Talking to my players

[Yuki Akuma]

{Scrubbed}

[FrogInATopHat]

Again, I would really love an explanation of this.

I am having a hard time even seeing where the conflict of interest lies, and the only scenarios I am coming up with that come even close require both an extreme amount of effort and an extreme lack of scruples like re-writing the entire game just to screw over one player for some OOC vendetta.

I can answer this for you, I hope to your satisfaction. But to provide the best answer I can, I need to ask you one more question first.

In the system you have designed that you are playtesting with this group, how often have you changed or implemented a rule because a player has suggested so and how significant were the changes to the system that you made on the basis of these player suggestions? Can you give us some examples of times this happened?

[Kardwill]

Again, I would really love an explanation of this.

I am having a hard time even seeing where the conflict of interest lies, and the only scenarios I am coming up with that come even close require both an extreme amount of effort and an extreme lack of scruples like re-writing the entire game just to screw over one player for some OOC vendetta.

Allow me to revert the question : You are not a fan of the idea of a player being rule-referee because it creates a conflict of interest. Why? Where is the conflict of interest? And why does it matter?

If the fact that a player may be tempted to rule to achieve a personal agenda (like favoring his character) is a conflict of interest, then the fact that the GM may be tempted to achieve a personal agenda (like favoring their story, or teaching a player a lesson) is just as much of a conflict of interest. We GMs are not pure intellects. We have no more reason to be right about our rulings than the average player. Most games rely on the GM for the referee role because it's convenient, but it doesn't mean we are better at it than the players would be.

Usually, if the players and the GM disagree, they can use the rule as some sort of neutral ground to find a solution or a working solution. But in your case, the guy who GMs the game and the guy who wrote the rules are the same. The "Neutral ground" is yours and yours only, and you can always argue that you understand the rules better since you wrote them.

Another potential conflict of interest : you are probably more invested into your ruleset than the average GM will be. So you may be less likely to listen with an open mind to a player's complaint about a rule they find stupid, and to compromize that rule to maximize the fun of everybody at the table.

And note that I usually play games with a GM-referee, and that I've built and GM'd several custom games, so I don't say those things are BAD. But the players have no reason to trust the GM any more than the GM trusts them. It's very easy to misuse the GM's responsibility.

[Talakeal]

I feel like telling a very old gaming horror story as a sort of response to some of the more critical posters.

Many years ago there was a guy named Lance who was part of my middle school gaming club. He was very dishonest. He would lie, cheat, and steal in pretty much all aspects of life, to the point where most of our parents didn't want us hanging around with him, and last I heard he was having trouble holding down a job because he kept getting caught stealing from his employers.

Playing D&D, he would always cheat subtly; mostly by not writing down damage he took, writing down extra XP and treasure, or picking up the dice really quick and announcing a false result, and he would brag about doing so when the DM wasn't around. This was with an adult teacher as the DM. When we tried running our own games, he wouldn't be subtle about it, he would simply refuse to acknowledge the GM's rulings, to the point of writing down magic items on his sheet that he felt he deserved without his character actually acquiring them.

When we graduated middle school he went to a different high school than us, and I started running my own D&D game on the weekends, which went, well, as well as it could be expected for a teenage first time DM. Lance found out about the game through a mutual friend, and asked if he could play, and me, always loving gaming and eager for more players, said sure. So he made a character and I ran him through a simple solo dungeon to catch him up to the rest of the party.

When the rest of the group found out that I had allowed him to play, there was a mutiny. Basically the entire group came to me and told me that they would not play with Lance, and if I wanted the game to continue I needed to uninvite them.

Now, despite the impression I sometimes give on forums, I don't like face to face conflict, so I tried to get it over with as fast and as cleanly as possible. So I basically just called Lance up and told him flat out that he couldn't play in my game because nobody wanted him there and then hung up. And, toxic player and all around jerk that he was, he didn't deserve that. I remember he called my back a few hours later crying and begging me for an explanation, but I wouldn't give him one and just told him the decision was final and hung up on him again. To this day I feel really, really bad about how I handled it.



Allow me to revert the question : You are not a fan of the idea of a player being rule-referee because it creates a conflict of interest. Why? Where is the conflict of interest? And why does it matter?

If the fact that a player may be tempted to rule to achieve a personal agenda (like favoring his character) is a conflict of interest, then the fact that the GM may be tempted to achieve a personal agenda (like favoring their story, or teaching a player a lesson) is just as much of a conflict of interest. We GMs are not pure intellects. We have no more reason to be right about our rulings than the average player. Most games rely on the GM for the referee role because it's convenient, but it doesn't mean we are better at it than the players would be.

Usually, if the players and the GM disagree, they can use the rule as some sort of neutral ground to find a solution or a working solution. But in your case, the guy who GMs the game and the guy who wrote the rules are the same. The "Neutral ground" is yours and yours only, and you can always argue that you understand the rules better since you wrote them.

Another potential conflict of interest : you are probably more invested into your ruleset than the average GM will be. So you may be less likely to listen with an open mind to a player's complaint about a rule they find stupid, and to compromize that rule to maximize the fun of everybody at the table.

And note that I usually play games with a GM-referee, and that I've built and GM'd several custom games, so I don't say those things are BAD. But the players have no reason to trust the GM any more than the GM trusts them. It's very easy to misuse the GM's responsibility.

Again, I see how this is an imbalance of power, but not so much a conflict of interests.

The investment in the rule-set part is close, and I can see where you are coming from there, but most people in this thread, yourself included afaict, consider adherance to the rules to be a good thing.


I can answer this for you, I hope to your satisfaction. But to provide the best answer I can, I need to ask you one more question first.

In the system you have designed that you are playtesting with this group, how often have you changed or implemented a rule because a player has suggested so and how significant were the changes to the system that you made on the basis of these player suggestions? Can you give us some examples of times this happened?

Not nearly as often as I would like.

I try to take what suggestions I can, but my players just don't offer up that many, they just aren't really creative in that way.

Now, I have made some pretty drastic changes to the system based on feedback over the years, for example switching from a d100 to a d20 rather early on, and changing a penalty for being untrained into a bonus for being trained. I have also abandoned several systems because players didn't like them.

As far as new content, a few spells, items, and monsters are player created. I remember the Kiai Shout manuever was a player suggestion, and the nation of Zaikhan in my campaign world was created as part of a player backstory.

But no, mostly player feedback comes in the form of fixing an exploit / dysfunctional rule that a player finds or adjusting dominant / suboptimal strategies that come up in play.

[NichG]

I feel like telling a very old gaming horror story as a sort of response to some of the more critical posters.

Many years ago there was a guy named Lance who was part of my middle school gaming club. He was very dishonest. He would lie, cheat, and steal in pretty much all aspects of life, to the point where most of our parents didn't want us hanging around with him, and last I heard he was having trouble holding down a job because he kept getting caught stealing from his employers.

Playing D&D, he would always cheat subtly; mostly by not writing down damage he took, writing down extra XP and treasure, or picking up the dice really quick and announcing a false result, and he would brag about doing so when the DM wasn't around. This was with an adult teacher as the DM. When we tried running our own games, he wouldn't be subtle about it, he would simply refuse to acknowledge the GM's rulings, to the point of writing down magic items on his sheet that he felt he deserved without his character actually acquiring them.

When we graduated middle school he went to a different high school than us, and I started running my own D&D game on the weekends, which went, well, as well as it could be expected for a teenage first time DM. Lance found out about the game through a mutual friend, and asked if I could play, and me, always loving gaming and eager for more players, said sure. So he made a character and I ran him through a simple solo dungeon to catch him up to the rest of the party.

When the rest of the group found out that I had invited him to play, there was a mutiny. Basically the entire group came to me and told me that they would not play with Lance, and if I wanted the game to continue I needed to uninvite them.

