My player's don't get my hints.

[Lord.Sorasen]

So I've been dming a campaign for a while now, but since it's my first campaign I am absolutely terrible. So bare with me, this could be pretty shameful, what I will be typing up.

First off, we are playing D&D 3.5. I considered this to be inconsequential to the situation enough to not put it in the 3.5 section, but maybe it matters more than I realized.

Second off, my group is a "hack and slash, take loot, level up" type of party, but I think that's more my fault than anything. When I talk to them about making things more story oriented, they like the idea of such things happening. So my goal is to get this to happen. Unfortunately, while my group wants a story oriented game in theory, in game they seem to be incapable or it.

And now, the situation...

My group doesn't seem to understand the hints I give them. I have heard that sometimes things that seem obvious to you might not be obvious to them, and maybe that's the case. Right now, the group is in something of a prison city: to put it simply, it's an ancient city overrun with mummies, in a pocket dimension so placed that the entrance is one way and the exit is very difficult to find. It isn't designed as a prison and the mummy inhabitants in no way consider themselves prisoners or prison guards, but it works so effectively as a trap that the party's enemies got the party to unknowingly walk right into it. Now they are within it. Admittedly, making the monsters mummies was a mistake (I was adapting a published adventure in sandstorm rather than making my own city, and the result is having mummies in a place where no one in the party has any way to break enchantments.) All the same, the party has a warforged dragonfire adept, so with entangling exhalation and disease immunity the party has faced no truly serious problems. Furthermore, they have found some things within the city. Specifically:

- A map of the city, which goes so far as to state the city's structural weaknesses.
- A magic intelligent ghost touch sword, which has revealed itself as the advisor of the royal bloodline of the city. It has no senses of its own but can see through the senses of the one wielding it, and thus is knows of a hostile take-over, and then nothing until now. It is friendly and will answer any question asked of it.

The party is essentially searching for a way out, which is logical. While doing so, they find a temple of Aurifar, listed in Sandstorm as the God of the midday sun and essentially the passing into the afterlife. Like his Sungod bro Pelor, he's vehemently opposed to undead. Now, the mummies within this temple are not evil. They have been turned to mummies against their will, and have in response lost all of their cleric powers. They want nothing more than to break the curse binding their souls to dark magic, as they fear they cannot pass on to Aurifar in their current state.

The problem is, the party doesn't know this. And they have no intention of finding out. I've attempted to hint that this is the situation in several ways. Notably...

- I've explained to them through a knowledge (religion) check that Aurifar is a god who despises undead. I've explained that this temple is a temple of said god.
- I revealed that a second temple has been defiled since magic sword's last seeing it, and that it has been converted into a temple of an evil god. I specified that the temple of Aurifar has not been converted.
- I made note that the mummies within the temple (the party scout managed to sneak in for a second) are dressed as priests, and that they carry at their sides scimitars, Aurifar's chosen weapons.
- I've made it clear that mummies have an int score.

However, they will not go into the temple at all. What's more, they have made a plan to go in... In order to loot and kill with sneak attacks, before they are detected. Are my hints too vague? I feel like I'm beating them over the head with this. Note that they are not the sort of players who intentionally try to mess with my plot. They are not antagonistic players, and I don't think they are worried about "railroading" or anything of that sort.

While it would be helpful, they don't need any help in order to get out. But it would help me provide quite a bit of story information. Their avoiding everything essentially has meant that I haven't been able to explain anything. Which means they'll be adventurers wandering blind, which means I'll need to invoke all path's lead to Rome, and I'd rather not have to do that.

Perhaps you already know my problem from the above, but in case, I'll give my own theories.

1. I screwed up. Somewhere along the line, I made it into a hack and slash. This city looks and quacks like a dungeon. They might want to try story mode, but still in game be in dungeon crawl mode. I've no clue how to get them out of this.

2. The party believes it's a trap. In our first campaign (in which I was a player instead of dm) our group was wandering through a desert when we saw a single gnoll hunter, too far away to fight us but close enough to see us. When asked what we wanted to do, my character, a half-orc cleric of Pelor, suggested diplomacy, but the party was worried it would be evil. So I went with "it's just a hunter, it's no threat to our much stronger party. Leave it be." And thus we did. Naturally it came back with a raiding party of gnolls and hobgoblins. I suppose the message here was that the proper action would have been to kill it because it was color coded evil. Maybe they assume all campaigns are this way.

3. The party doesn't trust me dming ability, and thinks my information is not important or even accidental. Earlier in the campaign, they met a King, mostly played for laughs, who smiled obnoxiously and giggled more or less constantly. When the party asked to see the library, the king gave them a condition. The King was at war, and wanted the party to kill all of the enemy race. He naturally said this with glee. One member of the party suggested that the King sounded "evil". Yeah, that's what I was going for. The King is evil, or rather, he's cursed and the magic makes him evil. But the party agreed to the quest and began killing as asked. I think they aren't aware that I often do these things intentionally. I guess what I'm saying is that they think the idea of the King as a "quest-giver" is absolute, and that if I seem to make it seem wrong to do so, it must be accidental.

I really want to do better, but right now I am utterly failing. So I'm open to any advice at all.

[TroubleBrewing]

Have the mummies speak.

Seriously. It's pretty easy to mess with player's heads with regards to enemies.

Most people are averse to killing in real life, so when they are confronted with an escapist-style game like D&D, it's all "PILLAGE THE WOMEN AND RAPE THE COWS" when the enemies are things like Goblins, Zombies, Kobolds, etc. Things that don't think, dream, or have babies. (Incidentally, this is another great way to mess with your party: monster babies. It creates party tension, character development, and sometimes outright intra-party violence when they have to decide what to do with the helpless young of an enemy race.)

When the enemies speak your language and don't act with outright violence, players (with the exception of the guy who, looking for a laugh, says "I kill them anyway!") tend to be much more willing to talk, given that the 'enemies' now have feelings, minds of their own, hopes, dreams, etc.

If even one of the mummies speaks a language one of the players speaks, and explains the situation to them, then your problem is solved.

[Gray Mage]

Your players may be thinking that the mummies are corrupted clerics, amere shadow of what they once were and thus must be destroyed (frankly, it's not something too far fetched, IMO). I think you should have the good mummies fight the bad ones in front of the players, something along this line. Then they'd be informed that there are two different factions.

Edit: Or even have the good mummy defend an NPC, or have someone living inside the temple doing well. It's not like there mustn't be any other living person inside as well, right?

[Accersitus]

Maybe giving them a motivation to break from the pure hack/slash/loot gradually by giving them a hack and slash motivation to enter something at least closer to story mode. Few hack and slashers would pass the opportunity to recover the "Sun Scimitar", or other possibly powerful artifact.

Having the sword/mummies tell them they might need the help of the priests in order to open a door/escape the city/gain huge amounts of treasure, the party might be more inclined to enter story mode.

