do what they want is secretly in league with the enemy. The king didn't hire them because they were the best in the land (at level 11, they really are the best in the land), he hired them because he secretly wants to lure them into a trap. Every magic item is really cursed. Which, honestly, is more the style of the other DM our group has, so that's probably where they're getting it from.

Personally I see this as a very healthy mentality.
You want them to realise that the challenges are such that they won't always have a fair fight CR wise? Then make sure that there Really Is someone who's after them and wants them dead. Make them afraid and beat the concept of escape into them.

Lord Loss
2011-02-20, 12:19 PM
Time for the campaign to take a turn for the "survival horror" genre. Might I suggest you design your next few sessions (an adventure or two) as though you were GMing for a party two-three levels higher and make them terrifying? If the players are scared, they'll be just as paranoid, but they'll often flee from even level-appropraite encounters and they,ll take what help they can get (not out of trust, but out of neccesity).

Here's a thread I made a while ago for horror GMing, if you're interested. The playground game me some really, really good advice. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=186526)

Jay R
2011-02-20, 02:22 PM
They're in a new campaign where they've already been told it's an open world that will react realistically to their presence, frequently by not caring.

This needs to become true. Specifically, they need for the NPCs to start leaving in disgust, in response to their evident distrust.

Ideally, the party will hear about a great treasure / boon / something that somebody got, by accepting the offer of an NPC that the party refused to do business with.


They haven't seen traps since the second session. Which was months ago. They seem to have the mentality that the longer they go without traps, the more it means there's something really deadly up ahead.

I'd add the occasional trap that is set off by spending too much time where they are -- a time-delay ceiling crash or something. Or just a consistent Wandering Monster check based on the time they spend.


It's getting to where it's hard to get them to do anything because they're so busy being paranoid about the NPC's that they won't take quest hooks on the assumption that it must be a trap.

"Fine. You guys stand around in the wilderness with nothing to do, because you refuse to bite on the plot hook that will take you to the rest of the story. (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=834)"


Edit: The unprovoked attack was a one-off thing, to be fair. They're generally playing as good to neutral characters. They don't usually attack unprovoked. They just spend all their time trying to figure out what this NPC's *real* motives are, what he's hiding, and what traps he has in store for them.

OK -- they aren't being evil, just afraid. If this were my group, at some point I would probably get frustrated and ask, "Are there any adventurers there I can talk to?"

Mando Knight
2011-02-20, 02:34 PM
Which, honestly, is more the style of the other DM our group has, so that's probably where they're getting it from.
Shoot him. Problem solved. That would be wrong.

Use psychological tricks to reshape their mentality. Y'know, classical and operant conditioning, positive reinforcement, the kind of stuff you learn about in Psych 101 (or 50, as it's numbered at my school).

Drascin
2011-02-20, 02:47 PM
Personally I see this as a very healthy mentality.
You want them to realise that the challenges are such that they won't always have a fair fight CR wise? Then make sure that there Really Is someone who's after them and wants them dead. Make them afraid and beat the concept of escape into them.

God, no. If they're already paranoid to the point of it sabotaging enjoyment, don't encourage them! I've seen where that road leads, and it's not pretty.

Anyway, OP, I was in a similar boat once. I did manage to convert my players to a more healthy mindset, but, and here's the thing, it's gonna take time. Tell the players repeteadly that "traps are not really my DMing style, I hate how boring they are". Mince no words on explaining to them that no, you don't intend to have them be pawns for an omnipresent organization - don't hint, tell them straight on with the bluntest verbal sledgehammers you can get. Let them walk over the nonimportant stuff if necessary. Above all, you're going to need months, I'm afraid.

And you're working even more uphill than I was, because of the bit you say where they are still playing with the cutthroat DM. I just had players with gamer PTSD from old DMs, you have to manage to get them to separate games in their head, which is harder. I seriously wish you good luck. Maybe try GMing a different game than the other DM, to separate your games in their mind more?

Yukitsu
2011-02-20, 03:10 PM
From the player side of things, DM sending something where the only solution he can concieve is to run only did so for about 3 reasons.

1: All aboard the story express!
2: To prove to a bunch of twinks who has the big **** around here by proving they can't make a level 1 that beats his baalor. (they actually can, you just banned the method)
3: He mistook arbitrary failure for an interesting plot hook for character development, and instead gets to start character development from scratch, because the party got wiped instead.