Now, despite the impression I sometimes give on forums, I don't like face to face conflict, so I tried to get it over with as fast and as cleanly as possible. So I basically just called Lance up and told him flat out that he couldn't play in my game because nobody wanted him there and then hung up. And, toxic player and all around jerk that he was, he didn't deserve that. I remember he called my back a few hours later crying and begging me for an explanation, but I wouldn't give him one and just told him the decision was final and hung up on him again. To this day I feel really, really bad about how I handled it.


You ultimately did the right thing in this situation, not because Lance was a cheat, but because the other players should have a say about who is at the table with them, your initial invitation denied them that. Doing the difficult thing and telling Lance that he wasn't welcome was unpleasant, but important and necessary.

[KorvinStarmast]

When the rest of the group found out that I had invited him to play, there was a mutiny. Which was the correct response. You invited a known toxic player into an otherwise harmonious group. That's bad form.

Doing the difficult thing and telling Lance that he wasn't welcome was unpleasant, but important and necessary. Making the best of a bad situation is sometimes all that one can do. This was the correct course of action, once the initial faux pas had occurred.

[Talakeal]

Which was the correct response. You invited a known toxic player into an otherwise harmonious group. That's bad form. Making the best of a bad situation is sometimes all that one can do. This was the correct course of action, once the initial faux pas had occurred.

Just as a minor clarification, I didn't invite him per se, he found out about the game and asked me if he could play, and I said OK. (I honestly don't remember if I said OK right away because I never turn down a player or if he had to badger me a bit, both are possible).

Honestly, a lot of my gaming horror stories boil down to me trying to please multiple groups of players who are unwilling to talk to one another and instead use me as the middle man because they know I am not good at just saying no.

But yeah, the point of the story was more about how maybe I just have a higher tolerance for toxic players (and am bad at saying no to people) rather than somehow turning good players toxic.

[KorvinStarmast]

But yeah, the point of the story was more about how maybe I just have a higher tolerance for toxic players (and am bad at saying no to people) I don't think that you are alone in this regard. Plenty of folks encounter that with the usual unfortunate results. :smallfrown:

[Quertus]

Again, I would really love an explanation of this.

I am having a hard time even seeing where the conflict of interest lies, and the only scenarios I am coming up with that come even close require both an extreme amount of effort and an extreme lack of scruples like re-writing the entire game just to screw over one player for some OOC vendetta.

For reference:

Allow me to revert the question : You are not a fan of the idea of a player being rule-referee because it creates a conflict of interest. Why? Where is the conflict of interest? And why does it matter?

If the fact that a player may be tempted to rule to achieve a personal agenda (like favoring his character) is a conflict of interest, then the fact that the GM may be tempted to achieve a personal agenda (like favoring their story, or teaching a player a lesson) is just as much of a conflict of interest. We GMs are not pure intellects. We have no more reason to be right about our rulings than the average player. Most games rely on the GM for the referee role because it's convenient, but it doesn't mean we are better at it than the players would be.

Usually, if the players and the GM disagree, they can use the rule as some sort of neutral ground to find a solution or a working solution. But in your case, the guy who GMs the game and the guy who wrote the rules are the same. The "Neutral ground" is yours and yours only, and you can always argue that you understand the rules better since you wrote them.

Another potential conflict of interest : you are probably more invested into your ruleset than the average GM will be. So you may be less likely to listen with an open mind to a player's complaint about a rule they find stupid, and to compromize that rule to maximize the fun of everybody at the table.

And note that I usually play games with a GM-referee, and that I've built and GM'd several custom games, so I don't say those things are BAD. But the players have no reason to trust the GM any more than the GM trusts them. It's very easy to misuse the GM's responsibility.

"Conflict of interests". To me, the phrase gets translated to "wanting something" (see also my claims around the problem is the GM wanting something).

So, the simple question is, why did you write your own system? What do you want?

If any of those answers do not overlap 100% with definitions of "what makes for a fair arbiter", or "what makes for a good GM", then you - by definition, at least as I understand it - have a conflict of interests: you have interests / goals that may come into conflict with one another, or with running a good game.

So, take for example the player who wanted to run a "storm Cleric" - which, to them, meant lightning and healing. And something muggle. You said that your system wasn't designed for such characters (it could handle "casters" or "single-sphere gishes",, but not "multi-sphere gishes"?); and, indeed, you went on to talk about how they foundered: anemic damage, insufficient mana to power both offense and healing, etc.

(How's my senility doing? Sound about right?)

As a system designer, you had a vested interest in your system.

As a GM, I would have probably a) made sure that they understood and agreed to the outcome of their choices (a2-with possibility of rebuild later), or b) said, "huh. That seems like a valid concept, but you'd fail to be balanced to the table. Perhaps we can optimize him harder" (not really a possibility in your system though, right?), or c) said, "huh. That seems like a valid concept, but you'd fail to be balanced to the table. Perhaps we should house rule the rules to make this more balanced" (or, more likely, d) like "C", but get everyone onboard, and have the other players decide how we'll write the house rules after a few sessions of evaluating his anemic nature)

Also… was this the same player who now totally maxes out one stat, despite exponential costs? If so, then I think I can see some cause and effect here.

For a fun experiment, look at every decision you've made / make about a game, and ask yourself, "why?" Of course, the trick is also including the decisions you didn't make, like why you didn't change the rules to make this concept balanced.


The good rules lawyer is not immune to this. He too can get excited about something and forget the rules don't allow it. After the Thing happens and the adrenaline rush goes away the good rules lawyer will realize what happened. He must always admit his error, and that Thing won't happen again. He has to admit it to retain respect.

Yeah. Not that I'm exactly your definition of a "good" rules lawyer (I try(ish), but… I don't have enough ranks in my "choose my battles" skills), but in 3.5 I messed up the whole "immediate action loses your *next* ____ action" thing. Amazingly, the "good rules lawyer" GM hadn't just ignored it - he had missed it, too.


I once quit a 2E game for exactly this. I was telling the DM I was not enjoying the game for reasons, but he kept dismissing me as whining and another player would tease me about it. The proverbial camel straw happened, and I left.

Sadness. This kind of thing is why building a table culture is so important.


But yeah, the point of the story was more about how maybe I just have a higher tolerance for toxic players (and am bad at saying no to people) rather than somehow turning good players toxic.

*That* was your intended point?

Even with your high tolerances… no, strike that - Because of your high tolerances, you are more likely to turn good players toxic, and should continue to investigate that angle.

When you train an animal, you don't punish the behavior you don't want to see - you punish the behavior that comes *before* the behavior you don't want to see (chronologically, or escalation). That way, even when the animal is being "bad", it still won't be doing the things you don't want to see.

People are surprisingly similar.

Sure, it can be more complicated than that, but patents who don't say "no" generally have the worst-behaved children. And "high tolerance GM with Bizarro World level player behavioral issues"? Check.

Your only hope may be to be adopted by a good group, that someone else continues to be in charge of the culture / membership of.

[Talakeal]

For reference:


"Conflict of interests". To me, the phrase gets translated to "wanting something" (see also my claims around the problem is the GM wanting something).

So, the simple question is, why did you write your own system? What do you want?

If any of those answers do not overlap 100% with definitions of "what makes for a fair arbiter", or "what makes for a good GM", then you - by definition, at least as I understand it - have a conflict of interests: you have interests / goals that may come into conflict with one another, or with running a good game.

That definition is so broad that makes it more or less impossible to referee anything without it becoming a conflict of interests.


So, take for example the player who wanted to run a "storm Cleric" - which, to them, meant lightning and healing. And something muggle. You said that your system wasn't designed for such characters (it could handle "casters" or "single-sphere gishes",, but not "multi-sphere gishes"?); and, indeed, you went on to talk about how they foundered: anemic damage, insufficient mana to power both offense and healing, etc.

(How's my senility doing? Sound about right?)

