Overly Passive Party

[strangebloke]

Just curious to see what people say.

In general, I see a lot of DMs complaining about murderhobo parties who just always try to solve everything with murder.

I have the opposite problem. A party that will never, ever challenge anything an NPC tells them, and will only fight if they're directly attacked.


The guards want to arrest them on clearly corrupt, false charges? "We'll beat them at the trial! We come peaceably!"
The Sage of Conjuration is clearly a villain? "We'll book an appointment with his secretary, and then confront him!"
The secretary says he's not in? "Well, we'll wait here until he comes back then!"
A cackling devil traps them in a magical mirror maze and says they can't get out unless they bargain with him? The party doesn't try tricking him (one option) navigating the maze (another option) or breaking the mirrors and fighting the demon (option 3) they instead just spend an hour trying to bargain for better terms on which to sell their soul. They just accept the devil's statement that "You'll never escape!" at face value.


Now, if some of you read my posts, you know that I try to be a 'galactic force' style GM, where the NPCs are smart and reactive and will deal with the PCs in as efficient a manner as possible. This means that this party is constantly getting backstabbed, assassinated, thrown into prison. We've had three deaths so far, but they persist playing passively.

This isn't a problem I generally have. I've run games 1-2 times a week since 5e came out, and of the seven campaigns I've run, this is the first time I've had a party so passive. I could run the campaign differently, but personally I find an ultra-straightforward dungeon crawl to be boring, and I don't DM well when I'm bored.

Thoughts?

[Blood of Gaea]

Place them in a defensive campaign. They start with needing to defend towns, then cities, then countries. And they tend to do it by defending from invasions, rather than seeking out the source. Other people handle that.

This is also a fun time for the defensive spells that don't see much play to shine.

[strangebloke]

Place them in a defensive campaign. They start with needing to defend towns, then cities, then countries. And they tend to do it by defending from invasions, rather than seeking out the source. Other people handle that.

This is also a fun time for the defensive spells that don't see much play to shine.

Wouldn't playing defense mean that you're pretty much strictly fighting in massed battles? 5e doesn't support that very well.

Unless you mean defense as in counter-espionage, which, like... they wouldn't be good at that either.

[Blood of Gaea]

Wouldn't playing defense mean that you're pretty much strictly fighting in massed battles? 5e doesn't support that very well.

Unless you mean defense as in counter-espionage, which, like... they wouldn't be good at that either.
It could mean that, or it could be that they have to handle the high threat targets while the local forces handle the bulk of the enemies forces, which can largely be handled through descriptions and perhaps a handful of dice rolls behind the scene to describe the ebb and flow of the overall battle as it progresses.

And even if it's many enemies, say they are defending a wall. You can have them come in waves. That makes individual combats much easier to handle, and makes the 6-8 encounters a day model a breeze to set up.

[Contrast]

Too passive? Try being passive yourself :smallamused: which is to say you could consider using passive insight.

Devil: I have trapped you all! There's no way out!
GM: *consults notes* Tim you know he's lying.

One way to instill in them that not all PCs are trust worthy might be to have two NPCs tell them conflicting information - then they have to resolve it somehow.

Its worth saying it might be worth an OOC discussion - they may well think they're being good players by following along with the plot hooks and ignoring the 'inconsistencies' in your plot.

[Galadhrim]

Maybe have an npc that is trustworthy and has some street smarts. He/she could be an ex adventurer that joins the party for one reason or another. That way the party can get permission to act from an npc, which it sounds like they need; and you don't have to change your dm style for any of the other npcs in the game. For example, if said npc was with them when the Secretary said the evil sorcerer couldn't see them, he could suggest someone sneak in and look around.

[No brains]

Perhaps being a 'galactic force' is your problem. If enemies always have perfect countermeasures, why not be passive? When your NPCs think of everything, the PCs might be trying to consider things not worth thinking about. If you make it seem like every act, especially of violence, is going to dig them in deeper, they're going to lose the motivation to fight.

If you don't want to stop chessmastering, try limiting yourself to a few discrete and finite resources for the enemy to work with. Only reach for demons or 'galatic force' solutions as the start of adventures.

Consider if the party weren't arrested by the normal town guard, but 'Mr. Corrupt Conjurer's special police that the townsfolk hate'. There's a chance they could fight these guys the old fashioned way and win. Just the same way that in Skyrim you can provoke Thalmor by saying you worship Talos and then have the normal guards shrug as you kill their technical overlords. The dead goons would draw trouble, but other NPCs would be willing to help cover for that trouble to an extent.

When the PCs can fight something that (seemingly) has defined limits, they'll be bolder. If they can get a vague idea that there's 80 or so people acting against them at one time and that most people will (generally) have their backs, they might take more decisive action against their foes.

Building off the 'defensive campaign' idea, defined goals will help make the party proactive. "At midnight 5 orcs with 2 spellcasters are going to attack the village" makes it pretty clear that the characters need to take 1. aggressive actions against 2. a reasonable thing they could defeat that 3. will destroy something they like if they do nothing.

You can even have more information come to light that those 7 enemies are part of a horde of more dudes that will take new measures to capture their objective. If that horde has a 10th-level cleric, then that horde can even take some pretty prescient precautions through the info gained from spells like Clairvoyance or Divination. "Hmm. I literally saw that hero cast Spell X. Hey divination, are they of a class that can cast Spell Y? Yes? Now I can prepare against one more trick they can pull."

[Spiritchaser]

Have them solve a murder mystery

Have one of them (select the most subversive and or likely to be willing) to be possessed by a dark and hungry otherworldly being (didn’t they make a deal with one?) for the promise of arcane power... and have them roll play the transformation. See how their fellow players deal with that.

Have one them be possessed by aforementioned entity, murder an NPC for nefarious reasons, then have the party try and solve the mystery, with one of their number working against them.. or with them... who knows, maybe that dark and hungry entity enjoys this sort of thing...

[strangebloke]

It could mean that, or it could be that they have to handle the high threat targets while the local forces handle the bulk of the enemies forces, which can largely be handled through descriptions and perhaps a handful of dice rolls behind the scene to describe the ebb and flow of the overall battle as it progresses.

And even if it's many enemies, say they are defending a wall. You can have them come in waves. That makes individual combats much easier to handle, and makes the 6-8 encounters a day model a breeze to set up.
I don't know, having the same environment for multiple sets of monsters seems very bland to me.

Too passive? Try being passive yourself :smallamused: which is to say you could consider using passive insight.

Devil: I have trapped you all! There's no way out!
GM: *consults notes* Tim you know he's lying.

One way to instill in them that not all PCs are trust worthy might be to have two NPCs tell them conflicting information - then they have to resolve it somehow.

Its worth saying it might be worth an OOC discussion - they may well think they're being good players by following along with the plot hooks and ignoring the 'inconsistencies' in your plot.
I probably should use passive checks more.

But I've had that OOC discussion. I've said that my badguys tend to be alert and active and deceptive, and when the conceit for the adventure is "political intrigue in Fairkeep" or "Mysterious murders in the caravan" I feel that it should be pretty obvious that people are going to be lying to them.

Maybe have an npc that is trustworthy and has some street smarts. He/she could be an ex adventurer that joins the party for one reason or another. That way the party can get permission to act from an npc, which it sounds like they need; and you don't have to change your dm style for any of the other npcs in the game. For example, if said npc was with them when the Secretary said the evil sorcerer couldn't see them, he could suggest someone sneak in and look around.
This is one I'm really strongly going to argue against. DMPCs are no good.

Have them solve a murder mystery

Have one of them (select the most subversive and or likely to be willing) to be possessed by a dark and hungry otherworldly being (didn’t they make a deal with one?) for the promise of arcane power... and have them roll play the transformation. See how their fellow players deal with that.