[Geigan]

I think it's because the players don't see this place's problems as their problems. You said yourself they were duped into even coming here. They don't care about the hellish landscape and it's denizens, they want out. If you can somehow link a means of escape to ending this curse they'll be all over it. Adventurers care about themselves first. Everything else is secondary unless you can connect it to their main goal(in this case being survival and escape).

[Gamer Girl]

1.Trapping players is almost never a good idea. It sound great on paper 'the character will be trapped', but it fails in game play. See, most players don't like being trapped and with fight their way out of it. Players with trapped characters are not thinking 'lets have a fun adventure', they are thinking 'we must escape'.


2.With the mummies and the temple..see your twisting everything around. Some how the city was filled with mummies/people were transformed into mummies(unwillingly?), but the players don't know the back story anyway. They just see a city full on monsters, or worse a city full of evil, undead monsters. In 3.5E undead are evil and you don't get 'good undead', so unless you made that Houserule clear at the start of the game, then everyone will think undead=evil.


Lets look at the hints:

Hint One:Does not tell the players much. There is a god that does not like undead....ok.
Hint Two:Undead defile temples is not exactly news. And they know this one temple has not been defiled...yet.
Hint Three:The mummies are dressed the way they were in life....standard for undead, nothing special.
Hint FourThe mummies are intelligent.

As you can see, all four hints don't tell the players anything about the temple plot.

Lets try a couple alternate hints:

1.The characters find a stone slab written by the 'Last True Follower of Aurifar and talks about the unwilling curse that effected the temple and how they feared they would be next.
2.The characters meet a half mad follower of Aurifar trapped somewhere who is on a mission to save his fellows.
3.The Temple of Aurifar mummies are different....they both fight against the other evil mummies and help out the PC's in fights and after fights(by say giving them potions of healing).
4.Aurifar himself sends a sign, portent, vision or signal to the players and tells them about the temple and asks for their aid in return for a reward.

[Grendus]

Grey nailed it. If you want them to think of the mummies as more than monsters, have them speak. Maybe have the high priest tell them they don't want trouble, or have them see the mummies performing their normal rites. Maybe they sneak up on a mummy praying to Aurifur to help them find a way to rid themselves of the curse so they might be worthy of entering his realm. Have the cleric mummies throwing holy water at the more mindless evil undead to ward them off.

On top of that, Gamer Girl has it right, the hints are fairly vague. The first three hints could just as easily mean that some evil has driven the priests mad, it's a fairly common plot. The fourth... well, Liches have an int score, Vampires have an int score, there are plenty of undead with an int score that are undeniably evil. Knowing that they have an int score only means that butchering them will be harder because they won't come shambling out moaning for your flesh.

[Lord.Sorasen]

1.Trapping players is almost never a good idea. It sound great on paper 'the character will be trapped', but it fails in game play. See, most players don't like being trapped and with fight their way out of it. Players with trapped characters are not thinking 'lets have a fun adventure', they are thinking 'we must escape'.

Oh man, guess I didn't think of it that way.


2.With the mummies and the temple..see your twisting everything around. Some how the city was filled with mummies/people were transformed into mummies(unwillingly?), but the players don't know the back story anyway. They just see a city full on monsters, or worse a city full of evil, undead monsters. In 3.5E undead are evil and you don't get 'good undead', so unless you made that Houserule clear at the start of the game, then everyone will think undead=evil.

I guess I didn't think about this either much. The error I made was that this was essentially in Sandstorm, and I just assumed it to be alright without houserule. I'd sort of figured that the devotion to Aurifar was what allowed these mummies to hold onto some sort of humanity. I suppose I didn't really mention the worst mistake I made. These mummies, within the temple, have remained sane. A majority of the undead here have not. So I suppose the fear any undead and the idea that there are no exceptions hadn't really hit me yet.

Lets look at the hints:


Hint One:Does not tell the players much. There is a god that does not like undead....ok.
Hint Two:Undead defile temples is not exactly news. And they know this one temple has not been defiled...yet.
Hint Three:The mummies are dressed the way they were in life....standard for undead, nothing special.
Hint FourThe mummies are intelligent.

Ahh, yeah. I guess from this perspective I should have noticed. What I did do wrong on this thread is mention the word "defile" when really the word I should have used (and I checked, I used the correct word with my group yesterday) is "converted, to that of an evil God." But I suppose that fixes little.


1.The characters find a stone slab written by the 'Last True Follower of Aurifar and talks about the unwilling curse that effected the temple and how they feared they would be next.
2.The characters meet a half mad follower of Aurifar trapped somewhere who is on a mission to save his fellows.
3.The Temple of Aurifar mummies are different....they both fight against the other evil mummies and help out the PC's in fights and after fights(by say giving them potions of healing).
4.Aurifar himself sends a sign, portent, vision or signal to the players and tells them about the temple and asks for their aid in return for a reward.

The temple of Aurifar mummies are different. That's already the case. My problem here is that a big part of this depends on the cleric mummies fearing passing away without first breaking the curse, worried that if they are to do so they won't be able to join Aurifar in the afterlife. But I do like the idea of the stone slab or whatever it may be.

Thank you so much for the advice, everyone. ^^

Now, my only issue is that this applies to the mummy situation.. But I feel like it happens always. My group doesn't really do any research on a situation, or anything of that sort. Should I perhaps make something of a log of next week's session, and see if it helps find what I am doing wrong? My group has no experienced players beyond the year we've been playing together, and so I really have very few examples of how to do things right. But I sware, I'm trying to improve.

[Ursus the Grim]

Its difficult to say without really knowing your players. I have a group that seemed to be a hack-and-slash group. Until the werebear barbarian started being upset that such and such monster was killed because he was intelligent and could have answered their quesitons.

Before your next session, ask your players what their thoughts are on the adventure at this moment. If they have any questions or curiosities about the prison city, try to cater to one of them. Turning it into mystery mode is a matter of getting them to bite that first hook.

If they have no questions about it, move onto questions about the adventure as a whole. Its most likely that they just missed the hints, as has been mentioned above. But if they don't have any questions or thoughts on the campaign as a whole, you might just have a hack and slash group. Which is perfectly fine, in its own way.

[Lord.Sorasen]

Its difficult to say without really knowing your players. I have a group that seemed to be a hack-and-slash group. Until the werebear barbarian started being upset that such and such monster was killed because he was intelligent and could have answered their quesitons.

Before your next session, ask your players what their thoughts are on the adventure at this moment. If they have any questions or curiosities about the prison city, try to cater to one of them. Turning it into mystery mode is a matter of getting them to bite that first hook.

If they have no questions about it, move onto questions about the adventure as a whole. Its most likely that they just missed the hints, as has been mentioned above. But if they don't have any questions or thoughts on the campaign as a whole, you might just have a hack and slash group. Which is perfectly fine, in its own way.

