PDA

View Full Version : Talking to my players



Pages : [1] 2

Talakeal
2021-07-14, 10:14 PM
This is an update / followup to several of my previous threads about dysfunctional groups.

It looks like like everyone is vaccinated and we have found a new area to play, so I expect my new campaign to start sometime in August.


Overall, my group is a lot more drama free than they have been in the past, but there are still behaviors that worry me and I would like to avoid backsliding / teaching bad behavior to the new players.

I am looking for advice on if / how to talk to them about my concerns. My previous idea about writing a letter was roundly criticized, and so I have decided to try a different approach with that (See below), but I still think some form of conversation might need to happen.

The players have indicated that they want a linear, action / adventure themed game with limited horror, romance, and dialogue and no puzzles and "balanced" combat, and I am trying to oblige.


About Me:

I am a simulation first GM and try and keep the verisimilitude of the world at the forefront.

I roleplay NPCs accordingly, and in combat enemies will use tactics appropriate to their knowledge and intelligence.

I do not fudge dice or rework encounters behind the screen, although mistakes do occasionally crop up and need correcting.

We are playing my home-brew system, but doing so by RAW and I will not change the rules mid game unless a game-breaking bug comes up in play. Players can vote on whether or not to use optional or variant rules.

I do not lie or trick my players or twist their words (although NPCs might). Still, miscommunications happen frequently, I am not good at reading the table and my players are all either frequently on their phones and / or suffer from clinical depression so they will inevitably miss or forget important information.


What I am Asking of my players:

All PCs will be employees of a mercenary corps located in the Golgotha region. They are expected to have characters who are motivated, for whatever reason, to join the party and do their best to complete missions.

They need to join an ingame faction, although it doesn't need to be unanimous or right away.

Limited PvP is ok as long as it is kept in character and doesn't ultimately leave characters unable to work with the group.

PCs need to be morally flexible enough to accept jobs for a wide variety of clients; although the jobs themselves will not be morally extreme in either direction, the people they work for might be.


Things my players do that I would like to stop

When something bad happens to their character, they sometimes get frustrated and lash out at someone (usually the GM) and act out, yelling, swearing, throwing dice or models, calling names, threatening to quit the group, leaving the room without a word, or accusing them of cheating.


Older players tell newer players grossly one sided stories about times they were screwed over by other people at the table that occurred years or even decades in the past.


The players devote no resources to reconnaissance (which is fine), but then accuse the GM of cheating and railroading when they are surprised, which is not.


The players give their characters significant weaknesses (which is fine) but then accuse the GM of picking on them or meta-gaming whenever they come up, which is not.


When their first strategy doesn't work, they simply assume they are in a no win situation (or a puzzle with only one very specific answer) and often check out from the game entirely, perhaps leaving the table to go play on their phone / Playstation in another room rather than trying a different approach.


And then I have one player who acts very miserly, he is constantly irritating the other players by refusing to contribute to party expenses and asking for extra shares of treasure, complains to me if he doesn't get proportionally more treasure every mission, and refuses to spend gold on upgrades (especially consumables) and then complains the game is too hard as a result.




And again, these are all issues which, by themselves, aren't game-breaking and only come up about once every five sessions per player, but in a five player group that means most sessions end with at-least one incident, and sometimes they coincide for a poop-storm.



So yeah, any advice on how I should talk to my players before the next game about these issues, and what changes we should try and make going forward?


So, as for my letter, I rewrote it as a bullet point list that takes the form of a semi-in character tip sheet from the party's mentor, kind of like they would have in old video game strategy guides. It touches upon some of the issues, but is mostly trying to just be "coaching" them to succeed at the game.


First off, if you want to make it big out here you are going to have to be brave, but also cunning.

It’s a dangerous world out there, and most of the folks you will encounter have learned to survive in it.

Don’t go out there with a glaring weakness and expect your foes to ignore it, and likewise expect them to have given more than a few thoughts to how to cover weaknesses of their own.

Don’t neglect your defense! All the firepower in the world won’t do you no good if you get taken out before you can bring it to bear.

On the other hand, don’t neglect your offense. All the armor in the world won’t help if the enemy can afford to just ignore you.

If something seems impossible, don’t give up, and don’t bash your head against it. Fall back, reassess the situation, and keep trying new strategies until you find one that works, which you will.

You can never know what the future holds, so try and get through each obstacle using as few resources as possible.

Nobody out there is wholly good or wholly evil.

Life ain’t always about right and wrong; more often it’s about how much suffering you are willing to inflict or endure to see your goals through.

Fate is a fickle mistress, and it’s possible to fail through nobody’s fault, maybe not even your own.

Everyone has their own way of looking at things. Don’t trust anyone completely, not even me.

Keep a supply of tonics on hand as a buffer between bad luck and failure.

If you got the brainpower, its often more cost effective to use the right elixir preemptively rather than a tonic after the fact.

Being captured is humiliating, costly, & often downright painful. Still, surrendering is better than the alternative.

Only abandon a contract as an absolute last resort; you will miss out on a lot of cash, and the hit to your reputation may be even more costly in the end.

That bein’ said, you don’t need to be perfect. Objectives ain’t worth dying for, let alone driving yourself mad or turning on your comrades.

Folks out here will try and lie, cheat, or trick ya, and may twist your words, but your Gamekeeper won’t.

On t’other hand, don’t expect your Gamekeeper to pull something out of their backside to save yers if you get in over your head.

Knowledge is power. Make sure to research your mission first, and send in a scout if you can do so safely.

You will run into a whole lot of strange stuff out here, and will find yourself in a wide mix of situations; things that seem like a weakness today might be a strength tomorrow, and vice versa.

When selecting your teammates, understand that its not about being objectively better or worse, rather its about group synergy. Everyone you meet will be more or less equal, but if you cover all your bases before working on redundancy or over-specialization that will help the team as a whole and give everyone a chance to shine.

Trust and communication with your teammates is the most important thing out here. Their lives are literally in your hands.

Put your team’s face-man at the front of the table and your wizard at the back. Trust me.


Any questions, comments, or suggestions about the wording or content?


EDIT: Please note that the "letter" at the end is just a tip sheet going over some solutions to common points of failure. It is absolutely NOT a replacement for actually addressing the larger issues my gaming group is having, and though it touches on a lot of the stuff I mention in the post, it isn't meant to cover it all.

Onos
2021-07-15, 02:28 AM
Have you at all considered that in addition to communication, your players aren't enjoying your games because it's always some new version of your own system? The main problems being that no-one is an expert the first couple of times using a given system, there is no way for them to get support for this system (like asking a well-established forum for relevant advice), and that you're not a professional designer? Oh, and that literally none of your table seem slightly interested in your "simulationist, hardcore{scrubbed}, 6D chess" style of TRPGs?

Not everyone wants to switch their brains on to play a game - and the less generally satisfied they are, the less effort they're likely willing to put in.

My advice would be to say "hey guys, we're just going to go with standard 5e and I'll be toning the difficulty down. Maybe after this campaign we'll have a look at some homebrew"

Talakeal
2021-07-15, 02:35 AM
Have you at all considered that in addition to communication, your players aren't enjoying your games because it's always some new version of your own system? The main problems being that no-one is an expert the first couple of times using a given system, there is no way for them to get support for this system (like asking a well-established forum for relevant advice), and that you're not a professional designer? Oh, and that literally none of your table seem slightly interested in your "simulationist, {scrub the post, scrub the quote}, 6D chess" style of TRPGs?

Not everyone wants to switch their brains on to play a game - and the less generally satisfied they are, the less effort they're likely willing to put in.

My advice would be to say "hey guys, we're just going to go with standard 5e and I'll be toning the difficulty down. Maybe after this campaign we'll have a look at some home-brew"

I really wouldn't call my game "hardcore" by any standard I could name except maybe for the lack of illusionism.

I have run D&D many times, all of the same problems I have experienced are significantly worse when doing so.

Trust me, the issue is not me forcing my system on my players; if anything its kind of the opposite, I put up with a lot of crap from these guys because they genuinely prefer my game to most published systems.

Likewise, I have not actually changed how my game is played (save for minor fixes and campaign specific house rules) in the last three campaigns.

Onos
2021-07-15, 03:26 AM
Yeah, the whole "hardcore" bit was really just to illustrate the possible difference between what you run and what your players want - generally I'd lean more towards your style, but I've had plenty of tables who just want to go slaughter a goblin tribe or whatever and not think.(I believe your previous thread had someone say their table spent a fight looking for a "bendy tree to turn into a catapult" and something about juggling axes? So it may not even be difficulty but lack of nonsense)

If your table is genuinely settled on your system, and particularly if this stuff happens regardless of what you use, I gotta say it's probably time to lay down the law. No phones at the table, no tantrums, no throwing stuff (for real? I assume it's not literal small children you game with?)... y'know, generally behave like a civilised human being. Given that habits may be hard to break, I'd dish out a warning the first time, then kick the offending player if it continues. And if someone walks away from the game, they have left the game entirely. I really cannot emphasize enough how completely unacceptable that sort of behaviour is.

And no crappy stories to new players. If they have nothing nice to say about your games even as they continue turning up, they can at the very least sit there and shut up.

In terms of mechanical fixes, I'd suggest limiting how much they can min-max to remove the whining about weaknesses, and chucking a scout NPC their way to deal with the recon issue. And sure, make it clear the scout won't be perfect etc.

The particular player you've singled out...that's really an in-party issue. So long as you're making it clear that spending gold is the done thing (and see above for how to handle tantrums) then let the party sort out treasure.

For the letter I'd consider cutting the following:
The chunk about offence and defence specifically, you've already made the weaknesses thing clear with the previous sentence.
The bit about using as few resources as possible. Seems like they'd take this as an excuse to be miserly.
Possibly the line about failing through no fault of their own - people who regularly throw tantrums will probably take that as an excuse to blame you/the system/etc.
Definitely the bit about not trusting you! I'd rework that to be more along the lines of "information will be in-character. The only way to find absolute truth is with an oracle," particularly as you've already got the bit about the Gamekeeper not lying.

But honestly, after the endless rain of tantrums and acting out my advice is: No D&D is better than bad D&D.

Satinavian
2021-07-15, 03:45 AM
Likewise, I have not actually changed how my game is played (save for minor fixes and campaign specific house rules) in the last three campaigns.And now you start another campaign of the same kind with mostly the same players and somehow expect it to be different. Because you (again) tell your players how you think players should play. Your new letter is mostly a summary of your past issues that you presumely already have complained about.

But sure, let's go through the letter, if you want:


First off, if you want to make it big out here you are going to have to be brave, but also cunning.
If you don't play risky, you can't win. If you do play risky and lose, you were not smart enough. That sounds just plain bad.
It’s a dangerous world out there, and most of the folks you will encounter have learned to survive in it.
Then how about assuming that the PCs have learned that as well instead of putting it to the test all the time while NPCs can just do it
Don’t go out there with a glaring weakness and expect your foes to ignore it, and likewise expect them to have given more than a few thoughts to how to cover weaknesses of their own.
Fine
Don’t neglect your defense! All the firepower in the world won’t do you no good if you get taken out before you can bring it to bear.
Not fine. That is telling your players how to build their characters.
On the other hand, don’t neglect your offense. All the armor in the world won’t help if the enemy can afford to just ignore you.
Not fine. That is telling your players how to build their characters.
If something seems impossible, don’t give up, and don’t bash your head against it. Fall back, reassess the situation, and keep trying new strategies until you find one that works, which you will.
If somethings seems impossible, giving up is the rational, smart thing to do. If i had new strategies to try it of which i think they could work, it wouldn't seem impossible. And i am not for sticking around trying out harebrained schemes until somethings sticks by fiat.
You can never know what the future holds, so try and get through each obstacle using as few resources as possible.
Sure. But then don't complain about me being stingy.
Nobody out there is wholly good or wholly evil.
Sure
Life ain’t always about right and wrong; more often it’s about how much suffering you are willing to inflict or endure to see your goals through.
Fine. As long it is my choice, not your choice. And if i decide i don't want to endure that much or that the goal is not worth it, that is OK.
Fate is a fickle mistress, and it’s possible to fail through nobody’s fault, maybe not even your own.
If you insist i can't do much about that. Aside from taking as little risk as possible. Which is precisely what i would do. I am not a gambler at all.
Everyone has their own way of looking at things. Don’t trust anyone completely, not even me.
Horrible. If i can't trust you as GM, i am out. NPCs would be different but you speaking OT must absolutely be trustworthy or there is no game.
Keep a supply of tonics on hand as a buffer between bad luck and failure.
Sure.
If you got the brainpower, its often more cost effective to use the right elixir preemptively rather than a tonic after the fact.
That is not a question of "brainpower", that is a question about how much information we get and how easy that is accesssable. But you like to call people stupid, don't you ? Also see your point about using as few ressources as possible. Prebuffing at long term cost only makes sense when we know we need it, not for just-in-case. Also that is basically "cost to give it a try" and might lead us instead to to give the whle contract a pass if we thing we need too much ressources.
Being captured is humiliating, costly, & often downright painful. Still, surrendering is better than the alternative.
Obviously.
Only abandon a contract as an absolute last resort; you will miss out on a lot of cash, and the hit to your reputation may be even more costly in the end.
That is stupid. Wouldn't agree to that. If we can not abandon contracts we think are to hard or not worthwile we are basically on rails doing your plot.
That bein’ said, you don’t need to be perfect. Objectives ain’t worth dying for, let alone driving yourself mad or turning on your comrades.
Let us decide what is worth to do things and what not. Objectives and contracts.
Folks out here will try and lie, cheat, or trick ya, and may twist your words, but your Gamekeeper won’t.
If Gamekeeper is a fancy word for GM, see above the point how we can't trust you.
On t’other hand, don’t expect your Gamekeeper to pull something out of their backside to save yers if you get in over your head.
Sure. But then don't expect us to take lots of risks.
Knowledge is power. Make sure to research your mission first, and send in a scout if you can do so safely.
Seems obvious. I can't think of reasons not to do that aside from you making this too hard or giving out so little information that it's a waste of time to bother.
You will run into a whole lot of strange stuff out here, and will find yourself in a wide mix of situations; things that seem like a weakness today might be a strength tomorrow, and vice versa.
Not sure what this is suppossed to mean. There are hardly any weaknesses and strengths that can become the other. You won't ever win something by being partucularly slow or have a bad hearing.
When selecting your teammates, understand that its not about being objectively better or worse, rather its about group synergy. Everyone you meet will be more or less equal, but if you cover all your bases before working on redundancy or over-specialization that will help the team as a whole and give everyone a chance to shine.
The value of synergies should be obvious.
Trust and communication with your teammates is the most important thing out here. Their lives are literally in your hands.
Well, yes. If the party doesn't work, it is better to switch characters than setting out with loads of baggage.
Put your team’s face-man at the front of the table and your wizard at the back. Trust me.
???

NichG
2021-07-15, 04:21 AM
This is an update / followup to several of my previous threads about dysfunctional groups.

It looks like like everyone is vaccinated and we have found a new area to play, so I expect my new campaign to start sometime in August.


Overall, my group is a lot more drama free than they have been in the past, but there are still behaviors that worry me and I would like to avoid backsliding / teaching bad behavior to the new players.

I am looking for advice on if / how to talk to them about my concerns. My previous idea about writing a letter was roundly criticized, and so I have decided to try a different approach with that (See below), but I still think some form of conversation might need to happen.

The players have indicated that they want a linear, action / adventure themed game with limited horror, romance, and dialogue and no puzzles and "balanced" combat, and I am trying to oblige.


About Me:

I am a simulation first GM and try and keep the verisimilitude of the world at the forefront.

I roleplay NPCs accordingly, and in combat enemies will use tactics appropriate to their knowledge and intelligence.

I do not fudge dice or rework encounters behind the screen, although mistakes do occasionally crop up and need correcting.

We are playing my home-brew system, but doing so by RAW and I will not change the rules mid game unless a game-breaking bug comes up in play. Players can vote on whether or not to use optional or variant rules.

I do not lie or trick my players or twist their words (although NPCs might). Still, miscommunications happen frequently, I am not good at reading the table and my players are all either frequently on their phones and / or suffer from clinical depression so they will inevitably miss or forget important information.


What I am Asking of my players:

All PCs will be employees of a mercenary corps located in the Golgotha region. They are expected to have characters who are motivated, for whatever reason, to join the party and do their best to complete missions.

They need to join an ingame faction, although it doesn't need to be unanimous or right away.

Limited PvP is ok as long as it is kept in character and doesn't ultimately leave characters unable to work with the group.

PCs need to be morally flexible enough to accept jobs for a wide variety of clients; although the jobs themselves will not be morally extreme in either direction, the people they work for might be.


Things my players do that I would like to stop

When something bad happens to their character, they sometimes get frustrated and lash out at someone (usually the GM) and act out, yelling, swearing, throwing dice or models, calling names, threatening to quit the group, leaving the room without a word, or accusing them of cheating.


Older players tell newer players grossly one sided stories about times they were screwed over by other people at the table that occurred years or even decades in the past.


The players devote no resources to reconnaissance (which is fine), but then accuse the GM of cheating and railroading when they are surprised, which is not.


The players give their characters significant weaknesses (which is fine) but then accuse the GM of picking on them or meta-gaming whenever they come up, which is not.


When their first strategy doesn't work, they simply assume they are in a no win situation (or a puzzle with only one very specific answer) and often check out from the game entirely, perhaps leaving the table to go play on their phone / Playstation in another room rather than trying a different approach.


And then I have one player who acts very miserly, he is constantly irritating the other players by refusing to contribute to party expenses and asking for extra shares of treasure, complains to me if he doesn't get proportionally more treasure every mission, and refuses to spend gold on upgrades (especially consumables) and then complains the game is too hard as a result.




And again, these are all issues which, by themselves, aren't game-breaking and only come up about once every five sessions per player, but in a five player group that means most sessions end with at-least one incident, and sometimes they coincide for a poop-storm.



So yeah, any advice on how I should talk to my players before the next game about these issues, and what changes we should try and make going forward?


So, as for my letter, I rewrote it as a bullet point list that takes the form of a semi-in character tip sheet from the party's mentor, kind of like they would have in old video game strategy guides. It touches upon some of the issues, but is mostly trying to just be "coaching" them to succeed at the game.


For whatever it's worth, I read your post as if the stuff before the spoiler was the new letter and I thought it was better than the previous letter. Then I read the stuff in the spoiler and found it condescending and honestly kind of bossy. The only thing I would seriously change if you used the pre-spoiler over the spoiler would be to omit calling out specific players and instead stick to calling out behaviors.

This is a lot like the previous thread, where the five bullet points you posted above your letter to explain your goals to the forum was a better letter than what you wanted to send to the players.

What would you write to your players if you were another player in the group and saw the current group dynamics, rather than if you were the GM?

Talakeal
2021-07-15, 04:52 AM
@ Sativinian and NichG

I read your poses and I will respond in more depth when I have some time, but I have a serious question:


How the heck are you supposed to teach someone to play a game? It seems like every piece of advice I give comes across as bossy or domineering no matter what I say or how I phrase it.



As a related tangent, while the Knights of the Dinner Table comics are often a parody of dysfunctional gaming tables, one thing I really admire in them is that players in those comics generally treat their GM like a sport's team treats their coach, someone who they may butt heads with, but who genuinely want their players to grow and become better at the game, both from a system mastery perspective and as team players, and I would love to be able to figure out how to get a relationship like that to work out irl.

Satinavian
2021-07-15, 05:12 AM
Your existing players ? You can't teach them. They know you already and have probably already heard everything you want to teach them. They have adopted what they agree with and discarded what they don't.

New players ? Those you can teach. If they are new to roleplaying, you can teach them your tables way ofroleplaying. If they are only new to your table, you can teach them your system and present your tables way of roleplaying which they then will merge with existing habits.


A GM is not a coach. He is not a better roleplayer or someone more experienced or more knowledgable. He has not the authority to "teach" anyone. He has the authority to run a game. Yes, people learn by playing and adapting their styles to the surrounding, but a GM is no more teacher than he is pupil and his position is not that different from those of the players.

And as you already have played with Brian and Bob for many years, you have already changed each other as much as possible.

NichG
2021-07-15, 05:16 AM
@ Sativinian and NichG

I read your poses and I will respond in more depth when I have some time, but I have a serious question:


How the heck are you supposed to teach someone to play a game? It seems like every piece of advice I give comes across as bossy or domineering no matter what I say or how I phrase it.


Well, the problem is you're approaching this as giving advice, which already assumes 'my view of the situation is superior to their view of the situation'. That is always going to come off as bossy no matter how good the advice is. Now if you had someone actively looking to learn, saying e.g. 'I'm struggling in your campaign, any advice?' then you can say those things without it being domineering. If you engage someone in a conversation about how they feel and if, in that discussion, you together identify things they don't like about their own play, then that can be a prelude to being able to offer advice.

Basically, your letters come off as 'I am above you, I know better, I will tell you' - not good. Your prefaces to the forums are more like 'There are things going on that I don't like or which aren't working for me, how can I fix them?'. If you change the 'I' there to 'We', then you have something that's actually pretty decent for engaging more experienced players with the possibility of changing their behaviors. 'We've had tantrums about once a game, lets talk together about what would need to happen to make that stop.' You're soliciting buy-in to the conversation and making the other people stake-holders in the outcome, rather than laying down the law and telling them what they must do and how it should be.

Imbalance
2021-07-15, 06:03 AM
Would you consider inviting your players to these forums to give their side of the story?

Talakeal
2021-07-15, 06:06 AM
Would you consider inviting your players to these forums to give their side of the story?

Brian has an account here, although he rarely uses it. I could ask him to pop on in if you have something you need to ask him.

Xervous
2021-07-15, 06:42 AM
Brian has an account here, although he rarely uses it. I could ask him to pop on in if you have something you need to ask him.

Getting another perspective on this would be...

Hold on, has this not come up before?

OldTrees1
2021-07-15, 09:00 AM
So, as for my letter, I rewrote it as a bullet point list that takes the form of a semi-in character tip sheet from the party's mentor, kind of like they would have in old video game strategy guides. It touches upon some of the issues, but is mostly trying to just be "coaching" them to succeed at the game.




Any questions, comments, or suggestions about the wording or content?

The word choice is much better in this draft. The tone is better and the messaging reads closer to the messaging you intend as far as I understand.

It still has a general tone of "This will be hard mode." despite not intending to say that.

Satinavian's line by line reply is worth rereading.

The line "Everyone has their own way of looking at things. Don’t trust anyone completely, not even me." is worded poorly. As it stands it tells the players they can't trust the GM. If true, you should change that by becoming trustworthy. If false, you should not say that.


Getting another perspective on this would be...

Hold on, has this not come up before?

I don't believe it has come up before. The one side account has been acknowledged, but I generally assume the OP in threads like this goes to a forum to get private advice. If we can mediate a dialogue then either it will blow up, or progress will happen.289

Glorthindel
2021-07-15, 10:04 AM
The line "Everyone has their own way of looking at things. Don’t trust anyone completely, not even me." is worded poorly. As it stands it tells the players they can't trust the GM. If true, you should change that by becoming trustworthy. If false, you should not say that.


I believe this is because he was posing it as a charter / advice being provided by an NPC, hence the "not even me" (meaning the NPC); this is further illustrated by him referring to the "gamekeeper" later in the text (which to me is sorta strange, as its a bit of a 4th wall break). Of course, its easy to make the mistake that this is "voice of the DM" and misunderstand this as "the DM cant be trusted".

KorvinStarmast
2021-07-15, 11:11 AM
But honestly, after the endless rain of tantrums and acting out my advice is: No D&D is better than bad D&D. This.

How the heck are you supposed to teach someone to play a game? You aren't there to be their teacher. You are there to facilitate the game and set the environment and the challenges. They'll learn at their own pace, and they'll only learn what interests them. This is a leisure activity. :smallcool:

A GM is not a coach. My experience says that there is a modest coaching role for any DM in D&D, but it's aimed at providing focus or encouraging the players to do "x" because it will help the achieve "y" and to help them build their team. How much 'coaching' a given group even wants, or will accept, is wildly variable.

In some other games, the GM is very much not a coach.

For our dear OP, Talakeal:
While I am not sure a letter is your best approach, you have chosen that as a means to communicate about the setting and the game, so here are my suggestions as regards liposuction to be performed on your overly long winded document. (We had a similar discussion as regards your last letter)

===============

First off, if you want to make it big out here you are going to have to be brave, but also cunning.
Motherhood, platitude, noise. Delete.

It’s a dangerous world out there, and most of the folks you will encounter have learned to survive in it.
Worthwhile for setting the tone of the game world. Keep.

Don’t go out there with a glaring weakness and expect your foes to ignore it, and likewise expect them to have given more than a few thoughts to how to cover weaknesses of their own.
Don’t neglect your defense! All the firepower in the world won’t do you no good if you get taken out before you can bring it to bear.
On the other hand, don’t neglect your offense. All the armor in the world won’t help if the enemy can afford to just ignore you.


Noise, motherhood, platitudes. Delete.

If something seems impossible, don’t give up, and don’t bash your head against it. Fall back, reassess the situation, and keep trying new strategies until you find one that works, which you will.
Not bad advice, I guess since you want to write this letter, keep this. It sets a tone.

You can never know what the future holds, so try and get through each obstacle using as few resources as possible.
Noise, delete.

Nobody out there is wholly good or wholly evil.
That's counterproductive to them discovering the world through play. Also too general. Delete.

Life ain’t always about right and wrong; more often it’s about how much suffering you are willing to inflict or endure to see your goals through.
Motherhood / platitudes, delete.
This kind of comment, when needed, ought to be presented in context with a tricky situation, not broadcast in your wall of noise approach.

Fate is a fickle mistress, and it’s possible to fail through nobody’s fault, maybe not even your own.
Delete. Replace this with.

"The d20 system is swingy. Sometimes, the dice will frustrate you at the worst possible time.
No tantrums when that happens.
Grin and bear it."

Everyone has their own way of looking at things. Don’t trust anyone completely, not even me.
Noise, and easily mistaken for "you can't trust the GM not to screw you." Delete.

Keep a supply of tonics on hand as a buffer between bad luck and failure.
Don't tell grandma how to suck eggs. Noise. Delete.
If you got the brainpower, its often more cost effective to use the right elixir preemptively rather than a tonic after the fact.
To general, motherhood platitude, Delete.

Being captured is humiliating, costly, & often downright painful. Still, surrendering is {sometimes} better than the alternative.
Suggestion: Keep this! This is IMO a decent 'expectations' piece in terms of the tone and theme of your world. Losing a battle does not necessarily mean a TPK and Re Roll characters.

Only abandon a contract as an absolute last resort; you will miss out on a lot of cash, and the hit to your reputation may be even more costly in the end.

That bein’ said, you don’t need to be perfect. Objectives ain’t worth dying for, let alone driving yourself mad or turning on your comrades.
Noise, motherhood, delete.

Folks out here will try and lie, cheat, or trick ya, and may twist your words, but your Gamekeeper won’t. Suggest this revision:

"Some NPCs may try to lie, cheat, or trick you and may twist your words. I, your Gamekeeper, will not."

On t’other hand, don’t expect your Gamekeeper to pull something out of their backside to save yers if you get in over your head.
Condescension, noise, delete.

Knowledge is power. Make sure to research your mission first, and send in a scout if you can do so safely. Suggested addition: "There will be in-world cues and clues available if you make the ''in character" effort to track them down."

You will run into a whole lot of strange stuff out here, and will find yourself in a wide mix of situations; things that seem like a weakness today might be a strength tomorrow, and vice versa.
Platitude, noise, delete.

When selecting your teammates, understand that its not about being objectively better or worse, rather its about group synergy. Everyone you meet will be more or less equal, but if you cover all your bases before working on redundancy or over-specialization that will help the team as a whole and give everyone a chance to shine.
Clumsy wording. Suggested revision.

"You are, as a group of players, creating a team of characters. Group synergy - that is, how your skills and abilities complement each other - will often be the foundation for your party's success."

Trust and communication with your teammates is the most important thing out here. Their lives are literally in your hands.

Put your team’s face-man at the front of the table and your wizard at the back. Trust me.
Noise, delete.

=======================

These recommendations are not provided as fodder for you to start arguing with me as a response.
They are offered as free advice from someone who has been a DM and a player for a long time.
As with all free advice, it may be worth only what you paid for it, and perhaps a bit more.

Take what you like and leave the rest. It's your table.

Again: you asked for advice, there it is.
Best of luck.

We are playing my home-brew system, but doing so by RAW and I will not change the rules mid game unless a game-breaking bug comes up in play. Players can vote on whether or not to use optional or variant rules.
You are going to need it.

Wordsmithing point and an experiential point:
Your title of this thread is "Talking to my players" but what you have presented in your OP here looks, to me, like a case of talking at your players.
I have made this kind of interpersonal communications mistake before, and it's rarely gone well.

meandean
2021-07-15, 01:09 PM
Wait, wait, wait. People are just walking out in the middle of the session and going into another room to play video games, without even explaining why? They're trash-talking each other to each others' faces, and cursing each other out (and aren't kidding around, they really mean it)? They're THROWING THINGS?? I don't think a letter saying "you do realize sometimes you roll poorly" is gonna solve this. You just reeled off a bunch of events that, if they happened once in any of my games (and most of them never have), everyone would stop everything and we'd all have a very lengthy chat along the lines of "what the hell was that about." These things are all happening regularly??

BRC
2021-07-15, 01:31 PM
Wait, wait, wait. People are just walking out in the middle of the session and going into another room to play video games, without even explaining why? They're trash-talking each other to each others' faces, and cursing each other out (and aren't kidding around, they really mean it)? They're THROWING THINGS?? I don't think a letter saying "you do realize sometimes you roll poorly" is gonna solve this. You just reeled off a bunch of events that, if they happened once in any of my games (and most of them never have), everyone would stop everything and we'd all have a very lengthy chat along the lines of "what the hell was that about." These things are all happening regularly??

Trash-talking can cross the line between "We're hanging out and having a good time bringing up old stuff and kidding about it" and "Creating a toxic table culture".

The other stuff is pretty egregious.

I feel like the thing to do is to establish some baselines, stuff that you're already doing, like

"Trust that I am not trying to get you to fail. Trust that I will always give you the tools you need to succeed, although you may need to find them and figure out how to use them." If a player starts complaining, you can bring up those promises.


One thing that might help is if you introduce a "Doom Check". Basically, the players are allowed to ask you "Are we Doomed". Have they, either through bad luck or lack of preparation or what have you, put themselves in a situation from which the scenario does not allow any reasonable sort of victory. Did they storm the Dark Lord's Fortress without scouting it, and now they're facing down his Venom Knights without having stocked upon Antivenom? If they ask (And you may volunteer), you promise to answer them with complete honesty.
Regardless of if you INTENDED this to be a no-win scenario (You almost certainly didn't), the key is that this promise is a way to keep them engaged and at the table. The answer will almost certainly be "No" every time they ask, but the ability to ask can reassure them.

If the answer is ever "Yes", you can stop the session and figure something out.


You could also just make a blanket promise to Tell Them if they are ever in a no-win scenario, but they might forget that. Making it something they can do makes it a little more proactive on their part, which will make it feel better.

Quertus
2021-07-15, 02:19 PM
Talakeal, once again, what you've said to us is much better than your letter.



For whatever it's worth, I read your post as if the stuff before the spoiler was the new letter and I thought it was better than the previous letter. Then I read the stuff in the spoiler and found it condescending and honestly kind of bossy. The only thing I would seriously change if you used the pre-spoiler over the spoiler would be to omit calling out specific players and instead stick to calling out behaviors.

This is a lot like the previous thread, where the five bullet points you posted above your letter to explain your goals to the forum was a better letter than what you wanted to send to the players.

What would you write to your players if you were another player in the group and saw the current group dynamics, rather than if you were the GM?

And this is doubtless part of the reason why.


How the heck are you supposed to teach someone to play a game? It seems like every piece of advice I give comes across as bossy or domineering no matter what I say or how I phrase it.

Were I to magically have always been at your table (but just silently watching until now)?

Hmmm…

(Keep in mind I'm a ****, so this isn't how *most* people should approach this)

New players, I'd nip in the bud. I would pose them the Avatar of Hate riddle, and see how they respond.

They get it right, I'd make fun of what your players tried. They get it wrong, I'd explain the actual answer.

Either way, I'd follow up with confessing that you hadn't intended it to be so hard / so easily misunderstood, and that you're working on a new format to hopefully help resolve such issues.

I'd take you aside and browbeat you until you agreed to something like this:

I'd then talk about the time <player> did something socially unacceptable (throwing things maybe - whatever you agree you won't accept going forward) (and I would absolutely shame them, by name, because I'm a **** that way), and say that, going forward, regardless of whether they're off their meds / on new meds / whatever, such behavior will be met with immediate "not invited to the next session" (and no loot for that session) (with reality altered to make things easier while they're gone, or with playing another game maybe on their "banned" night).

Not the "immediately kick them out forever" most people would do, but definitely drawing some clear lines in the sand of how behavior had grown increasingly unacceptable, and needs to stop. Clear pavlovian feedback of when their behavior is unacceptable.

You know, the kind of stuff you *shouldn't* be writing about their suboptimal playstyle.

I'm so about forcing people to own up to what they've done. You can't improve if you cannot acknowledge your mistakes. That's fundamental to the kind of culture I try to create. And I tend to kick people out of my life who demonstrate an inability or unwillingness to improve.

Otherwise, I'm pretty laid back :smallwink:


Older players tell newer players grossly one sided stories about times they were screwed over by other people at the table that occurred years or even decades in the past.

And when the attacked player isn't you, do you defend them with a "that's not how that happened" or "that's not what I remember" or "that hardly seems fair" or the like?


The players devote no resources to reconnaissance (which is fine), but then accuse the GM of cheating and railroading when they are surprised, which is not.

Gotta circle back to this later - what is the opportunity cost here? This is probably gonna be better than what I intended to write about "one resource" stress.


When their first strategy doesn't work, they simply assume they are in a no win situation (or a puzzle with only one very specific answer) and often check out from the game entirely, perhaps leaving the table to go play on their phone / Playstation in another room rather than trying a different approach.

I would definitely be a **** about this, and tease them to no end in front of new players as my way of discouraging this behavior.

Granted, my senile mind doesn't remember any stories where your players only tried one thing - they certainly tried lots of things against the Avatar of Hate.


And then I have one player who acts very miserly, he is constantly irritating the other players by refusing to contribute to party expenses and asking for extra shares of treasure, complains to me if he doesn't get proportionally more treasure every mission, and refuses to spend gold on upgrades (especially consumables) and then complains the game is too hard as a result.

Were I at your table, I would exacerbate this, TBH. In that, most of my tables, beyond a Wand of Lesser Vigor, consumables are considered highly suboptimal.

Have you considered… having the guilds pony up for a "standard set" of consumables, and require paperwork filled out for any that need to be replaced, or some other way to make consumables great again?

BRC
2021-07-15, 02:28 PM
I'm actually curious about the Miser? Do they literally complain that that they only got the same 500 gold that everybody else did, or are they just constantly complaining about wanting More Treasure?

Also, when you talk about preparing when buying conusmables, what is the gameplay loop you are describing. "You know that Wyverns are in the area, so you can prepare an antitoxin for Wyvern Venom" type stuff, or do you just expect every player to buy 5 healing potions, and balance the damage assuming 5 healing potions get drunk each time?


Edit: I suppose what I'm getting at is try to find and eliminate points of friction in your GMing style (Yes, this is what you've been doing with what I have started thinking of as the Taka Threads).

For example, you complain about a lack of prep work and proper usage of consumables. It's one thing if that's a form of gameplay you/your players enjoy (Say, researching upcoming threats and seeking out specific counters), it's another if it's just tacking on a "Consumable Tax" to each adventure, expecting the PC's to use some of their gold from the last adventure to pay for the consumables for the next one in order to stay "on Par" as far as power level goes.

zlefin
2021-07-15, 02:45 PM
I don't have much advice, but I've followed the threads some; I do strongly feel that the spoilered letter is much worse than what came before it in the unspoilered section. Just use that first part as the letter, perhaps with a few edits.


I'd ditch the group, but since you're not going to do that; I'd probably focus on a few of the worst behaviors, and institute a very strong clampdown on those specific behaviors; with only a modest clampdown on the others.

Anger issues aren't that rare amongst humans; I'm sure there's some good tips on managing anger issues in a group. I don't know a site offhand, but I'm sure there are some. I'd say if someone throws a tantrum they have to 'walk it off' ie they leave the room for 15 mins say to cool off. Also, if anyone is feeling really angry they can take an 'anger break' on their own accord for however long they need. I'm not really sure how to handle continuing the game while that player is not present, as they might not like the ghosting policies I use for online games (which in part is requiring characters to have a ghosting instructions section)

Time Troll
2021-07-15, 06:47 PM
Well, I have a lot of advise to give......but I know you don't like my spin.

Anyway.


My first reaction is "WOAH, what are you thinking?" Lets see if I can break some of this down:


*You really, really, really, really, really x a million might want to DROP all your whole "what you are asking part". It's just crazy. It's like a list of demands the players must do to please you. And forcing players to do things in the game as part of YOUR plan is Wrong.

And seriously, I'm a GM 100% and degrees away from you in just about every way. I think "player agency" is a myth and bad joke that just keeps getting repeated, for example.

But...I would NEVER, EVER tell a player "ok, once the game starts I'm forcing you to take this action in character because I want it so...ahahahahaha". I would never EVER do that. If the player wants to do something, that is fine....but for the GM to force them to do something OOC? And the whole "your character must join my pet in game group and like it....because I say so." And the players can do PVP as long as you don't like it or it effect your pet group? And players must play 'flexable' characters that do what you want on a whim?

Wow...so, many problems with all of that. Just stop: drop all of that. Try this for a chance:

What I ask of my players: have fun.

See easy, simple, and lots less conflict.

--

And like lash out is leave the group forever.

You should not ever care about "player gossip": let people speak whatever they want. It's not all about you.

You can't say "no scouting is fine" and then use it against the players and just say "oh well, if you would have scouted ahead". This is wrong on so many levels. Admit to yourself, that it's not "fine". But don't just "hope" your players will do your demand X, and then when they don't you jump up and say "GOTTHCA!" Really, just don't do that.

And the weakness thing...wow, don't do that either. Really, I just about any game system it's impossible for a character to not have a weakness....plus there will always be general non rule weaknesses and player weaknesses. But...yea, if you target a game rule weakness..well it depends on how much you do it. But really, you can just avoid it (hint: use player weakness: same effect, but players will never know it).

You might want to chance your "no work" response to a bit more "worked 50%" or something like that. I get the feeling you are too final and don't give any wiggle room: so the players just see the total failure and give up. Give the players some hope and not all dis pare.

And your letter is...well, it's a bit wacky. Like your trying to teach "life on the streets 101". And I'll be the first to agree that most people DON"T have good life skills for just about everything in your letter. But giving them a letter that is just saying "don't be stupid" does not help them at all.

Whew.....

Cluedrew
2021-07-15, 08:36 PM
To Talakeal: I have two suggestions.

The first is to make a list of all the changes you want in your players. For the first pass it doesn't even have to be reasonable. Then cross out everything that you will not run the game if they don't made or kick a player over. Considering the amount of respect flowing around in your group, those are pretty much the only tools you got left and the only changes you have any power to cause.

But if you want to send that letter anyways I have a second suggestion. Reframe the entire list in terms of "this is the game I want to run". Instead of Don’t go out there with a glaring weakness and expect your foes to ignore it... try I want to run a game where all parts of a character, good and bad, matter. or something along those lines. I don't know why you actually want so its just an example.

Talakeal
2021-07-15, 11:15 PM
First, Please note that the "letter" at the end is just a tip sheet going over some solutions to common points of failure. It is absolutely NOT a replacement for actually addressing the larger issues my gaming group is having, and though it touches on a lot of the stuff I mention in the post, it isn't meant to cover it all.


I'm actually curious about the Miser? Do they literally complain that that they only got the same 500 gold that everybody else did, or are they just constantly complaining about wanting More Treasure?



He won't contribute to party expenses. Stuff like bribing NPCs, hiring mercenaries, purchasing spellcasting services, paying for travel expenses, etc.
While the rest of the party use crafting skills to equip their teammates, he keeps them for himself.*
He tries to optimize the party by telling them that since he is the most powerful member of the party, the group as a whole would be better off giving him extra shares of treasure.
He does not contribute to the parties emergency fund which is used to pay for decurses, ressurections, and the like.
And then if anyone complains about him being selfish, he tells them that it pains him how bad with money his allies are, and that he is the real victim here by having to endure all that wasteful spending around him, and therefore he is the one who should be complaining to them, not the other way around.

He doesn't buy defensive or utilitarian items, and then claims that I am picking on him when his lack of defenses mean his character takes more damage.
Likewise, if he ever has (proportional to his characters WBL, not in absolute terms) less treasure at the end of one session than he did the previous session

Further, my system works kind of like Pendragon or The One Ring in that is alternates adventure phases and downtime phases. Resources such as spells and rerolls not used in the adventure can help with downtime projects. If they have a rough adventure and he does the math and finds that he could have made more money staying home, he will complain bitterly about how I was just wasting his time and stealing his money; completely ignoring the fact that by going on the adventure he also earned XP and whatever reputation / knowledge / power / karma that motivated the quest, as well as the fact that the game assumes that the materials you are using the craft are paid for by your loot while adventuring.

*In my system, costs for items go up by an order of magnitude each level of quality. What most players do is they will, for example, if they are the weapon smith they will make a +1 weapon for themself, then +1 weapons for their allies, then a +2 weapon for themself, then a +2 weapon for their allies, then a +3 for themself and so on. Bob will just craft a +1 weapon for himself, then a +2, then a +3, then a +4, then a +5.




Also, when you talk about preparing when buying conusmables, what is the gameplay loop you are describing. "You know that Wyverns are in the area, so you can prepare an antitoxin for Wyvern Venom" type stuff, or do you just expect every player to buy 5 healing potions, and balance the damage assuming 5 healing potions get drunk each time?

Consumables are not accounted for in the base difficulty. They are a buffer against bad fortune, whether that comes in the form of cold dice, bad / uninformed decisions, or your character build not being will suited to a particular encounter.

However, if the party has an alchemist, their ability to make potions IS accounted for in the base difficulty. Which actually did cause a lot of complaints in the last game, because the party had an alchemist, and a constant complaint was "Your game is too hard, because IF we didn't have an alchemist, we would be losing money on consumables!" without taking into account that if the player wasn't an alchemist they would be doing something else to contribute instead and thus the party wouldn't need as many consumables.


I believe your previous thread had someone say their table spent a fight looking for a "bendy tree to turn into a catapult" and something about juggling axes? So it may not even be difficulty but lack of nonsense.

I remember the story you are talking about, but no that was someone else's story in one of my other threads, not something that happened to me.


If your table is genuinely settled on your system, and particularly if this stuff happens regardless of what you use, I gotta say it's probably time to lay down the law. No phones at the table, no tantrums, no throwing stuff (for real? I assume it's not literal small children you game with?)... y'know, generally behave like a civilized human being. Given that habits may be hard to break, I'd dish out a warning the first time, then kick the offending player if it continues. And if someone walks away from the game, they have left the game entirely. I really cannot emphasize enough how completely unacceptable that sort of behavior is.

Its weird how much I have normalized childish behavior from adults. I see much worse at gaming stores (and especially in online games) than I do at my table, so I always just kind of assumed it was normal. Like, when I used to play Warhammer at the Games Workshop store dice throwing was common, heck even the corporate regional manager for the company was known to toss his dice across the store after a particularly cold streak.


And now you start another campaign of the same kind with mostly the same players and somehow expect it to be different. Because you (again) tell your players how you think players should play. Your new letter is mostly a summary of your past issues that you presumely already have complained about.


That's a neat way to handle multi-quoting. Let me try and respond in the same format.


And now you start another campaign of the same kind with mostly the same players and somehow expect it to be different. Because you (again) tell your players how you think players should play. Your new letter is mostly a summary of your past issues that you presumely already have complained about.



First off, if you want to make it big out here you are going to have to be brave, but also cunning.
If you don't play risky, you can't win. If you do play risky and lose, you were not smart enough. That sounds just plain bad.
So, this is addressing a specific problem I have had; players want to play action / adventure games, but they are too scared to actually go on adventures. When I try and explain that adventurer's, by necessity, need to be braver than normal, they will then recklessly charge headlong into danger without a concern for their own safety and blame me for whatever bad thing happens to them.
Apparently, "brave" and "reckless" are synonyms in most people's minds; but I really need to get across to people that there is a middle ground between the two, and that is where successful adventurers typically dwell; those who aren't brave enough stay in town and become NPCs, and those who aren't cautious enough tend to be corpses.
It’s a dangerous world out there, and most of the folks you will encounter have learned to survive in it.
Then how about assuming that the PCs have learned that as well instead of putting it to the test all the time while NPCs can just do it
Not quite sure what you mean by this. This is actually a specific wording that was suggested in the last thread to warn the players that NPCs will tend to use reasonable tactics without suggesting that I will metagame.
Don’t neglect your defense! All the firepower in the world won’t do you no good if you get taken out before you can bring it to bear.
Not fine. That is telling your players how to build their characters.
On the other hand, don’t neglect your offense. All the armor in the world won’t help if the enemy can afford to just ignore you.
Not fine. That is telling your players how to build their characters.
As I said, its really hard to try and give advice to people if they take it as bossing them around. Focusing to much or too little on defense is a common mistake new players make (I do it myself on occasion, and did it frequently when I was younger) that leaves them bored and / or frustrated. And when someone is bored or frustrated at the table, they tend to make it everyone else's problem
If something seems impossible, don’t give up, and don’t bash your head against it. Fall back, reassess the situation, and keep trying new strategies until you find one that works, which you will.
If somethings seems impossible, giving up is the rational, smart thing to do. If i had new strategies to try it of which i think they could work, it wouldn't seem impossible. And i am not for sticking around trying out harebrained schemes until somethings sticks by fiat.
You aren't my players then. As I said above, my players tend to get frustrated / depressed if their first idea doesn't work and then just give up and call it for the night, which means they miss out on XP and treasure, my time spent prepping an adventure goes to waste, and the entire evening of gaming is just us staring at one another.
You can never know what the future holds, so try and get through each obstacle using as few resources as possible.
Sure. But then don't complain about me being stingy.
This is kind of an apples and oranges comparison. Are you referring to refusing to help your allies? Refusing to help NPCs? Or what?
Life ain’t always about right and wrong; more often it’s about how much suffering you are willing to inflict or endure to see your goals through.
Fine. As long it is my choice, not your choice. And if i decide i don't want to endure that much or that the goal is not worth it, that is OK.
Absolutely. That is the core of the game.
Fate is a fickle mistress, and it’s possible to fail through nobody’s fault, maybe not even your own.
If you insist i can't do much about that. Aside from taking as little risk as possible. Which is precisely what i would do. I am not a gambler at all.
Its not about insistence, its about the nature of dice. But yeah, as I said in the first point, for the game to happen you need to be in the area where you minimize risk but that the same time are still willing to play the game.
Everyone has their own way of looking at things. Don’t trust anyone completely, not even me.
Horrible. If i can't trust you as GM, i am out. NPCs would be different but you speaking OT must absolutely be trustworthy or there is no game.
As I said, this is going to be presented as an in character list of tips from a mentor figure who happens to be a CN trickster type. It is absolutely not talking about the GM, although maybe I could reword it to be more clear.
If you got the brainpower, its often more cost effective to use the right elixir preemptively rather than a tonic after the fact.
That is not a question of "brainpower", that is a question about how much information we get and how easy that is accesssable. But you like to call people stupid, don't you ? Also see your point about using as few resources as possible. Prebuffing at long term cost only makes sense when we know we need it, not for just-in-case. Also that is basically "cost to give it a try" and might lead us instead to to give the while contract a pass if we thing we need too much ressources.
I don't generally assume people are stupid, no. If I inadvertently called you stupid at some point, I am very sorry, but I generally assume people are as smart or smarter than I am, and aside from a few people who have fried their brain with long term drug use I don't have anyone in my friend group who I don't consider to be of above average intelligence. Honestly, its kind of an obstacle for me as I tend to assume people are either lazy or careless when they don't understand something.
That being said, cost / benefit analysis is absolutely a factor of intelligence, and in character knowledge is a huge part of information gathering.

Being captured is humiliating, costly, & often downright painful. Still, surrendering is better than the alternative.
Obviously.
It may seem obvious. But I have seen a lot of games go down the drain because PCs got in over their heads and absolutely refused to surrender.
Only abandon a contract as an absolute last resort; you will miss out on a lot of cash, and the hit to your reputation may be even more costly in the end.
That is stupid. Wouldn't agree to that. If we can not abandon contracts we think are to hard or not worthwile we are basically on rails doing your plot.
Yeah, well, my players want a linear game, and I am not going to prepare a half dozen adventures on the off chance that they might deign to actually go one. That being said, I didn't say it was an OOC, or even an IC rule, only that it shouldn't be done lightly.
That bein’ said, you don’t need to be perfect. Objectives ain’t worth dying for, let alone driving yourself mad or turning on your comrades.
Let us decide what is worth to do things and what not. Objectives and contracts.
That's the whole point. It is a decision, not an obligation.
Folks out here will try and lie, cheat, or trick ya, and may twist your words, but your Gamekeeper won’t.
If Gamekeeper is a fancy word for GM, see above the point how we can't trust you.
It is. You know, its funny, "Game Master" is the default term, but very few games actually use it, in my experience its less "fancy" than "expected". Never really thought about that before.
On t’other hand, don’t expect your Gamekeeper to pull something out of their backside to save yers if you get in over your head.
Sure. But then don't expect us to take lots of risks.
So you don't want to be railroaded, but also expect the GM to save you if things go wrong? Is that correct? But yeah, after the tongue lashing I have been getting the last few months over "rubber-banding" I am going to be doing everything in my power to be as impartial as possible.
You will run into a whole lot of strange stuff out here, and will find yourself in a wide mix of situations; things that seem like a weakness today might be a strength tomorrow, and vice versa.
Not sure what this is supposed to mean. There are hardly any weaknesses and strengths that can become the other. You won't ever win something by being particularly slow or have a bad hearing.
OOC, what I am trying to convey is that I will use a variety of encounters, and I am not going to tailor encounters to the PCs (either in their favor or against them). A flaw that doesn't come up is just free character points, and a merit that doesn't come up is just wasted character points. So, for example, a guy who buys "poison immunity" will be in a much better place when fighting venemous enemies, but a slightly weaker place then fighting non-venomous enemies. A guy who took a weakness to electricity will be in a worse place fighting lightning enemies, but in a slightly better place the rest of the time. Likewise, there are a lot of things that have trade-offs, like wearing heavy armor, focusing in melee over range or vice versa, being immune to all magic, being of a specific creature type or subtype, etc. that are good sometimes and bad other times.
When selecting your teammates, understand that its not about being objectively better or worse, rather its about group synergy. Everyone you meet will be more or less equal, but if you cover all your bases before working on redundancy or over-specialization that will help the team as a whole and give everyone a chance to shine.
Put your team’s face-man at the front of the table and your wizard at the back. Trust me.
???
In my system you take turns going around the table. The character in the "leader" roll buffs their allies, and so should always go first, and the wizard needs to do a lot of math to craft their spells and needs some extra time to think; this is basically just telling them how to keep the game flowing easier to alleviate boredom and frustration.