As a system designer, you had a vested interest in your system.

As a GM, I would have probably a) made sure that they understood and agreed to the outcome of their choices (a2-with possibility of rebuild later), or b) said, "huh. That seems like a valid concept, but you'd fail to be balanced to the table. Perhaps we can optimize him harder" (not really a possibility in your system though, right?), or c) said, "huh. That seems like a valid concept, but you'd fail to be balanced to the table. Perhaps we should house rule the rules to make this more balanced" (or, more likely, d) like "C", but get everyone onboard, and have the other players decide how we'll write the house rules after a few sessions of evaluating his anemic nature)

Also… was this the same player who now totally maxes out one stat, despite exponential costs? If so, then I think I can see some cause and effect here.

No, not the same player. But they are both opposite ends of the same problem.

Its not about the characters being bad in a vacuum, its that they have a level of focus that was out of sync with the rest of the party, and this is a logical consequence of any task based RPG system. The guy who can do a little everything is pretty bad in a normal sized party, but be great in a solo adventure, and in a very large party might make a good fifth wheel who can fill in when needed.

But again, I don't really see what rewriting the games rules to make one character work has to do with whether you are running a game you invented or a game someone else invented.


*That* was your intended point?

Even with your high tolerances… no, strike that - Because of your high tolerances, you are more likely to turn good players toxic, and should continue to investigate that angle.

When you train an animal, you don't punish the behavior you don't want to see - you punish the behavior that comes *before* the behavior you don't want to see (chronologically, or escalation). That way, even when the animal is being "bad", it still won't be doing the things you don't want to see.

People are surprisingly similar.

Sure, it can be more complicated than that, but patents who don't say "no" generally have the worst-behaved children. And "high tolerance GM with Bizarro World level player behavioral issues"? Check.

Your only hope may be to be adopted by a good group, that someone else continues to be in charge of the culture / membership of.

Geeze this is tough. The last guy told me that the reason I turn players toxic is that I am too condescending, and that me trying to give advice to new players is a sure sign of this.

You are saying that I create toxic players by being too permissive and not teaching them good habits, and comparing them to trained animals and small children.

Damned if I do, damned if I don't apparently.

[Satinavian]

Geeze this is tough. The last guy told me that the reason I turn players toxic is that I am too condescending, and that me trying to give advice to new players is a sure sign of this.

You are saying that I create toxic players by being too permissive and not teaching them good habits, and comparing them to trained animals and small children.

Damned if I do, damned if I don't apparently.
I would offer a third one :

If you have toxic players in a group, they will dominate table culture. Other players will either be turned away if they can't stand the toxic behavior or adapt to what your toxic players regularly demonstrate to be acceptable and might even occasionally get results.

[KorvinStarmast]

If you have toxic players in a group, they will dominate table culture. Other players will either be turned away if they can't stand the toxic behavior or adapt to what your toxic players regularly demonstrate to be acceptable and might even occasionally gets results. which spreads the cancer. :smallfrown:

[Talakeal]

I would offer a third one :

If you have toxic players in a group, they will dominate table culture. Other players will either be turned away if they can't stand the toxic behavior or adapt to what your toxic players regularly demonstrate to be acceptable and might even occasionally get results.

This is very much what I am afraid of.

On the other hand, severing ties is just so hard. During the last session I kept being reminded of how having 20+ years of shared gaming history enriches the fabric of the game and how cool it was.

[PhoenixPhyre]

which spreads the cancer. :smallfrown:

One bad apple spoils the bunch, as they say.

Especially with new players (new to a particular game and to a particular group)--they try to fit in. So they're easily led to believe that the toxic behavior is appropriate for this new culture. Which means that they go and spread that toxicity (likely not even recognizing it as toxic) to other groups.

I've been in the weird position of generally not having long-running groups -- my longest was about 18 months before real life intervened. And most of mine were in the 20-session range, due to being an after-school club 1x/week at most during the active school year. I've found that I enjoy playing with new players--both those new to the game and new to me. In part because I can lead them into the One True Way (ie my particular style :smallbiggrin:) instead of having to struggle against a bunch of habits learned at other tables. I just hope that I'm not creating any toxicity myself--it's something I actually worry about, because my personal style isn't exactly...normal...from what I can tell.

[Kardwill]

That definition is so broad that makes it more or less impossible to referee anything without it becoming a conflict of interests.

You were the one who brought up the conflict of interest when we talked about player-referees. If that conflict of interest is a problem with a player, then it will be with the GM. I think there's no reason to believe one side of the GM-screen is more prone to "pure" rulings than the other. So either you trust both parties, or you end up running into this distrust problem that disrupted your games.

(that's also the reason I don't like the culture of tolerating a cheating GM but tar-and-feathering a cheating player, but that's another debate)

[KorvinStarmast]

I can imagine the conversations had over pizza break on what Pex posted about today.
:smallyuk::smallbiggrin: We spend way too much time distributing horrible puns to spare any time for such conversations. :smallbiggrin: The groans from the others at the {virtual} table can be heard across state lines :smalleek:.

I just hope that I'm not creating any toxicity myself--it's something I actually worry about, because my personal style isn't exactly...normal...from what I can tell. The open-ness to suggestions is appreciated.

[Talakeal]

You were the one who brought up the conflict of interest when we talked about player-referees. If that conflict of interest is a problem with a player, then it will be with the GM. I think there's no reason to believe one side of the GM-screen is more prone to "pure" rulings than the other. So either you trust both parties, or you end up running into this distrust problem that disrupted your games.

I did bring it up. Believing conflict of interests can exist without applying to every situation isn't a contradiction.

The GM is supposed to be an impartial referee, indeed that was their original title. They should not favor one character over another (GM's girlfriends, DMPCs, and pet NPCs are also conflicts on interest

Players, on the other hand, should absolutely identify with their character first and foremost and want them to survive and succeed with their goals.


(that's also the reason I don't like the culture of tolerating a cheating GM but tar-and-feathering a cheating player, but that's another debate)

Agreed there. Although I can at least see where they are coming from, even if I don't agree with it.

[Kardwill]

The GM is supposed to be an impartial referee, indeed that was their original title.

That's the platonic ideal. But really, we're not. We're players too, we're invested in the game, we want stuff out of the game, we usually have an idea of the way we want the game to turn out. Sometimes, we are attached to some storyline, to some NPC, or even to one of the PCs.
We're not impartial in this, because we're here to have fun, and we will defend our idea of the fun, sometimes instinctively.

For example, in the last few threads, you made clear that you had a strong idea of what a proper adventure should be like, of what a proper hero would do, and you asked about ways to encourage your players to do that kind of things, rather than what they think would be fun.

I'm not saying that all of this is bad. I'm a GM myself, and I feel everything I just wrote when I GM a game. And I won't stop feeling engaged in my game, because that would be a very quick way to get bored and stop GMing. But I have to remind myself that I'm neither impartial, nor perfectly rational in my rulings. I'm not better than my players, nor do I "know better" than them. I just have more power.

If a GM can be trusted with the rules, then a player should be trusted with them too, even if she's enguaged in her character.

[Talakeal]

That's the platonic ideal. But really, we're not. We're players too, we're invested in the game, we want stuff out of the game, we usually have an idea of the way we want the game to turn out. Sometimes, we are attached to some storyline, to some NPC, or even to one of the PCs.
We're not impartial in this, because we're here to have fun, and we will defend our idea of the fun, sometimes instinctively.

For example, in the last few threads, you made clear that you had a strong idea of what a proper adventure should be like, of what a proper hero would do, and you asked about ways to encourage your players to do that kind of things, rather than what they think would be fun.

I'm not saying that all of this is bad. I'm a GM myself, and I feel everything I just wrote when I GM a game. And I won't stop feeling engaged in my game, because that would be a very quick way to get bored and stop GMing. But I have to remind myself that I'm neither impartial, nor perfectly rational in my rulings. I'm not better than my players, nor do I "know better" than them. I just have more power.