Doesn't really matter what your actual intent is, that's generally how it comes off. Try to avoid plot battles where you story'd in player's losing as a plot point, or players fleeing. Doubly so if they only know to flee through metagaming.

What you can do is create very difficult encounters, state outright that the only requirement to EXP is victory of a specific goal, and that they don't have to actually kill everything to gain EXP. The biggest mistake I see DMs make in terms of rewarding players when they want them to RP instead of just running around killing things, is that they don't view social encounters as encounters worthy of EXP, and they don't see clever solutions to bypassing a problem as worthy of EXP either, so the only thing the players get rewarded for is running around like maniacs killing everything.

If you really want them to start running from a dragon who's ECL+6 or something, tell them they get full EXP if they survive, they don't have to kill it. Since this will level them faster, it will also make you wary of including these arbitrary cutscene bosses.

As for the paranoia, that seems like a healthy mentality to have.

WarKitty
2011-02-20, 03:35 PM
From the player side of things, DM sending something where the only solution he can concieve is to run only did so for about 3 reasons.

1: All aboard the story express!
2: To prove to a bunch of twinks who has the big **** around here by proving they can't make a level 1 that beats his baalor. (they actually can, you just banned the method)
3: He mistook arbitrary failure for an interesting plot hook for character development, and instead gets to start character development from scratch, because the party got wiped instead.

Doesn't really matter what your actual intent is, that's generally how it comes off. Try to avoid plot battles where you story'd in player's losing as a plot point, or players fleeing. Doubly so if they only know to flee through metagaming.

What you can do is create very difficult encounters, state outright that the only requirement to EXP is victory of a specific goal, and that they don't have to actually kill everything to gain EXP. The biggest mistake I see DMs make in terms of rewarding players when they want them to RP instead of just running around killing things, is that they don't view social encounters as encounters worthy of EXP, and they don't see clever solutions to bypassing a problem as worthy of EXP either, so the only thing the players get rewarded for is running around like maniacs killing everything.

If you really want them to start running from a dragon who's ECL+6 or something, tell them they get full EXP if they survive, they don't have to kill it. Since this will level them faster, it will also make you wary of including these arbitrary cutscene bosses.

As for the paranoia, that seems like a healthy mentality to have.

See, I feel that it breaks suspension of disbelief too much for everyone to be just the right level for the PC's to beat. It's part of the world that your little party should not go try to fight the epic-level dragon. Or for that matter, your rogue should not challenge the fighter that just grabbed a major artifact. They're not on plot rails, they can explore the whole world. They're not specific plot points, it's just that there aren't any invisible fences around the areas that are too high.

dsmiles
2011-02-20, 03:41 PM
It's exactly those invisible fences (that some DMs use) that lead to the mentality that your players have. If they suffer a TPK from what they assume is a CR-appropriate encounter, maybe they'll wise up a little. I recommend Tucker's Kobolds, low CR/high TPK bundles of joy. :smallwink:

Yukitsu
2011-02-20, 03:44 PM
See, I feel that it breaks suspension of disbelief too much for everyone to be just the right level for the PC's to beat. It's part of the world that your little party should not go try to fight the epic-level dragon. Or for that matter, your rogue should not challenge the fighter that just grabbed a major artifact. They're not on plot rails, they can explore the whole world. They're not specific plot points, it's just that there aren't any invisible fences around the areas that are too high.

Then you need to explicitly tell them when they're in over their heads, and are not to fight. A description of what the thing looks like, and you going on and on about how badass it is can just as easily mean they're supposed to fight, but it's going to be hard, and frankly, a DM description is the least useful thing in the game to determining how hard the fight's going to be.

If they're going out of their way to fight stuff that they know is well above their CR, such as something described as an epic level dragon, just let them do it, and when they die that'll be something else to be paranoid about. However, I don't get the feeling that they are going away from the established story line just to go fight a dragon that they know was epic.

Edit: The reason you should suspend versimillitude in terms of just randomly encountering things well above or below the party CR, is that realistically, a low level party can't escape a high level threat if you're playing it intelligently, so those simply can't exist without the party just getting wiped whenever you roll anything ECL+5 with a move speed of 25. That makes for a boring and stupid game, versimillitude or no. The low level encounters are just a waste of time, and should be similarly ignored, leaving you with a nice range of ECL +/-4.

