How to get the drop on stealthy players?

[Shaonir]

Looking for some advice as I return to the DM's Chariot.

I have players that are notoriously roguey. They take a step, roll Stealth, roll Perception, take another step, roll Stealth, roll Perception. They often assume they can sneak past anything, with enough recon and preparation, and if they ever roll badly they can just max out their speed with spells and feats in order to Speedy Gonzalez into the horizon.

I occasionally accuse them of sneaking away from the story, to which they have many "player agency" rebuttals. So that leaves me just ad-libbing and trying to unfold a story in which they are merely ninja observers. They even run off the map when a villain is monologuing.

So I'd like to gather some ideas about how to get my players INTO scenes without using force cages and cattleprods. How do I stop them screaming "I would've seen that coming!"?

[Dudewithknives]

Looking for some advice as I return to the DM's Chariot.

I have players that are notoriously roguey. They take a step, roll Stealth, roll Perception, take another step, roll Stealth, roll Perception. They often assume they can sneak past anything, with enough recon and preparation, and if they ever roll badly they can just max out their speed with spells and feats in order to Speedy Gonzalez into the horizon.

I occasionally accuse them of sneaking away from the story, to which they have many "player agency" rebuttals. So that leaves me just ad-libbing and trying to unfold a story in which they are merely ninja observers. They even run off the map when a villain is monologuing.

So I'd like to gather some ideas about how to get my players INTO scenes without using force cages and cattleprods. How do I stop them screaming "I would've seen that coming!"?

Step 1:

Stop trying to metagame against your players.

Step 2:

DND is not some cartoon or movie, villains should not stand around a monologue, it is just bad strategy.

Step 3:

Just make a plot reason to interact with someone not just to get from point A to point B. If it is a dungeon crawl type situation, stealthing past an enemy is good strategy.

[DivisibleByZero]

If it is a dungeon crawl type situation, stealthing past an enemy is good strategy.

I disagree with this.
Stealthing past enemies can indeed be a good strategy, but it is not so in a dungeon crawl type situation. Not if your DM has any common sense.
Blocking your only known escape route with enemies that you have yet to handle, who will most likely surround/flank you as soon as they hear combat behind them.... is not a good strategy.

Stealth can be a good strategy in a lot of different places. Dungeons usually aren't included in that list.

[solidork]

Make sure that the world continues to move around them without their intervention.

Figure out what they care about and then make the story about that.(You can just ask them. I personally find giving players the license to create parts of the world increases buy-in.)

Potentially try to tell a story (intrigue, espionage) that meshes more closely with what they seem to be interested in.

Try to lessen their paranoia by not including things that would have punished them had they not acted the way they do.

[Caelic]

Remember also that stealth, for most characters, is not compatible with speed. If the players have been sent in to stop the sacrifice of the Princess, and they move along at a snail's crawl, chances are they won't get there in time.

[Throne12]

I agree stop trying to make them play your story. This is something to talk about in session 0. Tell them " Hey guy I have this campaign story were you are going to need to Solve a murder. Or I have a story were the son of ex-bad guy is piss that city X hired a group of Adventures to kill his father. So now he is trying to fill his dad's Shoes and try and take Revenge on the city and the hero's family'.


Or you can to what I do throw them in a world. Give them a few hooks and let them bit on what they want. "Ok y'all are talking with a few members of the tooth and fang. They point out on the wooden table. Here about two day north west jack found a few ruins but wasn't able to check them out because of those blasted snow raptors, Over here one day north a few of loggers were looking for good timber but at night they been hearing there love ones call out to them at night the one that go looking haven't came back. Oi I also here branden was looking for someone to pick up some supplies from that small village over the mountain it about a week south of here. Aint that were hydra Roams around.

[DivisibleByZero]

I agree stop trying to make them play your story.

So now, when a DM has a story he worked hard on, and the players are, and I quote, "sneaking past the story," he should just abandon all his hard work and make it up as he goes?
That's your advice?
That's pretty much exactly what he's trying to avoid.

He isn't asking for ways to railroad. He's asking for ways to get them to play out, at least in some degree, his envisioned story without railroading. That's an admirable request for help.

Telling him to scrap all his work and go with the flow of whatever the players want is not helping.
Anyone who suggests that has obviously never spent the time and energy on what is essentially writing their own adventure path.

Some games are played in a sand box, where the players build teh story.
Some games are played in an amusement park, where the story exists and the players are riding the rides and seeing the attractions.
This is obviously the latter (as most story based games are), but you're telling him to make it the former (which is basically telling him not to play the game he designed).
The more of a story he has to start with, the more of a theme park it becomes, and the less of a sand box.
Simply telling him to make it more of a sand box is bad advice, and doesn't address his request at all.

[Shaonir]

So now, when a DM has a story he worked hard on, and the players are, and I quote, "sneaking past the story," he should just abandon all his hard work and make it up as he goes?
That's your advice?
That's pretty much exactly what he's trying to avoid.

He isn't asking for ways to railroad. He's asking for ways to get them to play out, at least in some degree, his envisioned story without railroading. That's an admirable request for help.

Telling him to scrap all his work and go with the flow of whatever the players want is not helping.
Anyone who suggests that has obviously never spent the time and energy on what is essentially writing their own adventure path.
I grant you 2000xp.

And yes, I'm aware that loluracontrolfreek is the Swift Action to take when reading this thread. But I'm asking how to tell a story when the players literally run away from everything and decide to watch things unfold from the airvents.

There's only so many times that I can have two guards standing around saying: "Hey, I heard the boss is actually a sympathetic character who was born a tiefling and then took up a path of repentance after horribly scarring the butcher's daughter. Also, how 'bout that chimera with low perception that knows all the secrets?"

The risk here is that I get to a scene where something actually happens before their eyes, and they don't know WHY it happened.

Imagine Star Wars, if Luke was so stealthy that he didn't need Han to get him off-planet, and he just rescued Leia without Vader realizing, and then a Death Star just kinda shows up near the rebel base, and he destroys it by flying a single ship to the Death Sphincter. After all, he's using the Force, and that's how he wants to play his character.

Things need to go wrong - and go wrong in a way that doesn't feel like Luke's getting shat on by an angry god.

I was hoping to collect some such ideas from you fine fellows.

[mephnick]

I have players that are notoriously roguey. They take a step, roll Stealth, roll Perception, take another step, roll Stealth, roll Perception.

Well to start with this isn't how stealth works. You only roll Stealth when you (the DM) decides that failing a Stealth roll would have consequences. D&D isn't WoW or Skyrim, you can't enter Stealth mode and then proceed. You have to declare your intention and stick to it. You also need cover (or obscurement depending on race) to even have a possibility to Stealth in the first place. A level 20 rogue still isn't getting to roll Stealth in a torch-lit hallway with no cover. You also don't get to make Perception checks unless the DM calls for it (outside of combat).

It's more:

Player: "I attempt to keep to the bushes in the shadows along the walls of the city to stay out of sight."
DM: "OK, you follow the wall for a bit...about 100 feet from the main gate you see a group of guards on patrol headed your way. Are you still attempting to stay out of sight and slip by or do you change your plan?"
Player: "Yeah, I'll stay quiet and try and slip by while they pass."
DM: "Ok, roll a Stealth check."
Player: "13"
DM: "The guard in the lead looks in your direction and you hear him shout 'Who goes there?!' ...What do you do?"


You don't call for Stealth checks until something happens that necessitates a success or fail.

[Blood of Gaea]

What about adding in characters in response to these sneaky events? The villains have to be realizing that this is happening under their nose right? Bring in monsters and humanoids that can deal with stealth, Blindsense, Divination, that sort of stuff. If your party leave behind any sort of evidence, make sure at least one tracking group gets sent after them.

Basically, try to make minimal changes to your setting while allowing the bad guys to have ways of dealing with the party.


You don't call for Stealth checks until something happens that necessitates a success or fail.
Seconding this, it's quite important.

[Shaonir]

Well to start with this isn't how stealth works. You only roll Stealth when you (the DM) decides that failing a Stealth roll would have consequences. D&D isn't WoW or Skyrim, you can't enter Stealth mode and then proceed. You have to declare your intention and stick to it. You also need cover (or obscurement depending on race) to even have a possibility to Stealth in the first place. A level 20 rogue still isn't getting to roll Stealth in a torch-lit hallway with no cover. You also don't get to make Perception checks unless the DM calls for it (outside of combat).

It's more:

Player: "I attempt to keep to the bushes in the shadows along the walls of the city to stay out of sight."
DM: "OK, you follow the wall for a bit...about 100 feet from the main gate you see a group of guards on patrol headed your way. Are you still attempting to stay out of sight and slip by or do you change your plan?"
Player: "Yeah, I'll stay quiet and try and slip by while they pass."
DM: "Ok, roll a Stealth check."
Player: "13"
DM: "The guard in the lead looks in your direction and you hear him shout 'Who goes there?!' ...What do you do?"


You don't call for Stealth checks until something happens that necessitates a success or fail.
Yeah, but what about a Ranger sneaking through a forest and constantly trying to hide their tracks and make no noise so that all the creatures around him don't notice. Or a rogue sneaking through the streets of a wartorn city where soldiers are everywhere. These characters are essentially in constant stealth mode, tiptoeing across my entire map. :(

[Shaonir]

What about adding in characters in response to these sneaky events? The villains have to be realizing that this is happening under their nose right? Bring in monsters and humanoids that can deal with stealth, Blindsense, Divination, that sort of stuff. If your party leave behind any sort of evidence, make sure at least one tracking group gets sent after them.

Basically, try to make minimal changes to your setting while allowing the bad guys to have ways of dealing with the party.
Yeah, that tends to be my usual solution. It just really sucks when you have to change a great NPC, like a Black Knight who challenges people to duels, into a ninja or a profound magic user in order to just hold down a wriggling PC for long enough to explain WHY he's a Black Knight who goes around challenging people to duels. It gets exhausting.

[Blood of Gaea]

Yeah, but what about a Ranger sneaking through a forest and constantly trying to hide their tracks and make no noise so that all the creatures around him don't notice. Or a rogue sneaking through the streets of a wartorn city where soldiers are everywhere. These characters are essentially in constant stealth mode, tiptoeing across my entire map. :(
Put them in a situation where they simply don't have enough time to do that without losing out on something. Force them to take risks or lose something. Perhaps someone is kidnapped and will be taken by a fast carriage to another city. They could catch up to the carriage, but only at a swift pace.

[mephnick]

Yeah, but what about a Ranger sneaking through a forest and constantly trying to hide their tracks and make no noise so that all the creatures around him don't notice. Or a rogue sneaking through the streets of a wartorn city where soldiers are everywhere. These characters are essentially in constant stealth mode, tiptoeing across my entire map. :(

You narrate them doing that and have them roll Stealth checks when something bad might happen if they fail. If they try and stealth through multiple groups of hostiles they are going to fail eventually. You do not let them roll Stealth checks and then let their roll affect their plans. They have to attempt something (ie sneaking through a group of sleeping bugbears) to get a roll.

I'm assuming they aren't with their party when making these rolls unless everyone is stealthy, so even if they succeed 4/5 stealth checks they're probably dead anyway. If they do manage to sneak through the entire world than good on them and their blessed dice.

As a minor point, hiding tracks is Survival.

[Blood of Gaea]

Yeah, that tends to be my usual solution. It just really sucks when you have to change a great NPC, like a Black Knight who challenges people to duels, into a ninja or a profound magic user in order to just hold down a wriggling PC for long enough to explain WHY he's a Black Knight who goes around challenging people to duels. It gets exhausting.
Why change him in particular? Perhaps the one he serves creates/summons/recruits a pack of magical tracking hounds for him to use. This would make sneaking more challenging, as well as escaping much more difficult.

Your group is putting your villains on edge with all that's happening under their nose, allow the villains to respond in ways to challenge that.

A magical item, special ability, support from certain magic users, and other things like that could also be used here.

[mephnick]

tracking hounds

Also this. Dogs and things with advantage on Perception put the hold on super stealthy Mr. Ninja pretty fast. It's not even metagaming as a DM, one of the key reasons humanity bred dogs is to keep watch, track prey and follow patrols.

[Blood of Gaea]

Also this. Dogs and things with advantage on Perception put the hold on super stealthy Mr. Ninja pretty fast. It's not even metagaming as a DM, one of the key reasons humanity bred dogs is to keep watch, track prey and follow patrols.
Also, animals that track by scent should have little problem with a Ranger covering their tracks, the Ranger would need to adopt different methods, like swimming downriver to lose their scent.

[Shaonir]

You narrate them doing that and have them roll Stealth checks when something bad might happen if they fail. If they try and stealth through multiple groups of hostiles they are going to fail eventually. You do not let them roll Stealth checks and then let their roll affect their plans. They have to attempt something (ie sneaking through a group of sleeping bugbears) to get a roll.

I'm assuming they aren't with their party when making these rolls unless everyone is stealthy, so even if they succeed 4/5 stealth checks they're probably dead anyway. If they do manage to sneak through the entire world than good on them and their blessed dice.

As a minor point, hiding tracks is Survival.
Yeah, my players tend to spam the Perception and Stealth macros after every action. So I guess the key is to slap their hands away from the keyboard.

And yes, often times it's one-to-three members of the party who break away and do sneaky stuff, thus forcing me to run dual narratives.

For example, one group stays to distract the guards via conversation. The other group sneak past the guards, and then learn things that allow the other group to subtly change the way they are distracting the guards via out-of-character knowledge (they think they're just making the story cool by doing this). But the narrative I planned was to specifically use the guards to foreshadow things and give important information that sets up the rooms they are guarding. As it stands, the sneaky group are now already in those rooms, with no narrative setup, and the things they find seem pale and hollow without the context established. So I therefore have to modify both scenes to keep a sense of storytelling atmosphere.

[DivisibleByZero]

Also this. Dogs and things with advantage on Perception put the hold on super stealthy Mr. Ninja pretty fast. It's not even metagaming as a DM, one of the key reasons humanity bred dogs is to keep watch, track prey and follow patrols.
Also, animals that track by scent should have little problem with a Ranger covering their tracks, the Ranger would need to adopt different methods, like swimming downriver to lose their scent.

I like this.
You can have the players sneak into an encampment or to the end of something, just like they will anyway, and after defeating the "boss" of that they find that he (and others in the area) just received instructions to get some hounds, because it has become obvious that enemies have been infiltrating their camps/bases/whatever for quite some time.
When you want the players to follow along, the enemies in the area have 'hounded-up' so to speak. When ylou feel that they could use some love, the enemies have not done so.

It's a bit railroady, but the enemy is only reacting to the party's tactics, which is logical.

[Potato_Priest]

It sounds to me like the problem is less so the fact that players are using a lot of stealth, and more so that they're using it to be massive cowards. The best way to solve this problem is probably to talk to them about it out of character and inform them that you're not trying to kill them, you're trying to integrate them into the game world.

See what kind of a story they want, so that when you try to provide it they will either enjoy it and actually engage or you'll get a better negotiating position when they sneak away from the game that they asked for.

[Blood of Gaea]

Yeah, my players tend to spam the Perception and Stealth macros after every action. So I guess the key is to slap their hands away from the keyboard.

And yes, often times it's one-to-three members of the party who break away and do sneaky stuff, thus forcing me to run narratives.

For example, one group stays to distract the guards via conversation. The other group sneak past the guards, and then learn things that allow the other group to subtly change the way they are distracting the guards via out-of-character knowledge (they think they're just making the story cool by doing this). But the narrative I planned was to specifically use the guards to foreshadow things and give important information that sets up the rooms they are guarding. As it stands, the sneaky group are now already in those rooms, with no narrative set up, and the things they find seem pale and hollow without the build-up. So I therefore have to modify both scenes to keep the sense of storytelling atmosphere.
They can sneak, and look about for things if they want, just remember to only let them roll when the skill is being challenged. They can sneak through an entire dungeon, but they'll need to be the enemies passive perception everything they sneak past some with a stealth roll, and their active perception rolls if the enemies are actively searching for them.