Have one them be possessed by aforementioned entity, murder an NPC for nefarious reasons, then have the party try and solve the mystery, with one of their number working against them.. or with them... who knows, maybe that dark and hungry entity enjoys this sort of thing...
This complaint is specifically coming out of two mysteries I've run back-to-back.

They're not stupid. Not really. They just have no perception of the passage of time. As I said, they're 95% confident the Sage is summoning demons or doing something nefarious, and when their secretary is out for the day... they just let the matter sit. They decide to spend the entire day tourig the local university where the Sage is on retainer. For kicks. Now, the Sage can't react immediately but he knows that they're gunning for him and they've given him hours to prepare... so he sends demonic assassins after them. They then frown and say "Well, do you think this was the Sage of Conjuration, the noted Demonlogist?"

Perhaps being a 'galactic force' is your problem. If enemies always have perfect countermeasures, why not be passive? When your NPCs think of everything, the PCs might be trying to consider things not worth thinking about. If you make it seem like every act, especially of violence, is going to dig them in deeper, they're going to lose the motivation to fight.

If you don't want to stop chessmastering, try limiting yourself to a few discrete and finite resources for the enemy to work with. Only reach for demons or 'galatic force' solutions as the start of adventures.

Consider if the party weren't arrested by the normal town guard, but 'Mr. Corrupt Conjurer's special police that the townsfolk hate'. There's a chance they could fight these guys the old fashioned way and win. Just the same way that in Skyrim you can provoke Thalmor by saying you worship Talos and then have the normal guards shrug as you kill their technical overlords. The dead goons would draw trouble, but other NPCs would be willing to help cover for that trouble to an extent.

When the PCs can fight something that (seemingly) has defined limits, they'll be bolder. If they can get a vague idea that there's 80 or so people acting against them at one time and that most people will (generally) have their backs, they might take more decisive action against their foes.

Building off the 'defensive campaign' idea, defined goals will help make the party proactive. "At midnight 5 orcs with 2 spellcasters are going to attack the village" makes it pretty clear that the characters need to take 1. aggressive actions against 2. a reasonable thing they could defeat that 3. will destroy something they like if they do nothing.

You can even have more information come to light that those 7 enemies are part of a horde of more dudes that will take new measures to capture their objective. If that horde has a 10th-level cleric, then that horde can even take some pretty prescient precautions through the info gained from spells like Clairvoyance or Divination. "Hmm. I literally saw that hero cast Spell X. Hey divination, are they of a class that can cast Spell Y? Yes? Now I can prepare against one more trick they can pull."
1. the party was explicitly arrested by a notably corrupt guard who was a personal rival to one of the PCs.
2. I don't play unfairly against my players. The bad guys always have a fixed number of thugs and minions etc. But this party consistently gives the bad guys lots of time and refuses to be proactive, meaning that they're always on the back foot.
3. Sometimes, I do give more straightforward missions. You have to go to this dungeon and kill 'x' monster. Perhaps I should be simpler more often, and overall I'm more straightforward with these than I am with other parties. But in this case I designed this segment because three of the party members are optimized to act as investigators. They wanted a mystery/intrigue section.

[Blood of Gaea]

I don't know, having the same environment for multiple sets of monsters seems very bland to me.
You can change the environment. The wall could be bombarded, leaving a gaping hole, they could be driven off the wall and need to fight back in the city, you can toss it up with different enemy types, and plenty of other things like that.

[denthor]

What characters does the party play?

If city have rat kings start coming put of the sewers.

If small towns have giant slugs attack.

Kidnap someone sloppily leave clues as to where they are and they find out it some evil holiday in two months where human sacarfice is needed to prove your worthy to be part of the secret club.

If you arrested me on false charges I would not fight good lawful people. You could have found them guilty. Tell them we know you did not do it we will give you chance to live walk them in a caravan across mountainous terrain then release them. You come back execution on sight. Go that way. Adventure starts anew.

[Adar]

It sounds like the party needs to be presented with more genuine double binds, and also that the passage of time has to have reliable consequences.

The latter point is being discussed pretty thoroughly in a different thread on this board - I highly recommend it. There are a number of different mechanics being discussed as a means of rationally applying time pressure in an even-handed manner. I think this particular problem is something that comes up in campaigns that are not the "classic dungeon crawl" format.

Now that you know this about your party, you can bake in true double binds (or triple, or quadruple) into encounters you'd like to see movement on. The players still have agency - they are picking their path. It's just that the path that is the most passive does not give benefits, and may even have obvious disadvantages from other choices.

And then let the chips fall where they may.

[Keravath]

It actually sounds to me like you play a realistic game. The villains may not be all bad, the good guys may not be all good. The BBEG may be motivated by what they perceive as a noble goal (save the universe from the depredations of its inhabitants by killing half of them for example).

However, in todays society, we have the concepts of guilty on the balance of probabilities, guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and clearly guilty. You may have a bunch of mostly logical and lawful people who just won't act without certainty and you don't seem to give it to them. They are 95% certain the Sage of Conjuration is bad and summons demons. However, they don't seem to have seen him summon demons, he seems to hold a respected scholarly position, they can't even get an appointment to accuse him (which to be honest won't work out anyway since he will just deny it) and there doesn't appear to be solid, incontrovertible proof that the Sage is guilty. Murderhobos would kill him since the DM pointed them in his direction so he is guilty. Real characters who don't like killing things unless they have to will probably try to gather evidence (thus the trip to the University where they found nothing).

It could just be a case of a realistic DM playing with realistic players :) .. think about it, is it reasonable to march in to a scholars office and murder him because you are mostly sure he could be a bad demonologist?

In the case of being arrested on trumped up charges ... what would you REALLY do? In real life? You'd get arrested and defend yourself assuming goodwill on the part of the authorities even if one member is corrupt ... wouldn't you? Or if a couple of dirty cops showed up at your door to arrest you for something you didn't do, you'd shoot them and run out the back?

I think "real" behavior is actually typically much more passive than most D&D parties play ... its just that most D&D parties don't want to play realism, they want heroes with no doubts who take the law into their own hands. It sounds like your party doesn't do that.

If this is the case, then the best way to deal with it would be to provide CERTAINTY. The characters witness the sage summoning a demon that goes on to kill one or more innocents. The PCs approach the authorities who make it clear they will do nothing. The sage is well respected and the PCs aren't. This leaves the PCs in a situation where if they do not take action the Sage will strike again and kill more innocents and they have no recourse to higher authority. The moral dilemma may force them to taking actions based on their clear knowledge.

Rumors, innuendo, rude behavior don't prove anything ... it sounds like these PCs need facts and personal experiences to drive the plot forward so I would try that. Don't be cagey, don't imply, don't suggest, make the facts plain, obvious, unassailable, make it clear that the decisions that the players make based on those facts will affect other NPCs. Ignoring the situation, delaying dealing with it, waiting for morning or the most opportune time might result in innocents or friends dying. Create situations in the game where a realistic normal person (not a D&D adventurer) would feel compelled to take action and see if that can drive the plot forward.

[firelistener]

I had this problem a lot with a group. They ran from literally every fight without even attempting to resist. What I eventually did: use passive perception and super low skill checks to tell them things like "you feel confident that you could be victorious over this enemy" and using more monsters instead of humanoid enemies.

If it could talk, my players would try to reason with it far past the point of what would normally make sense. So I had to throw more gelatinous cubes and other monsters at the to make it clear that there would be no talking their way out this time. I also started locking them inside rooms with trapped locks so they couldn't just bail. Once they got more comfortable with the idea of combat, they started to engage more on their own.