Daftendirekt
2011-02-20, 03:56 PM
Have them play videogames where this is not true, like most survival horror games.

Or have them play Morrowind, but not Oblivion. Oblivion would just reinforce that (EVERYTHING scales to you. You get bandits with full mithral armor later on. Ridiculous).

In Morrowind, if you go out at level 1 and walk into a ruin, you're going to get your face blasted off by a flame atronach (elemental, basically). There are some places you can't go right away.

And yeah, like some have said, put them up against something they absolutely CANNOT beat just to drive the point home.

dsmiles
2011-02-20, 04:05 PM
Then you need to explicitly tell them when they're in over their heads, and are not to fight. A description of what the thing looks like, and you going on and on about how badass it is can just as easily mean they're supposed to fight, but it's going to be hard, and frankly, a DM description is the least useful thing in the game to determining how hard the fight's going to be.

If they're going out of their way to fight stuff that they know is well above their CR, such as something described as an epic level dragon, just let them do it, and when they die that'll be something else to be paranoid about. However, I don't get the feeling that they are going away from the established story line just to go fight a dragon that they know was epic.

Edit: The reason you should suspend versimillitude in terms of just randomly encountering things well above or below the party CR, is that realistically, a low level party can't escape a high level threat if you're playing it intelligently, so those simply can't exist without the party just getting wiped whenever you roll anything ECL+5 with a move speed of 25. That makes for a boring and stupid game, versimillitude or no. The low level encounters are just a waste of time, and should be similarly ignored, leaving you with a nice range of ECL +/-4....and send them even further into the depths of metagaming hell.
A character should be smart enough to know when they're outgunned. I'm a brand new fighter just out of trainee camp. I see a ginormous dragon. Do you really think it would be wise to fight it?
This isn't a video game. Monsters don't have little health bars or level indicators over their heads. There's a reason for that. Players should be thinking, not reacting instinctively to every encounter with, "I kill it."

Yukitsu
2011-02-20, 04:14 PM
...and send them even further into the depths of metagaming hell.
A character should be smart enough to know when they're outgunned. I'm a brand new fighter just out of trainee camp. I see a ginormous dragon. Do you really think it would be wise to fight it?
This isn't a video game. Monsters don't have little health bars or level indicators over their heads. There's a reason for that. Players should be thinking, not reacting instinctively to every encounter with, "I kill it."

In general, if a level 1 fighter sees a ginormous dragon, that level 1 fighter is generally on the ground looking up at something pass by at very high speeds, or is doomed regardless, because a level 1 fighter can't outrun a dragon, so it's a rather moot point.

And why is it that "You see a 10 foot long angry lizard with great wide wings" in one situation means instant death, but the other times "You see a 10 foot long angry lizard with great wide wings" means a reasonable or even easy encounter? My point is, most of the time, it's not obvious without metagaming, that you know what CR something is, and whether or not you can defeat it. Sure there's the absolutely obvious 5 billion pound dragons with tentacles for claws spitting black holes, but I would bet that's not what the DM is using.

Hell, generally knowing when you're in over your head comes 100% from out of character knowledge or DM giving you hints out of character. That's metagaming.

WarKitty
2011-02-20, 05:04 PM
You're assuming the dragon actually cares about the level 1 fighter. That's another one of the things that I've been trying to break my players away from. That epic level dragon? As long as you don't try to steal from it, it doesn't care about you. Most of these encounters that are the problem are fights that the PC's decided to pick with things that don't necessarily care about fighting them. Things that I have quite clearly stated are trying to talk to the PC's. Or are simply passing by, because it's a bigger world than just them.

That may be the primary problem, actually. The PC's seem to be under the impression that the entire world revolves around their little group. So they assume that everything big powerful entity in the world has defeating the PC's as its primary goal in life.

dsmiles
2011-02-20, 05:10 PM
You're assuming the dragon actually cares about the level 1 fighter. That's another one of the things that I've been trying to break my players away from. That epic level dragon? As long as you don't try to steal from it, it doesn't care about you. Most of these encounters that are the problem are fights that the PC's decided to pick with things that don't necessarily care about fighting them. Things that I have quite clearly stated are trying to talk to the PC's. Or are simply passing by, because it's a bigger world than just them.