If they chill in a room and just start spamming perception to find out secrets, have a patrol come by. And you bad guys should definitely have pretty decent patrols at this point.

Also, you really should consider putting your foot down on them using OoC knowledge, that's a bit silly in a stealth group.

[Thrudd]

You need to take environmental factors into consideration when dealing with stealth and perception. These are not magical abilities. You can't stealth your way across a flat sunlit field. You can't hide in a well-lit room without large objects to hide behind. So there's that.
In some situations you can simply tell them there is no opportunity to hide- the best they can do is move silently.

Also, perception should be mostly passive, the players shouldn't be rolling constantly and demanding that you tell them what's ahead- it isn't divination.

Moving slowly, stealthily, and listening/watching carefully is a strategy they should be able to use, it makes sense. But moving at that slow pace should have drawbacks- this being that rolls for random encounters keyed to the passage of time will make facing random encounters more likely for them. Good perception means they might not be surprised by the attacks, but it doesn't mean that there isn't an attack. Good stealth might mean they get a surprise round on the bad guys, but situations where they can completely bypass something without retreating wouldn't/shouldn't be the norm.

If you are running the game as a series of events/pre planned battles in a sequence (story mode) rather than locations populated with hazards, then you can't apply stealth and perception that way. You should define what successful stealth and perception allows them to achieve in each scenario. They get one roll for each situation, not repeated attempts. If you don't want them to be able to bypass an encounter, then just make it impossible.

[MintyNinja]

Suggestion for a Dungeon:

PCs need to get Magic McGuffin in center of dungeon.
They stealth there, leaving behind many monsters.
When they pick up Magical McGuffin, all monsters are drawn towards them.
PCs must now fight overwhelming odds because of their own sneakiness.

I'll admit that this is the purview of a spiteful GM.

[Potato_Priest]

Suggestion for a Dungeon:

PCs need to get Magic McGuffin in center of dungeon.
They stealth there, leaving behind many monsters.
When they pick up Magical McGuffin, all monsters are drawn towards them.
PCs must now fight overwhelming odds because of their own sneakiness.

I'll admit that this is the purview of a spiteful GM.

If you tell them/somehow hint to them that this will happen beforehand, it's not spite but rather an interesting tactical challenge. :smallwink:

[Shaonir]

Also, perception should be mostly passive, the players shouldn't be rolling constantly and demanding that you tell them what's ahead- it isn't divination.

I'm guessing that's not written in stone anywhere, and is more something that should be house ruled, e.g.

"You cannot be a bundle of nerves on a hair-trigger for the entire session. You WILL drop your guard, and your normal state while travelling is HALF-AWARE, because god damn it, this is how life works."

[Blood of Gaea]

I'm guessing that's not written in stone anywhere, and is more something that should be house ruled, e.g.

"You cannot be a bundle of nerves on a hair-trigger for the entire session. You WILL drop your guard, and your normal state while travelling is HALF-AWARE, because god damn it, this is how life works."
Particularly in a situation where they might have to roll with disadvantage, don't forget dice roll of 9 or less is actually worse than their passive Perception score.

[solidork]

And yes, I'm aware that loluracontrolfreek is the Swift Action to take when reading this thread. But I'm asking how to tell a story when the players literally run away from everything and decide to watch things unfold from the airvents.

Set up situations where they have to intervene or something they don't want will happen. Telegraph these consequences with giant glowing letters and pull the trigger if they ignore it.

If the problem is that they just don't care about anything, that is a player buy-in problem and should be handled OOC, ideally before you even start making the game. Present your (completely legitimate) issue that you are putting a lot of work in preparing a game for them only for them to ignore it and ask what you could do differently to get them invested.

[DivisibleByZero]

I'm guessing that's not written in stone anywhere, and is more something that should be house ruled, e.g.

Not really.
The players do not call for checks. The DM does.
PHB, 174:
The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results.

So the players do not state "I am rolling stealth." The players state that they are sneaking.
When it comes time for a check, you initiate it, not them. If you decide that it's passive, then it is. If you decide that they should roll, then they do.
The ball is in your court, not theirs.

The players should never roll a single die unless you tell them to. They don't tell you when a die roll is necessary. You tell them when a die roll is necessary.
I mean, they can say they're rolling stuff all night long, but it only matters if you make it matter.

[Shaonir]

If the problem is that they just don't care about anything, that is a player buy-in problem and should be handled OOC, ideally before you even start making the game. Present your (completely legitimate) issue that you are putting a lot of work in preparing a game for them only for them to ignore it and ask what you could do differently to get them invested.

Yeah, I think the issue is that I've been playing with the same group for too long, and there is a standard expectation that plot will descend upon them like a force from on high, between combats, and that they will just have to sit there making snarky comments until the cutscene ends. They assume that my plots are high concept and overly emotional, and thus not really relevant to the beer-swilling slapstick character they've made.

But if I hold off on railroading them, they just sit around making jokes. I've tried before to get them to proactively steer the plot with me, but they seem to lose interest in an idea once I start working it into a narrative, and then they fall back to waiting-for-the-cutscene-to-enditis.

I can never seem to get character concepts from people which involve actual growth. It's always "I wanna play this cool guy who kills people and has addiction problems, and he doesn't take **** from anyone, and he's always wise-cracking." And when the novelty of that wears off after one session, they supplement by complaining about all the "DM Events" that I'm bothering them with as I try to cram their Han Solos into my Game of Thrones.

[Throne12]

So now, when a DM has a story he worked hard on, and the players are, and I quote, "sneaking past the story," he should just abandon all his hard work and make it up as he goes?
That's your advice?
That's pretty much exactly what he's trying to avoid.

He isn't asking for ways to railroad. He's asking for ways to get them to play out, at least in some degree, his envisioned story without railroading. That's an admirable request for help.

Telling him to scrap all his work and go with the flow of whatever the players want is not helping.
Anyone who suggests that has obviously never spent the time and energy on what is essentially writing their own adventure path.

Some games are played in a sand box, where the players build teh story.
Some games are played in an amusement park, where the story exists and the players are riding the rides and seeing the attractions.
This is obviously the latter (as most story based games are), but you're telling him to make it the former (which is basically telling him not to play the game he designed).
The more of a story he has to start with, the more of a theme park it becomes, and the less of a sand box.
Simply telling him to make it more of a sand box is bad advice, and doesn't address his request at all.

No I been there I had a story for them and they didn't want that. I tried all kind of hooks to pull them in but nothing. If a DM has a story and need! His players to follow his story. Then he should just write a book. Because no matter how many hooks he throw out they arnt bitting. Find a new pond or get a different bait. I have found that if you want your players to follow a story get there characters backstory involved.

[Throne12]

Yeah, I think the issue is that I've been playing with the same group for too long, and there is a standard expectation that plot will descend upon them like a force from on high, between combats, and that they will just have to sit there making snarky comments until the cutscene ends. They assume that my plots are high concept and overly emotional, and thus not really relevant to the beer-swilling slapstick character they've made.

But if I hold off on railroading them, they just sit around making jokes. I've tried before to get them to proactively steer the plot with me, but they seem to lose interest in an idea once I start working it into a narrative, and then they fall back to waiting-for-the-cutscene-to-enditis.

I can never seem to get character concepts from people which involve actual growth. It's always "I wanna play this cool guy who kills people and has addiction problems, and he doesn't take **** from anyone, and he's always wise-cracking." And when the novelty of that wears off after one session, they supplement by complaining about all the "DM Events" that I'm bothering them with as I try to cram their Han Solos into my Game of Thrones.

Well that's your problem there they want a beer and Pretzils game and you want Novel of the year award story. There are tons of players that are willing to play your Game of Thrones game find a new group. Or run something they want to play. I would try some good old dungeon crawling.

[Shaonir]

Not so easy when their backstory is, "I wander from town-to-town, killing things for gold, and I like to drink at the tavern after a hard day's killing. The cops are after me, but I'm too smart for them, cos I roll Stealth and Perception after each breath. Not that I need to breathe, cos I'm a Dragon-Blooded Fish Man from Acheron who just teleports oxygen and nutrients directly into my bloodstream."

[Shaonir]

Hmm... I've started ranting. Yes. New players who I can trick into not resenting me is probably the way forward here.

[Easy_Lee]

One simple solution is to use dragons. Their high movement speed and blindsight mean that both running and hiding are unlikely to work. I'm surprised that no one recommended dragons yet.

[Sjappo]

It has been said, but
Not really.
The players do not call for checks. The DM does.
PHB, 174:
The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results.
So I would suggest ignoring all rolls you didn't ask for. You need to break them of the habit of rolling in advance. Be upfront about that. Tell them you will be ignoring every roll that hasn't been called for.

Further, some things are impossible. All attempts will fail. So no roll is needed, because it cannot be done. Like sneaking past two guards who are in an entrance to the castle, which is also blocked by a closed door. Which makes it especially important to ignore all uncalled rolls for players will point to the natural 20 they managed to produce.

Still, you problem seems to go deeper. Do you have enough player buy-in? Do they want to play the story you made? Do they enjoy it so far? If so explain to them that their current play style will cause them to miss much of the story and make the game less enjoyable for you as DM. Maybe let them rebuild their PC's to be less stealthy. See if they will work with you to solve this disconnect.

Also, can you on your side change your scenes so that sneaking will be harder and splitting the group would be very dangerous. I mean, two hard encounters, one at the entrance of a whatever and one inside, triggering at the same time because someone failed a stealth, persuation, lockpick, climb, deception check will prove to be ... intense.

[Waterdeep Merch]

I'd say, play to the party's preferred method of play. If they want to sneak around everywhere and search for everything, that seems like the perfect opportunity to leave clues, important documents, and plot-important details alongside the treasure they want. Build dungeons like bank vaults, treat the players like they're in a heist film. Make them desire your Macguffin. Print out copies of each document they find and physically hand it to them, let them read it aloud. Make all the really good details difficult to spot and in hard to reach places. Challenge them to be even better sneaks.

[Shaonir]

Still, you problem seems to go deeper. Do you have enough player buy-in? Do they want to play the story you made? Do they enjoy it so far?I think that's the root of the issue. There's this lethargic acceptance among my group of friends that I'm the only one committed enough to DM multiple sessions, and that in order to play their lolsoawsum characters they will have to endure me trying to set up epic themes and emotional dilemmas, but as long as they at least type a one-liner now and then I'll let them eventually get through the scene so they can go back to being cool guys.


Also, can you on your side change your scenes so that sneaking will be harder and splitting the group would be very dangerous. I mean, two hard encounters, one at the entrance of a whatever and one inside, triggering at the same time because someone failed a stealth, persuation, lockpick, climb, deception check will prove to be ... intense.Yeah, hopefully that logic will hold as I play more 5th Ed. I've been burned by Pathfinder, where a single character will reach Level 5 and suddenly be able to vanish in a puff of their own farts and evade everything with a +59 to Stealth because their great grandmother was a sylph. I have too many players who simply have zero fear of running off the map and doing their own solo adventure.

But if I voice these concerns, they will tell me that it's bad form to build a story upon fear. You need to let your characters be cool, even when it means they will go absolutely nowhere and just be stuck in an infinite Joss Whedon loop of witty one-liners, mook splatting, and Stealth rolls.

[Demonslayer666]

Shriekers, traps, Alarm spell, Alert feat...

[DeadMech]

Out in the wilds any monsters that exist or that are randomly encountered are just that. Monsters. A stealthy party can certainly avoid those encounters if they wish but that only accomplishes one thing. Keeping the party from dealing with them. A monster is still going to be a monster. It's going to attack people, disrupt trade, prevent farmers from tending crops leading to starvation. If your party considers themselves good people you should make them aware of the consequences of inaction. Even if they don't consider themselves good people they are still going to care how these consequences impact people close to or at least useful to them. At the same time reward them for dealing with those roaming monsters. It might not be loot drops or even bounties. But the locals in an area should be very thankful your party has dealt with the beasts and do what they can to make their lives easier even if that is only a roof over their heads when they pass through. It's not that you don't want them to be stealthy either. Let them use that stealth to learn something about the monster through observation and let them pick a moment of attack that gives them some kind of advantage. That is the point of stealth after all. The only times you should be avoiding a fight is if it's one that you can't win or if getting into it runs too much risk of stopping you from achieving some more important goal.

Meanwhile intelligent foes who don't want to be snuck up on are going to have taken countermeasures against it. Manned alarm bells are going to be installed in strategic points inside as well as outside of the perimeter defenses, guard dogs, maybe even a wand of dancing lights or some other method of sending signals over vast distances. Lairs aren't going to be built with convenient bushes people can hide in all the way up to the entrance, halls aren't going to be built with hundreds of alcoves and pillars. There are going to be places that a party is going to have to approach where they can not feasibly hide and someone is always looking. That's not to say every place is going to be built like an impregnable maximum security prison. A party that uses stealth might still take less defended routes, disable alarm bells or even purposefully set off false alarms to lure groups mobile patrols away from where they are trying to go. And when they succeed they should be rewarded for doing so. Of course penetrating too deep into a lair without taking out the layers of defense behind them may well have consequences. Really it should be harder to rationalize why non-stealth parties are able to function at all. They should be getting swarmed every time they noisily blunder into an area attracting every enemy in a wide radius as they jingle and clank about.

But really I don't understand how story and stealth are mutually exclusive. Being sneaky is one of the best ways to gather information. It allows people to overhear conversations where wouldn't otherwise be privy to. It allows them to find written records before they are burned by someone who doesn't want their documents discovered. How does walking up to and fighting guards give hints to the room they are guarding? They have no reason to tell people whats ahead. In fact it's in their interest to lie or say nothing. Why are villains monologing? I get that cowardice might be mutually exclusive to story. If they run away every time a stealthy approach fails. But their enemies shouldn't be giving them infinite chances to sneak up and run away. If a party approaches an enemy lair and has to retreat then whatever is there for the party might be moved elsewhere before the next attempt. Prisoners, treasure, villain masterminds. Why would they remain in a place the enemy knows you are probing for weakness or staging an attack against?

[Shaonir]

But really I don't understand how story and stealth are mutually exclusive.I think the distinction is between story and plot here. I agree that the plot can be fully uncovered via stealth. But story and character development suffer.

Imagine Lord of the Rings, if Frodo just kept on hiding from everything, and there was no subplot with Aragorn and Chums. He would never have been stabbed by the Ringwraith, meaning no need to stay with the Elves, meaning no formal declaration of the Ring Quest, and no new companions. He would've snuck through the Dwarven Mine without alerting the goblins or the balrog, meaning no need for Gandalf to sacrifice himself, and thus no need for Aragorn to step up as the party leader. The journey down the river would have been conducted in perfect stealth, with no orc skirmishes. He would've kept all the companions he wanted to, and avoided Gollum while entering Mordor. Then no side-tracking through Shelob's Lair, and instead a sneaky trek to Mount Doom.

Sure... that's still a plot, and it's still a story. But is it the BEST of stories... and is it worth all that world building and NPC depiction if the dude doesn't suffer any setback beyond "Man, my feet are tired from all this tiptoeing."

I'm just not built for running stories where conflict and defeat aren't the primary tool for revealing character. But I seem to be stuck with players who fiercely resent being forced to reveal their character in this way.

[Sjappo]

Right, follow-up question. Why do your players have no fear of running of the map? Have they been burned by you or a previous DM?