[strangebloke]

You can change the environment. The wall could be bombarded, leaving a gaping hole, they could be driven off the wall and need to fight back in the city, you can toss it up with different enemy types, and plenty of other things like that.
Not a bad idea. I may try that

It sounds like the party needs to be presented with more genuine double binds, and also that the passage of time has to have reliable consequences.

The latter point is being discussed pretty thoroughly in a different thread on this board - I highly recommend it. There are a number of different mechanics being discussed as a means of rationally applying time pressure in an even-handed manner. I think this particular problem is something that comes up in campaigns that are not the "classic dungeon crawl" format.

Now that you know this about your party, you can bake in true double binds (or triple, or quadruple) into encounters you'd like to see movement on. The players still have agency - they are picking their path. It's just that the path that is the most passive does not give benefits, and may even have obvious disadvantages from other choices.

And then let the chips fall where they may.
I generally am pretty good about consequences. As you see in my OP, dawdling rarely leads to good things. The world keeps moving on.

It actually sounds to me like you play a realistic game. The villains may not be all bad, the good guys may not be all good. The BBEG may be motivated by what they perceive as a noble goal (save the universe from the depredations of its inhabitants by killing half of them for example).

However, in todays society, we have the concepts of guilty on the balance of probabilities, guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and clearly guilty. You may have a bunch of mostly logical and lawful people who just won't act without certainty and you don't seem to give it to them. They are 95% certain the Sage of Conjuration is bad and summons demons. However, they don't seem to have seen him summon demons, he seems to hold a respected scholarly position, they can't even get an appointment to accuse him (which to be honest won't work out anyway since he will just deny it) and there doesn't appear to be solid, incontrovertible proof that the Sage is guilty. Murderhobos would kill him since the DM pointed them in his direction so he is guilty. Real characters who don't like killing things unless they have to will probably try to gather evidence (thus the trip to the University where they found nothing).

It could just be a case of a realistic DM playing with realistic players :) .. think about it, is it reasonable to march in to a scholars office and murder him because you are mostly sure he could be a bad demonologist?


I wasn't expecting them to walk in a murder him. That's the murderhobo response. But to passively wait in his office for most of a day is something else entirely.

I'll agree that they're (in general) a pretty good group of players. At times, though, they'll even forget what they're actually in a city for. Maaybe I need to be more relaxed at times, give them downtime where they can just explore a city without any consequence. Wouldn't really be supported by DND but then its not the sort of thing you really need support for.


I had this problem a lot with a group. They ran from literally every fight without even attempting to resist. What I eventually did: use passive perception and super low skill checks to tell them things like "you feel confident that you could be victorious over this enemy" and using more monsters instead of humanoid enemies.

If it could talk, my players would try to reason with it far past the point of what would normally make sense. So I had to throw more gelatinous cubes and other monsters at the to make it clear that there would be no talking their way out this time. I also started locking them inside rooms with trapped locks so they couldn't just bail. Once they got more comfortable with the idea of combat, they started to engage more on their own.

My group isn't that bad, thank goodness. They will fight when it comes down to it. Mostly I just think they're a bunch of pretty passive, indecisive people in real life and that's reflected in there not really being a party leader. I prefer it to the alternative. A few years back I had a party completely composed of type A people who *had* to be the leader and make the big decisions... not a fun time.

[Sigreid]

Have you tried telling them that as the DM some of the npc's you're controlling are going to be out to screw them and you cant telegraph which ones?

[Tvtyrant]

Seems like they have a hard time with lies and espionage. I would probably reframe those so it becomes easier for them to take a side; they don't find out he is a demon cultist, they get hired by someone to find evidence on whether he is or not. Instead of them getting accused falsely, a client hires them to clear the client's name. This gives them a clearer direction and makes them responsible for what is going on instead of waiting for things to happen.

[dragoeniex]

Have you considered trying a more Choose Your Own Adventure style for a couple segments and see how they do if you explicitly point out general approaches they could take? Maybe combine with what you know of the characters and certain passive scores, if you want to call out specific names who would notice/know/etc, but just omnisciently narrating works too.

You may want to touch base outside the game ahead of it, to see if the players are chill with testing it out or think it sounds demeaning or patronizing. But if they only ever want to go directly toward the options you plainly state and present, you should start presenting things more plainly.

"You can go left, right, or forward," will be less intimidating if they're getting burned out and would really enjoy just playing to see what happens.

[strangebloke]

Have you tried telling them that as the DM some of the npc's you're controlling are going to be out to screw them and you cant telegraph which ones?
I mean, yes, I have said this. That's a session 0 discussion: "My world moves on whether you do or not."

And in this case (and in general) the Villains aren't fixated on the heroes. They don't even know about the heroes or react to them until something puts them on the radar. In this case it was the party going to his office all full of righteous fury.

Seems like they have a hard time with lies and espionage. I would probably reframe those so it becomes easier for them to take a side; they don't find out he is a demon cultist, they get hired by someone to find evidence on whether he is or not. Instead of them getting accused falsely, a client hires them to clear the client's name. This gives them a clearer direction and makes them responsible for what is going on instead of waiting for things to happen.
Perhaps.

But this was a fairly straightforward adventure from my perspective. In fact, I accounted for most of these possibilities. Going with the corrupt cop wasn't really a bad decision. My issue is more that they seem to get frustrated, or even forget what it is they're trying to do.

Have you considered trying a more Choose Your Own Adventure style for a couple segments and see how they do if you explicitly point out general approaches they could take? Maybe combine with what you know of the characters and certain passive scores, if you want to call out specific names who would notice/know/etc, but just omnisciently narrating works too.

You may want to touch base outside the game ahead of it, to see if the players are chill with testing it out or think it sounds demeaning or patronizing. But if they only ever want to go directly toward the options you plainly state and present, you should start presenting things more plainly.

"You can go left, right, or forward," will be less intimidating if they're getting burned out and would really enjoy just playing to see what happens.
Yeah, I don't want that much structure. Aside from everything else, it just seems like too much work. And they do love faffing about and controlling their actions. I don't think they'd accept something that formally structured at all.

[Grod_The_Giant]

But this was a fairly straightforward adventure from my perspective. In fact, I accounted for most of these possibilities. Going with the corrupt cop wasn't really a bad decision. My issue is more that they seem to get frustrated, or even forget what it is they're trying to do.
Are they maybe just overwhelmed? It can be easy to get tangled up in layers of intrigue.

[Laserlight]

I don't particularly have any suggestions, but I will say that your group is not the only one. I went out of town for four sessions, and in that time the party finished the fight we were already in, then went to a bar and played pub games and drinking games. I fail to see how anyone could spend three sessions in a row on "roll for how well my character does at darts, roll to see if my character is drunk, roll to see how well my character plays darts while drunk, etc" but apparently they did.

[strangebloke]

Are they maybe just overwhelmed? It can be easy to get tangled up in layers of intrigue.

It's possible. It happens. It wasn't, like complicated intrigue though.


A magical assassin tried to kill them on the road. Papers showed him to be in pay of Countess Nemone, who is known to have many magical supporters. Assassin is student of Conjurer.
In city, there's a blight. That's why they're here. Druid trying to fix the blight is clearly lying. If pressed, he'll admit to being paid by conjurer to fail at job.
Investigation of soil reveals the ground has been cursed with demonic energy. Conjurer has historically sprinkled "magical" fertilizer conjured from the feywild on the grounds for years.
A small favor to one faction in the city will allow them to ask three questions of a powerful information broker who knows the conjurer is guilty.
Conversation with Conjurer's' students reveals that they're all in the pay of Countess Nemone.
Ally of party member thinks that blight is benefitting Countess Nemone more than anyone, thinks
Conjurer is lecturing on Demonology when they first meet him.


