PDA

View Full Version : How to make your players thrive?



Alberic Strein
2014-01-08, 11:24 AM
Hello everybody!

I have run in quite a bit of a pickle lately. As it stands, I am a one-trick GM. My field is improvising. That's what I do, and that's all I can do. So, naturally, I create open sandbox games, in which I let players have complete freedom in what they want to do. I don't run overly technical games, basing myself on a thousand monster books, but I put a bit of intrigue, some roleplay, and dare we say emotion? In my games. I like to make my players feel involved.

However, for some reason, and believe me, it has me bashing my head against the walls sometimes, I just can't make my players think. Or, more precisely, I can't manage to make the idea of formulating a plan sprout in their minds. They ask me questions, but there is no sense of direction in their thoughts. They're on a subject, they conceive an approach, and the next second they caress another, completely different plan, and when it's halfway thought out, they switch again.

I wouldn't mind it, if it didn't make them feel terrible and powerless.

Last game, they were involved in a civil war. And it was terrible. Of course they couldn't wage and win the war themselves. But that made them feel like they could do nothing at all. I could give them bits and bits of info about the state of things, the different powers involved in the struggle, there was not a single way to make them make a plan and put it in action.

I gave them a long-term goal to motivate them, it's not the problem, the problem is the medium-term, the event-to-event basis.

When the issue at hand is simple enough "go to dread isle" everything works fine. They ignore every single plot hook I throw at them, and go straight to dread isle. Bashing people is easy, slithering out of a dangerous social encounter is often done by forcing their way through intimidation and brute force, but it's done. So short-term works decently enough.

It's when the issue at hand is urgent enough that they have to start doing something about it NOW, and yet is complicated enough for there not to be an ideal and clear solution that is not mass-slaughter, that they develop their myopia. Suddenly they can't see any possibility because I did not write each and every single approach down on a sheet of paper, right in front of them and then started to vigorously slap them with it.

I admit caressing the fantasy of doing just that sometimes.

Long story short, and rant excepted, this can be summed as "I can't manage to make my players try and make the story theirs. What can I do?"

I can't manage, for medium-term issues, to have them be active and not passive. And it's starting to become an issue at the table. Any ideas?

Airk
2014-01-08, 11:35 AM
My first response was going to be "no, actually" but then I thought - why not discuss it with them? "You guys seem to have problems with planning - how can we sort that out?"

Failing that, you could essentially put a time-bomb on it, and just force them to go through with whatever they're discussing at the end. Or, more gently, have an NPC say "Good sirs, even if it is not the best plan, we must do something!"

The more gentle approach might get the ball rolling, but I suspect the solution is really to talk it out and see why they get so paralyzed.

valadil
2014-01-08, 11:43 AM
I'm confused by all the caressing, but that's another matter. I'll just pretend autocorrect put that there.

I think the problem is that the players don't know that they have the freedom to come up with their own ideas. They're use to multiple choice games where the GM gives them a list of options for adventure paths he's prepped, and they choose and follow one. They're conditioned to this type of game, so when they don't see the choices being presented, they look harder.

I think this is actually the myopia you described. They're not waffling, they're throwing plot hooks right back at you! They're going to list all the ways into the castle they can think of - through the front door, under the sewer, bribe the guard, fly over the wall - until they get encouragement that that's what you're ready to handle. When that doesn't happen they just keep looking for one of those options you're prepped for but they haven't stumbled on yet.

I except that given enough gaming they'll have that ah-ha! moment where they figure out that RPGs aren't like video games and they really can do anything. To get them there, I'd start them off with smaller problems. Act surprised when they plan something interesting (even if you did see it coming) and go with their plans. Since improv is your strength this shouldn't be too hard.

I'm also of the opinion that some players don't like taking the lead or thinking outside the box. They want to find the plot hook and sink their teeth into it. It's entirely possible that you've got a whole party of them.

Yakk
2014-01-08, 11:50 AM
Have they *ever* attempted plans, even if poorly conceived ones that you decided should not work?

It is really easy for a DM to take an idea and find a flaw in it and make it impossible. And as the DM has all the power, if the players experience that, they respond with "don't try anything the DM has not signed off on, because it will not work".

Combat? Combat has an engine, and even if the DM doesn't sign off on it, it works. Intimidate/forcing your way through? The same -- at worst, it devolves to combat. No "please DM/NPC, can we be friends", just "do what I say NPC, or I resort to using mechanics on you".