If a GM can be trusted with the rules, then a player should be trusted with them too, even if she's enguaged in her character.

This is about contradicting expectations.

Trying to be fair and impartial does not conflict with interpreting the rules. Trying to win the scenario and favoring your character does conflict with interpreting the rules.

Everyone falls short of the ideal, that doesn't mean you shouldn't try.

Likewise, its not about "what a proper adventure should be like, of what a proper hero would do"; its about my players telling me that they want an action adventure game with lots of balanced combats, and then showing up with overly cautious PCs who would never willingly go on an adventure or get into a fight, especially one that was "balanced" rather than being rigged in their favor.

Its a contradiction of desires that, even if done perfectly, will result in an unsatisfying conclusion.


Generally the purpose of my advice threads is trying to get players to realize the contradictions in their desires; like the guy who refuses to buy armor and then throws a fit when his character gets hurt; those desires are working against one another.

Likewise, I try and design my scenarios so the fun thing and the effective thing are the same thing. To use an old example, in Ultima Online crossbows were grossly overpowered, and while I was playing a swordsman rather than an archer, I would still put away my sword and pull out a bow whenever a fight got tough not because I found it fun, but because I didn't want my character to die; in a balanced game I shouldn't have to make that choice.

Just like if I am the DM and a player, the optimal move to help my PC succeed is to always fudge the rules in my favor even if that goes directly against my desire to be fair and impartial.

[quinron]

@Talakeal, re:GM-designers and conflict of interest:

Have you considered or tried having one of your other group members GM a game using your system? Whether or not you agree with the conflict of interest notions being put forward, that should eliminate even the possibility of one.

[Talakeal]

@Talakeal, re:GM-designers and conflict of interest:

Have you considered or tried having one of your other group members GM a game using your system? Whether or not you agree with the conflict of interest notions being put forward, that should eliminate even the possibility of one.

Yes, several times.

The GM gets bullied into quitting after a few sessions regardless of what system we use.


Not that the idea of creating your own material being a conflict of interests has ever actually been a sentiment, let alone a problem, at any table I have played at.

[AdAstra]

Yes, several times.

The GM gets bullied into quitting after a few sessions regardless of what system we use.


Not that the idea of creating your own material being a conflict of interests has ever actually been a sentiment, let alone a problem, at any table I have played at.

So, either your players actually do like you, for a given value of liking, or you just have a very high tolerance for crap, seems like.

This is why I think it would be good for you to try to determine the intent of your players when they say things like this. Are they looking for substantive changes to the game so that it's more to their liking, and feel dissatisfied with its present state? Or are they just venting and kvetching for no particular purpose, just getting out normal frustrations about bad situations and poor rolls? Or are they just mean-spirited and actively trying to be jerks? All of these have wildly different spreads of workable solutions, and they could easily differ from player to player. Of course, actually getting accurate information about this is difficult to say the least, since people often say they have one motivation when they really have another (or more than one), but it's worth looking into in all likelihood.

Other than your players being genuinely awful acquaintances, or your games just not being compatible with them, which have both been discussed to death and you seem largely unconvinced by, let's assume for a bit that they're just acerbic and have generally treated complaining and blame-gaming as normal, not hostile, behavior. So essentially, they act mean not out of malice, but merely an expectation that you're allowed or even supposed to act like that in a gaming environment. This would likely be exacerbated by the anger issues and other situations you've mentioned previously. Obviously, in that context their complaints aren't themselves criticism of your game or your character (not like, game character, the other kind). Of course this line of thinking can very easily turn into callous dismissal of legitimate issues, so be very careful with it. It's why I think it's important to try to be certain of intent.

But regardless, very clearly it's been impacting your fun, and it's impacted the fun of other would-be DMs to the point where they stop very quickly. So (again, assuming the problem is just that they're complainers, and not terrible or levying legitimate criticism) either they need to tone the complaining way down, or you need to accept a very explicit sort of social contract of "people will be loud and mean, but it's all in good fun"

[Talakeal]

So, second session went well.

At this point the biggest issues with the game are logistical rather than any thing directly related to the game; we keep having to change venue at the last moment due to weather or other circumstances as our normal gaming spaces are unavailable due to Covid restrictions and new / expectant parents in the group. Yesterday we were gaming outside, which went well until a huge thunder storm came out of nowhere and soaked everyone and everything, and so by the time we found a new place to plop down or soaked character sheets we had wasted three hours, and so the game ran almost until midnight.


One thing that came up that I found funny was how people tend to focus on the negative. I mentioned something or other I had heard on this forum, and my group was like "Forum people are insane, I don't know why you put up with them," and I was thinking about how most of the people on here feel the same way about them. But that's just the nature of discussing problems and unusual situations, the vast majority of positive situations get glossed over.


Trying to encourage my players to take more notes. Note sure if it is helping. I am still having trouble telegraphing what they need to notice, even if I make sure to repeat all of the important stuff. The players also tend to forget to check their notes, and there were more than a few times they were so busy taking notes about something unimportant that they entirely missed something vital. Like "You are in a 50' square stone room with red carpets, there are three orcs guarding a chest" and they will be so busy writing down the description of the room they won't hear about the orcs. I guess I need to make sure to always lead with the relevant stuff? Any advice here on how to guide players toward taking more useful notes?

[Batcathat]

Any advice here on how to guide players toward taking more useful notes?

As a journalist, I kinda feel I should be able to give good advice about this (as making useful notes in the middle of listening is pretty crucial during an interview) but I can only really think of two things. That it's better to focus on keywords than writing down everything word for word (so in your example, I'd probably write down " 50' room, three orcs, chest" instead of the whole thing) and that it's a skill that gets better with practice. So if they keep taking notes, they're probably gonna get better at taking notes over time.

One thing that might work is to have them divide different areas between them. So that player A is in charge of writing notes about enemies, player B about the physical surroundings, etc. But that's just something I thought of right now so it might not actually be a good idea.

EDIT: Oh, I thought of another thing: that it's better to write fast in the moment and then rewrite/edit it later than trying to write perfect notes right away. My notes are usually only readable to me and only as long as I still remember making them (I once did an interview on a Friday and didn't look over my notes until Monday. Big mistake).

[Squire Doodad]

One thing that came up that I found funny was how people tend to focus on the negative. I mentioned something or other I had heard on this forum, and my group was like "Forum people are insane, I don't know why you put up with them," and I was thinking about how most of the people on here feel the same way about them. But that's just the nature of discussing problems and unusual situations, the vast majority of positive situations get glossed over.


Trying to encourage my players to take more notes. Note sure if it is helping. I am still having trouble telegraphing what they need to notice, even if I make sure to repeat all of the important stuff. The players also tend to forget to check their notes, and there were more than a few times they were so busy taking notes about something unimportant that they entirely missed something vital. Like "You are in a 50' square stone room with red carpets, there are three orcs guarding a chest" and they will be so busy writing down the description of the room they won't hear about the orcs. I guess I need to make sure to always lead with the relevant stuff? Any advice here on how to guide players toward taking more useful notes?

Just a bulleted list typed up is fine.
Sample should look like this:

*50' square stone room
**red carpets
**Orcs guarding chest

Hardly a minute to write.

[The Glyphstone]

You could also try to give more detail on the relevant stuff. If the three orcs guarding a chest are crucial, give a more detailed description. I.e.,

"You are in a 50' square stone room with red carpets, there are three orcs guarding a chest" becomes

"You are in a 50' square stone room with red carpets, there are three orcs guarding a chest. The three orcs are wearing leather armor and carrying large axes"

[NichG]

Hope I'm not nitpicking too much on a hypothetical example here, but why would one want players to note down anything more than the fact it was a 50ft square room and where the exits connect to?