They had all of this information, except for the bolded bit, because although they knew about those leads they never followed them. Granted, it was spread over two sessions, but every time they got a clue I was sure to make note of it and remind them at the start of the next session. They did try to create a lead for themselves by spending two hours going through crop warehouses and asking clerks about grain shipments for some reason.

...that might be a big problem though. These sessions are short and there's not much I can do about that. Maybe I should be even more forceful with reminders.

[Keravath]

It's possible. It happens. It wasn't, like complicated intrigue though.


A magical assassin tried to kill them on the road. Papers showed him to be in pay of Countess Nemone, who is known to have many magical supporters. Assassin is student of Conjurer.
In city, there's a blight. That's why they're here. Druid trying to fix the blight is clearly lying. If pressed, he'll admit to being paid by conjurer to fail at job.
Investigation of soil reveals the ground has been cursed with demonic energy. Conjurer has historically sprinkled "magical" fertilizer conjured from the feywild on the grounds for years.
A small favor to one faction in the city will allow them to ask three questions of a powerful information broker who knows the conjurer is guilty.
Conversation with Conjurer's' students reveals that they're all in the pay of Countess Nemone.
Ally of party member thinks that blight is benefitting Countess Nemone more than anyone, thinks
Conjurer is lecturing on Demonology when they first meet him.


They had all of this information, except for the bolded bit, because although they knew about those leads they never followed them. Granted, it was spread over two sessions, but every time they got a clue I was sure to make note of it and remind them at the start of the next session. They did try to create a lead for themselves by spending two hours going through crop warehouses and asking clerks about grain shipments for some reason.

...that might be a big problem though. These sessions are short and there's not much I can do about that. Maybe I should be even more forceful with reminders.

I think you DO need to be upfront with reminders and also a bit more blunt with your clues. The bold bits, which the party apparently didn't get, are the only hard evidence of anything. Everything else in your list in just circumstantial and doesn't really provide proof of anything (in a "realistic context"). The bits and pieces are just suggestive.

On the other hand, if the players were actually convinced the conjurer was guilty but couldn't motivate themselves to go look for him when he turned out not be in his office then I am not sure what you can do. However, in your original post, it sounded like they just wanted to meet with the conjuror and then just made an appointment with the assistant. This doesn't really sound like a group of characters convinced the NPC is guilty of something and trying to track them down ... sounds more like they consider him a suspect and wanted to have a discussion, likely due to the lack of real evidence and (if you like intrigue) then it would seem reasonable to frame the conjuror and they may not want to jump to conclusions.

[dragoeniex]

It's possible. It happens. It wasn't, like complicated intrigue though.


A magical assassin tried to kill them on the road. Papers showed him to be in pay of Countess Nemone, who is known to have many magical supporters. Assassin is student of Conjurer......


They had all of this information, except for the bolded bit, because although they knew about those leads they never followed them. Granted, it was spread over two sessions, but every time they got a clue I was sure to make note of it and remind them at the start of the next session. They did try to create a lead for themselves by spending two hours going through crop warehouses and asking clerks about grain shipments for some reason.

...that might be a big problem though. These sessions are short and there's not much I can do about that. Maybe I should be even more forceful with reminders.

It does sound like they're trying. The tricky thing with mystery type setup is it's going to seem way more obvious to you because you wrote it. They're not inside your head, so it's hard to predict what they'll see in different ways or what clues they'll get excited about- intentional or otherwise.

It could be fun to flip the structure and give them the answer to start with. Like having an individual negatively affected by these events say they're sure it's being caused by the conjurer and countess, but they're unfit to do anything about it or gather evidence themselves. And the party, if willing, is hired to investigate whether it's true and look for ways to support or disprove the suspicion. A couple finds later (recommendation to plant more than needed and only require a couple be found to roll on), they're good for either a presentation of facts or a confrontation. Or maybe the confrontation comes to them as the antagonists try to off the nosy individuals.

...

Only tangentially relevant, but I have to ask. Did you name your villain something that sounds like "Countess Enemy" as a tip-off? Because if so, that's lovely.

[Expected]

An idea would be to encourage them to be decisive by forcing their hand. A city is under attack? They go and defend it only to find out if they had been proactive and assassinated or killed the enemy instead of taking him to justice and imprisoning him, the entire attack would have been avoided, because he escaped. Teach them that sometimes, you just have to get your hands dirty.

It's a good opportunity for them to grow as players and I am honestly impressed they don't have a murderhobo or someone prone to violence (that would be me because I love combat in 5e) in their party. Pure unadulterated murderhoboism is just fun and exactly what you need sometimes. It's only disruptive if they try to kill every NPC.

Alternatively, entice them with a powerful item that can only be attained by killing the enemy. If they chose to be peaceful, ask for a perception check and describe the villain wearing said item. (e.g. if someone has Detect Magic on, "You sense a powerful aura of magic around so-and-so's whatever it is."). Let's say they use diplomacy and do not engage in combat, then the next time they see that item, it is held by an important NPC and they missed their chance. If that doesn't encourage murderhoboism, then I don't know what will.

[Pelle]

But I've had that OOC discussion. I've said that my badguys tend to be alert and active and deceptive, and when the conceit for the adventure is "political intrigue in Fairkeep" or "Mysterious murders in the caravan" I feel that it should be pretty obvious that people are going to be lying to them.


Try asking them directly "do you think he is lying or not?" You don't have to confirm if they are right or not, but at least make them consider it and listen to what they think.




They had all of this information, except for the bolded bit, because although they knew about those leads they never followed them. Granted, it was spread over two sessions, but every time they got a clue I was sure to make note of it and remind them at the start of the next session.


Remind them often during the session as well. Help them summarize what they have done and what leads they may follow, and let them make the decision themselves.



They did try to create a lead for themselves by spending two hours going through crop warehouses and asking clerks about grain shipments for some reason.


Try to be more agressive in your scene framing. Ask them what they are trying to achieve in this situation and how much time they want to spend on it, and then summarize it quickly without spending much real time on it.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

Something like this should work.

NPC: something something something something something.

DM: player 1, 2 and 4 roll insight, player 3, you are to far to hear right now, do you get closer? If yes you will also need to roll.

NPC: you will never get free from my control spell.

DM: everyone with arcana proficiency or a reason to know about spells that use to control people roll arcana.

[Safety Sword]

Maybe things need to start happening to the world around them that they have no control over.

Nothing spurs action like an earthquake or such that has to be reacted to but isn't really a problem to solve. You can't fight it and it doesn't have motivations for you to figure out and ponder.

Sometimes bad things happen to good adventurers. :smallamused:

Other than that, I can only think that perhaps they don't really enjoy solving the mystery or upsetting the balance of the town/world. Usually one character needs to take the lead on that. Perhaps if the characters had a more personal tie in to a backstory element or goal it would drive them to act?

[Drascin]

On the mystery thing, always remember the Prime Rules of RPG Mysteries:

#1: What you think is obvious, isn't.

#2: Write something that seems stupidly straightforward to you, then dumb it down by another half.

This sounds bad, but you have to remember one thing: players do not have the knowledge you have. They do not know what npcs will do, they do not know what might happen, they don't have all the little bits you thought but never really made clear in your descriptions, they can't know if this guy is a red herring or a true culprit, they don't know the "obvious" way to check this culpability, etcetera. One of my GMs, running L5R, found out recently, when she had to stop us OOC because we were simply spiraling in a completely different direction because what reading the published adventure had seemed obvious, actually looked extremely muddled from our perspective.