Anecdote: when I started to DM with my current group the players took ages investigating every door and window for traps, poison needles and what not, grinding the game to a halt. Seemed a former DM of them was a big fan of killer traps. Like save-or-die or even no-save-just-die traps. It took me a year to get them to not check every door and trust in me to give hints for traps. And have them not be instantly fatal.

Anyway, is there some history there that you are aware of? Maybe you need to gain their trust again. Have them get into fights which are hard, but not to hard, survivable and a with possibilities for their PC's to do cool things. Sneakers like to sneak attack, so have lots of cover. Some hard to reach ranged attackers for your archers and mages. Things like that.

Right, I read this:

I'm just not built for running stories where conflict and defeat aren't the primary tool for revealing character. But I seem to be stuck with players who fiercely resent being forced to reveal their character in this way.

Character growth is maybe a lot to ask, even from the best bunch of players. If you want to strive to that you might want to include some in game incentives for them to have their character grow. The 5e inspiration system stinks but it is something. Angry has had some thoughts about them recently as well. (http://theangrygm.com/fix-yourself-break-the-game/)

[CursedRhubarb]

Have you tried illusions? You can roll perception all you want but even a 20 on perception won't see through an illusion, that takes an Investigation roll and a good Int. Try things like hiding additional guards in areas with an illusion of a wall, suit of armor, painting, drapes, etc. to hide them behind. They may fool the guard next to the door, but walk right in front of the 2-3 hidden away directly across the hall from the door.

Also, Gelatinous Cubes in the air ducts. With cramped space and limited movement in there the janitors will chase them out and they will think twice before taking the vents again.

[DeadMech]

Imagine Lord of the Rings

DM of the Rings is pretty much my example of why lord of the rings is not a D&D campaign you should be trying to create. I'm actually getting pretty tired of people telling me b-but that's not how Aragon would have done things. Lord of the Rings is a book, everything that existed in it and everything that transpired were under control of a single person. D&D is not a book.

Frodo and his his gang were constantly trying to stealth through the lord of the rings as well so I'm not even sure it's an example you should be grabbing for regardless. The issue was that they were inexperienced scrubs and kept screwing it up. Lighting a campfire like a beacon while hiding in some ruins, dropping stuff down a well in Moria, playing with magic items they didn't understand. And wasn't Shelob's lair a result of trying to take a stealthy route. It was that or try to pass through the front gates. The whole Aragon leading an army to the gates was explicitly splitting the party and using distraction tactics to let the stealthy characters get to their objective unhindered like you complain about your players doing in your campaign.

[Shaonir]

DM of the Rings is pretty much my example of why lord of the rings is not a D&D campaign you should be trying to create. I'm actually getting pretty tired of people telling me b-but that's not how Aragon would have done things. Lord of the Rings is a book, everything that existed in it and everything that transpired were under control of a single person. D&D is not a book.

Frodo and his his gang were constantly trying to stealth through the lord of the rings as well so I'm not even sure it's an example you should be grabbing for regardless. The issue was that they were inexperienced scrubs and kept screwing it up. Lighting a campfire like a beacon while hiding in some ruins, dropping stuff down a well in Moria, playing with magic items they didn't understand. And wasn't Shelob's lair a result of trying to take a stealthy route. It was that or try to pass through the front gates. The whole Aragon leading an army to the gates was explicitly splitting the party and using distraction tactics to let the stealthy characters get to their objective unhindered like you complain about your players doing in your campaign.

*backs away from Lord of the Rings slowly*

o_o

[Easy_Lee]

The point about LOTR is a good one. DnD is not like a book. You as the DM setup the world while your players setup their characters and backstories. What follows is not a narrative, but a series of responses. The players respond to the DM's world, and the DM's world responds to the players.

If your players don't respond to your world the way you expect them to, that's not a bad thing. The decision you must make is this: will your world permit the players to behave as they do, or will it attempt to punish them for it?

[Shaonir]

I feel I should reiterate that I'm not trying to replicate Lo-- *glances at DeadMech*... the L- movie. Nor am I trying to shove my serialized novel down anyone's throat. This is not about a raging DM who is failing to have his epic saga brought to life by his peons.

I'm talking about the basics of storytelling, challenged by a culture in which the assumed protagonists become insulated observers, taking no direct action and eluding direct conflict with the forces arrayed against them.

What ideas do you all have for handling parties that are stuck in the Sneak-Sneak-Flee-Sneak-Flee-Sneak-Sneak paradigm?

Yes yes, I know - I'm a terrible DM and I should kill myself. But apart from that...?

[Angelalex242]

I feel I should reiterate that I'm not trying to replicate Lo-- *glances at DeadMech*... the L- movie. Nor am I trying to shove my serialized novel down anyone's throat. This is not about a raging DM who is failing to have his epic saga brought to life by his peons.

I'm talking about the basics of storytelling, challenged by a culture in which the assumed protagonists become insulated observers, taking no direct action and eluding direct conflict with the forces arrayed against them.

What ideas do you all have for handling parties that are stuck in the Sneak-Sneak-Flee-Sneak-Flee-Sneak-Sneak paradigm?

Yes yes, I know - I'm a terrible DM and I should kill myself. But apart from that...?

Put a save the world plot together. And point out, delicately, during Session 0, that if the world isn't saved, it's GAME OVER. Can't play without a world.

[DeadMech]

LOL I think i came off a bit aggro.

[Shaonir]

LOL I think i came off a bit aggro.Just like when the Hobbits first met Strider in Lord of the Rings. Right? Remember that part? That was a good part. I try to replicate it in all my roleplays, via pre-scripted cutscenes.

[Sigreid]

Minstrels should start composing ballads from their kraven actions. Think Sir Robin from Monty Pythons holy grail.

[Shaonir]

Minstrels should start composing ballads from their kraven actions. Think Sir Robin from Monty Pythons holy grail.

The minstrels would have to spot them first. The party is custom-built to avoid the mainstream media.

[OldTrees1]

What ideas do you all have for handling parties that are stuck in the Sneak-Sneak-Flee-Sneak-Flee-Sneak-Sneak paradigm


If the Players are looking for a stealthy game, have you considered a plot that takes advantage of that tendency, helps refine their expectations, and is a compromise you all would enjoy?

If the Players are not looking for a stealthy game, have you considered why they think you are telling them to be stealthy? Do they think their characters are more fragile than you wanted them to believe? Is there a mismatch in the expected fragility?

Sometimes a DM's job is about finding what story everyone wants to be playing.
Sometimes a DM's job is about communicating that the story is that story that everyone wants to be playing.
(Obviously "everyone" includes the DM and the other Players)

[Sigreid]

The minstrels would have to spot them first. The party is custom-built to avoid the mainstream media.

Surely some bad guys have seen them run and would find it worth a hand full of gold to mess with them?

[Angelalex242]

The minstrels would have to spot them first. The party is custom-built to avoid the mainstream media.

...You could always use the dreaded DMPC.

As the party sneaks around observing, the princess needing rescue is holding out for a hero.

"Are you guys gonna save her?"

"Nah, man, we're good watching her die."

"Alright. You see Sir Luthien crash through the door, slay the enemy, save the princess, take all the loot for himself, and you get nothing. Thanks for watching."

[Thrudd]

There's two ways you can approach this. One - keep doing what you've been doing, telling a story in cut scenes that your players don't pay attention to and then having battles. In this case, I'm not even sure how their stealth makes any difference, since you are basically dropping plot battles on them regardless of what they do. If it makes you happy and they go along with it, then fine.

Two- you know your players, you know how they play and what gets their attention. So design a game that is more their speed. Forget story arcs and character development - those are things for novels and film/tv. You want the sort of adventures their characters would actually want to go on. Give them goals/missions, and then let them approach it however they want. If they want to try to get in and out with as little fighting as possible, or kick every door and try to kill everything they see, either should be acceptable. The dice decide what is successful, not you or them. Put your effort into designing the locales that will challenge them, where they have to weigh options and choose approaches that each have pros and cons, and success is not assured.

The best way to make a campaign work is to make sure the characters are all appropriate for the premise. You give the players requirements for their characters - they all must want to do X, or have a goal of Y. If you want them going to dungeons looking for treasure, they all need to want to do that for some reason. If you want them hunting down demons, they all need to want to do that. If you want them to save the kingdom from dangers...etc. If they are a bunch of greedy thieving rogues, you don't send them a poor old man that asks them to save his grandson from a gang of orcs. Why would they care? How much money does he have? Why wouldn't they just rob his house and be done with it? Why did that guy think they could or would help him in the first place?

[Shaonir]

If the Players are looking for a stealthy game, have you considered a plot that takes advantage of that tendency, helps refine their expectations, and is a compromise you all would enjoy?

If the Players are not looking for a stealthy game, have you considered why they think you are telling them to be stealthy? Do they think their characters are more fragile than you wanted them to believe? Is there a mismatch in the expected fragility?

Sometimes a DM's job is about finding what story everyone wants to be playing.
Sometimes a DM's job is about communicating that the story is that story that everyone wants to be playing.
(Obviously "everyone" includes the DM and the other Players)

It's more a kind of pride thing with some of them. They love making characters that can wriggle out of anything, including plot points. As I said, we've probably been playing together too long and they see our games as adversarial (DM-with-a-plot-to-push VS the-incredible-lolwhutters).

Perhaps before I start a new game, I should have THE TALK, and if they say something like "I wanna play this cool guy who can slip out of anything" ... maybe inform them that this will limit the story options.

[Potato_Priest]

It's more a kind of pride thing with some of them. They love making characters that can wriggle out of anything, including plot points. As I said, we've probably been playing together too long and they see our games as adversarial (DM-with-a-plot-to-push VS the-incredible-lolwhutters).

Perhaps before I start a new game, I should have THE TALK, and if they say something like "I wanna play this cool guy who can slip out of anything" ... maybe inform them that this will limit the story options.

In my experience, the greatest cure for seeing the DM as your enemy is trying to do it yourself. Your understanding of the person behind the screen and what they're doing becomes much greater, and suddenly you have sympathy for them, because what they've been doing for years is actually way harder than it looks.

I obviously have no connections to or understanding of anyone at your table, but maybe asking them each to DM a short one-shot for the group would help teach them a thing or two about what you're dealing with?

[Unoriginal]

Imagine Lord of the Rings, if Frodo just kept on hiding from everything, and there was no subplot with Aragorn and Chums. He would never have been stabbed by the Ringwraith, meaning no need to stay with the Elves, meaning no formal declaration of the Ring Quest, and no new companions. He would've snuck through the Dwarven Mine without alerting the goblins or the balrog, meaning no need for Gandalf to sacrifice himself, and thus no need for Aragorn to step up as the party leader. The journey down the river would have been conducted in perfect stealth, with no orc skirmishes. He would've kept all the companions he wanted to, and avoided Gollum while entering Mordor. Then no side-tracking through Shelob's Lair, and instead a sneaky trek to Mount Doom.

Sure... that's still a plot, and it's still a story. But is it the BEST of stories... and is it worth all that world building and NPC depiction if the dude doesn't suffer any setback beyond "Man, my feet are tired from all this tiptoeing."


Frodo ATTEMPTED to do all that.

He tried very hard.

Hell, in the book, he even tried to hide the fact he was leaving the country by selling his ancestral homee and moving to a different house closer to the border.

The thing is, he failed. Not always, but most of the time.

Because the people he was trying to hide from weren't stupid.


Let me ask you this question:

The PCs have for mission to go in a Bugbear fortress and steal the Bugbear King's magic falshion. How would they accomplish that according to you, in 5e?

[Shaonir]

Let me ask you this question:

The PCs have for mission to go in a Bugbear fortress and steal the Bugbear King's magic falshion. How would they accomplish that according to you, in 5e?
*rolls to detect traps*

First off, they wouldn't accept such a quest, because they're too cool and nonchalant, and the quest-giver would just come off as pushy and overly prescriptive. But let's put that aside.

They would sneak/climb/magic their way in, run away the moment anyone caught a whiff of them, then stake out the fortress for the next two years, waiting for the moment when the Bugbear King leaves to visit his kids in the next kingdom along with his overbearing wife who disapproves of open falchion-carry around her children. Then they would break in again, while chugging potions of flight, invisibility and pass without trace, ignore all paintings on the walls and diaries on the table, steal the falchion, then teleport directly to a tavern before their beer gets cold, and then tell the quest-giver to go f*ck himself while in the middle of expressing his gratitude. They would then beat him up for the money, and run away from the tavern before any NPCs react to what they did, and spend the next seven months hiding in trees with their sunglasses on.

[Malifice]

Looking for some advice as I return to the DM's Chariot.

I have players that are notoriously roguey. They take a step, roll Stealth, roll Perception, take another step, roll Stealth, roll Perception. They often assume they can sneak past anything, with enough recon and preparation, and if they ever roll badly they can just max out their speed with spells and feats in order to Speedy Gonzalez into the horizon.

I occasionally accuse them of sneaking away from the story, to which they have many "player agency" rebuttals. So that leaves me just ad-libbing and trying to unfold a story in which they are merely ninja observers. They even run off the map when a villain is monologuing.

So I'd like to gather some ideas about how to get my players INTO scenes without using force cages and cattleprods. How do I stop them screaming "I would've seen that coming!"?

Screw that.

I would never buy into some 'one step then stealth, one step then perception' B/S.

I like to use the 'passive' rules for skills in the DMG. I presume in my home games that the PCs are being Stealthy whenever in a postion of danger (sneaking around in a dungeon etc). I take the Stealth bonses of each PC and make a note. I add +10 for the d20 roll (+5 for disadvantage, and 15 for PCs with advantage).

My monsters can roll Perception vs the lowest of these numbers. They make it, and they hear them and act appropriately.

Its better that way seeing as the PCs dont know when there is a monster around (I can roll monster perception secretly vs this number to see if the PCs are noticed).

I also take careful note of what they are doing. If the Players are talking about what to do next, so are their Characters (although likely whispering). An argument at the table and you can forget about Stealth for the PCs. If they're searching a room, they're also making noise (ruffling through desks and chests etc).

Also, monsters are on patrol. I dont care how Stealthy the group is, there is nothing wrong with the occasional:

'As you sneak down the hallway (enter the empty room/ cross the bridge over the chasm/ enter the forest clearing) keeping as quiet as possible, three [monsters] round the corner 60' ahead of you (enter the room from the northern door/ emerge from the forest). They look startled, but quickly recover and reach for their weapons! Roll initiative'

Finally PCs dont ask for 'Perception checks'. Ever. The DM lets them know when a check is required, not the other way around. PCs just state their actions. The DM calls for checks (if one is needed).

[Sigreid]

It's funny to me that this thread is about what to do about the opposite of murder hobos.

[Unoriginal]

*rolls to detect traps*

First off, they wouldn't accept such a quest, because they're too cool and nonchalant, and the quest-giver would just come off as pushy and overly prescriptive. But let's put that aside.

They would sneak/climb/magic their way in, run away the moment anyone caught a whiff of them, then stake out the fortress for the next two years, waiting for the moment when the Bugbear King leaves to visit his kids in the next kingdom along with his overbearing wife who disapproves of open falchion-carry around her children. Then they would break in again, while chugging potions of flight, invisibility and pass without trace, ignore all paintings on the walls and diaries on the table, steal the falchion, then teleport directly to a tavern before their beer gets cold, and then tell the quest-giver to go f*ck himself while in the middle of expressing his gratitude. They would then beat him up for the money, and run away from the tavern before any NPCs react to what they did, and spend the next seven months hiding in trees with their sunglasses on.

Alright.

Then the only solution is to never DM for them ever again, and find another group more suited for your needs in general and 5e in particular.