You know, it's interesting. They don't seem to want to be a hack and slash group. One member, for instance, chose both run and toughness as feats (I changed toughness to improved toughness but still.) They often feel far more interested in roleplaying than battling. But they're really bad at asking questions. I gave them a sword that answers any question they ask, but they don't seem to be biting that hook.

Perhaps I haven't given the party enough positive reinforcement, now that I think about it. :/

[Kuma Kode]

Gamer Girl covered everything I was going to say.

However, if this is something that happens a lot, have you tried... ya know, talking to your group? Tell them you want to work in more depth to the game. If you started out hack and slash because it's easy to run or whatever, the party may not have picked up on the shifting gears.

[Geigan]

You know, it's interesting. They don't seem to want to be a hack and slash group. One member, for instance, chose both run and toughness as feats (I changed toughness to improved toughness but still.) They often feel far more interested in roleplaying than battling. But they're really bad at asking questions. I gave them a sword that answers any question they ask, but they don't seem to be biting that hook.

Perhaps I haven't given the party enough positive reinforcement, now that I think about it. :/
What led them to this place? I think you're really misattributing their goals. If I was trapped in a place with a bunch of mummies trying to kill me I'd want OUT. They don't know what these mummies are exactly and they might be curious if you give them hints as to what they are but I think they won't really care if they don't think it will help them out of this nightmare.

I might be misreading this but from what I can read my I can only tell you my own reaction as a player. I would only be curious about the mummies if I had come there looking for them in the first place. Being in this sort of situation my first priority is survival, then escape from this deathtrap. I think they're trying to loot the temple to get answers, because the situation is still pretty vague through their eyes. So yeah, they're going in to look for clues, so give them just that via a clue bat to the face.

[Lord.Sorasen]

Gamer Girl covered everything I was going to say.

However, if this is something that happens a lot, have you tried... ya know, talking to your group? Tell them you want to work in more depth to the game. If you started out hack and slash because it's easy to run or whatever, the party may not have picked up on the shifting gears.

"When I talk to them about making things more story oriented, they like the idea of such things happening." I did talk to them, before posting this message. They're aware, and they're trying just as I am. My group is more than willing: what I'm asking about is how I can work to make it all happen. We're all very inexperienced, if you will, and as such I want to give them more to work with than I currently am, even if unsure.


What led them to this place? I think you're really misattributing their goals. If I was trapped in a place with a bunch of mummies trying to kill me I'd want OUT. They don't know what these mummies are exactly and they might be curious if you give them hints as to what they are but I think they won't really care if they don't think it will help them out of this nightmare.

I might be misreading this but from what I can read my I can only tell you my own reaction as a player. I would only be curious about the mummies if I had come there looking for them in the first place. Being in this sort of situation my first priority is survival, then escape from this deathtrap. I think they're trying to loot the temple to get answers, because the situation is still pretty vague through their eyes. So yeah, they're going in to look for clues, so give them just that via a clue bat to the face.

How do I give them the clue bat without them feeling railroaded? Also yeah, I agree with you.

I don't know. I can see how my clues were too vague, but twice we've had guests at the table, and both times they've told me afterward that they understood what I was trying to do. Not that I don't agree with you that could easily be misinterpreted.

But, correct me if I'm wrong everyone, but it sounds like my mistake was creating a fear in my group which does not make inquiry worth the risk.

So, how should I change this in the group in the current situation?

I would use divine intervention, but part of the idea here is that even the mummified clerics themselves do not receive messages from Aurifar anymore. Part of the idea is that by being turned undead, even against their will, the clerics have lost favor.

But something. I like the idea of finding some sort of slab or scroll with this sort of information. I'd also like to eliminate some of the fear, though I think the party's recent leveling up should make this at least a bit better.

[erictheredd]

Put the hints in places where they are important.

Hack and slash consists of a gathering information stage, a fight, and the awarding of treasure.

Things in the gathering information stage are often ignored. When you describe a room, the characters are focused on immediate potential dangers and rewards. If they receive information for free, its red herring.

Information obtained in a battle is just background to make the battle exciting, though if It changes the way the battle is done, it can be important.

Players (at least my players) take treasure at face value. Its stuff that is important for a long time. They expect to keep it or turn it into something valuable. This is where you hide the stone with stuff scribbled on it, not out in the middle of the floor. Your place your hints dramatically and the players will say "hah! a clue!"

[Geigan]

How do I give them the clue bat without them feeling railroaded? Also yeah, I agree with you.

I don't know. I can see how my clues were too vague, but twice we've had guests at the table, and both times they've told me afterward that they understood what I was trying to do. Not that I don't agree with you that could easily be misinterpreted.

But, correct me if I'm wrong everyone, but it sounds like my mistake was creating a fear in my group which does not make inquiry worth the risk.

So, how should I change this in the group in the current situation?

I would use divine intervention, but part of the idea here is that even the mummified clerics themselves do not receive messages from Aurifar anymore. Part of the idea is that by being turned undead, even against their will, the clerics have lost favor.

But something. I like the idea of finding some sort of slab or scroll with this sort of information. I'd also like to eliminate some of the fear, though I think the party's recent leveling up should make this at least a bit better.

No the fear is good. It makes it very interesting and fun if you can invoke that sort of feeling. You gotta have tension, and so far this sounds very interesting. The cluebat in this case is the many suggestions so far in this thread about how to show them what's going on in the city.

Time for a metaphor. So basically this whole adapted module was a pit trap that was set up by the villains. The players have fallen in and landed on the spikes and the trapdoor has shut behind them. Now the spikes are the mummies. The players can either get off them(avoid the mummies), break them(slaughter the mummies), or realize that they're retractable spikes and there's a mechanism for that(redeeming the mummies and bringing them back to the good graces of their god, or at least I think that's what you're aiming for them to realize and do). Now the problem is that finding out the mechanisms of the spikes is not that big a priority for getting out of the trap as the trap door itself, and just breaking the spikes or getting off them is simpler and will allow them to get their attention to escaping the pit. What you need to do is show them that understanding the mechanisms of spikes is inherent to opening the trapdoor and they'll pay more attention to them.

So when they head into the temple have the mummies talk as was suggested before to clarify them as thinking. Maybe throw in a few statements like "How dare you intrude on the holy house of Aurifar." or something. That will certainly clue them in that these mummies aren't exactly evil. Also have them find a journal or a tablet or something perhaps linking their curse to the reason this pocket dimension is has only a way in, not out? Did you have a way planned for them to escape this place? Perhaps Aurifar cursed this place to allow none to escape as long it was defiled by the undead, which his unfortunate clerics are. Maybe the mummies know the only way out and will only tell them if they help them solve their problem. Point is to directly link, subtly or not so subtly that this subplot about mummies is important to them getting out of this pocket dimension and they'll be on it like bees on pollen.