Do they have any reason to expect that their half-thought out plans, if put into effect, won't be vetoed by some detail that is in your mind at some future point? When they put plans into effect, are they like Sherlock's plans (almost prescient in that details not mentioned end up working along with them), or are they foiled at every turn by details they did not describe how to handle?

Learned helplessness is really easy and common in RPGs.

It might not even be you! It might be previous DMs, or even other games, that have trained them to learned helplessness.

So train them out of it.

When they make a suggestion, actually say "go for it", not just answer their questions. Have their hair-brained schemes work, at least for enough time to train them into doing and trying hair-brained schemes.

mucat
2014-01-08, 12:03 PM
First, have you talked to them directly about this? And is the group dynamic such that you can talk to them directly about play styles and player proactivity, without sounding like you are lecturing them? If so, I recommend you start the conversation.

But there are also a couple of things that you can do in your GMing to lead them toward greater engagement and independent planning.

First, start from where they are now as players, and give them opportunities to gradually stretch their skills. If they focus now on short-term, tactical thinking, then give then a situation a little more open-ended than what they are good at. Something that requires short-to-medium term planning, and has no clear right answer. You said that if they know they should "go to Dread Isle" then they make a beeline for it...so put up obstacles they can't simply bash through. Planning how to accomplish a direct goal like "get to the island" won't paralyze them nearly as much as an overwhelming situation like "plan how to deal with a civil war."

Suppose a militant but well-intentioned religious order has quarantined the island. Do they want to try to sneak past? Negotiate in good faith? Blackmail one of the high-ranking blockaders, whom they do have some prior dirt on? Fight their way past, and damn the consequences? Realize that there is a second way to accomplish their goals, which doesn't require visiting the island at all?

Of course, make the situation intricate enough that none of these choices are simple. "Sneak past" won't mean "roll a Stealth check to evade the guards at the dock," it will require a decent amount of planning, studying their opponents' methods, creating diversions, etc.

Whatever they plan, I would recommend a "Schrodinger's Sandbox" approach on your part. Alter the reality of your campaign world on the fly a bit, so that their plan results in an interesting and entertaining scene for the players (though not necessarily an easy victory.) If their paralysis is happening because they think they need to choose the One Best Answer, then the last thing you want to do is tell them "your plan falls flat, because of something you didn't know about." Complications are great, but not outright "you wasted half a session on a dead end."

Also drop hints that any alternate plan they were considering would have been equally interesting, and stood a decent chance of success. If they blackmail the templar and succeed, let some rival group sneak in, or vice versa. Let them walk away with a sense that "the plan we made was cool, and there are other things that would have worked too."

As they grow more comfortable with taking initiative in open-ended situations, gradually widen the scope and complexity of the options open to them...until they are ready to tackle that civil war with aplomb.

EDIT: Ninja'd several times over!

Red Fel
2014-01-08, 12:20 PM
I think the interesting part of your post is your phrasing.

"I just can't make my players think." "I like to make my players feel involved." "I can't manage to make my players try and make the story theirs." Look at the thread title: "How to make your players thrive?"

This language suggests - and I don't know if it's true or not, but it's what the language suggests - that you have a vision for what your players should be doing, and for whatever reason, they're not doing it.

So my first question for you is: Are your players having fun? If they are, you don't need your players to "make the story theirs" - they're already doing it! They like the direct route. They like simple, linear, tell-us-where-to-go-and-what-to-smash-so-we-can-feel-mighty plots. Is that a bad thing?

Now, if the problem is that you, as a DM, feel unsatisfied by this kind of story, that's a subject for conversation. As others have mentioned. Sit your players down and say, "Look, I try to give you plot hooks and things to follow, but I feel like all I'm doing is pointing you in a direction and setting you off. I feel like I'm not doing enough as a DM to keep the world engaging."

Notice the language I used? "I" phrases. I try. I feel. I'm not doing enough. You're not blaming the players for something they might not even be aware they're doing.

Talk to them about how you're trying to make a world that gives them the opportunity (again, "gives them the opportunity," not "makes") to be more proactive, rather than reactive. Ask them what would let them feel comfortable stretching themselves or trying new things.