You obviously can't stand the way they play, and from what you've told us they can't stand the way you'd wish a game go, despite talking to them about it.

So leaving them and go have fun elsewhere is the best thing you can do.


It's funny to me that this thread is about what to do about the opposite of murder hobos.

They're stealth power gamers. It's not the opposite of murder-hoboism, it's just a different branch of the same main plant.

The opposite of murder hobos would be the kind of player who tries to talk to everything and negotiate with everything even when others are in the process of killing them.

[Shaonir]

*cries while drowning his friends in a bathtub*

Alright. Time to engage with perfect strangers and hope they don't resent my presence.

*re-reads this thread*

*bead of sweat forms on brow*


I think the answer is a Charter of some kind, setting out expectations on both sides.

[Malifice]

They're stealth power gamers. It's not the opposite of murder-hoboism, it's just a different branch of the same main plant.

They're not power gamers. They're players stating what their characters are doing (being alert and keeping a look out). Which is of course what every PC in a dungeon is doing anyway.

Simply note the lowest Stealth bonus of the party, add 10 to it (or 5 for heavy armor, or 15 for boots of elvenkind or similar) and roll Perception for your monsters against that number. When the PCs are talking among themselves at the table (deciding what to do next for example), presume the PCs are whispering to themselves the same thing, and subtract 5 from Stealth results (disadvantage to Stealth). If the PCs are arguing among themselves at the table, Stealth drops to [nope].

With PC Perception, you only call for a roll when there is something to find (and occasionally when there isnt, just to throw them off guard). The DM tells the PCs that he's aware they are being alert and cautious, and tell them not to bother rolling; he's the one that will ask for a check if and when one is called for.

Also; dont be afraid to use passive perception from time to time.

[Unoriginal]

They're not power gamers. They're players stating what their characters are doing (being alert and keeping a look out). Which is of course what every PC in a dungeon is doing anyway.

Simply note the lowest Stealth bonus of the party, add 10 to it (or 5 for heavy armor, or 15 for boots of elvenkind or similar) and roll Perception for your monsters against that number. When the PCs are talking among themselves at the table (deciding what to do next for example), presume the PCs are whispering to themselves the same thing, and subtract 5 from Stealth results (disadvantage to Stealth). If the PCs are arguing among themselves at the table, Stealth drops to [nope].

With PC Perception, you only call for a roll when there is something to find (and occasionally when there isnt, just to throw them off guard). The DM tells the PCs that he's aware they are being alert and cautious, and tell them not to bother rolling; he's the one that will ask for a check if and when one is called for.

Also; dont be afraid to use passive perception from time to time.

Specializing in one thing to be uber-powerful in it and absolutely refusing to do anything in the world except said one thing and bullying helpless NPCs is power gaming.

They're just playing one power.

[Potato_Priest]

*cries while drowning his friends in a bathtub*

Alright. Time to engage with perfect strangers and hope they don't resent my presence.


I actually thought your mixture of pragmatism, honesty, logic, and humor was rather refreshing. Please consider sticking around, we could use more like you.

[Malifice]

Specializing in one thing to be uber-powerful in it and absolutely refusing to do anything in the world except said one thing and bullying helpless NPCs is power gaming.

They're just playing one power.

No they are not.

Sneaking around and being alert in a dungeon is what any sensible person would do. I presume my PCs are doing it in my games.

And if you're focussing on doing it, it means no Clerics or Paladins (who traditionally dump Dex and/or wear heavy armor). And even then, unless they're all Rogues and Bards with Expertise in Perception and Stealth, it's hardly an optimal or flawless tactic seeing as your bonus will range from +5 at 1st level to +11 at 20th level.

Pass without Trace spell helps a hell of a lot with the Stealth aspect (adding +10), but it uses concentration and a 2nd level slot.

That doesnt help the Perception angle though.

All the DM needs to do is ensure that while it works often, it doesnt work all the time. He designs his encounters approrpriately.

[Malifice]

I mean, monsters dont just sit in 30x30 foot rooms, behind closed doors, waiting for the PCs do they?

They wander around the dungeon. They walk around corners, stumbling onto the PCs. They post guards in hallways and such and at chokepoints, with alarms (physcial, and if a spellcaster is hanging about, magical alarm spells as well). During encounters, one monster will run off and warn the rest.

Even invading an Orc dungeon should see the PCs faced with sentries guarding the outside entrance, with some method of warning the rest of the tribe if attacked. Orcs would be wandering about the interior of the dungeon going about their daily buisiness. Elite Orcs (Orogs) would be guarding the way toward the Boss Orc.

It doesnt really matter how stealthy you are. Its like poking an ants nest.

[Xetheral]

Just like when the Hobbits first met Strider in Lord of the Rings. Right? Remember that part? That was a good part. I try to replicate it in all my roleplays, via pre-scripted cutscenes.

Before going with any of the more drastic solutions being offered, I would suggest trying small changes first. For example, since you're getting pushback against scripted cutscenes, try playing without any for a few sessions, and see if the players become more engaged.

[Beelzebubba]

I think the answer is a Charter of some kind, setting out expectations on both sides.

Definitely. Be up-front and clear. We do that at our table and it's really helpful.

[Unoriginal]

*cries while drowning his friends in a bathtub*

Alright. Time to engage with perfect strangers and hope they don't resent my presence.

*re-reads this thread*

*bead of sweat forms on brow*


I think the answer is a Charter of some kind, setting out expectations on both sides.

If you still want to play with them, talking with them is for the best.

However, I have an additional suggestion: try running the adventure module "Out of the Abyss".

[Cespenar]

Yeah, try roleplaying conversations with them instead of pulling off cool cutscenes. They seem to have been immunized to cutscenes in any case.

For starters, use their otherwise static character traits for hooks.

You might try a small talky quest to see how it goes. Something where they need to persuade someone, or broker a trade agreement, etc.

Otherwise, in more generic campaigns, I second the idea to play the badguys smarter and more systematic -- better programmed patrols with multiple fallback plans, a functioning rank system, etc.

[Malifice]

Player: 'I roll perception!'
Me as DM: 'No you don't. You tell me what your character is doing. I'm the guy that tells you if a roll is required.'

For example: 'My rogue will take up point 10' in front of the party, advancing slowly down the hallway. He'll stick to the left hand wall, keeping an ear and and eye out for traps or the sounds of movement, paying particular attention to the floor. I have my bow drawn and an arrow knocked.'

Player: 'I roll Stealth!'
Me as DM: 'No, you don't. You tell me what your character is doing. I'm the one that tells you if a roll is required.'

For example: 'As I walk down the hallway, I'll move silently.'

[Unoriginal]

Player: 'I roll perception!'
Me as DM: 'No you don't. You tell me what your character is doing. I'm the guy that tells you if a roll is required.'

For example: 'My rogue will take up point 10' in front of the party, advancing slowly down the hallway. He'll stick to the left hand wall, keeping an ear and and eye out for traps or the sounds of movement, paying particular attention to the floor. I have my bow drawn and an arrow knocked.'

Player: 'I roll Stealth!'
Me as DM: 'No, you don't. You tell me what your character is doing. I'm the one that tells you if a roll is required.'

For example: 'As I walk down the hallway, I'll move silently.'

This is indeed the rules.


No they are not.

Sneaking around and being alert in a dungeon is what any sensible person would do. I presume my PCs are doing it in my games.


And it'd be fine if they were doing that, and other things.

They're ONLY doing that, according to OP:




They would sneak/climb/magic their way in, run away the moment anyone caught a whiff of them, then stake out the fortress for the next two years, waiting for the moment when the Bugbear King leaves to visit his kids in the next kingdom along with his overbearing wife who disapproves of open falchion-carry around her children. Then they would break in again, while chugging potions of flight, invisibility and pass without trace, ignore all paintings on the walls and diaries on the table, steal the falchion, then teleport directly to a tavern before their beer gets cold, and then tell the quest-giver to go f*ck himself while in the middle of expressing his gratitude. They would then beat him up for the money, and run away from the tavern before any NPCs react to what they did, and spend the next seven months hiding in trees with their sunglasses on.


--------------------------------------------------------

Honestly, Shaonir, Out of the Abyss might be a good module for you to play with those players. It starts with having to escape enslavement from the Drow, and then survive in the Underdark with whatever they managed to grab.

Sorry if I sound abbrasive, it's not my intention.

[Throne12]

*cries while drowning his friends in a bathtub*

Alright. Time to engage with perfect strangers and hope they don't resent my presence.

*re-reads this thread*

*bead of sweat forms on brow*


I think the answer is a Charter of some kind, setting out expectations on both sides.

That's whet we do every game at sessions 0.

[Spiritchaser]

Looking for some advice as I return to the DM's Chariot.

I have players that are notoriously roguey. They take a step, roll Stealth, roll Perception, take another step, roll Stealth, roll Perception. They often assume they can sneak past anything, with enough recon and preparation, and if they ever roll badly they can just max out their speed with spells and feats in order to Speedy Gonzalez into the horizon.

I occasionally accuse them of sneaking away from the story, to which they have many "player agency" rebuttals. So that leaves me just ad-libbing and trying to unfold a story in which they are merely ninja observers. They even run off the map when a villain is monologuing.

So I'd like to gather some ideas about how to get my players INTO scenes without using force cages and cattleprods. How do I stop them screaming "I would've seen that coming!"?

I disagree with your approach here.

If the players want to be good at stealth, let them. Oh sure, there will be the occasional sharp nosed guard dog or sharp witted dragon where stealth just won’t work, keep things interesting, and for fun you can have them crawl through some really story worthy things in sewers, but more often than not stealth just makes sense. That’s not wrong.

My players try and stealth anything they can, and everything is better and much more fun for everyone if I roll with it.

Another DM, after I described the gameplay in that campaign commented “wow, it’s like splinter cell”. I don’t play splinter cell but it sounds like a reasonable comparison.

Seriously, embrace the stealth campaign. It’s entertaining in its own right.

[Unoriginal]

I disagree with your approach here.

If the players want to be good at stealth, let them. Oh sure, there will be the occasional sharp nosed guard dog or sharp witted dragon where stealth just won’t work, keep things interesting, and for fun you can have them crawl through some really story worthy things in sewers, but more often than not stealth just makes sense. That’s not wrong.

My players try and stealth anything they can, and everything is better and much more fun for everyone if I roll with it.

Another DM, after I described the gameplay in that campaign commented “wow, it’s like splinter cell”. I don’t play splinter cell but it sounds like a reasonable comparison.

Seriously, embrace the stealth campaign. It’s entertaining in its own right.

Not all campaign types fit everyone, and OP shouldn't formate his tastes because his players want a certain type.

Also, it's not because the players want to be good at something that it's going to work every time.

Sure, if they search stealth-focused jobs, they'll get stealth-focused jobs. But their foes don't have to let themselves be played to this tune.

[Spiritchaser]

Not all campaign types fit everyone, and OP shouldn't formate his tastes because his players want a certain type.

Also, it's not because the players want to be good at something that it's going to work every time.

Sure, if they search stealth-focused jobs, they'll get stealth-focused jobs. But their foes don't have to let themselves be played to this tune.

Oh I don’t think the foes need to let themselves be played to any tune, but the tools available to be stealthy are exceedingly powerful and are available early to characters, or better yet to parties who focus on it.

Certainly there will be occasional encounters where stealth will be of limited use, but against most creatures in most situations it is, or can be made through dint of sufficient effort, highly relevant.

If the players want to play that way let them and have some fun with it.

And of course what goes around comes around.

[Shaonir]

Oh I don’t think the foes need to let themselves be played to any tune, but the tools available to be stealthy are exceedingly powerful and are available early to characters, or better yet to parties who focus on it.

Certainly there will be occasional encounters where stealth will be of limited use, but against most creatures in most situations it is, or can be made through dint of sufficient effort, highly relevant.

If the players want to play that way let them and have some fun with it.

And of course what goes around comes around.

But what about the story beats? Take something that ISN'T LORD OF THE RINGS... er... like Rise of the Runelords. If it's played via pure stealth and observation, there will be much fewer goblin encounters, and a weaker Foxglove-PC connection. Fewer haunts would be triggered in Foxglove Manor, meaning little of the backstory is revealed. The Brothers of the Seven and Xanesha would need to be defeated in a different way. Fort Rannick would not get retaken. The dam would blow and flood Turtleback. The Stone Giants of Jorgenfist would be unopposed. And Xin-Shalast would be a near-total stealth mission.

Now... you can argue that this would lead to an equally interesting alternate storyline. But would that story be weaker, since the PCs have not gotten their hands dirty? They have not killed goblins, they have not had to put a personal end to the terror of Lord Foxglove and Xanesha. They've not battled to retake a fort or bring down a fortress of giants. And they are not the fabled heroes who will go toe-to-toe with Karzoug.

Is the answer here to be postmodern and give up on the traditional Hero's Journey? Or is something fundamental being lost when a party does not have its moment where it takes the fight to the enemy?

I believe the latter. I believe that a story suffers without its "dark night of the soul". And when you have players who actively work against the dark night of the soul, they end up killing every part of the soul.

[Xetheral]

Is the answer here to be postmodern and give up on the traditional Hero's Journey? Or is something fundamental being lost when a party does not have its moment where it takes the fight to the enemy?

I believe the latter. I believe that a story suffers without its "dark night of the soul". And when you have players who actively work against the dark night of the soul, they end up killing every part of the soul.

I think it's pretty clear that your players have no interest in the Hero's Journey. You already aren't getting what you're looking for out of the game (and neither are they) so nothing "fundamental" can be further lost by trying to find a paradigm that you and your players are both on board with.

[Easy_Lee]

But what about the story beats? Take something that ISN'T LORD OF THE RINGS... er... like Rise of the Runelords. If it's played via pure stealth and observation, there will be much fewer goblin encounters, and a weaker Foxglove-PC connection. Fewer haunts would be triggered in Foxglove Manor, meaning little of the backstory is revealed. The Brothers of the Seven and Xanesha would need to be defeated in a different way. Fort Rannick would not get retaken. The dam would blow and flood Turtleback. The Stone Giants of Jorgenfist would be unopposed. And Xin-Shalast would be a near-total stealth mission.

Now... you can argue that this would lead to an equally interesting alternate storyline. But would that story be weaker, since the PCs have not gotten their hands dirty? They have not killed goblins, they have not had to put a personal end to the terror of Lord Foxglove and Xanesha. They've not battled to retake a fort or bring down a fortress of giants. And they are not the fabled heroes who will go toe-to-toe with Karzoug.

Is the answer here to be postmodern and give up on the traditional Hero's Journey? Or is something fundamental being lost when a party does not have its moment where it takes the fight to the enemy?

I believe the latter. I believe that a story suffers without its "dark night of the soul". And when you have players who actively work against the dark night of the soul, they end up killing every part of the soul.

The trouble with this question is that you aren't telling the story. Your players have at least as big of an impact and, from a narrative perspective, they have an even bigger one. You lay down the adventure but they decide how to resolve it. They might refuse the call, save their fathers from the belly of the whale, have a spiritual journey, and return to society with life-saving boons, or they might not. It's up to them, not you.

If your players aren't playing the way you want them to, that's not a problem. That's just how games work.

[Thrudd]

But what about the story beats? Take something that ISN'T LORD OF THE RINGS... er... like Rise of the Runelords. If it's played via pure stealth and observation, there will be much fewer goblin encounters, and a weaker Foxglove-PC connection. Fewer haunts would be triggered in Foxglove Manor, meaning little of the backstory is revealed. The Brothers of the Seven and Xanesha would need to be defeated in a different way. Fort Rannick would not get retaken. The dam would blow and flood Turtleback. The Stone Giants of Jorgenfist would be unopposed. And Xin-Shalast would be a near-total stealth mission.

