PDA

View Full Version : DM Help My RPG has become a combat simulator, advice needed



arcane_asp
2015-01-21, 05:30 AM
Hi Playground,

Been on here nearly a year now, yay!

To business: Been running two groups for a little while now. We've been enjoying it for the most part, mainly D&D4e, now moved to 5E, and some D20 modern for one-shot sessions. Settings have been high-fantasy and modern day superheroes.
I have noticed - not sure if it is just my players in particular - that the only bit of the gaming sessions they sit up and pay attention to are the combat sections. The rest of the time they will sit back and be largely uninterested. Characterisation, interaction with the gameworld, puzzle solving - they just don't seem to care about those things any more. It's not even as if they are particularly blood thirsty, its just that violent resolutions seem to be how they expect everything to be solved.

I'm worried that I may have somehow given them the impression that these RPG's are combat sims and everything else is just flavour. Then again, perhaps its just my friends who enjoy the thrill of simulated combat which is what got them interested.

Can anyone give me some advice on some fresh new non-combat related challenges involved to open them up to new ideas and ways of playing? All ideas considered at this point. Many thanks :smallsmile:

hymer
2015-01-21, 05:43 AM
One thing you could (or should) do, is to talk about it with your group. If the only thing about the game that interests them is combat, you need to hear this from them. And then, perhaps, you should change your game style to accomodate this, but in full dialogue with your players.
I have a player who would seem particularly disinterested whenever I began describing their surroundings. He assured me, however, that he was actually listening carefully, and I have no reason to think he isn't.
Ask them how they feel about different parts of the game, invite discussion and elaboration.

goto124
2015-01-21, 05:53 AM
Let's say the players want a story, but have no idea how they can contribute to it. What can the DM do?

zinycor
2015-01-21, 07:14 AM
One thing you could (or should) do, is to talk about it with your group. If the only thing about the game that interests them is combat, you need to hear this from them. And then, perhaps, you should change your game style to accomodate this, but in full dialogue with your players.

+1

have they played RPGs before? If not, this is a great way to make them used to it, there is nothing wrong with a hack and slash game as long as everyone is having fun. For Role laying purposes, have the NPCs ask them simple questions like, "Who are you noble hero?" or "Why are you here, where do you come from?" or the enemies telling them things like "I'll kill you first litle mage!!!" or things like that and let them interact with these things.

Baby steps :D

Beta Centauri
2015-01-21, 02:41 PM
Yep, talk to them, and find out either what isn't interesting them about the non-combat stuff, or what specifically they'd be interested in, or both.

Combat is fun for a lot of reasons: everyone can contribute, there's a clear goal, there's a clear way to fail, there are clear actions and counter actions, etc. Non-combat situations can easily fail on all those points, but it's also possible to have all of those elements in non-combat situations, and not really all that difficult so long as you're keeping those elements in mind and trying to make sure they're present.

jaydubs
2015-01-21, 03:12 PM
Characterisation, interaction with the gameworld, puzzle solving - they just don't seem to care about those things any more. It's not even as if they are particularly blood thirsty, its just that violent resolutions seem to be how they expect everything to be solved.

I'm worried that I may have somehow given them the impression that these RPG's are combat sims and everything else is just flavour.

Well, players do tend to learn and adapt to DMing styles. You should honestly ask yourself the following question. Are the NPCs, social interactions, puzzles, etc. just flavor in your campaigns? By which I mean, think of the last 2 or 3 adventures. Were the non-combat interactions just the scenery between battles you already had prepared? Could the players have completed the objective without fighting? Or do you steer them unerringly towards pre-prepared combats?

Because I've played with several DMs who do exactly that. Eventually we learn that the combats are unavoidable. And while we still like having the flavor so it's not just one big, bland combat simulator, we sometimes just skip past the pleasantries to start the fight.

You see that attitude on the forums sometimes as well. Try to avoid fighting the guardian monster? Counter-measure appears to make you fight the guardian monster. Take the other path down the road? Move the bandit encounter to the road that was chosen. Sneaking, flying, invisibility, teleportation around the encounter? Not an option, reason to be inserted as convenient. I've also seen the attitude (especially in groups where eventually everyone dumps charisma) that any situation can be solved by sufficient application of force, which suggests campaigns run where that really is the case.

Not saying it's badwrongfun. Also not sure if it's usually a case of players adapting to that DMing style, or DMs adapting to players who prefer combat. Just pointing out that DMing that encourages players to focus on combat, is likely to push players to focus on combat.

nedz
2015-01-21, 03:55 PM
I can react like this if the RP is not to my liking. I don't know your DMing style but if I face NPCs whom I find boring, or if the plot is a rail-road, etc. then there is no RP of consequence anyway: so we might as well fast forward.