And when the attacked player isn't you, do you defend them with a "that's not how that happened" or "that's not what I remember" or "that hardly seems fair" or the like?

Generally not. That's a good point.


Were I at your table, I would exacerbate this, TBH. In that, most of my tables, beyond a Wand of Lesser Vigor, consumables are considered highly suboptimal.

Again, that's an (imo unintended) anomaly of 3E. What did you do with all the scrolls and potions you found in treasure hordes in older editions?

Its not so much that they don't like buying consumables, its that they don't like using the one's they have, and imo there is nothing optimal about having possessions that do nothing but sit in a vault collecting dust.


Have you considered… having the guilds pony up for a "standard set" of consumables, and require paperwork filled out for any that need to be replaced, or some other way to make consumables great again?

Could you elaborate here?

I am not quite sure what you are saying. My groups generally don't belong to guilds, but generally do contain an alchemist who gets to make potions for free over time.


One thing that might help is if you introduce a "Doom Check". Basically, the players are allowed to ask you "Are we Doomed". Have they, either through bad luck or lack of preparation or what have you, put themselves in a situation from which the scenario does not allow any reasonable sort of victory. Did they storm the Dark Lord's Fortress without scouting it, and now they're facing down his Venom Knights without having stocked upon Antivenom? If they ask (And you may volunteer), you promise to answer them with complete honesty.
Regardless of if you INTENDED this to be a no-win scenario (You almost certainly didn't), the key is that this promise is a way to keep them engaged and at the table. The answer will almost certainly be "No" every time they ask, but the ability to ask can reassure them.

If the answer is ever "Yes", you can stop the session and figure something out.


You could also just make a blanket promise to Tell Them if they are ever in a no-win scenario, but they might forget that. Making it something they can do makes it a little more proactive on their part, which will make it feel better.

The thing is, the answer would always be "no".

In my last campaign, there was precisely one encounter where the answer would have been yes, when the PCs rolled really badly on a random encounter and got ambushed by a deadly enemy while already badly beaten up on the way back to town. And in that case I flat out told them that I didn't think there was any realistic chance of victory and they should probably run, which they did.

Aside from that, in the two year campaign, they overcame every single obstacle that they actually came up against (although there were still more than a handful of encounters which I knew they could have completed but were too scared to even try).


Wait, wait, wait. People are just walking out in the middle of the session and going into another room to play video games, without even explaining why? They're trash-talking each other to each others' faces, and cursing each other out (and aren't kidding around, they really mean it)? They're THROWING THINGS?? I don't think a letter saying "you do realize sometimes you roll poorly" is gonna solve this. You just reeled off a bunch of events that, if they happened once in any of my games (and most of them never have), everyone would stop everything and we'd all have a very lengthy chat along the lines of "what the hell was that about." These things are all happening regularly??

As I said, each player does something like that about once every ~3 months of bi-weekly games. The problem is it was getting more frequent as the game went on rather than less, and I want to step in before it becomes a regular occurrence.


I believe this is because he was posing it as a charter / advice being provided by an NPC, hence the "not even me" (meaning the NPC); this is further illustrated by him referring to the "gamekeeper" later in the text (which to me is sorta strange, as its a bit of a 4th wall break). Of course, its easy to make the mistake that this is "voice of the DM" and misunderstand this as "the DM cant be trusted".

This is correct.

If anyone has any suggestions on how I can doctor the wording to make this come across better, I am all ears.


This.
You aren't there to be their teacher. You are there to facilitate the game and set the environment and the challenges. They'll learn at their own pace, and they'll only learn what interests them. This is a leisure activity.

Games are a leisure activity, but they are also absolutely a skill that people can get better at with winners and losers. I honestly don't have a problem with a more casual game, what I don't like it that players are perfectionists who get mad when they don't perform flawlessly, but at the same time don't want to put the effort into learning how to play (or work together as a team) and instead expect me to dumb down the campaign setting until every NPC in the world is significantly less competent than they are.


Your title of this thread is "Talking to my players" but what you have presented in your OP here looks, to me, like a case of talking at your players.
I have made this kind of interpersonal communications mistake before, and it's rarely gone well.

As I said, the spoilered part is just a "tip sheet" that I am going to hand to my players. It is NOT the conversation I am hoping to have with my players about broader issues.


snip

You seem to have dismissed the vast majority of the tip sheet as mothering or noise. Which, is absolutely true.

But at the same time, each one of these directly gets at an issue which has occurred numerous times in my games and has a tendency to make players frustrated and / or bored. And when players are frustrated or bored, they tend to make it an issue for everyone else.


It still has a general tone of "This will be hard mode." despite not intending to say that.

The tone I am going for is "I am going to play the game straight; I am not going to tailor encounters to you, fudge dice, or metagame NPC reactions in your favor or against it."



I don't believe it has come up before. The one side account has been acknowledged, but I generally assume the OP in threads like this goes to a forum to get private advice. If we can mediate a dialogue then either it will blow up, or progress will happen.289

I don't really know the new players well enough to ask them to come onto a social media site on my behalf. Bob doesn't like forums, and he specifically considers going onto them for game advice to be a form of gossiping about people behind their backs. Brian has an account here, and I am sure I could talk him into posting if people have any specific questions / topics they want him to address.

Although when I asked him, he said he is still leery after the reaction to a post him made over a decade ago on the old WoTC forums.

I wish the original was still up, but in short he said "I need to solo a red dragon to qualify for vassal of bahamut, but my DM's game is really hard because he plays the monsters smart, so how can I possibly win?" To which the forums response was "LOL, the character you posted is a gestalt character with 40 point buy, 4x WBL, numerous custom items, and a non-standard race. This is the easiest most Monty Haul campaign I have ever seen, I am sure your DM will provide a wheezing, half dead, dragon who rolls over at your feet and beg's for mercy! Quit wasting out time!" That's a paraphrase, but its not actually a comedic exaggeration, btw.



Your existing players ? You can't teach them. They know you already and have probably already heard everything you want to teach them. They have adopted what they agree with and discarded what they don't.

Probably. At this point Bob still makes rookie mistakes, but I am pretty sure he has incorporated them into his strategy; for example he makes characters with glaring weaknesses to buy up his offense, and then he bitches and moans so loudly when they come up that DM's simply don't think its worth the hassle and avoid targeting him entirely.

Brian, unfortunately, has serious medical memory issues and is often "learning" things he has known for years for the first time.


New players ? Those you can teach. If they are new to roleplaying, you can teach them your tables way of role-playing. If they are only new to your table, you can teach them your system and present your tables way of roleplaying which they then will merge with existing habits.

Yeah, the new players are the primary audience.



A GM is not a coach. He is not a better role-player or someone more experienced or more knowledgable. He has not the authority to "teach" anyone. He has the authority to run a game. Yes, people learn by playing and adapting their styles to the surrounding, but a GM is no more teacher than he is pupil and his position is not that different from those of the players.

That's true... but it's also false.

In my experience the GM is generally the oldest and most experienced / knowledgeable person at the party and is almost always the one who knows the game best. This is doubly true in my case as I am generally literally teaching people to play a game that I have written for the first time.

And while the GM is not literally a coach, the two positions do have a lot in common. They are both people who are part of the team, but also separate from it. They are also people who want to see their players grow and succeed, but are also often put in the position of needing to provide the "tough love" to make it happen. In my experience, healthy gaming groups absolutely treat GMs with the same sort of "respect" that sport's teams show their coach. I put respect in quotes because that is a very loaded word; I don't mean it in any sort of a hierarchical sense.


Well, the problem is you're approaching this as giving advice, which already assumes 'my view of the situation is superior to their view of the situation'. That is always going to come off as bossy no matter how good the advice is. Now if you had someone actively looking to learn, saying e.g. 'I'm struggling in your campaign, any advice?' then you can say those things without it being domineering. If you engage someone in a conversation about how they feel and if, in that discussion, you together identify things they don't like about their own play, then that can be a prelude to being able to offer advice.

That's true.

But I am talking from decades of gaming experience here; this is based in repeated observation.

The list is written to address common mistakes players (including myself) often make which results in them becoming bored and / or frustrated; and bored / frustrated players tend to act out in ways that create a toxic table environment.

The problem is, people in my friend circle don't like to ever admit weakness or fault; they don't say "I am struggling," they say "This is unfair! I am being cheated / screwed over!"

NichG
2021-07-16, 12:09 AM
That's true.

But I am talking from decades of gaming experience here; this is based in repeated observation.

The list is written to address common mistakes players (including myself) often make which results in them becoming bored and / or frustrated; and bored / frustrated players tend to act out in ways that create a toxic table environment.

The problem is, people in my friend circle don't like to ever admit weakness or fault; they don't say "I am struggling," they say "This is unfair! I am being cheated / screwed over!"

You can't successfully force advice onto someone who doesn't want to be advised by you. Putting yourself in that role without them first inviting you to it is what's coming across as presumptuous. It could be the best advice in the world, but if the person receiving it doesn't have a receptive attitude towards you, they're just going to be offended that you're pushing, or they'll just blithely ignore you and probably use this as a story about how you always try to force them to take your NPCs seriously. Going through an NPC mouthpiece is doubly condescending - it's reminiscent of a parent trying to trick a child into having an open mind by using a puppet.

That's why the prelude to the spoiler is a lot better. You're talking about yourself, who you have the authority to speak for, rather than about the listener, who you don't. You establish a desired change from your perspective, and then invite others to help you enact that change, with the option of legitimately establishing consequences for not resolving the issue in terms of your own behavior, rather than the ambiguity of in-game consequences. 'I'm not having fun when this happens, so the quality of game I can provide will drop if this isn't addresses' is more direct about what is for your sake and what is for theirs, and how those things are inextricably connected.

It's like, if I were going to approach someone with unsolicited advice, I'd lead with questions to first establish what they wanted out of the situation, how they felt about what happened, etc. If they were unsatisfied with what happened and I still thought I understood why, then I can start to see if suggesting things would be welcomed. And if so, I would do so specifically in terms of bringing them to the outcome they've said they wanted and not as a way for me to get what I want. Resolving your own issues with someone's behavior in the form of giving them advice on how they should act is IMO a betrayal of trust, unless that person has already agreed that they want to change those same things.

Recherché
2021-07-16, 12:14 AM
So something I do to try to make sure everyone is on the same page is have everyone write up a little intro for their character's mechanics describing

1: What does your PC do well?
2: What are your PC's weakpoints
3: What can you do to help the party?
4: What can the rest of the party do to help you?

The purpose of this is threefold. First by knowing what the player is trying to do, I can offer advice on how to better achieve their goals. Second it makes the player consider their strengths and weaknesses. Third by passing these around to the rest of the party it let's them get to know their fellow PCs and tweak them so that the party works together better.

1: Jen is awesome at ranged elemental damage and decent at buffing the party and rogue-ish skills.

2: Jen's will save sucks hard. She is not very good at dealing damage in close quarters.

3: Let me know what buff spells you'd like prepped. Jen can do a fairly good selection with an emphasis on shape-shifting other people into more powerful forms. If you want to be a flying 4 armed gargoyle, Jen can do that. Darkvision, Natural armor, Str, Con and Dex buffs are also easy. She has some unusual bonuses to give so they might be able to stack with other buffs. Also Jen can do serious elemental damage. She can get past most defenses and she hits hard. If you want something burned to crisp, frozen to death or electrocuted Jen can do it.
4: While Jen has enough armor and hp to take a few hits, she has very limited ways of dealing damage at close range. She relies on other party members to help keep enemies from getting into melee range and to help get people off her if she does get attacked.

Also her will save sucks. If anyone can help boost her will saves it would be much appreciated. And if you have any suspicions that Jen might be mind controlled, please disarm her. You do not want the person with a bad will save and massive amounts of elemental damage mind controlled into attacking the party.

Satinavian
2021-07-16, 02:23 AM
Now we go away from the letter to discuss problems.





He won't contribute to party expenses. Stuff like bribing NPCs, hiring mercenaries, purchasing spellcasting services, paying for travel expenses, etc.
While the rest of the party use crafting skills to equip their teammates, he keeps them for himself.*
He tries to optimize the party by telling them that since he is the most powerful member of the party, the group as a whole would be better off giving him extra shares of treasure.
He does not contribute to the parties emergency fund which is used to pay for decurses, ressurections, and the like.
And then if anyone complains about him being selfish, he tells them that it pains him how bad with money his allies are, and that he is the real victim here by having to endure all that wasteful spending around him, and therefore he is the one who should be complaining to them, not the other way around.

He doesn't buy defensive or utilitarian items, and then claims that I am picking on him when his lack of defenses mean his character takes more damage.
Likewise, if he ever has (proportional to his characters WBL, not in absolute terms) less treasure at the end of one session than he did the previous session

Further, my system works kind of like Pendragon or The One Ring in that is alternates adventure phases and downtime phases. Resources such as spells and rerolls not used in the adventure can help with downtime projects. If they have a rough adventure and he does the math and finds that he could have made more money staying home, he will complain bitterly about how I was just wasting his time and stealing his money; completely ignoring the fact that by going on the adventure he also earned XP and whatever reputation / knowledge / power / karma that motivated the quest, as well as the fact that the game assumes that the materials you are using the craft are paid for by your loot while adventuring.

That is not a problem for you to solve. That is a problem for the players to solve. I can't remember another group where "benefitting from the party pool but not contributing" would ever fly. But groups where disagreements about what expenses are neccessary did occur and people therefor don't pool their money do happen and that can work well. Even with crafters. But again, the players need to find a way to make their team work, not you.


Considering your constant problems with consumables, i again recommend ditching consumables. Or how about making then intervall based like once-a-month or once-a-year ? That won't change much for a single expedition, but people won't feel like permanently loosing something whenever they use a potion.
[quote]Its weird how much I have normalized childish behavior from adults. I see much worse at gaming stores (and especially in online games) than I do at my table, so I always just kind of assumed it was normal. Like, when I used to play Warhammer at the Games Workshop store dice throwing was common, heck even the corporate regional manager for the company was known to toss his dice across the store after a particularly cold streak.Weird, yes. I can't even remember a raised voice from playing GW games in stores. Might be cultural. Is gaming considered some kind of outlet in your area where the normal rules don't hold and you can relieve stress and all those pent up emotions ? Is alcohol incolved ?

So, this is addressing a specific problem I have had; players want to play action / adventure games, but they are too scared to actually go on adventures. When I try and explain that adventurer's, by necessity, need to be braver than normal, they will then recklessly charge headlong into danger without a concern for their own safety and blame me for whatever bad thing happens to them.
Apparently, "brave" and "reckless" are synonyms in most people's minds; but I really need to get across to people that there is a middle ground between the two, and that is where successful adventurers typically dwell; those who aren't brave enough stay in town and become NPCs, and those who aren't cautious enough tend to be corpses.
It is a difficult problem. I have seen in in other groups. Usually it gets solved by a mature discussion where everyone is honest about his preferrences and people seek a compromise. Those compromises can include metagame safety nets that make sure things are not really as dangerous as they are presented in the game and everyone as player knows about this. I am not sure your group can do that. Mature, honest discussions are not something that seem to have happened much. But what will never work is you just telling your players they need to be braver (=risk more) while also maintaining the difficulty (= need to be cunning). And don't conclude from "want to play action/adventure games" that they want to play the kind of characters you want to see. This genre is full of quite reckless protagonists who only succeed via fiat. Which is something that does not happen in your games.
As I said, its really hard to try and give advice to people if they take it as bossing them around.
Give the advice only when needed. When they present you auch a character, tell them that you are not sure it will work out and why. Then they either change it or not.

You aren't my players then. As I said above, my players tend to get frustrated / depressed if their first idea doesn't work and then just give up and call it for the night, which means they miss out on XP and treasure, my time spent prepping an adventure goes to waste, and the entire evening of gaming is just us staring at one another.
If people are frustrated/depressed and don't have ideas they think might work, there is no reason to try again. Just telling them to do anyway won't solve it. Usually something like that should only happen if the stuff you prepared was a really bad fit for your groups of players or you had communication problems. There is no really satisfying way to solve it but a couple of less satisfying ones like giving OT hints.

Generally if the GM prepares something the players don't want to engage with, the problem is the GM having misjudged his group. Telling your players "Just do it anyway" won't lead to a fun experience for anyone.

This is kind of an apples and oranges comparison. Are you referring to refusing to help your allies? Refusing to help NPCs? Or what?
Where were allies/NPCs mentioned ? I am obviously referring to not buying/using consumables and avoiding tasks that look like the need lots of consumables. If you want to tell something to new players, don't assume they know of the baggage your group had with sharing ressources.
That being said, cost / benefit analysis is absolutely a factor of intelligence, and in character knowledge is a huge part of information gathering.
True. But i do remember at least one occasion where your players did try to gather information but were very unhappy with what they got and how accurate it was. That is exactly the kind of stauff that might make people think "don't bother". If you want your players to gather information and make plans based on it, information gathering has to be easy. And also (knowing their money hangups) cheap. The information gathering itself is also part of the cost benefit analysis and you really want it to be judged favorable.

Yeah, well, my players want a linear game, and I am not going to prepare a half dozen adventures on the off chance that they might deign to actually go one. That being said, I didn't say it was an OOC, or even an IC rule, only that it shouldn't be done lightly.
Yes, it should be rare. But the overall setup is similar to what i have experienced in many Shadowrun games. And abandoning a contract and cutting losses was always on the table and i have never seen a GM complaining about it when it happened. It is some kind of non-TPK fail condition. Something many games do benefit from.
So you don't want to be railroaded, but also expect the GM to save you if things go wrong? Is that correct? But yeah, after the tongue lashing I have been getting the last few months over "rubber-banding" I am going to be doing everything in my power to be as impartial as possible.Nope. I want to win based on my skill and tactics without GM help. And this does extend to "chose your battles wisely". Which means, i would aim to avoid fights that seem that i can't win with my skills and tactics alone and where i need luck on top. And i don't want the GM pushing those fights in my face because "well, those are the interesting ones because you don't know what will happen".
If a GM is railroading me into fights i can't win with my skills and tactics, he better be willing to railroad them to victory for me as well. Nothing feels worse than a GM forcing a group in a bad situation and then retreating to impartiality and "let the dice speak" when things turn bad.




That's true... but it's also false.

In my experience the GM is generally the oldest and most experienced / knowledgeable person at the party and is almost always the one who knows the game best. This is doubly true in my case as I am generally literally teaching people to play a game that I have written for the first time.

And while the GM is not literally a coach, the two positions do have a lot in common. They are both people who are part of the team, but also separate from it. They are also people who want to see their players grow and succeed, but are also often put in the position of needing to provide the "tough love" to make it happen. In my experience, healthy gaming groups absolutely treat GMs with the same sort of "respect" that sport's teams show their coach. I put respect in quotes because that is a very loaded word; I don't mean it in any sort of a hierarchical sense.
A couple of your last threads had you as player. I think it was some pirat thingy with a fey and an ogre or something like that. Think back. Did you think of your GM as a coach ? Were you willing to be taught by them how to be a better roleplayer ? Have you learned anything new from them (instead of "from the game") ?

Lacco
2021-07-16, 02:27 AM
I'd like to ask: when you talk about brave and cunning... what do you mean?

Can you give let's say 3 examples on bravery? To provide some insight into what kind of bravery you expect (and what you get). I think I know what you expect under cunning, but I'm never sure what people mean when they wish for bravery.

Talakeal
2021-07-16, 04:33 AM
I'd like to ask: when you talk about brave and cunning... what do you mean?

Can you give let's say 3 examples on bravery? To provide some insight into what kind of bravery you expect (and what you get). I think I know what you expect under cunning, but I'm never sure what people mean when they wish for bravery.

Willing to go on adventures and not turn around and go home every time something looks dangerous.

Like, to use a famous example, Bilbo (reluctantly) agreed to go along with the dwarves to reclaim their treasure for a dragon, and despite numerous setbacks involving trolls, goblins, giants, spiders, elves, and the dragon itself he stuck through until the end.



You can't successfully force advice onto someone who doesn't want to be advised by you. Putting yourself in that role without them first inviting you to it is what's coming across as presumptuous. It could be the best advice in the world, but if the person receiving it doesn't have a receptive attitude towards you, they're just going to be offended that you're pushing, or they'll just blithely ignore you and probably use this as a story about how you always try to force them to take your NPCs seriously. Going through an NPC mouthpiece is doubly condescending - it's reminiscent of a parent trying to trick a child into having an open mind by using a puppet.

That's why the prelude to the spoiler is a lot better. You're talking about yourself, who you have the authority to speak for, rather than about the listener, who you don't. You establish a desired change from your perspective, and then invite others to help you enact that change, with the option of legitimately establishing consequences for not resolving the issue in terms of your own behavior, rather than the ambiguity of in-game consequences. 'I'm not having fun when this happens, so the quality of game I can provide will drop if this isn't addresses' is more direct about what is for your sake and what is for theirs, and how those things are inextricably connected.

It's like, if I were going to approach someone with unsolicited advice, I'd lead with questions to first establish what they wanted out of the situation, how they felt about what happened, etc. If they were unsatisfied with what happened and I still thought I understood why, then I can start to see if suggesting things would be welcomed. And if so, I would do so specifically in terms of bringing them to the outcome they've said they wanted and not as a way for me to get what I want. Resolving your own issues with someone's behavior in the form of giving them advice on how they should act is IMO a betrayal of trust, unless that person has already agreed that they want to change those same things.

That's really frustrating.

To see someone making a mistake, and knowing that once they make that mistake they will be unhappy, and then take it out on someone else (likely you), and then to be expected to bite your tongue about it is a really terrible position.


So, do you think that its a generally bad idea to use NPC mouth pieces to advise players? Do you think tutorial levels in games are bad policy in general? Because these are pretty standard in video games. In fact, I originally got the idea from the strategy guide for the first Fallout which was written in character as an older scavenger who had taken the PC under their wing and trying to share their years of experience with them, and I thought it made for a very enjoyable experience, and I was going to have something similar in the core book for my system before I decided to cut it for space. Because, keep in mind here, I am going to be doing this for the benefit of new players who are playing an RPG for the first time, and it will be using a system which I created from scratch.


Also, what is your opinion on the following quote?

"Take as many powers as you want, but remember that the more powers you have, the more taints you have to take. Eventually, you will have so many taints, you're non-viable for any length of time. Poof. Your head falls off when you stand up. Time to create another character. How about a reasonable one this time?"

That's from the character creation section of the Freak Legion book from Werewolf, were a, as Onos puts it, professional game designer breaks the fourth wall to directly tell the players how to build their character; presenting what is very reasonable advice in a very sarcastic manner. I am legit curious, I have mixed feelings about whether that is good or bad, but it is certainly a memorable enough passage that I am referencing it over 20 years later.


That is not a problem for you to solve. That is a problem for the players to solve. I can't remember another group where "benefitting from the party pool but not contributing" would ever fly. But groups where disagreements about what expenses are necessary did occur and people therefor don't pool their money do happen and that can work well. Even with crafters. But again, the players need to find a way to make their team work, not you.

The problem is it makes the game harder and more stressful for everyone involved, and when the players struggle, they always blame me for it.

Likewise, if the other players try talking to him, he just goes on the offensive and tells them that he is actually the victim; being the bigger man and biting his tongue about how they are ever so wasteful, and then here they are hypocritically acting like he is the one who is being selfish.


Considering your constant problems with consumables, i again recommend ditching consumables. Or how about making then interval based like once-a-month or once-a-year ? That won't change much for a single expedition, but people won't feel like permanently loosing something whenever they use a potion.

What would you suggest using as a buffer between bad luck and death then?

Alchemists already create free potions at intervals. The players still want to stockpile them though, and my players perceive any sort of rule that prevents stockpiling as literally being robbed.


Weird, yes. I can't even remember a raised voice from playing GW games in stores. Might be cultural. Is gaming considered some kind of outlet in your area where the normal rules don't hold and you can relieve stress and all those pent up emotions ? Is alcohol involved?

Maybe. No alcohol that I know of.


A couple of your last threads had you as player. I think it was some pirate thingy with a fey and an ogre or something like that. Think back. Did you think of your GM as a coach ? Were you willing to be taught by them how to be a better role-player ? Have you learned anything new from them (instead of "from the game") ?

From that game, no, it only lasted three sessions and I spent the entire time trying to desperately hold everything together through sheer force of will.

Games in the past, absolutely, although it becomes harder as time goes on as I no longer tend to play under GMs who are older and more experienced than myself.


Oh wow, that green color didn't work at all. Let's try this again:



It is a difficult problem. I have seen in in other groups. Usually it gets solved by a mature discussion where everyone is honest about his preferences and people seek a compromise. Those compromises can include metagame safety nets that make sure things are not really as dangerous as they are presented in the game and everyone as player knows about this. I am not sure your group can do that. Mature, honest discussions are not something that seem to have happened much. But what will never work is you just telling your players they need to be braver (=risk more) while also maintaining the difficulty (= need to be cunning). And don't conclude from "want to play action/adventure games" that they want to play the kind of characters you want to see. This genre is full of quite reckless protagonists who only succeed via fiat. Which is something that does not happen in your games.

Maybe this is just a misdirection, but it is always phrased as a "Just playing my character;" issue. Its not that the players don't want to engage, its just that they created a rational homebody who would never take incredible risks; adventures are nasty things that tend to make one late for dinner! And I am saying upfront that neither cautious homebodies OR reckless berserkers are appropriate PCs for my game.


In short: I am tired of trying to have to beg and bribe people to join the party and go on the adventure. And I am doubly tired of people blaming me for their own mistakes with "but you told me to play a brave character! Charging naked at the great wyrm dragon armed only with a rusty spoon sure sounds brave to me! How dare you kill me for just trying to make you happy!"

But yeah, the players are constantly jumping at imaginary "railroading" bogeymen, so I can't imagine they actually want me to drive the plot forward with DM fiat, but I can definitely talk to them about it to make sure.


Give the advice only when needed. When they present you auch a character, tell them that you are not sure it will work out and why. Then they either change it or not.

Are you sure? Like, problems in game tend to arise when I am not proactive enough with information. I really think it sounds a lot more frustrating to keep rejecting characters than it would be to just set out some guidelines upfront.

If people are frustrated/depressed and don't have ideas they think might work, there is no reason to try again. Just telling them to do anyway won't solve it. Usually something like that should only happen if the stuff you prepared was a really bad fit for your groups of players or you had communication problems. There is no really satisfying way to solve it but a couple of less satisfying ones like giving OT hints.
Generally if the GM prepares something the players don't want to engage with, the problem is the GM having misjudged his group. Telling your players "Just do it anyway" won't lead to a fun experience for anyone.

Ok, let me give an example:

The door to the dungeon is locked. It is a DC 30 larceny test to unlock the door. It is a DC 25 strength test to bash it down. There is a key hidden in a nearby bush. A third level or higher knock spell can open the door. There is a guard who can be bribed into opening the door for 500 gold, or convinced to let them in with a DC 25 bluff check. The door can be bypassed astrally, ethereally, or teleported past. The door can be burrowed over. The walls on either side of the door can be blown up with explosives or knocked down with mining equipment.

All of these are fairly straightforward solutions, but I won't shut down weirder solutions. The PCs (nominally) want to go explore the dungeon.

They try and pick the lock, and roll a 24, failing. Maybe they try and break down the door, and roll a 17, also failing. At this point they assume that I don't want them to go into the door and that I am railroading their tests to automatically fail, and that nothing they can do will get them through the door. So they give up on the idea of exploring the dungeon and go back to town.



Where were allies/NPCs mentioned ? I am obviously referring to not buying/using consumables and avoiding tasks that look like the need lots of consumables. If you want to tell something to new players, don't assume they know of the baggage your group had with sharing resources.

It wasn't obvious to me. IMO, consumables are a resource like any other, and I don't see how "stingy" has anything to do with it. Now, my players tend to value consumables as exponentially more valuable than any other form of resource, so, for example, if they had an arrow of dragon slaying, they would ignore my advice and, rather than using the arrow to kill a dragon that was in their way, they would save the arrow (likely forever) and instead wade in and use a whole bunch of HP and spells to save that one arrow.

True. But i do remember at least one occasion where your players did try to gather information but were very unhappy with what they got and how accurate it was. That is exactly the kind of stauff that might make people think "don't bother". If you want your players to gather information and make plans based on it, information gathering has to be easy. And also (knowing their money hangups) cheap. The information gathering itself is also part of the cost benefit analysis and you really want it to be judged favorable.

I can't recall any. The only stories like that I can recall were ones where I gave the players a direct answer and they decided that I must be trying to trick or mislead them and ignored it.


Yes, it should be rare. But the overall setup is similar to what i have experienced in many Shadowrun games. And abandoning a contract and cutting losses was always on the table and i have never seen a GM complaining about it when it happened. It is some kind of non-TPK fail condition. Something many games do benefit from.

Agreed. But it is a fail condition, and I want to impress upon my players that it shouldn't be taken likely.

Like, for example, in the last campaign I ran Justin Alexander's Complex of the Zombies, a module which is about making zombies scary for PCs. It worked too well, and after their first encounter with the zombies, the players decided that it was too risky to continue, and so they simply destroyed the entrance to the dungeon and returned to town even though they were never in any real danger. This means that they missed out on all the treasure, XP, and items within, I wasted the money buying the module and the time prepping it, and we all missed out on an evening of gaming.

That is a pretty bad outcome for everyone involved; it is very different than trying your best, having a run of bad luck or making a series of critical mistakes, and realizing that you don't have a realistic chance of pulling this off and deciding to fall back.


Nope. I want to win based on my skill and tactics without GM help. And this does extend to "chose your battles wisely". Which means, i would aim to avoid fights that seem that i can't win with my skills and tactics alone and where i need luck on top. And i don't want the GM pushing those fights in my face because "well, those are the interesting ones because you don't know what will happen".
If a GM is railroading me into fights i can't win with my skills and tactics, he better be willing to railroad them to victory for me as well. Nothing feels worse than a GM forcing a group in a bad situation and then retreating to impartiality and "let the dice speak" when things turn bad.

Out of curiosity, do you literally mean 100% chance of victory? Because I don't think that's reasonable. But assuming you are being hyperbolic, I don't see any problem with that. My players, on the other hand, want to play "combat as sport" against "balanced encounters", and so I typically give them exactly that; which comes out to (in D&D terms) ~4 equal CR encounters between rests each with an average of a 99.5% chance of PC victory, which I don't really consider railroading them into an uncertain battle.


But yeah, it really seems like the takeaway for a lot of this is that my players just don't want to go on my adventures; but if that is the case they really need to be better at communicating what they want, because as is I am trying to tailor everything to the way they say they like it.


At this point, if you will forgive the analogy, it feels like someone asks me to pick up a pizza, shrugs their shoulders and says "whatever" when I ask what toppings, and then when I bring it to them they freak out because it has mushrooms on it and throw it in the trash. Like, if you hate mushrooms that much you should really have said something before hand, and (assuming you aren't actively allergic to it or something) you should probably be polite, eat it even if it isn't your favorite, and then have a discussion about toppings going forward. Or something, I may have gotten lost in the analogy there...

NichG
2021-07-16, 05:18 AM
That's really frustrating.

To see someone making a mistake, and knowing that once they make that mistake they will be unhappy, and then take it out on someone else (likely you), and then to be expected to bite your tongue about it is a really terrible position.

So, do you think that its a generally bad idea to use NPC mouth pieces to advise players? Do you think tutorial levels in games are bad policy in general? Because these are pretty standard in video games. In fact, I originally got the idea from the strategy guide for the first Fallout which was written in character as an older scavenger who had taken the PC under their wing and trying to share their years of experience with them, and I thought it made for a very enjoyable experience, and I was going to have something similar in the core book for my system before I decided to cut it for space. Because, keep in mind here, I am going to be doing this for the benefit of new players who are playing an RPG for the first time, and it will be using a system which I created from scratch.


For a tabletop setting I'd lean against having an NPC push advice, though having NPCs who are available to be actively asked about things or having NPCs indirectly demonstrate things are both viable things to do, with a very light hand on that last one to avoid DMPC/spotlight theft issues.

As far as computer games, they're a different beast entirely - most of the interpersonal dynamics, trust issues, hierarchies, dominance, etc don't apply when the other party is an inanimate object. I can certainly imagine a computer game having an overly pushy guide NPC that would just tend to get in the way and annoy people though - just think about how people react to Clippy. Explicitly stated aesops and bits of wisdom can also fall flat if what's going on in the game or story doesn't actually live up to or justify the claim. Another particular danger is a mouthpiece character who gives advice that seems sensible but once you understand the game you realize it was deeply misleading.

Tutorial levels are generally better I think, since tutorial levels ask the player to find their way to understanding and demonstrate it to proceed rather than telling them instructions outright. That means the player is free to draw different conclusions from the designer, as long as they find something that works for them. In a tabletop setting, if you had a single pre-campaign hour-long 'tutorial battle' for people to try out the mechanics of an unfamiliar system with say mid-level throw-away pregen characters picked to show off different potential mechanics, I'd find that completely reasonable.



Also, what is your opinion on the following quote?

"Take as many powers as you want, but remember that the more powers you have, the more taints you have to take. Eventually, you will have so many taints, you're non-viable for any length of time. Poof. Your head falls off when you stand up. Time to create another character. How about a reasonable one this time?"

That's from the character creation section of the Freak Legion book from Werewolf, were a, as Onos puts it, professional game designer breaks the fourth wall to directly tell the players how to build their character; presenting what is very reasonable advice in a very sarcastic manner. I am legit curious, I have mixed feelings about whether that is good or bad, but it is certainly a memorable enough passage that I am referencing it over 20 years later.


I tend to find Whitewolf stuff to be a bit on the preachy side in general even when they're not using an in-character mouthpiece, so I'd hesitate to use that as a reference to emulate. In your example here, I think the sarcasm and talking-down to the player would on the balance harm more than it helps, but it's not like I'd throw the book into the fireplace and storm off. But I do know that various players on this forum have said that they've been completely put off Powered by the Apocalypse because the writing tone has strong notes of 'if you don't play this game the way we say, you're doing it wrong'.

I do think its fine when writing a rules book to have in-character vignettes to set tone or do info-dumps of in-character information. I think it can also be fine for the text of a rules guide (not pretending to be a particular NPC) to explain the intended design principles behind systems and what the tradeoffs the designer believes are present. I would have written the Werewolf thing a bit differently. Something like: "The powers and taints system lets a player choose as many powers as they want for a character, but in turn requires taking more and more taints. This is designed to reward risk with power, but does not have built in precautions against a character having so many taints as to become non-viable. The choice of how far to push it is left up to the player, with the expectation that the ST play the consequences of those taints straight, as the risk of a character imploding is the intended balancing factor against the benefits of being able to take an arbitrary number of powers."

Putting it that way, the focus is on explaining the behavior of the system and the design intent or providing information. You can even have something like "In playtesting, we found that making stable characters with more than X taints was quite difficult."

Lacco
2021-07-16, 05:56 AM
Willing to go on adventures and not turn around and go home every time something looks dangerous.

Like, to use a famous example, Bilbo (reluctantly) agreed to go along with the dwarves to reclaim their treasure for a dragon, and despite numerous setbacks involving trolls, goblins, giants, spiders, elves, and the dragon itself he stuck through until the end.

What I meant was for you to give three examples on bravery that would be from your games. Mainly to see what level is expected. Because there is the "charge the dragon to buy the others few seconds to think of a plan" bravery, there is the "the odds of us four beating the 4086 orcs are minimal, but if we don't, nobody else will" bravery, there is the "you stood up for us, so we'll stand with you to the bitter end"...

...and some of these are not bravery. There is also loyalty, responsibility and self-sacrifice involved. Do you want to see that in your games? Or just "grit your teeth and pull through anything, even if it kills us"?

So, what exactly are we talking about here? I'm still not sure, based on your response.

As for Bilbo, what you described is not mainly bravery. It's persistence, having no other realistic option, and certain type of cowardice (I'll stick with the dwarves because otherwise I'll have to go home alone/be branded a coward). His bravest moments include him standing up to Thorin with the stone, fighting the spiders while having a big advantage... I'd have to reread the book to find out if there were more, but he's not really brave. He's fairly stubborn.

Also, Bilbo is a book character. Which means, he has to slog through whatever the author deems necessary - because the only risk you run there is the reader shutting the book going "Oh, that poor hobbit, can't take more about him plodding along and having these numerous setbacks". Can't say that for the players of an interactive RPG - especially if the game is not presented as one.

Quertus
2021-07-16, 06:17 AM
The players devote no resources to reconnaissance (which is fine), but then accuse the GM of cheating and railroading when they are surprised, which is not.


Gotta circle back to this later - what is the opportunity cost here? This is probably gonna be better than what I intended to write about "one resource" stress.

I guess it's later. :smallamused:

Let's say that I - knowing everything I know - sit down at your table to play. Let's say we're a few sessions in, and I've gotten help with my character, and hopefully having gotten used to the game & group. We've just finished a mission, had our downtime, buffed our gear.

Now we check the boards for our next mission, and hear about a fey incursion into real space.

Remembering Sneezy, I decide I want to do some recon.

Let's say I'm playing… a high social skills Necromancer.

Can I attempt to… contact a sage about fey powers, weaknesses, desires, etiquette? "gather information"? search for witnesses who have survived (our individuals who have successfully negotiated with) the fey? summon the spirits of the dead to learn about them? "scry" on them via recon zombie birds? hire redshirts to get sneezed on (etc) first? animate redshirts to get sneezed on (etc) first? quest for the McGuffin to kill / ward against / give huge Diplomacy bonuses towards the fey?

But, if they are options, how many of these will reduce the final score, by costing money or unrecoverable spell slots (that get converted to money at the end)? How often does taking the time to do these result in the fey (or other foes in the past) having slaughtered the party's allies before our "slow and careful" method plays out?

How often could we interrogate witnesses, spot on the fey, quest for cold iron weapons and a mundane egg, meet the fey 2 months later, and come out *ahead* of where we would have been had we just charged in and won?

Is the group not Incentivized to rush in blind, and then complain to the GM when that turns out to be too hard?


You can't say "no scouting is fine" and then use it against the players and just say "oh well, if you would have scouted ahead". This is wrong on so many levels. Admit to yourself, that it's not "fine". But don't just "hope" your players will do your demand X, and then when they don't you jump up and say "GOTTHCA!" Really, just don't do that.

So, I actually agree with several of the things you said, but this one… seems worth investigating, and is related to the rest of my post. So I'll start here.

What if… you are allowed to choose any path, allowed to eat food of any spiciness, but it's on you to be able to handle your chosen course of action, to have milk and non and healing potions and whatever ready should you bite off more than you can chew?

Saying, "I don't know how much milk / Intel *you* need to enjoy this - figuring that out is on you".

Is there anything inconsistent in this line of thought?

Satinavian
2021-07-16, 06:37 AM
The problem is it makes the game harder and more stressful for everyone involved, and when the players struggle, they always blame me for it.

Likewise, if the other players try talking to him, he just goes on the offensive and tells them that he is actually the victim; being the bigger man and biting his tongue about how they are ever so wasteful, and then here they are hypocritically acting like he is the one who is being selfish.Yes, it is annoying for you as well. It is still something only the players can really resolve. You should not step in unless it comes to outright bullying between the players. But in that case kick the bully.


What would you suggest using as a buffer between bad luck and death then?As i said, that must be negotiated. A solution for one group would not work for others and as you are getting new players, you don't know them anyway.

In the first group where this problem arose we had a player who said they were bored if PC death by chance and dice was not on a table and another player who would have preferred if PC death only can happen narratively on the players wish, while the rest of the players were inbetween. In the end, we decided that everyone gets 3 rerolls per session and one deus-ex-machina for the whole campaign. A compromise and it worked.

In another group we were entering an arc that was supposed to be more epic and dangerous than regular play and introduced that 3 times per session you can get a +3 bonus to a roll (even after the roll) or avoid 5 points of damage.

But again : Compromise, talk between mature players etc.

Alchemists already create free potions at intervals. The players still want to stockpile them though, and my players perceive any sort of rule that prevents stockpiling as literally being robbed.I would tell him that the alchemists powers are for producing buffs during adventure, not for earning money or accumulate power beyond what is normal during downtime and that he is free to play something else.
Games in the past, absolutely, although it becomes harder as time goes on as I no longer tend to play under GMs who are older and more experienced than myself.Just assume that your players are as open to learning and as respectful as you were in that particular campaign and think of them more like equals. That will make discussions way easier. So far nothng you said indicated that anyone sees you as some kind of experienced mentor figure, not even the newcomers.

Maybe this is just a misdirection, but it is always phrased as a "Just playing my character;" issue. Its not that the players don't want to engage, its just that they created a rational homebody who would never take incredible risks; adventures are nasty things that tend to make one late for dinner! And I am saying upfront that neither cautious homebodies OR reckless berserkers are appropriate PCs for my game.If the campaign you want to play and the campaign your players want to play, don't match, you won't get a fun game. Some of that can be blamed on communication issues. But as the same thing comes up repeatedly, you might consider having mutually exclusive desires. And this won't be solved by you telling them they should comform to your way.

Are you sure? Like, problems in game tend to arise when I am not proactive enough with information. I really think it sounds a lot more frustrating to keep rejecting characters than it would be to just set out some guidelines upfront.Yes, i am sure. If you only complain when the character is presented to you, you tell them that you trust them to make a character. Which is a token of respect. You also only have to talk about the problematic characters and their players, not the rest. And you will have the example character at hand which makes it easier to talk about it.


They try and pick the lock, and roll a 24, failing. Maybe they try and break down the door, and roll a 17, also failing. At this point they assume that I don't want them to go into the door and that I am railroading their tests to automatically fail, and that nothing they can do will get them through the door. So they give up on the idea of exploring the dungeon and go back to town.
So there are other solutions but none of them occur to your players. What do you expect them to do here ? They literally can't try any of the silutions that have not occurred to them.

It wasn't obvious to me. IMO, consumables are a resource like any other, and I don't see how "stingy" has anything to do with it. Now, my players tend to value consumables as exponentially more valuable than any other form of resource, so, for example, if they had an arrow of dragon slaying, they would ignore my advice and, rather than using the arrow to kill a dragon that was in their way, they would save the arrow (likely forever) and instead wade in and use a whole bunch of HP and spells to save that one arrow.Ressources that don't reprenish are more valuable than those that do. How much more is up for debate and depends on the situation. But you obviously feel different about it than your players and that won't ever change, no matter how many letters you write.
Out of curiosity, do you literally mean 100% chance of victory? Because I don't think that's reasonable. But assuming you are being hyperbolic, I don't see any problem with that. My players, on the other hand, want to play "combat as sport" against "balanced encounters", and so I typically give them exactly that; which comes out to (in D&D terms) ~4 equal CR encounters between rests each with an average of a 99.5% chance of PC victory, which I don't really consider railroading them into an uncertain battle.No, not literally 100%. But defeat chance should be negligable or I would need a surefire way to retreat without giving up anything of importance. I also might be lenient with those conditions if i were somehow particularly invested in the vicory to counter additional risk. But money and xp don't do that.
Also there is still a chance that i misjudge the danger of a fight or screw up my combat tactics so the actual victory chance would be even lower.


But yeah, it really seems like the takeaway for a lot of this is that my players just don't want to go on my adventures; but if that is the case they really need to be better at communicating what they want, because as is I am trying to tailor everything to the way they say they like it.
Well, yes.

That is something people have told you a long time.

Also i remember that you didn't like to listen to complains of your players about how your game is too hard. Instead of making your game easier you got to great lengths to explain how it was not actually that hard.

OldTrees1
2021-07-16, 07:10 AM
The tone I am going for is "I am going to play the game straight; I am not going to tailor encounters to you, fudge dice, or metagame NPC reactions in your favor or against it."

I remember you mentioning that before. This letter has a general tone of "This will be hard mode." despite your intention. However please note that it is a big improvement from the "I blame you." tone of the previous letter.

Some of the "This will be hard mode" tone is unavoidable since your honest description of certain aspects reveals those specific aspects are harder than normal (for example "Don't waste consumables" and "Spending a consumable is better than dying." imply consumables are necessary and resource management is tight.)

Please continue reading and responding to the more detailed analysis. I wanted to make sure you heard the tone improved but the current tone will be slightly different than intended.



I don't really know the new players well enough to ask them to come onto a social media site on my behalf. Bob doesn't like forums, and he specifically considers going onto them for game advice to be a form of gossiping about people behind their backs. Brian has an account here, and I am sure I could talk him into posting if people have any specific questions / topics they want him to address.

Although when I asked him, he said he is still leery after the reaction to a post him made over a decade ago on the old WoTC forums.

I wish the original was still up, but in short he said "I need to solo a red dragon to qualify for vassal of bahamut, but my DM's game is really hard because he plays the monsters smart, so how can I possibly win?" To which the forums response was "LOL, the character you posted is a gestalt character with 40 point buy, 4x WBL, numerous custom items, and a non-standard race. This is the easiest most Monty Haul campaign I have ever seen, I am sure your DM will provide a wheezing, half dead, dragon who rolls over at your feet and beg's for mercy! Quit wasting out time!" That's a paraphrase, but its not actually a comedic exaggeration, btw.


This forum is a bit better behaved, but the subject matter will be more prone to tension. I understand if they are leery.

Cluedrew
2021-07-16, 07:28 AM
I am just going to repeat a point from my last post that I think was missed because I think it is important: Talakeal, what changes/problems are you willing to stop running the game over?

Talakeal
2021-07-16, 08:14 AM
So there are other solutions but none of them occur to your players. What do you expect them to do here ? They literally can't try any of the solutions that have not occurred to them.

Did you miss the last part about how they assume that I am intentionally stonewalling them and therefore give up trying? Because that is the issue, not that they are simply out of ideas.

BUT... remember how in my previous post I said that I tend to overestimate people's intelligence?

In this case, there are 4-6 players, all of whom are adults with college degrees and / or jobs, over a century of gaming experience between them, and most of them claiming to be certified geniuses; and you are seriously telling me that not one of them can think of any alternate ways that one would even attempt to open a locked door? Especially when they or their allies include reality warping wizards and oracles who can literally pluck ideas from the ether?

I just don't buy it.


Resources that don't replenish are more valuable than those that do. How much more is up for debate and depends on the situation. But you obviously feel different about it than your players and that won't ever change.

Who said anything about resources not replenishing? Heck, earlier in this very post I am responding to Quertus telling me (I think) that a problem with my game is that it is too easy to convert one form of resource to another.

But again, why is it my fault that the players are too stubborn to play the game the way it was designed? Consumables are an intended part of the difficulty curve, and by refusing to use them the players are making the game harder on themselves. And again, its fine if they want to play on hard-mode, I do it all the time myself, but then bitching about how the game is too hard seems really hypocritical. Especially when they also explicitly tell me that they want objectively balanced encounters that are not tailored to their party.



Well, yes.

That is something people have told you a long time.

Also I remember that you didn't like to listen to complains of your players about how your game is too hard. Instead of making your game easier you got to great lengths to explain how it was not actually that hard.

Again, its really hard to answer questions that are never asked.

The players constantly come to me with specific issues, and I tweak the game to address those issues. But they still complain when things don't go their way. The forum, not the players, the forum, says its because they really think the game is too hard, but won't actually tell me that because it would make them look bad. The closest thing they have ever said was "You might be making a mistake using us for playtesting, because we are so much better than the average players, that the game might be too hard for people who aren't as good as us." or "You know, if we didn't have an X in our party, we probably wouldn't have survived that last adventure."

But the thing is, "too hard" doesn't mean anything. I see no indication of the player's struggling with the difficulty in any objective sense; I use level appropriate enemies, PCs don't die, they win 99+% of fights, they are 20-30% above the average WBL, they complete 95+% of all quests they attempt, they make it to maximum level, defeat their enemies, change the world, and become rich, famous, respected, and powerful. Like, I just don't see where this "too hard" is coming from, especially considering that the same players make the same complaints in every game they play regardless of the system or who is GMing.

So, engaging with the forums supposition that the game is too hard, WITHOUT talking to my players about it, is a very, very, daunting task.

Talakeal
2021-07-16, 08:28 AM
I am just going to repeat a point from my last post that I think was missed because I think it is important: Talakeal, what changes/problems are you willing to stop running the game over?

I genuinely don't know.

I will say though, that I can't put up with this current "weird learned helplessness / stop hitting yourself" that the players have recently leaned into much longer.


And, if it needs clarification / restating; the players want total freedom with characters builds and tactics, but at the same time they want me to assume total responsibility for anything bad that happens to their characters, and they just can't have it both ways. Its like being fricking reverse Spider Man; "with no authority comes great blame".

Silly Name
2021-07-16, 08:58 AM
Did you miss the last part about how they assume that I am intentionally stonewalling them and therefore give up trying? Because that is the issue, not that they are simply out of ideas.

BUT... remember how in my previous post I said that I tend to overestimate people's intelligence?

In this case, there are 4-6 players, all of whom are adults with college degrees and / or jobs, over a century of gaming experience between them, and most of them claiming to be certified geniuses; and you are seriously telling me that not one of them can think of any alternate ways that one would even attempt to open a locked door? Especially when they or their allies include reality warping wizards and oracles who can literally pluck ideas from the ether?

I just don't but it.