Alternatively, entice them with a powerful item that can only be attained by killing the enemy. If they chose to be peaceful, ask for a perception check and describe the villain wearing said item. (e.g. if someone has Detect Magic on, "You sense a powerful aura of magic around so-and-so's whatever it is."). Let's say they use diplomacy and do not engage in combat, then the next time they see that item, it is held by an important NPC and they missed their chance. If that doesn't encourage murderhoboism, then I don't know what will.

You would have trouble with my group :smalltongue:. The DM for our 5E campaign gave us a customizable magic item at level 3 (basically a sort of bundle of probability that could be congealed into any chosen type of weapon/shield and it'd be a +1 with an extra ability), and then basically had to yell at us to take it instead of giving it to an NPC because most of us felt that obviously this myconid colony that was just attacked by troglodytes was probably in more need of good weapons than us seasoned adventurers. Most of the party gives up their share of gold with a shrug to finance the wizard (who needs a ton of gold to scribe spells) or gives it to random poor NPCs.

[MoiMagnus]

Now, if some of you read my posts, you know that I try to be a 'galactic force' style GM, where the NPCs are smart and reactive and will deal with the PCs in as efficient a manner as possible. This means that this party is constantly getting backstabbed, assassinated, thrown into prison. We've had three deaths so far, but they persist playing passively.

Thoughts?

Well, I understand the party, since I'm tend to myself be that kind of player. It does not mean I cannot be involved in a campaign, but I'm usually more interested in exploring the world, filling the blank in worldbuilding, than in what happens to my character. More precisely:

1) It means that I'm interested in what the DM has prepared, and will instinctively follow the rails if there is any. I instinctively try to react in "how I am expected to react". If you put me in an extremely realistic setting, I will act rationally and surrender to the guards. If you put in place a battlemap before saying "the guard ask you to follow them", I will try to escape and fight them.

2) There is something that I absolutely hate, it is anticipation. I don't like to have to anticipate what will happen, and try to counter an intelligent enemy. I try to build reactive characters (so characters that are able to solve a problem after the problem occurred) rather than preventing characters (characters that have to anticipate what the enemy do to survive). I like some kind of optimization, I like to crush numbers, but trying to anticipate what an intelligent enemy might be doing is just not something I enjoy doing: it is intellectually draining and unpleasant [unless I can just crush numbers by making an exhaustive analysis of all the possibilities, like in some strategy games]. So I'd rather wait and see what happens, and then resolve the problem of "how to get out of here?".

It seems that your team is composed of peoples roughly like me, and that you're expecting that by "punishing" by having them suffer from following what they though was "the expected behavior", and punishing them for not having seen the trap coming, they will change. But if they are like me, they won't, they will just be more an more frustrated by experience that are not really enjoyable.

So, how to solve those two "problems"? (Assuming those are indeed the problems of your group)

1) For passivity, that's a difficult one. I don't really have a better advice that trying to be aware of what direction you're unwillingly pushing them to, because they will likely follow that path.

2) For the lack of anticipation, you have to find what interest them, so that you can bait them to investigate. Or find a meta way of inciting them to investigate (like saying "you all have contacts from your background and spare time in town that can give you info, so please say me what kind of info you are seeking between sessions at the end of the session, and I give you the result at the beginning of the next session"). Once they are in a logic of "gathering information, and react to those information", they will be able to compensate with their total lack of anticipation.

[Sigreid]

Every time they just go along and it's leading them into trouble, look at them sadly and say "why do you make me hurt you?"

[Demonslayer666]

It's possible. It happens. It wasn't, like complicated intrigue though.


A magical assassin tried to kill them on the road. Papers showed him to be in pay of Countess Nemone, who is known to have many magical supporters. Assassin is student of Conjurer.
In city, there's a blight. That's why they're here. Druid trying to fix the blight is clearly lying. If pressed, he'll admit to being paid by conjurer to fail at job.
Investigation of soil reveals the ground has been cursed with demonic energy. Conjurer has historically sprinkled "magical" fertilizer conjured from the feywild on the grounds for years.
A small favor to one faction in the city will allow them to ask three questions of a powerful information broker who knows the conjurer is guilty.
Conversation with Conjurer's' students reveals that they're all in the pay of Countess Nemone.
Ally of party member thinks that blight is benefitting Countess Nemone more than anyone, thinks
Conjurer is lecturing on Demonology when they first meet him.


They had all of this information, except for the bolded bit, because although they knew about those leads they never followed them. Granted, it was spread over two sessions, but every time they got a clue I was sure to make note of it and remind them at the start of the next session. They did try to create a lead for themselves by spending two hours going through crop warehouses and asking clerks about grain shipments for some reason.

...that might be a big problem though. These sessions are short and there's not much I can do about that. Maybe I should be even more forceful with reminders.


I think you DO need to be upfront with reminders and also a bit more blunt with your clues. The bold bits, which the party apparently didn't get, are the only hard evidence of anything. Everything else in your list in just circumstantial and doesn't really provide proof of anything (in a "realistic context"). The bits and pieces are just suggestive.
...

I agree with Keravath, you need to be more blunt.

Connect the Druid to the conjurer - maybe have him say something stupid like, "no, I don't have anything to do with the conjurer" when they didn't mention the conjurer.

Send them to the faction in the city with the information broker and offer the information for a price.

Lecturing on Demonology is not proof of wrongdoing. In D&D, that's like teaching math. Have them find proof he used it for evil, maybe something like he's responsible for a death of an innocent.

[Jamesps]

Give them a boss. Make sure the boss has a desk and veins in his neck that bulge whenever he yells. Make sure his face gets red as a tomato.

When the PCs take too long on an adventure have the boss call them into his office and yell profanities at them. Make sure the players understand that the mayor is up his posterior, perhaps literally if the mayor happens to be a gnome.

Assuming they're like most passive parties and assume that someone yelling at them means they're failing at the mission they'll struggle to complete adventures faster. This is pretty much impossible to do passively.

[Pex]

If as you say the party is constantly being backstabbed then it doesn't matter what they do, they'll be stabbed in the back. Maybe it's not that they accept everything but know you lie about everything. They don't make an effort because it will never succeed.

Stop stabbing your PCs in the back. Maybe then they'll care.

[JellyPooga]

It sounds to me like your players would respind better to a more...direct...campaign style. Given options and investigation, they take the most passive and least probing one; the easy (if boring) road. Just give them a rocky path with no twists or turns. Your plot of assassins and Countesses and Conjurers might be absolutely fascinating if investigated and the players buy into the intrigue. But they don't. They sit in the office waiting for an appointment.

Give them some demons to fight. Like, all over the city. Let them save some citizens. Let them fight side by side with the city watch/army. It's direct, there's no doubt over the fact that they're fighting the right critters and you can start throwing in things like spotting the bad guy leaving the scene, opening up the possibility of chasing him down and confronting him in the most direct way possible. They get to be the big damn heroes; no mess, no fuss and certainly no days wasted on Paperwork & Penpushers...it's called dungeons & dragons for a reason.

Sometimes you just need a sledgehammer, no matter how crude it might seem next to the precision tools you have in the shed.

[Jamesps]

If as you say the party is constantly being backstabbed then it doesn't matter what they do, they'll be stabbed in the back. Maybe it's not that they accept everything but know you lie about everything. They don't make an effort because it will never succeed.

Stop stabbing your PCs in the back. Maybe then they'll care.

I'm pretty sure by "Constantly being backstabbed" the OP didn't mean all NPCs are backstabbing the players, but rather all of the NPCs that try to backstab the players succeed at it.

[Themrys]

Just curious to see what people say.

In general, I see a lot of DMs complaining about murderhobo parties who just always try to solve everything with murder.