The goal isn't to "make" your players do something, but to give them the opportunity to do it. You seem to be doing that. But if they don't want to take that opportunity, there's not much you can do. You can lead a player to plot, but you can't force them to leave the tavern. Now, perhaps they simply don't recognize the plothooks you offer them - the myopia being discussed - in which case, sitting them down to ask what kind of hooks would interest them will bring these hooks to their awareness. "Look," you won't actually say because it would be kind of rude, "See these pretty plothooks I've given you in the past? They're plothooks! Note how plotlike and hooky they are! Do they appeal to you? Are they sufficiently shiny?" Their eyes opened, your players might look for similar plothooks in the future - but they won't if they don't know how to recognize them in the first place.

Have you ever watched the TV show Psych? One of the running themes is that whenever the protagonist spots a clue, the screen darkens except for that one spot, a tone sounds, and the camera zooms in. If you've never seen the show, you might have no idea why that just happened (although a reasonably quick person would figure out it means "hey, this thing is important"). Once your players learn to identify the plothooks you hang in front of them as plothooks, perhaps they'll be more willing to jump onboard.

All that said? If your players simply don't want to follow the plothooks, and you're feeling unsatisfied as a DM as a result, you definitely need to have a talk with your players. A bitter DM makes for bitter gameplay, and nobody needs that.

Airk
2014-01-08, 01:23 PM
So my first question for you is: Are your players having fun?

He already answered this:


I wouldn't mind it, if it didn't make them feel terrible and powerless.


"Terrible and powerless" doesn't sound like players who are having fun to me.

As a result, the rest of your post is kindof irrelevant. =/

Red Fel
2014-01-08, 01:40 PM
He already answered this:


"Terrible and powerless" doesn't sound like players who are having fun to me.

As a result, the rest of your post is kindof irrelevant. =/

But what is it that's making the players feel "terrible and powerless?" Is it their playstyle, or the DM's attempts to make the players plan?

That's my point. If you design your game with an expectation that the players do X, and the players do Y, it could be that doing Y is making them unhappy. But it's also possible that they're unhappy because, although they like to do Y, Y just isn't working. That's what I'm saying.

Anxe
2014-01-08, 01:47 PM
I just slap my player's with the plot hooks and be done with it. If you don't want to do that, then I have seen some other good suggestions put forward. Give those a whirl!

Icewraith
2014-01-08, 01:55 PM
I find that if you fertilize every few months, water regularly, and place players where they get some direct sunlight but mostly shade on a daily basis they tend to thrive better. Also I'd recommend against potting, I find that individually potting players has bad results if you slip up your watering schedule.

...
...
...
...What?

Anyways, if they keep on asking you questions, and you want them to do something, try this:

"Alright, now that we've been over all that, what are you going to do?"

If there's a limited amount of time to implement a plan, make sure you enforce that:

"Ok, you guys don't have a lot of time to make this happen, so you better take your best shot before the world gets blown up."

It may also help if you try and introduce baby steps in terms of having your players think beyond killing things as a solution to their problems. Maybe have hostage situations or more complex combats with situations they need to adapt to (maybe like WoW raid mechanics or something) rather than having them push the story forward as much as you would like to.

Airk
2014-01-08, 02:03 PM
But what is it that's making the players feel "terrible and powerless?" Is it their playstyle, or the DM's attempts to make the players plan?

That's my point. If you design your game with an expectation that the players do X, and the players do Y, it could be that doing Y is making them unhappy. But it's also possible that they're unhappy because, although they like to do Y, Y just isn't working. That's what I'm saying.

But as far as I can tell from the OP, it's not that "Y isn't working" it's that they can't choose between P,D,Q,Y, and T, which is a different issue from "The GM keeps trying to make us to Z but we don't want to."

NichG
2014-01-08, 02:30 PM
My group has this too at times. They've had planning sessions where they listed out 3 or 4 things that would work, but vetoed them from inside the group and at the end basically gave up and felt frustrated (and telling them afterwards 'you had three plans that would have worked' just makes them feel worse in my experience).

What we were eventually able to figure out is that it basically had something to do with the group dynamic. While there were good ideas present, the players didn't trust eachother's views of how the game world was, and so they felt that the plans always needed to be questioned and picked apart.

What I'm currently trying is to strongly incentivize 'just do things' - making it harder for PCs to interfere with eachother's spontaneity, making sure to reward being proactive and taking big risks, etc. Time will tell if it will work, I suppose.

Slipperychicken
2014-01-08, 03:13 PM
Have you tried talking to your players about this? Perhaps they'd appreciate NPCs making mid-term plans for them?

Rhynn
2014-01-08, 04:32 PM
I start small and build out. It keeps the players focused and working towards one goal at a time, at least to start with.