Not every player is the same: quite a few don't like the talky stuff and even more don't like puzzles.

Kaun
2015-01-21, 06:00 PM
players are like dogs; they thrive on positive reinforcement.

If your players do even the slightest bit of RP, reward them. I used to do a post session XP breakdown table which i would post on my groups forums. When the players noticed big chunks of xp being handed out for RP a lot of them started making more of an effort.

goto124
2015-01-21, 08:47 PM
Having played MUDs, I've found that 'finding out what to say' is often a part of puzzles. For example, when an NPC says 'oh, my business has been ruined since the invasion', you say 'Invasion?' and the NPC will describe it, eventually asking you to help, and that's how you know where to go next and what to kill. MUDs need to rely on text parsers, but with a human DM it could work better. But does it really work for that extra littttttttttttle bit of RP?

arcane_asp
2015-01-22, 06:16 AM
Thanks for the replies, as usual the Playground provides answers :smallcool:


One thing you could (or should) do, is to talk about it with your group. If the only thing about the game that interests them is combat, you need to hear this from them. And then, perhaps, you should change your game style to accomodate this, but in full dialogue with your players.

This is going to be my first port of call, just didn't want to come off as too preachy to my players. After all, if they keep coming back for more so they are enjoying something in the sessions. Would be good if I could organically engage their interests without them even knowing, but I guess I'm not quite experienced enough to do that quite yet!


For Role laying purposes, have the NPCs ask them simple questions like, "Who are you noble hero?" or "Why are you here, where do you come from?" or the enemies telling them things like "I'll kill you first litle mage!!!" or things like that and let them interact with these things.

Baby steps

I'm kind of already doing this, it's just not engaging them :smalleek:


Well, players do tend to learn and adapt to DMing styles. You should honestly ask yourself the following question. Are the NPCs, social interactions, puzzles, etc. just flavor in your campaigns? By which I mean, think of the last 2 or 3 adventures. Were the non-combat interactions just the scenery between battles you already had prepared? Could the players have completed the objective without fighting? Or do you steer them unerringly towards pre-prepared combats?

I think that perhaps they are starting to perceive the stories like this, just unimportant fluff that fills in the time between the next combat encounter. To them, it will all proceed toward the encounter anyway, so why bother doing/saying anything? Some kind of social, investigative or political scenario is needed but they need to feel it is important enough react , discuss and contribute to. I think if I put that in now they will come to a grinding halt and stare at each other blankly. I'm worried it will kill the session dead :smallredface:


Not every player is the same: quite a few don't like the talky stuff and even more don't like puzzles.

I might have to face up to this, they might just want a combat sim or wargame with rpg level of details. I would love to have more depth to the scenarios, just need a way to ease them into that way of thinking about the games.


If your players do even the slightest bit of RP, reward them. I used to do a post session XP breakdown table which i would post on my groups forums. When the players noticed big chunks of xp being handed out for RP a lot of them started making more of an effort.

Perhaps this might work - they all value xp and the chances of levelling up, xp is obviously a currency they will 'work' for :smallwink:
Could be a good way to get them engaged...

goto124
2015-01-22, 06:40 AM
Probably have to at least warn them ahead of time, that you're changing styles, and ask if they're okay with it. Best to describe how you're going about it, especially the reward EXP for RP thing :P

Also, with EXP for RP, how does one prevent level imbalance within the group, due to a few players being naturally better at RP than the others? Would it be good to give EXP to every member of the party for at least 1 person RPing? Might encourage cooperative RPing...

What kind of RPing would be the simplest kind? Having a backstory? You said that they're not engaged even when talking to NPCs? What exactly is happening: are they interacting with the NPCs, do they look or sound bored, how meaningful are the things they say to NPCs, any examples from your games?

DireSickFish
2015-01-22, 09:19 AM
One thing to do that might be kind of out there: make the fights really really easy. Not all the time forever easy. But make it so they are in a situation where there opponents fall like chaff.

I was running a monster game once upon a dream, and my monsters crossed a desert to a very isolated part of the world. They came across completely peaceful villages who did not know the concept of warfare or violence or defending themselves. They slaughtered the villages and all the villagers could and would do is run away. They quickly lost interest in fighting them.

Now I didn't do this to enforce role-playing, and was not int he situation you are in. But the effect seems like something you are looking for. You have to offer something political interesting as an alternative. Perhaps there is a castle in part of the kingdom that is taken over. Whoever can clear it out gets to keep the land and become lords. Then the PC's sweep in and demolish it in no time flat. Suddenly this session is about other nobles wanting favors. Or figuring out how much you can tax the place. A Widower and the dead husbands cousin are fighting over rights to the dead mans bakery, and both have a valid claim.