[Lord.Sorasen]

No the fear is good. It makes it very interesting and fun if you can invoke that sort of feeling. You gotta have tension, and so far this sounds very interesting. The cluebat in this case is the many suggestions so far in this thread about how to show them what's going on in the city.

Time for a metaphor. So basically this whole adapted module was a pit trap that was set up by the villains. The players have fallen in and landed on the spikes and the trapdoor has shut behind them. Now the spikes are the mummies. The players can either get off them(avoid the mummies), break them(slaughter the mummies), or realize that they're retractable spikes and there's a mechanism for that(redeeming the mummies and bringing them back to the good graces of their god, or at least I think that's what you're aiming for them to realize and do). Now the problem is that finding out the mechanisms of the spikes is not that big a priority for getting out of the trap as the trap door itself, and just breaking the spikes or getting off them is simpler and will allow them to get their attention to escaping the pit. What you need to do is show them that understanding the mechanisms of spikes is inherent to opening the trapdoor and they'll pay more attention to them.

So when they head into the temple have the mummies talk as was suggested before to clarify them as thinking. Maybe throw in a few statements like "How dare you intrude on the holy house of Aurifar." or something. That will certainly clue them in that these mummies aren't exactly evil. Also have them find a journal or a tablet or something perhaps linking their curse to the reason this pocket dimension is has only a way in, not out? Did you have a way planned for them to escape this place? Perhaps Aurifar cursed this place to allow none to escape as long it was defiled by the undead, which his unfortunate clerics are. Maybe the mummies know the only way out and will only tell them if they help them solve their problem. Point is to directly link, subtly or not so subtly that this subplot about mummies is important to them getting out of this pocket dimension and they'll be on it like bees on pollen.

I do have a way to get them out, yes. I think I like the idea of the journal a lot. I'm going to write down a whole bunch and get back to you.

[Jornophelanthas]

Earlier in the campaign, they met a King, mostly played for laughs, who smiled obnoxiously and giggled more or less constantly. When the party asked to see the library, the king gave them a condition. The King was at war, and wanted the party to kill all of the enemy race. He naturally said this with glee. One member of the party suggested that the King sounded "evil". Yeah, that's what I was going for. The King is evil, or rather, he's cursed and the magic makes him evil. But the party agreed to the quest and began killing as asked. I think they aren't aware that I often do these things intentionally. I guess what I'm saying is that they think the idea of the King as a "quest-giver" is absolute, and that if I seem to make it seem wrong to do so, it must be accidental.


You also asked for advice on DM-ing that went beyond the mummy situation, and the above quote can be used as an example.

What you did correctly was think up a situation about a cursed king who has become evil as a result, as well as (probably) a story for the players to lift this curse.

What you did incorrectly was that you did not provide any clues that such a story may exist. All you gave them was an obviously evil-acting king. Now, some kings are evil all by themselves, so there is nothing out of the ordinary here. Also, unless your adventurers are very chaotic and/or very good, they will likely see no reason to act against your king, since he was not behaving as an enemy.
Note 2 things here:
1. Chaotic characters tend oppose authorities, such as any kings, while good characters tend to oppose evil, even if the evil is king. If your party does not behave in a very chaotic good manner, they are unlikely to oppose your evil king just because he is an evil king.
2. Fighting evil is not a natural mindset of all adventurers; adventuring is more about surviving evil. And your evil king was not presenting himself as an enemy, so little had to be done about him to survive him.
3. Your evil king offered a quest that you did not even intend for the players to take. However, quests are exactly the things adventurers expect to do. (Especially if the reward is something the want.)

Here are my suggestions to get your players to oppose the evil king:

1. Have the king flat-out refuse the adventurers access to his library. Not to get the players to do something for him, but just out of general nastiness: "You want to visit my library? No! You'll pay me to visit my library? Still no! You ask why not? Because I enjoy the look on people's faces when I tell them no. It's good to be the king!"
That will make the players see the evil king as an enemy, or at least an obstacle.

2. If the players have already accepted a quest from the evil king, have them return victoriously and ask for their reward. The evil king could just say that he changed his mind, and wants the players to perform another task for him. If the players choose to perform this task as well, have the king refuse to give the reward again, and make it clear that he has no intention to ever reward the players.
Few things push an adventurer's buttons more than a questgiver who does not give out a reward that was promised.

3. After meeting with the evil king (for the first time, or on a subsequent visit), have someone who is close to the king (e.g. the queen, the royal advisor, the princess, a knight, gossiping servants) comment to the players that the king used to be a really noble and just ruler, but that he has changed ever since that nasty witch came by and fed him that weird apple. Oh, and they'll also remark that the witch still lives in the room atop the castle's highest tower, and that nobody in the castle ever dares to go up those stairs. (Or include your own tale of how the curse came to be.)
The players usually need to be given fairly obvious hints that something is not right, before they will actually think about investigating, so give the first clue in a manner that can't be missed. After all, the first clue in every murder mystery is the dead body, which is usually the most obvious one there is.

[hewhosaysfish]

2. If the players have already accepted a quest from the evil king, have them return victoriously and ask for their reward. The evil king could just say that he changed his mind, and wants the players to perform another task for him. If the players choose to perform this task as well, have the king refuse to give the reward again, and make it clear that he has no intention to ever reward the players.
Few things push an adventurer's buttons more than a questgiver who does not give out a reward that was promised.

I would be tempted to have the king reward them as promised (he's evil, not dumb) and then offer another job. The new job is ever-so-slightly more evil than the last. The next is even more so. Keep going, and have the NPCs react appropriately to the PCs' reputation as brutal enforcers of the evil tyrant. See how long it takes them to go "Hang on... are we sure we're on the right side here?" If they voice their growing unease to the wrong people (e.g. questioning the king to much) have him try to arrange a "little accident".


@Lord.Sorasen
If your PCs try to sneak into the temple, perhaps have them do so during a service (all the mummy-priests will be gathered in the main hall, it's a perfect opportunity to go rummaging around the back rooms). Then the acoustics in the temple, of course, allow the PCs to here the high-priest prefectly as head leads the prayers, despite the intervening distance and barriers.

"PLEASE GREAT AURIFAR, HAVE MERCY!
DELIVER US FROM THIS HELLISH HALF-EXISTENCE!
BESTOW UPON YOU LOYAL SERVANTS THE WISDOM THE CLEANSE THE TAINT OF UNDEATH FROM OUR FALLEN SELVES!"

If your players still don't get it after hearing a man on a podium and shouted it at them, then there's no hope for them. :smallbiggrin:
For bonus points: if the PCs do offer to help the priests, this naturally means they were sent by Aurifar in answer to these prayers.