Now... you can argue that this would lead to an equally interesting alternate storyline. But would that story be weaker, since the PCs have not gotten their hands dirty? They have not killed goblins, they have not had to put a personal end to the terror of Lord Foxglove and Xanesha. They've not battled to retake a fort or bring down a fortress of giants. And they are not the fabled heroes who will go toe-to-toe with Karzoug.

Is the answer here to be postmodern and give up on the traditional Hero's Journey? Or is something fundamental being lost when a party does not have its moment where it takes the fight to the enemy?

I believe the latter. I believe that a story suffers without its "dark night of the soul". And when you have players who actively work against the dark night of the soul, they end up killing every part of the soul.

Thinking about story beats and the heroes journey is a mistake if you're playing D&D. This might be why you're spinning your wheels on these games. You don't get to decide if there will be a dark night of the soul for the characters. You can't plan this like you plan a piece of fiction. I mean, you can try, but you're well aware of how that usually works out. It's because the game just isn't designed for it.

Players do need agency. In D&D that usually means being able to approach situations however they want within the context of the rules, and to role play their characters however they want. If you want more restrictions on them, you need to have a discussion about how their play and/or the game will be changed.

[Cespenar]

I also find it surprising that the group is illustrated as actually pulling off 100% of their stealthy shenanigans.

Do they fall to no ambushes? Suffer no traps? Does the way to escape never close off behind their backs? Do they never get any retaliation from any big powers?

[Malifice]

I disagree with your approach here.

If the players want to be good at stealth, let them. Oh sure, there will be the occasional sharp nosed guard dog or sharp witted dragon where stealth just won’t work, keep things interesting, and for fun you can have them crawl through some really story worthy things in sewers, but more often than not stealth just makes sense. That’s not wrong.

My players try and stealth anything they can, and everything is better and much more fun for everyone if I roll with it.

Another DM, after I described the gameplay in that campaign commented “wow, it’s like splinter cell”. I don’t play splinter cell but it sounds like a reasonable comparison.

Seriously, embrace the stealth campaign. It’s entertaining in its own right.

This. To be good at Stealth carries an opportunity cost. They'll need to forgo heavy armor and heavy weapons, dump strength, take levels in Rogue and Bard for expertise (or obtain it elsewhere) have decent Wisdom scores, blow slots on Stealth buff spells etc.

Which means when they're busted and stealth doesnt work, it sucks to be them.

[Sjappo]

I think it's pretty clear that your players have no interest in the Hero's Journey. You already aren't getting what you're looking for out of the game (and neither are they) so nothing "fundamental" can be further lost by trying to find a paradigm that you and your players are both on board with.
This.
You need to have a new session zero. See what they want out of the game and find some common ground . If you can get them to agree to a save the world campaign they need to get involved somehow. If not, then you know where you stand and can plan accordingly.

[Vaz]

If you still want to play with them, talking with them is for the best.

However, I have an additional suggestion: try running the adventure module "Out of the Abyss".

Can't stealth at all by going around in a tunnel. It is also precisely the gane when you'd want to. At the start, you are thrown in a room with no equipment, have to escape, and then survive. Unless specific steps are taken, you have no food, water, supplies, or valuables. It will require stealth that a usual murder hobo party might struggle to play with: a 9th level and a 5th level Cleric, some 11HD multi attack fighters, a dizen quaggoths who get stronger as they take damage and big ol beasty spiders, with potential for a dozen demons to enter the fray, keeping a stealthy mind will be good.

[Knaight]

It looks like they're basically always getting to choose the terms of engagement - they never end up in a situation where civilians are being attacked and stealth won't solve that problem, where there's a social/political dilemma slowly deteriorating and stealth won't solve that problem, etc. Instead their problems seem to be the sort of things stealth universally works on, so they apply stealth to them. There's a lot of soft counters that come from just varying scenario design a bit.

There's also some hard counters, though these might take homebrew creatures/items. Tremorsense, lifesense, strong enough smell, etc. all make it hard to drop in on. Then there's stealth against stealth, like laying ambushes where the PCs are likely to show up and be visible (e.g. market places).

[Unoriginal]

Can't stealth at all by going around in a tunnel. It is also precisely the gane when you'd want to. At the start, you are thrown in a room with no equipment, have to escape, and then survive. Unless specific steps are taken, you have no food, water, supplies, or valuables. It will require stealth that a usual murder hobo party might struggle to play with: a 9th level and a 5th level Cleric, some 11HD multi attack fighters, a dizen quaggoths who get stronger as they take damage and big ol beasty spiders, with potential for a dozen demons to enter the fray, keeping a stealthy mind will be good.

Indeed. And for OP, the PCs should realize that interacting with the non-hostile NPCs and paying attention to the plots and schemes around them will increase their chance of survival by a lot.

[Rogerdodger557]

My only question is how are they getting experience? If they are sneaking around and running away from everything, they really shouldn't be getting any. Stop giving them xp, and when they ask why, just tell them that if they want xp maybe they should actually engage with enemies every now and again.

[Unoriginal]

My only question is how are they getting experience? If they are sneaking around and running away from everything, they really shouldn't be getting any. Stop giving them xp, and when they ask why, just tell them that if they want xp maybe they should actually engage with enemies every now and again.

Personally I consider managing to avoid an threatening encounter deserves XPs, but running away without doing anything doesn't.

[Rogerdodger557]

Personally I consider managing to avoid an threatening encounter deserves XPs, but running away without doing anything doesn't.

I agree that avoiding combat should reward xp, but if all they do is avoid combat to the best of their abilities(as the OP is describing) they shouldn't be getting any.


Admittedly, this(the stop of xp) is an extreme reaction, but one that should be considered.

[Shaonir]

Yeah. Most of the time they solve things by making the NPCs fight each other (i.e. by exploiting rivalries, making the authorities show up, leading one monster to another, or redeeming the villain). These strokes of genius aren't really something I can punish by taking away the XP. At the end of the day, they're playing things in a clever way.

And they don't solve EVERYTHING without challenge... but it can often be entire chapters of the story... chapters where I assumed there would be a radical character change due to the nature of the conflict. But then they bypass it with no threat to themselves... and I'm left with the sense that they aren't "arcing" correctly.

I suppose I need to get used to the idea of some characters not growing in anything except their awesomeness.

[Malifice]

Yeah. Most of the time they solve things by making the NPCs fight each other (i.e. by exploiting rivalries, making the authorities show up, leading one monster to another, or redeeming the villain).

That is awesome.

They're interacting with the world as a whole, and resolving conflict with roleplaying and involvement with the world and its people.

This should be encouraged.

You can still throw combat at them though. Its as simple as:

DM: 'As you walk around the corner you spot a [monster of some kind] standing 60' away from you! It snarls at you and charges! Roll intitiative.'

[Unoriginal]

Yeah. Most of the time they solve things by making the NPCs fight each other (i.e. by exploiting rivalries, making the authorities show up, leading one monster to another, or redeeming the villain). These strokes of genius aren't really something I can punish by taking away the XP. At the end of the day, they're playing things in a clever way.

And they don't solve EVERYTHING without challenge... but it can often be entire chapters of the story... chapters where I assumed there would be a radical character change due to the nature of the conflict. But then they bypass it with no threat to themselves... and I'm left with the sense that they aren't "arcing" correctly.

I suppose I need to get used to the idea of some characters not growing in anything except their awesomeness.

Alright, while those are good, even excellent ideas... how is it not a challenge to do that?

Exploiting rivalries isn't easy, most of the time.

Having the authorities show up and fooling them isn't easy, most of the time.

Leading a monster to another and have them fight isn't easy, most of the time.

And redeeming a villain not an easy thing either.

Not to mention, all those things require to pay attention to the plot, the setting's lore, or the bad guys' backstories, which is precisely what you said they weren't doing.

In fact this is very different from what you said the players would do when I asked you.

Combat is not the only kind of challenge... are you making all those schemes of them challenging to pull off?



That is awesome.

They're interacting with the world as a whole, and resolving conflict with roleplaying and involvement with the world and its people.

This should be encouraged.

You can still throw combat at them though. Its as simple as:

DM: 'As you walk around the corner you spot a [monster of some kind] standing 60' away from you! It snarls at you and charges! Roll intitiative.'

This is true, but what OP is saying kinda raise more questions.

[Shaonir]

Alright, while those are good, even excellent ideas... how is it not a challenge to do that?

Exploiting rivalries isn't easy, most of the time.

Having the authorities show up and fooling them isn't easy, most of the time.

Leading a monster to another and have them fight isn't easy, most of the time.

And redeeming a villain not an easy thing either.

Not to mention, all those things require to pay attention to the plot, the setting's lore, or the bad guys' backstories, which is precisely what you said they weren't doing.

In fact this is very different from what you said the players would do when I asked you.

Combat is not the only kind of challenge... are you making all those schemes of them challenging to pull off?




This is true, but what OP is saying kinda raise more questions.

Well, this is what they do AFTER running away and observing the situation for several sessions. And I try to make it challenging, but there's a point where I give up, since the situation was supposed to have been resolved with a 30 second fight a few weeks ago.

And yes, it's clever, it's brilliant, and it should be rewarded. But there is no life-or-death moment. No point at which their life is on the line and all they have is the weapon in their hand to prevent the ruin of all their plans. They slow-plot and slow-roll, and never put themselves in personal danger.

My point is that this limits a traditional character arc. It's like watching a Steven Moffat drama, where the hero works everything out in the first scene and then just snarks from a position of invulnerability for the rest of the episode.

[Vaz]

Yiu need to go more in depth on an example. That you are wanting to encourage a particular kick down the door shoot the bad guy in the face style of play, you need to make it more rewarding for them to do so.

That could include literally hunting the players back to their location. There is always a bugger fish. Locate Object, Geas. Cursed Loot, Enemy Scry and Die, always a bigger fish, extraplanar enemies etc.

What level are this party? And can you give basically a blow by blow account of a recent adventure path what haooened. All I'm getting is vagaries which isn't useful: they're puoling off stunts which seem arbitsrily impossible.

From what you have said, it's you who are rewarding the stealthy play, by not penalizing them, which is cool. But you need to say to the players that you're trying to run a typical adventure but they're not accepting hooks, and that you're going to start introducing vengeful characters who is going to be hunting them down as a result of their actions either because of a desire to beat competition, or a proof of how capable the rivals are, or as revenge for the XYZ they have done.

Failing that, find yourself a new group, if you're not going to be okay with running a style of game this group wants to play, and they don't want to play your game. You are just incompatible.

[OldTrees1]

Well, this is what they do AFTER running away and observing the situation for several sessions. And I try to make it challenging, but there's a point where I give up, since the situation was supposed to have been resolved with a 30 second fight a few weeks ago.

And yes, it's clever, it's brilliant, and it should be rewarded. But there is no life-or-death moment. No point at which their life is on the line and all they have is the weapon in their hand to prevent the ruin of all their plans. They slow-plot and slow-roll, and never put themselves in personal danger.

My point is that this limits a traditional character arc. It's like watching a Steven Moffat drama, where the hero works everything out in the first scene and then just snarks from a position of invulnerability for the rest of the episode.

The evidence continues to mount: The cooperative storytelling that is D&D will result in non "traditional story" structure with this group.

Sit down and find out what kind of game you ALL want to play.

It might be one where they encounter a threat, retreat, to recon, and then figure out how to fight it from a distance or even indirectly. In those games I suggest the threats be living threats. Threats with goals, motivations, and time to take action & reaction.

[Shaonir]

There is always a bugger fish.I don't think raping my players is the answer.


And can you give basically a blow by blow account of a recent adventure path what haooened.Er... no... not blow-by-blow. That would kill us both.

But here's a scuffle-by-scuffle. Council of Thieves. I had a player with Pyrotechnics, who used it to escape the Hellknights, then used it again to spring Arael. They ran past everything in the Asmodean Knot and didn't kill Sian. I downtimed the Grave Candle stuff after getting too many party wipes. They ran through Delvehaven and only defeated one of the vampires. I let them kill the others in a cut scene by using the Morrowfall. They sneaked into the Nessian Spiral after missing most of the plot on the surface. They then DIDN'T kill Liebdaga, and so the Pit Fiend demolished part of the city. They didn't depose Madjaw or get the big beetle thingy. Most of the battle of the Maggot Tree happened off-screen (although they DID take on Stiglor, which was my one moment of old-school joy). They then SIDED with the vampires, turned evil, and allowed the Drovenge Twins to win, meaning the last two chapters were essentially roleplay only.

Still a cool game. But just... weird... Their approach kinda works in an adventure like Council of Thieves. But in Runelords and Carrion Crown it was hell.


So yes - lots of enabling here (it's like they're my friends or something...). I think a lot of the published adventures assume players are going to be more Murder Hobo than Evil Genius.

[Beelzebubba]

there's a point where I give up, since the situation was supposed to have been resolved with a 30 second fight a few weeks ago.

Says who? So you're deciding how they should resolve things?

This is a game, not a book. Nothing is *supposed* to happen. You present a situation, and these characters engage with it on their terms.


there is no life-or-death moment. No point at which their life is on the line and all they have is the weapon in their hand to prevent the ruin of all their plans. They slow-plot and slow-roll, and never put themselves in personal danger.

That is *awesome*. It reminds me a lot of our AD&D antics. The game was SO much more dangerous that using that sort of strategy was the only way to survive. (Medusas, Catobeplas, Cockatrices, Rust Monsters, Rot Grubs, etcetera).

We beat the BBEG one campaign by basically stealthing through his conquered area and picking his forces apart. We created misdirection, we lured them into great ambush points, and we never fought fair. Fair was a sucker's bet. We killed the BBEG in his bed chambers by sneaking through his sewage system.


My point is that this limits a traditional character arc. It's like watching a Steven Moffat drama, where the hero works everything out in the first scene and then just snarks from a position of invulnerability for the rest of the episode.

Well, why are you trying to shoehorn them in to a 'traditional' arc like you're the director of some brash Hollywood epic then? That works with players with a LOTR mindset, but these guys are Ocean's 11. (And, God, I wish my current table were more like that. Building those styles of adventures are so fun.)

The more you post, the less sure I am that your problem is about them needing to change. The way they are playing is completely valid. It just needs a certain approach to plotting and designing from your end, and them giving you character goals that you can use to entice them in.

Instead of deciding 'now is the time for a 30 second fight', it's more like presenting them a gameplay puzzle with a bunch of interlocking pieces for them to figure out, with a tempting goal in the middle that makes them engage, and then seeding that with the potential for a lot of '30 second fights'.

It's a bit harder than designing set pieces, but it demands the players give you a bit more of a group purpose or charter. At this point, it may require a bit of retrofitting and negotiation - you obviously need them to give you more about what they really want in order to design. And you need to let go of a certain set of assumptions about how the game 'should' be played.

Are you willing to do that?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbckvO7VYxk

[Vaz]

Why do you not have then followed? It sounds like you're actually rewarding the Stealth gameplay too much.

The Pyrotechnics one for example: Verbal Components so that the knights can hear them, and only 60ft range. Just have the knights move towards the sound of it being cast.

Again, this comes down to having a tete a tete with the players ans resolving one of two actions

1. You continue to play the game you currently are doing, and you learn to enjoy the style they are playing
2. You stop DMing for them and find a group that you are more happy to DM for and they find a DM who is more willing to have all of his work ignored.

You are perfectly within your right to say 'look guys, i'm trying my hardest to give you an adventure, but if you're not going after the hook, and run away at the first sign of difficulty, it makes it hard for me to even prepare for a session. And most of all, I'm not having fun.'