The orcs and treasure will presumably not be relevant again once the room has been interacted with. If the carpet hides a secret door, it's unlikely that the party will go back over notes and say 'oh, that room had carpet, we'd better go back and search it' if they wouldn't search the first time.

[Batcathat]

Hope I'm not nitpicking too much on a hypothetical example here, but why would one want players to note down anything more than the fact it was a 50ft square room and where the exits connect to?

I think that's kind of the point, considering Talakeal said that "there were more than a few times they were so busy taking notes about something unimportant that they entirely missed something vital".

[False God]

Hope I'm not nitpicking too much on a hypothetical example here, but why would one want players to note down anything more than the fact it was a 50ft square room and where the exits connect to?

The orcs and treasure will presumably not be relevant again once the room has been interacted with. If the carpet hides a secret door, it's unlikely that the party will go back over notes and say 'oh, that room had carpet, we'd better go back and search it' if they wouldn't search the first time.

Kinda depends on the party I suppose, and the way you're designing the fungeon (that's a typo but I like it better this way). They may not realize the importance or relevance of any given item until later on.
DM: "Oh look this big throne room has 5 tapestries and there's a space for a 6th."
Party: "Hey, wasn't there only one room where the DM mentioned there was a rug?"
Especially if the DM has a good poker face for not giving away which item is or isn't a clue to something the party hasn't encounteed.

I'm not saying the party should obsess over details, but IME, parties tend to do just that no matter if you include every item from the Cave of Wonders or include nothing at all. Heck, IME parties are more likely to obsess over a room where you mention nothing other than the room size and the exit locations than a room where you randomly include some interesting carpet for flavor.

[NichG]

Kinda depends on the party I suppose, and the way you're designing the fungeon (that's a typo but I like it better this way). They may not realize the importance or relevance of any given item until later on.
DM: "Oh look this big throne room has 5 tapestries and there's a space for a 6th."
Party: "Hey, wasn't there only one room where the DM mentioned there was a rug?"
Especially if the DM has a good poker face for not giving away which item is or isn't a clue to something the party hasn't encounteed.


Well if your goal is to teach the players to prioritize important things better when taking notes, setting a bunch of random-detail-oriented puzzles would be counterproductive.

It'd be even better to e.g. prepare a map ahead of time and reveal it, to avoid mixing the task 'keep track of important facts' with the task 'perform the mechanics of mapping correctly'.

[KorvinStarmast]

Well if your goal is to teach the players to prioritize important things better when taking notes, setting a bunch of random-detail-oriented puzzles would be counterproductive. Who does random puzzles as a DM? The DM places puzzles for a reason. (Well, a good DM does). That some players may perceive them as random is due to them not seeing the whole picture until After They Solve The Puzzles, right? :smallsmile:

It'd be even better to e.g. prepare a map ahead of time and reveal it, to avoid mixing the task 'keep track of important facts' with the task 'perform the mechanics of mapping correctly'.
Theater of the Mind relies on description. Describe the room. You do that to help bring them into the scene.

[NichG]

Who does random puzzles as a DM? The DM places puzzles for a reason. (Well, a good DM does). That some players may perceive them as random is due to them not seeing the whole picture until After They Solve The Puzzles, right? :smallsmile:

Theater of the Mind relies on description. Describe the room. You do that to help bring them into the scene.

It's been a repeating pattern on these threads to see something along the lines of 'I want players to learn X, but when I did Y which I understood to be a standard thing that DMs do, they learned the opposite!'. So I'm not taking that for granted here. If you actually want to prioritize teaching something, particularly something that you think 'normal players' know but your players don't, then that means making tradeoffs and not just assuming that imitating stuff that shows up in other DM styles or modules or whatever will just automatically teach those things. So that might mean sacrificing cleverness or matters of style like Theater of the Mind, in order to give training wheels so that someone who has no idea what things are important or not to note down can start learning to recognize those things.

So if your problem is that the players are too busy noting down the color of the rug to notice that you said they're being attacked by orcs, or that they take no notes at all and forget their own inventories or spell lists, then you have to take that into account in order to determine appropriate teaching experiences. Making something where they have to remember the color of the carpets and how that correlates to favored colors of the local royal family and their respective birthdays in order to guess the password to a bunch of magical wards, all while being attacked by monsters might sound like it would be an awesome story about someone being epically competent, but its the wrong level of challenge for those players.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'll note (as a former teacher of kids with not-great note-taking skills) that "transcription-style" note taking is really really really really common (and bad practice). Since the people don't have a good sense of what's important, they default to writing everything down. Which makes them miss the important things. It's not that they think you're gotcha'ing them, but they just have no clue. Because learning how to take good notes for a particular subject/context depends on having some level of intuitive grasp on the subject already (so you have a sense of what's important and not).

As a teacher, I resorted to giving partially-filled notes (basically the boiler-plate words and structure, but not the content) and then projecting that same template and filling it in as we went in class. That probably won't work great in this context, however.

[Pex]

It's been a repeating pattern on these threads to see something along the lines of 'I want players to learn X, but when I did Y which I understood to be a standard thing that DMs do, they learned the opposite!'. So I'm not taking that for granted here. If you actually want to prioritize teaching something, particularly something that you think 'normal players' know but your players don't, then that means making tradeoffs and not just assuming that imitating stuff that shows up in other DM styles or modules or whatever will just automatically teach those things. So that might mean sacrificing cleverness or matters of style like Theater of the Mind, in order to give training wheels so that someone who has no idea what things are important or not to note down can start learning to recognize those things.

So if your problem is that the players are too busy noting down the color of the rug to notice that you said they're being attacked by orcs, or that they take no notes at all and forget their own inventories or spell lists, then you have to take that into account in order to determine appropriate teaching experiences. Making something where they have to remember the color of the carpets and how that correlates to favored colors of the local royal family and their respective birthdays in order to guess the password to a bunch of magical wards, all while being attacked by monsters might sound like it would be an awesome story about someone being epically competent, but its the wrong level of challenge for those players.

Heh.

I have a particular dungeon adventure I run as DM. I do the mapping as the party travels through it. At the end of it they're asked for a password. They're never told by anyone or anything they encounter in the dungeon that they need one. Once in a while a player will get annoyed about this. However, I respond, truthfully, that I've been telling them the password the entire game session. This is when players will shout out words I've said during play, but none of them are the password. Finally a player looks at the dungeon map I've been drawing and see I've spelled out the password in block letters.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Heh.

I have a particular dungeon adventure I run as DM. I do the mapping as the party travels through it. At the end of it they're asked for a password. They're never told by anyone or anything they encounter in the dungeon that they need one. Once in a while a player will get annoyed about this. However, I respond, truthfully, that I've been telling them the password the entire game session. This is when players will shout out words I've said during play, but none of them are the password. Finally a player looks at the dungeon map I've been drawing and see I've spelled out the password in block letters.

I once ran a oneshot for a group of family (who aren't stupid people). They entered the dungeon in a room with a bunch of paintings of people holding things; I provided them a handout with descriptions of all the paintings. They then entered a room with a bunch of statues (the same figures as before) but not holding anything and a bunch of objects on display stands nearby. Both doors (forward and back) locked behind them. There was a piece of writing on the wall above a door, something about "Remember devotion and history".

They spent about 30 minutes doing trial and error, trying to logic through this puzzle, spinning more and more improbable meanings to the statues and short phrases. The handout I'd given them? Was the answers. They just had to put the right object on the right statue, no particular order. I had no expectation that they'd follow any logic--there wasn't enough information in the puzzle room other than trial and error. They were going through this puzzle backwards--it was a devotional ritual to remember the emperors[1] before entering the chapel (which is where they started). Man they felt stupid once I prompted to look at that handout...

[1] it was a cult worshiping some of the emperors of a particular empire.