Also make sure you are taking player ideas and running with them. jaydubs makes a good point on this.

arcane_asp
2015-01-22, 09:33 AM
What kind of RPing would be the simplest kind? Having a backstory? You said that they're not engaged even when talking to NPCs? What exactly is happening: are they interacting with the NPCs, do they look or sound bored, how meaningful are the things they say to NPCs, any examples from your games?

I think its a case that they aren't really bothered by the consequences of befriending or becoming enemies of NPC's. During the d20 modern games, a city was getting overrun by human/animal hybrids (long backstory) and the players had got drawn into helping the police restore order. Upon rescuing a roomful of people from a sabretooth cat-man, their response was along the lines of 'herd them out the door to safety then go looking for the next enemy to pound on'. I did have information available from the people they saved, one of them could have been a valuable ally, but they just didn't think to talk to any of them beyond "Go on, get to the safe room". I left some strong hints that a few of the people were noteworthy and might be worth speaking to or investigating, but they just didn't bite. Maybe I wasn't hinting strongly enough :smallfrown:

DireSickFish , I think you might have a good tactic there. I could try and hand them something valuable but easy to acquire, and let them hash out how to approach things themselves.

I'm getting the impression that apart from discussing this directly with the group (that should be my first go-to anyways) I might need to be a bit more "hands off" and let the players work out their next course of action for themselves. Especially relevant in the d20 modern game we're in at the moment. There doesn't appear to be a natural leader in the party which makes decision making slooooow, especially when people are expecting the next big combat encounter to be handed to them at any second.

Beta Centauri
2015-01-23, 12:47 PM
I did have information available from the people they saved, one of them could have been a valuable ally, but they just didn't think to talk to any of them beyond "Go on, get to the safe room". I left some strong hints that a few of the people were noteworthy and might be worth speaking to or investigating, but they just didn't bite. Maybe I wasn't hinting strongly enough :smallfrown: They apparently didn't feel they needed any allies or information, or they might have looked for them, so consider asking yourself why it matters to you whether they talk to the NPCs or not.

I don't know if this is the case with you, but sometimes GMs put a lot of effort into their NPCs and are displeased when the players don't engage with them. What I recommend to those GMs is to put less effort into their NPCs, or at least put in only the effort that they enjoy putting in for its own sake, with no expectation that it will ever see use in play. Otherwise, it's a set up for frustration.

draken50
2015-01-23, 01:45 PM
I have a theory, but I could be off base.

Basically I've seen that with many games, if the players aren't taking much initiative or doing much more than killing bad guys put in their path... the game goes on anyway. As a gm we kind of feel a responsibility for keeping the game moving ect. and it doesn't seem lie you make the newbie gm mistake of "Must talk to this character with this tone and say this exact thing." or any other bottlenecks. I'm guessing though that that feels more like you're providing ways to keep things moving. Convenient events occurring nearby ect.

In my experience the only way to get players to engage with the world is often to force them too. I feel like players often end up looking at their characters options soley by class features ect. Often the longer the habit is present the harder it is to break. For instance In a first session I managed to create a problem of "This tree needs to be cut down" so the caster threw some level 1 spells at it hoping to help and getting nowhere, and the sword fighter went over her sheet to see what she might have that helped, and I pointed out the window at a tree and said "You need that to not be standing, what do you do?" at which point they put their character sheets down, stopped rolling dice and said: "I go get an axe." It sounds dumb, but it happens and as a GM sometimes you have to remind the players that they have options outside their character sheets.

So, to get around this. Make problems that can't be solved just by hitting things in the face. Not just "puzzles" which I have to confess I've never used, but create goals where the players have to learn things from people or places, win people over. The key I've found to this working is 1)Make the enemies tougher, and make sure the players know they are, and 2)Make the benefits worth the time. For example I had players win over a mercenary cavalry unit, then when fighting the bad guy, the 80 mooks where run down or distracted by the cavalry letting the players actually get to the leader. The only way that works though is if the players know that if they are willing to charge a huge horde of enemies on their own, you are willing to give them a glorious, or at least bloody death.

Beta Centauri
2015-01-23, 02:57 PM
In my experience the only way to get players to engage with the world is often to force them too. I feel like players often end up looking at their characters options soley by class features ect. Often the longer the habit is present the harder it is to break. For instance In a first session I managed to create a problem of "This tree needs to be cut down" so the caster threw some level 1 spells at it hoping to help and getting nowhere, and the sword fighter went over her sheet to see what she might have that helped, and I pointed out the window at a tree and said "You need that to not be standing, what do you do?" at which point they put their character sheets down, stopped rolling dice and said: "I go get an axe." It sounds dumb, but it happens and as a GM sometimes you have to remind the players that they have options outside their character sheets. I have a theory on this:

The things people have on their character sheets are the things they don't have to ask about, don't have to justify. They don't have to ask if they can cast a spell that's on their sheet, they don't have to ask if they have an item that's on their sheet, etc. If they try to do things not explicitly spelled out on their sheet, they're at the mercy of the GM. That's not necessarily bad, but it's uncertain. "I go get an axe" could be, and probably has been in more than a few games, been met with "There's no axe," or something along those lines. The player wants to do something and is stymied. Even if they want to put their sheet aside, they quickly learn that there's not much point to trying things not on their sheet.

It is possible to break that habit, but I doubt it can or should be forced. But nurture any little steps they take in that direction. It's not uncommon for people to say things like "Well, I really want to do X, but I don't have Y" (where Y is the thing that would let them do X without having to ask). When you hear something like that, pounce, and work with them to enable them to do X. You might even default to saying "You can do X, even without Y," and either figure out a way for them to do it, or just assume they do and figure out how later. This will show them that you want them to be able to do things not explicitly spelled out on their sheets, without them wondering what hoops they'll have to jump through.

goto124
2015-01-23, 08:12 PM
I'm assuming you've warned all your players beforehand that you're changing styles and must put in that little bit of effort to think? A clash of expectations will not be good.

Yup, it does help to let a lot of solutions work. For example, if someone says 'I get an axe', the axe magically appears on the ground and she picks it up (I'm wondering why Magic Missiles didn't work on the tree, but I'm guessing you wanted them to think just a bit further).

Once, in a text-based computer game (MUD), I had to break a pot. I found the pot and tried all manners of breaking it, to no avail. It then turned out I had to... drop it. I couldn't figure it out because for the rest of the game, dropping fragile items never led to them breaking. Probably won't be this insane with a TTRPG, just have to keep an eye out that what makes sense to you (used to RL logic) may not be that way to your players (just barely starting out on puzzles), and vice versa!

Part of the beauty of having a living breathing DM, is that you don't have to play the game of 'Guess what the DM is thinking'. Whatever the players come up with, the DM can respond and react to it. Let's say they come across a locked door. If they try to attack it, you could have words appear on the door that says 'You could just ask nicely'.

A comedy campaign might help greatly here. The humor helps to lighten the atmosphere and is itself a reward for RP, encouraging the players to TRY to RP. It's more frustrating for the players if a lot of their solutions don't work due to 'RL logical reasoning', yet when they manage to solve a puzzle it's just... meh.

While we're at it, make sure not to punish players excessively for trying to go the 'normal and easy' route of 'kill it'. If they try to kill guards (in computer games, that's often the ONLY solution, so from their point of view it's perfectly reasonable), making them go through a very long battle just short of a TPK only leaves them frustrated. Instead, have the guards throw them out, or be so impervious they don't even notice, and thus don't attack back either. You did warn them ahead of time, that the game would have puzzles right? Make sure whatever insane solution they come up with afterwards works, even if it's 'one PC strips naked and dances in front of the guards, distracting them while the others sneak past them, then that PC throws cats in the guards' faces and joins the party'. And if they still can't come up with anything, hints from the DM are good. Those hints may sound hamfisted to you, but are a great relief to players unused to puzzles.

draken50
2015-01-23, 10:55 PM
Yup, it does help to let a lot of solutions work. For example, if someone says 'I get an axe', the axe magically appears on the ground and she picks it up (I'm wondering why Magic Missiles didn't work on the tree, but I'm guessing you wanted them to think just a bit further).

Once, in a text-based computer game (MUD), I had to break a pot. I found the pot and tried all manners of breaking it, to no avail. It then turned out I had to... drop it. I couldn't figure it out because for the rest of the game, dropping fragile items never led to them breaking. Probably won't be this insane with a TTRPG, just have to keep an eye out that what makes sense to you (used to RL logic) may not be that way to your players (just barely starting out on puzzles), and vice versa!

GMs can absolutely fall into the trap of only have the one correct solution.

As to the tree, it was right outside a mid-sized village, so it was more of a given that an ax could be found in the village rather than spontaneously found on the ground, additionally I don't consider magic-missile to be a viable method to chop down a fairly large tree that may be just me, but I figure if a single magic missile can knock down a large tree, how do people not just get blown away by it like always, considering the difference in mass. Additionally, the mage after the swordman got an ax and villagers joined in to help asked about horses and ropes to help pull it down faster. The result of which also encouraged the players to think of villagers as useful and worth protecting for their own good, though often lacking good leadership.

jaydubs
2015-01-23, 11:00 PM
GMs can absolutely fall into the trap of only have the one correct solution.

I probably link this way to often, but an extremely on point page from DM of the Rings (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=680).