That may be the primary problem, actually. The PC's seem to be under the impression that the entire world revolves around their little group. So they assume that everything big powerful entity in the world has defeating the PC's as its primary goal in life.Next time they pick a fight with a passerby or someone trying to talk to them, let it TPK them. Seriously, TPKs are teaching tools. :smallbiggrin:

Daftendirekt
2011-02-20, 05:12 PM
That may be the primary problem, actually. The PC's seem to be under the impression that the entire world revolves around their little group. So they assume that everything big powerful entity in the world has defeating the PC's as its primary goal in life.

Yeah, in my eyes, one mark of a good DM is accurately shaping the world in such a way that the PCs are "just another group of friends/adventurers/etc". They are nobody special. Now, maybe any given story will turn them into "somebody special" because they save a country from war or some such, but being a PC does not make you inherently special, most especially at low levels.

Asheram
2011-02-20, 05:12 PM
Or have them play Morrowind, but not Oblivion. Oblivion would just reinforce that (EVERYTHING scales to you. You get bandits with full mithral armor later on. Ridiculous).

In Morrowind, if you go out at level 1 and walk into a ruin, you're going to get your face blasted off by a flame atronach (elemental, basically). There are some places you can't go right away.

And yeah, like some have said, put them up against something they absolutely CANNOT beat just to drive the point home.

Final fantasy 7 would be a good example. "No, I'm too dangerous, I won't let you defeat me until you've grinded for 20 hours more."

Yukitsu
2011-02-20, 05:18 PM
You're assuming the dragon actually cares about the level 1 fighter. That's another one of the things that I've been trying to break my players away from. That epic level dragon? As long as you don't try to steal from it, it doesn't care about you. Most of these encounters that are the problem are fights that the PC's decided to pick with things that don't necessarily care about fighting them. Things that I have quite clearly stated are trying to talk to the PC's. Or are simply passing by, because it's a bigger world than just them.

That may be the primary problem, actually. The PC's seem to be under the impression that the entire world revolves around their little group. So they assume that everything big powerful entity in the world has defeating the PC's as its primary goal in life.

Let's ask this directly then. Are they attacking that epic level dragon, or are you sending it after them to run away from? Is there an epic level dragon between the players and the reasonable thing that they wanted to do?

I'm not sure I buy that the players are both paranoid, and are going up to 50 foot long dragons, and hitting them over the head at level 1 or anything of that sort. Honestly that doesn't make much sense. I'm fairly certain you're putting them into the game, rather than the players seeking them out, and are giving them some cue to interact with them.

true_shinken
2011-02-20, 05:26 PM
Yeah, in my eyes, one mark of a good DM is accurately shaping the world in such a way that the PCs are "just another group of friends/adventurers/etc". They are nobody special.
Being an adventurer is already pretty special, IMHO.

Asheram
2011-02-20, 05:27 PM
Let's ask this directly then. Are they attacking that epic level dragon, or are you sending it after them to run away from? Is there an epic level dragon between the players and the reasonable thing that they wanted to do?

I'm not sure I buy that the players are both paranoid, and are going up to 50 foot long dragons, and hitting them over the head at level 1 or anything of that sort. Honestly that doesn't make much sense. I'm fairly certain you're putting them into the game, rather than the players seeking them out, and are giving them some cue to interact with them.

Frankly, I'd think that'd be a pretty good idea.
Some grand thing that doesn't exactly scream "plot this way" but instead gives a more "the world doesn't revolve around you, you're just inhabitants"

WarKitty
2011-02-20, 05:32 PM
Let's ask this directly then. Are they attacking that epic level dragon, or are you sending it after them to run away from? Is there an epic level dragon between the players and the reasonable thing that they wanted to do?

I'm not sure I buy that the players are both paranoid, and are going up to 50 foot long dragons, and hitting them over the head at level 1 or anything of that sort. Honestly that doesn't make much sense. I'm fairly certain you're putting them into the game, rather than the players seeking them out, and are giving them some cue to interact with them.

The epic level dragon was a bit of an exaggeration. However, they are going out of their way to assume that everything ought to be fought. This has included behavior like issuing a challenge for a high-level fighter who just acquired an artifact to engage in solo combat with the rogue in an open, well-lit area. Or presuming that walking directly into a fortress of a known xenophobic race that has explicitly banned outsiders and killing them all because they need to get to some records ought to be possible. Or trying to pick the pocket of a rich nobleman who is attended by several servants in the middle of a big city on the assumption that they can beat the city guards. Basically, they're assuming if it exists, looks like it has decent stats, and isn't 100% friendly to them, it needs to be fought.