In my Artesia campaign, the players started out simply: they were at a Tournament. One of them was a knight, one was a liar and a cheat pretending to be a knight, and one was a commoner archer; so, naturally enough, one joined the lists, one made crooked bets, and one took part in the archery contests. This was all just to introduce basic mechanics to them. At the feasting, a merchant they were speaking with asked them to take a message and a delivery for him to a manor a few days away, so they did. At the manor, they got another straightforward quest... but all the time, they were being fed more and more clues about other things, and they kept picking up on them, mulling them over, and eventually connecting them. Once their immediate instructions were fulfilled, they started acting independently, making plans of their own and responding to events in the world, and how the world reacted to them.

In my ACKS campaign, things started perhaps even more simply: they're lost in the desert and find a ruined city dungeon. I tell them they don't know where they are and without landmarks, their supplies would run out before they ever found civilization. So they conclude they need to find old maps of the area and supplies - an overall goal. Then they explore the dungeon, approaching each room as a small challenge of its own, but constantly aware of the overarching goal. Once they get out and make their way to the city, their freedom and options will increase, but I'll keep throwing very obvious hooks at them as well, and there will be a failsafe for whenever they have no plans of their own ("Let's go into the megadungeon under the city!" - where, of course, I can throw more plot hooks at them).

Airk
2014-01-08, 04:46 PM
To add an anecdote, my group used to overplan. Like, spend the entire session haggling over everything from completely different approaches to fiddly details that, at the end of the day, didn't really make a darn bit of difference. We didn't, precisely, have the problem the OP does, because we would EVENTUALLY pick a plan and execute it, but the amount of time spent 'figuring out' what to do (which was not much fun) was overwhelming the amount of time spend DOING THINGS (which was much more fun.).

The solution for this came from the players. We basically decided "We waste too much time planning, we should limit that, pick something and just do it." and we've been doing that with pretty good success ever since.

So yeah. Talk to the players.

Calen
2014-01-08, 07:09 PM
Act surprised when they plan something interesting (even if you did see it coming) and go with their plans.

This works great until they genuinely shock you with something completely stupid. :smallwink:

"You're going to have the druid turn into a miniature pony and sell him to the stable master so you can steal some horses, OK."

"No we are going to have the pony/druid do tricks for the stable master to distract him while we slaughter all the stablehands and make off with his horses."

"…what?"

But seriously this is a good suggestion and can turn a bunch of new players into a veritable fount of ideas…both good and bad.

nedz
2014-01-08, 07:46 PM
I'm tempted to say that you are setting the players the wrong kind of problem.

I once had a situation where the party wanted to liberate a city from some Ogre Magi. This was a major campaign plot line, player led too.
They started with some hit and run raids, which were quite successful, but then they gave up on their guerilla war just as they were starting to win.
I set up lots of diplomatic options for them to gain allies — they didn't really attempt these.
I set up an attack force from their one ally, but they didn't want to lead that.
In the end I set up a xanatos pile up from several NPC factions, which the party just watched happen; and the city fell to another evil army.
They eventually managed to take that force out, which was very much more powerful :smallsigh:

Some thing I didn't try, which on reflection might have worked.
Have an NPC run a brainstorm session with the PCs

Alberic Strein
2014-01-08, 11:27 PM
Looooooooots of things to answer to.

But before I forget, Valadil, sorry if the caressing rubbed you in the wrong way.

Now, about talking with my players... I would rather avoid it, if possible. That stance is going to demand some good explaining, so here it is :

I have 2 players left for this 3 years long campaign, I can't lose another one.

One of my players is extremely emotive and sensitive, and has a particular fear of being "stupid". And useless. And unneeded. It is this player that, when confronted with different choices, can't seem to be able to make one, the second player is not much better, but has a "breaking point" where she goes "to heck with it, let's do that." She is not better at finding plans, but it's better than freezing in fear of making a potentially bad choice.

So, if I go with "Hey, I know I'm not a good GM, and even worse with that 1 year interruption, but I'm getting back on track, so don't worry about me, go wild, I can take it."

The player will hear "Stop being a damn starfish you idiot and start being less of a stupid uncooperative failure."

Well, maybe not quite to that extent (and even then, maybe to that exact extent) but she is granted to take it personally.

She is not that stupid and the goal is not to make her feel inadequate. So, if I have no other choice, I'll try and let the whole "don't be afraid to be inventive" idea slip through the conversation and game without making it "the Talk". But if I can push them in the right direction without resorting to it, it would be much appreciated, since it's a very risky endeavor.