It feels like you're not rewarding them enough for still completing the encounter. One of the things I don' t like about 5e is how it comes down to the Dice Roll, and largely character build is pointless.

I asked for a blow by blow, because I feel that there is some mismanagement on the DM side of things if the party is consistently able to foil the plans.

Sneaking into a Knights Castle is all well and good, but then causing a smoke bomb to go off in a military establishment is not particularly clever, rushing out additional armed guards, alarms, and general hullaballoo. If they assassinated a couple of people then that leaves the bodies about. If they just stealth in splinter cell style, well patrols will move through so a previously safe route is no longer safe.

[Shaonir]

Once again... not trying to write Lord of the Rings here.

I'm arguing the point that a "true character moment" - one that catapults a character forward on their emotional development - cannot come from the shadows, or from a place of detached, genius masterminding. The true moment remains, as it has through the history of storytelling, the moment when a character's life is on the line and they have a weapon in their hand and have to make the swing. And I was looking for advice on how to encourage more of those moments.

But it looks like Joseph Campbell has been beaten to death and pinned to the wall of this particular dungeon. *glances around the forum* So I guess we should leave that point alone. Some of you believe that RPG is no place for the Hero's Journey... others might disagree, but they're probably hiding under the tables and whimpering right now.

So... thanks for the advice everyone! Good to see people thinking about this stuff.

*crawls under the table*

[OldTrees1]

Once again... not trying to write Lord of the Rings here.

I'm arguing the point that a "true character moment" - one that catapults a character forward on their emotional development - cannot come from the shadows, or from a place of detached, genius masterminding. The true moment remains, as it has through the history of storytelling, the moment when a character's life is on the line and they have a weapon in their hand and have to make the swing. And I was looking for advice on how to encourage more of those moments.

But it looks like Joseph Campbell has been beaten to death and pinned to the wall of this particular dungeon. *glances around the forum* So I guess we should leave that point alone. Some of you believe that RPG is no place for the Hero's Journey... others might disagree, but they're probably hiding under the tables and whimpering right now.

So... thanks for the advice everyone! Good to see people thinking about this stuff.

*crawls under the table*

*crawls out from under the table*

It is not about if we believe the Hero's Journey does or does not belong in RPGs. Either of those positions is nonsensical because it ignores the people playing the game. Nobody here is saying either of those things.

We are pleading with you to play with your players in a game you can all enjoy rather than be disappointed when they fail to live up to a story structure you unilaterally decided upon. The Players control their characters. Sometimes this means the Players attempt to have a Hero's Journey. Other times they attempt to have an Ocean's 11 approach instead. Yet other times they want to attempt Xanatos Gambits. There are many story structures that belong in RPGs.

You are the cause of your own misery. You are having unfounded expectations about dictating how the PCs will respond. Instead, sit down with the players and find what game you will all enjoy. HINT: IF this group in particular might not play the Hero's Journey, that does not mean other group's won't NOR does it mean that you can't enjoy a game with these players. All it means is adjusting your expectations and the expectations of the group such that they align so you can enjoy the game.

So: Talk to them, listen to them, communicate with them, and accept you are not the only person at the table with story structure preferences.

[Shaonir]

*crawls out from under the table*

It is not about if we believe the Hero's Journey does or does not belong in RPGs. Either of those positions is nonsensical because it ignores the people playing the game. Nobody here is saying either of those things.

We are pleading with you to play with your players in a game you can all enjoy rather than be disappointed when they fail to live up to a story structure you unilaterally decided upon. The Players control their characters. Sometimes this means the Players attempt to have a Hero's Journey. Other times they attempt to have an Ocean's 11 approach instead. Yet other times they want to attempt Xanatos Gambits. There are many story structures that belong in RPGs.

You are the cause of your own misery. You are having unfounded expectations about dictating how the PCs will respond. Instead, sit down with the players and find what game you will all enjoy. HINT: IF this group in particular might not play the Hero's Journey, that does not mean other group's won't NOR does it mean that you can't enjoy a game with these players. All it means is adjusting your expectations and the expectations of the group such that they align so you can enjoy the game.

So: Talk to them, listen to them, communicate with them, and accept you are not the only person at the table with story structure preferences.

*voice from under the table* I'm curious... do you guys make the same arguments when DMs complain about murder hobos, showboaters, over-powered class builds, and rules lawyers?

Does the fault lie with the DM for not providing the correct arena for those players?

Because I have people running off the map; I have people bypassing monsters that I've spent a long time statting; and I have NPCs and story elements that I'm unable to unfold because the party isn't engaging with them.

I feel like a lot of you are going straight for the jugular on me, and mainly because the players are being "clever". I agree they are clever. But I'm looking for ideas to make things easier as a story-planner. Ideas that go beyond flagellating myself for being a terrible, terrible DM.

Because FYI, I was christened Catholic. I've got the self-hating stuff polished.

[Xetheral]

Once again... not trying to write Lord of the Rings here.

I'm arguing the point that a "true character moment" - one that catapults a character forward on their emotional development - cannot come from the shadows, or from a place of detached, genius masterminding. The true moment remains, as it has through the history of storytelling, the moment when a character's life is on the line and they have a weapon in their hand and have to make the swing. And I was looking for advice on how to encourage more of those moments.

But it looks like Joseph Campbell has been beaten to death and pinned to the wall of this particular dungeon. *glances around the forum* So I guess we should leave that point alone. Some of you believe that RPG is no place for the Hero's Journey... others might disagree, but they're probably hiding under the tables and whimpering right now.

So... thanks for the advice everyone! Good to see people thinking about this stuff.

*crawls under the table*

D&D is a fine place for most styles of play, including one focusing on the Hero's Journey. But any style requires player buy-in, and you don't have that. Encouraging more Hero's Journey moments won't work unless and until the players share your desire for them.

Since you and your players differ so much stylistically, you might try arranging an explicit OOC compromise: you'll run a custom sandbox campaign (rather than published adventure paths) more suited to the combat-as-war style your players prefer, and they agree to build multifaceted characters with arcs in mind and deliberate room to grow personality-wise (preferably with multiple divergent potential paths, to leave room for in-game events to determine the final arc).

I'm sure you'll be able to help them build characters out of their comfort-zone. But here are some pointers for you on combining combat-as-war with strong character arcs:

The PCs will be the ones in control of combat odds because they'll fight where they have the advantage (or can take it), and avoid combat where they can't. Character-defining moments will come from the hard decisions about when to fight, rather than in combat itself. Accordingly, make sure the sandbox is complex enough to provide a diversity of such choices. Examples include:

multiple sets of simultaneously-vulnerable enemies, but only sufficient time to annihilate one set before the opportunity passes; just-barely-overwhelming opponents that threaten the characters' prosperity; powerful consumable resources (e.g., wealth, magic items, fragile allies, political capital) that can make overwhelming-opponents beatable, but in smaller supply than the number of overwhelming opponents; simultaneous, mutually-exclusive requests for aid from powerful and generous/exploitable allies.
Trying to tie the PCs to specific locations, NPCs, or plotlines goes against the spirit of a combat-as-war game. Instead, give them lucrative opportunities to tie themselves into the game world. This means making portable wealth in (relatively) short supply, but providing plentiful opportunities to obtain fixed sources of wealth. This can be as straightforward as an opportunity to outright purchase a mine at well below market value, or as subtle as a prosperous town with a power vacuum ripe for extortion (even better if the PCs created the power vacuum, or if the town is a source of a unique resource). More abstractly, this can include opportunities to earn the favor/allegiance/obedience of powerful indviduals or political structures. Once they take advantage of one of these opportunities, make sure they reap the benefits they expect and more, to encourage them to tie themselves down further. The advantage to you is that threats (direct, subtle, or oblique) to their sources of wealth and power can lead to character-defining choices. Examples:

A dragon too powerful to directly confront opens a new mine that will compete with the PCs' mine. The PCs have to choose between spending resources to overcome this opponent, or accepting the diminuation of their source of wealth. The more effort the PCs put into exploiting the mine, the more gut-wrenching the choice becomes. A young, charismatic cleric in the prosperous town the PCs are extorting starts persuading many of the residents to embark on a religious crusade that the PCs support (or engineered!), forcing them to choose between silencing the cleric (risking a backlash) or accepting the economic collapse of their town. The cleric isn't a combat threat, but the choice of how (and whether) to deal with the situation is critical, forcing the PCs to choose between competing priorities (hopefully with an added moral dimenion). The PC's town is in no direct danger (yet), but marauders have targeted a nearby town. Neither town is strong enough to resist the invaders on its own, forcing the PCs to choose between proactively assisting the nearby town, or risking the possibility of the marauders later turning their attention to the PCs town. (Oblique threats like this are better than direct threats. Too many direct threats reduce the value to the PCs of acquiring fixed sources of wealth.) The King's spymaster, secretly subverted by the PCs, made a mistake and is in danger of being exposed by the King's heir. The PCs now have to choose between wading into the highest levels of politics and intrigue to protect their asset, or leaving the spymaster out to dry. (This is even better if the Spymaster's potential ruin was triggered by the PCs demanding something risky.)
Finally, just make sure that there is a lot happening in the game world at the same time. Three or four significant plotlines occuring simultaneouly inherently create a dynamic world with more opportunities for character-defining choices, even if the PCs elect not to get involved directly with any of them.

[Unoriginal]

Once again... not trying to write Lord of the Rings here.

I'm arguing the point that a "true character moment" - one that catapults a character forward on their emotional development - cannot come from the shadows, or from a place of detached, genius masterminding. The true moment remains, as it has through the history of storytelling, the moment when a character's life is on the line and they have a weapon in their hand and have to make the swing. And I was looking for advice on how to encourage more of those moments.

I'd be curious to hear your arguments about this point, because so far you've not expressed them. At least not clearly.



But it looks like Joseph Campbell has been beaten to death and pinned to the wall of this particular dungeon. *glances around the forum* So I guess we should leave that point alone. Some of you believe that RPG is no place for the Hero's Journey... others might disagree, but they're probably hiding under the tables and whimpering right now.

Shaonir, no offense, but you don't seem to know what Campbell's work and the Hero's Journey are very well.

Look at Star Wars: A New Hope, which is often acknowledged to follow Campbell's theory.

The Hero runs away from the bad guys, hide, disguise himself, has to be rescued, then flee again for the majority of the movie, without ever encountering the main antagonists. Even when he goes on the offensive, it's a "hit the weak point of the superweapon we discovered by ruse and deduction thanks to stolen intell" mission, and his actual job in the mission is to act as a distraction so others can do the hitting. It's only when no one else that he takes the shot, and the closer he come from the main antagonists is that the Second-in-Command aims at him before the Hero's friend hit him and put him out of the fight.




So... thanks for the advice everyone! Good to see people thinking about this stuff.

*crawls under the table*

Look, dude, you told us your problem, we told you how we would handle it, or how you could handle it.


I will concur with OldTrees1 that you're creating your own misery, but not for the same reasons as they're saying: the issue is, as you said, you're *enabling* them to do that kind of capper stuff easily.

It SHOULDN'T be easy. Well, maybe in PF where PCs are ultra-strong, it should, but 5e is not based on the same scale of power.

You could do any or several of those things:

Put your PCs in situations where they're low on ressources and short on time (like, as I've been saying several times, Out of the Abyss or similar).

Have bad guys that change plans.

Have antagonists who know that someone may observe them, and so will take precautions, countermeasures and create false plots or operations as interference.

Have people betray the PCs, lie to them, create false evidences, hire assassins to deal with the PCs, make people believe someone else is responsible.

Have bad guys who refuse to join forces with the PCs.

Have authority figures who are hard to fool.

Have the world react to that group of masterminds who are doing whatever in the shadows.

Have bad guys that need to be beaten in order to accomplish the PCs' goals

Have people try to tempt one PC individually to make them work with different goals than the rest of the group, or target them in particular.

Have other masterminds counter-play what the PCs intend to do because it would ruin their own plans if the PCs get their way.


OR don't do that, and either talk with your players about how you're not having any fun DMing for them, or find other players you will enjoy DMing for.

[Shaonir]

Sorry that I wasted you time, Unoriginal. I hope you can move past this.

[OldTrees1]

*voice from under the table* I'm curious... do you guys make the same arguments when DMs complain about murder hobos, showboaters, over-powered class builds, and rules lawyers?

Does the fault lie with the DM for not providing the correct arena for those players?


1) Talking to each other is a very powerful tool regardless of who is or even whether anyone is at fault.
2) The fault does not always lie with the DM. However the person asking advice of the forum is usually only able to control their own actions (IRL mind control is rare). So the forum will usually give advice for how YOU can help improve the situation regardless of if you are the DM, a Player, a spouse, or even a neighbor 3 doors down that likes to dance the polka.



Because I have people running off the map; I have people bypassing monsters that I've spent a long time statting; and I have NPCs and story elements that I'm unable to unfold because the party isn't engaging with them.

I feel like a lot of you are going straight for the jugular on me, and mainly because the players are being "clever". I agree they are clever. But I'm looking for ideas to make things easier as a story-planner. Ideas that go beyond flagellating myself for being a terrible, terrible DM.

Because FYI, I was christened Catholic. I've got the self-hating stuff polished.

Being a DM is hard. Some of these are issues the Players could be better behaved in. Some of these are you extending the role of the DM into the role of the Players. This is why talking to each other, listening to each other, communicating with each other, and finding a game (if there is one) that you can all enjoy is the go to advice.

We are not going for your jugular. We are trying to help you find out and address the root of this issue through actions you can do. Talking to the other players will help find out why they are playing Ocean 11 when you are expecting a traditional story. Having this conversation will help you find a way for everyone to be on the same page when making the story together (the DM through the world and NPCs and the Players through the PCs).

[Unoriginal]

*voice from under the table* I'm curious... do you guys make the same arguments when DMs complain about murder hobos, showboaters, over-powered class builds, and rules lawyers?


If the advice is "don't play with people you don't like to play with", then yes.



Does the fault lie with the DM for not providing the correct arena for those players?

It's not a question of fault.

You and your players don't like the same kind of play. That's all.



Because I have people running off the map; I have people bypassing monsters that I've spent a long time statting; and I have NPCs and story elements that I'm unable to unfold because the party isn't engaging with them.

That's nice of you, but again, if you don't like that kind of story, nothing will make you like them, and nothing will make your players like what you like.



I feel like a lot of you are going straight for the jugular on me, and mainly because the players are being "clever". I agree they are clever. But I'm looking for ideas to make things easier as a story-planner. Ideas that go beyond flagellating myself for being a terrible, terrible DM.

Because FYI, I was christened Catholic. I've got the self-hating stuff polished.

We've been talking with you for four pages about what you could do, we're not "going straight for the jugular".



and mainly because the players are being "clever".

I think they're less being "clever" and more that they have ideas, so you feel obligated to indulge them.

To explain my point: making the troll guarding the dungeon be taken out by a nearby monster is a good idea, but it doesn't mean that there is a monster capable of taking out that troll nearby, or that the PCs will succeed at the task of convincing/tricking the monster into attacking a troll. In fact, the presence of this troll here would make it far more likely that there *aren't* any troll-killing monsters nearby.


Same way that if PCs rough up a NPC is a public setting (ex, a tavern), fooling the guard sergeant who showed up would not be easy, and fleeing the scene is likely to get the PCs researched by the authority.

Actions are not auto-success, and actions have consequences. A DM should not be afraid of saying "no", or "you fail."

[Shaonir]

1) Talking to each other is a very powerful tool regardless of who is or even whether anyone is at fault.
2) The fault does not always lie with the DM. However the person asking advice of the forum is usually only able to control their own actions (IRL mind control is rare). So the forum will usually give advice for how YOU can help improve the situation regardless of if you are the DM, a Player, a spouse, or even a neighbor 3 doors down that likes to dance the polka.