[False God]

Well if your goal is to teach the players to prioritize important things better when taking notes, setting a bunch of random-detail-oriented puzzles would be counterproductive.
I'd hardly call the only rug I ever mentioned in the entire dungeon to be "random". The fact that the player does not understand the importance of an object or can't see how something isn't random is only due to their "inside the maze" perspective. It doesn't mean it is.


It'd be even better to e.g. prepare a map ahead of time and reveal it, to avoid mixing the task 'keep track of important facts' with the task 'perform the mechanics of mapping correctly'.
I don't care if my players map the room properly or take proper notes. That's their job. If they fail in this job they may fail in the dungeon (ie: getting defeated by monsters or getting lost or trapped forever). That is their problem. If I reveal the answer to the puzzle before they encounter it, then there was no point in preparing the puzzle at all.

Also, as KorvinStarmast points out, TOTM relies on description. And frankly, I'm not skilled enough as an artist to draw the sort of detail I can describe. I may use a random dungeon generator so I keep my dungeon straight, but then I'll fill it up with details that can't be suitably rendered by my hand, and I'd rather not steal art off the internet.

I have played in many a group where noone in the party took notes, or at least noone took notes well and it resulted in essentially a "game over". It's annoying but that was our decision as a party not to do so. I often take notes but I inform the group this is in-character, and remind them I also wrote "LE" on my character sheet. I'm not here to be the party tool and I have often been relegated to the role because I like to take notes OOC. So this is either an equal partnership where my personal player desire to have good notes is not taken advantage of, or my PC gets to leverage the rest of the party's laziness to my advantage.

If that sounds a bit bitter, yes, I am a bit bitter from my years of "I'm just a note-taking kinda guy." getting taken advantage of.

It has however trained a few people I know to take notes themselves.

[NichG]

I'd hardly call the only rug I ever mentioned in the entire dungeon to be "random". The fact that the player does not understand the importance of an object or can't see how something isn't random is only due to their "inside the maze" perspective. It doesn't mean it is.

I don't care if my players map the room properly or take proper notes. That's their job. If they fail in this job they may fail in the dungeon (ie: getting defeated by monsters or getting lost or trapped forever). That is their problem. If I reveal the answer to the puzzle before they encounter it, then there was no point in preparing the puzzle at all.

And here's the difference. In your case, you aren't trying to teach your players a competency they lack, you're trying to challenge a competency they may or may not possess. What is appropriate in that case is different than what is appropriate if your goal is to guide your players to develop a new competency or habit.

[Kardwill]

I'd hardly call the only rug I ever mentioned in the entire dungeon to be "random". The fact that the player does not understand the importance of an object or can't see how something isn't random is only due to their "inside the maze" perspective. It doesn't mean it is.


The players often have a very distorted view of what is important and what is not, since, unlike the GM, they don't have the "global view" of the adventure, and thus won't know which details should be commited to notes/memory and which details are simply "fluff". And sometime, they will be distracted and won't even notice/hear that important detail. So I think clues should not be simply "drowned" in the global description. The GM should do something so that they stand out : give the rug a dedicated, detailed description instead of simply putting it in the room description, mention it every time they go through the room or talk about it (it becomes the "carpet room"), tell a player that something about this rug got the attention of their character...

Of course, that kind of blatant meta-description goes against the "cleverly disguised clue that smart players will feel smug about noticing" type of puzzles. But in my experience, most of the puzzles relying on such small detail just fizzle into frustrated players and GMs, so unless small details are REALLY your player's jazz, I think most clues should be pretty obvious, and repeated.

[Batcathat]

Of course, that kind of blatant meta-description goes against the "cleverly disguised clue that smart players will feel smug about noticing" type of puzzles. But in my experience, most of the puzzles relying on such small detail just fizzle into frustrated players and GMs, so unless small details are REALLY your player's jazz, I think most clues should be pretty obvious, and repeated.

As much as I dislike the meta aspect of it, you're probably right. I attempted to run a PBP murder mystery a while back and it became very clear that it's hard to predict what sort of details the players are going to latch onto. I had prepared what I thought were obvious clues that were actually red herrings but even they were missed in several cases.

[KorvinStarmast]

So if your problem is that the players are too busy noting down the color of the rug to notice that you said they're being attacked by orcs, Resorting to an absurdity doesn't help to make your case. :smallconfused:

Puzzles are one of many devices used in D&D, and for that matter in fiction, in movies, in TV shows, to reveal the world (or a piece of the world) by putting pieces together. By the time most people are 12 they have been exposed to varying kinds of puzzles. D&D is a game that has been, for most of its life, for 'ages 12 and up.' Granted, some people like puzzles more than others. Note that escape rooms, pre COVID, were very popular. The adventure we had in Fellowship (a DW variant) involved a puzzle in terms of we had to put some pieces together to get the Big Bad neutralized.

The occasional rants against puzzles on the playground tells me that some folks must have hated Myst and Riven, which were incredibly popular Computer based games back in the 90's. (Heck, wasn't Portal sort of a puzzle game? It wasn't just about cake...)

The key with puzzles, in an adventuring setting for a TRPG, is that they need to have a purpose. And, for my money, the Three Clue Rule is a good way to fold puzzles into an adventure better. (See also Tomb of Annhihlation's later acts ...)

The scenario that Phoenix describes as regards the pictures and the statues is a good example of a puzzle without requiring any OOC wit or experience to figure out.

[False God]

Resorting to an absurdity doesn't help to make your case. :smallconfused:

I honestly had a DM pull this on me once. "Oh, you're concentrating REALLY HARD on your notes so you don't notice BEING STABBED."

[Xervous]

I honestly had a DM pull this on me once. "Oh, you're concentrating REALLY HARD on your notes so you don't notice BEING STABBED."

Was the GM too busy to notice his players leaving?

[KorvinStarmast]

I honestly had a DM pull this on me once. "Oh, you're concentrating REALLY HARD on your notes so you don't notice BEING STABBED." I can't stop people from being nitwits. That has nothing to do with (a) puzzles (b) taking notes (which is related to the ancient art of mapping in D&D and (3) description to help the players get into a scene. :smallannoyed:

@Xervous: I've seen sessions break up over stupid crap like that. But it was not common IME.

[Satinavian]

When i use puzzles, i make really sure that the player are aware of all the parts they need to solve it. Not just "those details have been mentioned" but "players did notice them and remember them now". Recaps are not bad for that. physical representations on the battlemap or similar work as well. But if needed i am not above reminding them directly even if that gives away that it might be related to the puzzle.

[False God]

Was the GM too busy to notice his players leaving?

I think there was some arguing but I don't think anyone left. He didn't pull that again at least.

[NichG]

Resorting to an absurdity doesn't help to make your case. :smallconfused:

I'm not the one who introduced that, Talakeal did when explaining their issue with their players and note-taking:


I am still having trouble telegraphing what they need to notice, even if I make sure to repeat all of the important stuff. The players also tend to forget to check their notes, and there were more than a few times they were so busy taking notes about something unimportant that they entirely missed something vital. Like "You are in a 50' square stone room with red carpets, there are three orcs guarding a chest" and they will be so busy writing down the description of the room they won't hear about the orcs. I guess I need to make sure to always lead with the relevant stuff? Any advice here on how to guide players toward taking more useful notes?

A lot of the advice here doesn't seem to be 'how to guide players toward taking more useful notes', its stuff you'd do if your players could already be expected to be competent at note-taking and you wanted to give them a challenge centered around their note-taking skills. Or even in some cases things you'd do which would actively thwart short-cuts or attempts to judge what's important or not, like having ornamental details like the carpet not matter 95% of the time but be essential 5% of the time.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm not the one who introduced that, Talakeal did when explaining their issue with their players and note-taking Oops, sorry, my sentiment stands but was misdirected. *blush*

[Talakeal]

Oops, sorry, my sentiment stands but was misdirected. *blush*

Do note I didn't say anything about being attacked.