I have the opposite problem. A party that will never, ever challenge anything an NPC tells them, and will only fight if they're directly attacked.


The guards want to arrest them on clearly corrupt, false charges? "We'll beat them at the trial! We come peaceably!"
The Sage of Conjuration is clearly a villain? "We'll book an appointment with his secretary, and then confront him!"
The secretary says he's not in? "Well, we'll wait here until he comes back then!"
A cackling devil traps them in a magical mirror maze and says they can't get out unless they bargain with him? The party doesn't try tricking him (one option) navigating the maze (another option) or breaking the mirrors and fighting the demon (option 3) they instead just spend an hour trying to bargain for better terms on which to sell their soul. They just accept the devil's statement that "You'll never escape!" at face value.


Now, if some of you read my posts, you know that I try to be a 'galactic force' style GM, where the NPCs are smart and reactive and will deal with the PCs in as efficient a manner as possible. This means that this party is constantly getting backstabbed, assassinated, thrown into prison. We've had three deaths so far, but they persist playing passively.

This isn't a problem I generally have. I've run games 1-2 times a week since 5e came out, and of the seven campaigns I've run, this is the first time I've had a party so passive. I could run the campaign differently, but personally I find an ultra-straightforward dungeon crawl to be boring, and I don't DM well when I'm bored.

Thoughts?

Your players actually sound lovely.

They're playing young lawful good adventurers who haven't yet learnt that the world is bad. (Or they are lovely players who think they are going along with your plots and making you happy, and have no idea of how frustrated you are)

Either way, they sound rather likeable.

I, personally, would just give them mostly adventures where they can actually succeed by following the law, perhaps with some corrupt guards who harm other people thrown in.
"You were arrested on false charges" is one thing. "This perfectly innocent little girl has been falsely arrested as witch and is currently being tortured ... are you sure you want to wait for the trial? She might be dead by then!" is quite different.

What kind of characters are they playing? They sound like they should have a paladin. They are the kind of group that would work perfectly with a Lawful Good paladin.

Give them an O-Chul style NPC paladin, who tells the devil that he doesn't bargain with devils, and overall takes a somewhat more active approach to fighting evil, but doesn't shame them for preferring a lawful and orderly solution, and occasionally does just use his charisma to convince the evil Sage's secretary to switch sides and give them an appointment right now.

Or just get one player to make a paladin character and have random people come to the group's aid whenever there's a problem with corrupt guards, because since they have a paladin, they clearly must be the good guys.

While they sit in prison, waiting for the trial they are sure they'll win (but actually can't win ever), send them an NPC who informs them that they are being set up to fail and begs them to let themselves be broken out of prison. Once they know that breaking out of prison is a possible solution, I am sure they will take a more active approach, you won't have to make the NPC break them out single-handedly.

Of course, it is possible they wouldn't be averse to trickery and backstabbing if you clearly communicated that that's what you want them to do ... in which case, communicate it.

But it is also possible they just want to play lawful citizens who act in exactly the same way the players would act in real life. In which case it would be wisest to let them have fun that way, and only occasionally force them to make a decision between what is good and what is legal. (And make it clear that they have to decide.)

Let them reap the benefits of being good and decent and following the rules. In a somewhat functional society there ARE benefits to that, such as a good reputation.

If your players want to play Lord of the Rings, don't put them in a Game of Thrones universe without even telling them.

[Pex]

I'm pretty sure by "Constantly being backstabbed" the OP didn't mean all NPCs are backstabbing the players, but rather all of the NPCs that try to backstab the players succeed at it.

The key thing is the existence of all the NPCs wanting to backstab.

When it's one NPC, there's your villain. When it's multiple NPCs, the DM is the villain.

[Themrys]

The key thing is the existence of all the NPCs wanting to backstab.

When it's one NPC, there's your villain. When it's multiple NPCs, the DM is the villain.

Multiple backstabbing NPCs are okay, that's life, but there should also be helpful NPCs.

The more backstabby NPCs you have, the more genuinely helpful ones you need to even it out.

[Zazamori]

Just curious to see what people say.

In general, I see a lot of DMs complaining about murderhobo parties who just always try to solve everything with murder.

I have the opposite problem. A party that will never, ever challenge anything an NPC tells them, and will only fight if they're directly attacked.


The guards want to arrest them on clearly corrupt, false charges? "We'll beat them at the trial! We come peaceably!"
The Sage of Conjuration is clearly a villain? "We'll book an appointment with his secretary, and then confront him!"
The secretary says he's not in? "Well, we'll wait here until he comes back then!"
A cackling devil traps them in a magical mirror maze and says they can't get out unless they bargain with him? The party doesn't try tricking him (one option) navigating the maze (another option) or breaking the mirrors and fighting the demon (option 3) they instead just spend an hour trying to bargain for better terms on which to sell their soul. They just accept the devil's statement that "You'll never escape!" at face value.


Now, if some of you read my posts, you know that I try to be a 'galactic force' style GM, where the NPCs are smart and reactive and will deal with the PCs in as efficient a manner as possible. This means that this party is constantly getting backstabbed, assassinated, thrown into prison. We've had three deaths so far, but they persist playing passively.

This isn't a problem I generally have. I've run games 1-2 times a week since 5e came out, and of the seven campaigns I've run, this is the first time I've had a party so passive. I could run the campaign differently, but personally I find an ultra-straightforward dungeon crawl to be boring, and I don't DM well when I'm bored.

Thoughts?

You might try asking, "Are you suurrre?" a little more frequently.



I feel like you're getting a pretty good feel for their personalities, but do you have a good feel for what makes them tick?? Your building the world they're playing in, if they're not taking the bait when you present it one way, then add twists. If they keep choosing to do nothing, then take away nothing as a valid choice.

When they say they'll "beat them at the trial" play along for a while, but make it clear there won't be a trial, or that the trial is rigged. Either way, be sure it's clearly understood there is no winning via trial. Insert a guard that is a friend of the party that warns them there's no winning. Have the guard feed them an escape plan. If they don't get out sooner, play along until the time of what they thought was a "trial". Turns out it's just an execution. Have an NPC ahead of the party get executed first. Read off a list of crimes matching what the party was falsely accused of before asking that NPC how he pleads. Have the NPC vehemently maintain his innocence while shouting to the surrounding guards or on-looking crowd that this whole thing is a sham & there's no proof, etc. The judge/warden/guard captain simply states, "Guilty!!" as the head is lopped. Line up the PCs with a few more NPCs & tell them to discuss what to do while you roll a die to decide who's next. Pause for a minute to let them discuss before rolling. If they haven't moved yet, regardless of what you rolled, choose another NPC. After the second one, if they haven't enacted a plan yet, railroad them into one. The friendly guard managed to get himself placed as the guy that escorts them up to the guillotine/chopping block/piranha pit/hangman's noose. When the friendly guard goes to get the first selected NPC, have him secretly loosen their shackles, slip them a set of keys, give them a prison map with the location of the detention lockers holding their items clearly marked along with the exits, & tell them, "I have a plan, we're busting out of here." He walks the NPC up to the chopping block. Go through the same shpeel with the PC as for the first NPC. Just as the executioner is about to lop, the friendly guard stomps him in the back of the shin, having him miss & get his axe stuck firmly in the ground. Have the friendly guard start fighting the judge or unarmed executioner as a few more allies planted among the guards start fighting the actual guards elsewhere. The new allies are trying to work their way either towards the party or towards the executioner's stage. Make the judge a boss that starts slinging spells. Have the allied guards start handing weapons to the PCs. If they haven't taken any of the numerous opportunities to attempt escape by now & they still just want to wait to be slaughtered... well, ummm... okay.