[Jay R]

Second off, my group is a "hack and slash, take loot, level up" type of party, but I think that's more my fault than anything. When I talk to them about making things more story oriented, they like the idea of such things happening. So my goal is to get this to happen. Unfortunately, while my group wants a story oriented game in theory, in game they seem to be incapable or it.

And now, the situation...

My group doesn't seem to understand the hints I give them.
Your problem is twofold. First, they are in a straight adventure, and are not looking for clues like they would in a mystery. You can't change it from a hack'nslash campaign into a story game and hope they will notice. They have to know that there's a story for them to find.

Secondly, this isn't solvable by hint. Hints don't lead to stories. Hints only lead to specific ways to solve the problem they already know about. You can't hint to them about this. For them to get the story, somebody has to tell them a story.


- A magic intelligent ghost touch sword, which has revealed itself as the advisor of the royal bloodline of the city. It has no senses of its own but can see through the senses of the one wielding it, and thus is knows of a hostile take-over, and then nothing until now. It is friendly and will answer any question asked of it.
This is the only story-telling tool you currently have. Either give somebody else story-telling ability (talking mummies, as mentioned before), or let them find a written story (perhaps the paper that was used to plan it), or this sword has to tell them a story.

They will not know the story until you tell them the story.


The problem is, the party doesn't know this. And they have no intention of finding out. I've attempted to hint that this is the situation in several ways.
Hints help them solve what they are trying to solve. Hints cannot completely change the way they are thinking, because they would have to change the way they are thinking first in order to process the hints.


1. I screwed up. Somewhere along the line, I made it into a hack and slash. This city looks and quacks like a dungeon. They might want to try story mode, but still in game be in dungeon crawl mode. I've no clue how to get them out of this.

Tell them. If you want people playing baseball to work on a jigsaw puzzle, you have to tell them it's not a baseball game any more. No hint will change them, because they think you're trying to hint to them how to score a home run. For the same reasons, if you want people to solve a mystery, you have to actually tell them it's not hack'n'slash any more.

They will not start examining hints to solve a mystery until they know that there is a mystery to solve.


2. The party believes it's a trap.

The reason they think it's a trap is because they were trapped there, on purpose, by their enemies. So it is a trap. If your enemies trap you in a grizzly bear's cave, that's an actual trap, no matter what the grizzly bear thinks.


3. The party doesn't trust me dming ability, and thinks my information is not important or even accidental.

Not really. The party is just trying to solve the hack'n'slash situation they think they are in, and are quite reasonably ignoring all hints that aren't aimed at that.

They will not start solving the mystery until they are told, clearly and unambiguously, that there is a mystery to solve, not just a trap to escape from.

Stop planning hints and decide how you will tell them what game they are playing.

[Fiery Diamond]

Your problem is twofold. First, they are in a straight adventure, and are not looking for clues like they would in a mystery. You can't change it from a hack'nslash campaign into a story game and hope they will notice. They have to know that there's a story for them to find.

Secondly, this isn't solvable by hint. Hints don't lead to stories. Hints only lead to specific ways to solve the problem they already know about. You can't hint to them about this. For them to get the story, somebody has to tell them a story.


This is the only story-telling tool you currently have. Either give somebody else story-telling ability (talking mummies, as mentioned before), or let them find a written story (perhaps the paper that was used to plan it), or this sword has to tell them a story.

They will not know the story until you tell them the story.


Hints help them solve what they are trying to solve. Hints cannot completely change the way they are thinking, because they would have to change the way they are thinking first in order to process the hints.



Tell them. If you want people playing baseball to work on a jigsaw puzzle, you have to tell them it's not a baseball game any more. No hint will change them, because they think you're trying to hint to them how to score a home run. For the same reasons, if you want people to solve a mystery, you have to actually tell them it's not hack'n'slash any more.

They will not start examining hints to solve a mystery until they know that there is a mystery to solve.



The reason they think it's a trap is because they were trapped there, on purpose, by their enemies. So it is a trap. If your enemies trap you in a grizzly bear's cave, that's an actual trap, no matter what the grizzly bear thinks.



Not really. The party is just trying to solve the hack'n'slash situation they think they are in, and are quite reasonably ignoring all hints that aren't aimed at that.

They will not start solving the mystery until they are told, clearly and unambiguously, that there is a mystery to solve, not just a trap to escape from.

Stop planning hints and decide how you will tell them what game they are playing.

I'm going to add my voice to this. It's amazing how much people in general tend to assume. When gaming, DMs assume certain things about the players and their understanding of the game while players assume certain things about the DM and the nature of the game. People behave according to their assumptions. You can't get someone to act as though they had a completely different set of assumptions by providing little hints. You have to be up front about changing their assumptions. Don't beat around the bush. People will not pay any attention to the clues for solving a mystery, or even for clues that there is a mystery, if they aren't in the "mystery" mindset. You can't provide hints to change the mindset, you can only provide hints once they have already changed their mindset. The changing of the mindset must be done in an obvious and unmistakeable manner.

[Lord.Sorasen]

Have the king flat-out refuse the adventurers access to his library. Not to get the players to do something for him, but just out of general nastiness: "You want to visit my library? No! You'll pay me to visit my library? Still no! You ask why not? Because I enjoy the look on people's faces when I tell them no. It's good to be the king!"
That will make the players see the evil king as an enemy, or at least an obstacle.

This actually fits in really well with what seems right given the character and the full situation.


One more bit... On the mummy thing (no way it's the last bit but whatever) : What if the party got into a fight where they were aided by Aurifar's cleric mummies. The mummies could insist that they were sent their as an answer to their prayers, and then the full thing could be progressed further? Then I could probably help move the players in the right direction.

Thank you for all the advice guys, you have no idea (or maybe a lot of idea) how much it has helped.

[Gamer Girl]

Now, my only issue is that this applies to the mummy situation.. But I feel like it happens always. My group doesn't really do any research on a situation, or anything of that sort. Should I perhaps make something of a log of next week's session, and see if it helps find what I am doing wrong? My group has no experienced players beyond the year we've been playing together, and so I really have very few examples of how to do things right.


You might want to take a film class or a writing class or even just grab a book on the subject of writing fiction. There is a simple Maxim: Always automatically assume that everyone will not get anything without being explicitly told or shown what your thinking. In other words, you need to over state everything.

Take:The Vault of Doom. You would think that anyone who just fought through five levels of traps and monsters might figure the vault door itself might be dangerous. Yet you will get-"I walk over and open the vault'' from players time after time. Even if you say the door before you is dark black with a white skull drawn in the middle and it pluses with energy, you will still get the ''Ok, I walk over and open it'' from some players. But when you have that vault door shoots out a blast of pure energy that hits your donkey, Serra, and retroactively obliterates her from existence then the players will stop and go 'ohhh, that door might be dangerous'.