Edit: It's not helping that the rogue player is trying to play her character as though it were a barbarian. Yes, she has been offered retraining. She insists that she wants to stay a rogue because "barbarians suck, rogues are so much better."

dsmiles
2011-02-20, 05:37 PM
I really can't reiterate this enough:

Sometimes a TPK is the answer.

Seriously, if they think that every Tom, Richard, and Harry could kick their butts, they'll be less likely to attack everything they meet.

EDIT: Wow, seriously? Even proper nouns are censored?

Yukitsu
2011-02-20, 05:39 PM
I think we can ignore that paranoia comment.

Your players want to play hack and slash where they just run around killing everything. Why are you punishing them, by stating they aren't supposed to play the game in the way they enjoy?

I can understand this DM mentality where "the world has nothing to do with the players." but I think a lot of DMs start to lose perspective of what's going on. They're playing a game with the players. The game does revolve around the players. It's not a game about the world, it's not the DM playing with his sandbox while the players can only touch the toys that he wants them to, it's a game. If the players want to explore a living breathing world, then sure, that's wonderful, they should be rewarded for exploring a living breathing world, there should be enough to do in that regard etc. But your players want to hack and slash. I'm not sure why you think you can, or indeed should change this by punishing them.

WarKitty
2011-02-20, 05:46 PM
I think we can ignore that paranoia comment.

Your players want to play hack and slash where they just run around killing everything. Why are you punishing them, by stating they aren't supposed to play the game in the way they enjoy?

I can understand this DM mentality where "the world has nothing to do with the players." but I think a lot of DMs start to lose perspective of what's going on. They're playing a game with the players. The game does revolve around the players. It's not a game about the world, it's not the DM playing with his sandbox while the players can only touch the toys that he wants them to, it's a game. If the players want to explore a living breathing world, then sure, that's wonderful, they should be rewarded for exploring a living breathing world, there should be enough to do in that regard etc. But your players want to hack and slash. I'm not sure why you think you can, or indeed should change this by punishing them.

Because then I bore the other 3 players. Everyone wants to play together, but I don't want to DM hack'n'slash and the rest of the players don't want to play hack'n'slash. And honestly, from what I can tell, it's not that they absolutely want combat. It's that they genuinely think that they never have any options other than combat. They also seem to have the idea that they can run around bullying and intimidating NPC's and it won't have any consequences - e.g. picking pockets in the middle of the town and then being completely genuinely surprised when the town guard gets called on them.

jseah
2011-02-20, 05:47 PM
On the note of giving the impression that the world doesn't revolve around them, have them "attend" a scenario where two bigger things are fighting it out.

Dragon with 20th level casting leading a flight of younger colleagues and a local archmage cooperating to stop a massive moving mountain from crushing the city.
While the players, local militia, and random other adventuring groups (both higher and lower level) attempt to evacuate the peasants and experts on ships or on foot. Perhaps have a few opportunistic thieves or people capitalizing on the chance to settle a score or two.

Play up the combat above that goes from being, "they've got it handled" to "oh no.. run!" and back. Flashy spells like Storm of Vengeance and giant Walls of Force add to the "this is too big for you to interfere with" because in such a conflict, the characters mean nothing at all and cannot reasonably contribute. (might want to op-fu the high level people a bit. Perhaps describe a powerful psion going through a synchronicity nova or the archmage as a Cindy who blew off a mountain top with one spell)

The dragons being good dragons also emphasizes that there are some nice allies out there, who may be the reason why the big evil guys haven't killed you all yet.

Yahzi
2011-02-20, 06:47 PM
My solution is to go even further into the sandbox world, exposing the rules that govern it. Once your players see how the world works, they will realize their place in it.

For example, use my Sandbox Generator to create an entire continent. Tell the player's you're just running the world as it was created by the set of rules specified in the rulebook (in this case, the World of Prime handbook).

(Of course you can just wave the Sandbox generated world at them, and substitute your own stuff whenever you want. Just don't tell them!)