Being a DM is hard. Some of these are issues the Players could be better behaved in. Some of these are you extending the role of the DM into the role of the Players. This is why talking to each other, listening to each other, communicating with each other, and finding a game (if there is one) that you can all enjoy is the go to advice.

We are not trying to stab you in the jugular. We are not encouraging you to self hate. We see a DM-PC disconnect and how it brought you disappointment but also how you refrained from merely taking control of their characters. Yes we have been focusing on the weak spot in your skill because that is an area to improve, instead of spending time complementing the proficiencies in your skill. This is because solving that one weak spot is the place that makes things easier as a DM.

The weakspot in my skill being a reliance on the Hero's Journey? Just trying to clarify. Cos I concur on that point.

(Even though I apparently don't understand the Hero's Journey, or Star Wars, or Lord of the Rings, or how to DM, or how to read a book, or how to watch a movie, and how to articulate, or construct an Aristotlean thesis statement, or how to deal with the burden of proof).

[Unoriginal]

Sorry that I wasted you time, Unoriginal. I hope you can move past this.

Or you could try to RESPOND to me and my points, rather than unilaterally deciding you've wasted my time.

I'm answering your questions so we can have a dialogue, so it'd be nice if you could try doing the same, even a little. Or at least explain why my advice is useless.

I mean, I've answered your "How to get the drop on stealthy players?" question directly, several times, and you never even acknowledged it.

[Shaonir]

Or you could try to RESPOND to me and my points, rather than unilaterally deciding you've wasted my time.

I'm answering your questions so we can have a dialogue, so it'd be nice if you could try doing the same, even a little. Or at least explain why my advice is useless.

I mean, I've answered your "How to get the drop on stealthy players?" question directly, several times, and you never even acknowledged it.

And you've continually accused me of not explaining myself, which I think I have. I'm sorry I haven't given you a detailed session-by-session account of the exact techniques I employ. I assumed that would be tedious. But from the moment you entered this thread you've seemed to be resentful of everything I say.

No one is forcing you to respond here. If you don't like my answers, you can move on to someone who isn't a lost cause.

If the question has truly been answered, then why are you still here, trying to convince me that I'm scum?

[OldTrees1]

The weakspot in my skill being a reliance on the Hero's Journey? Just trying to clarify. Cos I concur on that point.

Not quite what I meant although it is related.

The weakspot is twofold:
A) The feeling that if the PCs go off script then that is a failing of the game.
B) DM-Player disconnect in what kind of game you all are playing.

The former (A) is a bigger weakness.
The latter (B) is one that you will alway be working on. Every DM can speak to disconnects they have had and how they have worked to identify & resolve those disconnects. Talking is usually the first step.

Honestly I can't narrow down to one theory about why your players are playing action at a distance to your straightforward hero's journey. However each of my theories sees you as coming out with a better campaign after the talk.

Perhaps they are seeing the straightforward path as being more lethal than you intended: In this case both you and the Players want to play your straightforward hero's journey. After the talk you go back to the game and their PCs are more confident and brash about the encounters they face. (like Legolas and Gimli in LotR)

Perhaps they want to be playing a bunch of sneaky ninjas: In this case you craft the hero's journey of the ninjas that don't have time or strength to go through the straightforward way and thus have challenges and obstacles they face in their efforts to sneak to what they need to retrieve. (like Sam and Frodo in LotR)

Perhaps they want to be playing as leaders of a faction vs the enemy faction: In this case the conflicts do become more indirect. The PCs manipulate their social resources to try to create an opening to their objective. In return the enemies try to disrupt those social resources to create openings to hit the PCs where it hurts. The BBEG has a weapon and a hostage, do the PCs disable the weapon or save the hostage? Does it really matter to character development if the action is direct or indirect as long as the PC knows the choice they are making?


(Even though I apparently don't understand the Hero's Journey, or Star Wars, or Lord of the Rings, or how to DM, or how to read a book, or how to watch a movie, and how to articulate, or construct an Aristotlean thesis statement, or how to deal with the burden of proof).

I see no evidence of these criticisms. The closest is that, like all DMs, you have areas you could continue to improve.

[Unoriginal]

But from the moment you entered this thread you've seemed to be resentful of everything I say.

Yeah, no. I wouldn't be trying to help otherwise.

[QUOTE=Shaonir;22871059]
If the question has truly been answered, then why are you still here, trying to convince me that I'm scum?

I'm not bloody trying to convince you that you're scum. The only two negative things I've said about you is that you didn't explain your problem well (as it took several pages and many people asking to go to the root of the problem) and that your players were only able to pull the stuff they did because you, as a DM, let them go away with it easily (something you kinda acknowledged).

Now, maybe my answer wasn't clear enough, so I'll repeat it: if you want something that both you and your players may like, try running Out of the Abyss. It's a module that both reward being stealthy, ressourceful, avoiding powerful enemies until you're in a position of strength and do some intrigues while having the PCs interacting with NPCs, learning about the plot, and providing bad guys the PCs can't plan around or avoid, especially if they get the drop on the PCs.





(Even though I apparently don't understand the Hero's Journey

Well, since you bring that up, let me ask you a question:

How would, according to you, a RPG adventure that follow the Hero's Journey go?


Because I kinda doubt you want an adventure that does the "The Call to Adventure-> Refusal of the Call-> Supernatural Aid->Crossing the First Threshold->Belly of the Whale-> The Road of Trials-> The Meeting with the Goddess-> The Woman As Temptress-> Atonement with the Father-> Apotheosis-> The Ultimate Boon-> Refusal of the Return-> The Magic Flight-> Rescue from Without ->The Crossing of the Return Threshold->Master of Two Worlds ->Freedom to Live" structure.

[Shaonir]

Yeah, no. I wouldn't be trying to help otherwise.You probably would if it helped you get your kicks from belittling people. And now we're both stuck in a forum argument and trying to have the last word. So there's your reason for flogging this dead horse. Let's move on from that point.


How would, according to you, a RPG adventure that follow the Hero's Journey go?If I answered that, you would pick apart my answer and accuse me of being unclear again. I see the pattern here.



Because I kinda doubt you want an adventure that does the "The Call to Adventure-> Refusal of the Call-> Supernatural Aid->Crossing the First Threshold->Belly of the Whale-> The Road of Trials-> The Meeting with the Goddess-> The Woman As Temptress-> Atonement with the Father-> Apotheosis-> The Ultimate Boon-> Refusal of the Return-> The Magic Flight-> Rescue from Without ->The Crossing of the Return Threshold->Master of Two Worlds ->Freedom to Live" structure.Then you misunderstand. My complaint is that there is no Belly of the Whale in my adventures. No Atonement or Apotheosis.

Our comprehension of one another is at an impasse.

You will probably want to disagree with me on that. But it would cause a paradox.

[Beelzebubba]

Does the fault lie with the DM for not providing the correct arena for those players?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no...


Because I have people running off the map; I have people bypassing monsters that I've spent a long time statting; and I have NPCs and story elements that I'm unable to unfold because the party isn't engaging with them.

...the problem is, those things may be them being jerks, or it may be you spending time on things the party hasn't signed on for yet. What you've said so far still leaves it ambiguous.


I agree they are clever. But I'm looking for ideas to make things easier as a story-planner. Ideas that go beyond flagellating myself for being a terrible, terrible DM.

Because FYI, I was christened Catholic. I've got the self-hating stuff polished.

Hah! I have a Catholic Mom. We're bros!

To the idea we're hating on you, well, I'm definitely not. I've learned a few hard lessons after running games for a couple of decades, and I'm trying to pass them on.

Proper planning isn't about designing things a long way out, in detail, to cover all contingencies of one story, and getting your characters to engage with it. It's about first learning what the characters want to engage with, creating a rough general plan around that, getting the players to 'bite' on a specific part of it, and ONLY THEN building detailed content, one session at a time.

It's a flip in perspective. It requires the party to actually give the DM a direction, and the DM to understand it.

If your characters are absolutely blank slates that have no predictable motivations, and they're not willing to let you in on them, then yeah, your players being jerks, and this isn't something you can fix. You need to have them literally write 'My character's biggest goal in life is to ____' before you DM another game. If they can't do that, then forget it.

Or, if you want to DM with your style, a strong narrative with a big Hollywood flavor, set up another group. Some tables absolutely need to be led into certain kinds of situations with certain kinds of outcomes, and they'd love it. Just write up your style in a 'Session 0' document and recruit with it.

I hope that makes sense. I spent way too long on this if it doesn't.

[Unoriginal]

You probably would if it helped you get your kicks from belittling people. And now we're both stuck in a forum argument and trying to have the last word. So there's your reason for flogging this dead horse. Let's move on from that point.

Suuuure. Let's do that.




If I answered that, you would pick apart my answer and accuse me of being unclear again. I see the pattern here.

Yeah, no. Now you're accusing me of things for no reason.



Then you misunderstand. My complaint is that there is no Belly of the Whale in my adventures. No Atonement or Apotheosis.

Alright, so you *want* your adventure to follow this structure ?




Our comprehension of one another is at an impasse.

You will probably want to disagree with me on that. But it would cause a paradox.

Do you want help, or not?


Again, you did not even acknowledge my answer to your question:



Now, maybe my answer wasn't clear enough, so I'll repeat it: if you want something that both you and your players may like, try running Out of the Abyss. It's a module that both reward being stealthy, ressourceful, avoiding powerful enemies until you're in a position of strength and do some intrigues while having the PCs interacting with NPCs, learning about the plot, and providing bad guys the PCs can't plan around or avoid, especially if they get the drop on the PCs.

I respectfully ask you to tell me if, yes or no, an adventure like this or similar would fit what you want.

[Shaonir]

Do you want help, or not?I've reached the end of what you can teach me. But thanks.


I hope that makes sense. I spent way too long on this if it doesn't.It does, and thanks for the good advice. The answer to this is not berating one another, but having an open dialogue where neither person is on trial for not expressing things correctly.

All in all there are some great tips in this thread, and I am grateful to most of you for helping me reflect on this from a position of zen.

It's like I've been through a little Hero's Journey of my own, and come out a better person. :smallsmile:

[Vaz]

What the actual ****

[Thrudd]

Tips for making adventures work better -

It must start at character design. That the characters have reason (and the players understand and accept that reason) to engage in the adventures you envision is essential. You have to demand characters that are appropriate for your game, even if it means restricting your players from choices (and it likely will). You can't have a pacifist character with no combat ability in a game that is going to be all tactical combat battles. You can't have a character that wants nothing but to peacefully farm the land with their family in a game where they are meant to be hunting for treasures in the wilderness. Tell the players what the gist of your campaign is and what sort of things their characters should want to do. It helps if you are using a game system that is tuned for the sort of game you hope to run, so that most character options are, by default, appropriate for whatever you plan on doing.

Ideally, you will also tie game/character advancement to achieving the goals you want the players to achieve. If you want a tight plot with preconceived character/story arcs, then one way to do this is to reward the players only when they hit the beats you want them to hit. This likely means the milestone-levelling option rather than awarding XP.

IE, They gain their first level after accepting the call to adventure following whatever scripted event (the village getting attacked by goblins, etc.) They gain the next level after they have passed a threshold guardian and found the mentor. If they try to bypass any of these events, if they run from the adventure or skirt past the guardian or fail to recognize or try to kill the mentor, no levels. Until they accept the call and go on the path you want them on, they will not get any levels, and you will keep throwing them calls for adventure or threshold guardians until they choose to face it and go where you want them to go, physically and emotionally. Perhaps you will have conceived multiple options for achieving each story/character beat, and the level can be awarded when any one is hit. IMO, this is a bad fit for D&D in general and will likely not go over well, but you can try to pound that square peg into the round hole if you want to (this isn't being a bad DM - it's just a less-than-efficient/more difficult way to use of the game system - this is the root of many people's problems trying to plan stories for D&D). To me, it comes off as the players needing to read your mind to know what they are supposed to do next, and/or be in meta-game mode thinking about the hero's journey or what sort of thing they think you think makes a good story rather than thinking about what their characters would do in the fictional world.

If you are willing to give up the idea of the game needing to hit specific "story beats", the best way to plan adventures for D&D is to present the characters/players with specific, objective (in-world) goals, and award XP or levels for achieving those objectives. The manner in which the objective is achieved should not be restricted other than by the in-world reality of the scenario. The more straightforward the objective is, the better - retrieve the item and bring it back here. Find the guy and stop him from doing something. Rescue the captive and get them back here alive. There should of course be complications and complex situations in between the characters and their objective, but the objective itself is rather simple. You may have a multi-part mission with different objectives or primary and secondary objectives, with different amounts of XP awarded for each one. If the characters sneak past a certain area or fail to follow a clue to a certain NPC, perhaps they miss the opportunity to get some XP from a secondary objective. That's ok, you should anticipate this.

Your story ultimately will be built on the ongoing events in the world around the characters, the motives and activities of NPCs, which are revealed to the players over time. If you want to end the campaign (there's no reason this sort of campaign ever really needs to end if you don't want it to), you can bring plot lines from different missions together into a final climactic objective, and the players can succeed or fail for a final time.

Know your setting, your locales, your NPCs and monsters, so you can improvise events in a reasonable way. Keep track of the passage of time for the same reason. Have an idea what is likely to happen if the characters approach the location immediately or if they spend some extra days scouting. Use tables for possible events that occur over time - if the situation warrants it, there should be possible consequences to delaying just as there are risks to rushing in.


With characters correctly keyed to your campaign, you should avoid the majority of problems with players refusing to engage with your creation on the grounds of "my character wouldn't do that!" Your rebuttal should be "I told you that your character is supposed to want to do that. So either have your character get on-board, or make a different character that does want to do this."

With game-advancement keyed specifically to objectives, you can avoid the case of players just going completely "off map" for the most part. Whether the objective is following your scripted plot and completing certain "scenes", or an actual in-world objective like a quest, players should know what are the parameters for success and failure in your game and can make appropriate game decisions. If success is measured by how many monsters they kill, then they will be looking for ways to kill monsters with as little risk to their characters as possible. If success is measured by progress along the hero's journey, then they will be looking for the stages of the journey. If they go "off-map" in any case, keep offering them opportunity to get back "on map" with prompts, and they should certainly notice when XP is not being awarded as they dally about. Ideally, they will have no reason or inclination to go "off-map", because they are pursuing the things that their characters want, which are the same things your game is about.

View the game not as a complete story that you are telling, but as a series of decision points. The story's progress must change based on the outcome of each decision, and ultimately the players' performance must be the dictator of the story's direction. Successfully meeting objectives, which players are fully aware of and actively pursuing, is the method by which you judge progress and give game awards (levels, treasures, etc.) You ensure they are approaching your decision points by prepping them for the game with appropriate characters and clearly communicating what the game is about.

[Malifice]

Once again... not trying to write Lord of the Rings here.

I'm arguing the point that a "true character moment" - one that catapults a character forward on their emotional development - cannot come from the shadows, or from a place of detached, genius masterminding. The true moment remains, as it has through the history of storytelling, the moment when a character's life is on the line and they have a weapon in their hand and have to make the swing. And I was looking for advice on how to encourage more of those moments.

But it looks like Joseph Campbell has been beaten to death and pinned to the wall of this particular dungeon. *glances around the forum* So I guess we should leave that point alone. Some of you believe that RPG is no place for the Hero's Journey... others might disagree, but they're probably hiding under the tables and whimpering right now.

So... thanks for the advice everyone! Good to see people thinking about this stuff.