Not every group likes to 'do the research', as that can be boring. It's worse when the DM and players don't see eye to eye. For example some DM's might think that 'doing research' equals the characters spending 1d4 weeks at the library. That does not sound like much of an 'adventure' to most people(except whoever makes them 'reading is an adventure mini movies).

If your players are not the 'sit down' research type, you just need to make the research more fun and adventurous. And make it impossible to avoid too.


Greed works great here. You will be shocked how much the players will want to do research if they 'get' something out of it, directly. Lots of classic traps work this way: if you know the culture, you can pass no problem. If you don't your in trouble.

Example You see a stone wall with several geometric shapes(a circle, square, triangle, and son on) with the writing ''ye who wishes to pass must use the force to bring death to a star of death itself''. Sounds like meaningless babble, but wait, can you figure out what shape to touch?

[Archwizard]

The key suggestions I've seen here boil down to this:

More non-combat interaction between characters (PC and NPC).

Like with the King, the gossiping servants from Jornophelanthas are a great idea, but I would take it a step farther, and have the PCs make listen checks as they exit the castle, and then give the highest result a snippet of conversation that prompts them to wonder what's going on. "...witch in the castle..." "I know, she creeps me out...." "the Queen has been awfully silent lately...." The skill checks emphasize the value of non-combat methods of doing things.

Most players who actually want to RP would wonder "What witch?" "Why is she creepy?" "What happened to the Queen?". Now the party has a chance to RP talking to those servants and trying to investigate. Maybe the vizier interferes, but then the royal scribe catches up with the party later to tell them how he saw the party's attempt to investigate and the vizier getting in the way. The vizier used to be a great help to the king, but then the Witch showed up and things started to change. While the royal scribe has been faithfully recording the new decrees, they have started to disturb him and he's becoming afraid for his own life.

You get 4 great people to RP with leads to further developments. You also have the "wipe em all out" story to follow as well if the party wants to!

So yes, use the sword in the mummy city. Bring in a new mummy, have the sword say "oh, I remember that symbol! I thought only followers of Rutty-tutty (whatever your god's name is) could wear it...." (or "it was rumored to have protective qualities, I wonder why it didn't help that poor soul").

[Lord.Sorasen]

The key suggestions I've seen here boil down to this:

More non-combat interaction between characters (PC and NPC).

Like with the King, the gossiping servants from Jornophelanthas are a great idea, but I would take it a step farther, and have the PCs make listen checks as they exit the castle, and then give the highest result a snippet of conversation that prompts them to wonder what's going on. "...witch in the castle..." "I know, she creeps me out...." "the Queen has been awfully silent lately...." The skill checks emphasize the value of non-combat methods of doing things.

Most players who actually want to RP would wonder "What witch?" "Why is she creepy?" "What happened to the Queen?". Now the party has a chance to RP talking to those servants and trying to investigate. Maybe the vizier interferes, but then the royal scribe catches up with the party later to tell them how he saw the party's attempt to investigate and the vizier getting in the way. The vizier used to be a great help to the king, but then the Witch showed up and things started to change. While the royal scribe has been faithfully recording the new decrees, they have started to disturb him and he's becoming afraid for his own life.

You get 4 great people to RP with leads to further developments. You also have the "wipe em all out" story to follow as well if the party wants to!

So yes, use the sword in the mummy city. Bring in a new mummy, have the sword say "oh, I remember that symbol! I thought only followers of Rutty-tutty (whatever your god's name is) could wear it...." (or "it was rumored to have protective qualities, I wonder why it didn't help that poor soul").

I like the "listen checks" idea so much, man. You've no idea.

[Jornophelanthas]

Regarding the listen checks (or perception + alertness rolls, or whatever rule system you're using):

Remember that this is a clue that you want the players to get. So do not set a difficulty for the roll, but just give the clue to the player with the best roll (no matter how bad).

If every player misses their roll and you end up not giving them the clue, you've achieved absolutely nothing.

[Archwizard]

Regarding the listen checks (or perception + alertness rolls, or whatever rule system you're using):

Remember that this is a clue that you want the players to get. So do not set a difficulty for the roll, but just give the clue to the player with the best roll (no matter how bad).

If every player misses their roll and you end up not giving them the clue, you've achieved absolutely nothing.

Absolutely. That's why I said to simply base the amount of info on the roll. I probably should have been clearer about "definitely give some info".

[Anxe]

I did almost the same thing in my campaign one time. Undead in a building that are actually unwillingly undead and wish to be good people. My party waded in guns blazing and killed everything in there. I think it's because Undead = Evil is a hard idea to dispel. And why shouldn't it be there? It's true in every other case! And for your mummy guys, maybe the best way for them to get back to Aurifar is to stop being undead. One of the only ways I know of is to destroy the undead body. Maybe they'd welcome death if it came from a non-undead source.

[Lord.Sorasen]

Regarding the listen checks (or perception + alertness rolls, or whatever rule system you're using):

Remember that this is a clue that you want the players to get. So do not set a difficulty for the roll, but just give the clue to the player with the best roll (no matter how bad).

If every player misses their roll and you end up not giving them the clue, you've achieved absolutely nothing.

This much I understand. In the party I am running, we had 6 people, including a single intelligence focused character. Naturally, that person hasn't showed up at all. And the party paladin has been gone for a while as well.

So the highest intelligence in the party is 12: I've let them roll knowledge checks anyway for the sake of hints.

The highest charisma score is 8.

So I've actually sort of... I've had them roll certain checks, but I make sure they succeed anyway.

[Jay R]

Regarding the listen checks (or perception + alertness rolls, or whatever rule system you're using):

Remember that this is a clue that you want the players to get. So do not set a difficulty for the roll, but just give the clue to the player with the best roll (no matter how bad).

If every player misses their roll and you end up not giving them the clue, you've achieved absolutely nothing.
Exactly. In fact, I'll go one step further. Never roll a die unless you are willing to see a 1, and you're willing to see a 20.

[Archwizard]

Exactly. In fact, I'll go one step further. Never roll a die unless you are willing to see a 1, and you're willing to see a 20.

Meh. The odds of everyone in the party rolling 1s: negligible. Hence "have the party roll listen checks". Of course, you could even roll them yourself and just give the person with the best, or second best (whatever amuses you), modifier the good result and tell them it's from the listen check.

The point is to engage the players in a non-combat way that encourages them to use skills to involve themselves in the game and RP more. If you have to fudge (outright make up the damned result you want behind the DM screen), then do it. Just tell the players it was a successful skill check.

But in the example given, overhearing servants gossiping, even a stinkin 4 will yield a tidbit, just not as much as say a 15 or 23. Again, the chance of all 1s is so infinitesimal as to not be worth worrying about.

[bloodtide]

This much I understand. In the party I am running, we had 6 people, including a single intelligence focused character. Naturally, that person hasn't showed up at all. And the party paladin has been gone for a while as well.

So the highest intelligence in the party is 12: I've let them roll knowledge checks anyway for the sake of hints.

The highest charisma score is 8.

So I've actually sort of... I've had them roll certain checks, but I make sure they succeed anyway.

Back in the Ye Old Days, players did not roll to figure things out. They way players figured things out in the old days was...they figured things out.

I know this is a radical idea for a 3.5E game, but you don't have to roll for everything.

[Archwizard]

Back in the Ye Old Days, players did not roll to figure things out. They way players figured things out in the old days was...they figured things out.

I know this is a radical idea for a 3.5E game, but you don't have to roll for everything.

Nice way to be condescending.

Did you miss the part about how his group tends to be very hack and slash (i.e. very into rolling and using mechanics) despite saying they want to RP more?

Do you see how it might be a good idea then to use in-game mechanics to send them down a path that leads to more RP? Somewhere they claim to want to go.

Clearly the "hey let's all RP!" approach has failed.

[jmelesky]

Back in the Ye Old Days, players did not roll to figure things out. They way players figured things out in the old days was...they got information handed to them or withheld based entirely on GM fiat


Fixed that for you.

[Jarawara]

*Borderline Scrubbable, deleted by author*

[Lord.Sorasen]

Back in the Ye Old Days, players did not roll to figure things out. They way players figured things out in the old days was...they figured things out.

I know this is a radical idea for a 3.5E game, but you don't have to roll for everything.

But we like to roll for things.

Besides you misunderstand me anyway. We roll for a lot of things. But I stretch the rules of certain rolls quite a bit for the sake of the players. "Figuring things out" is what I am doing. I never really gave people a free pass for rolling a dice.

I have to admit, I thought at first you were being condescending but now that I look at it more I've decided you were not, and it is honestly decent enough advice. Out of curiosity, how did your sessions deal with, for instance, the non-charismatic person who wants to play a charismatic character? I don't mean that rhetorically, I think it might actually help me out a lot, really.



OK, new thought now!

So, I was thinking. I worry that, if I somehow bring the church back at them, do I risk it feeling very railroaded? I mean, I brought the temple up so many times I worry bringing it up beyond there control (by having the mummies come out and ask them to enter, or whatever) might feel pretty bad.

"Hey adventuring party, there sure is a temple there! Let me tell you about that temple there!
"Yeah I don't know, seems like a bad plan"
Yeah but look at how temply it is!
Na man, na. I don't think I want to do that.
Too bad, bro, temple comes to YOU!

So I've been thinking, maybe I should just abandon the idea of good mummies? Maybe... The party thinks Aurifar's temple mummies are like all the other mummies: shadows of a former self, evil. So maybe I should go with it. The party finds a scroll from one of Aurifar's past followers, bringing up the terrible curse put upon them, and bringing up the loss of humanity, and a final prayer that someday Aurifar will bring a blessing and save his followers from this eternal darkness... something like that. Similar plot, but different enough. I.. I don't care as much for it because I find there to be far more emotion in a character than in a scroll. But I realized suddenly that I was wrong in thinking the story was the most important thing. A story is important, but what matters most is that everyone has fun, and I want to make sure that happens. Naturally I wont edit anything too much if what I have should work fine, but if it will cause problems I will change that.

[Jarawara]

Sorry man, but what exactly are you saying?


Sorry, my good Lord.Sorensen, that wasn't directed at you.

It was.... you know what, it shouldn't have been directed at anyone.

I'm gonna wander upthread and see if that can still be edited.

[Jarawara]

Well, I guess posts can be edited, but the quoted section remains for all to see. Phooey. Whatever happened to 'scrub the post, scrub the quote'? I guess only mods have those superpowers.

[Geigan]

But we like to roll for things.

Besides you misunderstand me anyway. We roll for a lot of things. But I stretch the rules of certain rolls quite a bit for the sake of the players. "Figuring things out" is what I am doing. I never really gave people a free pass for rolling a dice.

I have to admit, I thought at first you were being condescending but now that I look at it more I've decided you were not, and it is honestly decent enough advice. Out of curiosity, how did your sessions deal with, for instance, the non-charismatic person who wants to play a charismatic character? I don't mean that rhetorically, I think it might actually help me out a lot, really.



Sorry man, but what exactly are you saying?



OK, new thought now!

So, I was thinking. I worry that, if I somehow bring the church back at them, do I risk it feeling very railroaded? I mean, I brought the temple up so many times I worry bringing it up beyond there control (by having the mummies come out and ask them to enter, or whatever) might feel pretty bad.

"Hey adventuring party, there sure is a temple there! Let me tell you about that temple there!
"Yeah I don't know, seems like a bad plan"
Yeah but look at how temply it is!
Na man, na. I don't think I want to do that.
Too bad, bro, temple comes to YOU!

So I've been thinking, maybe I should just abandon the idea of good mummies? Maybe... The party thinks Aurifar's temple mummies are like all the other mummies: shadows of a former self, evil. So maybe I should go with it. The party finds a scroll from one of Aurifar's past followers, bringing up the terrible curse put upon them, and bringing up the loss of humanity, and a final prayer that someday Aurifar will bring a blessing and save his followers from this eternal darkness... something like that. Similar plot, but different enough. I.. I don't care as much for it because I find there to be far more emotion in a character than in a scroll. But I realized suddenly that I was wrong in thinking the story was the most important thing. A story is important, but what matters most is that everyone has fun, and I want to make sure that happens. Naturally I wont edit anything too much if what I have should work fine, but if it will cause problems I will change that.

Well not necessarily. See how the players react to the scroll. They may want to try and redeem the mummies, maybe not. Your story still has the potential to be fun you just need to implement it in a way that the party can interact with it.

[Gamer Girl]

So, I was thinking. I worry that, if I somehow bring the church back at them, do I risk it feeling very railroaded? I mean, I brought the temple up so many times I worry bringing it up beyond there control (by having the mummies come out and ask them to enter, or whatever) might feel pretty bad.

It's not exactly Railroading to just bring up something a lot. Railroading is more like ''every road you go down ends in the church of I Want You To Go There''




So I've been thinking, maybe I should just abandon the idea of good mummies? Maybe... The party thinks Aurifar's temple mummies are like all the other mummies: shadows of a former self, evil. So maybe I should go with it. The party finds a scroll from one of Aurifar's past followers, bringing up the terrible curse put upon them, and bringing up the loss of humanity, and a final prayer that someday Aurifar will bring a blessing and save his followers from this eternal darkness... something like that. Similar plot, but different enough. I.. I don't care as much for it because I find there to be far more emotion in a character than in a scroll. But I realized suddenly that I was wrong in thinking the story was the most important thing. A story is important, but what matters most is that everyone has fun, and I want to make sure that happens. Naturally I wont edit anything too much if what I have should work fine, but if it will cause problems I will change that.