Now they will understand there are NPCs that were created without any purpose relating to the PCs, and hopefully they will think of this huge, vast world as existing independent of their adventures in it.

Admittedly my players still thought they could win every fight (I only made them retreat a handful of times), but it was because they were arrogant, not because they thought they were supposed to be able to win.

Another problem is that D&D encourages the idea that PCs live by different rules than NPCs, which leads to the problem you're having. One of them major ways I combat that is by having figured out where XP comes from, so I know how NPCs level; and that means the PCs and the NPCs are leveling the same way. This leads the PCs to look at high-level NPCs as something to emulate, rather than something to defeat; it makes level a reward for understanding the world, rather than an arbitrary reward for defeating arbitrary challenges made up by the DM.

Yukitsu
2011-02-20, 07:33 PM
Because then I bore the other 3 players. Everyone wants to play together, but I don't want to DM hack'n'slash and the rest of the players don't want to play hack'n'slash. And honestly, from what I can tell, it's not that they absolutely want combat. It's that they genuinely think that they never have any options other than combat. They also seem to have the idea that they can run around bullying and intimidating NPC's and it won't have any consequences - e.g. picking pockets in the middle of the town and then being completely genuinely surprised when the town guard gets called on them.

Stop paying attention to the hack and slashers, and give more rewards to the non-hack and slashers for doing whatever it is you want them to be doing. Attention is reinforcing, and you can get them to learn by example, when the other players are given nice little trinkets as a reward for their exemplary behavior in the kingdom of X, while the paranoid guys that creep the citizens out get nothing. You'll get no where punishing behavior, you have to give the ones doing the other playstyle more rewards. That'll teach the other players that if they want to get anywhere, they have to act like non-sociopaths. You're likely rewarding sociopathic behavior just as much as you're penalizing it, even if you don't realize it, and you might also find that the trouble makers are getting more attention than the cooperatives.

WarKitty
2011-02-20, 08:37 PM
Stop paying attention to the hack and slashers, and give more rewards to the non-hack and slashers for doing whatever it is you want them to be doing. Attention is reinforcing, and you can get them to learn by example, when the other players are given nice little trinkets as a reward for their exemplary behavior in the kingdom of X, while the paranoid guys that creep the citizens out get nothing. You'll get no where punishing behavior, you have to give the ones doing the other playstyle more rewards. That'll teach the other players that if they want to get anywhere, they have to act like non-sociopaths. You're likely rewarding sociopathic behavior just as much as you're penalizing it, even if you don't realize it, and you might also find that the trouble makers are getting more attention than the cooperatives.

It really isn't hack and slash that's the problem though. I know at least one of the players involved absolutely loves roleplaying and would be quite happy with a game that involved no combat whatsoever. I've played no-combat games with both of them, actually, and they enjoy it very much. It seems to be a genuine case of assuming that everything that they don't kill is going to come back later and try to kill them.

Yukitsu
2011-02-20, 08:45 PM
It really isn't hack and slash that's the problem though. I know at least one of the players involved absolutely loves roleplaying and would be quite happy with a game that involved no combat whatsoever. I've played no-combat games with both of them, actually, and they enjoy it very much. It seems to be a genuine case of assuming that everything that they don't kill is going to come back later and try to kill them.

Same thing. Just sending something that kills them, what do you think that's going to make them believe?

Just give out things to players that are being freindly, cooperative etc. You really should be looking into your games, to see if they're ever rewarded for being paranoid (town guard gear from their corpses) and if you're rewarding ones that roleplay. Most games that I peruse, assume you're supposed to just be nice and civil, but they reward the inverse. Strong motivators are symbols (king gives guy X some honour), little trinkety things (little old lady gives player Y a good berry pie for being nice) or sex. Not going into examples there, but it's a strong motivator.

If none of them are going to even put their foot in the door and try it to get rewarded, don't bother. They're still playing, they're still having fun not acting that way, then it doesn't really need to happen.

And basically consider earning a Darwin award if you ever have an NPC betray them when you're trying to instill a trust in NPCs in them.

WarKitty
2011-02-20, 08:51 PM
Same thing. Just sending something that kills them, what do you think that's going to make them believe?