In conclusion, react to their decisions. Don't just stick to what you've written. If they decide to do things slowly & uneventfully, change the circumstances until doing nothing is the most irrational option. Give them more direction until they take the hint. Add a sense of urgency so they can't afford to sit around. If they won't actively seek the adventure, have the adventure actively seek them.

[strangebloke]

Your players actually sound lovely.
I agree, actually. :)


While they sit in prison, waiting for the trial they are sure they'll win (but actually can't win ever), send them an NPC who informs them that they are being set up to fail and begs them to let themselves be broken out of prison. Once they know that breaking out of prison is a possible solution, I am sure they will take a more active approach, you won't have to make the NPC break them out single-handedly.
I did this exactly. This was my plan from the beginning, should they go from the guards. I'm not a monster.

Of course, it is possible they wouldn't be averse to trickery and backstabbing if you clearly communicated that that's what you want them to do ... in which case, communicate it.
In this case I had a feel for the players ahead of time, so I set things up as a pretty straightforward campaign. They're emissaries of a King Arthur Expy who is trying to save the country in the middle of a civil war.

They're unambiguously the good guys and the other factions in the war, (countess Nemone being one) are all different flavors of awful. I've repeatedly shown how evil and corrupt the other factions are and what sorts of things they tend to do.

This whole arc, however, was set up to be intrigue-focused because the newer players rolled up with characters specialized for that. This was intended to be the option to showcase their character's better features. It did work, actually. Just, the party hasn't really adapted fully. Two deaths (not true deaths though) in one arc is still a bit higher than what I typically shoot for.


The key thing is the existence of all the NPCs wanting to backstab.

When it's one NPC, there's your villain. When it's multiple NPCs, the DM is the villain.

Its really just the main villain here, and his subordinates.

[Themrys]

This whole arc, however, was set up to be intrigue-focused because the newer players rolled up with characters specialized for that. This was intended to be the option to showcase their character's better features. It did work, actually. Just, the party hasn't really adapted fully. Two deaths (not true deaths though) in one arc is still a bit higher than what I typically shoot for.


In that case, it seems they might simply be inexperienced and not fully aware what the characters' skills are for.

Perhaps you are being a bit too subtle with your hints.

It is not very elegant, but I have had GMs who employed the "roll for [knowledge on topic x] - you suddenly realize that you could ..." method. The players will likely find it more fun than character death.

[MaxWilson]

But I've had that OOC discussion. I've said that my badguys tend to be alert and active and deceptive, and when the conceit for the adventure is "political intrigue in Fairkeep" or "Mysterious murders in the caravan" I feel that it should be pretty obvious that people are going to be lying to them.

Players never notice everything that the DM thinks is obvious, because their only insight into the world is the DM's words, and it's not a high-bandwidth channel. When in doubt, it never hurts to be even more explicit.

It wouldn't hurt for you to say, e.g., "The demon says you'll never get out unless you sell your soul. He seems very confident of that fact, but you can't tell if he's bluffing. Is there anything you'd like to know or do next?" If they ask questions, and the answers would require some work first, it's okay to tell them what would be involved. E.g. "Is there a trap on the door?" "You can't tell without getting closer." Or, "can we beat him in a fight?" "You can't tell without fighting him, but if you pass an Int/Arcana DC 15 check I'll tell you something interesting."

I feel your pain. When players don't take the bait and then get hurt, we DMs tend to blame ourselves even as we outwardly pretend to be delighted at the PCs' failures. I hope things improve for these players eventually.



This is one I'm really strongly going to argue against. DMPCs are no good.

It's not a DMPC if the guy giving them suggestions is a villain in his own right, with his own secret agenda that includes betraying the PCs after they've had an adventure or two to get used to trusting him. (Evil grin.)

I think a Diviner would be perfect for that role. He can hang around offscreen and interfere rarely via Sending or scrying + Portent. (Portent has no range limitation or LOS requirement, you just have to be able to see.)


Every time they just go along and it's leading them into trouble, look at them sadly and say "why do you make me hurt you?"

Heh. And try to sound like you're secretly gloating about it.


Give them a boss. Make sure the boss has a desk and veins in his neck that bulge whenever he yells. Make sure his face gets red as a tomato.

When the PCs take too long on an adventure have the boss call them into his office and yell profanities at them. SNIP... that someone yelling at them means they're failing at the mission they'll struggle to complete adventures faster. This is pretty much impossible to do passively.

This sounds awesome.

[strangebloke]

Players never notice everything that the DM thinks is obvious, because their only insight into the world is the DM's words, and it's not a high-bandwidth channel. When in doubt, it never hurts to be even more explicit.

It wouldn't hurt for you to say, e.g., "The demon says you'll never get out unless you sell your soul. He seems very confident of that fact, but you can't tell if he's bluffing. Is there anything you'd like to know or do next?" If they ask questions, and the answers would require some work first, it's okay to tell them what would be involved. E.g. "Is there a trap on the door?" "You can't tell without getting closer." Or, "can we beat him in a fight?" "You can't tell without fighting him, but if you pass an Int/Arcana DC 15 check I'll tell you something interesting."

I feel your pain. When players don't take the bait and then get hurt, we DMs tend to blame ourselves even as we outwardly pretend to be delighted at the PCs' failures. I hope things improve for these players eventually.

I mean, the DMs job is to create a challenge that isn't *too* challenging, which is a kind of silly tightrope act. And the social challenges aren't as easy to balance as the combat sections.


It's not a DMPC if the guy giving them suggestions is a villain in his own right, with his own secret agenda that includes betraying the PCs after they've had an adventure or two to get used to trusting him. (Evil grin.)

I think a Diviner would be perfect for that role. He can hang around offscreen and interfere rarely via Sending or scrying + Portent. (Portent has no range limitation or LOS requirement, you just have to be able to see.)

I have helpful NPCs. That's different from a DMPC who has a character sheet. There's simply no reason to do the DMPC aside from wanting to congratulate yourself on your cool PC build.

They actually do have a diviner ally in the city. I was kind of hoping they'd ask him to scry on the conjurer. But alas.

[ShinyRocks]

It's not a DMPC if the guy giving them suggestions is a villain in his own right, with his own secret agenda that includes betraying the PCs after they've had an adventure or two to get used to trusting him. (Evil grin.)




Super super super don't do this. It feels like part of the problem is that the players are being too cautious because they're not sure what information they can trust. (Which is fair. NPCs can and do lie, and have their own agendas, as you've established.)

Setting up one person who is like 'you can absolutely trust what this guy says', and proving it by events turning out as he said, and then having him turn on the party will just make them even more hobbled by indecision than ever before. 'If we can't trust Honest John The Insightful, who can we possibly trust!?'

And of course they're cautious. You say they're constantly getting backstabbed - you can't get backstabbed without trusting someone to begin with. So it sounds like when they do make decisions, it backfires and they're effectively 'wrong' for doing so.

In that atmosphere, even with a ton of circumstantial evidence that the guy was an evil demon summoning bad guy, I would hesitate to go and attack him for fear of the DM saying 'Haha! He was just a harmless academic who was being set up, and now he's dead and the guards are after you.'

This isn't to criticise your campaign. For players who can roll with the punches and react a bit more quickly, it sounds hella fun. But it seems like it's not right for *these* players.

Give them some absolutely incontrovertible evidence with their own eyes. Something like the kid of a shopkeeper (and they know the kid, and have seen them around, and like them, so they know it's not a shapeshifter or whatever), being beaten up by thugs just for the hell of it, and then a couple of good guards who are trying to stop them. That's just top of my head, but you get my point. And then, once they kill the thugs, don't have it bite them in the ass. They acted, and it was a good thing, and there's no scary repercussions from action. And then they meet the guard captain who thanks them, and takes them into her confidence, and says she's worried about the demon summoner but is powerless to act but has big sheaves of evidence.