Ok, now, onwards to answering your questions :

Airk : Good advice, but actually one I tried before. The "pressing them to make a choice" tactic backfired when used. They can't choose, and when pressed to choose, feel trapped. Which is bad for everyone. Actually, they feel like I'm the one trapping them, which is even worse. Add to that the problem of player 1 explained above.

Valadil : Awesome advice, will try.

Yakk : If they made plans before? For a loose definition of "plan"... Nah, not really, not even then, they brainstormed ideas, course of actions, but never finalized them.

I won't say I never made a mistake and told them "don't do that", and really most of the time they have a friendly NPC with them, with which they discuss plans, and I often tell them "hey, that won't work." Like the grappling hook incident... But I always try and make sure that they get that while there are flaws in the plan, the plan is in not flawed in itself by definition, that they can work out the flaws and such. I wouldn't like seeing a glaring flaw in their plan, be able to tell them about it, not say anything, and then exploiting that flaw to screw them over.

Most of the time, the "unknown" factor works neither for or against them, but they will somewhat more often work for them than against them.

And okay, will try your suggestion.

Mucat : Awesome advice, will do. But yeah, Schrodinger's already my best friend when making a game session xD

Red Fel : You noticed the right thing, but you deduced an entirely valid, but ultimately wrong answer. As explained above, talking with my players about it is going to be extremely dangerous and difficult, so I'm trying to find a way to give them a push in the right direction. They have some fun, and I do my best to make them feel as good as possible about themselves and the game. When things are direct and everything work out for them, then yeah, they enjoy themselves. The issue is that I am truly unable to make a "Door>Monster>Treasure>Repeat" scenario fun.

I'm not being bitter about it. I just don't want them to stop enjoying the campaign. I like your direct approach, and use it when GM'ing with other groups, but I can't be that direct with these players.

I also understand your more overall point, so to be precise, I want them to do X. X being anything fun and/or interesting. And they do Y. Y being asking a bunch of questions, without being constructive, and then sulking when, after I gave them ample, ample time, tell them to pick a course of action. Every single part of Y (besides asking questions, they love asking their questions) males them dissatisfied. I actually had to stop last game, take out a sheet of paper, and start filling it with diagrams, giving them info on top of info, expliciting every single little thing (as it stands out, the royal guard is a force to be reckoned with, go figure) and then ease their way through the rest of the session, after (and that's okay) they picked the quickest answer to the issue at hand. i would have liked to give them a few obstacles along the way, nothing much, but a bit, to keep things entertaining, but looking at their state, I preferred not to. The session ended rather well.

Anxe : I actually took out my (sheathed) sword and threatened them to whack them with it the next time they started whining. It worked. So yeah, plot slapping might be the way to go.

Icewraith : Yeah, it seemed like the solution to me too, but as written above, it backfired.

NichG : My two players are friends, so I shouldn't have that issue, but I'll keep an eye out for such noxious group dynamic.

Rhynn : Nice advice, overlaps with things posted earlier, will do. But really, the campaign has been going on for three years and we're still at the "let's make a beeline for the goal" strategy...

Calen : "I put the Manor on fire!" extent of one of their first plans ever...

nedz : True. Will try and go on a more "step by step" method and avoiding civil wars...

nedz
2014-01-09, 12:05 AM
There's an old Freudian trick that might be worth considering.
It only really works with binary choices — I think.

Basically you bounce them into a choice (ideally randomly, but arbitrarily will do) and then ask them "Are you sure you want to do this ?"

Obviously you have to voice this through an NPC but it changes the question from being an open one to a closed one, and creates a decision crisis.

Jay R
2014-01-09, 12:25 AM
Some people don't want to believe that a game can be played well or poorly, and that actual skill is involved.

You cannot make bad football players play football well, other than by years of practice, and then they are still limited by their physical (and mental) abilities.

You cannot make poor chess players play chess well, except by teaching them strategy over many years, and then they are still limited by their mental abilities.

And, yes, there are people who play D&D poorly. Unless they want to learn how to play well, and spend serious time and energy learning it, they will not improve. And then they are still limited by their tactical and role-playing abilities.

C'mon - you know that characters with low Strength won't be good fighters, and characters with low Intelligence will be poor wizards. Not everyone will be a good D&D player, either.