Just give out things to players that are being freindly, cooperative etc. You really should be looking into your games, to see if they're ever rewarded for being paranoid (town guard gear from their corpses) and if you're rewarding ones that roleplay. Most games that I peruse, assume you're supposed to just be nice and civil, but they reward the inverse. Strong motivators are symbols (king gives guy X some honour), little trinkety things (little old lady gives player Y a good berry pie for being nice) or sex. Not going into examples there, but it's a strong motivator.

If none of them are going to even put their foot in the door and try it to get rewarded, don't bother. They're still playing, they're still having fun not acting that way, then it doesn't really need to happen.

And basically consider earning a Darwin award if you ever have an NPC betray them when you're trying to instill a trust in NPCs in them.

Symbols might be nice. Not so much for the sex stuff. I'll have to work more on rewarding the roleplaying. Part of the issue seems to be that when one player gets in trouble, the rest of the party automatically steps in to defend them. So the rogue gets in trouble with the town guard, who come to arrest her. The rest of the party defend the rogue, fighting the town guard. Either they get arrested, or manage to beat off the original force enough to buy them time to run. Either way, what seems to stick in their minds is not "the rogue did something stupid" but "we had to fight the town guard, therefore the guard is evil."

Lord.Sorasen
2011-02-20, 09:14 PM
They assume that everything they encounter is a level-appropriate challenge and that they should never have to run away.

I've only run one campaign, but I've witnessed my player's feelings go from this to a "always be prepared to run away" mentality throughout the last few weeks.. Actually on accident. But tracing my steps I can see what did it.

- First couple weeks: Party is doing fine. They're mostly fighting goblins with javelins really. Half-Ogre's high con score makes him somewhat like a pincushion. Warforged is unaffected by all attacks. Scout can't be touched. At this point they assume they will be able to take out hordes of monsters, just as a character in a Hack-n'-Slash video game could.

- Later on, they run into an Ankheg. Ankheg attacks the half-ogre and knocks him exactly to zero health in a single full round action. Being a new DM this wasn't at all what I was expecting to happen. The half-ogre was sort of angry at me actually, for putting them in a situation like that: To him, I was a video game designer, and I had given him a situation that wasn't fair. To be honest, I felt sort of bad about it too. But it still gave them the idea that they could possibly lose.

- Later still, these three entered there first dungeon. I introduced them to some pretty terrifying monsters, some with effects that I wasn't at all expecting. It was a mistake, but the effect was interesting: Suddenly, the party wasn't trying to "win". They just needed to get out.

- This last week I applied the half-fiend template to a Dustblight (not sure if one can legally do that, but I don't care: I did) and sent 2 of those at the party. Changed the music before I did so, hyped the monster up a bunch... It was far stronger than I'd planned it to be... But it was successful in its own way. The party is ready now to run from whatever encounter comes there way.

- Ultimately I found out that the players don't always expect the game to be CR appropriate so much as they expect you to make it so for them. For my group at least, it helped me if they believed I wasn't entirely in control. It's sort of a cruel trick, I admit it, but it's still effective. Last time a member couldn't show up (the strongest member), and I confided to them that the adventure I had planned for them for that day was meant for a much stronger party (as it was.) Naturally they were far more cautious and did indeed run away from the dungeon, to take it on when their companion returned. I didn't need to use deceit there, but I imagine I could have lied with the same result.

Yukitsu
2011-02-20, 11:01 PM
Symbols might be nice. Not so much for the sex stuff. I'll have to work more on rewarding the roleplaying. Part of the issue seems to be that when one player gets in trouble, the rest of the party automatically steps in to defend them. So the rogue gets in trouble with the town guard, who come to arrest her. The rest of the party defend the rogue, fighting the town guard. Either they get arrested, or manage to beat off the original force enough to buy them time to run. Either way, what seems to stick in their minds is not "the rogue did something stupid" but "we had to fight the town guard, therefore the guard is evil."

Well, this is a double edged sword. It works great where you can just point at group X and say "these are the villains." and they'll work really well and support one another to beat them, but when they're acting the same way and making up villains, I can see where it would be a problem.

In my opinion, one of the best ways to make them not screw over a certain group, is to give them a definite group that they are supposed to screw over. At this point, it looks like that group is governments, and the party are wierd anarchists, so really, just run with it.

Honestly though, I love if when the group sticks together and cooperates with one another, even if this means they're running around throwing random NPCs out windows. It's far less disruptive than if say, rogue stole from villager, party didn't back rogue, rogue gets all ticked off, PvP commences, bitter feelings all around.