It just feels like they need a bit more solid ground beneath their feet and a few instances of low-stakes events where they're forced to act, to give them the confidence to step up and act on a bigger scale.

[Bjarkmundur]

This is a great discussion!

This happened to me once. The experience was so harrying I decided never let it happen again. My best friend is the epitome of an upstanding player, he ticks all the boxes. I try to include him in all my games, especially with new players, at least for 3 sessions. While playing with us he function as a guide on how to be a player. This has worked out great, especially since it gives new players a chance to see what DM - Player interaction normally looks like. Show, don't tell, is the motto. Just his playstyle gives new players great general tips that can be applied to every situation like "Do I see something out of the ordinary" or "What are my options?". You know, just some general advice that is worth more when a new player sees it in practice rather than just gets told what to do. It has worked out great so far.

I also make sure at session one that at least one of the PCs is VERY invested in the outcome of the story.

I didn't read the entire thread, so I don't know if your problem has been solved, but it seems the hivemind has a lot of good tips for you. Hope it works out :D

[MaxWilson]

I have helpful NPCs. That's different from a DMPC who has a character sheet. There's simply no reason to do the DMPC aside from wanting to congratulate yourself on your cool PC build.

The original suggestion from another poster was that you have an NPC to catalyze action, which doesn't require a character sheet or any stats besides a name. I suggested a Diviner as a villain NPC masquerading as friendly (to catalyze action for a while and then eventually take itself off the board by betraying the PCs, once the players have gotten used to being more proactive) but even then you technically don't need a character sheet.


They actually do have a diviner ally in the city. I was kind of hoping they'd ask him to scry on the conjurer. But alas.

Have the diviner be socially active enough to drop in and say hello. Again, I think this is a case where you need to emphasize their affordances: instead of just action declarations, constantly remind them that they can ask the DM questions, and either answer those questions outright or tell them why you can't do that yet. "Is the Sage summoning demons?" "He sure does seem to be acting funny, but you haven't caught him in the act. Do you want to find a way to spy on him?"


Super super super don't do this. It feels like part of the problem is that the players are being too cautious because they're not sure what information they can trust. (Which is fair. NPCs can and do lie, and have their own agendas, as you've established.)

Setting up one person who is like 'you can absolutely trust what this guy says', and proving it by events turning out as he said, and then having him turn on the party will just make them even more hobbled by indecision than ever before. 'If we can't trust Honest John The Insightful, who can we possibly trust!?'

What I had in mind was less "You can trust Honest John the Insightful!" and more "Mr. Johnson says he knows a guy who can get you the key to the Sage's office." [Mr. Johnson, in Shadowrun terms, is the corporate shill who hires you for the jobs too dirty for him to do himself.] He's an action catalyst.

If you do want to do an Honest John the Insightful thing, do a metagame guarantee like the Alexandrian does: sages cost money, and they sometimes tell you they don't know the answer, but if you pay a sage for an answer and he gives you one, the DM guarantees that it's a correct answer. But you wouldn't want to do an Honest John for a mystery-type adventure like the Demon-summoning Sage anyway because you'd just wind up paying the sage to solve the mystery for you.

[Contrast]

You've mentioned a couple of times that the players specced for investigation so that's what you've been trying to give them.

It's an unfortunate fact that sometimes people build characters that they like the idea of in theory but aren't actually very good at playing/don't enjoy the type of play style necessary to get the most of the character.

I'm currently playing in a game where one person is playing a ranger - the DM threw us deep into the wilderness unexpectedly to give him some rangery things to do but as a player they don't actually like that part of gameplay and the DM assuming they wanted that just because they built a ranger was wrong. I've played in multiple games where people have built super social characters even though they just don't engage in the social aspect of gameplay at all. I just finished playing in a game where I as the Cha 8 cleric did 95% of the talking because the other players (a bard, paladin and warlock!) did not talk to NPCs for variously in character reasons and the players of those characters not enjoying social encounters.

I don't really have a solution for you here unfortunately as they may still find the character concept cool and want to play it. I guess what I'm saying is you offer them the hook and if they aren't taking the bait, sometimes you just try something else - you can always offer other investigation hooks in the future.

[strangebloke]

And of course they're cautious. You say they're constantly getting backstabbed - you can't get backstabbed without trusting someone to begin with. So it sounds like when they do make decisions, it backfires and they're effectively 'wrong' for doing so.
...

It just feels like they need a bit more solid ground beneath their feet and a few instances of low-stakes events where they're forced to act, to give them the confidence to step up and act on a bigger scale.
That's the thing though. They're not getting backstabbed by people they trust. They're just showing their back to the rather obviously evil villains. They do have people they can trust. Numerous ones, in fact. In this arc they had.

Old city watchmen who was a rival of a player, but very by-the-book and trustworthy
Old diviner wizard who was one of the PC's teacher/mentor figure.
Order of monks that one players belonged to.



The only real enemies here were the conjurer and the corrupt watchman, one of whom they were straight-up told is evil.

This is a great discussion!

This happened to me once. The experience was so harrying I decided never let it happen again. My best friend is the epitome of an upstanding player, he ticks all the boxes. I try to include him in all my games, especially with new players, at least for 3 sessions. While playing with us he function as a guide on how to be a player. This has worked out great, especially since it gives new players a chance to see what DM - Player interaction normally looks like. Show, don't tell, is the motto. Just his playstyle gives new players great general tips that can be applied to every situation like "Do I see something out of the ordinary" or "What are my options?". You know, just some general advice that is worth more when a new player sees it in practice rather than just gets told what to do. It has worked out great so far.

I also make sure at session one that at least one of the PCs is VERY invested in the outcome of the story.

I didn't read the entire thread, so I don't know if your problem has been solved, but it seems the hivemind has a lot of good tips for you. Hope it works out :D
This is a pretty experienced group of players. I've had all of them for about two years in various campaigns. Part of the problem is, I think that a lot of them are unwilling to take over a leadership role for in-character or out-of-character reasons. One of them is a perennial spotlight hog who is trying to reign himself in. One is playing a Sweet Polly Oliver who has crippling social anxiety. Another is just really soft spoken in real life. etc. etc.

I don't really think that I had a "problem" when I made this thread. I was just interested in seeing what people said.

Have the diviner be socially active enough to drop in and say hello. Again, I think this is a case where you need to emphasize their affordances: instead of just action declarations, constantly remind them that they can ask the DM questions, and either answer those questions outright or tell them why you can't do that yet. "Is the Sage summoning demons?" "He sure does seem to be acting funny, but you haven't caught him in the act. Do you want to find a way to spy on him?"
Yeah, I think the thing we're running to here is that I really hate prompting my PCs but I probably need to be doing it more often.

[AHF]

One other thought to consider since you seem to be a DM who can act on the fly is trying to reward them for the digging around that they are doing by modifying your story on the fly. You mentioned they were delving into grain and the like in the area. Is there some way you can recast clues you had assigned to a different scenario so that they uncover them here? Maybe the fey dust being spread around has infected the grain and there is some nefarious angle of that grain getting into the food supply that the PCs have now discovered and can thwart. It would keep you on your toes and perhaps bring them back on track to your ultimate thread.

[blackjack50]

I like the idea of teaching the players to be more proactive in their fate with in character instances. Limit their options for passive responses. Perhaps? Maybe have them end up in a monastery where they must learn conflict. They are unable to leave until they prove to the monks that they can take charge of their own fate.