Rhynn
2014-01-09, 12:30 AM
Some people don't want to believe that a game can be played well or poorly, and that actual skill is involved.

...

C'mon - you know that characters with low Strength won't be good fighters, and characters with low Intelligence will be poor wizards. Not everyone will be a good D&D player, either.

This is true. It's possible that the players just aren't going to be good at playing the game in a self-directed way; they might do well in other styles, though.

Scow2
2014-01-09, 12:48 AM
... Maybe commit to a half-baked plan if you think it'll work? If they ask a question along the lines of "What if we were to..." or other phrase of half a plan, snap them into that plan with "As you [do X]..." Then Big Success!

It may or may not work. Essentially, don't let them 'back out' of mid-term plans.

NichG
2014-01-09, 04:05 AM
NichG : My two players are friends, so I shouldn't have that issue, but I'll keep an eye out for such noxious group dynamic.


Its not that my players aren't friends, its that they each tend to come up with their own view of 'how the world works', and they instinctively mistrust other players' views on the same topic. Basically, person A comes to a conclusion about the world and proposes a plan, person B thinks that person A's deductions are hasty or unsupported, so picks apart the plan in conference without ever giving it a chance to work or fail, out of fear that the plan wouldn't work and there'd be a bad consequence.

Lorsa
2014-01-09, 05:39 AM
So you basically have a problem that has nothing at all to do with roleplaying but with psychology? Not very unsurprusing considering the type of game roleplaying is but what you need to do is to find a cognitive behavioral therapist or something.

As far as it comes to plans, players are their own worst enemies. If given a larger player amount than 1, they will most definitely find flaws and shoot down their own plans. Overthinking is a very common problem. Noone really likes the one person that refuses to take part in any planning and just go and do whatever he likes either though (because he makes the game just about him).

I've also found that having multiple plots that you can explore is troublesome. Players can only deal with one at a time anyway so they'll choose the one that feels most important / urgent. It's possible they might remember the other plot hooks later but it isn't certain. I'm slightly frustrated in my current game that my players haven't been forward enough with some of the possibilities I laid before them, but they've felt very busy and like they can't get a moment to breathe for all the very important and urgent things that are happening. What looks one way to you can look very different from the perspective of a player.

It's only really in video games that the ridiculous "yes, I'm trying to stop all life in the galaxy from being destroyed by this huge threat but of course I can stop and take a moment to help you with your inconsequential personal problem" works. It doesn't work in roleplaying games. Players will be focused on one task at a time. They do this because as a player you have to. You need to make a choice and when you do you have to forget about the rest.

Anyway, about the planning thing. It's very very easy to come up with workable solutions to a problem as a GM. It can be incredibly hard as a player. You have no idea whatsoever what will work as everything you come up with is measured in value by someone else (the GM). This means you have to make a leap of faith and hope that whatever you came up with will work according to the GM's mind as well. If you have a fear of failing or being stupid then you're just going to block yourself from coming up with anything at all. It's completely natural and it comes from the difference with being a GM and being a player. As a GM I can usually come up with tons of great solutions to just about any problem, but when I am a player I often see only the problems.

Part of this is also how some GMs like to overplay the "problems" with a scenario. They emphasis on what is difficult. How the goal is out of reach. Sure, it may be to give the players an idea of what the challenges are but it can just as easily be seen to a player as the GM trying to tell them how this thing is obviously impossible (unless you do it this very specific way that the GM has thought out but isn't telling you about). The game turns into a "guess what the GM is thinking" game.

So my suggestion to you is; whenever they have a brainstorming session, say "that's a great idea!" after the first and about 3/4 of all the ideas they come up with after that. Your players need reinforcement that their thinking is good, that it can take them somewhere. If you've shot down their ideas in the past it's no surprise they might feel like whatever they come up with is stupid. So keep saying "that's a great idea!" until they've gained more confidence. Obviously you also have to then make suire that the idea actually turns out to be good. But since you're into improvising anyway this shouldn't be much of a problem.

Basically the thing you need to try is positive reinforcement. Every step of the way. Keep saying "that's a great idea!" and "that was so cool!" and "nice work!" etc. Make the players feel like they can accomplish something by acting on their own.

Red Fel
2014-01-09, 09:26 AM
Looooooooots of things to answer to.

Ahh, and the student is enlightened. I see now where my mistake was. (I admit, I tend to have a bias in favor of players.) Okay, so basically we're dealing with indecisive players who are dissatisfied with their indecision. I think we can work with that.