That being said, I don't think it actually would be that ridiculous if I had, when people are focused on something they tend to tune out distractions, and if someone isn't paying attention to you I don't think it really matters what you say, they might not here you regardless of the content.

I mean, I can't be the only one who has had a player engrossed on their phone oblivious to the entire table staring at them waiting for them to roll initiative, am I?

[BRC]

I'd say that detail memory based "Puzzles" simply are not fun.

Especially if it's something to the degree of "Did you remember the color of the carpet a few rooms ago?"

Now, with the description of Useful Notes, here's my advice.
Every time you set a scene, break it down as follows

1) General description

2) anything that requires immediate action

3) Detail of Significant Things.


1) "You enter a 30x30 room, there are three doors on the wall opposite, a table in the middle loaded with food, and a treasure chest against one wall"

2) "Three Orcs sit at the table, they stand up and grab at their weapons"

3) Describe anything important in detail. If Combat happens, do this AFTER the combat.
"The carpet is red, embroidered with an elaborate pattern depicting a three headed dragon."

Note, unless players specifically ask, don't go into detail about anything unimportant unless it's something super obvious. Red Herrings are not fun.

You can go into detail about, say, an elaborate mural on one wall, because the PC's would notice that. But if only the Carpet is important, don't go into detail about the Carpet, and also the Chairs.

[KorvinStarmast]

I mean, I can't be the only one who has had a player engrossed on their phone oblivious to the entire table staring at them waiting for them to roll initiative, am I? Don't mix OOC and IC like that, please.
If you have a party of five or six in the room, why do you seem to assume (uncharitably) that they all have tunnel vision? That's the kind of Gotcha DMing that gives DMs a bad name. :smallannoyed:

Are you familiar with the invisible dragon problem?

[Telok]

I mean, I can't be the only one who has had a player engrossed on their phone oblivious to the entire table staring at them waiting for them to roll initiative, am I?

You aren't. My default in that case is to declare that the character took an emergency potty break and walks into the combat being surprised for a turn when they come back. The character is oblivious due to relief, as opposed to the player who's oblivious due to disengaging from everything that isn't combat.

As a bonus, sometimes the player sitting next to Mr. "Wake me up for the next combat" gives them a good smack on the head.

[Talakeal]

Don't mix OOC and IC like that, please.
If you have a party of five or six in the room, why do you seem to assume (uncharitably) that they all have tunnel vision? That's the kind of Gotcha DMing that gives DMs a bad name. :smallannoyed;

Wait? What? Huh?

When was I ever talking about IC stuff?


Are you familiar with the invisible dragon problem?

I don't believe so.

[NichG]

Don't mix OOC and IC like that, please.
If you have a party of five or six in the room, why do you seem to assume (uncharitably) that they all have tunnel vision? That's the kind of Gotcha DMing that gives DMs a bad name. :smallannoyed:

Are they actually saying that there's any IC consequences of this? Another poster did comment about a DM who would have the enemies gain surprise due to players not paying attention, but I don't think Talakeal said they did that.

The read I got was that Talakeal's players either don't take notes at all, or when they do take notes then the note-taking activity detracts from their ability to actually functionally participate in the game, and Talakeal would like to figure out how to change their descriptions to make it clear what players should focus on - both in terms of paying attention, and in terms of recording things for later.

Anyhow, I generally agree with BRC's advice so far, maybe even reversing the order of 1 and 2. So I'd probably do something like:

Lead with the active element 'As you're about to turn the corner, notice a group of three orcs in the next room. They don't seem to have spotted you.' then go to secondary active elements 'You also noticed a treasure chest a few paces behind them'. Then start to assess the players' intentions towards the room (charge in, go around, sneak past, etc) and give details specifically relevant to their planning or declared intent: "The room is pretty wide at 50ft x 50ft or so, so you might be able to circle around them to the chest, but there's little clutter to hide behind." or "There weren't any other passages leading out of the room; its a dead end with treasure."

Then when the party commits to an action, give the details relevant to that action a second time to again get everyone on the same page: "The room is 50x50, there's a table with an orc seated at there about 10ft from the entrance, and two other orcs sitting on stools playing dice 10ft away and on the left. 40ft behind the table, at the far end of the room, is a treasure chest on a raised platform. The lighting is dim, but the room is pretty bare."

Then after the action resolves, fill in broad details they would have missed and prompt for any specific inquiries. Jump a little down the chain of reasoning if they start getting side-tracked and don't be coy or clever about trying to hide relevant details or make an irrelevant detail seem relevant. So if they start to ask about the color of the carpet, you can just say "The carpet isn't anything special, you can check it for secret doors or magic or whatever, but there's nothing."

[Talakeal]

Also, to clarify, while talking about puzzles and riddles is related to the topic at hand, I want to be clear that my group detests them and I do not use either in my game.


Of course, communication issues and paranoia often turn direct statements into riddles at my table, but that is far from intentional.

[KorvinStarmast]

The read I got was that Talakeal's players either don't take notes at all, or when they do take notes then the note-taking activity detracts from their ability to actually functionally participate in the game, The OP's "my players are {mentally deficient} {some other pejorative}" position doesn't make for a productive conversation - the assertion that players can't take notes while playing without losing track of what's going on clashes heavily with my experience in play from both sides of the screen.

[Talakeal]

The OP's "my players are {mentally deficient} {some other pejorative}" position doesn't make for a productive conversation - the assertion that players can't take notes while playing without losing track of what's going on clashes heavily with my experience in play from both sides of the screen.

I strongly disagree with the assertion that someone has to be "mentally deficient" to be distracted. I am pretty sure it is a scientific fact that people cannot process written dialogue and verbal dialogue at the same time at anywhere close to 100% efficiency. I can't count the number of times that someone has asked me something while I am writing / reading something and I respond with "Uh huh. Yeah sure." and then realize a few minutes later that I have absolutely no idea what it was I just agreed to, and I have had conversations with my brother about how he constantly gets in trouble with his wife for doing the same thing. But then again maybe mental deficiency just runs in my family.


And that still has nothing to do with the IC / OOC divide that you seemed to be objecting to.

[BRC]

Anyhow, I generally agree with BRC's advice so far, maybe even reversing the order of 1 and 2. So I'd probably do something like:

Lead with the active element 'As you're about to turn the corner, notice a group of three orcs in the next room. They don't seem to have spotted you.' then go to secondary active elements 'You also noticed a treasure chest a few paces behind them'. Then start to assess the players' intentions towards the room (charge in, go around, sneak past, etc) and give details specifically relevant to their planning or declared intent: "The room is pretty wide at 50ft x 50ft or so, so you might be able to circle around them to the chest, but there's little clutter to hide behind." or "There weren't any other passages leading out of the room; its a dead end with treasure."

Then when the party commits to an action, give the details relevant to that action a second time to again get everyone on the same page: "The room is 50x50, there's a table with an orc seated at there about 10ft from the entrance, and two other orcs sitting on stools playing dice 10ft away and on the left. 40ft behind the table, at the far end of the room, is a treasure chest on a raised platform. The lighting is dim, but the room is pretty bare."

Then after the action resolves, fill in broad details they would have missed and prompt for any specific inquiries. Jump a little down the chain of reasoning if they start getting side-tracked and don't be coy or clever about trying to hide relevant details or make an irrelevant detail seem relevant. So if they start to ask about the color of the carpet, you can just say "The carpet isn't anything special, you can check it for secret doors or magic or whatever, but there's nothing."
I like to open with the general description of the room, if only because that helps "Set the Scene" for the action, and as soon as I get to Step 2 and start talking about Enemies, or anything else that is going to react to the PC's presence, people stop listening and start reacting.

If I go "You turn the corner and see some Orcs", then the players mind is filled with Orcs, and I'm going to be repeating the layout of the room several times throughout the fight. If I give them the room, and THEN put orcs into it, they put the orcs in the room and it works.