*crawls under the table*

Yet when I think of the hero's journey (Luke skywalker) or Lord of the rings, I note the protagonists spent an awful lot of time sneaking around.

Frodo literally snuck all the way into Mordor. Luke skywalker snuck all the way into the detention block of the Death Star. Both protagonists spent the entire story literally evading being chased by Storm troopers or ring wraiths.

Over the course of the entire story of both protagonists (Luke in a new Hope and Frodo over the course of all three books), I think they used their weapons maybe a grand total of twice each.

Luke while escaping the Death Star, and again when he came back to blow it up.

And it's hard to argue that both characters defining moment in their journey had anything to do with swinging a weapon. In fact both characters defining moment had everything to do with not swinging a weapon. It was Frodo's refusal to kill Gollum that was the defining feature of his journey.

It was Luke's refusal to kill Vader that was his.

[Silberluchs]

Having read through this entire thread, I am going to abbreviate:

Q: How to tell a story that engages the players better than the OP manages?
A: Be a GM, more suitable to the players, than the OP is for his.

It's a classic case of shut up or walk away. Or, if you are unfriendly, you can reason that players are more replaceable then GMs, and tell the problem-children to walk away, if you feel not all of them are misaligning with your story.

[Thrudd]

Having read through this entire thread, I am going to abbreviate:

Q: How to tell a story that engages the players better than the OP manages?
A: Be a GM, more suitable to the players, than the OP is for his.

It's a classic case of shut up or walk away. Or, if you are unfriendly, you can reason that players are more replaceable then GMs, and tell the problem-children to walk away, if you feel not all of them are misaligning with your story.

I understand this is a group of friends- he isn't going to go find a new group to play with. It's a classic case of not everyone wants to play the same game. Option 1 is to ask them nicely if they'll play your game. Option 2 is to agree to play their game. Given that they all think they are playing the same game already (but clearly aren't), some discussion is in order with the friends on the subject of expectations.

The players think the game is about you supplying challenges which they need to overcome while keeping their characters alive, and they use all the resources the game and the GM allows them to do that in the best way they can.

You think the game is about you telling them a story of epic heroism, in which they are meant to play the roles of daring heroes fulfilling their destiny in a way that would make for a good movie or novel.

As a group, it needs to be agreed upon which game is being played.

[Silberluchs]

I understand this is a group of friends- he isn't going to go find a new group to play with. It's a classic case of not everyone wants to play the same game. Option 1 is to ask them nicely if they'll play your game. Option 2 is to agree to play their game. Given that they all think they are playing the same game already (but clearly aren't), some discussion is in order with the friends on the subject of expectations.


Option three is to play something else than RPGs, or at least try something else than D&D. Go play board games or something, or consider a multiplayer computer game. Right now, all the burden to make it work is on the GM, and it seems pretty clear they are not managing. Wipe the slate clean and have the players set up a new activity, with the premise that the current GM is *not* in charge of making it work.

[Vance_Nevada]

First off, they wouldn't accept such a quest, because they're too cool and nonchalant, and the quest-giver would just come off as pushy and overly prescriptive. But let's put that aside.

They would sneak/climb/magic their way in, run away the moment anyone caught a whiff of them, then stake out the fortress for the next two years, waiting for the moment when the Bugbear King leaves to visit his kids in the next kingdom along with his overbearing wife who disapproves of open falchion-carry around her children. Then they would break in again, while chugging potions of flight, invisibility and pass without trace, ignore all paintings on the walls and diaries on the table, steal the falchion, then teleport directly to a tavern before their beer gets cold, and then tell the quest-giver to go f*ck himself while in the middle of expressing his gratitude. They would then beat him up for the money, and run away from the tavern before any NPCs react to what they did, and spend the next seven months hiding in trees with their sunglasses on.

Is the possibility of playing something other than DnD on the table? Taking quests and fighting monsters is pretty central to a standard DnD paradigm.

There are plenty of games out there that encourage this style of ultra-paranoia - Shadowrun and Call of Cthulhu both spring to mind - although there are fewer games for people who won't take plot hooks and want to try and dodge the plot.

I'd recommend Call of Cthulhu, except that the 'smart' play there is to interact with nothing, and Shadowrun has the "Mr Johnstone" quest giver as a standard trope.

I can think of a few quest hooks ("You're dying of a magical disease, which needs to be cured within the year" is one I've seen for CoC) that might work for them, or a self-directed team of Shadowrunners who pursue their own jobs then look for buyers for information that they've stolen, hence not having to take quests so much as find takers for their quest icons.

[Kane0]

How often do your players get into situations that are out of their control? The pattern of stealth, perception and bug out if caught seems like they have no pressure on them, like they are in a sandbox and face no real consequences for taking on things at the time, place and method of their choosing.

Forgive me if you have already gone over this, but when was the last time the party was truly challenged? Time constraints, resource drain, lacking gear, suffering exhaustion, etc? Have they been getting away with it too much? Have they had any of their brilliant plans fail? Have they had actual bad things happen because they opted out? Have the people they have tricked and coerced sought vengeance?

Playing a stealthy and tricky playstyle is fine, and in many cases preferable, BUT their actions and decisions must carry the same amount of weight as when they choose to continually bash in doors and stab people that talk too much.

[Beelzebubba]

They sound like Shadowrun players more than anything else.

[Shaonir]

Forgive me if you have already gone over this, but when was the last time the party was truly challenged? Time constraints, resource drain, lacking gear, suffering exhaustion, etc? Have they been getting away with it too much? Have they had any of their brilliant plans fail? Have they had actual bad things happen because they opted out? Have the people they have tricked and coerced sought vengeance?
That's a good point. Most of my quests originate with the heroes CHOOSING to do something. As such, their only constraints are their willingness to keep going. When they are at their leisure to chose their quest, they are also at their leisure to properly equip themselves and avoid resource drain.

But if I did something like infect them with a disease, or give them a race against time, or have something bad chasing them, or any other restraint, that would lead to accusations of railroading.

And as I said before, these are very clever players. It's not often things go wrong, and if they do they often have backup plans. My NPCs rarely know that they've been duped, or if they do they blame another NPC and not the party.

I've played with "clever players" for most of my life, and it sucks when the game turns into the DM just trying to invent more deadly traps and inescapable monsters to "catch his players out". Then it just becomes a ****-waving and rules-lawyering contest.

As a DM I want to be able to look back at a quest and see the shape of it, the rise and fall of themes and emotions. But if I'm just looking back over a sandbox where the players remain unscathed, unobserved, and unchanged, how long can the DM sustain his own interest? He just becomes a sandbox purveyor, dropping monsters into the ballpit. Not a crafter of an intriguing narrative.

[OldTrees1]

That's a good point. Most of my quests originate with the heroes CHOOSING to do something. As such, their only constraints are their willingness to keep going. When they are at their leisure to chose their quest, they are also at their leisure to properly equip themselves and avoid resource drain.

But if I did something like infect them with a disease, or give them a race against time, or have something bad chasing them, or any other restraint, that would lead to accusations of railroading.

And as I said before, these are very clever players. It's not often things go wrong, and if they do they often have backup plans. My NPCs rarely know that they've been duped, or if they do they blame another NPC and not the party.

I've played with "clever players" for most of my life, and it sucks when the game turns into the DM just trying to invent more deadly traps and inescapable monsters to "catch his players out". Then it just becomes a ****-waving and rules-lawyering contest.

As a DM I want to be able to look back at a quest and see the shape of it, the rise and fall of themes and emotions. But if I'm just looking back over a sandbox where the players remain unscathed, unobserved, and unchanged, how long can the DM sustain his own interest? He just becomes a sandbox purveyor, dropping monsters into the ballpit. Not a crafter of an intriguing narrative.

Why again can't you use time pressure? The Players are choosing what to go after, what about when they choose to go after something with a deadline or expiration date? One of the many notes of interest the PCs encounter might include instructions for a beneficial ritual that can only happen once every 1000 years or so. That hook expires in 9 months unless they are willing to wait around for the next cycle. Another note of interest they encounter might be about a conflict between two groups. If the PCs do nothing or too little, then the conflict will come to a close with whoever was initially going to win. You can even have cultists attempt to summon elder evils in a sandbox campaign. What about internal motivation instead? If one of the PCs wants to create a guild, are you telling me that they will find indefinitely loyal servants, OR will there be a decline in support if the PCs respond too slowly to the concerns of their staff.

[Thrudd]

That's a good point. Most of my quests originate with the heroes CHOOSING to do something. As such, their only constraints are their willingness to keep going. When they are at their leisure to chose their quest, they are also at their leisure to properly equip themselves and avoid resource drain.

But if I did something like infect them with a disease, or give them a race against time, or have something bad chasing them, or any other restraint, that would lead to accusations of railroading.

And as I said before, these are very clever players. It's not often things go wrong, and if they do they often have backup plans. My NPCs rarely know that they've been duped, or if they do they blame another NPC and not the party.

I've played with "clever players" for most of my life, and it sucks when the game turns into the DM just trying to invent more deadly traps and inescapable monsters to "catch his players out". Then it just becomes a ****-waving and rules-lawyering contest.

As a DM I want to be able to look back at a quest and see the shape of it, the rise and fall of themes and emotions. But if I'm just looking back over a sandbox where the players remain unscathed, unobserved, and unchanged, how long can the DM sustain his own interest? He just becomes a sandbox purveyor, dropping monsters into the ballpit. Not a crafter of an intriguing narrative.

The problem is, the GM in any RPG has only partial ability to craft a narrative. As much or more of it depends on the players. You can really only point them in a direction and see where they go - that's how these games are designed. The themes are restricted to what you put there before the players get involved, and the "rise and fall" is almost completely dependent on their actions, and you can't control or predict emotions other than those of NPCs. The DM can't really look at him/herself as a crafter of intriguing narrative, but as a crafter of intriguing scenarios with the potential to result in an intriguing narrative or at least some excitement and surprise. If you want emotional character arcs and a dramatic narrative, you need the players to want to do that and play along.

The way you influence the direction of things is by choosing the game system and house rules that encourage the kind of play you hope to see, and by talking with the players beforehand to establish what you're trying to do. D&D is a game designed by default to do what your players are doing - perhaps they may be a bit more cautious/paranoid than some, but for the most part the way they play follows logically from the rule set. If it has turned into a rules-lawyering thing and they can always lawyer things in their favor, a solution may be to change systems. No more D&D - play GURPS or D6 or Dungeon World or Fate. These are for the most part far less susceptible to rules-lawyering nit-picks, and in some cases much more appropriate to cinematic style narratives.

To some extent, braving the railroading accusations and being willing to stand up for the sort of game you want to run may be necessary. You might just need to be diplomatic, harness your inner politician, and try to convince them that what you want isn't going to be railroading and that it will be fun if they give it a chance. It isn't railroading if you tell them before the game starts what they will be required to be/do, it's setting parameters/context for the game. Monopoly doesn't "railroad" you into being a real estate tycoon - that's all the game is about. Consider approaching the RPG in a similar way. "This game is about some heroes who are in a race against time to solve a problem in their world. Characters need to meet certain parameters x, y ,z, and subject to my approval. Success or failure will be up to you, and the results may impact the conditions of possible future games in this setting." In the end, everything requires player buy-in and if they won't cooperate you'll need to choose to roll with it, or be willing to end it in recognition that they just don't want to play your game. Maybe ask one of the others to DM so you can play for a while.

You can use optional or houserules to help you move things in the direction you'd like, even if you're sticking with D&D. Find the rules exploits they like to use and remove them. Add rules that will require things to move along more in the manner you'd like. Change the system of character rewards to encourage what you want. You need to make the game mechanically and systemically support your goals.

[Kane0]

I recommend the Silverclawshift chronicles and campaign journals of Kaveman26 as required reading. Both feature smart, experienced players put under pressure and making a good game for it. Some pretty severe pressure in some cases.

Edit: Cattle driving necromancers is one of my favourites, very similar situation to yourself where the DM was floundering to keep pace with the PCs shenanigans behind-the-scenes.

[Angelalex242]

'Well, you see, the cult of Orcus doesn't particularly care that you think it's railroading. They want to summon their dark master to end the world. Now, you don't have to stop them...but hey, if the world ends, you all die, so it's your call."

[Vance_Nevada]

...But if I did something like infect them with a disease, or give them a race against time, or have something bad chasing them, or any other restraint, that would lead to accusations of railroading...


So the players won't take quest hooks from NPCs without complaining... but also won't accept any game setup with an inbuilt quest for their characters. You want to craft ongoing narratives, which require setup ("railroading" by introducing a campaign premise, by a really sharp definition)

Well, there's a couple more possible steps.

One is to play a game system with a meta-currency like FATE that pays the players hero points to have their characters screw up.
One is to trade the GM reins to one of them, since you don't like GMing.
One is to simply insist about a setup. The cult of Orcus will destroy the earth in 17 days, regardless of how clever your plans are, or how much moaning about railroading this generates.
One is to simply continue to comply with them, but stop putting in a lot of effort as GM. Make a couple of quick NPCs, have them react and get foiled. Don't bother to plot anything out, since you know the players will take a lot of steps to avoid interacting with it in the first place. Paint in very broad, simple to GM strokes ("Baron Bad wants the Sceptre of Blood for EVIL, but will take no steps to obtain it (because that would be railroading). He sits in his room, or leaves, as best works with the players plans."

[2D8HP]

[...]What ideas do you all have for handling parties that are stuck in the Sneak-Sneak-Flee-Sneak-Flee-Sneak-Sneak paradigm?[...]


Congratulate them?

In most every 5e game I've played all the other players just want to wade into melee at first sight and stay there.

Bows, hiding, stealth and retreating seldom seem to ever occur to any of my co-players.

Your players sound cool to me.

[asstout]

I feel I should reiterate that I'm not trying to replicate Lo-- *glances at DeadMech*... the L- movie. Nor am I trying to shove my serialized novel down anyone's throat. This is not about a raging DM who is failing to have his epic saga brought to life by his peons.

I'm talking about the basics of storytelling, challenged by a culture in which the assumed protagonists become insulated observers, taking no direct action and eluding direct conflict with the forces arrayed against them.

What ideas do you all have for handling parties that are stuck in the Sneak-Sneak-Flee-Sneak-Flee-Sneak-Sneak paradigm?

Yes yes, I know - I'm a terrible DM and I should kill myself. But apart from that...?

First solution: This has been said already, but, only roll when it is needed. They can't always sneak. They aren't always stealthed. Sometimes they fail? Hopefully they do. If not, that is a DM issue with letting them always succeed. Also, take the passive rolls out of their hands. That is the whole point of passive perception.

Second: Sometimes sneaking into a room is bad. What if the guards are there to keep what is in there from you? I would find that, as a GM, this would be a perfect time to reiterate why splitting the party is a bad idea.

Third: This sounds more like the players could give two sh*ts less about what you put out there. Either find new players, adding new people to group or changing them altogether, or just run the type of scenarios they prefer.

Fourth: If they feel everything you do is railroading, then maybe they are railroading you.

[apepi]

Invisibility is pretty good, you can't sneak on something that you don't know that is there.

[the secret fire]

Or you can to what I do throw them in a world. Give them a few hooks and let them bit on what they want. "Ok y'all are talking with a few members of the tooth and fang. They point out on the wooden table. Here about two day north west jack found a few ruins but wasn't able to check them out because of those blasted snow raptors, Over here one day north a few of loggers were looking for good timber but at night they been hearing there love ones call out to them at night the one that go looking haven't came back. Oi I also here branden was looking for someone to pick up some supplies from that small village over the mountain it about a week south of here. Aint that were hydra Roams around.

So long as NPCs begin plot hook expositions with "Oi!", all is right in the world.