I think Lorsa's "that's a great idea!" suggestion is really spot-on here. You say the players aren't stupid, just uncertain - that means they need confidence. So step one is making them feel confident in their decisions. Here's my suggestion as to how.

For your next session, announce that you want to try something a little different, just as a break. That may worry them a little bit, but you'll reassure them. Run a light, fun, straightforward one-shot. Have it separate from your main campaign, say you were feeling a bit burned out on the main story and wanted to take a breather. (Technically sort of true.) Make it reasonably linear and fairly non-threatening. But - here's the important thing - make every decision they make the right one.

Give them a choice of two or three simple actions in every encounter. "Do you want to talk? Fight? Bargain?" Like that. And no matter what they choose, tell them they made a good call, and come up with a way for it to work. As they make more decisions and they turn out well, they should (theoretically) feel more comfortable. Basically, make it a decision-making-with-training-wheels session. Sometimes, what gets in the way of decision-making is the anxiety over outcomes; if your players get the feeling that they can choose well, they'll be more confident in their decision-making skills.

If, by the end of the one-shot, you've observed that they're more comfortable making decisions, mission accomplished. Hopefully that will carry over into the main campaign, where you don't have to hand-hold quite as much. (Although a little hand-holding now and then for reinforcement might help.) If you've observed that they're just as indecisive at the end as they were when they started, you know the problem runs deeper. If they still can't make decisions after you made it easy, you really have to talk with them.

Yes, even if that means they take it badly. If they're not happy in the campaign, and you're not happy because they're not happy, I don't care that you "can't lose another one." It's an untenable situation. If you can't teach them to be confident in their decision-making, they either have to (1) learn to follow at least one player who makes decisions, or (2) ... well, you know what 2 is. The situation isn't healthy, for you or for them, if everyone leaves the table unsatisfied. You have to talk to them. Ask them if they're enjoying. Ask them what you can do to make the game more enjoyable, how you can put them more at ease. Don't accuse, inquire. If they respond by curling up into a ball, there's really nothing else to be done - one way or another, either you'll grow frustrated and snap, or they'll grow frustrated and leave, eventually. If confidence-building exercises don't help, and conversation doesn't help, there's really not that much else to be done.

Jay R
2014-01-09, 12:47 PM
Do they actually want to learn to be better?

It's a precise question. I'm not asking if they want to be better. I'm asking if they want to learn. Will they actually commit to changing how they play, in order to improve.

I spent several frustrating months teaching fencing before I realized that some people wanted to fence, but didn't want to practice parries and do footwork drills.

If they want to get better, Red Fel and Lorsa's ideas could work well. But if they aren't willing to try to get better, you'll only be frustrating yourself.

Airk
2014-01-09, 12:56 PM
Do they actually want to learn to be better?

It's a precise question. I'm not asking if they want to be better. I'm asking if they want to learn. Will they actually commit to changing how they play, in order to improve.

I spent several frustrating months teaching fencing before I realized that some people wanted to fence, but didn't want to practice parries and do footwork drills.

Is it not possible to improve in fencing by fencing? Not saying "improve as much" or so on, but surely you should be able to improve at something by doing it? Also, I'm not sure fencing is a great example, because it's rather more... formal than roleplaying.



If they want to get better, Red Fel and Lorsa's ideas could work well. But if they aren't willing to try to get better, you'll only be frustrating yourself.

I don't know that their "being willing to work at getting better" is necessary here. It would HELP, but as long as he can manage to weasel them into DOING what needs to be done, they should eventually get better at doing it with less weaseling. :P

Scow2
2014-01-09, 01:04 PM
Do they actually want to learn to be better?

It's a precise question. I'm not asking if they want to be better. I'm asking if they want to learn. Will they actually commit to changing how they play, in order to improve.

I spent several frustrating months teaching fencing before I realized that some people wanted to fence, but didn't want to practice parries and do footwork drills.

If they want to get better, Red Fel and Lorsa's ideas could work well. But if they aren't willing to try to get better, you'll only be frustrating yourself.If they don't seem to want to learn... Wipe on, Wipe off! Wipe on, Wipe off!

Jay R
2014-01-09, 07:16 PM
Is it not possible to improve in fencing by fencing? Not saying "improve as much" or so on, but surely you should be able to improve at something by doing it? Also, I'm not sure fencing is a great example, because it's rather more... formal than roleplaying.