It's generally best to change things when the players are 'set'. If you stick to 'good mummies' and the players stick to 'bad mummies' then no one will have fun at the end. Just remember it next time(and say next time make the 'good mummies' living people trapped in a Groundhog Day effect).

To just bring in Aurifar is a great idea. Just have him pop in and ask for help ''free my temple'' and all.

And for the 'cherry on top' hidden inside the temple is the Key Home, that Aurifar will let the party have.

[bloodtide]

I have to admit, I thought at first you were being condescending but now that I look at it more I've decided you were not, and it is honestly decent enough advice. Sorry man, but what exactly are you saying?



In Ye Old Days(or the Old Way Style) the trick was that you were making the adventure for the players to experience and have fun. You were not making things for the characters. So when making a magic door in 3E you'd say ''well the character Zord has 12 ranks in knowledge arcana and has a good chance of figuring it out. In 2E it was more when making the magic door you'd say ''well the player Steve likes riddles so I'll put a riddle to open this door''. See the huge difference.

And the players would have to figure things out, without helpful dice rolls. Take the ending of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade and the choose the cup. In 3E this would just be a religion check of ''DM tell me the cup to pick as I know all about religion'' roll. But in 2E it was more the group getting together and trying to figure it out based on what they, the players, know.

In Ye Old Days, when the players encountered a problem, the first thing they would do is think, or at the very least try something. In 3E it's more ''let me look at my character sheet and see what I have/can do''.






Out of curiosity, how did your sessions deal with, for instance, the non-charismatic person who wants to play a charismatic character? I don't mean that rhetorically, I think it might actually help me out a lot, really.

I alter the world to fit the players use and actions of charisma. So how ever the character may act, it will be seen as appropriate by others. (But you don't tell the player) In a general sense, this person can do 'no wrong' socially. And even if they make a mistake, everyone just brushes it off and forgets about it. And even when they do something bad, everyone gives that character a Huge benefit of the doubt.

You can spin this lots of ways. Npc's might just 'like' the character. They might be infatuated with the character. They might think he is funny. They might think he is harmless or cute or silly. Though the end result is the character gets the 'high social status' mark.

Now note that you don't tell the player 'you can do anything and it's like you have free unlimited wishes to change the world'. You keep it to yourself. And this does not protect the character if they do great acts of evil or cause lots of trouble. If they break the code of the kingdom, they will still be put in a cell(but a nice cell, and get a free lawyer, etc.)

And if a high charisma person chooses not to use their charisma, then it has no effect. As even a high charisma person can hang out in the back and be quiet.

[Lord.Sorasen]

It's not exactly Railroading to just bring up something a lot. Railroading is more like ''every road you go down ends in the church of I Want You To Go There''

I don't believe I'm railroading. But I think that they might feel like I am doing so, and seriously if they feel I am than for all I care I am.



It's generally best to change things when the players are 'set'. If you stick to 'good mummies' and the players stick to 'bad mummies' then no one will have fun at the end. Just remember it next time(and say next time make the 'good mummies' living people trapped in a Groundhog Day effect).

To just bring in Aurifar is a great idea. Just have him pop in and ask for help ''free my temple'' and all.

And for the 'cherry on top' hidden inside the temple is the Key Home, that Aurifar will let the party have.

It really is the best way, to bring in Aurifar, given the circumstances I've presented. But a big part of the why I am doing this is that the Gods are remaining silent. It's a homerule, plot relevant sort of thing. But easily, someone could ask "on his behalf" and I'll probably end up doing this.

Thank you so much again, everyone! I never expected this many responses :smallsmile:

[Requiem_Jeer]

Personally, I like to strike a happy medium between figuring things out in-character and out of character: I usually play the scholarly character, and generally try and figure it out myself, then using my knowledge skills to check my logic. I encourage this is my play group as well.

For the picking the holy grail example, I would indeed try and figure out which one was right, but after every logical deduction, I would make a roll to make sure all my premises and arguments are valid, because I'm almost always wrong the first time (I think differently then the DM most of the time), although this tends to backfire horribly when I'm not playing a scholarly character (as it should be). It's also why sense motive is more important then any other skill to a social character. One check and you know approximately which skill would produce the best results.

[hewhosaysfish]

Personally, I like to strike a happy medium between figuring things out in-character and out of character: I usually play the scholarly character, and generally try and figure it out myself, then using my knowledge skills to check my logic. I encourage this is my play group as well.

For the picking the holy grail example, I would indeed try and figure out which one was right, but after every logical deduction, I would make a roll to make sure all my premises and arguments are valid, because I'm almost always wrong the first time (I think differently then the DM most of the time), although this tends to backfire horribly when I'm not playing a scholarly character (as it should be). It's also why sense motive is more important then any other skill to a social character. One check and you know approximately which skill would produce the best results.

It's funny how people minds work in different ways.
I would probably try to strike a balance too... but the opposite way around.

The deduction from "Jesus was the humble son of a carpenter" to "the plain wooden cup is real; the golden chalices fake" would be done OOC.
The knowledge that "Jesus was the humble son of a carpenter" would come from a knowledge(religion) check.

What to do if the player come up with an alternative answer (that makes as
much sense as the one the DM was thinking of... or more!) is a more complicated matter and this is straying far enough from the topic as is.

[Archwizard]

In Ye Old Days(or the Old Way Style) the trick was that you were making the adventure for the players to experience and have fun. You were not making things for the characters. So when making a magic door in 3E you'd say ''well the character Zord has 12 ranks in knowledge arcana and has a good chance of figuring it out. In 2E it was more when making the magic door you'd say ''well the player Steve likes riddles so I'll put a riddle to open this door''. See the huge difference.

And the players would have to figure things out, without helpful dice rolls. Take the ending of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade and the choose the cup. In 3E this would just be a religion check of ''DM tell me the cup to pick as I know all about religion'' roll. But in 2E it was more the group getting together and trying to figure it out based on what they, the players, know.

In Ye Old Days, when the players encountered a problem, the first thing they would do is think, or at the very least try something. In 3E it's more ''let me look at my character sheet and see what I have/can do''.

Heh, I still build my campaigns this way. Any riddles and traps I put in I expect the players to figure out. If they are about to do something boneheaded that their character should definitely know better than to do, I'll secretly roll a skill check and guide them from there.

I just think players figuring out riddles and how traps are set up is way more fun than "I roll <skill name here>, yay!"

[Lord.Sorasen]

Sorry, my good Lord.Sorensen, that wasn't directed at you.

It was.... you know what, it shouldn't have been directed at anyone.

I'm gonna wander upthread and see if that can still be edited.

Man no worries, it's the internet, we say things and things happen and it's regretted 95% of the time.

I am so excited, tomorrow I am going to try this all out! Wish me luck!