GAThraawn
2011-02-21, 02:41 AM
This might be a crazy suggestion, but since you seem to feel that this stems from simple confusion on the party's part, have you considered just talking to them about it?

"Hey guys, I noticed you seemed to get into a lot of tough combats last session. I just want to make sure that we're all on the same page here, that I don't mind what you guys fight, but I really don't mean to give you the impression that I'm trying to get you to fight these things. Heck, that thing with the city guard? Totally unplanned. But I am trying my best to keep things realistic here, vis a ve some people will attack you after they've been provoked, and not everyone's gonna be on the same level as you guys. But that's really just me trying to play them reacting how I think they would to what you guys were doing. I hope it's clear that most of my NPC's aren't hostile or planning to stab you in the back until after they've been provoked. Heck, I've even got ideas for some guys that'll probably help you. But with all this fighting and paranoia, I feel like some of the roleplaying is getting a little lost." etc.

I ran a Star Wars campaign at one point where the stormtroopers were statted out like NPC soldiers (ie. pretty competent). My interpretation of Star Wars holds that stormtroopers are actually the crack troops the films claim they are (whole other discussion). After my party nearly got TPKed trying to stand and fight with them, I've made it a point to include in my pre-game blurb the point that some of my NPCs, especially stormtroopers, are dangerous and powerful, and I don't encourage my players to simply shoot anything that moves. I lay out very clearly that they are free to do what they will, but rampant and careless slaughter or other actions that would be unacceptable if caught in any real society can and will end with bad things happening. On the flip side, I also emphasize that I have no particular fondness for combat, and that I can go entire sessions without any violence that wasn't initiated by the players. So everyone knows that random killing can be dangerous, and is not necessary to protect them from hordes of bloodthirsty NPCs. It seems like some of your players maybe just didn't get this memo, and all that is needed is to CC: them on it.

Tyndmyr
2011-02-21, 08:55 AM
Yes, that title is meant to say "players," not "characters." What's going on is that some of my players seem to have a video-game mentality issue. They assume that everything they encounter is a level-appropriate challenge and that they should never have to run away.

This one's easy. Tell them this first. Tell them straight up that there will be horrifically inappropriate encounters that they will need to run from. Then give them one. Make it clear that it's one of them. Words like "ancient" and "dragon" are suggested. Give them an obvious way out like "he hasn't seen you yet". If they attack and die horribly, they get to roll new characters. Hopefully they are smarter the second time out.


They're also convinced that every single NPC who is not a shopkeeper is going to try to kill them at the first opportunity. This goes double for any NPC that does something the PC's don't like, no matter how minor.

Have the NPCs respond like rational humans would to paranoid psychopaths. This includes avoiding them, and shutting up shop in a hurry if they kill for minor offenses. Acting like this tends to leads to problems in the real world. Mimic them in game.


They also assume that every single item is trapped or cursed.

Less of a big deal. Their paranoia simply means they'll waste effort on generally harmless things. If you don't utilize traps or curses with frequency, this should decrease.


How do I demonstrate to my players that most of the world is not in fact out to kill them and they do not need to spend all their time trying to figure out if Joe Farmer is really a demon in disguise?

Sounds like they had a bad DM previously. I know the type. Unfortunately, it takes a while. You can flat out tell them OOC that they're wasting their time if it really gets on your nerves.

potatocubed
2011-02-21, 09:03 AM
They assume that everything they encounter is a level-appropriate challenge and that they should never have to run away.

Spend a little time playing a game where there's no concept of 'level-appropriate'. I like Swords and Wizardry myself, for all its flaws, since a) it's recognisably 'D&D-ish' and b) character creation takes, like, 30 seconds.

B is important because if you kill off a PC, the player can be back in the action almost straight away. You can teach lessons by character attrition without forcing players to sit out, and you can do the whole thing with a one-shot dungeon crawl.

S&W is also free, as is OSRIC, and a whole bunch of other retro-clones.

big teej
2011-02-21, 11:09 AM
I've had quite a bit of success with telling my players upfront before starting our first session

"running away/retreating is ALWAYS A VIABLE OPTION"

coupled with the statement "I'm eyeballing the CR, this will occaisionally lead to you getting curbstomped if you don't run."

put statement 1 into practice when YOU play, works wonders.