Yes, it's possible, but you will progress much more quickly, and become much better, if you learn the skills involved. My mistake was in assuming "learn more and faster" was a universal goal.


I don't know that their "being willing to work at getting better" is necessary here. It would HELP, but as long as he can manage to weasel them into DOING what needs to be done, they should eventually get better at doing it with less weaseling. :P

Somewhat better, yes, but for a superior party, at least one player needs to learn what they all can do, and how these actions coordinate. Thinking in terms of tactics and synergies will make the team much better. (I once saw a group in which the cleric cast "Hold Person", followed immediately by the wizard casting "Dispel Magic". This is poor play, and they won't get any better unless they actually consciously decide to cooperate.)

Tiki Snakes
2014-01-09, 07:23 PM
Might be worth giving this article on the Three Clue Rule (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1118/roleplaying-games/three-clue-rule) a read through.

Airk
2014-01-10, 10:22 AM
Somewhat better, yes, but for a superior party, at least one player needs to learn what they all can do, and how these actions coordinate. Thinking in terms of tactics and synergies will make the team much better. (I once saw a group in which the cleric cast "Hold Person", followed immediately by the wizard casting "Dispel Magic". This is poor play, and they won't get any better unless they actually consciously decide to cooperate.)

True, but I don't think that "managing to make decisions without endless waffling" is quite on the same difficulty scale as "coordinated tactical play"

BMXSummoner
2014-01-13, 04:44 AM
Doesn't this seem like a character issue? As in, the characters they made aren't very good. I mean, a character who wanders the wilderness killing monsters and bandits for no good reason really isn't much of a character. If there just trying to 'get by' then there's probably a lot of better ways to earn a living then putting yourself in mortal danger on a nearly daily basis for no good reason. Even if you can have it 'make sense' (they have no skills but fighting AND a wandering spirit that makes them unemployable), it's still boring.

How bout tell them to make (or revamp) their characters with a motivation. Maybe they want to find some lost family member, or get revenge for an evil committed to them, or maybe they were sent on an errand by a lord, or maybe they broke out of jail, or maybe they just want to be stinking rich. There's really no end to the possibilities. And then tell them to roll play like whatever their motives are they are REALLY important to their character and make their decisions based on that. And you can do like wise, for example is a character just broke out of jail, he better be making decisions based on not getting caught, because they're coming for him. Or at the very least, get your best player to figure something for his/her character to give the others something to follow along. Maybe they'll learn something from it.

You could also just be more heavy handed and 'remind them they're role playing'. "Hey, Murdreck the Hobo, isn't your character dead set on following the man in the dark cloak who burned your house down and is probably headed to the South Desert? Are you sure your character would agree to sign on a 16 month expedition to the North pole right now?" Hopefully they get the message.

Unless what you're saying is your players have goals but don't know how to implement them. In that case they really just need to get their act together. They are a small well armed militia. They have options. If they really can't figure it out, have an NPC come through an offer them some sage like guidance, and then when they least suspect it, have that same NPC kidnap them while they're sleeping and sell them into into slavery. That will teach them to trust strangers.

Jay R
2014-01-13, 12:30 PM
True, but I don't think that "managing to make decisions without endless waffling" is quite on the same difficulty scale as "coordinated tactical play"

People who prefer to talk things out to reach consensus, are at a disadvantage in role-playing games

What's the difficulty scale in learning to make quick decisions? I have no idea.

A couple of decades ago, I would have said that the solution is wandering monsters, to force them to act immediately. But that doesn't fixing their approach; it just penalizes it.

Now I suspect that some people will never get very good at playing RPGs, just as some people will never get very good at chess, or at football, or at piano playing.

Airk
2014-01-13, 01:14 PM
People who prefer to talk things out to reach consensus, are at a disadvantage in role-playing games

Huh?



What's the difficulty scale in learning to make quick decisions? I have no idea.

Quick decisions in combat need to be made quicker and generally involve more variables than 'quick' decisions made about a plan elsewhere in the game. I would have thought that pretty obvious.



A couple of decades ago, I would have said that the solution is wandering monsters, to force them to act immediately. But that doesn't fixing their approach; it just penalizes it.

Now I suspect that some people will never get very good at playing RPGs, just as some people will never get very good at chess, or at football, or at piano playing.

Yes, but that doesn't mean those people can't enjoy those activities. However, this issue seems to actively get in the way of the fun.

To me, that makes it sound like a personality issue more than a 'proficiency' issue. Probably cannot be fixed.