I strongly disagree with the assertion that someone has to be "mentally deficient" to be distracted. I am pretty sure it is a scientific fact that people cannot process written dialogue and verbal dialogue at the same time at anywhere close to 100% efficiency. I can't count the number of times that someone has asked me something while I am writing / reading something and I respond with "Uh huh. Yeah sure." and then realize a few minutes later that I have absolutely no idea what it was I just agreed to, and I have had conversations with my brother about how he constantly gets in trouble with his wife for doing the same thing. But then again maybe mental deficiency just runs in my family.

Nah, that's definetly a thing. Recording information makes it hard to listen to different information.

Part of my method of breaking up descriptions into Phases is that it makes it easy to stop and start as players take notes.

"You walk into a 50x50 room with a table in the middle, a fireplace on one wall, and three doors on the opposite wall"
(pause for Scribbling)
"You see four Orcs at the table, and two more playing dice by the fire"
(pause for scribbling and reactions)
"The table sits on a large red rug with an image of a Three Headed Dragon in black on it"
(Pause for scribbling)

"The Fireplace has three dragon heads carved into the wall above it"


This not only helps players pick up on important details, it also means your notes are easily broken up so if you need to repeat any details (Say, about the Rug specifically) you can easily pick them out.

Sure, it might not be as Poetic as

"You enter a large room, 50x50. In the center, a table sits on a red rug showing a three-headed dragon. Four orcs sit around the table, eating. Beyond the orcs, you see three doors. To the left two more orcs play dice in front of a roaring fireplace with three stone dragon heads carved into the wall above it", but it nicely breaks things up into easily consumable chunks, and contains each chunk of relevant information (Layout of room, number and position of orcs, details of rug, details of fireplace) into discreet sections.

[False God]

I like to open with the general description of the room, if only because that helps "Set the Scene" for the action, and as soon as I get to Step 2 and start talking about Enemies, or anything else that is going to react to the PC's presence, people stop listening and start reacting.

If I go "You turn the corner and see some Orcs", then the players mind is filled with Orcs, and I'm going to be repeating the layout of the room several times throughout the fight. If I give them the room, and THEN put orcs into it, they put the orcs in the room and it works.


Nah, that's definetly a thing. Recording information makes it hard to listen to different information.

Part of my method of breaking up descriptions into Phases is that it makes it easy to stop and start as players take notes.

"You walk into a 50x50 room with a table in the middle, a fireplace on one wall, and three doors on the opposite wall"
(pause for Scribbling)
"You see four Orcs at the table, and two more playing dice by the fire"
(pause for scribbling and reactions)
"The table sits on a large red rug with an image of a Three Headed Dragon in black on it"
(Pause for scribbling)

"The Fireplace has three dragon heads carved into the wall above it"


This not only helps players pick up on important details, it also means your notes are easily broken up so if you need to repeat any details (Say, about the Rug specifically) you can easily pick them out.

Sure, it might not be as Poetic as

"You enter a large room, 50x50. In the center, a table sits on a red rug showing a three-headed dragon. Four orcs sit around the table, eating. Beyond the orcs, you see three doors. To the left two more orcs play dice in front of a roaring fireplace with three stone dragon heads carved into the wall above it", but it nicely breaks things up into easily consumable chunks, and contains each chunk of relevant information (Layout of room, number and position of orcs, details of rug, details of fireplace) into discreet sections.

This is an absolutely solid distinction. Even the best listeners and note-takers can only reasonably absorb so much information so quickly. Plus, a little pause gives people time to ask a question (and potentially request or allow or disallow a check), which can make even introducing a room feel interactive, rather than an exposition dump.

[KorvinStarmast]

I strongly disagree with the assertion that someone has to be "mentally deficient" to be distracted. I am pretty sure it is a scientific fact that people cannot process written dialogue and verbal dialogue at the same time at anywhere close to 100% efficiency. Given that note taking isn't writing dialogue, the rest of your post is ignored.
Fun fact: jotting down the important bits on a kneeboard while both flying and listening to the controller is something pilots did for many decades: your "science" is not science. (Haven't flown in a while, so I'm not sure if pilots have dumbed themselves down while following the magenta line and stopped using kneeboards, but we are drifting off topic slightly. I spent a lot of years flying and training pilots).

The above noted, yes cognitive overload is a thing - when all channels get filled up errors start to manifest; accident investigations are replete with exampled. However, simply listening to a person and jotting down the important bits is so damned easy even I as a seventh grader (back when dirt was recent) could do it.

Your assertion that people are unable to handle two channels of information flow is suspect.

How the speaker delivers the information (that's on you, GM) informs how hard that information is to process regardless of what else they may, or may not, be doing. Verbal delivery is a learned skill. Reading a three paragraph long box of text to describe the room, for example, is poor technique.

Someone a few posts up mentioned pauses: yeah, do that. It helps the listener digest what's coming in as they engage the audio channel and the "paint a picture in my brain's eye" channel. (and if they are smart, jot down a note or two)

[Talakeal]

Given that note taking isn't writing dialogue, the rest of your post is ignored.
Fun fact: jotting down the important bits on a kneeboard while both flying and listening to the controller is something pilots did for many decades: your "science" is not science. (Haven't flown in a while, so I'm not sure if pilots have dumbed themselves down while following the magenta line and stopped using kneeboards, but we are drifting off topic slightly. I spent a lot of years flying and training pilots).

The above noted, yes cognitive overload is a thing - when all channels get filled up errors start to manifest; accident investigations are replete with exampled. However, simply listening to a person and jotting down the important bits is so damned easy even I as a seventh grader (back when dirt was recent) could do it.

Your assertion that people are unable to handle two channels of information flow is suspect.

How the speaker delivers the information (that's on you, GM) informs how hard that information is to process regardless of what else they may, or may not, be doing. Verbal delivery is a learned skill. Reading a three paragraph long box of text to describe the room, for example, is poor technique.

Someone a few posts up mentioned pauses: yeah, do that. It helps the listener digest what's coming in as they engage the audio channel and the "paint a picture in my brain's eye" channel. (and if they are smart, jot down a note or two)

Mostly agreed.

Its a real problem though; like last session I have a pretty brief description (maybe 3-4 sentences) and the player immediately started writing down what I was saying, fell behind, and then said they missed the second half because they were too busy writing down the first half. I don't see anything wrong with that, to me taking notes in real time is hard, especially when trying to pick out the relevant info from the chaff.

And yeah, I definitely could learn how to improve my process for relaying information, which is why I am asking for advice.

But yeah, three paragraphs of boxed text is way too much. At most I limit myself to one paragraph, and even that is a bit much, generally I prefer to keep it a sentence or less. Even that can get on my players nerves though, in my last game I had two players get pissed off at me for having a villain give a 9 second "monologue".



On a more personal note; did I say something to really upset you? If so I am sorry, that was not my intent. It just seems like you are generally one of the more wise and reasonable posters on the thread, but recently it seems like when you post one of my threads you are going out of your way to point fingers and call names.

[Batcathat]

Its a real problem though; like last session I have a pretty brief description (maybe 3-4 sentences) and the player immediately started writing down what I was saying, feel behind, and then said they missed the second half because they were too busy writing down the first half. I don't see anything wrong with that, to me taking notes in real time is hard, especially when trying to pick out the relevant info from the chaff.

And yeah, I definitely could learn how to improve my process for relaying information, which is why I am asking for advice.

Like I said earlier, I suspect it will get a lot better with time. Taking notes (including knowing what to focus on) is a skill and like most skills it takes some practice to get better at it. While thinking about how you deliver the information is good, I'd be careful not to make it too structured and bite-sized since it might make the players too reliant on it.

[KorvinStarmast]

On a more personal note; did I say something to really upset you? I doubt it. Maybe low caffeine index is infiltrating my prose. :smalleek: