PDA

View Full Version : DM Help How to get players engaged in the game



Thorin Ironfist
2016-11-29, 02:15 PM
I can't seem to get the players engaged in their adventure. They seem to be having fun and they all arrive on schedule and attend and such, but they just don't lead the adventure. The way I try to DM is let the players just do their thing to get to the objective. It's like trying to take a cat on a walk. Instead of them taking the reigns and just doing what they want (within the rules), I'm pretty much forced to physically drag them through the story. Here's an example of what they did on the weekend.

DM: You approach a door with a smiling face on it.
Chara 1: I'll open the door and walk in.
DM: Upon opening the door, you are hit with 4 lightning damage.
Chara 1: oh no, what ever shall I do. I'll walk into the room.
Chara 2: I'll also walk into the room.
DM: Chara 2 gets hit with 3 lightning damage as she walks past the smiling door.
Chara 3: I'll follow them.
DM: You glance at the smiling door as you pass it and get hit for 4 lightning damage. Maybe you might want to check out that door.
Chara 2: what should we do?
*Long silence*
Chara 1: Smash the door! *crushes the door with his hammer* Good. That's over with.

It's pretty frustrating. If they would just actually take things into their own hands and explore the environment, it wouldn't be a problem. I've tried giving them hints and they ignore it, and when I just introduce them to a room for example, they either just do what they need to and move on or just wait for me to tell them what to do.

hymer
2016-11-29, 02:31 PM
Oy. Well, I feel your pain.

Well, firstly, if they're having fun, you could say that you really only need to work on you having fun, too.
Second, I'm wondering whether they have much or any experience with RPGs? If they don't, or only with one particular game style, it could explain a lot.
Third, talk to them. Maybe you could find out whether they prefer this sort of game, or whether they're open to trying things your way.
Fourth, it seems to me that a lot could be accomplished if there was an experienced player among them. Someone who could show them the ropes without you needing to pull them along, as you put it. That's assuming they just don't really know what to do.

I have one player who at more than one point stated his preference for strongly railroaded games when he's player. He didn't know that he made want to gouge my eyes out hearing him say that, of course, but it goes to show you can't always know what people want. Oh, and you can't always expect people to know what they want, or to know how to put it in words. That's something to remember during the abovementioned conversation.

Knaight
2016-11-29, 02:38 PM
This is probably a combination of a few things.
1) You happen to have passive players, which is generally not helpful. Fortunately mostly passive players with an exception or two works just fine, so if you can add one person or talk one person into taking a group leadership position you're covered.
2) The things you're presenting aren't interesting the players enough to get them engaging heavily with them. Your example is of a door that appears to do negligible damage, that it gets mostly ignored is hardly unexpected. Not having proactive players doesn't help here, but if they react to being prodded a better prod could work. Antagonists that give the players a reason to have them are often effective at this.
3) Your players might think that you have a particular plan and that their role is to find what you want them to do and do it. Having a whole group of people doing this will kill a game, but there are options. Either adding one person who doesn't do this or convincing one person that you're not looking for them to do particular things is enough. Once the rest of the players see you respond to what you obviously haven't planned for they'll learn that you're good with them doing things their way.

In short, it's a group dynamic thing. I've had it happen before with certain groups, and generally finding the right prod and then letting things unfurl that are clearly unplanned covers most things*. The one exception is having all passive players - if that happens, you're just out of luck.

*Some people take more convincing than others. I ran one game where one player kept talking about trying to figure out my plot, and trying to follow it, and so on and so forth. The entire rest of the group repeatedly said that there wasn't a script to follow, and seriously have you met this Knaight person? Of course there's no script. It just didn't sink in - until another player decided that it would be fun to have their character lead the group in sailing away from the entire setting seen so far to go to a city that only existed because it was in his backstory and I rolled with it. That was convincing enough to get the last player on board with the idea that this genuinely wasn't a scripted game and that I actually was using heavy improvisation and not some sort of ludicrously sophisticated planning system that covered everything done in the game thus far.

Thorin Ironfist
2016-11-29, 03:03 PM
Thanks guys, this helps a lot. Since every one of them is a new player (yeah....) I think I'll grab someone to help them out. Maybe that will get things rolling.

I think it's also worth mentioning that they weren't like this when I had to homebrew an entire city on the fly after I left the adventure at home. :smallsigh: Could it possibly be the adventure?

SirBellias
2016-11-29, 03:03 PM
In short, it's a group dynamic thing. I've had it happen before with certain groups, and generally finding the right prod and then letting things unfurl that are clearly unplanned covers most things*. The one exception is having all passive players - if that happens, you're just out of luck.

*Some people take more convincing than others. I ran one game where one player kept talking about trying to figure out my plot, and trying to follow it, and so on and so forth. The entire rest of the group repeatedly said that there wasn't a script to follow, and seriously have you met this Knaight person? Of course there's no script. It just didn't sink in - until another player decided that it would be fun to have their character lead the group in sailing away from the entire setting seen so far to go to a city that only existed because it was in his backstory and I rolled with it. That was convincing enough to get the last player on board with the idea that this genuinely wasn't a scripted game and that I actually was using heavy improvisation and not some sort of ludicrously sophisticated planning system that covered everything done in the game thus far.

I had something like this in my games. The only one of my players that did not hold the Random Equals Funny rule in high esteem kept trying to read me and go along with the plot. It was moderately aggravating, but at least there was one person who wanting to do something moderately in character. One of the others tried his best to do the opposite of what I had planned, and he eventually got bored because I stopped planning things for him to ignore. SO you win some, you lose some.

But really, it seems like the OP and his players want different things out of the game. If they don't take the bait, keep throwing it at them in different colors, shapes and sizes until they either find it interesting or make it their goal to avoid all contact with whatever it is. Either way, something happens. :smallamused:

Or you could try talking them over, but in my experience the majority/most obnoxious wins.

Geddy2112
2016-11-29, 03:11 PM
Some players don't have any particular interest in sleuthing dungeons or solving puzzles. Some want to have their characters be giddy socialites, others want to kill every living thing in a 10 mile radius. Some want to steal everything that is and is not nailed down, and then sell it and steal it again. None of these are particularly wrong, but if you want your players to sleuth and they don't want to sleuth, then there is a mismatch in expectations and nobody will have fun. People play games to have fun, and even though I like exploring the world and making big ripples in the pool, I sometimes have a rough day and I look forward to a game session as time to conk out, roll some dice, kill some monsters, etc. There is nothing wrong with that, but the game needs to be on the same page as the players. One of the great things about ttRPG's is that they can be run as intellectual bubblegum akin to solitaire, as tactically strategic as chess or a tabletop wargame, or as intricate and story driven as a novel. If you want a story driven wargame and your players want the d20 version of sudoku, nobody has fun.

Give your players whatever they respond positively to, so long as you are okay DM'ing that type of game. Particularly with newer players, I throw out a ton of things and see what sticks-some are mindless hack and slash, where others have a massive aversion to fighting and will try to diplomance their way out of everything. Some, particularly Big Stupid Fighter types, will simply disregard damage or hazards so long as they can smash kill and fight. Some want to run to the far corners of the world and dungeon delve, some want to run a shop in a city. It can change by the day and by the person.

You give the players details, but they don't seem to care. That said, in the particular example, the details did not really matter. A few hit points in most systems is negligable in the grand scheme. If you want them to interact with the *door*, you need a real threat, an impassable obstacle, or a reward for interacting. By door, I mean anytime the players can interact with the world and their choices have different outcomes. In this case, there was really no different outcome or reward for interacting. If the door shocked one of them so bad they died or were knocked out, that is a different story. If they got gold or some other reward for disarming the trap(maybe a wand or some object causing the lightning) then sure. Or if there was an electric field so powerful and visible they could not pass it until they solved it.

Lastly, make sure that every time your players choose to do something, or choose not to do something, that the world responds accordingly. Have a course of events that will happen in the world if the players never do anything.

Knaight
2016-11-29, 03:15 PM
Thanks guys, this helps a lot. Since every one of them is a new player (yeah....) I think I'll grab someone to help them out. Maybe that will get things rolling.

I think it's also worth mentioning that they weren't like this when I had to homebrew an entire city on the fly after I left the adventure at home. :smallsigh: Could it possibly be the adventure?

Using a published adventure really communicates the whole "there's an existing plot to find" thing, and it sounds like it clashes with your style anyways. The players responded more to an improvisational style, so use an improvisational style. If you favor planning plan using a method conducive to improv - develop your setting, know it, and know the people and organizations in it well enough that you understand how they would respond to things instead of planning a series of events.

Segev
2016-11-29, 03:38 PM
Honestly, I don't see anything about a "smiling door" that suggests lightning damage is coming from it.

Did you describe where it was coming from?

If they just shrug and take it, does it make them unable to play the game? Just let them do so. They'll either start asking questions or they'll muddle through without.

kyoryu
2016-11-29, 03:57 PM
Yeah, in this specific case, the issue seems to be that the penalty for not figuring out the puzzle is so minor that the players might just not care.

In general, that points at the overall fix - find what players care about, and then let them try to get that. If the players really really really wanted a chunk of mithril, and that mithril was behind the smiley door, and they couldn't get past the smiley door without figuring out the puzzle... I guarantee you they'd have been more engaged.

It also sounds like they just might not be into that type of thing (odd elements in the environment that act as puzzles). Which is fine, too. But in that case, figure out the types of activities they enjoy engaging in (combat, politics, exploration, etc.) and *give them that*.

It's much easier to figure out what players are interested in, and give them that, than it is to get them interested in things that they don't care about.

Segev
2016-11-29, 04:02 PM
Of course, getting them engaged in the game is as easy as having their PCs' parents meet up and decide to arrange their kids' marriage to each other.


:smallcool:

Darth Ultron
2016-11-29, 04:41 PM
I can't seem to get the players engaged in their adventure.

It's pretty frustrating. If they would just actually take things into their own hands and explore the environment, it wouldn't be a problem. I've tried giving them hints and they ignore it, and when I just introduce them to a room for example, they either just do what they need to and move on or just wait for me to tell them what to do.

It is important to make the adventure for the characters and for the players. It would be nice if you would just toss an adventure out there and the players would get all engaged and excited....but that is rare.

Your example is very boring. A door with a face? Eh, just walk past it. Sure, you see something incredible interesting about the door encounter, but I don't see it and neither did your players. You just need to make things more for your players. And once you get them interested, you will notice a big change.

kyoryu
2016-11-29, 05:01 PM
Sure, you see something incredible interesting about the door encounter, but I don't see it and neither did your players. You just need to make things more for your players. And once you get them interested, you will notice a big change.

It's important to remember that what's interesting to you is not necessarily interesting to your players - *especially* if you're withholding information. "Oh, this will be so cool in three months when they learn about ....". That doesn't work. Make it interesting *now*.

Nifft
2016-11-29, 09:10 PM
It's pretty frustrating. If they would just actually take things into their own hands and explore the environment, it wouldn't be a problem. I've tried giving them hints and they ignore it, and when I just introduce them to a room for example, they either just do what they need to and move on or just wait for me to tell them what to do.

So, you've given them a puzzle. The puzzle has one right answer, and the punishment for not finding the answer is trivial.

You've punished them for exploring incorrectly -- but the punishment isn't a big deal, so you've trained them to ignore punishment.

IMHO puzzles in RPGs are dumb. It's not your fault in particular -- puzzles appear all over the place in fiction -- but to me, solving a puzzle is a solitary activity. It's entertaining to think about a puzzle when I'm reading a book by myself. But puzzles are a poor fit for interacting with other people in a social environment.

So, what I'd do is throw away the puzzles.

Instead, make the environment more social.
- Don't think in terms of "what doors have which traps".
- Do think about "what NPCs have which agendas".

Then, let the players interact with human(oid)s who have personalities and goals of their own. They can engage in social behavior while engaging in the game.

RazorChain
2016-11-29, 10:14 PM
If that door would have zapped the first character with lighting that had hurled him through the air and smacked him into a wall, where he would crumpled into a unconscious heap then you would have grabbed their attention.


What did that door accomplish? Why was it there? Who put it there? For what purpose?
Why did you put that door there?

If you are making traps have fewer of them and make them sound dangerous. "Oh you fall into a spiked pit taking 13 in damage which you can subtract from your bloated Hit Point pool" It isn't engaging at all.

"The floor vanishes in a loud crack as the tiles breaks apart from under your weight. You fall 10' and impact on sharp spikes, one of them impales you through the thigh for 13 in damage. Then you hear the hissing of the snakes!"

Now to the thought of lying in a pit with a spike impaled through your leg alongside a dozen venomous snakes is sure to prompt some reaction from the player even though he has his nice cushy HP security blanket.

Thorin Ironfist
2016-11-30, 09:13 AM
Using a published adventure really communicates the whole "there's an existing plot to find" thing, and it sounds like it clashes with your style anyways. The players responded more to an improvisational style, so use an improvisational style. If you favor planning plan using a method conducive to improv - develop your setting, know it, and know the people and organizations in it well enough that you understand how they would respond to things instead of planning a series of events.

I've noticed this. The problem though is that I quickly run out of ideas when doing improv like that. That whole day was about half exploring and finding new and interesting things, then I ran out of ideas and the players just kinda hung around in one area repeating other stuff they've done for about an hour and a half. If I write down and plan out a whole adventure with an objective, then it might as well just be a published adventure.


Of course, getting them engaged in the game is as easy as having their PCs' parents meet up and decide to arrange their kids' marriage to each other.

I see what you did there. :smallbiggrin:

Thorin Ironfist
2016-11-30, 09:24 AM
What did that door accomplish? Why was it there? Who put it there? For what purpose?
Why did you put that door there?

If you are making traps have fewer of them and make them sound dangerous. "Oh you fall into a spiked pit taking 13 in damage which you can subtract from your bloated Hit Point pool" It isn't engaging at all.

"The floor vanishes in a loud crack as the tiles breaks apart from under your weight. You fall 10' and impact on sharp spikes, one of them impales you through the thigh for 13 in damage. Then you hear the hissing of the snakes!"



It's important to remember that what's interesting to you is not necessarily interesting to your players - *especially* if you're withholding information. "Oh, this will be so cool in three months when they learn about ....". That doesn't work. Make it interesting *now*.

I guess I'll also work on making things interesting and unique, even if it doesn't have much of an effect on the character. I can see how "You take 4 lightning damage" is pretty uneventful.

kyoryu
2016-11-30, 11:03 AM
I've noticed this. The problem though is that I quickly run out of ideas when doing improv like that. That whole day was about half exploring and finding new and interesting things, then I ran out of ideas and the players just kinda hung around in one area repeating other stuff they've done for about an hour and a half. If I write down and plan out a whole adventure with an objective, then it might as well just be a published adventure.

Exploration usually works best if the area to be explored is written out in advance. Because the *area* doesn't itself change, there's little value to doing it as improv.

Improv is best when dealing with antagonist NPCs and how they react to PC actions.

Knaight
2016-11-30, 01:40 PM
I've noticed this. The problem though is that I quickly run out of ideas when doing improv like that. That whole day was about half exploring and finding new and interesting things, then I ran out of ideas and the players just kinda hung around in one area repeating other stuff they've done for about an hour and a half. If I write down and plan out a whole adventure with an objective, then it might as well just be a published adventure.

I've posted my preferred methods in depth a few times on the forum (individual (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20516260&postcount=15) posts (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=19085914&postcount=24) are linked when possible, for the archived (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-381486.html) threads (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-485696.html) just search for the word "roster"*), but the short version is that while you improvise events you build the setting. There's already new and interesting things around that you know about, you've populated the setting with interesting characters and organizations with a whole host of conflicts between them, and then you work the PCs into it. If you're working with an extended single adventure campaign you do this in depth once with a great many NPCs (although that doesn't mean it won't come up again, the last campaign I ran with that structure ended up centered in two different cities, each of which started with a list of about 30 significant NPCs and ended with a list of about 45, although that included some of the initial 30 in each case that the players never met and that only operated in the background), if you're working with a more mission based structure you can do this in less depth repeatedly (the last one of these I ran was for a mercenary space campaign, and tended to involve prepping a planet/space station or two, an employer which was usually a corporation and an NPC or two, and maybe two organizations and five NPCs of note with improv for the rest).

The big advantage of this method in your particular case is that it avoids the problem of appearing to have a plot, which seems to be what's causing your players to lose interest. The door trap and similar really doesn't help (and I'm guessing that's on the module), as it's just not that interesting,

*These are in the context of longer conversations, but absent me actually getting around to writing a proper article or reexplaining it yet again in depth that's the best that is going to happen. The archives also lose all formatting, which really hurts in the context of losing what was and wasn't a quote and some fairly extensive use of bold and italics.

Telok
2016-11-30, 02:01 PM
Some times you have players who just don't take initative or an't think of anything to do beyond fight stuff.

There's a bandit hideout where there's nobody for the bandits to rob. Not interesting. The bandits have military style gear and use formation tactics. Not interesting. The leader is a known criminal who has escaped from the supposedly escape proof exile. Not interesting. In the locked and trapped treasure chest there's a old romance novel stuffed with loose bits of paper and notes. Not interesting. In the escape proof exile a town is being ruled by a second level commoner who is ruling a gang of thugs and assassins through terror and providing them with military armor and weapons from out of nowhere. Not interesting. There are secret tunnels under the town. Not interesting. DM gets bored and just skips to the next fight without explanation or narrative continuity. Oh, well that's good because the players were getting bored and needed more fights.

Thinker
2016-11-30, 02:20 PM
I've noticed this. The problem though is that I quickly run out of ideas when doing improv like that. That whole day was about half exploring and finding new and interesting things, then I ran out of ideas and the players just kinda hung around in one area repeating other stuff they've done for about an hour and a half. If I write down and plan out a whole adventure with an objective, then it might as well just be a published adventure.

Create your threats and give them motivations. Decide what they do if the players don't get involved as a guideline for how they will act. Decide on special powers, minions, and the like. Those things that happen when the players don't get involved are like breadcrumbs. "Danny the Blacksmith just had his forge ransacked and lost a month's supply of iron!" is a hook. The players might be keen on investigating. If they don't, come back next week with, "A caravan was looted on the way into town. The guards were killed and the wagons burned. One of the survivors said that the <insert description here> ran off with all of the iron, but left everything else" is another hook. Have multiple hooks, multiple things for the group to explore. Sometimes the lower-tier interesting events aren't that important to the players and they'll let it progress. Sometimes they'll have to decide whether to pursue the Cult of Skarro or the Master. Proper planning is the key to good improv.

kyoryu
2016-11-30, 02:44 PM
"Danny the Blacksmith just had his forge ransacked and lost a month's supply of iron!" is a hook. The players might be keen on investigating. If they don't, come back next week with, "A caravan was looted on the way into town. The guards were killed and the wagons burned. One of the survivors said that the <insert description here> ran off with all of the iron, but left everything else" is another hook. Have multiple hooks, multiple things for the group to explore. Sometimes the lower-tier interesting events aren't that important to the players and they'll let it progress.

Well, the trick is really to have the "hooks" be interesting in and of themselves, not because of what they'll discover.

If you can't do that, then just get the players to agree to the basic premise up front, and then engage them on that premise. "You're going to be people up for hire to investigate trouble... and your first job is..."

Segev
2016-11-30, 04:18 PM
Some times you have players who just don't take initative or an't think of anything to do beyond fight stuff.

There's a bandit hideout where there's nobody for the bandits to rob. Not interesting. The bandits have military style gear and use formation tactics. Not interesting. The leader is a known criminal who has escaped from the supposedly escape proof exile. Not interesting. In the locked and trapped treasure chest there's a old romance novel stuffed with loose bits of paper and notes. Not interesting. In the escape proof exile a town is being ruled by a second level commoner who is ruling a gang of thugs and assassins through terror and providing them with military armor and weapons from out of nowhere. Not interesting. There are secret tunnels under the town. Not interesting. DM gets bored and just skips to the next fight without explanation or narrative continuity. Oh, well that's good because the players were getting bored and needed more fights.

Sure, any of those things could be interesting, if the PCs and players have a mindset to ask "okay, why is this...?"

But honestly, listed like that, I didn't find them all that compelling, either. And nothing seems to really call out the oddities. The bandits are camped in a place with nothing to rob? Okay, then perhaps the bandit thugs should be griping about it...or talking about what it is they ARE there for, if they know. The leader's backstory involves an impossible task? Okay, cool, but why should the PCs care? What has made the "escape-proof place of exile" of interest to them? What has made the impossible task of escaping from it of interest?

The romance novel in the chest has notes stuffed into it? Assume one of the PCs reads it, and tell them what they say. Feed them the hook, don't just hope they happen to trip over it and understand what they've found.

If you want the fact the bandits are behaving oddly to be important, have the PCs' quest start off with somebody telling them that these bandits have set up camp somewhere where there's nothing to rob. The quest-giver is concerned about WHY they're there, and wants the PCs to find out. There, now the mystery is of interest to them beyond a "huh, that's weird" observation.

If you want the fact that the leader has escaped from an impossible prison to matter, make getting information on that prison of value to them. Perhaps they need to break in for their quest, and knowing how to get back out would be nice. Perhaps they have a friend who's wrongfully (or rightfully, but they don't care) imprisoned there that they want to get out. These would be reasons to seek out the bandit lord in the first place, just based on his impossible achievement. Heck, maybe the impossible escape has some lordling anxious to get him BACK in that prison, lest he ruin reputations or prove dangerous out here!

The reason the 2nd level commoner rules that prison through terror and whatnot is only going to interest the PCs if somebody calls attention to the fact that he must have some secret power source, or if the PCs have reason to care about how the innards of that exiles' colony is run.


What you have are neat "hey, these are weird" hooks, but you've not really given the PCs any reason to care about them beyond simple curiosity, yet.

Contrast
2016-11-30, 04:28 PM
Honestly, I don't see anything about a "smiling door" that suggests lightning damage is coming from it.

Did you describe where it was coming from?

If they just shrug and take it, does it make them unable to play the game? Just let them do so. They'll either start asking questions or they'll muddle through without.


So, you've given them a puzzle. The puzzle has one right answer, and the punishment for not finding the answer is trivial.

You've punished them for exploring incorrectly -- but the punishment isn't a big deal, so you've trained them to ignore punishment.

IMHO puzzles in RPGs are dumb. It's not your fault in particular -- puzzles appear all over the place in fiction -- but to me, solving a puzzle is a solitary activity. It's entertaining to think about a puzzle when I'm reading a book by myself. But puzzles are a poor fit for interacting with other people in a social environment.

So, what I'd do is throw away the puzzles.

Instead, make the environment more social.
- Don't think in terms of "what doors have which traps".
- Do think about "what NPCs have which agendas".

Then, let the players interact with human(oid)s who have personalities and goals of their own. They can engage in social behavior while engaging in the game.


While I sympathise with your issue (one of the players in my group in particular - its like pulling teeth trying to get them to engage in anything other than combat and I'm not even the DM) the example you chose to give doesn't really show the problem you seem to be complaining about.

So...your player opened a door, assumed they missed a trap and took damage, shrugged as they missed a trap and carried on. Another player steps through the door, they realise there still a trap and resolved it. I'm not sure why you thought stressing that the door has a fancy door knocker would alert them to anything (and if you were hoping it would now you're just training your players to ignore anything you don't describe in detail). Really all your example demonstrates is that simple traps like this aren't very interesting nor do they typically make much sense.

kyoryu
2016-11-30, 05:02 PM
And nothing seems to really call out the oddities. The bandits are camped in a place with nothing to rob? Okay, then perhaps the bandit thugs should be griping about it...or talking about what it is they ARE there for, if they know. The leader's backstory involves an impossible task? Okay, cool, but why should the PCs care? What has made the "escape-proof place of exile" of interest to them? What has made the impossible task of escaping from it of interest?

...

All of this.

These things are interesting to the GM because the GM knows the *answer* to the mystery, and the *answer* is interesting. The *question* needs to be compelling as well.

Dragonexx
2016-11-30, 07:06 PM
One method of getting players engaged is to get them in on worldbuilding. Let the entire gaming group work together to add details to the campaign setting, from family members to hometowns, cities, and so forth. Perhaps not even directly related to their characters. Just get everyone in on creating a setting that's fun for the whole group.


The more player input you allow, the more interesting the characters are going to be. The more interesting the characters, the more fun everyone at the table is going to have.

Darth Ultron
2016-11-30, 07:48 PM
I've noticed this. The problem though is that I quickly run out of ideas when doing improv like that.

I know the popular theory is that an ''improv DM'' can create ''a whole campaign'' in like one second and it will be beyond amazing. In reality, that is just a dream however and is not true. A good DM plans ahead.


I guess I'll also work on making things interesting and unique,

This really, really might be the most important thing. A lot of DM's do the ''just like Earth a couple centuries ago'' and really describe the ''mud'' and ''dirt'' and such. And that would be fine or a historical game, but it does not work for all games.

For example: Vlornax is a city floating above a perpetually erupting volcano. It's hard and dangerous to get to and it's a dangerous place to live as the occasional laming rock hits the city. It does have all sorts of benefits too such as enhanced fire magic and templates. But in all it makes for a much more interesting place then ''this city is just like London on Earth was in 1200 AD.''

And the same goes for plots too. The ''save the princess'' and ''slay the dragon'' are classics, but they might not work for everyone. For example:

One of my plots had the PCs cloned and then told ''there can be only one of each of you and the winner gets the others power.'' This was an amazingly fast paced game, with no ''my character goes to a bar and pretends to drink'' stuff. The allure of a powerful character really can motivate a player. They were very focused and engaged to kill their clones....and some of them eventually did. A twist on this for another game was to ''cut'' the PC s in half and clone them, so the 10th level character became 5th level with a 5th level clone. Again the players were very motivated and engaged to ''get back their lost levels''

Finally, changing the game style might work too. My games are unfair and deadly to PCs, for example. Not everyone likes it, but those that do stay to game are engaged.....or, you know their PC dies in some unfair horrible way....so in the end it works.

Knaight
2016-11-30, 08:22 PM
I know the popular theory is that an ''improv DM'' can create ''a whole campaign'' in like one second and it will be beyond amazing. In reality, that is just a dream however and is not true. A good DM plans ahead.

Planning ahead doesn't mean not improvising. Specific types of plans of the series of events style don't work with improv, but plans that involve developing the setting in depth work just fine.

On top of that, nobody is suggesting that an improv DM creates a whole campaign in a second. For one thing half the point of an improv is that you don't create a whole campaign - you create the conditions for a campaign to emerge and gradually build it. For another, even really heavy improvisation usually assumes some initial time to developing the starting conditions, and that development continues throughout. It may not be written down, but it's there.

Darth Ultron
2016-11-30, 08:51 PM
Planning ahead doesn't mean not improvising. Specific types of plans of the series of events style don't work with improv, but plans that involve developing the setting in depth work just fine.

On top of that, nobody is suggesting that an improv DM creates a whole campaign in a second. For one thing half the point of an improv is that you don't create a whole campaign - you create the conditions for a campaign to emerge and gradually build it. For another, even really heavy improvisation usually assumes some initial time to developing the starting conditions, and that development continues throughout. It may not be written down, but it's there.

Yea, I've never seen a description yet of ''what'' an improv'' DM does. They don't just ''do nothing'' and just ''randomly make up stuff.'' Yet when someone says ''what'' the improv DM ''does'' it sounds a lot like pre-planning, plot making and story crating.

A lot like ''creating conditions for a campaign to emerge and gradually build it'' sounds great for a ''game 0'' where the characters will just wander around and encounter things, but after you build even a little it would seem the game would become ''a normal game with a plot and story''.

Knaight
2016-11-30, 09:37 PM
Yea, I've never seen a description yet of ''what'' an improv'' DM does. They don't just ''do nothing'' and just ''randomly make up stuff.'' Yet when someone says ''what'' the improv DM ''does'' it sounds a lot like pre-planning, plot making and story crating.

You've seen dozens of descriptions in thread after thread, they just get conveniently discounted because the description improv DMs provide of their own DMing conflict with what you insist improv must be and thus somehow don't count.


A lot like ''creating conditions for a campaign to emerge and gradually build it'' sounds great for a ''game 0'' where the characters will just wander around and encounter things, but after you build even a little it would seem the game would become ''a normal game with a plot and story''.
Case in point. Nowhere is just wandering around and encountering things mentioned, yet apparently anything other than that is a normal game with a plot and story. Sure there's no planned out plot, and the things that happen are responses to player action that wasn't planned by the DM (or if they continue on track responses to lack of player action not planned by the DM), and the DM has no idea of what the campaign will look like at the start, but apparently none of that is improvisation and as such this is not a description of what an improv DM does. Neither were the four different links I posted less than 10 posts prior.

Segev
2016-11-30, 09:59 PM
Yea, I've never seen a description yet of ''what'' an improv'' DM does. They don't just ''do nothing'' and just ''randomly make up stuff.'' Yet when someone says ''what'' the improv DM ''does'' it sounds a lot like pre-planning, plot making and story crating.

Amazingly, that's because they do do a lot of pre-planning and setting development. The one thing they don't do is define what the players will do. Whereas a railroad does.

They might have some "what if" thoughts as to probable ways the players will act, and what likely responses the world will have to that. But if the players surprise them, they have enough of the world set up that they can improvise a reaction that makes sense given what the DM knows about the world. And this isn't "random" any more than if the players decided that, rather than stay on the train, they'd like to jump off its roof while it moves, it's "random" for the DM to say, "Okay, you land and roll along with momentum until you come to a stop, and take [some amount of damage, which may or may not be lethal, based on rules of the game and how fast the train was moving, etc.]."

RazorChain
2016-11-30, 10:07 PM
Some times you have players who just don't take initative or an't think of anything to do beyond fight stuff.

There's a bandit hideout where there's nobody for the bandits to rob. Not interesting. The bandits have military style gear and use formation tactics. Not interesting. The leader is a known criminal who has escaped from the supposedly escape proof exile. Not interesting. In the locked and trapped treasure chest there's a old romance novel stuffed with loose bits of paper and notes. Not interesting. In the escape proof exile a town is being ruled by a second level commoner who is ruling a gang of thugs and assassins through terror and providing them with military armor and weapons from out of nowhere. Not interesting. There are secret tunnels under the town. Not interesting. DM gets bored and just skips to the next fight without explanation or narrative continuity. Oh, well that's good because the players were getting bored and needed more fights.


Sometimes you have reactive players....then you have to make stuff happen to them to prompt them along. I started with a group of new players not long ago and I had actually "condition" them to become more proactive. It can just stem from lack of experience or whatever but as the players grow then they might become more proactive.

If the OP is spending 1.5 hour on nothing while improvising then it's a clear case of where a man with a gun walks in. If they can't find adventure then let adventure find them. This may seem very railroady but some players need a little bit more structure than others.

Darth Ultron
2016-11-30, 10:22 PM
Amazingly, that's because they do do a lot of pre-planning and setting development. The one thing they don't do is define what the players will do. Whereas a railroad does.


Like I said, not using the loaded ''R'' word: the pre-planned game is exactly the same as the ''improv'' game, as described. Unless the ''improv'' game is just a wild random sandbox.

Knaight
2016-11-30, 10:43 PM
Like I said, not using the loaded ''R'' word: the pre-planned game is exactly the same as the ''improv'' game, as described. Unless the ''improv'' game is just a wild random sandbox.

If the game has the actions of the players planned then it's not the same. There's two types of planning being distinguished between here, one of which is the "this is the world as it is" type and the other one of which is the "this is what you will do and how the world will change because of it" type.

Telok
2016-11-30, 11:00 PM
If you want the fact the bandits are behaving oddly to be important, have the PCs' quest start off with somebody telling them that these bandits have set up camp somewhere where there's nothing to rob. The quest-giver is concerned about WHY they're there, and wants the PCs to find out. There, now the mystery is of interest to them beyond a "huh, that's weird" observation.

That's exactly what happened.

By the way, if I condense your post down to a one liner of "I don't like that." then it's not very compelling either. I try to give people the benefit of presuming that they at least generally know what they're doing. Since someone posting may be under a time or connection limit I presume that when they say something like "I gave the PCs a quest hook and they ignored it." that they actually did something that involved the roleplaying game and took more than five seconds and a single line of text to describe.

In my case this was started by a NPC asking them to help track down several wagons worth of weapons. The bandits were fifty miles from anywhere in a desolate badland in a fortified cave with stockpiles of food but only their own personal weapons. The treasure chest had about 15,000 gold pieces and that book. The party had to pass through the town of exiles and get back for later events and they knew they'd have to do so. They challenged the town thugs because they needed supplies and everyone was too scared to talk to them and the commoner's reign of terror was directly referenced and was affecting their ability to move on with their mission. They were told, directly to their faces that the town was riddles with secret tunnels that connected everywhere and then shown one of the entrances. This took place over three or four sessions in a row and was affecting their ability to accomplish anything in the area until they addressed it. In that campaign they never completed a major plot point there because they ignored everything and just waited for me to provide the next fight. These were not new players either, our particular group had been playing regularly for more than five years by this time.

Sometimes the players are just being passive and boring and can't manage anything more advanced than "Where is the next fight? I hit it with a stick." It's not always the DM.

Psikerlord
2016-11-30, 11:25 PM
I can't seem to get the players engaged in their adventure. They seem to be having fun and they all arrive on schedule and attend and such, but they just don't lead the adventure. The way I try to DM is let the players just do their thing to get to the objective. It's like trying to take a cat on a walk. Instead of them taking the reigns and just doing what they want (within the rules), I'm pretty much forced to physically drag them through the story. Here's an example of what they did on the weekend.

DM: You approach a door with a smiling face on it.
Chara 1: I'll open the door and walk in.
DM: Upon opening the door, you are hit with 4 lightning damage.
Chara 1: oh no, what ever shall I do. I'll walk into the room.
Chara 2: I'll also walk into the room.
DM: Chara 2 gets hit with 3 lightning damage as she walks past the smiling door.
Chara 3: I'll follow them.
DM: You glance at the smiling door as you pass it and get hit for 4 lightning damage. Maybe you might want to check out that door.
Chara 2: what should we do?
*Long silence*
Chara 1: Smash the door! *crushes the door with his hammer* Good. That's over with.

It's pretty frustrating. If they would just actually take things into their own hands and explore the environment, it wouldn't be a problem. I've tried giving them hints and they ignore it, and when I just introduce them to a room for example, they either just do what they need to and move on or just wait for me to tell them what to do.

hmm I actually dont see a problem in that example, they just arent really interesting in the trapped door, and moved past it ...?

Segev
2016-12-01, 01:09 AM
That's exactly what happened.

By the way, if I condense your post down to a one liner of "I don't like that." then it's not very compelling either. I try to give people the benefit of presuming that they at least generally know what they're doing. Since someone posting may be under a time or connection limit I presume that when they say something like "I gave the PCs a quest hook and they ignored it." that they actually did something that involved the roleplaying game and took more than five seconds and a single line of text to describe.Um, okay? I don't see how "I don't like that" is in what I wrote, but you certainly can paraphrase to the point of inaccuracy to make a "point," I guess.


In my case this was started by a NPC asking them to help track down several wagons worth of weapons. The bandits were fifty miles from anywhere in a desolate badland in a fortified cave with stockpiles of food but only their own personal weapons. The treasure chest had about 15,000 gold pieces and that book. The party had to pass through the town of exiles and get back for later events and they knew they'd have to do so. They challenged the town thugs because they needed supplies and everyone was too scared to talk to them and the commoner's reign of terror was directly referenced and was affecting their ability to move on with their mission. They were told, directly to their faces that the town was riddles with secret tunnels that connected everywhere and then shown one of the entrances. This took place over three or four sessions in a row and was affecting their ability to accomplish anything in the area until they addressed it. In that campaign they never completed a major plot point there because they ignored everything and just waited for me to provide the next fight. These were not new players either, our particular group had been playing regularly for more than five years by this time.While I obviously don't know what you did that is not written here, what IS written here...doesn't seem to connect the tunnels to anything related to their quandary. Now, perhaps you made it clear the town being riddled with tunnels was somehow responsible for the thugs being too scared to speak to them. I don't know how the thugs being scared hindered their mission, but it clearly did. Or they wouldn't have been stymied.


Sometimes the players are just being passive and boring and can't manage anything more advanced than "Where is the next fight? I hit it with a stick." It's not always the DM.Perhaps not. But "yeah, you have awful players" isn't advice that helps the DM solve the problem.

Darth Ultron
2016-12-01, 07:14 AM
If the game has the actions of the players planned then it's not the same. There's two types of planning being distinguished between here, one of which is the "this is the world as it is" type and the other one of which is the "this is what you will do and how the world will change because of it" type.

Right, DM one plans ahead and says ''the swamp orcs don't like others and will attack on sight'' the other DM, er, does not plan that but ''knows the swamp orcs so well that they will attack others on sight'' and somehow, you say that is different.....

Lorsa
2016-12-01, 07:32 AM
Yea, I've never seen a description yet of ''what'' an improv'' DM does. They don't just ''do nothing'' and just ''randomly make up stuff.'' Yet when someone says ''what'' the improv DM ''does'' it sounds a lot like pre-planning, plot making and story crating.

A lot like ''creating conditions for a campaign to emerge and gradually build it'' sounds great for a ''game 0'' where the characters will just wander around and encounter things, but after you build even a little it would seem the game would become ''a normal game with a plot and story''.

I'm guessing you have a problem with language, as in, understanding what the word "improvisation" means?

Let me help you: https://lmgtfy.com/?q=improvisation

As you can see, an improv DM creates things spontaneously or without preparation. Usually because of a time limit.

So, to put it simply, it depends on when in time the DM comes up with ideas, or makes decisions.

If a PC does something the DM did not anticipate then they could either:

1) Figure out the outcome of the PC action right then and there.
2) Take a break in the game, tell everyone to go to the shop (or go home), plan and prepare for what happens and then resume the game after all thinking is done.

The first option is called "improvising".

There are a few ways to limit the amount of improvisation that has to be done as a DM.

Preparation will by its very nature help reduce the amount of improvisation. So, if you have problem thinking on your feet, doing a lot of preparation is good. No amount of preparation can help you prevent all improvisation though. There will always be some required.

If that isn't good enough, railroading is the only thing that can bring improvisation down to almost zero (void, nothing).

So basically, the difference between a heavy improvisation DM and a heavy preparation DM might not be seen by the players, as long as the DM is actually good at doing one or the other. The difference between an improvisation null DM (railroading) and an improvisation DM is, usually, quite evident during play.


On a good day, when I am not stressed by work or other stuff, I could probably improvise an amazing campaign. It wouldn't be quite as amazing as one where I had done at least some planning, but it would leave my players satisfied.

Basically, I would just ask them "what kind of party / characters do you want" and while they are making them, I'd come up with the first adventure. While playing the first adventure, I would come up with the second, including potentially longer campaign arcs. Etc etc.

As for fights during the first adventure, I could easily improvise monster/NPC stats on the fly. I've told you how to do this once already, so won't bother with it.

It can be done. Maybe not by everyone, as it require training and experience (as do all things DM skill related).

Stealth Marmot
2016-12-01, 08:58 AM
Segev brings up essentially where I was going to go.

One of the things that people forget about D&D and other games like it is that they are in a world with orcs, magic, gibbering mouthers, unicorns, and the horrible offspring of Bowser and Godzilla.

How precisely, are they suppose to know what's weird?

If you just mention that the door is "smiling" Then they figure that's just a thing. Is a smiling door really that weird? I mean we see weirdly decorated doors all the time in the real world, why would a door with a grinning face on it be so unusual?

But if you say "The door has a weird sickly grin carved into it that you have never seen before. It creeps you out." then suddenly the player is informed "HEY! My character finds that unusual, maybe I should give it some consideration."

Framing is important in D&D. Remember, the players are blind, deaf and numb as far as your world goes outside of precisely what you tell them.

If you tell the players that there is a corpse, they won't be able to smell it until you tell them how horrid the stench is. The arrow won't sting until you give them a description of where and how it hits (though the hit point total may help). The players won't notice the fact that the guy has 2 baboon heads and tentacles for arms if you never mention it as a DM.

Players can get very sick of having to ask what they are seeing, and would rather let you instead tell them what they are seeing. Seeing, feeling, hearing, smelling and tasting are things we do without thinking about it 99% of the time, why should players have to keep reminding themselves to open their own eyes.

Thorin Ironfist
2016-12-01, 09:05 AM
hmm I actually dont see a problem in that example, they just arent really interesting in the trapped door, and moved past it ...?

The thing about it is that that's what they did for the entire adventure, not just that one door. If it was just the door encounter, I wouldn't have minded, but they've been doing that kind of thing for the whole thing.

Thorin Ironfist
2016-12-01, 09:08 AM
Framing is important in D&D. Remember, the players are blind, deaf and numb as far as your world goes outside of precisely what you tell them.

That's a really good point. It makes sense that adding more information of what they experience will help get them motivated and engaged.

Thinker
2016-12-01, 09:11 AM
Right, DM one plans ahead and says ''the swamp orcs don't like others and will attack on sight'' the other DM, er, does not plan that but ''knows the swamp orcs so well that they will attack others on sight'' and somehow, you say that is different.....

Having swamp orcs attack on sight is bad. It doesn't really give options to the players and doesn't have any suspense. Having swamp orcs be aggressive is another matter. Maybe they fire a warning shot and attack if the characters don't take heed. Maybe the characters try to negotiate or avoid the swamp altogether. Maybe the characters lure their enemies close to the swamp and use the orcs to chase them. I don't know, but aggressive = options. Attack on sight = no options. When there are options, it's impossible to account for everything that the players can do so that leads to improv. I might have the idea that the swamp orcs are aggressive, but I don't know how they'll react to everything (particularly since dice rolls will help inform that as well). The time taken to account for all the possibilities is monumental, especially since most of my games do not rely on the characters visiting any particular place (though I have some idea where they'll go since the players are pretty open with what they want to do). Good planning leads to good improv. Poor planning leads to no improv.

Marcotix
2016-12-01, 09:46 AM
Check out Angry GM 's wicked good article that seems to address your issues.

"Who’s Driving This Adventure Anyway"

It's a bit wordy (really kinda ranty) but the guy is brilliant and if you can get through the stuff you'll be better for it!

(I can't post links as I'm a newb here)

comk59
2016-12-01, 11:59 AM
Check out Angry GM 's wicked good article that seems to address your issues.

"Who’s Driving This Adventure Anyway"

It's a bit wordy (really kinda ranty) but the guy is brilliant and if you can get through the stuff you'll be better for it!

(I can't post links as I'm a newb here)

Yeah, Angry GM is fairly well known around here, so so I'm sure someone can post the link. He has some genuinely good advice, even if I disagree with him on quite a few things.

Segev
2016-12-01, 03:41 PM
Right, DM one plans ahead and says ''the swamp orcs don't like others and will attack on sight'' the other DM, er, does not plan that but ''knows the swamp orcs so well that they will attack others on sight'' and somehow, you say that is different.....The latter isn't something anybody's suggested as being different from the former.

"The swamp orcs don't like others, and will attack on sight" is fine for a sandbox. The improv comes in when the players decide to capture some of them, and make efforts to contact the swamp orcs in ways where "attack on sight" isn't an option.

If no amount of persuasive effort can possibly work, but the swamp orcs can be ignored and avoided, then they're more a force of nature than real and believable characters, but forces of nature aren't railroads.......until you force the players to engage with it in the way you want them to.

The improv enters in when the GM decides to make the swamp orcs have a modicum of character to them, and has to figure out how they react to PC efforts to engage with them non-violently. Or what they do when the PCs FORCE them to engage non-violently. What happens when the PCs decide to capture the swamp orcs that attack them, and tie them up? The DM has to improvise something, even if it's just "er, um, they just froth at the mouth and try everything they can to escape and won't talk to you at all."


The fact that you can't see a difference between the two things you list in the quote is unsurprising; there really isn't one. The fact that you think people are arguing against the first when they say the DM has the setting well-prepared indicates that you're still not grasping what others are saying. I'm really not sure how to help with this, as I don't know what point you think you're making.


The thing about it is that that's what they did for the entire adventure, not just that one door. If it was just the door encounter, I wouldn't have minded, but they've been doing that kind of thing for the whole thing.
Perhaps this is an unfair way to put it, but if we assume that the door example is indicative of the others, it still isn't surprising. Because if all the examples are like this one, there's still no hook in any of them to suggest there's something with which to engage. "Okay, we tripped another trap. It wasn't bad enough that we feel like we need to bother searching," is a valid response. That they aren't automatically assuming that unconnected descriptive elements of the dungeon are important to the traps is...unsurprising?

I mean, all we have is the door example here, but, what about a smiling face on a door indicates that the door or the smile or whatever it is is responsible for the electrical shocks? You didn't even describe where the electricity damage came from. (Now, where I would differ from your players is that I would have asked, because I like a better mental image of what's going on. But really, that should have been forthcoming unless the electrical arc was invisible for some reason.)

Darth Ultron
2016-12-01, 06:30 PM
The improv enters in when the GM decides to make the swamp orcs have a modicum of character to them,

I think this examples sums it up and I get it, (unreadable).

Like take most villains before 1990...why where they villains? Because they were evil. Take most modern villains and you get a long, sad story that ''made'' them become a villain. Some how, people think that makes them better villains. Sauron was evil as evil is awesome, Darth Vader was evil because..sob, just look at that sad, sad story that ''made'' him..sob.

Your looking at the game the same way. The giant ''can't'' just be evil and attack.....he needs to have some sort of sad story that made him a monster....

Segev
2016-12-01, 07:00 PM
I think this examples sums it up and I get it, (unreadable).

Like take most villains before 1990...why where they villains? Because they were evil. Take most modern villains and you get a long, sad story that ''made'' them become a villain. Some how, people think that makes them better villains. Sauron was evil as evil is awesome, Darth Vader was evil because..sob, just look at that sad, sad story that ''made'' him..sob.

Your looking at the game the same way. The giant ''can't'' just be evil and attack.....he needs to have some sort of sad story that made him a monster....
Er, no.

The swamp orcs can just plain be evil. This is you projecting something you don't like onto what I said and trying to make it about that so you can disagree with me about something you are pretending I said.

The difference between "swamp orcs attack on sight, and nothing the players do, at all, can possibly change that, even to the point of suicidal stupidity" and "the swamp orcs attack on sight as a general rule, but are still orcs who have a desire to live and have motives and ambitions and are PEOPLE (albeit evil people with little to make them sympathetic)" is vast. And neither requires "oh, it's so sad how they were driven to villainy, and you should save them from themselves.

But perhaps they can be bribed, if you find out what they want and can help them get it (or give it to them). Or they can be conquered and dominated through violence and threats. Or they can be killed often enough that they'll stop attacking YOUR party, but run away instead.