So, this is sort of a red flag to me. I assume most people are of average intelligence, and I agree your players, assuming average intelligence, are likely to be able to, in a vacuum, come up with many ways to get past the door - or rather, get inside the dungeon. But why do your players, while the game is running, give up so easily?

Either they have trouble thinking outside the box, and so see failing to open the door as a sign there's no way in - because the problem is framed as "a locked door stands before you", thus they ignore solutions that don't actively target the door -, or they have past experiences that make them assume that a locked door they can't open right away will stay locked. Their bias may not be reasonable, but they might be biased anyways and that influences their decisions.

I have two groups. One prefers linear, plot-heavy games where they do impact the world but overall happily go along the "rails". We came to this agreement together after I tried to run a more sandbox campaign and they didn't really like it, saying they prefer to have some direction from me as the GM.

Another group, while still liking my campaigns, is more inventive and loves to "mess" with things. They will often send my plans off the rails, and I love it. It's fun and helps me come up with things, creating a reactive world.

With both groups, I have a tradition: after a session is over, I ask them what they thought of it, what they liked and disliked. I ask them to ask me questions and my opinion on some of their choices, feel free to ask "what would have happened if we did X instead of Y? Could things have gone differently?", and I always do my best to answer honestly, save for when the answer could spoil things, which is rare.

This helps create trust. When my players fail to get past some obstacle, they know they can later ask me "so, what was behind that wall? How could we have got past it?" and I'll answer. They may kick themselves over failing to do something, but they will never feel like I'm cheating them.



But again, why is it my fault that the players are too stubborn to play the game the way it was designed?

It's not your fault per se, but one of the things a GM should do is find a compromise between the rules-as-written, and the way their table plays.
Everyone wants and expects different things. There's no way that your system, even if overall liked by your table, hits all the buttons of your players and does nothing they dislike. If they don't like to engage with some part of the system, for whatever reason, it's time to go over it again and analyse what it does, why your players don't engage with it, and fix that part of the system as needed... or even throw it out.

Even if your players aren't actively complaining about a rule, their refusal to use consumables tells you things about their playstyle, and you need to address that. Don't expect them to play the game "as intended" - nobody does, everyone puts their little spins on it.


The players constantly come to me with specific issues, and I tweak the game to address those issues. But they still complain when things don't go their way. The forum, not the players, the forum, says its because they really think the game is too hard, but won't actually tell me that because it would make them look bad. The closest thing they have ever said was "You might be making a mistake using us for playtesting, because we are so much better than the average players, that the game might be too hard for people who aren't as good as us." or "You know, if we didn't have an X in our party, we probably wouldn't have survived that last adventure."

But the thing is, "too hard" doesn't mean anything. I see no indication of the player's struggling with the difficulty in any objective sense; I use level appropriate enemies, PCs don't die, they win 99+% of fights, they are 20-30% above the average WBL, they complete 95+% of all quests they attempt, they make it to maximum level, defeat their enemies, change the world, and become rich, famous, respected, and powerful. Like, I just don't see where this "too hard" is coming from, especially considering that the same players make the same complaints in every game they play regardless of the system or who is GMing.

So, engaging with the forums supposition that the game is too hard, WITHOUT talking to my players about it, is a very, very, daunting task.

Honestly? From your description of your players, the main problem is relational and personal. System and style have little to do with it: you are in a toxic environment, with toxic people. That's the thing that needs addressing, not the power curve or the WBL or anything else in-game. It's not a game problem, not even a table problem: it's a people problem.

The Glyphstone
2021-07-16, 09:45 AM
Briefly skimming over the thread, it looks like we're just hitting the same argumentative points again for the third time. So all I feel I have to offer now is this - you don't need to be talking "to" your players, and especially not talking "at" your players with a lecturing letter of how to git gud at your game. You need to be talking "with" your players. Use this long hiatus, and their apparent hunger to resume play, as the one-time opportunity it is to clear some air. Have a dialogue, in a more comfortable setting than you at the head of the DM table, and try as hard as you can to see if there is any way to resolve the longer-standing issues, the apparent grudges. And let them go first. Listen to their problems when you give them a chance to air them, and - this is very important - acknowledge their feelings and show resolve towards them. To use one specific example, if they bring up the Sneeze Ogre or the Avatar - do not turn defensive and explain how it was a good encounter they botched, or any sort of back and forth - just accept that they didn't enjoy it and note why. Show that you are willing to treat this as a 'reset' button, so to speak, and that you intend to make an effort to go better.

Then, once you have done that and assuming they're cooperative, do the same for yourself. Air your own problems and issues, as politely as you can in general terms. Don't mention people's specific bad habits by name, or drag out specific incidents in turn, but in general terms of things that make you not have fun and not enjoy running the game. Do your best to see if they will acknowledge your issues in turn and reciprocate the olive branch that you extended. If these people are actually your friends, however weird your relationship is, this approach might be able to smooth over problems. If they're just abusers who delight in having you as a doormat to kick around and tell you the lies you need to hear to prevent losing that doormat access, they won't. There's only one way to really know.

Do I think this will work? Probably not. Will this even happen? I'm skeptical. But it's the only thing I can think of to try and cut out the root of the canker before it gets a chance to spread again.

meandean
2021-07-16, 01:18 PM
Honestly? From your description of your players, the main problem is relational and personal. System and style have little to do with it: you are in a toxic environment, with toxic people. That's the thing that needs addressing, not the power curve or the WBL or anything else in-game. It's not a game problem, not even a table problem: it's a people problem.Yeah, agreed. This may be personal and/or off-topic, but I'll ask anyway: Does this happen to you elsewhere?? Do you go to your workplace and find that everyone is constantly screaming and throwing objects? Or does it happen, not when there's actually something meaningful at stake for people to be angry about, but only when you're playing make-believe games?

Again, I don't mean to be nosy or nasty... but I'm trying to a) understand how things even got to this point, and b) let you know (as you probably already do) that this isn't a commonplace experience for most people. You say you usually also encounter similar things playing online... I've had some bad groups, but it's usually "the players aren't into the game" rather than "the players go out of their way to tear each other apart on a deeply personal level." Anyway, I think unacceptable disruptions of this sort have to be confronted and resolved at the moment they happen. Writing them a letter about it now is like if the cat jumps on the table and your response is, not to spray it with the water bottle right then, but to skip a meal three months later. Naturally that's not going to change its behavior, or even register at all as being a consequence of what happened before.

Quertus
2021-07-16, 02:54 PM
What I meant was for you to give three examples on bravery that would be from your games. Mainly to see what level is expected. Because there is the "charge the dragon to buy the others few seconds to think of a plan" bravery, there is the "the odds of us four beating the 4086 orcs are minimal, but if we don't, nobody else will" bravery, there is the "you stood up for us, so we'll stand with you to the bitter end"...

...and some of these are not bravery. There is also loyalty, responsibility and self-sacrifice involved. Do you want to see that in your games? Or just "grit your teeth and pull through anything, even if it kills us"?

So, what exactly are we talking about here? I'm still not sure, based on your response.

As for Bilbo, what you described is not mainly bravery. It's persistence, having no other realistic option, and certain type of cowardice (I'll stick with the dwarves because otherwise I'll have to go home alone/be branded a coward). His bravest moments include him standing up to Thorin with the stone, fighting the spiders while having a big advantage... I'd have to reread the book to find out if there were more, but he's not really brave. He's fairly stubborn.

Also, Bilbo is a book character. Which means, he has to slog through whatever the author deems necessary - because the only risk you run there is the reader shutting the book going "Oh, that poor hobbit, can't take more about him plodding along and having these numerous setbacks". Can't say that for the players of an interactive RPG - especially if the game is not presented as one.

I think Talakeal would be best served by realizing that "bravery"can be taken many ways, won't be taken the desired way by Bizarro World, and to never say it to that group ever again - certainly not with any expectation things getting better.

But, yes, you're absolutely right - there are a lot of possible meanings. And it *would* be interesting to know exactly what Talakeal means.


Generally not. That's a good point.

If you want to create a table culture, create - and live - that table culture. Dress for the job you want, not the job you have, as they say.


Again, that's an (imo unintended) anomaly of 3E. What did you do with all the scrolls and potions you found in treasure hordes in older editions?

Potions? Hoarded them for when they were needed (they (almost) never were), and used them as "bad GM detection bait".

Scrolls? Learned the spells from them, of course - that's why my character was out adventuring, after all!

Wands? (In general,) hoard them until we can find out how many charges they have, then hoard (at least) the *last* charge until we can recharge them.


Its not so much that they don't like buying consumables, its that they don't like using the one's they have, and imo there is nothing optimal about having possessions that do nothing but sit in a vault collecting dust.

Ah. I've been trying to solve the wrong problem. :smallredface:

This sounds easy to address: run "war games" in your system - specifically, build a sample party, and have your group run them, both with using potions and without, and *measure* the resources afterwards.

Take advantage of this "having a single score" to let your players actively *see* which strategies are optimal. Fighting 3 fire elementals and an earth elemental - is it better to use no potions, to start the fight by popping a Fire Resistance (or Haste?) potion, or to have a "drinking problem" buff routine?


Could you elaborate here?

I am not quite sure what you are saying. My groups generally don't belong to guilds, but generally do contain an alchemist who gets to make potions for free over time.

No need to elaborate, then - they've got it covered.

I was just trying to move potions into a different "score" track, that's all.

Whereas your players used them for… "final fight? Easy mode!".


The problem is, people in my friend circle don't like to ever admit weakness or fault; they don't say "I am struggling," they say "This is unfair! I am being cheated / screwed over!"

Oh, good, you've identified a core problem. Now, how do you fix that? Don't waste effort (and social cred) fighting symptoms, address the actual core problems.

The obvious answer is "get better friends". Can you find a better answer?

EDIT: this is actually a huge issue with playing with *humans* :smallannoyed: If you open a restaurant, and give them the Agency to mix toppings that don't (normally) go well on particular foods, and they pick such a combination, most people will remember, "I didn't like it", not "I messed up". So, to be fair, this is in no way *unique* to your players, nor is it an easy problem to solve. It's baked in to standard human failings.

Time Troll
2021-07-16, 09:05 PM
What if… you are allowed to choose any path, allowed to eat food of any spiciness, but it's on you to be able to handle your chosen course of action, to have milk and non and healing potions and whatever ready should you bite off more than you can chew?

Saying, "I don't know how much milk / Intel *you* need to enjoy this - figuring that out is on you".

Is there anything inconsistent in this line of thought?

No? Maybe not? I'm not sure?

I too am a "your character should do things like scout ahead and discover information. To just blindly stumble around is a bad idea."

My point is more on the reaction. Sure many players that don't scout ahead will blunder into an obvious trap head over heels. And in my game this often as character death. And most of the players that do this will whine and complain when this happens....or worse.

The point is more how the GM reacts to it. My reaction is: I don't care. The players made a choice and the game D20 rolls on. The players are given maybe a minute to have a knee jerk whine and rant......but then will be required to drop it forevermore. Any player that does not do so will be cast out of the game. And any player that starts the conspiracy of accusing the Gm of railroading or cheating or such will be gone too.

But then take the other game. Same set up, except when the player whines and rants the GM lets them do so for the whole game and forever. So all the type the GM and other players have to have the game disrupted by the whine of the one player. And it's only about ten times worse when the GM mixes it up with the player to really ruin the game. When each start to say things about each other and let insults fly and worse.

And in the end, if the players refuse to scout and the end result is a "unhappy game" AND the GM knowing this full well REFUSES to change anything they do: then it is all on them. Once you know that surprises will disrupt the game, you need to think hard about IF you even want to use them. If you keep up with the same thing that causes the problem, and don't want to change anything: you are the problem.

If you as a Gm do an action, and the players will be disruptive: you have to own that action. As a hard core GM, if you are disruptive...you are gone from the game. But if your a GM that refuses to do that, you need to find some other action to take. And if you refuse to do anything "against" the player, then it is YOU that must change. And the obvious thing is to have no more "surprise, you should have scouted ahead" stuff.


Did you miss the last part about how they assume that I am intentionally stonewalling them and therefore give up trying? Because that is the issue, not that they are simply out of ideas.

Really, this is Common GM Mistake #11. The GM makes a task "hard"...to them. But to others, it looks and feels IMPOSSIBLE. I know this well: I'm a master at it. A typical new player in my game is beyond confused when they can't just d20 past everything.



BUT... remember how in my previous post I said that I tend to overestimate people's intelligence?

Well, don't do this.



In this case, there are 4-6 players, all of whom are adults with college degrees and / or jobs, over a century of gaming experience between them, and most of them claiming to be certified geniuses; and you are seriously telling me that not one of them can think of any alternate ways that one would even attempt to open a locked door? Especially when they or their allies include reality warping wizards and oracles who can literally pluck ideas from the ether?

I just don't buy it.

Most people are not quite geniuses. And Out of the Box Thinking, Problem Solving, Macgyvering and being Creative are NOT even uncommon skills. Even more so when you add in role playing and Thinking Out Side the Rules.

I run an Old School type game, no matter the rule system. It's not just "roll higher then 13 to find the secret door....zzzzz". It's more "take actions in character to find the secret door. Light a candle and move along the wall looking for slight air flow, dump out some water and see where it flows, tap things to see if they are hollow or solid, look for scrapes on stone, and so on." You can build up a nice +10 bonus to a roll with just a little effort. But this does NOT come easy or natural to most people. Ask a random person how to find a secret door and they will just look at you with a blank stare. Even someone with 20 years of game experience might only be able to think of "um..roll a D20?"

For new players to my game, they need a bit of hand holding and to be taught this Old Style of game play. But they won't just spontaneously think of things on their own.





But again, why is it my fault that the players are too stubborn to play the game the way it was designed?

Except it is YOUR personal made game. Is there some reason you won't change anything?

Pex
2021-07-16, 10:46 PM
This letter is better written than the previous one, less fire & brimstone, more matter of factual. It's a kick in the pants letter, which is NOT a bad thing. It's a letter your players need to read and comprehend.

Pauly
2021-07-17, 03:37 PM
I just want to take a completely different tack.

There is a world of difference between “talking to your players” and “talking with your players”.
One implies the DM dictating rules for the players to follow. The other implies negotiation and give and take from all parties.

From what I read of Talakeal’s issues with his player group, a lot of it seems to be based on not having shared assumptions. There is a possibility that the players are putting on their best “yes boss, of course boss” face and promptly forgetting everything Talakeal says.

I think getting into the minutiae and fine detail isn’t the best way forward. I think keeping broad brushstrokes and intentions is more important. Whenever I’m trying to get a team to follow my vision I’ve always found focussing on the why and how gets better results than focussing on the what and when.

Just to use a recently discussed example about players not scouting. Talakeal hasn’t been able to explain why his players don’t scout. Some possible e planations.
- They find the scouting minigame boring.
- There are many situations in which scouting has no practical benefit, and overall is slowing down the game (both in real time and in-game where there are ticking clocks)
- they don’t want to split the party.
- non scouting characters have dead time while they wait for the scouts to do their thing.
- the players assume their characters will do basic scouting/observation checks, the same way it can be assumed they on their pants on in the morning, unless they specifically state they are rushing ahead full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes.
One partial solution may be to offer the players the assumption that they are doing basic scouting/observation, but they will get bonuses if they state they are scouting. Just because the players find scouting tedious doesn’t mean the characters are deliberately neglecting it.
Unless you know why the players aren’t scouting you will never find a suitable incentive to get them to scout. Remember that to change somebody else’s behaviour, first you have to change your own.

Sigreid
2021-07-17, 04:18 PM
I'd send an email to the players and say something like "I know we have some issues in our games that lead to frustration sometimes and before we start the next campaign I'd like us to get together for lunch or something; and for everyone to bring up what gets to them in game and see if we can get to a more fun setup for everyone, including me." And then have just that talk and see if everyone can bend a little when they see the other sides.

Talakeal
2021-07-17, 09:25 PM
So, this was going to be a specific response to someone, but I can no longer find the original post I was going to quote.


Anyway, I think a lot of problems in my game arise from the PCs wanting me to play NPCs really dumb, but I don't do that because it hurts my verisimilitude.

To use some examples:

My players consider terrain to be cheating as it "always favors the monsters" and want all fights to be in an empty field.

When I ran 3E, I would have my dragons use their spells to buff themselves. I was told that spellcasting is actually there to *weaken* dragons, to have them shoot out magic missiles and fireballs periodically to give the party a break from the dragon's much deadlier physical attacks, and that I was doing it wrong.

One of my players told me that "tanking was impossible" in my game because his strategy of investing near 100% of his wealth and build points into defenses and then putting up a fire shield, and walking towards the monsters while they burn to death rushing him and hoping to score that nat 20 they need to actually hit him.




I just want to take a completely different tack.

There is a world of difference between “talking to your players” and “talking with your players”.
One implies the DM dictating rules for the players to follow. The other implies negotiation and give and take from all parties.

From what I read of Talakeal’s issues with his player group, a lot of it seems to be based on not having shared assumptions. There is a possibility that the players are putting on their best “yes boss, of course boss” face and promptly forgetting everything Talakeal says.

I think getting into the minutiae and fine detail isn’t the best way forward. I think keeping broad brushstrokes and intentions is more important. Whenever I’m trying to get a team to follow my vision I’ve always found focusing on the why and how gets better results than focusing on the what and when.

Just to use a recently discussed example about players not scouting. Talakeal hasn’t been able to explain why his players don’t scout. Some possible explanations.
- They find the scouting minigame boring.
- There are many situations in which scouting has no practical benefit, and overall is slowing down the game (both in real time and in-game where there are ticking clocks)
- they don’t want to split the party.
- non scouting characters have dead time while they wait for the scouts to do their thing.
- the players assume their characters will do basic scouting/observation checks, the same way it can be assumed they on their pants on in the morning, unless they specifically state they are rushing ahead full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes.
One partial solution may be to offer the players the assumption that they are doing basic scouting/observation, but they will get bonuses if they state they are scouting. Just because the players find scouting tedious doesn’t mean the characters are deliberately neglecting it.
Unless you know why the players aren’t scouting you will never find a suitable incentive to get them to scout. Remember that to change somebody else’s behavior, first you have to change your own.

Please be aware, I don't really care about scouting or not; time and resources spent gathering information are not necessarily better than any other method. The problem is that any time the players are surprised, they can accuse me of pulling something out of my butt in order to railroad them.

Heck, they might even be doing this intentionally, even if subconsciously so, refusing to scout because it gives them any easy excuse to blame me for failure.


In my previous group the party's monk (we lacked a dedicated rogue) had excellent stealth skills, but the player couldn't handle the stress of making decisions (even very simple ones like continuing on or turning back to report her findings) on her own, and would literally break down into tears quite frequently.

Likewise, the wizard player rarely ever cast divination spells. He used to say this was because I would give overly cryptic answers that were more stressful than ignorance, and I actually agreed with him and stopped doing that. However, he still doesn't cast divinations, he only changed his rationale for not doing so to "I came here to play an RPG, not 20 questions". I suspect his real reason is that he doesn't like spending spell slots on things without numerical effects, and is very much in the Xykon camp of "Knowledge isn't power, power is power!"

Devils_Advocate
2021-07-19, 12:12 AM
Maybe this is just a misdirection, but it is always phrased as a "Just playing my character;" issue. Its not that the players don't want to engage, its just that they created a rational homebody who would never take incredible risks; adventures are nasty things that tend to make one late for dinner! And I am saying upfront that neither cautious homebodies OR reckless berserkers are appropriate PCs for my game.
I generally feel like when a GM says "Your character's behavior is inappropriate" and a player essentially responds with "Not only that, but I decided to have my character consistently behave in this particular inappropriate fashion", the GM should reply along the lines of "Well, that's not acceptable either, which I'd have thought was obvious".


The PCs (nominally) want to go explore the dungeon.
You nominally want the PCs to go explore the dungeon. And yet you try one thing -- having the players figure something out -- and then, when it doesn't work, give up. You apparently don't say "Um, gang, there are still lots of things that you could try. You don't even have to go through the door to get in; you could go around it several ways. Or maybe you could get that guard to let you in."

If your players won't attempt something that you want them to do because they don't know how to do it, you could just, you know, tell them how to do it. Or, like, at least give some hints. Similarly, if the PCs run away from somewhere you want them to be because the players think that it's way more dangerous than it actually is, you could reassure them that it's not actually all that dangerous.


Anyway, I think a lot of problems in my game arise from the PCs wanting me to play NPCs really dumb, but I don't do that because it hurts my verisimilitude.
Why not have them fight things that are supposed to be dumb? Like, do a monster-hunting campaign. Send waves of mindless skeletons at them. Whatever.

Not everyone plays RPGs in order to engage in clever problem-solving. If that's something that your group doesn't do, for whatever reason, then don't make plans that fall apart if clever problem-solving is not engaged in by said group. Because if you do, then those plans are gonna fall apart.

It has been said that the definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results. I get the impression that you keep trying to run a game to your and your players' agreed-upon specifications, and keep winding up unhappy about how that goes. Maybe it's time to accept that y'all do not actually like the sort of game that you want, and try something different. Maybe stop doing stuff that players complain about, even if it's what they say they want. Or try running a significantly different sort of game, like Wushu or Paranoia or Mouse Guard or whatever. Try stuff other than what you want, if only to get some perspective.

I frankly suspect that you aren't approaching the task of running a fun game with the same sort of thoughtful pragmatism with which you want your players to play their characters. Encouraging you to break out of your rut is in turn me being hypocritical, but never mind that; do as I say, not as I do.

Talakeal
2021-07-19, 11:40 PM
Why not have them fight things that are supposed to be dumb? Like, do a monster-hunting campaign. Send waves of mindless skeletons at them. Whatever.

First, because that limits me to a very small sub set of scenarios I can run, which would get pretty boring fast. Especially when a lot of the "dumb" monsters are things like undead and vermin which players specifically ask not to fight frequently because of IRL phobias.

Second, that means I also have to play the PCs allies as dumb to for the PCs to feel like heroes. For example, if the mindless zombies just shamble around in a field all day and occasionally slowly shamble towards their prey, the local farmers are just going to go out and shoot them from a hundred paces away, and the fact that they haven't done this, and are instead paying a (to them) fortune in gold coins to hire "heroes" to come handle their problems, says some pretty not nice things about their intelligence.

There is a term for it, which I can't remember, where you have a character in fiction do something obvious and pretend like none of the experts had ever thought of it before, and it makes the audience feel really smart. Like the scene in Top Gun where he slows down his plane to get the guy tailing him to overshoot him is treated like a brilliant plan, rather than what is, irl, a fairly basic tactic. Its really hard to pull that over and over again, especially without running into the Elminster problem (the PCs resent a powerful NPC hiring to do something they could do them self with a negligible amount of effort).


You nominally want the PCs to go explore the dungeon. And yet you try one thing -- having the players figure something out -- and then, when it doesn't work, give up. You apparently don't say "Um, gang, there are still lots of things that you could try. You don't even have to go through the door to get in; you could go around it several ways. Or maybe you could get that guard to let you in."

If your players won't attempt something that you want them to do because they don't know how to do it, you could just, you know, tell them how to do it. Or, like, at least give some hints. Similarly, if the PCs run away from somewhere you want them to be because the players think that it's way more dangerous than it actually is, you could reassure them that it's not actually all that dangerous.

Generally this is what happens.

The problem is, normally the players get very bitter and they (rightly or wrongly) consider this to be talking down to them and telling them what to do.
Also, this skirts really close to railroading, which is something I have to try super hard to avoid because my players accuse me of it even when I am not.

Also, do note that the problem is not usually that the players can't actually think of a solution, its that for some reason they assume that all NPCs share my point of view, and that if an NPC went to the trouble of trying to keep the players out, then I as a GM must not want them to go in there.

So, we get into a weird situation where the players get stuck because they assume I am railroading, and the only solution to get them unstuck is to start railroading them.


So, three stories that illustrate this point:

One time, the players found some griffons and wanted to ride them. Now, I will let the SRD say what is required to ride a griffon:

"Although intelligent, a griffon requires training before it can bear a rider in combat. To be trained, a griffon must have a friendly attitude toward the trainer (this can be achieved through a successful Diplomacy check). Training a friendly griffon requires six weeks of work and a DC 25 Handle Animal check. Riding a griffon requires an exotic saddle. A griffon can fight while carrying a rider, but the rider cannot also attack unless he or she succeeds on a Ride check."

Now, the players didn't have six weeks, an exotic saddle, or the handle animal or ride skills. But when I told them this, the players assumed that I was just railroading them and coming up with excuses to shoot down their brilliant idea because it would break my campaign.

Recently, as I mentioned in my other thread, one of the players has been bitching about how I "love to kill PCs and then get mad at the players for dying" despite the fact that there were zero PC fatalities in my previous game.

There were, however, several times when the PCs abandoned an adventure they could have easily finished because they were scared of death, and I gave them some version of the "reassure them its not all that dangerous" speech. Eventually, I just said "HP represents morale rather than meat, if you are out of HP you automatically fall back and regroup" to try and encourage them to go on, but this didn't change their behavior, all it did was, instead of giving up, they would literally lie down in combat and let the monsters beat on them for a "free teleport back to town".

The only thing I can figure out is that me not wanting them to abandon the adventure (accomplished by just lying down and letting the monsters beat on them) was warped in her mind into "killing them and then getting mad at them for dying".

My very first time ever DMing, when I was about eight, was a game of Heroquest for my dad. Now, Heroquest is a dungeon crawling boardgame that is basically "baby's first Dungeons and Dragons". Now, this game only has like five or six PC actions, one of which is "search". My dad kept getting stuck because the dungeon we were in had a lot of secret doors, and he kept forgetting to search for them. When he got stuck, I kept having to remind him to search, and eventually he quit the game because "This game is dumb because I am not making my own decisions, you are just telling me what to do, and you might as well be playing with yourself."

And so, to this day, I have always been a little overly cautious about telling the players what to do when they get stuck.


Not everyone plays RPGs in order to engage in clever problem-solving. If that's something that your group doesn't do, for whatever reason, then don't make plans that fall apart if clever problem-solving is not engaged in by said group. Because if you do, then those plans are gonna fall apart.

That's part of the problem, I don't consider the obstacles I put before them to be particularly clever. Most of them are just "this one thing doesn't work" when an average person off the street could name half a dozen approaches to the problem.

Also, my players, sometimes, DO come up with really clever strategies.


It has been said that the definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results. I get the impression that you keep trying to run a game to your and your players' agreed-upon specifications, and keep winding up unhappy about how that goes. Maybe it's time to accept that y'all do not actually like the sort of game that you want, and try something different. Maybe stop doing stuff that players complain about, even if it's what they say they want. Or try running a significantly different sort of game, like Wushu or Paranoia or Mouse Guard or whatever. Try stuff other than what you want, if only to get some perspective.

Its not that we are unhappy with the game. I know I sound like a battered wife here, but most of the time we really do enjoy the games. Its just that, once every five or six sessions, one player has a really bad time with something, and makes a really unpleasant scene for everyone involved.

If I stopped doing everything they complain about, well, there wouldn't be anything left as at one point or another they have complained about everything; as I said in my previous thread, when players fail they look for something to blame, whether its rational or not, the "light cavalry are cheap" problem.

And getting players to try new games is like pulling teeth; I have been wanting to play The One Ring, Aces and Eights, Skies of Glass, Delta Green, and Exalted for years, but there is never any interest. Likewise, starting a new group, especially for something that isn't D&D or Pathfinder, is all but impossible, generally you can find one or two players who are interested, but never enough for a full group.


I frankly suspect that you aren't approaching the task of running a fun game with the same sort of thoughtful pragmatism with which you want your players to play their characters. Encouraging you to break out of your rut is in turn me being hypocritical, but never mind that; do as I say, not as I do.

Honestly, persistence is exactly what I want to see from my characters, thoughtful or otherwise.

Squire Doodad
2021-07-20, 01:48 AM
Yeah, the whole "hardcore" bit was really just to illustrate the possible difference between what you run and what your players want - generally I'd lean more towards your style, but I've had plenty of tables who just want to go slaughter a goblin tribe or whatever and not think.(I believe your previous thread had someone say their table spent a fight looking for a "bendy tree to turn into a catapult" and something about juggling axes? So it may not even be difficulty but lack of nonsense)

At a glance, if a group has multiple people who are actively looking for overly silly or cartoony solutions to things, it might be a good idea to let that happen (in moderation), and maybe run a more light-hearted campaign. Let creative solutions to things that sound plausible slide for the most part, even if they're not a bullseye on what you were trying to get them to do.

Some people don't like grim and gritty environments, some people do enjoy being able to play with the world like it's Looney Tunes.
There are systems meant for this, but also just running a less serious campaign can have the desired effect.


First, because that limits me to a very small sub set of scenarios I can run, which would get pretty boring fast. Especially when a lot of the "dumb" monsters are things like undead and vermin which players specifically ask not to fight frequently because of IRL phobias.

Second, that means I also have to play the PCs allies as dumb to for the PCs to feel like heroes. For example, if the mindless zombies just shamble around in a field all day and occasionally slowly shamble towards their prey, the local farmers are just going to go out and shoot them from a hundred paces away, and the fact that they haven't done this, and are instead paying a (to them) fortune in gold coins to hire "heroes" to come handle their problems, says some pretty not nice things about their intelligence.

Maybe zombies scare the wits out of farmers, who they can beat in a few rounds if they get close. Or perhaps shooting all of them takes a lot of time, or a farmer isn't a good shot and would probably have the zombie within arms reach before they land enough hits, and so on. Remember, players live and die. NPC characters, much like real life people, only live once, and they have families to feed, widows they'd leave, and other things they hold dear.
Thus, they'd rather hire adventurers to clear out a particularly big infestation than risk their own heads. A handful of zombies disconnected from a necromancer's horde? They round up a few locals to take them down. A host of two score spread across their land, with half a dozen CR3 undead on top of it? You have to bring in the professionals.

They might even see hiring adventurers for twice the cost of ammo needed to do it themselves as a discount relative to the cost of a Raise Dead spell.

Talakeal
2021-07-20, 02:18 AM
Maybe zombies scare the wits out of farmers, who they can beat in a few rounds if they get close. Or perhaps shooting all of them takes a lot of time, or a farmer isn't a good shot and would probably have the zombie within arms reach before they land enough hits, and so on. Remember, players live and die. NPC characters, much like real life people, only live once, and they have families to feed, widows they'd leave, and other things they hold dear.
Thus, they'd rather hire adventurers to clear out a particularly big infestation than risk their own heads. A handful of zombies disconnected from a necromancer's horde? They round up a few locals to take them down. A host of two score spread across their land, with half a dozen CR3 undead on top of it? You have to bring in the professionals.

They might even see hiring adventurers for twice the cost of ammo needed to do it themselves as a discount relative to the cost of a Raise Dead spell.

Keep in mind though, the zombies in this scenario are literally brainless. Simply standing behind a fence or on a roof will keep you safe. Heck, I remember one guy who was able to kill a large group of zombies by just digging a pit and standing on the far side of it, then getting their attention and waiting for them to fall in.

The PCs want enemies who are dumb enough for plans which an average person would think up to render them helpless.

Edit: That’s kind of an insufficient response, I will elaborate later.

icefractal
2021-07-20, 04:14 AM
In this case, there are 4-6 players, all of whom are adults with college degrees and / or jobs, over a century of gaming experience between them, and most of them claiming to be certified geniuses; and you are seriously telling me that not one of them can think of any alternate ways that one would even attempt to open a locked door?I didn't know that, and I think it may explain some of their behavior.

Situation: Player claims to be a genius (and believes it), but isn't really (or at least, not in the field of TTRPGs). They come up with a plan, like "stand on the other side of a pit so the enemies fall in", and assume that it will work, because after all - they're a genius. Therefore their plans are always excellent, QED.
Result: It doesn't work, and in a way that reveals it wasn't particularly cunning.

Options:
A) Admit (even to themselves) that maybe they aren't a genius, and/or that being a genius in one field doesn't make you an expert in everything. Unacceptable
B) Justify it as a mental mis-step. Somewhat acceptable, but if this happens too often it stops being credible, and it doesn't give them a target for their anger.
C) Assert that it was a genius plan, it was just foiled by the evil Talakeal using cheating and railroading to prevent it from working.

Offering advice doesn't help, because if they take advice from you (who has never even claimed to be a genius), and it works, and their plan didn't ... maybe they aren't smarter than you? Unacceptable

I mean, I don't know your players, maybe they really are "certified geniuses". All I can say is that every time I've encountered someone claiming that, it spoke more to their ego than to their intelligence.

Talakeal
2021-07-21, 01:40 AM
So to clarify my previous post:

So, the mindless enemies thing wasn't actually from my game; I don't really use truly mindless enemies as the concept doesn't really make a whole lot of sense to me. Still, I have seen other people get into arguments over whether mindless enemies will do basic things like avoiding traps, choosing targets, avoiding AoOs, or flanking that I don't think it would help my game.


The sort of issues I get into my game is that, until they get to high levels, players aren't that much stronger than commoners, and certainly don't have the numbers or resources of an entire town. Yet they want to be established as heroes. In my mind, they are going to need to either be especially brave or especially clever to do this, the problem is that they (usually) aren't; they expect a very basic strategy to render their enemies totally impotent, but if they enemies were that incompetent, surely the townsfolk (or whoever else hired the heroes) could have taken care of the problem on their own; it doesn't take a genius to think of, for example, waiting in a tree with a gun to kill a marauding wolf without putting yourself at risk.


snip.

I think you might be reading to much into. Its not that they go around bragging about their genius (although I have gamed with those sort of people in the past) its just that most of us are rather intelligent and know each other well, and at some point over the years we have gotten into a conversation about our experiences with gifted programs or special education in the past.

Still, yeah, I am very much aware of how people can be a genius in some areas and a total idiot in others.

Satinavian
2021-07-21, 01:52 AM
The sort of issues I get into my game is that, until they get to high levels, players aren't that much stronger than commoners, and certainly don't have the numbers or resources of an entire town. Yet they want to be established as heroes. In my mind, they are going to need to either be especially brave or especially clever to do this, the problem is that they (usually) aren't; they expect a very basic strategy to render their enemies totally impotent, but if they enemies were that incompetent, surely the townsfolk (or whoever else hired the heroes) could have taken care of the problem on their own; it doesn't take a genius to think of, for example, waiting in a tree with a gun to kill a marauding wolf without putting yourself at risk.
If your games has the player characters not much more powerfull than the commoners, how do you ever expect them to achieve much more than commoners ?

"Be more clever than commoners" is not a solution. Players would likely be average people with average part of cleverness which is exactly how you also play the commoners.

There is a reason so many games give PCs a lot of mechanical power. It is fundamentally needed to grow beyond average.

Talakeal
2021-07-21, 02:08 AM
If your games has the player characters not much more powerfull than the commoners, how do you ever expect them to achieve much more than commoners ?

"Be more clever than commoners" is not a solution. Players would likely be average people with average part of cleverness which is exactly how you also play the commoners.

There is a reason so many games give PCs a lot of mechanical power. It is fundamentally needed to grow beyond average.

Typically by taking risks.

Batcathat
2021-07-21, 02:13 AM
Typically by taking risks.

Playing a game where you have to take risks with what seems like extremely risk-averse players seems like a poor combintation.

Talakeal
2021-07-21, 02:26 AM
Playing a game where you have to take risks with what seems like extremely risk-averse players seems like a poor combintation.

Indeed it is. Thus the paradox.

Players want to be treated like heroes, but don’t want to be either clever or brave enough to warrant that title, and also don’t want to simply start at higher level.

Satinavian
2021-07-21, 02:30 AM
Risk taking only helps you getting into fights not winning them.

If you are not more powerful than a typical commoner and not way smarter than a typical commoner you would not win more than a typical commoner would. Which means that all the enemies you can reliably beat are those that the commoners could handle as well if they were inclined to give it a try.


Just forget the "brave and clever" thing. It won't ever happen. Making at a requirement for success will only lead to bitterness at the table. The players will be bitter because they can't get anywhere they want, you will be bitter because all the climatic battles you prepare never unfold that way.

Talakeal
2021-07-21, 02:45 AM
Risk taking only helps you getting into fights not winning them.

If you are not more powerful than a typical commoner and not way smarter than a typical commoner you would not win more than a typical commoner would. Which means that all the enemies you can reliably beat are those that the commoners could handle as well if they were inclined to give it a try.


I could quibble about numbers and degrees, but in essence, yes. Being a low level adventurer is very dangerous, if it weren't everyone would do it and the idea of being a hero wouldn't be special.


Just forget the "brave and clever" thing. It won't ever happen. Making at a requirement for success will only lead to bitterness at the table. The players will be bitter because they can't get anywhere they want, you will be bitter because all the climatic battles you prepare never unfold that way.

But it does happen. It happens all the bloody time.

Virtually every game I have ever played in has revolved around that premise. Occasionally you get a cowardly homebody PC or a reckless jackass who endangers the party, but that is definitely a minority. It just so happened to be a big problem in my last campaign because the party included 2 of each, which is an anomaly I don't think I have ever seen before or likely will ever see again.


Its not like this is some weird requirement I invented whole cloth or an artifact of my gaming style or rule-set. If I were to run a totally generic by the book game of D&D using only pre-written modules, you would find the exact same issue; starting characters are not significantly more powerful than commoners, the PCs are expected to take risks, and the odds of surviving to mid-level where you are a bit more durable are not especially great.

Satinavian
2021-07-21, 03:35 AM
I still don't think requiring players to earn their special "Hero"-rating through bravery, not character abilities is too hard for most groups. For that to work you would need players that are on board with meatgrinder gameplay and don't care about all the times the risks taken prove to be too much. But generally those are not the kind of players who are invested in their characters and want those to become heroes.



It just so happened to be a big problem in my last campaign because the party included 2 of each, which is an anomaly I don't think I have ever seen before or likely will ever see again.
You know, i think that is actually the first time you explicitely said that.
Before, you always complained about your players being too cautious and being too reckless in the next scene. And no one could imagie what your table looked like.

But if you have both cautious and reckless players at the same table and sometimes one or the other gets their way, we can way better understand why and how hthings are as they are.

But... you are starting a new table with mostly new players (aside from 2). Do you have any idea how those are inclined ?

Anyway, stop talking about "your players" as a coherent group when you actually are only talking about a subset of them. That makes it easier to understand what is actually going on.

NichG
2021-07-21, 04:14 AM
I could quibble about numbers and degrees, but in essence, yes. Being a low level adventurer is very dangerous, if it weren't everyone would do it and the idea of being a hero wouldn't be special.

But it does happen. It happens all the bloody time.

Virtually every game I have ever played in has revolved around that premise. Occasionally you get a cowardly homebody PC or a reckless jackass who endangers the party, but that is definitely a minority. It just so happened to be a big problem in my last campaign because the party included 2 of each, which is an anomaly I don't think I have ever seen before or likely will ever see again.

Its not like this is some weird requirement I invented whole cloth or an artifact of my gaming style or rule-set. If I were to run a totally generic by the book game of D&D using only pre-written modules, you would find the exact same issue; starting characters are not significantly more powerful than commoners, the PCs are expected to take risks, and the odds of surviving to mid-level where you are a bit more durable are not especially great.

On the contrary, if 'starting characters are not significantly more powerful than commoners' and 'the odds of surviving to mid-level where you are a bit more durable are not especially great' then that directly motivates NOT taking risks. Taking risks is the opposite of the natural response to those factors.

In 1ed D&D, the designers might have expected players to rush forward and get killed by a single thrown spear by a kobold, or by touching poisonous moss, or by bees, or any number of things like that. But the characteristic playstyle that emerged as a response is all of the things that are the opposite of being brave: getting hirelings as soon as possible and having them act as a troop screen while the PCs sit behind the screen and pick stuff off with slings, avoiding fights entirely if possible and trying to take advantage of 'gold for xp' to jump over the first levels on a single character while using other characters in a stable as throwaways, using a 10ft pole to constantly search for traps, etc.

Talakeal
2021-07-21, 04:16 AM
I still don't think requiring players to earn their special "Hero"-rating through bravery, not character abilities is too hard for most groups. For that to work you would need players that are on board with meatgrinder gameplay and don't care about all the times the risks taken prove to be too much. But generally those are not the kind of players who are invested in their characters and want those to become heroes.

I probably shouldn't have mentioned PC death in my last post.

To clarify, I am not interested in meat grinder games either, and I am more talking about the in character perception of danger rather than an actual likelihood of PC death.

For the low level character, battling an owl-bear or a band of orcs is a terrifying life or death conflict, for the players its just another CR appropriate encounter with a minuscule chance of player death.


You know, i think that is actually the first time you explicitely said that.
Before, you always complained about your players being too cautious and being too reckless in the next scene. And no one could imagie what your table looked like.

But if you have both cautious and reckless players at the same table and sometimes one or the other gets their way, we can way better understand why and how hthings are as they are.

But... you are starting a new table with mostly new players (aside from 2). Do you have any idea how those are inclined ?

Anyway, stop talking about "your players" as a coherent group when you actually are only talking about a subset of them. That makes it easier to understand what is actually going on.

I doubt its the first time, but its not really relevant, as most of the time the group as a whole went along with the cautious characters; if there is already any question about whether or not the party will continue, two of the five members turning around and going home means that the remaining three accompany them or face almost certain defeat.

But no, only one of the players is getting replaced right now, not 3/5.

For the record, I had five PCs in my last group:

Annabul; who was reckless to the point of disruption and frequently got the other players in trouble. He was a new player and will not be returning.
Liam; who was pretty middle of the road and generally went along with the group, although he had conflicts with Lucia. Portrayed by a new player who will be returning.
Liquade; who was very cautious and eager to return home after every encounter. Portrayed by a new player who will be returning.
Lina; slightly cautious but mostly just arrogant, would assume her plans couldn't fail, and when they did she would get mad at me OOC, pout, and want to go home. Old player who will be returning.
Lucia; slightly on the reckless side, although generally went along with the party. The player has, in the past, often been the overly cautious guy and was overcompensating a bit here. Old player who will be returning.


On the contrary, if 'starting characters are not significantly more powerful than commoners' and 'the odds of surviving to mid-level where you are a bit more durable are not especially great' then that directly motivates NOT taking risks. Taking risks is the opposite of the natural response to those factors.

In 1ed D&D, the designers might have expected players to rush forward and get killed by a single thrown spear by a kobold, or by touching poisonous moss, or by bees, or any number of things like that. But the characteristic playstyle that emerged as a response is all of the things that are the opposite of being brave: getting hirelings as soon as possible and having them act as a troop screen while the PCs sit behind the screen and pick stuff off with slings, avoiding fights entirely if possible and trying to take advantage of 'gold for xp' to jump over the first levels on a single character while using other characters in a stable as throwaways, using a 10ft pole to constantly search for traps, etc.

Right; but they are still going on the adventure.

This is exactly the sort of behavior I would encourage (although the above examples might be a bit overboard); brave enough to explore the dungeon, but smart enough to minimize your risks while doing so.

NichG
2021-07-21, 05:18 AM
Right; but they are still going on the adventure.

This is exactly the sort of behavior I would encourage (although the above examples might be a bit overboard); brave enough to explore the dungeon, but smart enough to minimize your risks while doing so.

I imagine that treating the lives of hirelings as expendable in order to reduce risk to themselves would go against the sort of ideal PC that you've said you want though.

Or, for example, redirecting a river into a killer bee hive dungeon or smoking it out in order to clear it rather than going inside and actually taking risks of being in combat with the bees.

Cluedrew
2021-07-21, 05:39 AM
For the low level character, battling an owl-bear or a band of orcs is a terrifying life or death conflict, for the players its just another CR appropriate encounter with a minuscule chance of player death.But those two things don't match. I mean they don't have to match exactly, but to me I feel going from a mechanically trivial encounter to a narratively "terrifying life or death conflict" is just too big of a gap. Maybe I'm just a crazy person ranting about how system matters, but there you have it.

Morgaln
2021-07-21, 06:07 AM
I could quibble about numbers and degrees, but in essence, yes. Being a low level adventurer is very dangerous, if it weren't everyone would do it and the idea of being a hero wouldn't be special.



But it does happen. It happens all the bloody time.

Virtually every game I have ever played in has revolved around that premise. Occasionally you get a cowardly homebody PC or a reckless jackass who endangers the party, but that is definitely a minority. It just so happened to be a big problem in my last campaign because the party included 2 of each, which is an anomaly I don't think I have ever seen before or likely will ever see again.


Its not like this is some weird requirement I invented whole cloth or an artifact of my gaming style or rule-set. If I were to run a totally generic by the book game of D&D using only pre-written modules, you would find the exact same issue; starting characters are not significantly more powerful than commoners, the PCs are expected to take risks, and the odds of surviving to mid-level where you are a bit more durable are not especially great.

I'm curious; how do you define the terms "adventurer" and "hero" and are they synonymous for you? Do your players share those definitions?


To illustrate what I'm getting at:

First of all, I'd define an adventurer as someone for whom travelling and exploring is a major part of their story.

The classic Greek hero (Achilles, Herakles, Theseus, Perseus, Iason...) is first and foremost a better fighter than everyone else. Being a hero is defined through physical prowess. That means strength, speed, athletics. The stronger hero is the greater hero. Being cunning specifically doesn't figure into it; in fact, Odysseus is considered less of a hero by the other Greeks because he is clever and willing to use that over his physical attributes. Greek heros also aren't nice guys; Achilles can be quite a jerk in the Illiad, and he's got nothing on Agamemnon. So social skills don't figure into being a hero either. Greek heroes aren't held to a high moral standard either. Herakles accidentally kills a child by slapping him too hard. It's pretty much glossed over and doesn't affect his standing as a hero. Perseus petrifies Atlas just because he refuses to invite Perseus into his palace. Odysseus kills all the suitors to his wife even though they had good reason to think he was dead. He doesn't even give them the chance to leave, he ambushes and slaughters them before they even know he has returned. On the other hand, a Greek hero doesn't avoid battle; a hero that doesn't want to fight or is afraid of an opponent is scorned.
Most of these heroes, I would also classify as adventurers, since setting out to travel somewhere to perform heroic feats is often a major part of their stories (most of the heroes of the Illiad, except Odysseus, are somewhat exempt from this)

Contrast to Lord of the Rings. LotR heroes are similar to classical Greek heroes but tempered by modern values. Characters like Aragorn, Boromir, Theoden or Faramir are heroes that show great prowess in battle, but that's not what makes them heroes. A lot of their hero status comes from being descendants from heroic lineages. They are great men because they were born as great men (note that in the books, that does include Denethor). But more importantly, they are heroes because they are willing to stand against Sauron despite the very real chance of death and defeat.
Now you can also call the hobbits heroes; arguably, when they set out on their journey, they don't know what they are getting into. But when push comes to shove, they are willing to see things through. Frodo already has that moment when he volunteers to carry the ring to Mount Doom, Sam gets it when he thinks Frodo is dead and Merry and Pippin show their willingness when they swear fealty to Theoden and Denethor, respectively. Note that a major part of LotR actually involves the party fleeing from or avoiding enemies they cannot defeat, especially in the first part (the barrow wights, the wargs blocking the way through Rohan, Khazad-Dum, multiple encounters with orcs, the list goes on). They aren't considered any less heroic for that.
All of them are specifically adventurers, since the quest/travelling is a major part of their story.

I'll add to this my personal definition of hero. A hero, to me, is someone who will do what is right even at personal cost to himself. He's someone who is willing to stand between danger and those it threatens, even if he could just walk away and ignore it at no threat to himself. In other words, heroism for me is a mindset, based purely on morality. I'm also a sucker for martyrs and stories where the hero lays down his life to protect innocents. It's therefore no surprise to me that Werewolf: the Apocalypse is the gae I've stuck with for longer than any other, since the setting is specifically designed to tell that kind of story.
This definition is of course completely divorced from being an adventurer. That kind of heroic doesn't ever require the character to set a single foot out of their home town.


Sorry for the rather long treatise, but here's my point: I get the impression that your players want to be heroes similar to the ancient Greek definition. They want to slay monsters, get magic items and be applauded for their glorious feats by awestruck commoners wherever they travel.
You, however, envision them more like the companions from LotR, carefully planning the best route and what risks to take, while willing to run when things threaten to overwhelm them.

Do you think that is an apt comparison?

Talakeal
2021-07-21, 07:12 AM
I imagine that treating the lives of hirelings as expendable in order to reduce risk to themselves would go against the sort of ideal PC that you've said you want though.

Or, for example, redirecting a river into a killer bee hive dungeon or smoking it out in order to clear it rather than going inside and actually taking risks of being in combat with the bees.

Eh, I don't really care if the players want to be evil, although usually at least one of them won't have the stomach for such activities.

I would honestly be more concerned about the logistics here; how low level PCs are able to find people willing to work as human shields for an affordable price and how they are getting them all to the dungeon, and how they are managing to maintain the element of surprise with such tactics.

The bee thing sounds neat, but in practice is probably a lot easier said than done.


But those two things don't match. I mean they don't have to match exactly, but to me I feel going from a mechanically trivial encounter to a narratively "terrifying life or death conflict" is just too big of a gap. Maybe I'm just a crazy person ranting about how system matters, but there you have it.

That's a whole different kettle of worms.

Most modern RPGs have some sort of meta-narrative ability to keep PCs alive, I know mine does, and even old school D&D had constantly escalating hit points allowing people to survive all sorts of wackiness that should kill them several times over.

Personally I look at it as a sort of retroactive survivor bias; you are unlikely to tell stories about people who didn't survive, and so the mechanics of the game are built to only showcase successful adventurers whose stories are worth exploring.


I'm curious; how do you define the terms "adventurer" and "hero" and are they synonymous for you? Do your players share those definitions?


To illustrate what I'm getting at:

First of all, I'd define an adventurer as someone for whom travelling and exploring is a major part of their story.

The classic Greek hero (Achilles, Herakles, Theseus, Perseus, Iason...) is first and foremost a better fighter than everyone else. Being a hero is defined through physical prowess. That means strength, speed, athletics. The stronger hero is the greater hero. Being cunning specifically doesn't figure into it; in fact, Odysseus is considered less of a hero by the other Greeks because he is clever and willing to use that over his physical attributes. Greek heros also aren't nice guys; Achilles can be quite a jerk in the Illiad, and he's got nothing on Agamemnon. So social skills don't figure into being a hero either. Greek heroes aren't held to a high moral standard either. Herakles accidentally kills a child by slapping him too hard. It's pretty much glossed over and doesn't affect his standing as a hero. Perseus petrifies Atlas just because he refuses to invite Perseus into his palace. Odysseus kills all the suitors to his wife even though they had good reason to think he was dead. He doesn't even give them the chance to leave, he ambushes and slaughters them before they even know he has returned. On the other hand, a Greek hero doesn't avoid battle; a hero that doesn't want to fight or is afraid of an opponent is scorned.
Most of these heroes, I would also classify as adventurers, since setting out to travel somewhere to perform heroic feats is often a major part of their stories (most of the heroes of the Illiad, except Odysseus, are somewhat exempt from this)

Contrast to Lord of the Rings. LotR heroes are similar to classical Greek heroes but tempered by modern values. Characters like Aragorn, Boromir, Theoden or Faramir are heroes that show great prowess in battle, but that's not what makes them heroes. A lot of their hero status comes from being descendants from heroic lineages. They are great men because they were born as great men (note that in the books, that does include Denethor). But more importantly, they are heroes because they are willing to stand against Sauron despite the very real chance of death and defeat.
Now you can also call the hobbits heroes; arguably, when they set out on their journey, they don't know what they are getting into. But when push comes to shove, they are willing to see things through. Frodo already has that moment when he volunteers to carry the ring to Mount Doom, Sam gets it when he thinks Frodo is dead and Merry and Pippin show their willingness when they swear fealty to Theoden and Denethor, respectively. Note that a major part of LotR actually involves the party fleeing from or avoiding enemies they cannot defeat, especially in the first part (the barrow wights, the wargs blocking the way through Rohan, Khazad-Dum, multiple encounters with orcs, the list goes on). They aren't considered any less heroic for that.
All of them are specifically adventurers, since the quest/travelling is a major part of their story.

I'll add to this my personal definition of hero. A hero, to me, is someone who will do what is right even at personal cost to himself. He's someone who is willing to stand between danger and those it threatens, even if he could just walk away and ignore it at no threat to himself. In other words, heroism for me is a mindset, based purely on morality. I'm also a sucker for martyrs and stories where the hero lays down his life to protect innocents. It's therefore no surprise to me that Werewolf: the Apocalypse is the game I've stuck with for longer than any other, since the setting is specifically designed to tell that kind of story.
This definition is of course completely divorced from being an adventurer. That kind of heroic doesn't ever require the character to set a single foot out of their home town.


Sorry for the rather long treatise, but here's my point: I get the impression that your players want to be heroes similar to the ancient Greek definition. They want to slay monsters, get magic items and be applauded for their glorious feats by awestruck commoners wherever they travel.
You, however, envision them more like the companions from LotR, carefully planning the best route and what risks to take, while willing to run when things threaten to overwhelm them.

Do you think that is an apt comparison?

No, hero and adventurer are not synonyms, although they are similar enough that I often use them interchangeably in casual conversation.

I personally agree with your definitions and pretty much with everything you have said here, including likely speculation as to my PCs motives, although I am not a mind-reading nor are they unified in their own tastes and opinions.

NichG
2021-07-21, 07:53 AM
Eh, I don't really care if the players want to be evil, although usually at least one of them won't have the stomach for such activities.

I would honestly be more concerned about the logistics here; how low level PCs are able to find people willing to work as human shields for an affordable price and how they are getting them all to the dungeon, and how they are managing to maintain the element of surprise with such tactics.

The bee thing sounds neat, but in practice is probably a lot easier said than done.


So the river thing isn't a by-the-book example, but 1ed D&D has specific rules for hirelings and its basically just a roll in any settlement to see if you can find some conscripts, modifiers based on whether you have a reputation for getting your conscripts killed, etc. Those factors are all quite controllable. As for the element of surprise, at low levels its not really worth trying to maintain since miss rates are high enough that a single surprise round buys you a lot less than having e.g. 10-20 more people rolling for those hits each round (people who don't really have a significantly different THAC0 than the party's fighter at 1st level and who aren't going to be doing any less damage).

That's the thing - there's a big separation between the fictional influences and what practically works. If you expect people to be brave because the fiction is filled with characters who are expressing bravery, that expectation is likely to be thwarted if there are ways to get through those same situations without any risk at all.

KorvinStarmast
2021-07-21, 08:50 AM
For the low level character, battling an owl-bear or a band of orcs is a terrifying life or death conflict, for the players its just another CR appropriate encounter with a minuscule chance of player death. Orcs can nova damage rather quickly, and can chase down anyone fleeing. Not sure what "low level" means to you, and the deadliness of an encounter can be dialed up or down by the DM.

This is ebrave enough to explore the dungeon, but smart enough to minimize your risks while doing so. That's how an adventurer gets past levels 1 and 2. :smallbiggrin:


Or, for example, redirecting a river into a killer bee hive dungeon or smoking it out in order to clear it rather than going inside and actually taking risks of being in combat with the bees. That's smart, old school D&D play and I've seen similarly clever stuff from some of my players in the current edition.

First of all, I'd define an adventurer as someone for whom travelling and exploring is a major part of their story. That fits my mental model as well.

{snip meditation on heroes, Greek and otherwise}
Nice. :smallsmile:

I'll add to this my personal definition of hero. A hero, to me, is someone who will do what is right even at personal cost to himself. He's someone who is willing to stand between danger and those it threatens, even if he could just walk away and ignore it at no threat to himself. In other words, heroism for me is a mindset, based purely on morality.
I with you as far as the last comma, and then you lost me. I see it similarly, but I'd phrase my view on it as something like this:
Heroism is the outcome of a mindset where you do things for the benefit of others even when it places you at great personal risk. Anyway, that's my head canon.


So the river thing isn't a by-the-book example, but 1ed D&D has specific rules for hirelings and its basically just a roll in any settlement to see if you can find some conscripts, modifiers based on whether you have a reputation for getting your conscripts killed, etc. Those factors are all quite controllable. As for the element of surprise You and I had different experiences it seems. We found, particularly in the AD&D 1e games where the number of surprise segments rule was enforced (only some DMs did this) that surprise was a significant force multiplier in both directions.
I tend to agree with you on the hireling thing: adding a bunch of attack rolls was somewhat helpful, but it came with a price.

quinron
2021-07-21, 09:43 AM
To Talakeal, because I don't know if this has been discussed (at least here):

You've complained (understandably) about long-term players telling new players that your games are very hard and totally unfair to them. You've also complained (rightly) about players throwing tantrums and objects when things go badly, as well as about people just walking away from the table because they're not happy with the game.

Are the latter, unacceptable behaviors coming from new players or long-term players?

Talakeal
2021-07-21, 09:11 PM
So I talked to one of my players, and he basically said it is up to the DM to provide a hook that is too big to ignore as the only rational explanation for how anyone ever becomes an adventurer is that some incredibly lucrative deal falls into their hands by chance, for example stumbling upon a lost treasure map or the like, as he couldn't conceive of any situation where someone would take a risk to strike it rich or where ordinary people wouldn't have already completed the quest them self.

So yeah, very different view of how the game world works, and again it plays into the weird mentality that the players are just the DMs helpless pawns.


To Talakeal, because I don't know if this has been discussed (at least here):

You've complained (understandably) about long-term players telling new players that your games are very hard and totally unfair to them. You've also complained (rightly) about players throwing tantrums and objects when things go badly, as well as about people just walking away from the table because they're not happy with the game.

Are the latter, unacceptable behaviors coming from new players or long-term players?

Its mostly the older players, but the newer players started down that path toward the end of the game, which is why I am so concerned that the older player are teaching them bad habits.


Orcs can nova damage rather quickly, and can chase down anyone fleeing. Not sure what "low level" means to you, and the deadliness of an encounter can be dialed up or down by the DM.

Generally I would say low level generally stops around level 4 in D&D, but it varies from game to game.

The fact remains though that the PCs want enemies who pose no threat to them, but if the monsters pose no threat there wouldn't be a place for adventurers in the world, regular people would have long since looted all the dungeons and killed all the low level monsters that could potentially threaten them.


So the river thing isn't a by-the-book example, but 1ed D&D has specific rules for hirelings and its basically just a roll in any settlement to see if you can find some conscripts, modifiers based on whether you have a reputation for getting your conscripts killed, etc. Those factors are all quite controllable. As for the element of surprise, at low levels its not really worth trying to maintain since miss rates are high enough that a single surprise round buys you a lot less than having e.g. 10-20 more people rolling for those hits each round (people who don't really have a significantly different THAC0 than the party's fighter at 1st level and who aren't going to be doing any less damage).

That's the thing - there's a big separation between the fictional influences and what practically works. If you expect people to be brave because the fiction is filled with characters who are expressing bravery, that expectation is likely to be thwarted if there are ways to get through those same situations without any risk at all.


Well, see, to me this goes back to expecting to play the world stupid, and illustrates how low level PCs aren't that much stronger than commoners.

If the hirelings are capable of clearing the dungeon, and willing to risk their lives, they would quickly realize that the PCs are just parasites who take all of the treasure and none of the risk and would soon just start clearing dungeons on their own rather than risking their life for silver pieces a day; much like how in real life you get union strikes and peasant revolts.

Also curious as to how the PCs justify taking XP for this, either in the game layer or the fiction layer, when they aren't actually doing anything to practice their skills except working on their aim with a sling.

When I say surprise, I mean less the literal surprise round, and more the fact that the dungeon's inhabitants would quickly take on a siege mentality and fortify their domain against an invading horde; and suddenly supplies and logistics become the main concern.

KorvinStarmast
2021-07-21, 09:38 PM
how low level PCs aren't that much stronger than commoners.
Commoners have 4 HP.
First level fighter will have 12 HP, typically.

Take a level 1 fighter. Stats as follows. 15 12 13 11 11 11. +1 for regular human.
16 13 14 12 12 12
Put him in chain mail with a shield.
Have him fight three commoners, two with clubs and one with a spear.
They have no armor, they have simple weapons proficiency.
Run that fight three times.
Share the results.

Commoner
Medium humanoid (any race), any alignment
Armor Class 10
Hit Points 4 (1d8)
Speed 30 ft.
STR 10 (+0) DEX 10 (+0) CON 10 (+0) INT 10 (+0) WIS 10 (+0) CHA 10 (+0)
Senses passive Perception 10
Languages any one language (usually Common)
Challenge 0 (10 XP)
Actions
Club. Melee Weapon Attack: +2 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: (1d4) bludgeoning damage.
Do the same thing, but give them short bows and Fighter a long bow.

quinron
2021-07-21, 10:01 PM
Its mostly the older players, but the newer players started down that path toward the end of the game, which is why I am so concerned that the older player are teaching them bad habits.

Then it sounds like you're playing with people who don't enjoy playing with you, and based on your previous statements that the GM tends to catch attitude and abuse regardless of who's in that role, it sounds like they don't really like playing with each other that much. Since you say you've been playing together for a long time, I assume you guys are all friends away from the table as well; it may be that you've all developed a group dynamic where they feel comfortable getting on your and each other's cases, but they don't take you seriously when you have real complaints. I'd recommend you take a break from gaming together and try to find them a new GM to play with while you run a game for some new folks; now would be the time to do that, since you seem to be on hiatus. New players could give you some clearer ideas of what the actual problems in your game are (though bear in mind you'll have to be open to the idea that what your players complain about actually are problems for your game), and playing with relative strangers will either show your players that their behavior is unacceptable if they keep doing it at the new table, or if they're better behaved around relative strangers, some time acting like that could serve to build positive habits that would remain when/if you all get back together.

Talakeal
2021-07-21, 11:13 PM
Then it sounds like you're playing with people who don't enjoy playing with you, and based on your previous statements that the GM tends to catch attitude and abuse regardless of who's in that role, it sounds like they don't really like playing with each other that much. Since you say you've been playing together for a long time, I assume you guys are all friends away from the table as well; it may be that you've all developed a group dynamic where they feel comfortable getting on your and each other's cases, but they don't take you seriously when you have real complaints. I'd recommend you take a break from gaming together and try to find them a new GM to play with while you run a game for some new folks; now would be the time to do that, since you seem to be on hiatus. New players could give you some clearer ideas of what the actual problems in your game are (though bear in mind you'll have to be open to the idea that what your players complain about actually are problems for your game), and playing with relative strangers will either show your players that their behavior is unacceptable if they keep doing it at the new table, or if they're better behaved around relative strangers, some time acting like that could serve to build positive habits that would remain when/if you all get back together.

I would absolutely love to run for a new group. I don't have the foggiest idea how to actually go about finding players to do so.


Commoners have 4 HP.
First level fighter will have 12 HP, typically.

Take a level 1 fighter. Stats as follows. 15 12 13 11 11 11. +1 for regular human.
16 13 14 12 12 12
Put him in chain mail with a shield.
Have him fight three commoners, two with clubs and one with a spear.
They have no armor, they have simple weapons proficiency.
Run that fight three times.
Share the results.

Do the same thing, but give them short bows and Fighter a long bow.

Geeze, 5E does commoners dirty; even a goblin would stomp all over that guy.

Yeah, it would be a tough fight; I imagine the optimal move for the commoners would be to ask for help from the town guard, who are each pretty close to an even match for said fighter.

But yeah, replace "commoner" up thread with "townsfolk"; my point was that regular people are more than capable of handling the same problems as low level PCs; warriors, guards, scouts, thugs, cultists, acolytes, all have comparable stats.

NichG
2021-07-22, 02:25 AM
Well, see, to me this goes back to expecting to play the world stupid, and illustrates how low level PCs aren't that much stronger than commoners.

If the hirelings are capable of clearing the dungeon, and willing to risk their lives, they would quickly realize that the PCs are just parasites who take all of the treasure and none of the risk and would soon just start clearing dungeons on their own rather than risking their life for silver pieces a day; much like how in real life you get union strikes and peasant revolts.


Why do non-commissioned soldiers serve in a military when collectively they have more strength and power than the set of all their commanding officers? And also remember to consider that in the context of the level of social development of the kind of era presented by D&D as opposed to the modern world. PCs are the ones with the map, the ship, the seed funding, the social standing to be permitted to seize dungeon treasures, the military commission to be allowed by society to organize a retinue of soldiers, the ones who have already gathered enough military strength to safely manage to go town to town recruiting, etc - take your pick.

Or game mechanically, PCs are the ones with high enough Charisma scores to have maximum hireling cap high enough to pull things off. Note that you can hire Lieutenants and the like who can themselves have hirelings under them, but that's actually a distinct hire with a much higher pay grade. By default the kind of baseline hireling you can get is unable to actually support other hirelings under them - by the book, they are actually 'stupid' and lack the skill or knowledge to organize each-other in the same way that the wizard is 'stupid' and doesn't know how to correctly use some weapons or that the fighter is 'stupid' and literally cannot be stealthy or listen for noise since those things are explicitly 'thief skills'.



Also curious as to how the PCs justify taking XP for this, either in the game layer or the fiction layer, when they aren't actually doing anything to practice their skills except working on their aim with a sling.


In 1ed, if someone goes into a dungeon, pulls out 10000gp, and you ambush them at the entrance, take it from them, and take it back to town then you get the exact same XP as if you went into the dungeon and got the 10000gp yourself. XP is a meta currency that indicates career progress. To the extent that it exists in the fiction layer, it seems to be more about holding true to your alignment than actually practicing things. Though classes get bonus XP for doing their stuff - wizards for learning spells, etc - its much smaller than XP from treasure, and iirc you lose all XP in a session if you violate your alignment that session. So XP is something like 'the heavens shine on you for earning a win for your cosmic team, by hook or by crook'. Also note, I am by no means suggesting '1ed is a good role model to follow', I'm saying that holding some idea in your head about the fiction layer from stories you've read or ways you think about the world can really really end up being disjoint from what a given game actually calls for.


When I say surprise, I mean less the literal surprise round, and more the fact that the dungeon's inhabitants would quickly take on a siege mentality and fortify their domain against an invading horde; and suddenly supplies and logistics become the main concern.

If that's going to happen it'll happen regardless once you breach the first chokepoint. This is an example of holding some idea from the fiction layer as being more important than the actual way things play out and trying to force it. If you tried to play 1ed by imitating what works in real life, you'll die horribly. If you play it based on what works in 1ed, it becomes relatively survivable.

Talakeal
2021-07-22, 03:18 AM
Why do non-commissioned soldiers serve in a military when collectively they have more strength and power than the set of all their commanding officers? And also remember to consider that in the context of the level of social development of the kind of era presented by D&D as opposed to the modern world. PCs are the ones with the map, the ship, the seed funding, the social standing to be permitted to seize dungeon treasures, the military commission to be allowed by society to organize a retinue of soldiers, the ones who have already gathered enough military strength to safely manage to go town to town recruiting, etc - take your pick.

Those are all possibilities, but they are hardly the default assumption. But again, that goes back to what my player was saying, that most PCs simply won't adventure unless the GM presents them with an offer that is too good to pass up.

NichG
2021-07-22, 03:49 AM
Those are all possibilities, but they are hardly the default assumption. But again, that goes back to what my player was saying, that most PCs simply won't adventure unless the GM presents them with an offer that is too good to pass up.

I mean, the 'default assumption' is that the rules say you can do it so you can do it, and its on you to either live with the narrative dissonance or figure out an explanation...

But anyhow, why not just give the PCs an offer that is too good to pass up? Or even just do narrative fast forward - 'Okay, you pass up that option. Forty years pass, what's your next character?' or just go with it 'Okay, you stay in town, see you in three sessions.'

Morgaln
2021-07-22, 04:59 AM
So I talked to one of my players, and he basically said it is up to the DM to provide a hook that is too big to ignore as the only rational explanation for how anyone ever becomes an adventurer is that some incredibly lucrative deal falls into their hands by chance, for example stumbling upon a lost treasure map or the like, as he couldn't conceive of any situation where someone would take a risk to strike it rich or where ordinary people wouldn't have already completed the quest them self.

So yeah, very different view of how the game world works, and again it plays into the weird mentality that the players are just the DMs helpless pawns.


I wish I could talk with that person directly to try and understand their thought processes better. Is he separating character and player here? In other words, if you asked him "do you want your character to go out and have adventures," what would he answer? Is he really unable to think of motivation that comes from within the character or their backstory? Or is he, the player, not interested in engaging with the game you provide and is projecting that need of an incentive on the character?

Your player does have a point to an extent. Choosing to go on an adventure is something of a risk-reward assessment, at least if you're in it for wealth and/or power. Your players perceive your world as incredibly deadly (whether that is true or not), and the reward needs to be suitably high to risk that danger.

Both player and GM can work on fixing that issue; the trick is to provide motivation beyond "getting rich and powerful".
A simple but powerful tool that can be used by the player is curiosity. My characters, regardless of who they are, are always curious to some extent. They want to know what is happening; they want to see what is in a place. It is a reason for the character to say "I probably shouldn't but..." The player can also come up with motivations that change the risk assessment. If it is important for the character to keep his village safe, a threat to the area can be motivation to work actively against that threat. If the character's younger sister needs regular doses of expensive medicine, they might not have time to wait for the most lucrative offer. If the character's grandfather has vanished during adventuring many years ago, any place might hold the clue to find him. The common denominator is, the player must want their character to have adventures, and the character must be more than just a bunch of numbers on a piece of paper.

As a GM, you are a bit more limited. An easy way is to establish that the players are members of a group with a strict hierarchy (e. g. a military branch or mercenary group), meaning there's someone that can order them to go somewhere. Other than that, you mostly have the option of throwing your players in medias res (meaning they already are on an adventure when you start the game), but that can be done only so often before it becomes stale.

If the player is projecting his own reluctance on the character, or outright says he doesn't want his character to have adventures, things are different. In that case, we're back to the issue of your players, or at least this particular one, not being interested in the kind of game you provide. The only thing that helps here is to sit down with your players and hash out the kind of game they want to play and whether you can provide that.

Xervous
2021-07-22, 07:28 AM
That blurb from one of your players, set in the midst of everything else, has me wondering if the problem is starting the players off as cannon fodder. They will eventually get a character that rises to an enjoyable level of play, but in their eyes you’re force feeding them the XCOM intro mission where they’re all panic prone squadies who need to win consecutive coin flips to do anything.

Again, blatant speculation.

KorvinStarmast
2021-07-22, 01:47 PM
Geeze, 5E does commoners dirty; even a goblin would stomp all over that guy. Which is why the villagers often appeal to heroes to help them with their goblin problem, their wolf pack problem, their bandit problem, when the foolish adventurers stop somewhere in a tavern to have an ale and a bowl of stew ... :smallcool:

BRC
2021-07-22, 01:59 PM
So I talked to one of my players, and he basically said it is up to the DM to provide a hook that is too big to ignore as the only rational explanation for how anyone ever becomes an adventurer is that some incredibly lucrative deal falls into their hands by chance, for example stumbling upon a lost treasure map or the like, as he couldn't conceive of any situation where someone would take a risk to strike it rich or where ordinary people wouldn't have already completed the quest them self.

So yeah, very different view of how the game world works, and again it plays into the weird mentality that the players are just the DMs helpless pawns.


So, I'm curious about how you pitch your Campaigns.

It sounds like you have been playing for a long time (Decades by your count). These days a lot of guides talk about the importance of a Session 0/ guided character creation.

Basically, when you invite players to your campaign, you say "here is the premise of the campaign." and part of the pre-requisites for the Players is to create a character who will engage in that premise.

If the premise is "You are a group of mercenaries who are going to venture into the ruins of the Old Empire seeking gold and glory", then your players are responsible for creating PC's who are greedy, crazy, or desperate enough to do so, even though the rational thing to do is sell your starting equipment to the next idiot you can find and become a farmer.


Your Player's "Expectation" makes it sounds like they are approaching it from the angle of "I am going to create a character, and it is the GM's job to coax that character into engaging with the game".


Low-Level play often has the awkward situation of why havn't the town guard/a mob of unruly peasants taken care of the problem. The answer usually comes down to "They're not crazy or desperate enough to risk their lives doing so".

The way I tend to think of it is that SOMEBODY IS taking care of the problem, and the "Camera" as it were is focused on those people. If the Players are like "my character wouldn't fight the Goblin Horde, let the town guard handle that", then they're saying that their PC is less deserving of the title of PC than the random town guardsman. Have them hand over their character sheet and let them play the town guard who is taking their place.

ShadowSandbag
2021-07-22, 02:23 PM
I would absolutely love to run for a new group. I don't have the foggiest idea how to actually go about finding players to do so.
How have you found your other "newer" players? Are they people brought in by older players?

Satinavian
2021-07-23, 01:30 AM
But yeah, replace "commoner" up thread with "townsfolk"; my point was that regular people are more than capable of handling the same problems as low level PCs; warriors, guards, scouts, thugs, cultists, acolytes, all have comparable stats.
Ok, if regular commoners can solve the same problems as PCs and are reasonably willing to do so, as in killing low level monsters that threaten the settlement, you really don't leave much place for the PCs.

If all that is left is where capaple, rational NPCs, who generally are willing to get their hands dirty say "nah, i am not suicidal/it is totally not worth it", you don't need "brave" adventurers, you need reckless ones.

Cygnia
2021-07-23, 10:01 AM
Or you set up the stipulation at the beginning that your PCs ARE the town guard sent out to solve these threats.

Quixotic1
2021-07-23, 01:26 PM
Wow. There are a lot of different in-depth discussions going on in here.

I've tried to read the whole thread carefully before replying, and I really just want to try and address the main topic of the OP.

As some others have said, this isn't a problem with the game or the system or the characters. This is a problem with the people sitting at the table.

I think, as a general rule, problems that occur outside of the game need to be resolved outside of the game. Addressing real-world issues within the context of a ttrpg runs too many risks (coming across as snarky, insincere, or rude. Being misunderstood or just missed outright. Etc).

Obviously, we've only gotten one side of the story. And as it is, things seem...pretty bad? But who knows. Maybe the player's perspective would offer some vital insight.
But I'm a GM advocate, first and foremost. There are enough people out there crusading for player rights and agency and such. But it's the person building a world and trying to tell a story worth telling that's putting in the most work and is making themselves the most vulnerable.

From what I've seen, I have to ask: why are you still playing with these people? This environment sounds unpleasant at best and downright toxic or even abusive at worst. I would much rather play no game at all than a game like this.

And even if the OP is extremely biased in their take on things, if the majority of what's been relayed here is hyperbole and the players really aren't all that bad...I would still imagine that walking away from this table would be best. Anything that's skewed your view that hard is something you'd be better off without, I'd think.

I've heard that Roll20 and other resources like it have quite the population looking for people to run games. I'm actually in the process of getting some stuff set up to try my hand at running games and getting paid for it. Maybe that would be a place to start?

At any rate, you have my condolences for being in such a hostile, ungrateful, unreasonable and hurtful gaming group. If that were my table, I'd be telling people to adhere to the Golden Rule and be decent human beings to each other or to get out. Barring that, I'd be looking for a new group. Best of luck to you, whatever comes next.

Talakeal
2021-07-24, 08:46 AM
I mean, the 'default assumption' is that the rules say you can do it so you can do it, and its on you to either live with the narrative dissonance or figure out an explanation...


In my experience few DM's will actually allow a dysfunctional rule in play, and D&D explicitly gives the DM permission to change or ignore rules. But, I kind of think we are getting off topic here; I doubt you meant to start a debate over a 50 year old ruleset. What was your actual point in initially bringing this up?


But anyhow, why not just give the PCs an offer that is too good to pass up? Or even just do narrative fast forward - 'Okay, you pass up that option. Forty years pass, what's your next character?' or just go with it 'Okay, you stay in town, see you in three sessions.'

Once or twice, yeah, I don't mind giving a PC a kick in the pants to get them out the door. But doing that again and again for every single session is a lot of time and energy on my shoulders and really starts to strain narrative credulity in much the same way as lazy sequels keep coming up with contrivances to get the protagonist back into the same situation over and over again. Proactive players really do help lighten the load.


I wish I could talk with that person directly to try and understand their thought processes better. Is he separating character and player here? In other words, if you asked him "do you want your character to go out and have adventures," what would he answer? Is he really unable to think of motivation that comes from within the character or their backstory? Or is he, the player, not interested in engaging with the game you provide and is projecting that need of an incentive on the character?

Your player does have a point to an extent. Choosing to go on an adventure is something of a risk-reward assessment, at least if you're in it for wealth and/or power. Your players perceive your world as incredibly deadly (whether that is true or not), and the reward needs to be suitably high to risk that danger.

The players say they want to have action packed adventures, but then they make characters who aren't motivated to do so and put the task of motivating them in my hands.

Its not always just risk-averse characters mind you, I mean the number of brooding loners who I have seen (and created) far exceeds them, and they also have to be roped into joining the group as "wanting a fun game" and "RPing my character" become mutually exclusive.


That blurb from one of your players, set in the midst of everything else, has me wondering if the problem is starting the players off as cannon fodder. They will eventually get a character that rises to an enjoyable level of play, but in their eyes you’re force feeding them the XCOM intro mission where they’re all panic prone squaddie's who need to win consecutive coin flips to do anything.

Again, blatant speculation.

Are we talking fiction or game mechanics here?

Mechanically, I don't run a meant grinder, and PCs start out pretty competently.

Narratively we tend to go with a more Disney formula where the PCs start out as young people with a heart full of adventure and stodgy elders disapproving of their dangerous and unconventional lifestyle until the PCs prove themselves.


Which is why the villagers often appeal to heroes to help them with their goblin problem, their wolf pack problem, their bandit problem, when the foolish adventurers stop somewhere in a tavern to have an ale and a bowl of stew ... :smallcool:

But why? If your own community is more than capable of handling the problem, why not just have local NPCs hunters / militia take care of it instead of paying what amounts to several years wages to a group of wandering strangers?


So, I'm curious about how you pitch your Campaigns.

It sounds like you have been playing for a long time (Decades by your count). These days a lot of guides talk about the importance of a Session 0/ guided character creation.

Basically, when you invite players to your campaign, you say "here is the premise of the campaign." and part of the pre-requisites for the Players is to create a character who will engage in that premise.

If the premise is "You are a group of mercenaries who are going to venture into the ruins of the Old Empire seeking gold and glory", then your players are responsible for creating PC's who are greedy, crazy, or desperate enough to do so, even though the rational thing to do is sell your starting equipment to the next idiot you can find and become a farmer.


Your Player's "Expectation" makes it sounds like they are approaching it from the angle of "I am going to create a character, and it is the GM's job to coax that character into engaging with the game".


Low-Level play often has the awkward situation of why havn't the town guard/a mob of unruly peasants taken care of the problem. The answer usually comes down to "They're not crazy or desperate enough to risk their lives doing so".

The way I tend to think of it is that SOMEBODY IS taking care of the problem, and the "Camera" as it were is focused on those people. If the Players are like "my character wouldn't fight the Goblin Horde, let the town guard handle that", then they're saying that their PC is less deserving of the title of PC than the random town guardsman. Have them hand over their character sheet and let them play the town guard who is taking their place.

This is all correct.


How have you found your other "newer" players? Are they people brought in by older players?

Yes.

I am really bad at figuring out how to find new players.


Ok, if regular commoners can solve the same problems as PCs and are reasonably willing to do so, as in killing low level monsters that threaten the settlement, you really don't leave much place for the PCs.

If all that is left is where capable, rational NPCs, who generally are willing to get their hands dirty say "nah, i am not suicidal/it is totally not worth it", you don't need "brave" adventurers, you need reckless ones.

Yeah, pretty much.

Players want monsters to not be a thread, which means that there is no place for lower level PCs in the world.

Although, the whole line between "brave" and "reckless" is really just semantics, my point is that just because PCs have a dangerous job to do doesn't mean they can afford to be careless when going about it. To use a real world example, people who jump out of airplanes for fun still perform rigorous safety tests on their equipment and carry backup parachutes.


I've heard that Roll20 and other resources like it have quite the population looking for people to run games. I'm actually in the process of getting some stuff set up to try my hand at running games and getting paid for it. Maybe that would be a place to start?

I really hate online gaming.

I have tried three online games in the past few years (and indeed am in one now) and it just doesn't hold my interest.

NichG
2021-07-24, 10:10 AM
In my experience few DM's will actually allow a dysfunctional rule in play, and D&D explicitly gives the DM permission to change or ignore rules. But, I kind of think we are getting off topic here; I doubt you meant to start a debate over a 50 year old ruleset. What was your actual point in initially bringing this up?


That players responding to a set of rules will not in general reproduce the fiction that descriptively inspired those rules. In a story, making things more risky makes the hero appear more brave by comparison. In a game, making things more risky makes the players less brave.

The point of the 1ed example was to show a case where the inherent danger of the system led to characteristic player behaviors of avoiding every encounter or personal exposure to risk they could.



Once or twice, yeah, I don't mind giving a PC a kick in the pants to get them out the door. But doing that again and again for every single session is a lot of time and energy on my shoulders and really starts to strain narrative credulity in much the same way as lazy sequels keep coming up with contrivances to get the protagonist back into the same situation over and over again. Proactive players really do help lighten the load.


Sure, and if your conclusion was to kick your problem players and go and find some proactive players instead, I think that'd solve these issues. But you aren't willing to do that, so your choice is basically 'do I want to play enough to make it happen?' or to be willing to say 'okay guys, looks like no one wants to play tonight, so see you in two weeks' and see how much they want to play when it's on them.

Satinavian
2021-07-24, 10:18 AM
Yeah, pretty much.

Players want monsters to not be a thread, which means that there is no place for lower level PCs in the world.

Although, the whole line between "brave" and "reckless" is really just semantics, my point is that just because PCs have a dangerous job to do doesn't mean they can afford to be careless when going about it. To use a real world example, people who jump out of airplanes for fun still perform rigorous safety tests on their equipment and carry backup parachutes.
I get that this is the game you want to play.

But considering your past problems it does not seem like the game your players actually want to play. They obviously want a game where they can reliably win and advance and be heroes, even if they don't use the best tactics. And they try to avoid scenarios where this seems impossible.

There is no real solution to that.
You can try to force it. But then you get complaints and obnoxious behavior and no kind of letter or agreement will ever change that.


You can hope that your players preferrences have changed or that the new one will push the group to where you want it. But i would not count on it.

quinron
2021-07-24, 10:24 AM
Yes.

I am really bad at figuring out how to find new players.

The best success I've had is posting a flyer in a local game shop saying I was looking for players for a one-shot - I had 3 responses by the end of that week. The group didn't stay together past that one-shot, but I kept in touch with one of the players and they joined my next couple games.

How much luck you have with this is going to depend on how much your city's been able to reopen, as well as on what system you choose to run. I'd recommend running something popular and relatively simple a few times until you've got a fairly stable group that would be interested in trying your system.

Quixotic1
2021-07-24, 01:23 PM
Yeah, that's what I would focus on: looking for new players. Maybe do a little digging for tips n' tricks in that regard?

Everything else--verisimilitude, in-game logistics, all that--is just preference, and I doubt any forum anywhere will come to a consensus on it.
You seem pretty set in what you expect out of a game and what you think is most important at the table. I think flexibility can will make life easier, but there's also something to be said about sticking to your guns.

The most important thing is to get out of there, ASAP. It sounds awful. Absolutely worse than no game at all. But that makes me ask: why endure all this?

Time Troll
2021-07-24, 07:45 PM
I am really bad at figuring out how to find new players.



My advise here: Create Them.

The average RPG player that comes to my game recoils in shock and horror as my game is nothing like all the other games they have played. A great many don't like it.

So I discovered long ago that it is much better just to make new gamers. Find people that have never played a real life RPG. It's not too hard, take any random sampling of any group of people and you will find at least one person who says something nearly word for word like: "oh, I have heard of RPG, but never played one....but I want to try it."

Yes it takes some time to teach them the game, but it's worth it.

Xervous
2021-07-26, 12:20 PM
Mechanically, I don't run a meant grinder, and PCs start out pretty competently.


Do the players feel that their characters are competent?

Satinavian
2021-07-26, 12:31 PM
My advise here: Create Them.

The average RPG player that comes to my game recoils in shock and horror as my game is nothing like all the other games they have played. A great many don't like it.

So I discovered long ago that it is much better just to make new gamers. Find people that have never played a real life RPG. It's not too hard, take any random sampling of any group of people and you will find at least one person who says something nearly word for word like: "oh, I have heard of RPG, but never played one....but I want to try it."

Yes it takes some time to teach them the game, but it's worth it.
Honestly, if i hear of someone recruiting explicitely new players because those that know other tables don't stay when they realize how the game works, then that raises a lot of red flags.

KorvinStarmast
2021-07-26, 03:47 PM
But why? If your own community is more than capable of handling the problem, why not just have local NPCs hunters / militia take care of it instead of paying what amounts to several years wages to a group of wandering strangers? But your local community Is Not capable of doing that. If they were there's no reason to adventure. The local community appeals to these adventurers ... Why? ... because the commoners are at best levies, and many of them haven't the stomach for a fight in which their lives are at risk. They'd rather flee.

If we go back to the wargame roots of this Genre of Game (Chainmail), levies have the lowest point value, while armored heavy foot (Fighting Man, Cleric) have a high point value, and Magic Users have an even higher point value. Morale factors, which any edition beyond AD&D seems to have forgotten, matter.
Beyond that (IIRC you are American?) some of the militia performed well, and some militia broke and ran in the face of fixed bayonets in the hands of professional soldiers (Battle of Long Island). commoners are not actually trained, are not proficient in armor, have crap for morale, and most of them, nay, all of them, have No Magic. Adventurers are trained, proficient, daring, have good morale, and have magic.

That's why. It's a Genre Convention.

I cannot recommend strongly enough Akira Kurosawa's Seven Samurai to you. (The original, get subtitles if you don't speak Japanese). The villagers appeal to some broke, out of work Samurai/Ronin. This is the classic "village defense" piece for low level D&D parties. They hire the adventurers to combat bandits who will return after the harvest to steal their crops.

Telok
2021-07-27, 02:23 AM
I cannot recommend strongly enough Akira Kurosawa's Seven Samurai to you. (The original, get subtitles if you don't speak Japanese). The villagers appeal to some broke, out of work Samurai/Ronin. This is the classic "village defense" piece for low level D&D parties. They hire the adventurers to combat bandits who will return after the harvest to steal their crops.
And the samurai immedately organize the village into an effective militia.

Zhorn
2021-07-27, 03:16 AM
And the samurai immedately organize the village into an effective militia.
And while it might not be exactly as KorvinStarmast was getting at, their overall point still stands. The townsfolk were not able to do that part themselves, requiring someone with the knowledge and experience to coordinate and train them.

In D&D land, there is arguable might in hectopeasants under the command of the PCs, but for the narrative of adventuring the story is better if the town just relies on the handful of adventurers to do the heavy lifting.

Talakeal
2021-07-27, 05:14 AM
But your local community Is Not capable of doing that. If they were there's no reason to adventure. The local community appeals to these adventurers ... Why? ... because the commoners are at best levies, and many of them haven't the stomach for a fight in which their lives are at risk. They'd rather flee.

If we go back to the wargame roots of this Genre of Game (Chainmail), levies have the lowest point value, while armored heavy foot (Fighting Man, Cleric) have a high point value, and Magic Users have an even higher point value. Morale factors, which any edition beyond AD&D seems to have forgotten, matter.
Beyond that (IIRC you are American?) some of the militia performed well, and some militia broke and ran in the face of fixed bayonets in the hands of professional soldiers (Battle of Long Island). commoners are not actually trained, are not proficient in armor, have crap for morale, and most of them, nay, all of them, have No Magic. Adventurers are trained, proficient, daring, have good morale, and have magic.

That's why. It's a Genre Convention.

I cannot recommend strongly enough Akira Kurosawa's Seven Samurai to you. (The original, get subtitles if you don't speak Japanese). The villagers appeal to some broke, out of work Samurai/Ronin. This is the classic "village defense" piece for low level D&D parties. They hire the adventurers to combat bandits who will return after the harvest to steal their crops.

While I haven't seen seven samurai, I have seen Magnificent Seven, and in it the protagnists are both brave and cunning, they come up with detailed plans, debate doing it at all, and in the end half of them end up dead.

This is not the game we are talking about though.

Remember, my initial premise was that the players wanted to the monsters to be so inept that they didn't have to be smart or brave to fight; they want very basic tactics like walking backwards and shooting or sitting in a tree with a bow to render the monsters completely helpless (and also unwilling to run or take cover).

At high levels that might work, your stats are simply so high that you can simply overpower monsters that could mindlessly devour an entire village.

But at low levels, when you don't have a significant numerical advantage over local militia or huntsmen, the idea that there would still be a need for heroes to defeat inept monsters is harder for me to swallow.


Do the players feel that their characters are competent?

No, they do not.

Satinavian
2021-07-27, 08:00 AM
And while your brave and cunning townmen deal with the (not that threatening) low level threats, your players with characters that are not actually much stronger find nothing to do that they actually want to do. Because the left over monsters are neither significantly weaker not significantly dumber than them.

You don't have to convince us of your Idea about how PCs are to be run. Nor what acceptable risks are. It does not matter whether we agree with you or not. If your players don't share your preferrences and you are not willing to give them up, the game is just doomed.

Give up. There is no way to solve this.

Xervous
2021-07-27, 08:22 AM
If your players don’t feel their characters are competent why should they have their characters take actions that require competency?

meandean
2021-07-27, 09:01 AM
This just gets stranger and stranger. At least I get people screaming and throwing things. It's unacceptable behavior, but yes, I understand the underlying motivation that people do get angry. I don't understand the underlying motivation of a (non-evil character) player who engages in an extended argument with the DM about why bandits attacking the village is their problem. And then the even more amazing part is that, apparently, the DM is also seriously questioning whether this actually is something it makes sense to ask PCs to do! First off, I think (assuming D&D) either you're underestimating the difference between commoners and PCs, or you're running super-bandits. But moreover, if you agree that the town would want to handle the situation without the PCs, then... don't put it in your game! Why would you include a plot hook that both you and your players think is lame?

Segev
2021-07-27, 11:27 AM
First off, talking to your players is good.

I do, however, reading your charter, question if you're sure you know what it is you're actually wanting. I see a lot of "do this, except don't" in it.

Maybe you don't have specific times and places they're supposed to guess to use exactly the right resources, but solely from the things you're saying in it, that's the needle that seems to need to be threaded. You want them to stick with it, pulling back and reassessing, but not to keep "bashing their head against it." You want them to try to be frugal with their resources, but to use an "elixer ahead of time" rather than "a tonic after."

Yes, there's middle ground, but I can't help but feel like, if I were your players, I wouldn't know what that middle ground is unless I had a ton of information at my disposal.

"Be bold, but not too bold" is sort-of a repeating theme here, but I don't know that the players have the means of guessing what "too bold" is vs. "not bold enough."

My advice to you, as Gamekeeper, is to remind your players of places they can go for more info if they're stuck on something and need to retreat, regroup, and rethink. You are afraid of "railroading" them by giving suggestions and reminding them of abilities or resources they have, but your players feel railroaded anyway, by your reports in the past. This suggests to me that - fairly or not - they feel that you've just buried the rails underneath a pile of snow, and are expecting them to guess where they are, claiming that because you aren't guiding them with visible rails, it's not a railroad, despite there being no difference in the end since it goes to the same place anyway.

Try, especially for the first 4-5 contracts/missions, giving them what you think is TOO MUCH information. You've got a mercenary company setup here; this is perfect: Don't make the PCs do the scouting at first. Give them scout reports that are supremely thorough, and send scouts with them who will do the scouting for them. Let them know everything they could possibly need to plan their mission. Not only will this empower them to make their plans and execute them, increasing their trust in the Gk's communications, but it will also help you check yourself on this "railroading" thing: If telling them everything they could possibly need to know about the mission feels like you're telling them what it is they have to do, you probably are writing a railroad because you have One True Solution. I don't say this to attack you; I say this as a means of self-evaluation.

When you can write a mission that gives the players complete information - so that "incomplete information" isn't part of the challenge - and it doesn't make you feel like you're railroading the players by telling them what to do, then you know you've written a mission that isn't a railroad, hidden or otherwise.

As the missions progress, you can give them the completely thorough scouting, but have their scout die or get lost or be unavailable, so they now have out-of-date info unless they do the scouting, themselves. You can then start giving them less perfectly-detailed mission briefings, with more hidden information and less perfect intel. Let them know as you do this that the intel is questionable; the people who got it got it at great risk but weren't able to get everything. Let them ask the questions that you'd normally answer from previous missions where the intel was complete, but tell them, "The NPC couldn't figure that out; here's what prevented him from doing so." Then let them make part of the mission planning steps to do their own scouting and recon, just as you want them to.

But to start it out, you give them all that info, so they see how valuable it is, and then you make obtaining that info more and more their responsibility and part of the game.

Squire Doodad
2021-07-27, 08:05 PM
But at low levels, when you don't have a significant numerical advantage over local militia or huntsmen, the idea that there would still be a need for heroes to defeat inept monsters is harder for me to swallow.

While a local militia is usually a source of a plot hook for starting characters and not made of low level characters, I do believe huntsmen are by their nature meant to be a low level character to begin with.

Talakeal
2021-07-27, 09:39 PM
This just gets stranger and stranger. At least I get people screaming and throwing things. It's unacceptable behavior, but yes, I understand the underlying motivation that people do get angry. I don't understand the underlying motivation of a (non-evil character) player who engages in an extended argument with the DM about why bandits attacking the village is their problem. And then the even more amazing part is that, apparently, the DM is also seriously questioning whether this actually is something it makes sense to ask PCs to do! First off, I think (assuming D&D) either you're underestimating the difference between commoners and PCs, or you're running super-bandits. But moreover, if you agree that the town would want to handle the situation without the PCs, then... don't put it in your game! Why would you include a plot hook that both you and your players think is lame?

The problem is risk aversion; the players want adventuring to be safe. They don't want the bandits to be a threat.

At the same time, they want to be treated like heroes.

These are mutually exclusive desires; because if the bandits weren't a threat to begin with, the townsfolk would have already driven them off themselves.

I am just talking about the regular NPCs right out of the Monster Manual; both bandits and tribal warriors have 11HP, +3 Attack, and do d6+1 damage, and 12 AC. Guards are the same but with 16 AC.

IMO that is not so different from a first level PC to the point where thoughtless PCs can simply defeat the bandits or one-up the town guards through sheer numerical bad-assery.


IMO the whole thing boils down to asymmetry in how much thought and effort we are putting into the game; the players use bravery (or lack there of) as an excuse to not think tactically, and I am unwilling to play either the townsfolk or the monsters as too stupid to realistically survive in the setting.


If your players donÂ’t feel their characters are competent why should they have their characters take actions that require competency?

Because they want some combination of money, power, fame, respect, knowledge, experience, and to change their world according to their values.

Now the big question is how to make the players feel more competent.


And while your brave and cunning townmen deal with the (not that threatening) low level threats, your players with characters that are not actually much stronger find nothing to do that they actually want to do. Because the left over monsters are neither significantly weaker not significantly dumber than them.

You don't have to convince us of your Idea about how PCs are to be run. Nor what acceptable risks are. It does not matter whether we agree with you or not. If your players don't share your preferrences and you are not willing to give them up, the game is just doomed.

Give up. There is no way to solve this.

But the town guard are neither brave nor cunning; if the PCs were they would have a place here.

The vast majority of PCs are brave enough to understand that adventuring is risky, but a fast path to power and riches and also cunning enough to survive to high level, and once they get there they are strong enough that they can survive be sheer virtue of their power.


First off, talking to your players is good.

I do, however, reading your charter, question if you're sure you know what it is you're actually wanting. I see a lot of "do this, except don't" in it.

Maybe you don't have specific times and places they're supposed to guess to use exactly the right resources, but solely from the things you're saying in it, that's the needle that seems to need to be threaded. You want them to stick with it, pulling back and reassessing, but not to keep "bashing their head against it." You want them to try to be frugal with their resources, but to use an "elixir ahead of time" rather than "a tonic after."

Yes, there's middle ground, but I can't help but feel like, if I were your players, I wouldn't know what that middle ground is unless I had a ton of information at my disposal.

"Be bold, but not too bold" is sort-of a repeating theme here, but I don't know that the players have the means of guessing what "too bold" is vs. "not bold enough."

My advice to you, as Gamekeeper, is to remind your players of places they can go for more info if they're stuck on something and need to retreat, regroup, and rethink. You are afraid of "railroading" them by giving suggestions and reminding them of abilities or resources they have, but your players feel railroaded anyway, by your reports in the past. This suggests to me that - fairly or not - they feel that you've just buried the rails underneath a pile of snow, and are expecting them to guess where they are, claiming that because you aren't guiding them with visible rails, it's not a railroad, despite there being no difference in the end since it goes to the same place anyway.


Try, especially for the first 4-5 contracts/missions, giving them what you think is TOO MUCH information. You've got a mercenary company setup here; this is perfect: Don't make the PCs do the scouting at first. Give them scout reports that are supremely thorough, and send scouts with them who will do the scouting for them. Let them know everything they could possibly need to plan their mission. Not only will this empower them to make their plans and execute them, increasing their trust in the Gk's communications, but it will also help you check yourself on this "railroading" thing: If telling them everything they could possibly need to know about the mission feels like you're telling them what it is they have to do, you probably are writing a railroad because you have One True Solution. I don't say this to attack you; I say this as a means of self-evaluation.

When you can write a mission that gives the players complete information - so that "incomplete information" isn't part of the challenge - and it doesn't make you feel like you're railroading the players by telling them what to do, then you know you've written a mission that isn't a railroad, hidden or otherwise.

As the missions progress, you can give them the completely thorough scouting, but have their scout die or get lost or be unavailable, so they now have out-of-date info unless they do the scouting, themselves. You can then start giving them less perfectly-detailed mission briefings, with more hidden information and less perfect intel. Let them know as you do this that the intel is questionable; the people who got it got it at great risk but weren't able to get everything. Let them ask the questions that you'd normally answer from previous missions where the intel was complete, but tell them, "The NPC couldn't figure that out; here's what prevented him from doing so." Then let them make part of the mission planning steps to do their own scouting and recon, just as you want them to.

But to start it out, you give them all that info, so they see how valuable it is, and then you make obtaining that info more and more their responsibility and part of the game.

The big message is that "bold" and "stupid" are not synonymous; and that players are using bravery (or cowardice) as an excuse not to put any tactical thought into the game; if they see a tough encounter they will give up and run back to town because its too dangerous and no game happens; if I tell them they need to be brave for the game to happen, then they charge in recklessly with no plan and get beaten up, and then blame me for "killing them for being brave".

To use an example; slaying a dragon is dangerous, and trying to slay one is brave. But that doesn't mean that you shouldn't have a plan for how to piece its armored hide, or to survive its fiery breath, or to bring it down if it takes to the wing; not doing so is foolish. Now; some could argue that engaging the dragon is always stupid, but if you want to save the princess or loot its hoard, its a risk you are going to have to take; you should still try and minimize the risk though. As I said above, in real life people jump out of planes for fun, but still do equipment checks and wear backup parachutes.

False God
2021-07-27, 10:32 PM
The problem is risk aversion; the players want adventuring to be safe. They don't want the bandits to be a threat.

At the same time, they want to be treated like heroes.

These are mutually exclusive desires; because if the bandits weren't a threat to begin with, the townsfolk would have already driven them off themselves.
They don't want the bandits to be a threat to them or they don't want the bandits to be a threat to the townsfolk?
Because you can accomplish both pretty easy.


IMO the whole thing boils down to asymmetry in how much thought and effort we are putting into the game; the players use bravery (or lack there of) as an excuse to not think tactically, and I am unwilling to play either the townsfolk or the monsters as too stupid to realistically survive in the setting.
Why?

It really sounds like they want a super laid-pack game where they're awesome heroes always triumphing against the enemy, and you well, don't.

So....why are you forcing them to play the game they don't want to play? Or, why are you running a game you don't want to run?



Because they want some combination of money, power, fame, respect, knowledge, experience, and to change their world according to their values.
Have you considered, ya know, giving them that?

Talakeal
2021-07-27, 11:02 PM
They don't want the bandits to be a threat to them or they don't want the bandits to be a threat to the townsfolk?
Because you can accomplish both pretty easy.

Can you? Care to elaborate?

Do keep in mind, that the players also expect big rewards for their actions as well as non-threatening enemies.

I mean, I suppose I could come up with a super contrived scenario where, say, the bandits snuck in and stole all of the town's weapons and money but didn't kill them or something, but that really starts to strain belief if you do it more than once.



It really sounds like they want a super laid-pack game where they're awesome heroes always triumphing against the enemy, and you well, don't.

So....why are you forcing them to play the game they don't want to play? Or, why are you running a game you don't want to run?

Because I am not anything out of such a game? At that point I am basically just watching the players roll dice as I am not allowed to put any thought into either tactical combat or world-building.

I believe that compromise is fully possible, and I would say it is more or less required in an activity consisting of half a dozen people.


Have you considered, ya know, giving them that?

Yeah, I give them all of that every game.

False God
2021-07-27, 11:27 PM
Can you? Care to elaborate?

Do keep in mind, that the players also expect big rewards for their actions as well as non-threatening enemies.

I mean, I suppose I could come up with a super contrived scenario where, say, the bandits snuck in and stole all of the town's weapons and money but didn't kill them or something, but that really starts to strain belief if you do it more than once.

Because I am not anything out of such a game? At that point I am basically just watching the players roll dice as I am not allowed to put any thought into either tactical combat or world-building.
I mean, it's basically a comedy.


Yeah, I give them all of that every game.
It really doesn't sound like you're giving them what they want.

Segev
2021-07-28, 12:45 AM
The big message is that "bold" and "stupid" are not synonymous; and that players are using bravery (or cowardice) as an excuse not to put any tactical thought into the game; if they see a tough encounter they will give up and run back to town because its too dangerous and no game happens; if I tell them they need to be brave for the game to happen, then they charge in recklessly with no plan and get beaten up, and then blame me for "killing them for being brave".

To use an example; slaying a dragon is dangerous, and trying to slay one is brave. But that doesn't mean that you shouldn't have a plan for how to piece its armored hide, or to survive its fiery breath, or to bring it down if it takes to the wing; not doing so is foolish. Now; some could argue that engaging the dragon is always stupid, but if you want to save the princess or loot its hoard, its a risk you are going to have to take; you should still try and minimize the risk though. As I said above, in real life people jump out of planes for fun, but still do equipment checks and wear backup parachutes.

The trouble is that you don't seem to understand that they've been telling you what they perceive, and all you've been doing is saying they're wrong for perceiving it.

You tell them "be brave." They do what they perceive as the "brave" thing, and you berate them for being "stupid."

That's why I suggest you start off with your first several missions having zero - not an iota of - hidden information. If they're to face a dragon, you give them all the information about the dragon, including the details about its armored hide. Over-explain. If they have ANY questions, give them 100% factual, true, and complete information to answer them. Hide nothing. Don't couch anything in poetic language. Spell out the rules and effects in play. If it's an avatar of violence type situation, tell them that if they "kill" it, it will split, but that it starves like any mortal and stays dead if it dies due to such natural causes as long as they're inflicted not by any action of any living being. Make it clear what will let it die "safely."

If it's a sneeze ogre, give them the full details of what the "large-nosed ogre" can do.

If you want them to "be bold but not stupid," start by giving them everything they need to know to make a plan that is intelligent. Don't have anything that could possibly be seen as a "gotcha."

Once they are very comfortable being bold with clever plans and complete information, start giving out less information to start with, but make it clear that further scouting could discover it. Have the scouts or briefing agents reporting to them at the briefing give clear indications of what further scouting is needed to obtain the intel they're missing, and let the party figure out how to do that scouting.

Slowly, as they get used to doing their own recon to find out what they need to know, you can pull back on the information given without any effort. Eventually, you should give them clearly-marked "speculation" that has some obvious contradictions in it, and be very clear that the PCs' experience in analyzing these reports indicates this is something with unknowns that include at least one, if not more false rumors.

But the starting point, for your table, needs to be 100% complete information at the mission briefings. This is how you'll start to rebuild trust, and how you'll let them engage in the "bold, intelligent" behavior you want.

Batcathat
2021-07-28, 01:14 AM
But the starting point, for your table, needs to be 100% complete information at the mission briefings. This is how you'll start to rebuild trust, and how you'll let them engage in the "bold, intelligent" behavior you want.

I'm not sure about that. It might work and it's probably worth a shot, but considering what I've heard about Talakeal's players, I wouldn't be surprised if they – the moment it's clear that they're no longer getting 100 percent of the information on a silver platter – start complaining about Talakeal cheating and hiding stuff from them.

That said, I don't have any better ideas, so if you keep playing with these people, I suppose you might as well try Segev's suggestion.

Talakeal
2021-07-28, 01:14 AM
If you want them to "be bold but not stupid," start by giving them everything they need to know to make a plan that is intelligent. Don't have anything that could possibly be seen as a "gotcha."

Once they are very comfortable being bold with clever plans and complete information, start giving out less information to start with, but make it clear that further scouting could discover it. Have the scouts or briefing agents reporting to them at the briefing give clear indications of what further scouting is needed to obtain the intel they're missing, and let the party figure out how to do that scouting.

Slowly, as they get used to doing their own recon to find out what they need to know, you can pull back on the information given without any effort. Eventually, you should give them clearly-marked "speculation" that has some obvious contradictions in it, and be very clear that the PCs' experience in analyzing these reports indicates this is something with unknowns that include at least one, if not more false rumors.

But the starting point, for your table, needs to be 100% complete information at the mission briefings. This is how you'll start to rebuild trust, and how you'll let them engage in the "bold, intelligent" behavior you want.

Please keep in mind that 99% of my encounters don't have any sort of twist or surprise at all, but I suppose I could try toning it down even more.

Also, note that my players have told me that they assume I am intentionally trying to trick them with my wording despite never having done so in the past; so the problem isn't being unclear or using flowery language, its trying to come up with something that cannot possibly be deliberately twisted or misinterpreted; which as any lawyer, technical writer, or owner of a magic lamp knows is almost impossible to do.


The trouble is that you don't seem to understand that they've been telling you what they perceive, and all you've been doing is saying they're wrong for perceiving it.

You tell them "be brave." They do what they perceive as the "brave" thing, and you berate them for being "stupid."

I "understand" it, the problem is that I perceive it as making excuses for not wanting to put any effort into the game.

Fundamentally, that's the same problem. If they are given a quest to save a dragon and they decide to turn around and go home because its "too dangerous" or they decide to charge in without any sort of plan or tactics, both boil down to them not wanting to put any thought into the game.

And again, it is absolutely fine if they don't want to put a lot of effort into the game, BUT they are also perfectionists who freak out anytime they don't get the best possible outcome.

Also, please please please understand that the issue is not me "berating them for being stupid", its that they frequently berate me for making the game "too hard" and then take any defense on my part as berating them.

Their definition of too hard tends to be "some of their characters took enough damage to knock them out of the fight if they chose not to drink healing potions" even though they still win every fight and survive the entire game; and my defenses tend to be stuff like "Guys, you knew the dragon breathed fire, and you knew the alchemist on the corner sells fire protection potions, if you were that concerned about getting burned, why didn't you buy one?".



I mean, it's basically a comedy.

Oh sure, it can work as a comedy, I pretty much said as much up thread. Its just that I don't think anyone is really wanting a comedy game, and trying to force comedy usually just comes across as annoying.


It really doesn't sound like you're giving them what they want.

I didn't say I was giving the players want they want*.

I said that "Player character are motivated to go on adventures by some combination of money, power, fame, respect, knowledge, experience, and to change their world according to their values" and that player characters get all of these things in spades over the course of my games.

*Of course, its a bit more complex than that. They all say they are enjoying my game, just something happens to push them over the edge every few months. When they give me reasonable feedback I try and incorporate it, but as a whole they don't let me know what it is that they "want" except for the one guy who wants to spend eight hours torturing helpless mobs to stroke his ego and powering up like he was grinding in an MMO, which I don't think would be fun for anyone else at the table.

Lacco
2021-07-28, 01:45 AM
In addition to Segev's point: Tutorials are important. A good tutorial will prepare you not only for the mechanical side, but will tell you also what to expect from the game and where are its limitations.

If you do not do a tutorial (certain genres, such as Souls-like or old-school roguelike avoid them), the players have to explore the mechanics & the aesthetics for themselves, which may be frustrating (look at statistics on broken keyboards while playing Souls-like games). In souls-like games, this is mainly to force the players to explore, but there is a risk similar to your table: players may not like it and will throw things.

If you do a bad tutorial (e.g. "read the rules"), you can easily force the players (even unintentionally) to work on wrong assumptions about the game, or make them guess.

NichG
2021-07-28, 02:20 AM
I said that "Player character are motivated to go on adventures by some combination of money, power, fame, respect, knowledge, experience, and to change their world according to their values" and that player characters get all of these things in spades over the course of my games.

When you say 'most PCs', 'player characters are ...', etc, it sounds like you're talking about some kind of pool of PCs you're imagining in your head, not the literal people at your table. There are no player characters other than those who are being played by the people at your table. If no one at your table plays a brave character, there are no brave PCs. There may be brave NPCs, brave fictional stereotypes, etc, but none of them are PCs.

Your players are who they are and want what they want. Comparing them to some sort of demographics you've heard of or imagine might exist is counterproductive, because none of those fictional or hypothetical people are actually the ones at your table playing a game. You have to work with the people in front of you, not the people you'd rather they be.

Edit: To make this point hopefully a bit more clearly, it really sounds like you fundamentally don't respect your players or the way they'd like to play your game. And in turn, it sounds like your players don't respect you or the game you'd like to run. This perhaps goes beyond trust. What I'm hearing a lot of in your posts is an active disdain for the possibility that anyone would want something other than what you're willing to provide. It comes out when you say things like how you'd have to play the NPCs as more stupid than you can tolerant in order for the PCs to be relevant - you're not saying it directly, but that basically comes off as 'the players are so stupid they don't deserve to have their characters survive in my world, but I will grudgingly let them resurrect/escape/etc so that game continues'. And I've heard disdain in how you've described those players reacting to the things in your setting - its not there because its interesting to explore or you thought it would be cool, its there because Talakeal wants to kill our characters/make us feel bad/etc. You come onto the forums daily to complain about these players, and you also say that you hate it when they complain about you behind your back.



*Of course, its a bit more complex than that. They all say they are enjoying my game, just something happens to push them over the edge every few months. When they give me reasonable feedback I try and incorporate it, but as a whole they don't let me know what it is that they "want" except for the one guy who wants to spend eight hours torturing helpless mobs to stroke his ego and powering up like he was grinding in an MMO, which I don't think would be fun for anyone else at the table.

If you know you will not provide the kind of gameplay one of your players wants, you owe it to them to say that in as blunt of a manner as it takes to make sure they understand it, and give them the choice of whether they'd like to keep playing or not.

Talakeal
2021-07-28, 03:46 AM
When you say 'most PCs', 'player characters are ...', etc, it sounds like you're talking about some kind of pool of PCs you're imagining in your head, not the literal people at your table. There are no player characters other than those who are being played by the people at your table. If no one at your table plays a brave character, there are no brave PCs. There may be brave NPCs, brave fictional stereotypes, etc, but none of them are PCs.

Your players are who they are and want what they want. Comparing them to some sort of demographics you've heard of or imagine might exist is counterproductive, because none of those fictional or hypothetical people are actually the ones at your table playing a game. You have to work with the people in front of you, not the people you'd rather they be.

Look at the context of the quote though, he was asking me to explain why a player character might be motivated to go on an adventure, and I was giving possible explanations.

And yes, I would say that every PC made at my table, or who has even been made at my table, is motivated by at least two of those. And while occasionally you get a cowardly home-body or anti-social edge lord, this is enough to motivate that vast, vast majority of PCs to go on adventures.

In the old days I used to try and plead and cajole with the players of the aforementioned types sorts of characters to join the party and go on the adventure or come up with increasingly contrived methods of kicking them out the door, but now that I am older and gaming time is a lot more valuable, I just tell people up front that those sorts of characters won't be acceptable for the campaign and make something else.



If you know you will not provide the kind of gameplay one of your players wants, you owe it to them to say that in as blunt of a manner as it takes to make sure they understand it, and give them the choice of whether they'd like to keep playing or not.

Yep. We had that conversation decades ago.


You come onto the forums daily to complain about these players, and you also say that you hate it when they complain about you behind your back.

Ok, so this is wrong to such an extent that it is actually kind of meta.

First off, while I am sure it happened at some point, I can't recall every making a thread to complain about my players actions in the game. There is a huge fundamental differance between having issues with how someone plays a game and having issues with someone else throwing a tantrum over how you play a game.

Second, I have literally never said a word about my players complaining behind my back. Never. Heck, I don't think I have ever even heard about them talking behind my back, and if I did it would be the things that they were saying that would hurt my feelings rather than the fact that they were saying them.

Third, what I think you are referring to is me saying I didn't like it when my older players, fully in front of my face mind you, told grossly distorted stories to new players in an attempt to turn them against me, the most recent of which is a player telling a new recruit that I "like to kill characters and then berate the player for being dead" despite the fact that the last PC fatality in my game occurred roughly eight years before she joined the group.


Edit: To make this point hopefully a bit more clearly, it really sounds like you fundamentally don't respect your players or the way they'd like to play your game. And in turn, it sounds like your players don't respect you or the game you'd like to run. This perhaps goes beyond trust. What I'm hearing a lot of in your posts is an active disdain for the possibility that anyone would want something other than what you're willing to provide. It comes out when you say things like how you'd have to play the NPCs as more stupid than you can tolerant in order for the PCs to be relevant - you're not saying it directly, but that basically comes off as 'the players are so stupid they don't deserve to have their characters survive in my world, but I will grudgingly let them resurrect/escape/etc so that game continues'. And I've heard disdain in how you've described those players reacting to the things in your setting - its not there because its interesting to explore or you thought it would be cool, its there because Talakeal wants to kill our characters/make us feel bad/etc.

This is kind of true, but also kind of overstated.

"Willing to provide" is such a broad category; let's just say that I am perfectly willing to game far outside my comfort zone, but I feel like it still isn't enough for my players, and they don't pay me the same courtesy. And by that, I don't mean they aren't willing to play outside of their comfort zone, I mean they aren't willing to abide by the same rules that they want to set for me.

And I think that's my big problem; the players want to have it both ways. They want a casual game where they don't have to put in much effort, but they also want maximum rewards. They want a guarantee of absolute safety, and then they use that guarantee to game the system. They want me to be bound to "Combat as Sport" with every encounter being against a balanced encounter using conventional tactics, but they want to be able to use any sort of crazy "combat as war" strategy they want to bypass the encounter. They want to regarded as great heroes, but they don't want the enemies they face to actually pose a threat. They gank the healer ASAP when fighting enemies, but lose their minds if the monsters dare to hit their back line. Etc.

And the big one; it isn't that they are stupid, its that they require me to always have them be the smartest people in the room. If I come up with a clever plan and they out think it, that's great. And if I do something dumb and they out think it, that's also great. But if I out think their plans, stupid or brilliant, they call me a killer DM (or just flat out accuse me of cheating) and escalate it to an OOC tantrum.

Satinavian
2021-07-28, 03:51 AM
But the town guard are neither brave nor cunning; if the PCs were they would have a place here.
If they are killing the proverbial giant rats in the cellar themselves instead of hiring adventurers, they are pretty brave. I certainly would not like to fight giant rats, even if pretty much guaranteed to win (and i would be : size, streangth, intelligence, ability to use weapons and protective gear - it is quite unfair). Those bites can be quite nasty and hurt a lot.

Those traditional beginner quests where even first level groups can just overpower the enemies are traditional beginner quests for a reason.

icefractal
2021-07-28, 03:54 AM
Can you? Care to elaborate?Townsfolk: Mostly level 1-2
Bandits: Mostly levels 3-6
PCs: Level 10

Is taking on some foes significantly weaker than them objectively an impressive thing? No. Would it impress the hell out of the townsfolk they just saved from what had seemed like unbeatable bandits? Yes.

Not saying you have to focus on easy fights, but it really seems like that's what your players want.


Do keep in mind, that the players also expect big rewards for their actions as well as non-threatening enemies.Which is again, not impossible, though it does imply the PCs being notably (but not impossibly) lucky, finding quests more lucrative than their difficulty would merit before someone else does.

That said, you could also try leaving this up to the PCs. Have a choice of quests of different (known) difficulties, with corresponding rewards, and see what they go for.

Talakeal
2021-07-28, 04:01 AM
Ninjad. Let me repost.

Glorthindel
2021-07-28, 04:02 AM
Ironically, I think a lot of the people telling the OP that "he's not listening" are suffering a dose of that themselves.


It comes out when you say things like how you'd have to play the NPCs as more stupid than you can tolerant in order for the PCs to be relevant - you're not saying it directly, but that basically comes off as 'the players are so stupid they don't deserve to have their characters survive in my world, but I will grudgingly let them resurrect/escape/etc so that game continues'.

That isn't what he is saying. Up thread he said:


..sitting in a tree with a bow to render the monsters completely helpless (and also unwilling to run or take cover).

The player literally wants to be able to exercise such expert tactics as "sit in a tree" and expects the NPC's to stand around, gaping slack-jawed up into the tree, not taking cover, or any actions to counter this expert tactic, while the character shoots them dead one after another. He is absolutely right to say this would be "playing the NPC's stupid", and he isn't wrong to not want to DM an encounter like this. Its insane.

Quite frankly, if that's the only type of encounter the players will enjoy, the cause is pretty lost. You'd be better off just making a random encounter table and being a player yourself. You don't need a DM for a game like that.

Talakeal
2021-07-28, 04:08 AM
Ironically, I think a lot of the people telling the OP that "he's not listening" are suffering a dose of that themselves.

I am starting to feel the same way a bit. Like I said, this thread is getting a bit meta.


Townsfolk: Mostly level 1-2
Bandits: Mostly levels 3-6
PCs: Level 10

Level 10 PCs are by no means low level.

I already said up-thread that the problem dissapears once the players are powerful enough to simply muscle through encounters that townsfolk would have no chance against.


If they are killing the proverbial giant rats in the cellar themselves instead of hiring adventurers, they are pretty brave. I certainly would not like to fight giant rats, even if pretty much guaranteed to win (and i would be : size, streangth, intelligence, ability to use weapons and protective gear - it is quite unfair). Those bites can be quite nasty and hurt a lot.

Those traditional beginner quests where even first level groups can just overpower the enemies are traditional beginner quests for a reason.

Ok, but if they are biting you there is still danger.

My players would want a situation where they could, say, remove a couple of boards from the stairs and stand at the top of the cellar stairs and shoot the rats who just stood their looking up at them in shock and awe. And if the rats are too stupid / clumsy to run or hide or climb or anything, then yeah, any local exterminator with an hour to kill, a hammer, and a hand crossbow could do the exact same thing.


In addition to Segev's point: Tutorials are important. A good tutorial will prepare you not only for the mechanical side, but will tell you also what to expect from the game and where are its limitations.

If you do not do a tutorial (certain genres, such as Souls-like or old-school roguelike avoid them), the players have to explore the mechanics & the aesthetics for themselves, which may be frustrating (look at statistics on broken keyboards while playing Souls-like games). In souls-like games, this is mainly to force the players to explore, but there is a risk similar to your table: players may not like it and will throw things.

If you do a bad tutorial (e.g. "read the rules"), you can easily force the players (even unintentionally) to work on wrong assumptions about the game, or make them guess.

Tutorials are hard to do though; as this thread is indication of, any form of advice on the part of the GM is often met with "Don't you dare tell me what to do!" Or even "I'm gonna do the opposite just to spite you!".

If you have any advice on a good tutorial though, I am all ears.


The player literally wants to be able to exercise such expert tactics as "sit in a tree" and expects the NPC's to stand around, gaping slack-jawed up into the tree, not taking cover, or any actions to counter this expert tactic, while the character shoots them dead one after another. He is absolutely right to say this would be "playing the NPC's stupid", and he isn't wrong to not want to DM an encounter like this. Its insane.

Quite frankly, if that's the only type of encounter the players will enjoy, the cause is pretty lost. Quite frankly, you'd be better off just making a random encounter table and being a player yourself. You don't need a DM for a game like that.

I'm gonna actually tell that story now, as it illustrates what I am saying to NichG and Satavinian:

Setup: The PCs are hired to kill an exceptionally large and clever wolf that is preying upon the villager's livestock and has evaded all attempts by local hunters and trappers to catch and kill it.

Combat as Sport Answer: The wolf is an appropriate CR encounter, the players will track it down and then engage it on the field of battle, they will fight until one side (almost certainly the wolf) is killed.

What the players did: Tied a lamb to a tree in a field and sat in the tree overnight with ranged weapons.

What the players expected: The wolf would run up to the lamb, and they would shoot it to death with no risk of injury. Of course, any half decent marksman in the town could have done the same thing, and the players were told in the briefing that it was too clever for their own hunters to deal with.

What happened: The wolf saw them, refused to take the bait, and lurked in the tree-line until they climbed down and returned to town, and then ambushed them on the road.

End result: Exactly as the combat as sport answer, the PCs defeated the wolf in a balanced combat like the players had asked asked for, but now the players are mad because the GM "played the monster too smart".

Morgaln
2021-07-28, 04:41 AM
I am starting to feel the same way a bit. Like I said, this thread is getting a bit meta.



Level 10 PCs are by no means low level.

I already said up-thread that the problem dissapears once the players are powerful enough to simply muscle through encounters that townsfolk would have no chance against.



Ok, but if they are biting you there is still danger.

My players would want a situation where they could, say, remove a couple of boards from the stairs and stand at the top of the cellar stairs and shoot the rats who just stood their looking up at them in shock and awe. And if the rats are too stupid / clumsy to run or hide or climb or anything, then yeah, any local exterminator with an hour to kill, a hammer, and a hand crossbow could do the exact same thing.



Tutorials are hard to do though; as this thread is indication of, any form of advice on the part of the GM is often met with "Don't you dare tell me what to do!" Or even "I'm gonna do the opposite just to spite you!".

If you have any advice on a good tutorial though, I am all ears.



I'm gonna actually tell that story now, as it illustrates what I am saying to NichG and Satavinian:

Setup: The PCs are hired to kill an exceptionally large and clever wolf that is preying upon the villager's livestock and has evaded all attempts by local hunters and trappers to catch and kill it.

Combat as Sport Answer: The wolf is an appropriate CR encounter, the players will track it down and then engage it on the field of battle, they will fight until one side (almost certainly the wolf) is killed.

What the players did: Tied a lamb to a tree in a field and sat in the tree overnight with ranged weapons.

What the players expected: The wolf would run up to the lamb, and they would shoot it to death with no risk of injury. Of course, any half decent marksman in the town could have done the same thing, and the players were told in the briefing that it was too clever for their own hunters to deal with.

What happened: The wolf saw them, refused to take the bait, and lurked in the tree-line until they climbed down and returned to town, and then ambushed them on the road.

End result: Exactly as the combat as sport answer, the PCs defeated the wolf in a balanced combat like the players had asked asked for, but now the players are mad because the GM "played the monster too smart".


That is a decent plan to deal with a wild animal, especially one that can't climb. Decent enough that it has been successfully done in real life.
Important question: was there a chance it could have worked? Did you roll a perception check for the wolf to see if it noticed the players? Or did you just decide that it was "too clever"? Did you make clear that it had noticed the players (something like, it walks up to the clearing, suddenly it freezes and looks right at the players, then it starts lurking.) Would you have allowed the tactic to work if they had spent more time on making sure they were well concealed?
Also, why did the wolf ambush them on the road? Was the wolf a known man-killer? Why would a single wolf even attack a group of several armed humans when it is so clever? Was it really what the wolf would do? Or were you determined to have the "combat as sport" scenario? This ambush basically took the decision from the players. You made it impossible for them to optimize their strategy by forcing the combat. Did the players have an opportunity to evade that ambush in return, as the wolf evaded their ambush?

Your post somewhat reads like you disapproved of the "sit in tree" tactic in the first place; why? Was it not brave enough? But it was cunning, wasn't it? Is cunning alone not enough?

Edit for Typos

Lacco
2021-07-28, 04:43 AM
Tutorials are hard to do though; as this thread is indication of, any form of advice on the part of the GM is often met with "Don't you dare tell me what to do!" Or even "I'm gonna do the opposite just to spite you!".

If you have any advice on a good tutorial though, I am all ears.

Actually, I do!

First off: when you do a tutorial by stating advice on the part of the GM, you are not doing a tutorial. You are giving advice (which may, based on your relationship/tone/ability to communicate on both sides, come as irritating at best). Tutorial happens inside the game: mainly by setting the expectations during first few hours of gameplay. When that's done, they usually do not change their expectations easily: so you'd be better off starting a new game. Completely new game.

I'd suggest you take a look at the Tomb of the Serpent Kings: the module is specifically built as dungeon delving tutorial. I don't remember specifics as I read it quite some time ago, but it's quite clear what it's trying to accomplish. It gives lessons (I think one of those was: "There are traps. They usually protect treasure."). It handles the basics well, so you could get few pointers.

Let's assume you want them to be "brave" (with the "determined", "frugal" and "creative" on the side - meaning, don't give up after first try, try some things, but don't waste resources). For the frugal thing, they have to know exact value of the "reward" (loot/quest reward), so they can evaluate how much consummables they can invest before going into loss. For the determined, they should be able to see the "rest point" beyond the encounter - so they know they can push on. For "creative", you can give them tools and relatively safe "playground" (meaning: they have to know if their crazy plan fails, they won't suffer reprecussions; e.g. the dragon sleeps and will awaken slowly - so they have time to retreat and rethink). Lastly... the "brave" part.

They first defeat few weak goblins (obviously weak opponents that are actually weak; lesson: weak-looking opponents are weak). The tavern cheers, they get free beer and locals decide to celebrate them (incentive to do more stuff like that). Then, they defeat few orcs (mid-level opponents, ideally by their creative approach or tactics - the orcs are camping, there's enough of them to be a threat, but you definitely tell them they see the advantage is on their side if they do a surprise attack - but tomorrow the orcs will move on as the camp is temporary; the lesson is: you can defeat enemies easier if you play carefully, but you can't take too long). The survivors will be celebrated, there are discussions about a statue, free beer, free cake. People pay them respect. Now you throw a difficult opponent at them, but again: make sure they get enough possibilities/time to prepare. The enemy does not know about them and just goes on - they have 3 days until the enemy reaches the town (and obliterates it). If they retreat, the townfolk should be afraid - it's a dragon - but should be calm because "the heroes will save us as they did before!"... and the statue will be prepared by the time they are done.

Again, there are lots of articles about tutorials, how to do them, what not to do (e.g. too much reading). And you have a lot of people that already provided advice on how to do this. So: what are you going to do?

Satinavian
2021-07-28, 04:59 AM
The player literally wants to be able to exercise such expert tactics as "sit in a tree" and expects the NPC's to stand around, gaping slack-jawed up into the tree, not taking cover, or any actions to counter this expert tactic, while the character shoots them dead one after another. He is absolutely right to say this would be "playing the NPC's stupid", and he isn't wrong to not want to DM an encounter like this. Its insane.
{Scrubbed}

Talakeal
2021-07-28, 05:09 AM
{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

That’s a pretty big accusation. Care to cite a source on that?

AdAstra
2021-07-28, 05:11 AM
So your players want to feel brave and cunning without measuring up to your standard of brave and cunning? Yeah that's a rough one, not really a situation you can fix without lowering your standards, which clearly isn't something you would consider fun. Sometimes there isn't a compromise that works (though this case isn't necessarily impossible).

I'm going to make the argument that the problem isn't entirely due to your relationship with your group as players, but your relationship with your group as people. I asked this before, but never got a definitive answer, are they explicitly aware that their behavior is genuinely distressing and irritating to you as a person? "I'm sure they must be aware" doesn't count, it's quite obvious that you often put stuff down they aren't picking up. On the same note, are you sure you understand the degree to which you're clashing with their gaming preferences vs actually pissing them off? Note that these can be one and the same, but they are not intrinsically linked.

When I talk about the personal relationship part of things, I don't mean to imply that anyone's a bad person or friend. But it's totally possible for people to hurt each other and not realize it. What to them might just be harmless venting clearly is making you feel bad. On the same note, do any of your actions make them feel bad as people, rather than just annoyed as players? Finding that out is necessary, too.

Right now there doesn't seem to be a line of separation between "I'm annoyed at this part of the game" and "I am hurt by this person's actions". That delineation should be found for each person, and if there isn't one, that has its own implications.

Like, as an example:
"When you talk to other players about me being a killer DM who's super unfair, it really upsets me. Is that what you really think about me?"
This in itself doesn't solve the problem, but it's a step towards nailing it down better. If they say "oh, that's just me venting and joking around" that is very different from "it's because you are a killer DM who's super unfair"

Satinavian
2021-07-28, 05:14 AM
{Scrubbed}

Talakeal
2021-07-28, 05:24 AM
{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}



Now, are you saying that I sometimes use hypothetical examples, or that I am making up stories and passing them off as the truth?

Because those are very different things, and I will readily admit to the former (for example the removing a stair from the basement or buying fire protection potions before slaying a dragon on this page of this thread) but I have never done the latter on this forum, let alone admitted to it.


Now, I will admit that sometimes I have problems choosing what details are important to include in a summary, but that is a far cry from making up stories.

NichG
2021-07-28, 05:34 AM
Look at the context of the quote though, he was asking me to explain why a player character might be motivated to go on an adventure, and I was giving possible explanations.

And yes, I would say that every PC made at my table, or who has even been made at my table, is motivated by at least two of those. And while occasionally you get a cowardly home-body or anti-social edge lord, this is enough to motivate that vast, vast majority of PCs to go on adventures.


Except now, before you even have the campaign, you're spending quite a lot of mental effort trying to write letters specifically calling out this behavior. That makes no sense at all unless you actually have players trying to play these cowardly PCs. Unless you mean that the players present a bunch of concepts that you think would not be cowards, but then play them like cowards. If that's the case I would say that you do in fact have a majority of cowardly PCs - that's the reality of the behavior.

If that behavior isn't happening, why write these letters asking them to be brave, etc? More to the point, why are you giving us examples of this very behavior happening?



Ok, so this is wrong to such an extent that it is actually kind of meta.

First off, while I am sure it happened at some point, I can't recall every making a thread to complain about my players actions in the game. There is a huge fundamental differance between having issues with how someone plays a game and having issues with someone else throwing a tantrum over how you play a game.


Off the top of my head:

- You had a thread about a desert temple where your group murdered everyone, lost the support of the resident goddess (or murdered the goddess, I don't remember exactly), and then... couldn't make it back across the desert, or something like that?

- You had a thread where you complained about one of your players who wouldn't buy consumables and wasn't contributing their crafting resources to other PCs even when they had no reasonable use for them themselves - specifically with regards to wanting to upgrade all the way to +5 when the system was designed to make that exponentially inefficient.

- You've complained about one of your players wanting to have NPCs basically cower in fear or emote suffering when the PC bullied them. Not an unreasonable thing to complain about, but it is a complaint.

- You've complained about your players complaining to new players that you are a killer DM and will railroad them, kill their characters, etc.

- You've complained about your players not getting the Avatar of Vengeance thing and using the easy-death system you implemented for them to teleport back to down by letting it kill them, and then not accepting the consequences to their cohort. Again, not an unreasonable thing to complain about, but it is a complaint.

- You've complained about your players tantrums, throwing things, etc. Again, not unreasonable, but...

Complaining about frustrating things your players do is not inherently problematic. But I get very wary when you in the same breath complain about them spreading bad stories about you to the new players behind your back and how that, among everything else they've done, is the thing that bothers you the most. Do you think Bob or Brian wouldn't be as offended by the way you've described them in these threads, as you've been offended by the way they've described you?



Second, I have literally never said a word about my players complaining behind my back. Never. Heck, I don't think I have ever even heard about them talking behind my back, and if I did it would be the things that they were saying that would hurt my feelings rather than the fact that they were saying them.

Third, what I think you are referring to is me saying I didn't like it when my older players, fully in front of my face mind you, told grossly distorted stories to new players in an attempt to turn them against me, the most recent of which is a player telling a new recruit that I "like to kill characters and then berate the player for being dead" despite the fact that the last PC fatality in my game occurred roughly eight years before she joined the group.


Okay, so 'behind your back' is the miscommunication here (when you say 'turn them against me', that reads to me as 'behind your back'). I think the point stands though: You don't like when they tell stories that make you seem like a bad guy. They probably wouldn't like it that you are telling stories that make them seem like bad guys. From your point of view the stories they're telling are grossly distorted. For all we know, from their point of view the stories you're telling would seem grossly distorted, and Brian(?) would characterize his greed and lack of willingness to spend to help out the party as that the other players are trying to push him around and he just wants the agency to play his own character or something.

What you as a group don't seem to have is the ability or willingness to empathize with each-others perspectives and to give those perspectives weight. It sounds like you're all treating each-other as problems to be solved or things to be manipulated, and to the extent that you can see those other perspectives, the tendency is to find excuses to dismiss them or to have only surface compromises where everyone says they're doing something but the actual differences in perspective haven't been addressed at all in any real way.



This is kind of true, but also kind of overstated.

"Willing to provide" is such a broad category; let's just say that I am perfectly willing to game far outside my comfort zone, but I feel like it still isn't enough for my players, and they don't pay me the same courtesy. And by that, I don't mean they aren't willing to play outside of their comfort zone, I mean they aren't willing to abide by the same rules that they want to set for me.

And I think that's my big problem; the players want to have it both ways. They want a casual game where they don't have to put in much effort, but they also want maximum rewards. They want a guarantee of absolute safety, and then they use that guarantee to game the system. They want me to be bound to "Combat as Sport" with every encounter being against a balanced encounter using conventional tactics, but they want to be able to use any sort of crazy "combat as war" strategy they want to bypass the encounter. They want to regarded as great heroes, but they don't want the enemies they face to actually pose a threat. They gank the healer ASAP when fighting enemies, but lose their minds if the monsters dare to hit their back line. Etc.

And the big one; it isn't that they are stupid, its that they require me to always have them be the smartest people in the room. If I come up with a clever plan and they out think it, that's great. And if I do something dumb and they out think it, that's also great. But if I out think their plans, stupid or brilliant, they call me a killer DM (or just flat out accuse me of cheating) and escalate it to an OOC tantrum.

The first step towards respect would be to say 'I (the GM) recognize that a person can want that, and that it is okay to want that'. The second step is to say 'I would like you (the players) to recognize these things which are fundamental to what I want out of the game, and that it is okay for me to want that.'

It may be that your players are fundamentally not people who you can respect, or that their gaming tastes are not tastes you can respect. But in that case, I wouldn't expect much from any kind of compromises, because the sort of viewpoint that is created by not having that respect is 'what can we say to get Talakeal off our backs/to trick or manipulate Talakeal into doing what we want' rather than actual open and honest communication.

Satinavian
2021-07-28, 05:35 AM
I am saying that you often use hypothetical examples. That is just your way of argueing. But i also say that you don't clearly mark hypothetical examples as such. And that many people have repeatedly taken those as something that actually happened and based their advice and their mental image of your players on them.

I won't say that is your intent. But it is happening and it is a problem.


{Scrubbed}

Glorthindel
2021-07-28, 07:05 AM
{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Meh, I don't play games of "make up a version of events that fit my personal bias" games in r/aita threads, so i am not going to do it here.

Frankly my attitude is to take a posters word for it, and address the situation as cited verbatim - if they are lying, that's gonna screw them in the long run as the advice isn't going to apply, so all they've done is waste their own time, but offering advice for my made-up version of what I think is happening is me wasting their time if the advice is no good, as I didn't address the situation fairly.

As an aside, I really sincerely hope Talakeal is making all this **** up - I would be able to thoroughly enjoy laughing at the absurdity of the stories (seriously, I can see why you dub the players Brian and Bob, you should send these tales in to the KotDT author for story ideas) without having to feel bad for the guy having to suffer through all this. Honestly, find a new group dude, even just one of your stories alone is more misery than its worth putting up with.

meandean
2021-07-28, 08:56 AM
I agree that there was nothing at all wrong with the players' wolf plan. If you didn't roll to see if the wolf perceived them, that was unfair to the players. If you did, well, fine, but hopefully they at least knew why their plan failed. If these are your players, I definitely wouldn't roll behind a screen. I would probably go so far as to literally announce every roll you make and its result, even if the PCs wouldn't be aware of it. That'll no doubt feel stupid, but on the other hand, just attempting to play games with this group is already stupid, so why let that stop you?

And, I think it's silly for you as the DM to be sitting there thinking "I don't want this to happen because the townspeople could have done it themselves." That's like re-writing the entire DC universe because you can't figure out why the Justice League would need Green Arrow when they already have Superman. You don't have to make the world that consistent.

If the players were told they'd get paid for a task, and they outwitted the taskgiver by identifying an easy strategy that the taskgiver should have thought of themselves, then... great! That's smart! Maybe the town will be less grateful after they realize that, leading to various consequences. (Since they did accomplish the task, the consequences shouldn't be "you get no money and @!#@ you.") Or, just as plausibly, the townspeople just see the wolf is dead and don't know or care how it happened. Either way, there's absolutely no reason that the attempt should inherently not be allowed to occur.

If you keep telling the players "here's a problem you can solve with combat", and they keep trying to figure out ways to solve the problem without (real) combat... that sounds like they want puzzles more than combat. I get being surprised by that, since it's strange for D&D players... probably because D&D is the wrong game for that. But, it's at least theoretically workable. Consider doing a game focused, not on combat, but on puzzles and mysteries. Clues for mysteries should be placed in multiple places; see the Alexandrian articles on this. Be liberal with allowing ability checks to get increasingly unsubtle hints. If the players come up with a plausible way to bypass or destroy a puzzle, let it happen.

Since your players are man (or woman-) babies, these will probably feel to you like dumb mysteries for dummies. But, it's fine. Law & Order has made about ninety million episodes. Lots of people watch it, even smart people, and it actually has inspired a lot of folks to try to help people. There would be no shame in that.

KorvinStarmast
2021-07-28, 12:18 PM
While I haven't seen seven samurai, I have seen Magnificent Seven, and in it the protagnists are both brave and cunning, they come up with detailed plans, debate doing it at all, and in the end half of them end up dead. Yes. And the bandit band is defeated/routed/destroyed.


Remember, my initial premise was that the players wanted to the monsters to be so inept that they didn't have to be smart or brave to fight; I have an old school idea for you.
Smart tough monsters. If it's a party wipe, or a partial wipe, have them roll up new characters.

But at low levels, when you don't have a significant numerical advantage over local militia or huntsmen, the idea that there would still be a need for heroes to defeat inept monsters is harder for me to swallow. No DM is required to play monsters as inept. So don't.

If you aren't having fun, then stop DM'ing.
DMs are allowed to have fun too.
If your players don't agree to that, your problem isn't solvable.
Tell the players that you are burnt out, one of them needs to DM.
See what happens.

Talakeal
2021-07-28, 11:56 PM
That is a decent plan to deal with a wild animal, especially one that can't climb. Decent enough that it has been successfully done in real life.
Important question: was there a chance it could have worked? Did you roll a perception check for the wolf to see if it noticed the players? Or did you just decide that it was "too clever"? Did you make clear that it had noticed the players (something like, it walks up to the clearing, suddenly it freezes and looks right at the players, then it starts lurking.) Would you have allowed the tactic to work if they had spent more time on making sure they were well concealed?

Also, why did the wolf ambush them on the road? Was the wolf a known man-killer? Why would a single wolf even attack a group of several armed humans when it is so clever? Was it really what the wolf would do? Or were you determined to have the "combat as sport" scenario? This ambush basically took the decision from the players. You made it impossible for them to optimize their strategy by forcing the combat. Did the players have an opportunity to evade that ambush in return, as the wolf evaded their ambush?

Your post somewhat reads like you disapproved of the "sit in tree" tactic in the first place; why? Was it not brave enough? But it was cunning, wasn't it? Is cunning alone not enough?

I wasn't the DM in this encounter. Nor did I participate, I was playing an alchemist and when they told me their plan I said "That's stupid. We were explicitly told the wolf is too clever for traps," and was back in town trying to come up with some sort of bait that would lure the wolf and / or an undetectable poison. My plan may or may not have worked either, we will never know.

The players did not conceal themselves, and wolves have exceptionally keep senses, especially at night. They can smell people from over a mile away.

I assume it wasn't after the PCs, but rather the lamb they were escorting through the forest.

So, IF I were the DM I would have been doing it to preserve verisimilitude, we are told the wolf is too cunning to trap, and that the local hunters (who are competent enough to make their living trapping animals) have had no success; therefore if a trap is going to work it needs to be bloody brilliant.

On a meta-game level, I do kind of get annoyed by the apparent hypocrisy of having to play all my monsters as dumb and weak enough they they will simply charge into a straight fight with the PCs that they are guaranteed to lose, but at the same time the players are allowed to use whatever traps they want to avoid combat, and the players expect me to play them even dumber so that they always fall for said traps.


Actually, I do!

First off: when you do a tutorial by stating advice on the part of the GM, you are not doing a tutorial. You are giving advice (which may, based on your relationship/tone/ability to communicate on both sides, come as irritating at best). Tutorial happens inside the game: mainly by setting the expectations during first few hours of gameplay. When that's done, they usually do not change their expectations easily: so you'd be better off starting a new game. Completely new game.

I'd suggest you take a look at the Tomb of the Serpent Kings: the module is specifically built as dungeon delving tutorial. I don't remember specifics as I read it quite some time ago, but it's quite clear what it's trying to accomplish. It gives lessons (I think one of those was: "There are traps. They usually protect treasure."). It handles the basics well, so you could get few pointers.

Let's assume you want them to be "brave" (with the "determined", "frugal" and "creative" on the side - meaning, don't give up after first try, try some things, but don't waste resources). For the frugal thing, they have to know exact value of the "reward" (loot/quest reward), so they can evaluate how much consummables they can invest before going into loss. For the determined, they should be able to see the "rest point" beyond the encounter - so they know they can push on. For "creative", you can give them tools and relatively safe "playground" (meaning: they have to know if their crazy plan fails, they won't suffer reprecussions; e.g. the dragon sleeps and will awaken slowly - so they have time to retreat and rethink). Lastly... the "brave" part.

They first defeat few weak goblins (obviously weak opponents that are actually weak; lesson: weak-looking opponents are weak). The tavern cheers, they get free beer and locals decide to celebrate them (incentive to do more stuff like that). Then, they defeat few orcs (mid-level opponents, ideally by their creative approach or tactics - the orcs are camping, there's enough of them to be a threat, but you definitely tell them they see the advantage is on their side if they do a surprise attack - but tomorrow the orcs will move on as the camp is temporary; the lesson is: you can defeat enemies easier if you play carefully, but you can't take too long). The survivors will be celebrated, there are discussions about a statue, free beer, free cake. People pay them respect. Now you throw a difficult opponent at them, but again: make sure they get enough possibilities/time to prepare. The enemy does not know about them and just goes on - they have 3 days until the enemy reaches the town (and obliterates it). If they retreat, the townfolk should be afraid - it's a dragon - but should be calm because "the heroes will save us as they did before!"... and the statue will be prepared by the time they are done.

Again, there are lots of articles about tutorials, how to do them, what not to do (e.g. too much reading). And you have a lot of people that already provided advice on how to do this. So: what are you going to do?

Good advice, although it might be too late for this system / group. I will think hard about it. I downloaded the module and will give it a thurough read this weekend.


So your players want to feel brave and cunning without measuring up to your standard of brave and cunning? Yeah that's a rough one, not really a situation you can fix without lowering your standards, which clearly isn't something you would consider fun. Sometimes there isn't a compromise that works (though this case isn't necessarily impossible).

Again, when I say brave, I mean willing to risk life and limb going on adventures, nothing more. And being willing to go on adventures just kind of a requirement for playing an action / adventure game, which is what the PCs explicitly mean brave.

And at the same time, I don't care if they are cunning, but the more thought they put into their tactics, the safer they will be.

What I don't like is being told that I am "trying to kill the players" if adventures are dangerous. Basically, the loop was:

1: PCs refuse to go on an adventure because it is dangerous.
2: I tell them that they asked me to prepare an adventure for them and said they wanted action, and I came here to game, and that PCs in an adventure game, by definition, need to be brave enough to go on adventures.
3: The players rush into combat without a plan, get beat up, and win.
4: The players complain that the encounter was too hard because they took too much damage.
5: I explain that the encounter was balanced, and that they had no real chance of losing, but a balanced combat will hurt them. They can minimize the risk of damage by putting more thought into tactics; although unless said tactics are absolutely brilliant the risk will never be zero.
6: They call me a hypocrite and say that by not putting any thought into tactics, they were being brave just like I told them, and therefore it is my fault their PCs got hurt.


As for the social stuff, I don't know man, I don't know. That's a heavy conversation we probably need to have at some point.


{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

It does if you understand the rules of D&D; there is no chance in the world that the PCs could have killed the wolf in a single round of attacks, and no way in the world they could have kept up with it they were in a tree and it decided to run. A vital part of their plan, the insane part, was that they assumed the wolf would then run towards them and try and stand at the base of the tree snarling up at them in impotent rage while they finished it of.

And even so, the point of the story is not "my PCs are insane"; its that the PCs want fights where they are at zero risk, and get mad at the DM if the NPCs are too smart for that to happen; which the story absolutely does not need any additional context to convey.

But ok, want to hear another real game example then? One that is, afaict, not missing any context and containing no simplifications or exaggerations?

On multiple occasions, the wizard would cast a Protection from X spell on the fighter rendering her completely immune to the enemy's attacks.

The monsters, upon realizing their weapons did nothing, ignored the fighter and attacked the rest of the group.

The mage player got mad at me OOC saying that the monsters should just beat uselessly on the fighter, and that by having them now ignore the fighter and attack the rest of the party (including the mage) I am going out of my way to "punish him for outsmarting me".

So, the mage then casts the same spell on the entire party.

The monsters, seeing their blows are completely useless, fall back to their lair and hide. Perhaps they regroup and plan on ambushing the PCs later once the magic has faded, maybe they just take their treasure and run.

The mage player then gets mad at me for "tricking him into wasting all of his spells".


The first step towards respect would be to say 'I (the GM) recognize that a person can want that, and that it is okay to want that'. The second step is to say 'I would like you (the players) to recognize these things which are fundamental to what I want out of the game, and that it is okay for me to want that.'

It may be that your players are fundamentally not people who you can respect, or that their gaming tastes are not tastes you can respect. But in that case, I wouldn't expect much from any kind of compromises, because the sort of viewpoint that is created by not having that respect is 'what can we say to get Talakeal off our backs/to trick or manipulate Talakeal into doing what we want' rather than actual open and honest communication.

I am pretty sure we had had almost that exact conversation on multiple occasions.

Sometimes it helps for a while, but then new (related) issues crop up and we fall back into the same rut.


Yes. And the bandit band is defeated/routed/destroyed.

I have an old school idea for you.
Smart tough monsters. If it's a party wipe, or a partial wipe, have them roll up new characters.
No DM is required to play monsters as inept. So don't.

What are we actually arguing about then?

My entire premise was that adventuring is (traditionally) a high risk high reward profession, and that my players feel entitled to dumb monsters who pose no threat, yet still want to be paid well and respected as great heroes, and I don't want to provide such a mechanically boring and narratively incoherent experience.


If you keep telling the players "here's a problem you can solve with combat", and they keep trying to figure out ways to solve the problem without (real) combat... that sounds like they want puzzles more than combat. I get being surprised by that, since it's strange for D&D players... probably because D&D is the wrong game for that. But, it's at least theoretically workable. Consider doing a game focused, not on combat, but on puzzles and mysteries. Clues for mysteries should be placed in multiple places; see the Alexandrian articles on this. Be liberal with allowing ability checks to get increasingly unsubtle hints. If the players come up with a plausible way to bypass or destroy a puzzle, let it happen.

My players love combat. Any time I try and have a game about exploration or social interaction they tell me that they only like action / adventure games. This also applies to, horror, see below.

They absolutely hate mysteries and puzzles; and honestly I kind of agree with them. They tend to be very boring and railroady even when done well.

AFAICT, the issue is not interest, but power. The players enjoy beating up other people, but don't enjoy being beaten up in turn. They like combat, but only if they are garunteed to win; but it isn't just winning, they also have to feel in control the entire time; and any time they are grappled, paralyzed, knocked out, injured, taking cover, or being kited by a more mobile foe they aren't in control and thus get mad at me for making the game "too hard" even if they ultimately win the fight by a wide margin.

Likewise, they have asked me to avoid horror elements in my games, I assume for similar reasons, because the fear and mystery breeds a feeling of helplessness even if they ultimately slay the monster in the end.


I agree that there was nothing at all wrong with the players' wolf plan. If you didn't roll to see if the wolf perceived them, that was unfair to the players. If you did, well, fine, but hopefully they at least knew why their plan failed. If these are your players, I definitely wouldn't roll behind a screen. I would probably go so far as to literally announce every roll you make and its result, even if the players wouldn't be aware of it.

I don't remember if the wolf made a roll to spot the party, although they weren't making any attempt to camouflage themselves so I imagine the roll would have been very easy to pass. Regardless, the wolf may have just felt the situation felt suspect and chosen to sit back rather than rush into an unknown situation; hell maybe it had even seen the same trick before and gotten an arrow in its flank as a young wolf and knew to avoid the situation. Many "hard to catch" animals in real life are that way because they simply won't enter into a situation that is out of the ordinary for them.

Also keep in mind that wolves have much better hearing and (night) vision than a person, and can also smell people from over a mile away.


Meh, I don't play games of "make up a version of events that fit my personal bias" games in r/aita threads, so i am not going to do it here.

Frankly my attitude is to take a posters word for it, and address the situation as cited verbatim - if they are lying, that's gonna screw them in the long run as the advice isn't going to apply, so all they've done is waste their own time, but offering advice for my made-up version of what I think is happening is me wasting their time if the advice is no good, as I didn't address the situation fairly.

As an aside, I really sincerely hope Talakeal is making all this **** up - I would be able to thoroughly enjoy laughing at the absurdity of the stories (seriously, I can see why you dub the players Brian and Bob, you should send these tales in to the KotDT author for story ideas) without having to feel bad for the guy having to suffer through all this. Honestly, find a new group dude, even just one of your stories alone is more misery than its worth putting up with.

Yeah, its the internet, you can't tell really tell if anyone is telling the truth or not; personally there are several posters I don't trust a whole lot, but I just tend to avoid responding to them as it isn't worth anyone's time.

As I said before, if I am trolling, I am the most dedicated troll in the world as I have been maintaining the same story for 12+ years here and on the WotC board before that, have my real name in my signature, and have posted several campaign logs clocking in at tens of thousands of words each.

The KoDT names actually predate most of my gaming stories by quite a while; back in my high-school group one of my friends started calling the four of us by KoDT names because we were a scruffy stressed out guy behind the screen, a very large quiet intelligent guy, an athletic jock who enjoyed gaming a stress relief, and a short balding munchkin with glasses, and those names just kind of stuck and make for easy to remember anonymous forum names.


Off the top of my head:

- You had a thread about a desert temple where your group murdered everyone, lost the support of the resident goddess (or murdered the goddess, I don't remember exactly), and then... couldn't make it back across the desert, or something like that?

- You had a thread where you complained about one of your players who wouldn't buy consumables and wasn't contributing their crafting resources to other PCs even when they had no reasonable use for them themselves - specifically with regards to wanting to upgrade all the way to +5 when the system was designed to make that exponentially inefficient.

- You've complained about one of your players wanting to have NPCs basically cower in fear or emote suffering when the PC bullied them. Not an unreasonable thing to complain about, but it is a complaint.

- You've complained about your players complaining to new players that you are a killer DM and will railroad them, kill their characters, etc.

- You've complained about your players not getting the Avatar of Vengeance thing and using the easy-death system you implemented for them to teleport back to down by letting it kill them, and then not accepting the consequences to their cohort. Again, not an unreasonable thing to complain about, but it is a complaint.

- You've complained about your players tantrums, throwing things, etc. Again, not unreasonable, but...

Complaining about frustrating things your players do is not inherently problematic. But I get very wary when you in the same breath complain about them spreading bad stories about you to the new players behind your back and how that, among everything else they've done, is the thing that bothers you the most. Do you think Bob or Brian wouldn't be as offended by the way you've described them in these threads, as you've been offended by the way they've described you?

Okay, so 'behind your back' is the miscommunication here (when you say 'turn them against me', that reads to me as 'behind your back'). I think the point stands though: You don't like when they tell stories that make you seem like a bad guy. They probably wouldn't like it that you are telling stories that make them seem like bad guys. From your point of view the stories they're telling are grossly distorted. For all we know, from their point of view the stories you're telling would seem grossly distorted, and Brian(?) would characterize his greed and lack of willingness to spend to help out the party as that the other players are trying to push him around and he just wants the agency to play his own character or something.

Every single one of these stories is about the players having an issue with something I did in game and me talking about how to handle their abuse / anger.

Like, the story about them attacking the desert shrine; them deciding to be juvenile murder hobos was slightly annoying, but wasn't actually an issue. The issue was that the player who died as a result of it called me a cheater, called the surviving player all sorts of horrible names for not helping him, and then stormed out. I also don't know how I could have made a thread complaining about it as this occurred almost 20 years ago, back when the whole Playground was just a twinkle in The Giant's eye, although I am sure I have referenced it many times since. Heck, I hadn't even gamed with Dave in five or six years by the time I made my account here.

Likewise, the not buying armor is his choice, but he makes it my problem by constantly bitching to me about how much damage he takes. I didn't make a thread about the players exploiting the no death rule, I made a thread about how they were literally screaming at the top of their lungs and accusing me of tricking and lying to them when I told them that the rule didn't extend to their hirelings.

I am a pretty live and let live sort of guy at the gaming table; people do things that annoy me but I tend to keep it to myself. But when people are criticizing my actions, then there is a problem that I feel needs to be addressed. When I GM, I don't tell the players what they can or can't do, I like to let them make their own choices, but then that comes back and bites me in the butt because they blame all of their failures on my feet; heck Brian's most common complaint is that I don't railroad him enough and don't, in the words of Homer, "stop him from doing something stupid."

Likewise, my last DM was absolutely horrible. He did every stereotypical bad DM thing in the book; he railroaded, had obscure puzzles that stalled the adventure, had spotlight stealing NPCs inserted into the plot, changed the rules mid game, would go off on tangeants for hours, used the same annoying voice for every NPC, fudged rolls, gave out OP magic items and then had NPCs steal them, pretended he was running some grand epic plot when it was just a typical dungeon crawl, etc. But I made zero threads on it, because even bad gaming is still fun. BUT he also had a horrible tendency to bully his players, both in and out of character, and constantly had to mock and berate our decisions and correct us over every little mistake (and if there wasn't a mistake, he would make one up). THAT was an issue that I did create several threads about.

And again, I don't give a crap if people talk about me behind my back. It hurts my feelings that they have the issue in the first place, and if they are bringing up a decades old grudge it shows that there is some disturbing issue festering in our relationship, but people gonna talk. The issue is that they are actively trying to turn new players against me, not the complaining. Like, there is a huge difference between bitching to your wife about your a-hole boss at work when you come home and playing office politics and lying to your co-workers to get them to turn on him.

Or, to use a more real thread, if Bob and Brian created accounts on ENworld or some other forum I don't frequent and told all sorts of negative stories about my game, negative or not, it wouldn't bug me nearly as much as Sativinian warning people not to trust me in this thread; because one is just harmless bitching, the other actually has consequences for how I deal with people.

You know, I realized that this conversation is basically just "the paradox of tolerance".

TLDR:

1: Complaining about how someone else plays / runs a game is a different beast then getting upset when people are throwing tantrums / bullying other people about how they play the game.
2: Playing politics =/= blowing off steam.


And, I think it's silly for you as the DM to be sitting there thinking "I don't want this to happen because the townspeople could have done it themselves." That's like re-writing the entire DC universe because you can't figure out why the Justice League would need Green Arrow when they already have Superman. You don't have to make the world that consistent.


It seems like you are doing the equivalent of asking me to turn my brain off and just ignore the plot holes in a movie; which might be good advice but just isn't something I am capable of doing.

But even so, this seems like it would make for a very lame movie; its the equivalent of bringing in Doctor House to solve a seemingly incurable medical mystery and him just pointing out that all the other doctors forgot to use basic antibiotics, or having Sherlock Holmes (modern equivalent) come in just to point out that the crime was caught on camera but the local cops were too stupid to check the security footage. It just, feels unsatisfying and makes everyone involved look farcically incompetent.


If the players were told they'd get paid for a task, and they outwitted the taskgiver by identifying an easy strategy that the taskgiver should have thought of themselves, then... great! That's smart! Maybe the town will be less grateful after they realize that, leading to various consequences. (Since they did accomplish the task, the consequences shouldn't be "you get no money and @!#@ you.") Or, just as plausibly, the townspeople just see the wolf is dead and don't know or care how it happened. Either way, there's absolutely no reason that the attempt should inherently not be allowed to occur.

This isn't about "out-witting" anyone, its about being out-witted. Likewise, its not about the players being screwed out of rewards for doing the task the "wrong" way.

In this scenario, the players are being explicitly told that they are hunting an exceptionally clever wolf that the local hunters and trappers have been unable to catch, and so they are paying several years wages for people they consider heroes to come in and do something they cannot.

Basically, the players are being mad for playing out the scenario that was presented to them and instead want me to retcon both the wolf and the local hunters into being incompetent so that their plan would work.


On the other hand; can you imagine if the situation was reversed? The NPCs lied to the PCs about the situation only to lure them into a trap where they would be helplessly sniped from an inaccessible position? The players would go absolutely ape-poop!


Except now, before you even have the campaign, you're spending quite a lot of mental effort trying to write letters specifically calling out this behavior. That makes no sense at all unless you actually have players trying to play these cowardly PCs. Unless you mean that the players present a bunch of concepts that you think would not be cowards, but then play them like cowards. If that's the case I would say that you do in fact have a majority of cowardly PCs - that's the reality of the behavior.

If that behavior isn't happening, why write these letters asking them to be brave, etc? More to the point, why are you giving us examples of this very behavior happening?

Because it is sometimes an issue. In my last game, it happened to be a big issue because I had two such PCs in the same group.

It is not the entire focus of the letter, not by a long shot. Its only 1 or 2 sentences out of ~25.

Every point on the list is something that causes the players to have issues with the game and then lash out at me or their fellow players. Not every player exhibits every behavior, in fact most players only do one or two things on the list, and many issues never come up in the entire campaign, but when you have six players each with 1 or 2 issues, just because any given issue is unlikely to come up doesn't mean it should be addressed.

Its like if you have a national park; any given tourist is unlikely to suffer an accident, and any given accident is unlikely to occur in any given season, but when you have a huge number of tourists there all year, something is bound to occur. So you do the best you can and leave out signs like "Danger Falling Rocks" or "No Swimming" or "Flash Flood Zone" or "Don't Feed the Bears!" even if any given issue is unlikely to come up.

Satinavian
2021-07-29, 01:42 AM
But ok, want to hear another real game example then? One that is, afaict, not missing any context and containing no simplifications or exaggerations?

On multiple occasions, the wizard would cast a Protection from X spell on the fighter rendering her completely immune to the enemy's attacks.

The monsters, upon realizing their weapons did nothing, ignored the fighter and attacked the rest of the group.

The mage player got mad at me OOC saying that the monsters should just beat uselessly on the fighter, and that by having them now ignore the fighter and attack the rest of the party (including the mage) I am going out of my way to "punish him for outsmarting me".

So, the mage then casts the same spell on the entire party.

The monsters, seeing their blows are completely useless, fall back to their lair and hide. Perhaps they regroup and plan on ambushing the PCs later once the magic has faded, maybe they just take their treasure and run.

The mage player then gets mad at me for "tricking him into wasting all of his spells".
For what it is worth, yes, that seems unreasonable from the side of the players and i probably would have played the monsters similarly. At least when "the monsters can escape pretty unscathed after they are basically beaten" was handled in a fair manner. And there are still questions about "do the monster know enough about the time limit of magic", "why are the monsters able to decide on location and place of the next confrontation", "why don't the adventurers, now knowing the monsters weaknesses, just storm the lair appropriately buffed", "as they basically won this fight, did they get xp"

Though, again, if you are not willing to make the monsters dumb or use mindless ones, you could still make them weak and guarantee a decisive player victory even with poor strategy that way.


My entire premise was that adventuring is (traditionally) a high risk high reward profession, and that my players feel entitled to dumb monsters who pose no threat, yet still want to be paid well and respected as great heroes, and I don't want to provide such a mechanically boring and narratively incoherent experience.
Well, yes. That seems the core of the problem. We have arrived at it a couple of times already.


You and your players want differrent, incompatible things from the game. Which means the game will be dysfunctional and and full of frustration until you all have found a compromise you can live with.

But next you will likely again insist that your players and you have fun nearly all the time and it is only a rare occurrence that anyone finds any faults with anything and that thus you don't really have to change anything fundamentally.



You know the problem. You have known the problem a long time. Your players want an easy, foolproof way for their characters to succeed (and don't even mind if takes time as they have been shown to be willing to grind). You are not willing to give it to them because it is boring for you if they actually take it.

You will never be able to change what your players want, not with a letter, not with any other way.

Tarmor
2021-07-29, 05:16 AM
...as I have been maintaining the same story for 12+ years here and on the WotC board before that

If this has really been going on for that long (I've only been reading occasional threads over the last two years) then you REALLY need a completely new group of players.
They don't sound like friends - friends (and no group of gamers I've ever encountered in nearly 40 years of RPGs) don't act like that. They sound like lazy (or cowardly), selfish sh**s. As much as they want their PC's to be heroes, they aren't playing things that way.
If everything you have been complaining about for so long is true: no letters, no discussions, no restructuring of game rules or suggestions is going to change anything. Your problem is either you, or your players, but more likely a bad combination of both.

Morgaln
2021-07-29, 05:20 AM
I wasn't the DM in this encounter. Nor did I participate, I was playing an alchemist and when they told me their plan I said "That's stupid. We were explicitly told the wolf is too clever for traps," and was back in town trying to come up with some sort of bait that would lure the wolf and / or an undetectable poison. My plan may or may not have worked either, we will never know.

The players did not conceal themselves, and wolves have exceptionally keep senses, especially at night. They can smell people from over a mile away.

I assume it wasn't after the PCs, but rather the lamb they were escorting through the forest.

So, IF I were the DM I would have been doing it to preserve verisimilitude, we are told the wolf is too cunning to trap, and that the local hunters (who are competent enough to make their living trapping animals) have had no success; therefore if a trap is going to work it needs to be bloody brilliant.

On a meta-game level, I do kind of get annoyed by the apparent hypocrisy of having to play all my monsters as dumb and weak enough they they will simply charge into a straight fight with the PCs that they are guaranteed to lose, but at the same time the players are allowed to use whatever traps they want to avoid combat, and the players expect me to play them even dumber so that they always fall for said traps.


I actually think this is very informative; not about your players but about you. In this case, your fellow players came up with an obviously half-assed plan. You decided that the plan was stupid and wouldn't work; but you didn't try and improve on the plan; you said "screw this stupid plan, I'll do my own thing." Instead of working with your team (which, by the way, is one of the virtues for players you mentioned in your letters), you refused to even engage with the idea. Instead, you could have tried to point out flaws and come up with ways to cover them: concealment, using something to cover the human smell, nets to keep the wolf from running away, pit traps (possibly tar pits that can be lit up) to slow it down, sedatives in the lamb's fur to make the wolf drowsy, there are endless possibilities.

From everything you wrote, I believe that you treat the plans your players come up with when you GM the same way. During the planning phase, you decide whether the plan will work or not. But you don't let the players know a plan is doomed to fail. You just disengage with the situation and let the players continue doing something you already decided will fail. So much for your players' agency.

Also, you said that if you had been the GM, a trap would have to be bloody brilliant, because some NPC said the wolf was too clever to trap. Let me quote your own words at you:

"Folks out here will try and lie, cheat, or trick ya, and may twist your words"

You specifically say that NPCs will not always be honest or trustworthy, but you expect your players to dismiss ideas out of hand because an NPC told them it wouldn't work. How are the players to know this really is the truth? The hunter might just be lazy and lie about trying to trap the wolf; he might have been unlucky with his traps; he might be less competent in trapping than the PCs are. The players can't know a plan doesn't work unless they try it.

That said, your GM in that wolf scenario clearly wasn't playing the wolf consistently. If the wolf doesn't try to get the lamb when it notices humans in nearby trees, there's no reason it should go after it when it is directly accompanied by humans. So I suspect the trap idea really was doomed to fail from the beginning, because the GM wanted to have a direct fight.

Ultimately, however, it comes down to what Satinavian said and what others have said before, so I will quote it for emphasis:



You and your players want differrent, incompatible things from the game. Which means the game will be dysfunctional and and full of frustration until you all have found a compromise you can live with.

Talakeal
2021-07-29, 06:07 AM
I actually think this is very informative; not about your players but about you. In this case, your fellow players came up with an obviously half-assed plan. You decided that the plan was stupid and wouldn't work; but you didn't try and improve on the plan; you said "screw this stupid plan, I'll do my own thing." Instead of working with your team (which, by the way, is one of the virtues for players you mentioned in your letters), you refused to even engage with the idea. Instead, you could have tried to point out flaws and come up with ways to cover them: concealment, using something to cover the human smell, nets to keep the wolf from running away, pit traps (possibly tar pits that can be lit up) to slow it down, sedatives in the lamb's fur to make the wolf drowsy, there are endless possibilities.

Yeah, I was not a great team player when I was a kid; I also think at that point the party hadn't really ever formed and we were more rivals than allies.

One of the reasons why I work extra hard to ensure everyone brings compatible PCs to the table is that I have a lot of bad memories of teenage gaming where I was playing the angsty anti-social loner who had to bribed and begged to join the party and go on the adventure, and now that I am older, wiser, and have a lot less free time to devote to gaming I don't want to waste everyone's time with that anymore.


You specifically say that NPCs will not always be honest or trustworthy, but you expect your players to dismiss ideas out of hand because an NPC told them it wouldn't work. How are the players to know this really is the truth? The hunter might just be lazy and lie about trying to trap the wolf; he might have been unlucky with his traps; he might be less competent in trapping than the PCs are. The players can't know a plan doesn't work unless they try it.

But what motivation does the farmer have to lie? And why is he willing to pay two years wages to get the PCs to do a single night of work for him?

But I fully agree with the sentiment that they should try things out. That is absolutely the sort of attitude I want to encourage.


From everything you wrote, I believe that you treat the plans your players come up with when you GM the same way. During the planning phase, you decide whether the plan will work or not. But you don't let the players know a plan is doomed to fail. You just disengage with the situation and let the players continue doing something you already decided will fail. So much for your players' agency.

Ok; so you are saying this like its a bad thing, but I honestly can't think of any other way to do it.

Like, in this case the PCs have been told that the wolf is too clever to trap, have seen nothing to indicate that information is unreliable, and they plan to trap it anyway.

So what exactly do I go to give them agency? And at what point do I decide the plan won't work? Just have the wolf act randomly? Ret-con the setting so that whatever the players try works?

To use a simpler example; take a monster that it flat out immune to fire, say a pit fiend, the players know it is immune to fire, but they plan to burn it anyway. At what point should the DM decide that plan wouldn't work?



This complaint just doesn't make sense to me.

Like, I could understand objecting to railroading, if I, say, decided that there would be a fight with the wolf period and came up with an excuse to shoot down any other plan the PCs decided upon, but that isn't whats happening here, its really the opposite; I established a fact of the setting and am sticking to it. I mean, I suppose I could railroad in the opposite direction and just come up with an excuse for why whatever plan the PCs could up with would work, but that's not really my style or one my players have ever shown an interest it.

NichG
2021-07-29, 07:21 AM
I am pretty sure we had had almost that exact conversation on multiple occasions.

Sometimes it helps for a while, but then new (related) issues crop up and we fall back into the same rut.


I think we have as well, but that indicates to me that it isn't really being internalized. So, hm...

So, lets say we take we've figured out about, say, one of your players which they don't seem to be willing to change: they want an easy beer and pretzels game where they don't have to think, but where they can feel good about themselves and pretend to be big, respected, authority figures.

Now, lets take what we've figured out about you that you aren't willing to change (feel free to adjust this a bit, but if there's something where you'd balk and not run it, make sure this excludes it): you want to run a somewhat thoughtful game in which you can express things that seem interesting or creative to you, and where the fiction of the world is respected - dangerous things are dangerous, smart things are smart, people behave in ways that make sense to you for people to behave, and the like. And you don't want to be constantly having to do work to drag the party into things, but need them to be at least willing to find a reason to engage.

Lets assume you and this person respect each-other what the other wants - that is to say, you don't try to write off anything about their position as 'they're just lazy' or 'I can convince them to want what I want' or 'they just don't know better yet, but I can teach them'. So this is actually and truly what would make that player happiest, no matter what you were to say to them. And similarly in reverse, that what you're asking for is what you really need and no amount of cajoling or complaining from the player will change that about you.

If that's the situation, what do you say to that person?




Or, to use a more real thread, if Bob and Brian created accounts on ENworld or some other forum I don't frequent and told all sorts of negative stories about my game, negative or not, it wouldn't bug me nearly as much as Sativinian warning people not to trust me in this thread; because one is just harmless bitching, the other actually has consequences for how I deal with people.


Okay, that makes sense.

Morgaln
2021-07-29, 08:10 AM
But what motivation does the farmer have to lie? And why is he willing to pay two years wages to get the PCs to do a single night of work for him?

But I fully agree with the sentiment that they should try things out. That is absolutely the sort of attitude I want to encourage.


I was under the impression that it wasn't the farmer himself who said that but a local hunter who the farmers had told about the wolf. In that case it is plausible that the hunter didn't feel like going out to catch the wolf and just told the farmers that he tried and failed.
If it is the farmer himself, he might have tried to trap the wolf and failed. For him, that might equate to "the wolf is too clever to be trapped" when in reality, his trap just was done badly. Or the farmer is afraid of the wolf and doesn't want to risk meeting it. But he doesn't want to admit that, so he lies about what he already did to try and catch it, even though he didn't do anything. Humans aren't always reasonable; we do a lot of stupid stuff out of mishandling our emotions. Why should the NPCs in a game be different?
He shouldn't actually be willng to pay two years wages at all, because a single wolf likely won't cost him that amount of money anytime soon, so he would lose more money than he gains. Of course that goes back to the unreasonable expectations of compensation your players have.



Ok; so you are saying this like its a bad thing, but I honestly can't think of any other way to do it.

Like, in this case the PCs have been told that the wolf is too clever to trap, have seen nothing to indicate that information is unreliable, and they plan to trap it anyway.

So what exactly do I go to give them agency? And at what point do I decide the plan won't work? Just have the wolf act randomly? Ret-con the setting so that whatever the players try works?

To use a simpler example; take a monster that it flat out immune to fire, say a pit fiend, the players know it is immune to fire, but they plan to burn it anyway. At what point should the DM decide that plan wouldn't work?



This complaint just doesn't make sense to me.

Like, I could understand objecting to railroading, if I, say, decided that there would be a fight with the wolf period and came up with an excuse to shoot down any other plan the PCs decided upon, but that isn't whats happening here, its really the opposite; I established a fact of the setting and am sticking to it. I mean, I suppose I could railroad in the opposite direction and just come up with an excuse for why whatever plan the PCs could up with would work, but that's not really my style or one my players have ever shown an interest it.

I wouldn't decide beforehand that a wolf is too clever to be caught by traps in the first place. This is not a binary state between "falls for no traps" and "falls for every trap". There is a whole bunch of intermediate states. I might decide that it is a clever wolf that has some experience with how humans set up traps and so is distrustful of anyything that looks like a trap. That means simple traps will most likely not work, but it doesn't rule out that players can improve their trap in a way that it can. If they try a tactic and it fails, I will give information to the players as to why. So in the wolf example, I would say something along the lines of: "the wolf looks at you and then flees. It must have seen you; apparently the concealment provided by the tree wasn't enough to hide you."

In the case of an immunity or similar effect, I will tell the players outright, as a GM, when they are planning something that will not work. Something like: "Guys, you know for a fact, that this creature is immune to fire damage. Trying to burn it will not have any effect." I'm also perfectly willing to remind players of relevant information they have but might have forgotten, because while it might have been two weeks since the last session, it probably was just a few hours for the characters ("Remember, the scroll you read said they tried to roast the one-eyed winged potatocorn over the campfire and couldn't; fire damage will not be effective against it.")

In other words, if something was possible but lacking in execution, I will tell the players after they failed, with some subtle or not so subtle hints to where they can improve. If something is outright impossible, I will give that information beforehand to spare both me and the players time and frustration.
Note that in the case of the wolf, if I really decided that it wouldn't fall for any traps, I would treat it exactly like this. ("The farmer told you the wolf is too clever to fall for traps, and he meant it; what you are planning is a trap. I recommend you think of something else.")

However, this also partly comes down to a difference in GM style between you and me. I have a very flexible style with a lot if improvising. If players come up with a plan or theory that I like I will roll with it. I'm willing to change things to accommodate that, as long as it doesn't contradict anything that happened before or clashes with information the players already have. Consistency needs to be preserved, but details are subject to change until locked down by leaving my head. It's a bit of observer effect and quantum state rolled into an RP environment.
Clearly that is not your style of gaming and I don't think you would enjoy it either, even if you tried it. But communicating clearly will help with these situations, no matter your style.

meandean
2021-07-29, 11:36 AM
Regardless, the wolf may have just felt the situation felt suspect and chosen to sit back rather than rush into an unknown situation; hell maybe it had even seen the same trick before and gotten an arrow in its flank as a young wolf and knew to avoid the situation.Maybe "maybes" should be determined by dice rolls.


It seems like you are doing the equivalent of asking me to turn my brain off and just ignore the plot holes in a movie; which might be good advice but just isn't something I am capable of doing.

But even so, this seems like it would make for a very lame movie; its the equivalent of bringing in Doctor House to solve a seemingly incurable medical mystery and him just pointing out that all the other doctors forgot to use basic antibiotics, or having Sherlock Holmes (modern equivalent) come in just to point out that the crime was caught on camera but the local cops were too stupid to check the security footage. It just, feels unsatisfying and makes everyone involved look farcically incompetent.Nope. I 100% disagree with where you're going with this. The players' role is not to co-write your situations to make them more dramatically satisfying. That may be the case in other TTRPGs. That may be the case in Critical Role where the players are all actors/writers trying to create an end product that people will pay to watch. That's not the default assumption of D&D. Their role is to do what their characters would do.

If you ask the players to solve the poorly thought-out mystery, and the players correctly point out that a camera filmed everything... guess what that means? It means you're the guy who wrote the bad Sherlock Holmes story! Not them! You! And if you thought it'd be a good story to have them kill a wolf, but it turns out they can accomplish that in a way that makes for a lousy story, well, guess what that means too.

Understand that it's absolutely no different than when you plan what's designed to be a difficult boss combat, the players bravely stride onto the field of battle, and proceed to come up with a brilliant strategy that renders the fight trivial. It doesn't matter that one feels "heroic" and one feels "cowardly". The larger point is that the players are allowed to do things that they can and would do, and if you want your combats to be more exciting, you're going to have to do a better job of setting up the situation. (Which is something that's extremely hard to calculate, and it's routine for your "tough fight" to be a flop, so no one needs to slit their wrists over it. Just sayin'.)

Now, I can already see you typing your response about how no, that's not what happens... what happens is that the players make a bad plan that shouldn't work, you describe it not working, and then one of the players grabs the wolf miniature and eats it. Well, if a player not only throws a tantrum when they don't get their way, but doesn't even have a logical case to present in their favor, then no one's gonna dispute that the player is in the wrong. No one's gonna dispute, in fact, that a player who does that repeatedly even after you tell them to stop is an irredeemable a-hole.

That not being in dispute, I don't know why you want or need to argue that even if plans would work, you still would prevent them from happening if you think they're "lame." Taking that position about the hypothetical situation that apparently doesn't exist, weakens your case with respect to the real situation that apparently does exist. I suspect that the answer is that when we circle back around to the players being irredeemable a-holes, you want to change the subject because you realize there's only one answer to that, and it's not the answer you want.

Segev
2021-07-29, 03:05 PM
Nope. I 100% disagree with where you're going with this. The players' role is not to co-write your situations to make them more dramatically satisfying. That may be the case in other TTRPGs. That may be the case in Critical Role where the players are all actors/writers trying to create an end product that people will pay to watch. That's not the default assumption of D&D. Their role is to do what their characters would do.

If you ask the players to solve the poorly thought-out mystery, and the players correctly point out that a camera filmed everything... guess what that means? It means you're the guy who wrote the bad Sherlock Holmes story! Not them! You! And if you thought it'd be a good story to have them kill a wolf, but it turns out they can accomplish that in a way that makes for a lousy story, well, guess what that means too.

Understand that it's absolutely no different than when you plan what's designed to be a difficult boss combat, the players bravely stride onto the field of battle, and proceed to come up with a brilliant strategy that renders the fight trivial. It doesn't matter that one feels "heroic" and one feels "cowardly". The larger point is that the players are allowed to do things that they can and would do, and if you want your combats to be more exciting, you're going to have to do a better job of setting up the situation. (Which is something that's extremely hard to calculate, and it's routine for your "tough fight" to be a flop, so no one needs to slit their wrists over it. Just sayin'.)

Now, I can already see you typing your response about how no, that's not what happens... what happens is that the players make a bad plan that shouldn't work, you describe it not working, and then one of the players grabs the wolf miniature and eats it. Well, if a player not only throws a tantrum when they don't get their way, but doesn't even have a logical case to argue in their favor, then no one's gonna dispute that the player is in the wrong. No one's gonna dispute, in fact, that a player who does that repeatedly even after you tell them to stop is an irredeemable a-hole.

That not being in dispute, I don't know why you want or need to argue that even if plans would work, you still would prevent them from happening if you think they're "lame." Taking that position about the hypothetical situation that apparently doesn't exist, weakens your case with respect to the real situation that apparently does exist. I suspect that the answer is that when we circle back around to the players being irredeemable a-holes, you want to change the subject because you realize there's only one answer to that, and it's not the answer you want.

That's...not what he said in what you quoted, though. What he said was that he isn't willing to write the scenario that can be solved by looking at the camera footage, because the bad guys knew the camera was there and too steps to prevent its footage from being useful. But he believes his players are refusing to try any harder than thinking to look at the camera footage, and are ready to give up when the camera footage isn't helpful.

KorvinStarmast
2021-07-29, 03:32 PM
But what motivation does the farmer have to lie? And why is he willing to pay two years wages to get the PCs to do a single night of work for him?
Who cares? It's a game. Play.
That's why your players show up. To play a game.

I think that you are worrying about the wrong stuff, or to say that a different way, overstressing stuff that isn't that important to the play experience.

Old rule that goes way back to war games: you have to find a balance point between realism and playability. RPGs are no different.
Your apparent obsession with the commoner NPC and his motives is a swing too far from play and too far toward an emphasis on your idea of 'realism' at some level.

You aren't writing a book, you are playing a game.
The play's the thing - slightly misquote Shakespeare.

BRC
2021-07-29, 03:35 PM
Ok; so you are saying this like its a bad thing, but I honestly can't think of any other way to do it.

Like, in this case the PCs have been told that the wolf is too clever to trap, have seen nothing to indicate that information is unreliable, and they plan to trap it anyway.

So what exactly do I go to give them agency? And at what point do I decide the plan won't work? Just have the wolf act randomly? Ret-con the setting so that whatever the players try works?

To use a simpler example; take a monster that it flat out immune to fire, say a pit fiend, the players know it is immune to fire, but they plan to burn it anyway. At what point should the DM decide that plan wouldn't work?



This complaint just doesn't make sense to me.

Like, I could understand objecting to railroading, if I, say, decided that there would be a fight with the wolf period and came up with an excuse to shoot down any other plan the PCs decided upon, but that isn't whats happening here, its really the opposite; I established a fact of the setting and am sticking to it. I mean, I suppose I could railroad in the opposite direction and just come up with an excuse for why whatever plan the PCs could up with would work, but that's not really my style or one my players have ever shown an interest it.

So when GMing, I'll often use my seat as the GM to provide what i call a "Sanity Check" to the PC's.

Which is to say that under the assumption that the Characters, who do this stuff for a living, might be thinking about things a bit clearer/in more detail than the Players who do this for a few hours a week, to remind them of things that they have learned.

It also helps make sure that their understanding of the world aligns with mine. A lot of time player plans fall apart because they've made some assumption about the world that doesn't match up with the GM's assumptions.


For example, with the Unusually Intelligent Wolf.

The Hunter says "I Tried to lure it into a trap using a deer carcass, but it didn't work. The wolf approached my trap, but it didn't fall for it" If they ask for more details, the wolf sniffed the area around the carcass for a minute before turning back.

Then, if the PC's try to trap the wolf by saying "We'll put some bait on the ground and wait for it to come eat that bait", you, the GM can remind them that the Hunter already tried that and it didn't work.

This serves two purposes
1) Reminding the players of something they might have forgotten
2) Aligning the DM's expectations with that of the Players. The Players might have just assumed "Well, Hunter mcRando rolled poorly on whatever relevant skill check you need to trick the wolf. We'll roll better because we are PC's", while the DM is explicitly saying "This wolf is too smart to fall for a trap that's just some bait in a clearing. That Won't Work".


If the Players hear you say that and go "Well, we're going to just do that anyway", then yeah, that's on them.



That said, the big disconnect here, at least from what you've been saying (I don't know for sure if they would say the same) is that your players are interested in a beer-and-pretzels feel good beat-em-up that they don't have to put any thought into. It might just be a disconnect between the games you want to run and the games they want to play.

Like, as you've presented it, you've been running for a group of petulant players who are terrible at tactics, but want to do nothing but mug a succession of unarmed blind-deaf goblins who are nevertheless carrying fabulous treasures.

Call me skeptical, but I feel like that's not how they would describe their desires.|


One thought might be to run some sort of short Gladiatorial Arena type thing and see how they thrive in that scenario. Just combat in an arena against enemies picked in-universe to be roughly even matchups. Magical healing means no real risk of death. Just, like, run that scenario for a session or two as a kind of "Lets get used to the table again!" type thing and see how they react?




And even so, the point of the story is not "my PCs are insane"; its that the PCs want fights where they are at zero risk, and get mad at the DM if the NPCs are too smart for that to happen; which the story absolutely does not need any additional context to convey.

But ok, want to hear another real game example then? One that is, afaict, not missing any context and containing no simplifications or exaggerations?

On multiple occasions, the wizard would cast a Protection from X spell on the fighter rendering her completely immune to the enemy's attacks.

The monsters, upon realizing their weapons did nothing, ignored the fighter and attacked the rest of the group.

The mage player got mad at me OOC saying that the monsters should just beat uselessly on the fighter, and that by having them now ignore the fighter and attack the rest of the party (including the mage) I am going out of my way to "punish him for outsmarting me".

So, the mage then casts the same spell on the entire party.

The monsters, seeing their blows are completely useless, fall back to their lair and hide. Perhaps they regroup and plan on ambushing the PCs later once the magic has faded, maybe they just take their treasure and run.

The mage player then gets mad at me for "tricking him into wasting all of his spells".



I am pretty sure we had had almost that exact conversation on multiple occasions.


If this is accurate, then I honestly don't know what to say. That's...yeah, I've never encountered anything like that before.

Your players sound like they don't like mysteries or roleplay, they don't engage in the tactical side of things. I dunno.

How does the Mage respond when you lay out "The enemies are not idiots, they're not going to keep attacking somebody when their weapons obviously do nothing" (I guess the fighter could make a deception check to convince them that he's getting hurt so they keep wasting blows). Does he argue that they should keep attacking the fighter anyway? Do they grumble about how that's not the point?

I'm curious, because it seems like your obvious response "They saw the Fighter wasn't being hurt by their attacks, so they focused elsewhere, because they're not mindless robots" seems perfectly reasonable.
This might be a mismatch in how they think such games are supposed to work? (They play too many video games and think that enemies in hopeless situations are just supposed to glitch out and let you kill them?) They might just be petulant that their "Unstoppable Strategy" actually had pretty massive holes in it?

Talakeal
2021-07-29, 11:05 PM
That's...not what he said in what you quoted, though. What he said was that he isn't willing to write the scenario that can be solved by looking at the camera footage, because the bad guys knew the camera was there and too steps to prevent its footage from being useful. But he believes his players are refusing to try any harder than thinking to look at the camera footage, and are ready to give up when the camera footage isn't helpful.

I was going to say the same thing.

There are no times when I make a stupid mistake and the player's are able to thwart the scenario with something obvious. But that's not we are talking about here, we are talking about scenarios where the players are explicitly presented with a scenario where the simple methods have already been tried and found wanting.


Who cares? It's a game. Play.
That's why your players show up. To play a game.

I think that you are worrying about the wrong stuff, or to say that a different way, overstressing stuff that isn't that important to the play experience.

Old rule that goes way back to war games: you have to find a balance point between realism and playability. RPGs are no different.
Your apparent obsession with the commoner NPC and his motives is a swing too far from play and too far toward an emphasis on your idea of 'realism' at some level.

You aren't writing a book, you are playing a game.
The play's the thing - slightly misquote Shakespeare.

Ok, let me put it another way though.

My players enjoy combat. They insist combat be "balanced". They do not enjoy puzzles.

If I make a game where enemies all fall for basic tricks that render them helpless, the balanced combats the players show up for disappear from the game and are replaced by puzzle solving; albeit very easy puzzle solving.

At that point nobody is playing the game they want to play; they don't get the combats they enjoy, I don't get the world building I enjoy, and I am not allowed to participate in the planning game they are playing because I have to dumb the monsters down below their level which precludes the monsters having plans of their own.


That said, the big disconnect here, at least from what you've been saying (I don't know for sure if they would say the same) is that your players are interested in a beer-and-pretzels feel good beat-em-up that they don't have to put any thought into. It might just be a disconnect between the games you want to run and the games they want to play.

Like, as you've presented it, you've been running for a group of petulant players who are terrible at tactics, but want to do nothing but mug a succession of unarmed blind-deaf goblins who are nevertheless carrying fabulous treasures.

Call me skeptical, but I feel like that's not how they would describe their desires.|

One thought might be to run some sort of short Gladiatorial Arena type thing and see how they thrive in that scenario. Just combat in an arena against enemies picked in-universe to be roughly even matchups. Magical healing means no real risk of death. Just, like, run that scenario for a session or two as a kind of "Lets get used to the table again!" type thing and see how they react?

I have done that in the past when I was doing playtesting and CR calibration for my system. It was ok, but nobody but Bob really seemed to enjoy it more than regular play, and when I eventually had to turn up the difficulty because the player's excess treasure was skewing the results Bob had his biggest meltdown of all time.

In my current group I don't really think its a possibility though, game time is pretty precious and the new players are a lot less into "heck and slash" play than the old group was.

Lacco
2021-07-30, 02:24 AM
My players enjoy combat. They insist combat be "balanced". They do not enjoy puzzles.

If I make a game where enemies all fall for basic tricks that render them helpless, the balanced combats the players show up for disappear from the game and are replaced by puzzle solving; albeit very easy puzzle solving.

At that point nobody is playing the game they want to play; they don't get the combats they enjoy, I don't get the world building I enjoy, and I am not allowed to participate in the planning game they are playing because I have to dumb the monsters down below their level which precludes the monsters having plans of their own.

Jargon: father of misunderstandings and close cousin of mismatched expectations.

When you say they insist combat is balanced, what do they mean?

When you say balanced combats disappear from the game, what do you mean?

Basically: what is your understanding of "balanced combat" versus their understanding?

Example: my players like balanced combat. I like balanced combat. Their view of balanced combat is "we can steamroll through any encounter if we use good tactics and prepare, and we can win most combats (except bosses, these have to be scary) if we just let the dice roll without giving too much thougt to the combat; the GM will provide us with chance to get out and regroup if we run into a boss; we go into each combat with full potential (e.g. HP/spells, etc.)". My view of balanced combat is "they get as many enemies in such quantity that is equal to 3/4 of the party most of the time (meaning if one party member is incapacitated before combat, they are equal) without taking into account consummables, but for boss encounters they have to apply smart tactics or they get beaten easily (boss being equal to 3/4 of the party by himself, and getting reinforcements); they have to balance their resources so they don't get too weak before a major combat)."

Is there a major mismatch?

Example 2: my players like balanced combat - meaning, they should be able to win every combat without losing a party member if they use all resources at their disposal, cooperate and play smart, but they do not expect me to go throwing combats at them one after another. I like balanced combat - I won't use one-hit-kill monsters without a big warning, and will give them a sporting chance (e.g. no cutscene capture, sniper treaty in action - so they get a big warning sign before I pull something like that and even then the first shot may just miss, there are OP tactics that I will not use before they start using them - after that it's free for all etc.), they will be able to choose most battles, but there are some that will not be easily avoided.

Again, is there a major mismatch?

Which one of these would appeal to you? Which one would appeal to your players? Or would it be something completely different?

Because saying "balanced combat" is like saying "good taste". There are people who like *broccoli* (e.g. not me) and who put ketchup on their spagetti (e.g. me).


I have done that in the past when I was doing playtesting and CR calibration for my system. It was ok, but nobody but Bob really seemed to enjoy it more than regular play, and when I eventually had to turn up the difficulty because the player's excess treasure was skewing the results Bob had his biggest meltdown of all time.


How did it skew the results?

Imbalance
2021-07-30, 07:42 AM
Still waiting for the players' POV.

Kvess
2021-07-30, 08:46 AM
Roleplaying games are supposed to be enjoyable. It doesn’t sound like you or your players are enjoying the game. There are a ton of posts in the thread with suggestions on how you can fix yourself or your players. I don’t think any of the suggestions are going to work. You are all presumably adults, for better or worse.

In my experience, when a player isn’t enjoying your game everyone is better off when they find a different table. I’ve had unhappy players leave my table — and they’re happier for it. I’ve had players who want to be at my table take their place, and my table’s better for it. As a DM, I find it’s easy to fill a seat.

My biggest piece of advice is only invite players back to a new campaign if, based on your previous experience with them, you want that player at your table. You are even allowed to like someone as a friend and not want them playing at your table. Invite them to activities that aren’t roleplaying games.

I know you’ve said that you have no idea how to recruit new players. You could post a LFG listing online or in a friendly local game store. I think you would enjoy playing TTRPGs more if you didn’t feel like you were stuck with your table.

KorvinStarmast
2021-07-30, 09:53 AM
Ok, let me put it another way though.

My players enjoy combat. They insist combat be "balanced". So? Is any of them willing to be the DM for a while to show you how 'to do it right' or are they just kvetching? If the former, call them on their bluff. If the latter, ignore it. My technique with combat is to vary the difficulty ... which we discussed in the 'close battles' thread I think.

At that point nobody is playing the game they want to play; they don't get the combats they enjoy, I don't get the world building I enjoy, and I am not allowed to participate in the planning game they are playing because I have to dumb the monsters down below their level which precludes the monsters having plans of their own. Bowling is also a fun group activity.

As to your homebrewing:
Dave Wesley discovered that as he tweaked the Braunstein games, from the first to the fourth, some of his tweaks worked and some didn't. (He does a neat recounting of that in the film The Secrets of Blackmoor). His game was an interesting mash up of Diplomacy, a table Napoleonic game, and stuff he just made up to keep his players engaged. Since you are tweaking your home brew of a game, you can expect some bits to work and other bits not to. {Dave Wesley is who showed, as a referee / GM Dave Arneson and his friends in the Twin Cities area what a role playing game style is during the period 1968 to about 1970, which DA has acknowledged is what got him thinking along those lines as he modified his various games, Napoleonics and Medieval table top games that he was referee for, that ultimately led to the Blackmoor campaign).

Morgaln
2021-07-30, 12:51 PM
Ok, let me put it another way though.

My players enjoy combat. They insist combat be "balanced". They do not enjoy puzzles.

If I make a game where enemies all fall for basic tricks that render them helpless, the balanced combats the players show up for disappear from the game and are replaced by puzzle solving; albeit very easy puzzle solving.

At that point nobody is playing the game they want to play; they don't get the combats they enjoy, I don't get the world building I enjoy, and I am not allowed to participate in the planning game they are playing because I have to dumb the monsters down below their level which precludes the monsters having plans of their own.


Wait a minute, isn't one of your main complaints that your players want to be able to kill opponents while being untouchable? As in, shoot them from the trees or use spells to become immune to their attacks? Now you say they want balanced combat; what is your definition of balanced, because it certainly seems to differ from mine...

BRC
2021-07-30, 01:52 PM
Wait a minute, isn't one of your main complaints that your players want to be able to kill opponents while being untouchable? As in, shoot them from the trees or use spells to become immune to their attacks? Now you say they want balanced combat; what is your definition of balanced, because it certainly seems to differ from mine...

If I may answer for Talakeal, since this has come up across a couple threads

Talakeal's definition of "Balanced" Seems to be "My PC's will reliably triumph, but might get beat up a bit or expend some resources"

Their Player's definition of Balanced seems to be that they want something roughly numerically balanced, but get upset when enemies react intelligently in the face of cheese, or if the enemies have abilities that exploit weaknesses in the player's strategies/builds.

Talakeal
2021-07-31, 06:14 AM
Wait a minute, isn't one of your main complaints that your players want to be able to kill opponents while being untouchable? As in, shoot them from the trees or use spells to become immune to their attacks? Now you say they want balanced combat; what is your definition of balanced, because it certainly seems to differ from mine...

I don't quite understand what your asking, your tone implies (to me) that there is some sort of contradiction in what I said?

Basically, my players wants 4E style tactical grid-based combat against an "appropriate CR" opponent.

I tend to use a 3E style definition where each adventuring day has an average of four adventures, each of which uses up ~20% of the parties resources in white room fight with average luck and tactics and which the PCs are all but guaranteed to win, although dice rolls, tactical decisions, party synergy, and how the enemy's strengths and weaknesses sync up to the party's.


Now, the thing that I find hypocritical is that the players demand on always being far smarter than the monsters, and they are free to use a "combat as war" mindset while the monsters are stuck in a "combat as sport" paradigm. Things like ambushes, deception, clever use of terrain, hit and run tactics, etc. on the part of the monsters often results in kvetching from my players; but on the other hand if the players use such tactics, the monsters are still required to stay in "combat as sport" mindset; even as something as simple and running and hiding until the player's advantage goes away is also something that prompts a bitching.



If I may answer for Talakeal, since this has come up across a couple threads

Talakeal's definition of "Balanced" Seems to be "My PC's will reliably triumph, but might get beat up a bit or expend some resources"

Their Player's definition of Balanced seems to be that they want something roughly numerically balanced, but get upset when enemies react intelligently in the face of cheese, or if the enemies have abilities that exploit weaknesses in the player's strategies/builds.

More or less.


So? Is any of them willing to be the DM for a while to show you how 'to do it right' or are they just kvetching? If the former, call them on their bluff. If the latter, ignore it.

Sometimes one of them volunteers to DM. The bitching is just as bad if not worse, and so nobody else is willing to remain in the chair for long.

But yeah, I do think its mostly just bitching; although we have come to suspect that Bob actively uses bitching as a strategy; if the DM is unwilling to let anything bad happen to his character for fear of being bitched out, he doesn't have to devote any resources to defense and can thus dominate offensively, and I am worried that he is trying to coach the newer players to do the same.

The problem is that I am not the type who backs down from an argument, and now that several of my players are on anti-depressant medication arguments of often escalate to ridiculous degrees.



Dave Wesley discovered that as he tweaked the Braunstein games, from the first to the fourth, some of his tweaks worked and some didn't. (He does a neat recounting of that in the film The Secrets of Blackmoor). His game was an interesting mash up of Diplomacy, a table Napoleonic game, and stuff he just made up to keep his players engaged. Since you are tweaking your home brew of a game, you can expect some bits to work and other bits not to. {Dave Wesley is who showed, as a referee / GM Dave Arneson and his friends in the Twin Cities area what a role playing game style is during the period 1968 to about 1970, which DA has acknowledged is what got him thinking along those lines as he modified his various games, Napoleonics and Medieval table top games that he was referee for, that ultimately led to the Blackmoor campaign).

Did you have some deeper meaning here that is going over my head? That's a lot of text and very specific story just to say some things you try will work and others won't.


Still waiting for the players' POV.

As I said, post some questions for him and I will prod him into posting, I don't think he is interested in just reading whole thread(s) to provide commentary.


How did it skew the results?

Basically, my game is sort of like Pendragon in that you alternate adventuring phases and downtime phases.

By having only a single combat each adventure, the players were able to devote nearly 100% of their resources to the downtime phase, which they then used to buy or craft equipment far beyond what they would have in a normal game, which in turn meant they had an even easier time and used even less resources in the adventuring phase.

Now, in a normal game I could have simply adjusted combat difficulty or item costs on the fly, but this was specifically being used to test the combat math and challenge mechanics of my system, so I told my players I was going to need to alter the campaign so they had multiple fights every adventure, which the players didn't like; and then when one player actually died on the last fight of the adventure, it caused a total meltdown and the end of that campaign.


Jargon: father of misunderstandings and close cousin of mismatched expectations.

When you say they insist combat is balanced, what do they mean?

When you say balanced combats disappear from the game, what do you mean?

Basically: what is your understanding of "balanced combat" versus their understanding?

Example: my players like balanced combat. I like balanced combat. Their view of balanced combat is "we can steamroll through any encounter if we use good tactics and prepare, and we can win most combats (except bosses, these have to be scary) if we just let the dice roll without giving too much thought to the combat; the GM will provide us with chance to get out and regroup if we run into a boss; we go into each combat with full potential (e.g. HP/spells, etc.)". My view of balanced combat is "they get as many enemies in such quantity that is equal to 3/4 of the party most of the time (meaning if one party member is incapacitated before combat, they are equal) without taking into account consumables, but for boss encounters they have to apply smart tactics or they get beaten easily (boss being equal to 3/4 of the party by himself, and getting reinforcements); they have to balance their resources so they don't get too weak before a major combat)."

Is there a major mismatch?

Example 2: my players like balanced combat - meaning, they should be able to win every combat without losing a party member if they use all resources at their disposal, cooperate and play smart, but they do not expect me to go throwing combats at them one after another. I like balanced combat - I won't use one-hit-kill monsters without a big warning, and will give them a sporting chance (e.g. no cutscene capture, sniper treaty in action - so they get a big warning sign before I pull something like that and even then the first shot may just miss, there are OP tactics that I will not use before they start using them - after that it's free for all etc.), they will be able to choose most battles, but there are some that will not be easily avoided.

Again, is there a major mismatch?

Which one of these would appeal to you? Which one would appeal to your players? Or would it be something completely different?

Because saying "balanced combat" is like saying "good taste". There are people who like *broccoli* (e.g. not me) and who put ketchup on their spaghettis (e.g. me).


I am not quite sure what you are asking, but I will do my best to answer.

I agree that balance is kind of a meaningless word. A truly "balanced" encounter is one where each side has a 50% chance to win, which is not what anyone wants in an RPG.

Of the four you posted, I personally tend to agree with the players in the first example.

I use it to mean that in a white room scenario with equal tactics, dice rolls, and party synergy the players will win all the combats and survive, but by the end of the adventuring day they will have used up most of the resources allocated for them to do so (be that HP, spell slots, fate tokens, etc.)

I am not quite sure what my players think; basically they cry "unbalanced" when they struggle with an encounter, but when I actually ask them what a balanced encounter looks like in their eyes all of their metrics are actually far harsher than what I use; for example players only lose about 1:200 battles in my game, but when asked the players said that about 1:5 battles should be a life or death struggle.

Imbalance
2021-07-31, 06:50 AM
Still waiting for the players' POV.
As I said, post some questions for him and I will prod him into posting, I don't think he is interested in just reading whole thread(s) to provide commentary.

Basically, what is his take on the struggles that you're having?

Lacco
2021-08-01, 03:24 PM
I am not quite sure what you are asking, but I will do my best to answer.

Few years ago, a colleague of mine noticed that I did the same - quite often - and offered a piece of advice. Don't. When not sure about the question, ask until it's clear. I now offer it to you, for free.

It works also in gaming; you clarify the intent until it's clear what they want to do and how - so there are no unspoken assumptions.

It takes time, but decreases irritation over time.


I agree that balance is kind of a meaningless word. A truly "balanced" encounter is one where each side has a 50% chance to win, which is not what anyone wants in an RPG.

It's not a meaningless word - on the contrary, it has multitude of meanings. You have to find out which they are talking about.


Of the four you posted, I personally tend to agree with the players in the first example.

My intent - not well stated - was to ask you to evaluate these four, try to pinpoint if you see any major discrepancies in expectations (between the GM/player pairs). And then to provide your and your players' expectations based on my model.


I use it to mean that in a white room scenario with equal tactics, dice rolls, and party synergy the players will win all the combats and survive, but by the end of the adventuring day they will have used up most of the resources allocated for them to do so (be that HP, spell slots, fate tokens, etc.)

Equal tactics seem to be a bit of a problem in this case - because they seem to expect all these except the tactics. Food for thought.


I am not quite sure what my players think; basically they cry "unbalanced" when they struggle with an encounter, but when I actually ask them what a balanced encounter looks like in their eyes all of their metrics are actually far harsher than what I use; for example players only lose about 1:200 battles in my game, but when asked the players said that about 1:5 battles should be a life or death struggle.

Oh, it has been said: people are rather bad at estimating numerically their experiences. And most people are rather bad at telling you what they actualy want.

Have you asked them what a "good set of encounters" or "good gaming session" looks like?

Satinavian
2021-08-02, 02:09 AM
Basically, my game is sort of like Pendragon in that you alternate adventuring phases and downtime phases.

By having only a single combat each adventure, the players were able to devote nearly 100% of their resources to the downtime phase, which they then used to buy or craft equipment far beyond what they would have in a normal game, which in turn meant they had an even easier time and used even less resources in the adventuring phase.

Now, in a normal game I could have simply adjusted combat difficulty or item costs on the fly, but this was specifically being used to test the combat math and challenge mechanics of my system, so I told my players I was going to need to alter the campaign so they had multiple fights every adventure, which the players didn't like; and then when one player actually died on the last fight of the adventure, it caused a total meltdown and the end of that campaign.

Considering what you knew about your players, how did you ever expect that to work ?

Such a setup has a couple of risks/downsides :

- By coupling advancement to performance, you have an inbuilt tendency to produce either a power runaway or a death spiral. (And not surprisingly exactly that has happened)
- By having permanent downtime progress depend on not using ressources in fights, ressource use in fights feels bad
- A close win feels like a loss as the characters are permanently weakened, only a curbstomp battle feels like a good achievement that benefits the characters.

I am not saying that this idea is horrible in general, there are ways to make it somewhat work. But it is something that really should never been used at your table with your players. Your problems were basically unavoidable with this. It didn't occur to me when you first described it because i didn't know much about the players yet, but now it seems utterly obvious.

KorvinStarmast
2021-08-02, 10:48 AM
Basically, my players wants 4E style tactical grid-based combat against an "appropriate CR" opponent. Then run that, if you want to please them, or run your homebrew if you want to please yourself.


Sometimes one of them volunteers to DM. The bitching is just as bad if not worse, and so nobody else is willing to remain in the chair for long. Bowling is also a fun group activity. So is the board game Pandemic.

The problem is that I am not the type who backs down from an argument, and now that several of my players are on anti-depressant medication arguments of often escalate to ridiculous degrees.
Cut it short with this question: Are we here to play or argue?

If the answer is "play" then ask them to go back to playing.
If they say argue, pack up the game stuff and put it away.
I kid you not: I've seen DM's do this. I have done it a few times, though of late I have not had to.
It sends a powerful message.

That's a lot of text and very specific story just to say some things you try will work and others won't. You spend pages and pages complaining about your players.
You are, as a GM, obviously doing some things wrong, but, since you are working out the kinks in your hack of 3.5e you can expect that, from time to time, stuff won't go well until you tweak it yet again - which you'll do If you care about engaging with your players. If you won't tweak it, you can expect them to still express dissatisfaction.

I am not sure that your goal (in beginning this discussion) is to engage with your players; your goal (in the extended threads that I have participated in (you've been at this for a few years)) appears to me to be self justification. That's what it looks like to me. But, I may be off base in my assessment.
The text based medium, and our only seeing one side of the story, may skew my understanding of your problem and your aim.

I agree that balance is kind of a meaningless word. A truly "balanced" encounter is one where each side has a 50% chance to win, which is not what anyone wants in an RPG.
Balance is a spectrum, not a point, in my experience.

Talakeal
2021-08-02, 11:49 AM
Then run that, if you want to please them, or run your homebrew if you want to please yourself.

Bowling is also a fun group activity. So is the board game Pandemic.
Cut it short with this question: Are we here to play or argue?

If the answer is "play" then ask them to go back to playing.
If they say argue, pack up the game stuff and put it away.
I kid you not: I've seen DM's do this. I have done it a few times, though of late I have not had to.
It sends a powerful message.
You spend pages and pages complaining about your players.
You are, as a GM, obviously doing some things wrong, but, since you are working out the kinks in your hack of 3.5e you can expect that, from time to time, stuff won't go well until you tweak it yet again - which you'll do If you care about engaging with your players. If you won't tweak it, you can expect them to still express dissatisfaction.

I am not sure that your goal (in beginning this discussion) is to engage with your players; your goal (in the extended threads that I have participated in (you've been at this for a few years)) appears to me to be self justification. That's what it looks like to me. But, I may be off base in my assessment.
The text based medium, and our only seeing one side of the story, may skew my understanding of your problem and your aim.

Balance is a spectrum, not a point, in my experience.

Two things:

First, my system is not a 3.5 hack, if anything it is closer to WHFRP. And it isn't the mechanics of 4E that they like, its the combat heavy gamist style where CaS is held as king.
Second, I have tried that, the problem is, the players just call my bluff, because I know they enjoy gaming more than they do, and by the time a player has gotten so frustrated they are acting out, they legitimately don't feel like playing anymore, at least in the moment.

On a larger point, I don't know if its really about justification or engaging with my players, its about having realistic expectations. For example, players view DMs who don't fudge dice in their favor as fudging dice against them, players who choose a character weakness feel picked on if it ever comes up, they say they want 20% of fights to be deadly, but when even 5% are struggles the complain the game is too hard, etc. Basically, I really want to clear the air and throw aside some of the illusions players operate under, as well as figure out what illusions exist to blind me from their motivations.



Considering what you knew about your players, how did you ever expect that to work ?

Such a setup has a couple of risks/downsides :

- By coupling advancement to performance, you have an inbuilt tendency to produce either a power runaway or a death spiral. (And not surprisingly exactly that has happened)
- By having permanent downtime progress depend on not using resources in fights, resource use in fights feels bad
- A close win feels like a loss as the characters are permanently weakened, only a curb-stomp battle feels like a good achievement that benefits the characters.

I am not saying that this idea is horrible in general, there are ways to make it somewhat work. But it is something that really should never been used at your table with your players. Your problems were basically unavoidable with this. It didn't occur to me when you first described it because i didn't know much about the players yet, but now it seems utterly obvious.

Quertus kept mentioning this to, but never really followed up on it.

I am really curious by what people mean by "permanently weakened" or "tying advancement to performance".

IMO, my system is much better in that regard than any edition of D&D, where every monster you don't kill permanently leaves you down XP and every piece of gold you fail to loot puts you behind the WBL curve (in 3E) and, in earlier editions, also makes you miss out on XP.




Few years ago, a colleague of mine noticed that I did the same - quite often - and offered a piece of advice. Don't. When not sure about the question, ask until it's clear. I now offer it to you, for free.

It works also in gaming; you clarify the intent until it's clear what they want to do and how - so there are no unspoken assumptions.

It takes time, but decreases irritation over time.

That's a very impressive attitude.

Lots of people get frustrated when you ask them to clarify, they accuse me of playing dumb or answering questions with questions. I know my players do...



It's not a meaningless word - on the contrary, it has multitude of meanings. You have to find out which they are talking about.

Too many meanings and not enough meanings make it equally useless without context.



Equal tactics seem to be a bit of a problem in this case - because they seem to expect all these except the tactics. Food for thought.

Yeah, tactics seem to be a bit of a hypocrisy on their end. Although, thinking about it, they also have no problems appealing to "realism" when it gives them an advantage in much the same way, so maybe it isn't just tactics.




Oh, it has been said: people are rather bad at estimating numerically their experiences. And most people are rather bad at telling you what they actually want.

Have you asked them what a "good set of encounters" or "good gaming session" looks like?

Yes, many times.

Basically, their answers are just like the game I am running but significantly harder.

But in practice that is clearly not what they want.

Satinavian
2021-08-02, 11:58 AM
Quertus kept mentioning this to, but never really followed up on it.

I am really curious by what people mean by "permanently weakened" or "tying advancement to performance".

IMO, my system is much better in that regard than any edition of D&D, where every monster you don't kill permanently leaves you down XP and every piece of gold you fail to loot puts you behind the WBL curve (in 3E) and, in earlier editions, also makes you miss out on XP.Simple, if a spell or ability that you don't need in the adventure can be used for crafting during downtime, then every spell/ability used during a fight is one less for crafting. And less crafting = weaker characters. In D&D, if you win in the end, you get all the xp and gold, even if your group is halfdead and fully exhausted. You don't get more xp/gold when you win more clearly. In your system, you get more crafting, when you win more thoroughly than when it is a close call. In D&D spending 80% of spellslots and HP and getting back with xp and gold feels great. In your system it feels like you just lost 80% of your crafting reserve.

And for that matter, D&D, while better than your system in this regard, is still not the best here. Your group would probably fare better with benchmark levelling and rewards per quest so that you can't really miss out on XP or gold either.


Yes, many times.

Basically, their answers are just like the game I am running but significantly harder.

But in practice that is clearly not what they want.
Didn't you repeatedly claim they complained about your game being too hard. Did they ever literally demand "the game we want is at it is now, but harder" ? Or did you again just take their description and judge for your self that your games are less hard ?

Talakeal
2021-08-02, 02:02 PM
Simple, if a spell or ability that you don't need in the adventure can be used for crafting during downtime, then every spell/ability used during a fight is one less for crafting. And less crafting = weaker characters. In D&D, if you win in the end, you get all the xp and gold, even if your group is halfdead and fully exhausted. You don't get more xp/gold when you win more clearly. In your system, you get more crafting, when you win more thoroughly than when it is a close call. In D&D spending 80% of spellslots and HP and getting back with xp and gold feels great. In your system it feels like you just lost 80% of your crafting reserve.

I don't feel this way. While it is technically true, it is on such a minuscule level and so drowned out by random dice roll that its like a middle aged person worried about their mortgage payment lamenting spending 1.50 every day getting fries with their lunch back at the high-school cafeteria.

I think this is mostly psychological, and probably amplified on the forum where people are hearing things second hand rather than actually being familiar with the game.

It is never going to be anything close to 80% of one's crafting potential, its going to be small bonuses here or there, like needing to roll a 17 vs needing to roll a 15 to craft your +1 armor or saving a 10% on a purchase now and then.

Likewise, it isn't a "permanent" thing, its, at most, a couple of sessions. Someone who plays incredibly frugally might get their +1 armor a session or two sooner than someone who is wasteful, but they will both get it in the end. And, before too long, they will both be ready for their +2 armor, and due to exponentially scaling costs and rewards, the guy who got their +1 first isn't more likely to get their +2 armor first in any tangible sense.

Ironically, if anything the frugal guy is the one who is permanently behind because he won't use consumables when things get tough, and consumables will make way more of a difference in any given fight than a couple pieces of slightly better gear.


Again though, feelings and math don't often match up, and my players really do feel like perfectionists who stress out if they miss out on one little thing. But when I ask them if they would feel less stressed if I changed the system so they didn't gain any benefit from leftover materials so they could show off a bit and stress out, they said that would actually make it worse as they would then feel like anything they didn't use during the adventure would feel wasted and thus they would get into the even more stressful game of trying to read the DM's mind to tell when precisely the adventure would end so they could safely blow all their resources.



And for that matter, D&D, while better than your system in this regard, is still not the best here. Your group would probably fare better with benchmark levelling and rewards per quest so that you can't really miss out on XP or gold either.

I am not well versed in 4E or 5E, but I don't feel this pans out in the editions I have played.

In all editions, lots of loot can be missed. Secret rooms and hidden treasures are very common, and most modules have "optional" areas to the dungeon that its possible to skip over, either deliberately or accidentally.

In 3.X you sell and craft things for half the cost you buy them for, many spells have expensive material components, and a lot of treasure will be randomly generated and includes lots of consumables. Also, many "cure" spells have a huge cost, especially if you hire an NPC to do it, like the diamonds for resurrection. Combines with the WBL assumption baked into the game, and I think the "permanently behind for playing poorly" is a much bigger issue than in my game.

And in AD&D it was even worse because XP fluctuated based on how you handled things. You got XP for killing monsters, not overcoming or avoiding them. You got double XP if you soloed a monster (imo the worst rule ever). You also got XP for treasure, much of which is hidden as I mentioned above. You also got class based rewards, so, iirc, fighters got bonus XP for every monster they personally attacked, wizards got xp for every spell they cast, thief's got xp for every skill they used, and priests got xp for every spell they cast "in service of their faith" whatever that means.


Didn't you repeatedly claim they complained about your game being too hard. Did they ever literally demand "the game we want is at it is now, but harder" ? Or did you again just take their description and judge for your self that your games are less hard ?

As I said up-thread, they never directly comment on difficulty one way or the other.

Instead they say things like "If X, Y, or Z had happened, this could have gone very bad," or "Are you sure you calculated the difficulty correctly," or "I barely have any resources left after the mission."

On the other hand, when asked about what their ideal difficulty point would be they describe something significantly higher than what I offer, for example the above quoted situation where they have a close call in about 5% of fights but say in their ideal game about 20% of fights would be a life or death struggle.

Someone in the last thread told me that it is human nature to remember negative experiances seven times more vividly than positive, so I should divide everything my players tell me about challenge by 7 to get an accurate answer, so that if I want the "real" answer they remember my 5% close calls as 35%, and that to hit their 20% I need to actually have a 2.8% rate, which may be more or less true.

Talakeal
2021-08-03, 08:51 AM
Update:

Well, 4 days to the game and I am still not sure what, if any OOC conversation needs to happen.


We had our session zero last weekend, and it went well. One thing I noticed though, despite Time Troll's objections to the idea, making everyone choose a faction has a huge impact on the game. It provides an easy hook and motivation to get everyone involved, and it completely changes the nature of some encounters I had planned, turning combat encounters to social or vice versa. And although its not any sort of direct agency, no single decision a player can make has such a dramatic impact on the long term shape of the game; I literally had to rewrite the entire long term outline every time a player chose a faction. Its wild.


Edit: Also, thinking more about what I labelled as my frustrations with player hypocrisy. Thinking more about it, I think a lot of players just argue whatever will give them an advantage at the time rather than what they actually believe, which, according to my dad, is also how a lawyer is trained to operate. So one day they may argue in favor of CaW and the next for CaS, likewise they might one day argue for a simulationist reading of events and the next gaminst; maybe for them arguing with the DM using whatever logic will benefit their character in the moment is part of the game for them.

BRC
2021-08-03, 09:37 AM
Update:

Well, 4 days to the game and I am still not sure what, if any OOC conversation needs to happen.


We had our session zero last weekend, and it went well. One thing I noticed though, despite Time Troll's objections to the idea, making everyone choose a faction has a huge impact on the game. It provides an easy hook and motivation to get everyone involved, and it completely changes the nature of some encounters I had planned, turning combat encounters to social or vice versa. And although its not any sort of direct agency, no single decision a player can make has such a dramatic impact on the long term shape of the game; I literally had to rewrite the entire long term outline every time a player chose a faction. Its wild.


Edit: Also, thinking more about what I labelled as my frustrations with player hypocrisy. Thinking more about it, I think a lot of players just argue whatever will give them an advantage at the time rather than what they actually believe, which, according to my dad, is also how a lawyer is trained to operate. So one day they may argue in favor of CaW and the next for CaS, likewise they might one day argue for a simulationist reading of events and the next gaminst; maybe for them arguing with the DM using whatever logic will benefit their character in the moment is part of the game for them.

That all sounds like great news! Choosing factions is a nice way to hook players into the world, and you should be re-writing your outlines based on player creation decisions. If the players know that their decisions are changing the story, they're far more likely to be invested.


Re Hypocrisy: That sounds pretty standard, everybody wants to Win, it's mostly just a question of how far is a player willing to go to argue a point for some advantage.

I find the best solution in those cases is to appeal to Game Momentum. Put your foot down, say "My ruling is going to stand for now so we can keep playing. After session we can discuss this and maybe change how this is handled going forwards". Give the players some time to cool off and remove the immediate mechanical incentive to Win the Argument by postponing it until later.

You're WILLING to have this discussion, and the discussion will affect rulings going forwards, but right now you want to keep the game moving and not get bogged down in an argument.

NichG
2021-08-03, 11:23 AM
If I start to detect the onset of reasoning from personal benefit, I'll ask 'if an enemy were to use this in the future, would you be okay with it working the way you just suggested?'

I'll also tend to explicitly pull back the veil and directly state the motivation for why I made something a certain way - metagame considerations, cosmology ties, etc - and I won't engage on defending things on bases other than that intent, nor will I fight changes which preserve that intent. So e.g. if there's too much argumentation from realism going on - 'I designed it to complement that ability from another class without overshadowing it - if your argument is that the mechanics are unrealistic given the description, what could we change the description to that would be realistic for these mechanics?'.

Quertus
2021-08-03, 04:53 PM
Let's see if I can make these points without quotes.

The Farmer and the Wolf

The farmer has said that the wolf is smart.

The farmer is not known to be omniscient, nor an epic level Druid with Max ranks in Knowledge: nature.

The farmer can be mistaken.

The farmer has said that the wolf cannot be trapped.

The farmer is not known to be omnicompetent, nor to be an epic level Druid with Max ranks in craft: trap.

The farmer's trap could have been faulty.

The party could ask the farmer question after question, or they could experiment for themselves.

The farmer can be mistaken.

The farmer is not known to be omnipotent, or an epic level Druid with Max items in survivability.

The farmer survived attempting to trap the wolf.

(If the GM had been Talakeal, the players don't want to get misleading information from the GM, they want to see it for themselves first hand.)

Conclusion: the logical thing for the party to do is to attempt to trap the wolf. It is safe enough that a simple farmer could survive the attempt, they might well be better at it than the farmer, and they can obtain information firsthand from a failure.

Human beings are terrible at noticing details, at communicating, and at jumping to conclusions.

For example: I modified the facts sightly. If you noticed, and believed I could have done it on accident, then you already *know* they human witnesses are not trustworthy. If you didn't notice, you proved my point another way.

So, wanting to test things for themselves? Could be a sign of anything from stupidity to genius, depending on the reasons and the test.

The Farmer and the Wolf, take 2

Do wolves have great senses? Sure, I'll believe that.

Should the party's plan have worked? Probably not.

Happily, your character knew that.

This really *should* have been a great way for them to come back empty-handed, and then gotten your character involved as the brains / hired expert, depending on who hired whom.

The resulting highway fight was facepalm worthy, IMO.

Videogame logic

Those of you who hate my long, rambling stories, skip to the next point.

So, I've been introduced to this game called… Titan Quest, iirc. Long story short, I made an absolutely terrible build. And it doesn't matter. I can still breeze through 99+% of the encounters (ie, everything except the boss fights (and some of those, too)) on the strength of "everyman" abilities, and without trying, or thinking, or feeling any risk.

The mobs are fairly mindless, and just walk into the most obvious of traps. They generally have almost no strategy beyond a D&D skeleton worthy "advance and attack" or "stand and fire".

If I had played such games? I might communicate my desires to Talakeal similarly to the way that group does, but mean something *completely* different from what Talakeal heard.

So what if, Talakeal, I joined your group, and, after talking it over with your players told you that we wanted, not 99+%, but 4/5 encounters (and *all* random encounters) to be like Titan Quest, where the enemies were both easy and mindless, such that a) I could fight them mindlessly and win, or b) fighting them with even your group's simplest tactics would steamroll them effortlessly (the "shooting fish in a barrel" level of "no resource expenditure" easy). Where only 1/5 encounters required any effort whatsoever, and even those are generally more cathartic than stressful (ie, as some would say, 1/5 have the *illusion* of challenge, without the reality of failure). And, to clarify that parenthetical, if the PCs are played utterly mindlessly, they should still have a 99+% survival rate, and 100% win rate, vs these "challenging" encounters - only *extreme* stupidity (of the type I described in CaW vs CaS vs bees) should ever result in death or defeat.

How would you respond to that?

Crafting Blues

In short, @Satinavian has the right of it. I hadn't engaged that bit further because I simply couldn't think of how to explain "By having permanent downtime progress depend on not using ressources in fights, ressource use in fights feels bad" so concisely.

Feels, not facts.

Feels, not facts.

Feels, not facts.

Yes, rule of 3 would have me explain it *differently* rather than repetitively, but… feels, not facts, are what matter to this conversation. And this setup makes doing smart things feel bad.

Satinavian
2021-08-04, 01:42 AM
We had our session zero last weekend, and it went well. One thing I noticed though, despite Time Troll's objections to the idea, making everyone choose a faction has a huge impact on the game. It provides an easy hook and motivation to get everyone involved, and it completely changes the nature of some encounters I had planned, turning combat encounters to social or vice versa. And although its not any sort of direct agency, no single decision a player can make has such a dramatic impact on the long term shape of the game; I literally had to rewrite the entire long term outline every time a player chose a faction. Its wild.Good. I hope it works out.



Edit: Also, thinking more about what I labelled as my frustrations with player hypocrisy. Thinking more about it, I think a lot of players just argue whatever will give them an advantage at the time rather than what they actually believe, which, according to my dad, is also how a lawyer is trained to operate. So one day they may argue in favor of CaW and the next for CaS, likewise they might one day argue for a simulationist reading of events and the next gaminst; maybe for them arguing with the DM using whatever logic will benefit their character in the moment is part of the game for them.If i had a player who did that i would either stop listening or kicking them. I think I even had one many years ago. I think I was a bit immature and went the "just don't listen and forbid/block everything they propose until you have discovered the real reason" route. Worked better than before and we played as such for at least another year. But when he left because of job reasons, the game got even better without all the mistrust and fake arguments. That is why i am now willing to instantly kick someone like that.

Kardwill
2021-08-04, 08:02 AM
, and by the time a player has gotten so frustrated they are acting out, they legitimately don't feel like playing anymore, at least in the moment.

And that's the problem : Whenever a big argument breaks out at the gaming table (usually because one of the people gets frustrated), nobody feels like playing anymore. That game is tainted. That game is dead. That game session will not ever be fun again, not will it be an enjoyable memory. Stop playing immediately, and pick up the game at a later time when tempers have settled.

You say they "call your bluff", but you shouldn't be bluffing. If a game devolves into hissy fits because the players (or yourself) are getting angry or frustrated, stop playing immediately. And do it every time it happens.
And importantly, don't do it as a punishment. Doit simply because arguing is not fun, but maybe the next game will be better. For that night, break out the boardgames or the console, or have a chat if everybody manages to cool off, or just go home early. Don't try to play.

I understand that you love playing and are not willing to step down from that abusive relationship you have with your players. But you said it yourself : most of your games are okay, and only 15-20% of them devolve into arguments (which is really an horrendous number of bad games, but whatever). Just shut off those failed game session short. There will be other, better games later.

Talakeal
2021-08-04, 08:34 AM
I understand that you love playing and are not willing to step down from that abusive relationship you have with your players. But you said it yourself : most of your games are okay, and only 15-20% of them devolve into arguments (which is really an horrendous number of bad games, but whatever). Just shut off those failed game session short. There will be other, better games later.

I said any given player only acts out 15-20% of the time. But when you have five players, that means the majority of sessions will have at least st one incident.

Satinavian
2021-08-04, 08:37 AM
Yes, that is why even acting out "only" 15-20% of sessions is way too often and would not fly at other tables.

At the moment I am part of 4 different groups and in none is even one player that goes beyond 1%. I also can't remember a sigle incident in the last two years.

Batcathat
2021-08-04, 08:41 AM
I said any given player only acts out 15-20% of the time. But when you have five players, that means the majority of sessions will have at least st one incident.

Out of curiosity, can you enjoy the sessions where no incidents happen? Because if it were me, I don't think I would have very fun GM:ing knowing I was basically sitting on the social equivalent of a time-bomb that could go off at any moment (and probably will go off at least every other session).


Yes, that is why even acting out "only" 15-20% of sessions is way too often and would not fly at other tables.

At the moment I am part of 4 different groups and in none is even one player that goes beyond 1%. I also can't remember a sigle incident in the last two years.

Indeed. I can't think of a single incident anywhere close to the ones that seem like everyday occurrences at Talakeal's table. Maybe people get irritated once in a while (even if it's rare) but I can't think of anyone going beyond maybe raising their voice a little.

Kardwill
2021-08-04, 09:33 AM
I said any given player only acts out 15-20% of the time. But when you have five players, that means the majority of sessions will have at least st one incident.

I thought you said you were willing to overlook the bad games because most of them were nice. If your so called "friends" display asocial behaviour 20% of the time and every single game turns into an argument, that's really different. If that's truly the case, then seriously, that's downright abusive. Stop playing now, and maybe stop seeing those people. They are not your friends, never were, never will be.


Yes, that is why even acting out "only" 15-20% of sessions is way too often and would not fly at other tables.

At the moment I am part of 4 different groups and in none is even one player that goes beyond 1%. I also can't remember a sigle incident in the last two years.

Yeah, I'm 120 sessions into my "Curse of Strahd" campaign, and we had 3 arguments between 2 players (one "elf vs dwarf" roleplay that went too far, and 2 instances of a bossy player frustrating another one). So overall, there's someone who gets angry at my table once every 40 games. And that's enough to have one player walk out of the campaign, and to seriously erode the pleasure I find at running this game, to the point I decided to change players for the next campaign I'll run at fall.

I can't imagine being willing to run a game where nearly every session turns into an argument. That's not a bad game, that's a nuke-the-gametable-from-orbit-it's-the-only-way-to-be-sure level of awful

Talakeal
2021-08-04, 11:23 AM
Indeed. I can't think of a single incident anywhere close to the ones that seem like everyday occurrences at Talakeal's table. Maybe people get irritated once in a while (even if it's rare) but I can't think of anyone going beyond maybe raising their voice a little.

I guess I am just used to a different environment than you.

Playing cards or board games with my family, playing MMOs online, and playing Warhammer at the Games Workshop store all have a far higher rate of incidents than my tabletop RPG session.

Heck, I don't think I have ever won a game of Warhammer except by forfeit, as the vast majority of players quit the moment that it looks like they are likely to lose.


The Farmer and the Wolf

The scenario was not that some farmer had tried catch the wolf himself and failed. It was that a wolf had been plaguing the village for some time and all of the local hunters and trappers had tried and failed to catch it in the past. I don't actually recall who actually paid the PCs, but it was probably some big rancher acting on behalf of the community rather than some local dirt farmer trying to do it all himself; after all standard treasure for even a first level party is several years wages for a commoner.

And trying isn't the problem, its being upset at the DM when it doesn't work.



The resulting highway fight was facepalm worthy, IMO.

Out of curiosity, why?

Because I agree, its sort of meta-gamey, but that's what the players (claim) they want; balanced tactical fights on the combat grid, and it is shaping the narrative to give it to them.

How would you feel if, for example, I had been the one who wanted to do the tree plan and the rest of the party wanted to stay in town researching chemistry? At that point, rather than a balanced combat, I am just giving the wolf a free meal if it ambushes me while I am alone in the dark on the road back to town.



So what if, Talakeal, I joined your group, and, after talking it over with your players told you that we wanted, not 99+%, but 4/5 encounters (and *all* random encounters) to be like Titan Quest, where the enemies were both easy and mindless, such that a) I could fight them mindlessly and win, or b) fighting them with even your group's simplest tactics would steamroll them effortlessly (the "shooting fish in a barrel" level of "no resource expenditure" easy). Where only 1/5 encounters required any effort whatsoever, and even those are generally more cathartic than stressful (ie, as some would say, 1/5 have the *illusion* of challenge, without the reality of failure). And, to clarify that parenthetical, if the PCs are played utterly mindlessly, they should still have a 99+% survival rate, and 100% win rate, vs these "challenging" encounters - only *extreme* stupidity (of the type I described in CaW vs CaS vs bees) should ever result in death or defeat.

Aside from the mindless enemies part, that's exactly how my games do run, and by asking for mindless enemies you would basically just another voice in the chorus.


[Crafting Blues

In short, @Satinavian has the right of it. I hadn't engaged that bit further because I simply couldn't think of how to explain "By having permanent downtime progress depend on not using resources in fights, resource use in fights feels bad" so concisely.

Feels, not facts.

Feels, not facts.

Feels, not facts.

Yes, rule of 3 would have me explain it *differently* rather than repetitively, but… feels, not facts, are what matter to this conversation. And this setup makes doing smart things feel bad.

I really wish we could have a more in depth conversation on this, because it is actually useful system feedback.

I just really have a hard time wrapping my head around how everything comes down to "permanent" progress.

In my mind, my system has far less in the way of permanent consequences than most RPGs, to the point where basically nothing is permanent.

Like, I still remember being bitter about missing out on XP rewards in AD&D that put me behind the entire campaign; like there was one time I was fighting a stone giant and was going to solo kill it, when one of the other players took a shot on it, making me miss out on several thousand XP, and then a year later when the campaign ended I was several thousand XP short of reaching max level (humanoid level limits in those days) and so that one attack by one ally permanently shut me out of "completing" my character.


I am really, really, curious about what you mean by "And this setup makes doing smart things feel bad," as I can't see how this is true in any way. The closest I could think of is that taking a risk sometimes pays off (and sometimes doesn't) like in the case of not drinking a fire protection potion before heading into a dragon's lair and instead drinking healing potions after.

Batcathat
2021-08-04, 12:55 PM
I guess I am just used to a different environment than you.

Playing cards or board games with my family, playing MMOs online, and playing Warhammer at the Games Workshop store all have a far higher rate of incidents than my tabletop RPG session.

Waitwaitwait, so playing tabletop RPGs with your usual players have a risk of incident somewhere in the 75-100 percent range* and these other have a far higher rate? Geez, different environments indeed. I've certainly played games with my fair share of sour losers and I know the online scene isn't... great at all times but this still baffles me.

I suppose it explains why you keep playing with your group, at least, in a "well, better to be kicked in the crotch than shot in the head" sort of way.

(*Okay, that's probably not exactly how you add up probabilities, but still)

OldTrees1
2021-08-04, 02:05 PM
(*Okay, that's probably not exactly how you add up probabilities, but still)

Because math is fun:
For independent events with a probability of p (0 <= p <= 1), then the probably of at least one of those events happening given N chances is 1-(1-p)^N

4-5 players with a 15-20% chance (p=0.15 or p=0.20) would result in
floor: 1-(1-0.15)^4 ~ 48%
ceiling: 1-(1-0.20)^5 ~ 67%

That was fun. However 48% is still too high a "bad night" failure rate for me. It would only be tolerable if a bad night was a net zero (it is clearly a net negative to Talakeal) and if a good night was twice as enjoyable as the best alternative (reading a good book? watching a movie?).

Batcathat
2021-08-04, 02:07 PM
Because math is fun:
For independent events with a probability of p (0 <= p <= 1), then the probably of at least one of those events happening given N chances is 1-(1-p)^N

4-5 players with a 15-20% chance (p=0.15 or p=0.20) would result in
floor: 1-(1-0.15)^4 ~ 48%
ceiling: 1-(1-0.20)^5 ~ 67%

That was fun. However 48% is still too high a "bad night" failure rate for me. It would only be tolerable if a bad night was a net zero (it is clearly a net negative to Talakeal) and if a good night was twice as enjoyable as the best alternative (reading a good book? watching a movie?).

Ah, thank you. I was hoping someone would do the math. So yeah, maybe not quite 75-100 percent but 48-67 percent is certainly more than enough to justify my bafflement, especially with other activities having a "far higher" rate.

Xervous
2021-08-04, 02:10 PM
Because math is fun:
For independent events with a probability of p (0 <= p <= 1), then the probably of at least one of those events happening given N chances is 1-(1-p)^N

4-5 players with a 15-20% chance (p=0.15 or p=0.20) would result in
floor: 1-(1-0.15)^4 ~ 48%
ceiling: 1-(1-0.20)^5 ~ 67%

That was fun. However 48% is still too high a "bad night" failure rate for me. It would only be tolerable if a bad night was a net zero (it is clearly a net negative to Talakeal) and if a good night was twice as enjoyable as the best alternative (reading a good book? watching a movie?).

But do we know these are truly independent probabilities? One coin flip will not influence the next, but one person blowing up can easily lead to a chain reaction that would cluster these meltdowns into a smaller percentage of sessions.

Easy e
2021-08-04, 03:22 PM
Honestly, get a new RPG group.

It is easier said than done, but it CAN be done.

OldTrees1
2021-08-04, 03:23 PM
Ah, thank you. I was hoping someone would do the math. So yeah, maybe not quite 75-100 percent but 48-67 percent is certainly more than enough to justify my bafflement, especially with other activities have a "far higher" rate.

You're welcome. Math is fun.

I too am baffled at the high rate, especially since it is with different groups of other people. Perhaps try a coop board game like Forbidden Desert?


But do we know these are truly independent probabilities? One coin flip will not influence the next, but one person blowing up can easily lead to a chain reaction that would cluster these meltdowns into a smaller percentage of sessions.

I would presume they are not truly independent probabilities. Even ignoring chaining, I would predict there is some overlap. I do not know enough statistics to suggest a good heuristic to adjust this calculation. The best I can do is adjust it to a 15-67% chance by assuming total dependence to total independence.

Kardwill
2021-08-05, 02:26 AM
But do we know these are truly independent probabilities? One coin flip will not influence the next, but one person blowing up can easily lead to a chain reaction that would cluster these meltdowns into a smaller percentage of sessions.

That's what we thought, that Tal was willing to put up with his group because 80% of his games were fine (which would still be unacceptable. I mean, if my friends caused me grief once every 5 games, I would stop GMing and do solitary activities instead. I have a lot of unpainted minis and unplayed videogames, after all...). But he corrected us and said that nearly every session is crappy. So we can assume thet either those player meltdowns are independent (which seems unlikely, as you said), or that the individual player-meltdown chance are in fact much more than 20%

Kardwill
2021-08-05, 03:00 AM
Out of curiosity, why?



Because the wolf was too smart to fall into an ambush, but still willing to face-tank the same bunch of dangerous humans on the road. There's nothing wrong in either of them (lone wolves don't attack groups of humans in our world, but in games, that kinda happens "because gameplay and fantasy", so that does not shock me), but both of them in the same adventure feel inconsistent.

If the wolf was that crafty and careful, then it would have been more thematically consistent (and more interesting) to have the players track it down to its lair, or ambush it when it comes for the village's herd, and have the final fight happen there.

It's not a big thing, but it sounds like a contrary GM who refuses to let his players get any advantage. It's nothing on its own, but if it's representative of the game, it can build up frustration over time until someone gets angry.

Remember the rule : "If the players do something that sounds stupid, ask questions to clarify, because there is probably a misunderstanding". In that GM's case, since the plan sounded like it wouldn't work for obvious reasons, the GM could have asked things like "You characters will be really obvious in those trees. Do you hide?" or "Most predators won't stand and fight in desperate situations. What's your plan if it tries to flee?"

The problem with telling a player bluntly that their plan was idiotic, is that you are saying that the character AND THE PLAYER are stupid. Some will be good sports about it, but most will take it as an insult, and it will poison the game.
As Quertus said, "Feels, not facts". RPGs are a social activity. What people around the table feel is far more relevant than what you think is the "true situation". Most people (myself included) think with their emotions first and foremost.

Satinavian
2021-08-05, 03:15 AM
That's what we thought, that Tal was willing to put up with his group because 80% of his games were fine (which would still be unacceptable. I mean, if my friends caused me grief once every 5 games, I would stop GMing and do solitary activities instead. I have a lot of unpainted minis and unplayed videogames, after all...). But he corrected us and said that nearly every session is crappy. So we can assume thet either those player meltdowns are independent (which seems unlikely, as you said), or that the individual player-meltdown chance are in fact much more than 20%
I just understood it as "every player is 15-20% likely to start such an argument during a session if not someone else goes first"

Talakeal
2021-08-05, 09:39 AM
Because the wolf was too smart to fall into an ambush, but still willing to face-tank the same bunch of dangerous humans on the road. There's nothing wrong in either of them (lone wolves don't attack groups of humans in our world, but in games, that kinda happens "because gameplay and fantasy", so that does not shock me), but both of them in the same adventure feel inconsistent.

If the wolf was that crafty and careful, then it would have been more thematically consistent (and more interesting) to have the players track it down to its lair, or ambush it when it comes for the village's herd, and have the final fight happen there.

It's not a big thing, but it sounds like a contrary GM who refuses to let his players get any advantage. It's nothing on its own, but if it's representative of the game, it can build up frustration over time until someone gets angry.

In my experience its actually the players refusing to let the GM get any advantage.

The players get mad if:

The monsters ambush them
The monsters set traps
The monsters make use of terrain
The monsters pre-buff
The monsters use hit and run tactics
The monsters refuse to engage the party on their terms (for example a dragon that fights from the air)
The monsters run away rather than fighting to the death
The monsters avoid fights they can't possibly win
The monsters require some sort of unusual tactics to defeat

The players also want to be treated and rewarded like they are great heroes.

And the players say they want "CaS tactical grid-based combat".

So the GM warps the narrative to meet the sort of campaign they want.

But the players then get mad if the GM warps the narrative in the other direction, finding reasons to negate the same tactics on their part that they would force the GM to find reasons to negate on the enemy's part.

IMO tracking it to its lair was what the DM intended, but as player's in my group tend to get frustrated and give up if their first attempt doesn't work, an ambush on the road was the only way that that plot thread would have continued. Also, it was probably the only way that I wouldn't have been killed as I absolutely would find myself trying to complete the quest on my own while the rest of the party was back in town drinking their sorrows away (and the players are in the next room playing Nintendo).



Remember the rule : "If the players do something that sounds stupid, ask questions to clarify, because there is probably a misunderstanding". In that GM's case, since the plan sounded like it wouldn't work for obvious reasons, the GM could have asked things like "You characters will be really obvious in those trees. Do you hide?" or "Most predators won't stand and fight in desperate situations. What's your plan if it tries to flee?"

The problem with telling a player bluntly that their plan was idiotic, is that you are saying that the character AND THE PLAYER are stupid. Some will be good sports about it, but most will take it as an insult, and it will poison the game.

As Quertus said, "Feels, not facts". RPGs are a social activity. What people around the table feel is far more relevant than what you think is the "true situation". Most people (myself included) think with their emotions first and foremost.

My problem is that the players are smart enough to read clarifying questions as the GM telling them their plan is idiotic and react accordingly.

KorvinStarmast
2021-08-05, 10:02 AM
The players get mad if:

The monsters ambush them
The monsters set traps
The monsters make use of terrain
The monsters pre-buff
The monsters use hit and run tactics
The monsters refuse to engage the party on their terms (for example a dragon that fights from the air)
The monsters run away rather than fighting to the death
The monsters avoid fights they can't possibly win
The monsters require some sort of unusual tactics to defeat

The players also want to be treated and rewarded like they are great heroes.
Why are you still playing with them?
Do they have blackmail on you?

Have you all tried a game of Paranoia for a change of pace?
Honey Heist?
Blades in the Dark?
Microscope?
Great Ork Gods?

Kardwill
2021-08-05, 10:11 AM
My problem is that the players are smart enough to read clarifying questions as the GM telling them their plan is idiotic and react accordingly.

Of course they do, because your gametable has an adversarial culture, where players and GMs constantly disrespect each other. You just said it yourself : the players are "smart enough" to know the GM "thinks their plan is idiotic". In that situation, the GM is not asking the question on good faith. And if you think they're idiots and patronize them, they'll pick it up and react badly.
For a "let's clarify the situation" discussion to work, you have to actually mean it, and not simply try to take back control of the situation. The questions are not used to guide them back toward your prefered solution, it's to help them realise their own within the parameters of your game.

When my players do something weird that has no chance to succeed, I don't think "What idiots! Guess I'll have to play 10-questions to save their asses". I know that, since they're not idiots nor *******s, either they misunderstood something, I misunderstood something (because the GM can be wrong, even about their own world and story), or we missed something implied by the rule, the declaration of intent, the situation or the gameworld. The question "Did you hide?" is genuine, because maybe the players thought that "we climb trees to set up an ambush" obviously implied they were hiding, or because they thought that the wolf's eyes are less of a problem than its nose, or because they think that the trees are a sufficient cover, like in the old "Robin Hood" movies that shaped our mental image of what a forest ambush looks like. Or they thought it was a very dense forest, when in my mind it was much sparser. Or maybe they DID say that they were hiding, and I didn't pay attention. And I can't know that, and allow us to adjust our "common image" of what's happening, or what is to be expected (like "A wolf probably will see you and flee") if I don't ask the question.


I'd even say that asking those questions is basic courtesy : If I say "I hide behind a tree and let the patrol pass!", and the GM replies "OK, you stand still, until the patrols stops in front of you and look at you bemused : There was no tree, so you were just standing still behind a potted flower on the side of the road", then, unless we're playing a comedy game like Toon or Paranoia, that GM just made fun of me and disrespected me as a player, and I won't like it.
If he clarified the situation, by saying "you're in the middle of fields, so there's no tree in sight, but you see waist-high barley fields, and a low wall on either side of the road. Do you want to use either of those to hide?", then he's helping me achieve what I wanted to do, and not telling me my plan is idiotic.

NichG
2021-08-05, 10:17 AM
In my experience its actually the players refusing to let the GM get any advantage.

The players get mad if:

The monsters ambush them
The monsters set traps
The monsters make use of terrain
The monsters pre-buff
The monsters use hit and run tactics
The monsters refuse to engage the party on their terms (for example a dragon that fights from the air)
The monsters run away rather than fighting to the death
The monsters avoid fights they can't possibly win
The monsters require some sort of unusual tactics to defeat

The players also want to be treated and rewarded like they are great heroes.

And the players say they want "CaS tactical grid-based combat".

So the GM warps the narrative to meet the sort of campaign they want.

But the players then get mad if the GM warps the narrative in the other direction, finding reasons to negate the same tactics on their part that they would force the GM to find reasons to negate on the enemy's part.

Well yes, that's self-consistent with wanting an easy beer and pretzels campaign. In that case one wouldn't want symmetry between times the player has advantage and times the player has advantage.



My problem is that the players are smart enough to read clarifying questions as the GM telling them their plan is idiotic and react accordingly.

Do it anyhow. Communicating accurately is non-negotiable IMO.

You mentioned the paradox of tolerance - this is one of those things. IMO whatever style of game a group of players wants to play is fine if the GM is willing to run it, but when a player asks for meta considerations which interfere with the ability of the group to actually function, that's off limits.

Glorthindel
2021-08-05, 10:41 AM
I know that, since they're not idiots nor *******s, either they misunderstood something, I misunderstood something (because the GM can be wrong, even about their own world and story), or we missed something implied by the rule, the declaration of intent, the situation or the gameworld.

To be honest, I wouldn't rule out that Talakeal's players are just idiots.

Kardwill
2021-08-05, 10:50 AM
To be honest, I wouldn't rule out that Talakeal's players are just idiots.

Even if it was true, you can't allow yourself to think that if you want to play with them. Either you respect them (and that means taking them seriously during the game), or you don't play with them. You should never treat your players as some sort of unwashed rabble that you have to educate.

KorvinStarmast
2021-08-05, 11:11 AM
To be honest, I wouldn't rule out that Talakeal's players are just idiots. Only getting one side of the story.
I have a thought: tuning the game to the players is an interactive and iterative process.
Getting the players to come half way is a communications intensive process, a negotiation process OOC.
If that process is stalled or never got off of top dead center, bowling is the better idea for game night.

Telok
2021-08-05, 11:16 AM
To be honest, I wouldn't rule out that Talakeal's players are just idiots.

They are very specific level of smat idiot.

Side note: I'm adding an advice appendix to the DtD rewrite I'm doing and rereading this thread for communication & problem solving advice.

Talakeal
2021-08-05, 11:21 AM
Of course they do, because your gametable has an adversarial culture, where players and GMs constantly disrespect each other. You just said it yourself : the players are "smart enough" to know the GM "thinks their plan is idiotic". In that situation, the GM is not asking the question on good faith. And if you think they're idiots and patronize them, they'll pick it up and react badly.
For a "let's clarify the situation" discussion to work, you have to actually mean it, and not simply try to take back control of the situation. The questions are not used to guide them back toward your prefered solution, it's to help them realise their own within the parameters of your game.

Woah woah woah. You said:


The problem with telling a player bluntly that their plan was idiotic, is that you are saying that the character AND THE PLAYER are stupid. Some will be good sports about it, but most will take it as an insult, and it will poison the game.

And I was just running with it.

I was reading your scenario as:

A: The GM spots a flaw in the plan.
B: The GM doesn't want to tell the player directly, because then the player will feel like being called an idiot.
C: The GM instead asks clarifying questions without bluntly telling them their plan is flawed.

And I was saying at my table:

D: The player sees where that the DM saw a flaw in their plan and it trying to be diplomatic about it, and therefore assumed the DM is calling them an idiot and gets mad.

For the record, I don't think any of my players are idiots. They are extremely forgetful, overly sensitive, and they get into the power fantasy aspect of the game which makes them very overconfident and reckless. But I do not think they are idiots.


I'd even say that asking those questions is basic courtesy : If I say "I hide behind a tree and let the patrol pass!", and the GM replies "OK, you stand still, until the patrols stops in front of you and look at you bemused : There was no tree, so you were just standing still behind a potted flower on the side of the road", then, unless we're playing a comedy game like Toon or Paranoia, that GM just made fun of me and disrespected me as a player, and I won't like it.
If he clarified the situation, by saying "you're in the middle of fields, so there's no tree in sight, but you see waist-high barley fields, and a low wall on either side of the road. Do you want to use either of those to hide?", then he's helping me achieve what I wanted to do, and not telling me my plan is idiotic.

That's not the issue in my games.

I mean, sometimes they get mad and accuse me of ret-conning the trees out of existence just to screw them over, but that's a different issue.


What usually happens is the players just forget something; like they are struggling with fighting a dragon when they have a dragon-bane arrow in their pack. If the DM does ask why they aren't using it, they will either A: Admit they forgot and get mad at the GM for "calling them an idiot" or B: Say they knew about the arrow and chose to save it, and get mad at the DM for trying to railroad them. On the other hand, if the DM doesn't say anything, they will get mad at the DM for not reminding them.

To use some real examples from my games:

1: I was playing 3.5 and we were planning on fighting a dragon. I was planning on casting Hold Monster on the dragon, was told that dragons were immune to paralysis in 3.X. But, when the fight started, I forgot all about that and cast hold monster on the dragon anyway, wasting a spell slot and a turn.

2: When fighting the avatar of violence which the party knew split when killed, the sorcerer in the party cast a damage over time spell on it because they forgot.

3: Many years ago, the party went on an adventure with a friendly luck spirit and it gave them a token to summon it again if they ever needed to change their luck. Two sessions later they fought an NPC who had been blessed by an arch-devil to have incredible good luck. They struggled a lot with that fight and complained about the difficulty. It would have been a perfect time to use the token, but they had forgotten all about it, and not only did they not use it then, it sat in their bag for the entire rest of the campaign.

4: Also in D&D, the party were attempting to foil a plot by the Devils to take over the world. A demon offered to help them as destroying the LE devils would be in both of their interests. The demon gave the party a way to contact her, but they never did the entire campaign. The problem here is that I can't tell if its because they were paranoid, morally opposed to working with a demon, or just flat out forgot about her. All of them are possible.

Segev
2021-08-05, 01:46 PM
I suppose the key point is that most of the things that "the DM sees a flaw in the plan" that people are suggesting greater communication will fix are things where it's not the players being stupid, but the players having an incorrect mental image of the scenario. Given that the only window on the scenario they have is the DM's description, and that likely given verbally, it is quite understandable that they may not "get" the same mental image the DM has.

The DM saying, "Your characters are aware that..." and describing what is, to the DM, an obvious flaw in the plan is not the DM in any way suggesting the players are stupid. Incorrect in their assumptions or mistaken in their beliefs about what is true in the setting, but not stupid.

If the players are assuming the DM is calling them "stupid" but doing so "diplomatically," it may behoove the DM to couch the points more carefully to accommodate their sensitivity to criticism. "I think we may not be picturing the scenario the same way, so let me run through the plan as I think you've outlined it and make sure you have the same mental image of the world that I and your characters would," might be a good place to start.

Imbalance
2021-08-05, 02:34 PM
{Scrubbed}

Draconi Redfir
2021-08-05, 02:37 PM
1: I was playing 3.5 and we were planning on fighting a dragon. I was planning on casting Hold Monster on the dragon, was told that dragons were immune to paralysis in 3.X. But, when the fight started, I forgot all about that and cast hold monster on the dragon anyway, wasting a spell slot and a turn.

2: When fighting the avatar of violence which the party knew split when killed, the sorcerer in the party cast a damage over time spell on it because they forgot.

3: Many years ago, the party went on an adventure with a friendly luck spirit and it gave them a token to summon it again if they ever needed to change their luck. Two sessions later they fought an NPC who had been blessed by an arch-devil to have incredible good luck. They struggled a lot with that fight and complained about the difficulty. It would have been a perfect time to use the token, but they had forgotten all about it, and not only did they not use it then, it sat in their bag for the entire rest of the campaign.

4: Also in D&D, the party were attempting to foil a plot by the Devils to take over the world. A demon offered to help them as destroying the LE devils would be in both of their interests. The demon gave the party a way to contact her, but they never did the entire campaign. The problem here is that I can't tell if its because they were paranoid, morally opposed to working with a demon, or just flat out forgot about her. All of them are possible.

maybe you could start or otherwise encourage a "Resources on hand" sheet / handout public to everyone at the table to look at?

something like;


- Wagon with two horses (Currently stored in Blighttown)
- Feather token (bird), commonly used for sending messages (Held by Gerald)
- Ritual to contact a Demoness (Offered to help you deal with a Devil Problem) (Known by Sigfreid)
- Token of luck (Summons a luck spirit to help give or manipulate luck for one encounter) (Held by Cid)
- Betty the Barmaid - Owes the party 1000gp for dealing with that rat problem (Silvershire)
- Scroll of mass invisibility (Held by Sigfreid)

If you have it on or near the middle of the table and establish that anyone can look at it at any time, they might be able to get into the habbit of checking on it every so often. or at the very least, one person might notice it, look it over, remember they have something they might need later, and re-enforce that memory so it's less likely to be forgotten.

Talakeal
2021-08-05, 03:17 PM
{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Dude, what do you want from me? I already asked him if he was willing to post his side of it, but aside from chaining him to a keyboard I don't know what more I can do.


maybe you could start or otherwise encourage a "Resources on hand" sheet / handout public to everyone at the table to look at?

something like;


If you have it on or near the middle of the table and establish that anyone can look at it at any time, they might be able to get into the habbit of checking on it every so often. or at the very least, one person might notice it, look it over, remember they have something they might need later, and re-enforce that memory so it's less likely to be forgotten.

That's a really good idea; a lot easier said than done, but I'll try and see if I can make that work.

Easy e
2021-08-05, 03:23 PM
Maybe have one of the players run a game instead of you.

Your group desperately need to change up the dynamics at the table.

Talakeal
2021-08-05, 03:32 PM
Maybe have one of the players run a game instead of you.

Your group desperately need to change up the dynamics at the table.

We have, several times.

The players act the exact same, except the other DM doesn't know how to deal with it and the game implodes after a few sessions.

Kardwill
2021-08-05, 04:06 PM
Woah woah woah. You said:



And I was just running with it.

I was reading your scenario as:

A: The GM spots a flaw in the plan.
B: The GM doesn't want to tell the player directly, because then the player will feel like being called an idiot.
C: The GM instead asks clarifying questions without bluntly telling them their plan is flawed.

And I was saying at my table:

D: The player sees where that the DM saw a flaw in their plan and it trying to be diplomatic about it, and therefore assumed the DM is calling them an idiot and gets mad.


Yeah, we had a miscommunication (those don't just happen at the gametable, apparently ^^)

My scenario was

A : The GM spots a flaw in the plan.
B : The GM thinks that the cause could be either that the players misunderstood or forgot something, or that the GM misunderstood the plan
C : The GM asks clarifying questions and gives some details to clarify what may have been missed, so that everybody works from the same "mental image".

It can look very similar to your scenario, but I think the difference is being genuine in your desire to clarify, and not use it as a way to manipulate the players. The goal is for the players to have the means to take an informed decision, and for the GM to rule according to the intent of the players, and not on a few words he misunderstood.


As for "forgetful players" : Every player I ever met (myself included) is forgetful. Every single one. That's easy to understand : The GM prepares the game, prepares everything the players will get with an idea of how they will be able to use it, has a global view of the story, who the protagonists are and where it might lead. Usually, they reflected on and created every single element, NPC, treasure and location of the game, so they're unlikely to forget their existence.
The players don't have that luxury : They can't really prepare (at best, one of the writes the notes of the previous session), have partial information, don't know what's important and what is not, usually only hear the important clues only once (when the discover them). So, quite often, that item that you took care to design for them so that they would have a tool to use later in the campaign is just "some stuff we got at the end of some game 4 month ago while we were ordering pizza"

And I agree reminding them stuff they forgot is sometimes difficult : some players will feel that the GM reminding them that they have some tool to solve the current problem robs them of the pleasure of finding it themselves. That's a source of frustration.
Usually, they won't get angry and get abusive like your mutant-alien-players, though. That's quite unusual in my gaming circle. Mostly because I stopped playing with the jerks I knew as a teen, and kept the well adjusted adults (or at least the well-meaning overgrown kids ^^) as friends.

Draconi Redfir
2021-08-05, 05:15 PM
Every player I ever met (myself included) is forgetful. Every single one. That's easy to understand

can verify. one time my party had to walk serval miles in a high-altitude snow-covered mountain. We had to pass around two rings of sustenance and a few cold-resistance items between the lot of us to deal with the cold and the lack of air.

only after we get inside the building that has actual air in it, do i realize I've had a bottle of air this entire campaign.

another time i realized i was level fifteen or so, and had completely forgotten i had taken the toughness feat at level three. so i only had three bonus hp from that rather then the 15 i should have had.

Talakeal
2021-08-05, 07:54 PM
So, I had a conversation with someone about this issue and she thought that my players are intentionally pulling this stuff as a form of Gamesmanship (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamesmanship).



It can look very similar to your scenario, but I think the difference is being genuine in your desire to clarify, and not use it as a way to manipulate the players. The goal is for the players to have the means to take an informed decision, and for the GM to rule according to the intent of the players, and not on a few words he misunderstood.


Out of curiosity, what do you consider the manipulation here?

The only thing I am trying to manipulate them into is not getting upset; but its path fraught with peril as if I don't say precisely the right thing I get yelled at for railroading, calling them stupid, or sitting back and doing nothing while they get into trouble.

zlefin
2021-08-05, 08:00 PM
On the forgetting stuff problem:

What do the players do if they are reminded via pertinent rolls? ie the characters get a skill roll, or a wis or int check, to remember something important/helpful to the situation. Do the players get mad if you do that? Sometimes that helps put it on the character rather than the player, which can help a bit.


Insisting on forms of pre-permission might work. ie ask at session 0: "If you forget something your character might and/or should remember, or that would be helpful in the situation, what do you want me to do: Remind you of it, Hint at it, Make a Roll to realize it, Say nothing"

KorvinStarmast
2021-08-05, 08:06 PM
We have, several times.

The players act the exact same, except the other DM doesn't know how to deal with it and the game implodes after a few sessions.
Pictionary is also a fun game. Maybe try that.

OldTrees1
2021-08-05, 09:18 PM
So, I had a conversation with someone about this issue and she thought that my players are intentionally pulling this stuff as a form of Gamesmanship (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamesmanship).

Talakeal, your group is a bundle of cautionary tales. It would not surprise me if this too was involved. It is okay to stop playing RPGs with each other.

I suggest playing a cooperative game. Forbidden Desert or Pandemic are good examples.

Also, are your alternatives actually worse? What about your alternatives where you do something else with other people (does the problem follow you?).

Kardwill
2021-08-06, 02:56 AM
Out of curiosity, what do you consider the manipulation here?

Asking questions not because you want to clarify the answer, but because you want the players to get to the answer you want, is kinda manipulative, in a "crafty teacher" kind of way. Usually, it's not a big deal (we sometimes do it in my group and are good sports about it), but in a group of adults with serious trust and respect issues, I can see how that would cause friction.





Also, are your alternatives actually worse? What about your alternatives where you do something else with other people (does the problem follow you?).

It looks like the problem follows Talakeal :


I guess I am just used to a different environment than you.

Playing cards or board games with my family, playing MMOs online, and playing Warhammer at the Games Workshop store all have a far higher rate of incidents than my tabletop RPG session.

Heck, I don't think I have ever won a game of Warhammer except by forfeit, as the vast majority of players quit the moment that it looks like they are likely to lose.

Which is weird, really. Bad stuff sometimes happen in group activities, sure (I've overturned a boardgame or two myself when I was a teen), but meldowns and that level of rude antisocial immaturity on a regular basis? From adults? At a public store? Without getting your ass perma-booted from said store because you're driving off the innocent customers? It's like Talakeal is some sort of trouble magnet.

In such an environment, I'd seriously choose a solitary creative outlet : Mini painting, drawing, solo TTRPGs, that kind of stuff. Social activities will only lead to grief.

Pex
2021-08-06, 03:55 AM
A lesson all players should learn. When the player states he wants to do something and the DM responds "Are you sure?", the player should immediately say "No, never mind, I don't do that." and do something else.

When a player forgets something really important that happened or was learned two or especially more weeks ago real world time I'll give a reminder. If it's useful information but not crucial I'll ask for an Intelligence check, maybe with advantage depending on the Thing.

For my own jollies I'll remind them by fiat if it was a minor tidbit of trivia I didn't expect them to think was important to show off how clever I was to slip in something relevant.

icefractal
2021-08-06, 04:20 AM
"Are you sure?" is sometimes too ambiguous though, IMO.

Player: "That's it, I'm going to charge the mayor and grapple him."
GM: "Are you sure?"
What the GM means: "Your character knows the mayor has an amulet of Balor Nimbus (but you don't remember because it was three months ago in real time), and charging there will leave you surrounded by his guards."
What the player thinks the GM means: "You've been pretending not to know the mayor is corrupt, is this the moment you want to blow your cover?"

And since it is the time they want to blow their cover, they say "Yes". And then the PC dies in a stupid way and the player is pissed off - and the fact that the GM can say "Well I asked if you were sure ..." is not going to make things better.

Pex
2021-08-06, 06:18 AM
"Are you sure?" is sometimes too ambiguous though, IMO.

Player: "That's it, I'm going to charge the mayor and grapple him."
GM: "Are you sure?"
What the GM means: "Your character knows the mayor has an amulet of Balor Nimbus (but you don't remember because it was three months ago in real time), and charging there will leave you surrounded by his guards."
What the player thinks the GM means: "You've been pretending not to know the mayor is corrupt, is this the moment you want to blow your cover?"

And since it is the time they want to blow their cover, they say "Yes". And then the PC dies in a stupid way and the player is pissed off - and the fact that the GM can say "Well I asked if you were sure ..." is not going to make things better.

It doesn't matter what the player thinks. The DM is telling him his current thought of action will lead to his character's death or other very undesirable effect. The player can still expose the Mayor's corruption, but the DM is telling him don't charge him to attack. Do it another way. That's what the player should do. Don't charge to attack. Do something else. The player never said anything about exposing the corruption. That is not what caused the DM to respond "Are you sure?". It was the declaration of charging to attack.

Talakeal
2021-08-06, 08:31 AM
"Are you sure?" is sometimes too ambiguous though, IMO.

Player: "That's it, I'm going to charge the mayor and grapple him."
GM: "Are you sure?"
What the GM means: "Your character knows the mayor has an amulet of Balor Nimbus (but you don't remember because it was three months ago in real time), and charging there will leave you surrounded by his guards."
What the player thinks the GM means: "You've been pretending not to know the mayor is corrupt, is this the moment you want to blow your cover?"

And since it is the time they want to blow their cover, they say "Yes". And then the PC dies in a stupid way and the player is pissed off - and the fact that the GM can say "Well I asked if you were sure ..." is not going to make things better.

Absolutely this.

Its even worse in my case, because the majority of things I need to ask players about are inactions.

Like, if they are not summoning the demon in the above example, I could never tell if it was because they were saving it for a rainy day that never came, morally objected to it, didn't trust her, or just forgot she existed. All were possible.


Asking questions not because you want to clarify the answer, but because you want the players to get to the answer you want, is kinda manipulative, in a "crafty teacher" kind of way. Usually, it's not a big deal (we sometimes do it in my group and are good sports about it), but in a group of adults with serious trust and respect issues, I can see how that would cause friction.

Again though, what answer is it that I want?

In this case, I am seeing something that is going to make the PC upset, and am trying to head it off.

Legitimately asking a clarifying question, like the above example of trying to hide behind a tree in an empty field, isn't really where the issue is.


Which is weird, really. Bad stuff sometimes happen in group activities, sure (I've overturned a board game or two myself when I was a teen), but meltdowns and that level of rude antisocial immaturity on a regular basis? From adults? At a public store? Without getting your ass perma-booted from said store because you're driving off the innocent customers? It's like Talakeal is some sort of trouble magnet.

Actual melt-downs typically don't happen in person, but online (and playing games with my family at holidays) they are way more likely to happen than in a TTRPG.

At the Games Workshop store it was typically more low-key; endless arguments about Line of Sight or guessing precise distances, occasionally throwing dice or models when things go bad, accusations of cheating, and forfeiting when things go bad.

You know, that may be my personal issue with a lot of games; I enjoy playing win or lose, I will always play to the last and appreciate my opponent to do the same, but a lot of people forfeit when it first looks likely (not assured, just likely) that they will lose, and get mad at me because I don't do the same (back in middle school it got so bad my friends actually told me I "killed the game for them" by playing until the last even though I had no realistic chance of winning).

Likewise in TTRPGs my players tend to want to give up and go back to town the moment things get hard, which really frustrates me as I spent a lot of time and mental energy prepping a game and set aside a whole evening to do it. That's pretty much the only thing players do that upsets me (unlike the countless things that upset them); when I came to play, I came to play.


I suggest playing a cooperative game. Forbidden Desert or Pandemic are good examples.

In my experience board games, even cooperative ones, cause more fights than RPGs, but don't have any of the things I enjoy to make them worth putting up with.

For example, I have played a lot of Eldritch Horror / Mansions of Madness with several groups not related to my TTRP group, and there is always at least one person who wants to tell everyone else what to do and gets really mad if you don't listen to them, and blames everyone else if the PCs lose.

NichG
2021-08-06, 09:21 AM
Absolutely this.

Its even worse in my case, because the majority of things I need to ask players about are inactions.

Like, if they are not summoning the demon in the above example, I could never tell if it was because they were saving it for a rainy day that never came, morally objected to it, didn't trust her, or just forgot she existed. All were possible.


This seems odd, and maybe it's part of the reason why you're finding it difficult to ask for clarification without it being seen as insulting.

I can sometimes see asking about inaction, but it'd be more 'if you spend 4 months of downtime, you'll miss that event you set up 8 sessions ago, is that your intent?' and the like.

I could see 'Why don't you use your power attack? Wouldn't cloud kill solve this for you? Why not send Brian over to tank and then drop a fireball on him when there's a crowd?' as sounding intrusive depending on how you do it, and those kinds of things aren't exactly 'clarifying' questions, but are rather explicit suggestions of courses of action.

A clarifying question would be e.g. 'If you place Brian up in that tree, he's going to be cut off from support if the enemy approaches from the north, is that consistent with how you all see it?' or 'Are you throwing jeweler's rouge around this nobleman's bedroom that you've broken into to look for invisible things, or are you just trying to make a mess and send a message?'

Amidus Drexel
2021-08-06, 09:34 AM
At the Games Workshop store it was typically more low-key; endless arguments about Line of Sight or guessing precise distances, occasionally throwing dice or models when things go bad, accusations of cheating, and forfeiting when things go bad.

You know, that may be my personal issue with a lot of games; I enjoy playing win or lose, I will always play to the last and appreciate my opponent to do the same, but a lot of people forfeit when it first looks likely (not assured, just likely) that they will lose, and get mad at me because I don't do the same (back in middle school it got so bad my friends actually told me I "killed the game for them" by playing until the last even though I had no realistic chance of winning).


In fairness, forfeiting when a loss is likely but not guaranteed is a pretty common thing in 1v1 competitive games - that's not something I would ever hold against an opponent. Conceding as soon as you get a little unlucky is a bit extreme, though.

I play a lot of M:tG, and the "control", "stax", and "prison" archetypes often effectively win long before they're able to actually end the game. Sometimes it's fun to play it out anyway, especially if there's plenty of time left in the match, but often it's more fun to just take the loss and move to the next game.

If time is running short in a multi-game match (or in an evening, if players have blocked off a couple hours for playing, for example, wargames), then cutting short a game where you're expecting to lose over the course of the next 20-30 minutes and having time to play more games makes sense.



In my experience board games, even cooperative ones, cause more fights than RPGs, but don't have any of the things I enjoy to make them worth putting up with.

For example, I have played a lot of Eldritch Horror / Mansions of Madness with several groups not related to my TTRP group, and there is always at least one person who wants to tell everyone else what to do and gets really mad if you don't listen to them, and blames everyone else if the PCs lose.

I tend to dislike (fully) cooperative board games for this exact reason: optimal play more or less forces one or two players to plan everything. Often the games are difficult enough that "deviating from The Plan" means the team really does lose. (This is called the Quarterbacking Problem, and there are a wide range of opinions on how relevant the problem is to any given game).

Cooperative games where players have incomplete information dodge this problem, as you can't make an effective plan if each player has hidden objectives or if the information you have to act on is up to interpretation.

OldTrees1
2021-08-06, 10:40 AM
Actual melt-downs typically don't happen in person, but online (and playing games with my family at holidays) they are way more likely to happen than in a TTRPG.

At the Games Workshop store it was typically more low-key; endless arguments about Line of Sight or guessing precise distances, occasionally throwing dice or models when things go bad, accusations of cheating, and forfeiting when things go bad.

You know, that may be my personal issue with a lot of games; I enjoy playing win or lose, I will always play to the last and appreciate my opponent to do the same, but a lot of people forfeit when it first looks likely (not assured, just likely) that they will lose, and get mad at me because I don't do the same (back in middle school it got so bad my friends actually told me I "killed the game for them" by playing until the last even though I had no realistic chance of winning).

Likewise in TTRPGs my players tend to want to give up and go back to town the moment things get hard, which really frustrates me as I spent a lot of time and mental energy prepping a game and set aside a whole evening to do it. That's pretty much the only thing players do that upsets me (unlike the countless things that upset them); when I came to play, I came to play.

In my experience board games, even cooperative ones, cause more fights than RPGs, but don't have any of the things I enjoy to make them worth putting up with.

For example, I have played a lot of Eldritch Horror / Mansions of Madness with several groups not related to my TTRP group, and there is always at least one person who wants to tell everyone else what to do and gets really mad if you don't listen to them, and blames everyone else if the PCs lose.

1) Is if fair to say that, based on your experience, regardless of the game or who you are playing with, you expect fights (comparable to those at your RPG group) to happen?

-------

2) Is it fair to say that when this RPG group faces "the moment things get hard", they want to play a different game than you do? They want to go back to town and you want them to push on.

Is it fair to say (including thinking back to warhammer or highschool) that you have a tendency to face this "want to play different games" situation by trying to keep playing the game you want?

--------

I fully expect your situation is coincidentally unfortunate. However, I have trouble believing your alternatives are worse than how you depict your RPG sessions.

Segev
2021-08-06, 11:45 AM
I have found that, if players seem stymied, running down a list of resources you know they have - without picking any one out, and without saying that using any of them will work - helps immensely. Preface it by saying you're not telling them what to do nor that anything you list will necessarily be a silver bullet, but that you're trying to help them make sure they know all the tools at their disposal to come up with a plan.

It's crucial that you make it clear that you're just helping the players - who aren't physically in the world seeing what their PCs see - know what their PCs know. You are NOT telling them what to do, and if they act like they think you are, remind them that you're not suggesting any course of action. Only reminding them of what their PCs know. It's up to them to come up with a way to use it. And what of it to use.

Edit to add: It helps if you don't have any particular uses in mind, either, but that's not always avoidable. But you need to be careful that you're not coming up with One True Solution that you're just baffled your players haven't come up with, and that your "not telling them what to do" isn't just making them play a guessing game to figure out the One Solution.

Again, I suggest a few sessions/quests where you give them ALL of the information about how the bad guy works. Especially if there's a "trick" to it, like "it can't be killed by violence, because it just heals and duplicates if so, but it dies of starvation like any mortal would and as long as it's just left to its own devices, that will kill it with time."

Quertus
2021-08-06, 06:03 PM
I lost a larger post; the main thing I think I wanted to say was that the Wolf story, modified / added to slightly, would be a great candidate for a "debugging your GMing" chapter in an RPG book, because it has *so many* bad GMing mistakes. Yes, including, "you can't do what you want to do, because physics, but I'll do what I want to do, despite (the exact same) physics.".


You know, that may be my personal issue with a lot of games; I enjoy playing win or lose, I will always play to the last and appreciate my opponent to do the same, but a lot of people forfeit when it first looks likely (not assured, just likely) that they will lose, and get mad at me because I don't do the same (back in middle school it got so bad my friends actually told me I "killed the game for them" by playing until the last even though I had no realistic chance of winning).

Likewise in TTRPGs my players tend to want to give up and go back to town the moment things get hard, which really frustrates me as I spent a lot of time and mental energy prepping a game and set aside a whole evening to do it. That's pretty much the only thing players do that upsets me (unlike the countless things that upset them); when I came to play, I came to play.

Then why on earth isn't "you go back to town, rest up, and return" something you handle in 30 seconds game time?


I have found that, if players seem stymied, running down a list of resources you know they have - without picking any one out, and without saying that using any of them will work - helps immensely. Preface it by saying you're not telling them what to do nor that anything you list will necessarily be a silver bullet, but that you're trying to help them make sure they know all the tools at their disposal to come up with a plan.

It's crucial that you make it clear that you're just helping the players - who aren't physically in the world seeing what their PCs see - know what their PCs know. You are NOT telling them what to do, and if they act like they think you are, remind them that you're not suggesting any course of action. Only reminding them of what their PCs know. It's up to them to come up with a way to use it. And what of it to use.

Edit to add: It helps if you don't have any particular uses in mind, either, but that's not always avoidable. But you need to be careful that you're not coming up with One True Solution that you're just baffled your players haven't come up with, and that your "not telling them what to do" isn't just making them play a guessing game to figure out the One Solution.

Again, I suggest a few sessions/quests where you give them ALL of the information about how the bad guy works. Especially if there's a "trick" to it, like "it can't be killed by violence, because it just heals and duplicates if so, but it dies of starvation like any mortal would and as long as it's just left to its own devices, that will kill it with time."

Tone and inflection - I'd have someone else (or a computer program) read off the list. And anyone - not just the GM - can press the button that makes it read the list.

But I'm… very much in the "let the players make their own mistakes" camp? No, that's not quite right. Hmmm…

OK, let me try again. I've had too many terrible GMs who would *both* a) not tell players the things that their characters should know; b) would tell players things that their characters realistically wouldn't know / would correct mistakes that the PCs legitimately could have made. And generally each of those decisions *also* made for a worse game than the alternative choice. Far too many GMs like that.

All that aside, on a minor related note, I err on the side of *not* communicating in this scenario. Why, you may ask? Because I want to preserve the possibility of the *research* minigame (you know, like Talakeal's character was doing with the wolf), rather than accidentally negating someone's character concept / source of fun[1].

I'm not saying I'm right (somewhat the opposite); rather, I'm saying that there are multiple considerations, and multiple possible paradigms to use when deciding when to give what information / hints. Without any foreknowledge of playstyles, and sans any feedback from the players[2], I default to a style which allows all / does not prohibit any / does not unduly penalize any playstyle / minigame preference.

In other words, my default GM style is to try to let the players choose the game style.

[1] For those who say that they hate win buttons, remember: knowledge checks are win buttons to proper hypothesis and research and experimentation loops. They obviate the need for those entire minigames.

[2] This is one of *many* things that it's good to both a) read the room in the moment, and b) explicitly solicit feedback when it comes up, whether or not C) you've covered it in session 0.

fuschiawarrior
2021-08-07, 02:36 AM
Then why on earth isn't "you go back to town, rest up, and return" something you handle in 30 seconds game time?

Because appearantly characters going back to town means that the players leave the room to play video games (emphasis mine).

Also, it was probably the only way that I wouldn't have been killed as I absolutely would find myself trying to complete the quest on my own while the rest of the party was back in town drinking their sorrows away (and the players are in the next room playing Nintendo).

This is so disrespectful even as a teen at the time they should have known better. Talakeal, you say that it's hard to find new players but is tolerating this behavior for a few decades easier? Is there some kind of sunk cost fallacy from your part going on here? I'm sorry for overstepping and feel free to ignore me but I am team new players too.

Talakeal
2021-08-07, 11:23 AM
In fairness, forfeiting when a loss is likely but not guaranteed is a pretty common thing in 1v1 competitive games - that's not something I would ever hold against an opponent. Conceding as soon as you get a little unlucky is a bit extreme, though.

I play a lot of M:tG, and the "control", "stax", and "prison" archetypes often effectively win long before they're able to actually end the game. Sometimes it's fun to play it out anyway, especially if there's plenty of time left in the match, but often it's more fun to just take the loss and move to the next game.

If time is running short in a multi-game match (or in an evening, if players have blocked off a couple hours for playing, for example, wargames), then cutting short a game where you're expecting to lose over the course of the next 20-30 minutes and having time to play more games makes sense.

Well, Warhammer is a bit different than Magic in that regard. I can see this if you are trying to get in multiple games, but in Warhammer there is typically only time for a single game in an evening, and after I have spent an hour or more packing my models, driving to the store, finding an opponent, writing an army list, and setting up the board having my only game for the evening end after two or three turns because I am ahead kind of wastes my whole night.


On a related tangent, Extra Credits did a video a few years back about how ~3% of the time something crazy happens to upset a "certain defeat" scenario, and it was saying that even competitive players are trained to forfeit when things go bad in games like Magic or Starcraft, but learning to not give up and keep trying until the very end is the most effective form of training one can do, as at the top level reducing your loss rate by 3% is massive.


1) Is if fair to say that, based on your experience, regardless of the game or who you are playing with, you expect fights (comparable to those at your RPG group) to happen?

Yes. Unfortunately.


2) Is it fair to say that when this RPG group faces "the moment things get hard", they want to play a different game than you do? They want to go back to town and you want them to push on.

Is it fair to say (including thinking back to warhammer or highschool) that you have a tendency to face this "want to play different games" situation by trying to keep playing the game you want?

You are gonna have to define "different games". If you mean we arrange to play a game (D&D, Magic, Warhammer, whatever) and then someone wants to play Nintendo in the other room because they are losing, then yes, absolutely.

If you mean take the game we are playing in a different direction, not so much.


I have found that, if players seem stymied, running down a list of resources you know they have - without picking any one out, and without saying that using any of them will work - helps immensely. Preface it by saying you're not telling them what to do nor that anything you list will necessarily be a silver bullet, but that you're trying to help them make sure they know all the tools at their disposal to come up with a plan.

It's crucial that you make it clear that you're just helping the players - who aren't physically in the world seeing what their PCs see - know what their PCs know. You are NOT telling them what to do, and if they act like they think you are, remind them that you're not suggesting any course of action. Only reminding them of what their PCs know. It's up to them to come up with a way to use it. And what of it to use.

Edit to add: It helps if you don't have any particular uses in mind, either, but that's not always avoidable. But you need to be careful that you're not coming up with One True Solution that you're just baffled your players haven't come up with, and that your "not telling them what to do" isn't just making them play a guessing game to figure out the One Solution.

Again, I suggest a few sessions/quests where you give them ALL of the information about how the bad guy works. Especially if there's a "trick" to it, like "it can't be killed by violence, because it just heals and duplicates if so, but it dies of starvation like any mortal would and as long as it's just left to its own devices, that will kill it with time."

I kind of did that in my last campaign, I had a tally sheet of group resources and a list of adventure hooks and leads.

The players found this to be overbearing and annoying, as they thought I was overstepping my bounds writing down things for them and that I was railroading them by listing the same hooks they had turned down before every session as they felt they turned them down for a good reason.


Because apparently characters going back to town means that the players leave the room to play video games (emphasis mine).

This is so disrespectful even as a teen at the time they should have known better. Talakeal, you say that it's hard to find new players but is tolerating this behavior for a few decades easier? Is there some kind of sunk cost fallacy from your part going on here? I'm sorry for overstepping and feel free to ignore me but I am team new players too.

Going into the other room to play video games in not so much an issue anymore. There is only a single player in the wolf story who I still game with, and that was the DM.

Now, people being on their phones during the game is still an issue, but its my understanding that that is pretty much an issue all around these days and not just with my group, and seems to happen whether or not they are bored / losing / frustrated.


Because appearantly characters going back to town means that the players leave the room to play video games (emphasis mine).

This is so disrespectful even as a teen at the time they should have known better. Talakeal, you say that it's hard to find new players but is tolerating this behavior for a few decades easier? Is there some kind of sunk cost fallacy from your part going on here? I'm sorry for overstepping and feel free to ignore me but I am team new players too.


I lost a larger post; the main thing I think I wanted to say was that the Wolf story, modified / added to slightly, would be a great candidate for a "debugging your GMing" chapter in an RPG book, because it has *so many* bad GMing mistakes. Yes, including, "you can't do what you want to do, because physics, but I'll do what I want to do, despite (the exact same) physics."

That's a shame, because I would really love to here it.

Because as I see it, the hypocrisy is on the part of the players; they ask the DM to craft a scenario where they get to fight a monster and then be treated (and paid) like great heroes, and then get mad at the DM for crafting a scenario that gives them exactly what they asked for.

Unless the mistake is listening to players when they tell you what they want and instead deciding that you know best and will instead just feed them an easy win I don't know what the lesson is.


Then why on earth isn't "you go back to town, rest up, and return" something you handle in 30 seconds game time?

It might be, depending on the game.

But I don't think that's relevant to the current discussion, what I am discussing is the players find something challenging and thus give up on the adventure entirely. Several times in my last game they did this, and would then never return to complete the adventure because "that would be chasing good money after bad".

Again, my frustration is when I prep an entire adventure that will fill the whole session, and the players decide to abandon it completely and forever because a single obstacle either stymies their first attempt or was tougher than they imagined it should be. Or just looks too scary.

NichG
2021-08-07, 11:44 AM
Well, Warhammer is a bit different than Magic in that regard. I can see this if you are trying to get in multiple games, but in Warhammer there is typically only time for a single game in an evening, and after I have spent an hour or more packing my models, driving to the store, finding an opponent, writing an army list, and setting up the board having my only game for the evening end after two or three turns because I am ahead kind of wastes my whole night.

On a related tangent, Extra Credits did a video a few years back about how ~3% of the time something crazy happens to upset a "certain defeat" scenario, and it was saying that even competitive players are trained to forfeit when things go bad in games like Magic or Starcraft, but learning to not give up and keep trying until the very end is the most effective form of training one can do, as at the top level reducing your loss rate by 3% is massive.


In comparison, in Go its considered rude not to forfeit from a position where it's clear that the only way you could win would be if the other player messes up. People can manage wins by doing crazy aggressive plays from a losing state over and over again with the hope that the other player misses something or responds incorrectly, but that's not considered to be proper etiquette for the game. If a professional player upped their win rate by doing random overplays in clearly losing games with the hope that something stuck, I doubt they'd be disqualified, but it'd probably hurt their career in terms of reputation. If a player sees that sort of thing going on, a sort of rude response is to play a clearly worthless move as if to say 'just resign already, I don't even need to keep playing in order to win this game'.

Amidus Drexel
2021-08-07, 12:41 PM
Well, Warhammer is a bit different than Magic in that regard. I can see this if you are trying to get in multiple games, but in Warhammer there is typically only time for a single game in an evening, and after I have spent an hour or more packing my models, driving to the store, finding an opponent, writing an army list, and setting up the board having my only game for the evening end after two or three turns because I am ahead kind of wastes my whole night.

On a related tangent, Extra Credits did a video a few years back about how ~3% of the time something crazy happens to upset a "certain defeat" scenario, and it was saying that even competitive players are trained to forfeit when things go bad in games like Magic or Starcraft, but learning to not give up and keep trying until the very end is the most effective form of training one can do, as at the top level reducing your loss rate by 3% is massive.


(continuing the tangent)

Yeah, I don't really get that behaviour either. If you've blocked off, say, 6 hours for a game (one that would reasonably take that much time), and your opponent forfeits early at hour 3, they're just depriving themselves of fun for the rest of the evening too.

This is probably another situation where Magic differs greatly from e.g. Warhammer. I could probably write a simulation of how frequently a given deck beats a control deck from the classic "probably hopeless" situation (board is clear, control player has 4+ cards in hand, other player has nothing and is empty-handed), but I'd guess it's quite a bit lower than 3%.
More importantly, the amount of time left in a "best of 3" match is a real consideration in competitive play, so you're not just looking at "is it possible to win at all?", but instead "regardless of who eventually wins this game, will there be enough time remaining in the round afterwards for me to win two games in total - or should I concede now and start over from a better position?".



I kind of did that in my last campaign, I had a tally sheet of group resources and a list of adventure hooks and leads.

The players found this to be overbearing and annoying, as they thought I was overstepping my bounds writing down things for them and that I was railroading them by listing the same hooks they had turned down before every session as they felt they turned them down for a good reason.


This is clearly a playstyle difference between myself and your players, but I'd actually find that really helpful. As a player, I take notes somewhat haphazardly (I write down what looks important, but might gloss over the really big stuff because I assume I'll remember it) - the GM taking notes in addition to the party makes it less likely that the party misses something.

OldTrees1
2021-08-07, 02:59 PM
1) Is if fair to say that, based on your experience, regardless of the game or who you are playing with, you expect fights (comparable to those at your RPG group) to happen?


Yes. Unfortunately.


That is unfortunate. I had hoped that observation was mistaken.

I know from my experience, that there are games and people I can play with where I will not see fights happen.

There might be some element in common with your experiences despite not being dependent on the game played or the other players you are playing with.

Segev
2021-08-07, 11:56 PM
I kind of did that in my last campaign, I had a tally sheet of group resources and a list of adventure hooks and leads.

The players found this to be overbearing and annoying, as they thought I was overstepping my bounds writing down things for them and that I was railroading them by listing the same hooks they had turned down before every session as they felt they turned them down for a good reason.

Hooks are not resources. They would only come up in what I mentioned if they also doubled as something the PCs could reasonably know would be helpful with what they're trying to do.

I focus on this because you said they felt that repeating the hooks they'd turned down was "overbearing." I can see the complaint, and can't see how it helps with what I suggested. I don't agree with the complaint, mind; I just can see it given this group's assumption that anything you tell them is you trying to compel behavior.

What I am trying to recommend is that you list resources and things they know, not hooks.

Quertus
2021-08-08, 11:43 AM
When it comes to MtG, I'm… not like your players, Talakeal - I don't quit unless it's *guaranteed* that I cannot win. And… IME, that makes me a "quitter" compared to those I've played against (I was the first in my (early) play group to tap all my land and say "done" (MtG grognards should get it)).

Other than once when I was too tired (playing 6 RPGs a week), and had to let someone else finish for me (and that was a close game, which had largely come down to me vs my doppelganger, except i had tech specifically for fighting my doppelganger, so I think I probably would have won that), or a few times when we realized we'd set things up wrong, I don't think I've ever quit a Warhammer style game before the bitter end. Even when… hero clicks, was it?… I could keep resurrecting my units, and keep feeding my opponent points (100 point game, they. probably scored about 250 points against me).

So I'm really not used to a defeatist attitude in those arenas.

In D&D, though? If the GM (or even another player) is doing something unfun, I'm perfectly happy stopping the game and working to fix the problem. I'm always up for swinging the ol' (verbal) clue-by-four.[1]

And if the party has already passed up certain plot hooks? It's bad form to badger them about things that they don't want. Picture the stalker who keeps trying to ask out the person who has no interest in them. Or Navi.

If the adventure cannot progress unless the party goes on quests that they have no interest in? Then build better (less fragile, more interesting) campaigns.

[1] not that the (verbal) clue-by-four *has* to be swung every time someone does something dumb or unfun, mind. But I'm always ready and willing.[2]

[2] just like, if asked, "are you here to game or argue", I would a) probably respond with some variant of, "well, I *was* here to game, but I'll argue if it's the only option on the table / the only way to get a good game"; plus some variant of b) "it takes two to argue - are *you* here to game, or to argue?".[3]

[3] and I'll *certainly* not accept a GM trying to bully and victim blame me, claiming that *I* am arguing with them, when they mess something up, or are otherwise harming someone's fun.

Talakeal
2021-08-08, 12:26 PM
So, we had our first session yesterday. It went pretty well all things considered. I decided not to have any sort of OOC talk as I felt it was as likely to scare the new player away as actually solve anything.

The only real issue is that the first fight took way too long because the players had all made somewhat defensively focused characters and none of them could reliably get past the monster's armor, but it wasn't too bad. Later in the session though, it did mean I kind of had to push down the throttle on the plot train to get everything done in time, which made Bob complain about how he hated "cut scenes" in an RPG; but it was a valid complaint and didn't go much further.

I tried to use Quertus' stat cards idea, but the players didn't really seem too interested in looking at them. And, like I was afraid of, I made two small mistakes, at one point when I was prepping the adventure (before the game but after printing out the cards) I realized I needed to give an enemy a skill it didn't have for the setup to make sense, and at one point in the game I misremembered an encounter and told the players they were tracking six enemies but the card said there were only five. But nobody noticed.

I will write up a full session report later for anyone who is interested in reading it.



In D&D, though? If the GM (or even another player) is doing something unfun, I'm perfectly happy stopping the game and working to fix the problem. I'm always up for swinging the ol' (verbal) clue-by-four.[1]

And if the party has already passed up certain plot hooks? It's bad form to badger them about things that they don't want. Picture the stalker who keeps trying to ask out the person who has no interest in them. Or Navi.

If the adventure cannot progress unless the party goes on quests that they have no interest in? Then build better (less fragile, more interesting) campaigns.

[1] not that the (verbal) clue-by-four *has* to be swung every time someone does something dumb or unfun, mind. But I'm always ready and willing.[2]

[2] just like, if asked, "are you here to game or argue", I would a) probably respond with some variant of, "well, I *was* here to game, but I'll argue if it's the only option on the table / the only way to get a good game"; plus some variant of b) "it takes two to argue - are *you* here to game, or to argue?".[3]

[3] and I'll *certainly* not accept a GM trying to bully and victim blame me, claiming that *I* am arguing with them, when they mess something up, or are otherwise harming someone's fun.

With all due respect, this post really makes you sound like a problem player to me. The idea that the argumentative rules lawyer is somehow the victim or that its the DM's fault for not making interesting enough adventures for the players to try engaging with them is pretty toxic, even by my standards.


That is unfortunate. I had hoped that observation was mistaken.

I know from my experience, that there are games and people I can play with where I will not see fights happen.

There might be some element in common with your experiences despite not being dependent on the game played or the other players you are playing with.

This sounds like an extremely diplomatic way of saying "You are the only common factor in all of your failed relationships." :p

Thinking back about it though, maybe I shouldn't say I expect bad behavior, more like I am not surprised by it.

There are some people whom I expect to be worse (playing cards with my dad, RPing with the bad GM I had in New Mexico) and some people whom I expect it to be much better with (RPing with the good GM I had in New Mexico, Con Games in St Loius).


But different people have different standards, for example the one group I was in in New Mexico was the best, most stress free, gaming group I have ever been in, but by the end of the campaign the DM was still stressed out and on the verge of quitting and the group had to have several talkings to about respecting one another, even though I wasn't aware of any problems that would even blip on my radar in other groups.



Hooks are not resources. They would only come up in what I mentioned if they also doubled as something the PCs could reasonably know would be helpful with what they're trying to do.

I focus on this because you said they felt that repeating the hooks they'd turned down was "overbearing." I can see the complaint, and can't see how it helps with what I suggested. I don't agree with the complaint, mind; I just can see it given this group's assumption that anything you tell them is you trying to compel behavior.

What I am trying to recommend is that you list resources and things they know, not hooks.

I can see where you are coming from; but my players don't just forget their "resources" and need to be reminded of them.

Its also hard to draw a clear line between them; for example if they are looking to fight a dragon and you remind them that they have heard rumors about a sword of dragon slaying buried in a tomb in the Dry Hills, is that a resource, a hook, or both?

Likewise, they don't always say clearly (let alone unanimously) about WHY they are not biting on a hook. See the demon example above.

OldTrees1
2021-08-08, 01:03 PM
This sounds like an extremely diplomatic way of saying "You are the only common factor in all of your failed relationships." :p

Thinking back about it though, maybe I shouldn't say I expect bad behavior, more like I am not surprised by it.

There are some people whom I expect to be worse (playing cards with my dad, RPing with the bad GM I had in New Mexico) and some people whom I expect it to be much better with (RPing with the good GM I had in New Mexico, Con Games in St Loius).

But different people have different standards, for example the one group I was in in New Mexico was the best, most stress free, gaming group I have ever been in, but by the end of the campaign the DM was still stressed out and on the verge of quitting and the group had to have several talkings to about respecting one another, even though I wasn't aware of any problems that would even blip on my radar in other groups.


There is unlikely to be a single silver bullet to solve your problem. Some personal growth might be part of the holistic solution.

For example you started to dismiss your alternatives by saying playing different games with different people categorically had these conflicts happen more frequently than your current RPG group. If true, you would want to examine why by looking at what they had in common. If false, you would want to reconsider your alternatives and examine why you lied to yourself.

We want you to be happy.

Segev
2021-08-09, 09:18 AM
I can see where you are coming from; but my players don't just forget their "resources" and need to be reminded of them.

Its also hard to draw a clear line between them; for example if they are looking to fight a dragon and you remind them that they have heard rumors about a sword of dragon slaying buried in a tomb in the Dry Hills, is that a resource, a hook, or both?

Likewise, they don't always say clearly (let alone unanimously) about WHY they are not biting on a hook. See the demon example above.

In this case, when they're having trouble figuring out how to take down a dragon, "There was that rumor about a dragonslaying sword," amongst a list of other things they have available is listing a potential resource.

I am not entirely sure how to read, "...my players don't just forget their 'resources' and need to be reminded of them." Is the emphasis on "just," or on "forget," or... I just am not sure what this sentence is implying. I feel it's implying something, but I am not able to pin down even a short list of possibilities. What IS the problem, if this isn't part of it? I ask because you'd mentioned (I think) that they seem stymied when they have tools they don't seem to even consider using. Do they list them out and reject them as useless? If not, how do you know they haven't forgotten them? Do they have other problems on top of not remembering the resources at hand or that they know how to get? What are those?

Re: the dragonslaying sword - is it possible or reasonable to assume it's possible to slay the dragon without it?

Talakeal
2021-08-09, 11:29 AM
In this case, when they're having trouble figuring out how to take down a dragon, "There was that rumor about a dragonslaying sword," amongst a list of other things they have available is listing a potential resource.

I am not entirely sure how to read, "...my players don't just forget their 'resources' and need to be reminded of them." Is the emphasis on "just," or on "forget," or... I just am not sure what this sentence is implying. I feel it's implying something, but I am not able to pin down even a short list of possibilities. What IS the problem, if this isn't part of it? I ask because you'd mentioned (I think) that they seem stymied when they have tools they don't seem to even consider using. Do they list them out and reject them as useless? If not, how do you know they haven't forgotten them? Do they have other problems on top of not remembering the resources at hand or that they know how to get? What are those?

Re: the dragonslaying sword - is it possible or reasonable to assume it's possible to slay the dragon without it?

Emphasis on resources. Virtually every player in my group has either clinical depression or ADHD, which means that they forget all sorts of things. But, at the same time, they get touchy if you remind them of things they haven't forgotten, and touchy if you don't remind them about things they have, so its a narrow tightrope to walk.

I generally don't like to put in problems with only one right answer, but at the same time my players often complain about the difficulty when they lose (or come close to it), and so we will inevitably get into some variant of "The dragon was too hard, we could have died!" "That's why I gave you the option of getting a dragon slaying sword!" "Stop trying to railroad us / force us to read your mind!"

Now, sometimes I have given players choices and that has caused problems, like the session Quertus was referring to earlier where they were young kids trying to save their village from an invading army, I told them they needed to find help, gave them three choices of allies which they all rejected for various reasons, and then spent the session coming up with schemes for three kids to take down an entire army single handedly and getting mad at me when I kept giving them "are you sure you want to do that" idiot checks.

Segev
2021-08-09, 12:13 PM
Emphasis on resources. Virtually every player in my group has either clinical depression or ADHD, which means that they forget all sorts of things. But, at the same time, they get touchy if you remind them of things they haven't forgotten, and touchy if you don't remind them about things they have, so its a narrow tightrope to walk.

I generally don't like to put in problems with only one right answer, but at the same time my players often complain about the difficulty when they lose (or come close to it), and so we will inevitably get into some variant of "The dragon was too hard, we could have died!" "That's why I gave you the option of getting a dragon slaying sword!" "Stop trying to railroad us / force us to read your mind!"

Now, sometimes I have given players choices and that has caused problems, like the session Quertus was referring to earlier where they were young kids trying to save their village from an invading army, I told them they needed to find help, gave them three choices of allies which they all rejected for various reasons, and then spent the session coming up with schemes for three kids to take down an entire army single handedly and getting mad at me when I kept giving them "are you sure you want to do that" idiot checks.

Hm. I do see why this is a challenge.

I think the "resources list" would still be a good idea. The way I'd present it is this: when they look like they're stymied, you can ask them to inventory what they have and what they know. If they forget anything, remind them of the stuff they forgot. Then, working with them, ask them if they have any ideas for how to use any of that stuff to solve the problem. If you do even mention as a possibility withdrawing, suggest it as "go back to town to pick up X, Y, and Z, so you can come back and enact your plan."

It's hand-holding, but very carefully not railroading them. If there's a sword of dragonslaying they could have gotten, do remind them, but ideally it shouldn't be the only bespoke solution to the problem. For presentations' sake, mentioning it in a list of other things would probably be best.

It is, indeed, a narrow tightrope to walk.

Wrt the kids stopping an army, that's the point where I would, as a DM, eventually (maybe after 20 minutes of spinning their wheels, or after the third or fourth idea I had to give an "are you sure...?" check on) step OOC and say, "Look, guys, you're three children. This is an army of thousands of orcs. When have three children without massive superpowers and without allies ever stopped an army?"

NichG
2021-08-09, 12:21 PM
Emphasis on resources. Virtually every player in my group has either clinical depression or ADHD, which means that they forget all sorts of things. But, at the same time, they get touchy if you remind them of things they haven't forgotten, and touchy if you don't remind them about things they have, so its a narrow tightrope to walk.

I generally don't like to put in problems with only one right answer, but at the same time my players often complain about the difficulty when they lose (or come close to it), and so we will inevitably get into some variant of "The dragon was too hard, we could have died!" "That's why I gave you the option of getting a dragon slaying sword!" "Stop trying to railroad us / force us to read your mind!"

Now, sometimes I have given players choices and that has caused problems, like the session Quertus was referring to earlier where they were young kids trying to save their village from an invading army, I told them they needed to find help, gave them three choices of allies which they all rejected for various reasons, and then spent the session coming up with schemes for three kids to take down an entire army single handedly and getting mad at me when I kept giving them "are you sure you want to do that" idiot checks.

There's a difference between 'resources the party has' and 'things you'd like them to do' though. They don't need to explain why they didn't go for a certain hook - in a non-railroaded game, the choice to not pursue any given hook has to be feasible, and the reason should be completely up to the player - 'I don't like the name of that tomb', 'the NPC who gave us this hook had a funny accent and I arbitrarily hate him', etc. If most of the time the 'resources' you feel the need to remind the players of aren't actually resources they have in hand, but hooks for resources that they could get, then you shouldn't be thinking of those things as part of what the group could bring to bear on a situation - they've already rejected those things.

Maybe it'd be good practice if you considered anything the party doesn't pursue or express interest in pursuing in the table chatter to be dead to them after 1 session has passed. If they didn't contact the demon or discuss contacting the demon? It's off the table, move on, consider it gone. If you think about things that way, would it change what sorts of challenges you'd present to the group?

Maybe do stuff where the 'resources' aspects aren't primarily those things which are advertised up front (telling them 'if you do X you will get Y'), but are rather things that land in the party's hands after they do something else ('because you did X, now you get Y'). That would avoid the pattern where you would assume e.g. 'a dragon is a reasonable challenge for them, because I gave them a hint about a dragon-killing sword 8 sessions ago, and a valid way to solve the dragon challenge is to remember that hint, get the sword, and kill the dragon'.

On the broader sense of whose responsibility it is with regards to hooks - everyone at the table has at least some interest in gaming, but everyone at the table has some window of parameters as to what kind of gaming would be worth their time (e.g. better than going into the other room and playing console games). If a game is to happen, it's on everyone to do what they can to land in that shared window of intersecting interest. But if something is outside of that window, I don't think there's any responsibility for anyone at the table to actually move their window. So that means that yes, it is the GM's responsibility to come up with hooks that the players would be interested in playing out. And yes, it is the players' responsibility to come up with characters who would be motivated to pursue hooks that the players themselves would be interested in playing out. But if you come up with a hook where the players themselves would find it more interesting to go home and play on their computer than to explore at the table, they have no responsibility to bite. If that happens, drop that hook and try something else, don't hold onto it and say 'well if you wanted this other thing to be easy, you should have gone after that thing'.

KorvinStarmast
2021-08-09, 12:41 PM
Emphasis on resources. Virtually every player in my group has either clinical depression or ADHD, which means that they forget all sorts of things. Are they also illiterate?
As a player:
I write stuff down.
I take notes.
Have been doing so since I was a teenager.

As I get older I tend to forget stuff so taking notes is something I do even more of as a player.

And since I like to do this - none of your players needs to do this - I also write the "journal" with summaries of each session of what we do, and often with memorable funny, odd, or amazing things that happened.

I can't guess what would happen if you suggested to your players to do this- the level of dysfunctionality you have painted for us is mind numbing.
Maybe someone will if you suggest it.

Not every player is inclined to do so...hence me being 'the scribe' in four different groups since 2014. I finally joined a CoS group where someone else is the scribe. Hooray!

Quertus
2021-08-09, 12:43 PM
With all due respect, this post really makes you sound like a problem player to me. The idea that the argumentative rules lawyer is somehow the victim or that its the DM's fault for not making interesting enough adventures for the players to try engaging with them is pretty toxic, even by my standards.

I really cannot help but boggle at any question of whether "its the DM's fault for not making interesting enough adventures for the players to try engaging with them". Is there any question whether it's the author's fault that the book is boring, or the chef's fault that the food is tasteless? Because, if that's actually in question, then I should be a breast seller, and you should all buy my books.

So I'm pretty firmly on the side that, yes, it's the GM's fault if their content is boring.

But I actually meant something more like… Hmmm… the party of Quertus, a Paladin, etc… aren't interested in (and some morally oppose) the "slay the just and rightful king" quest line. So the GM shouldn't keep badgering the party about it. Granted, it's a little different in a more sandboxy campaign, where "murder the quest-giver" or "turn the quest-giver over to the authorities" or "blackmail the quest-giver" are actually on the table, rather than just, "guys, it's regicide or no game, because that's all I've got prepared".

As to the other half…remember the time you were healing someone (maybe some barbed wire was involved?)? How the one player wanted to skip past, and did Divinations for the fastest/best way for them to get healed? Remember how the GM saw you were having fun, and stood up for your fun, saying that the fastest/best way to heal them was to let your character do their job?

Remember any of that, or has my senility eaten this story / misattributed it to you?

Well, if you do, imagine that it was the GM trying to ruin your fun, and me sticking up for your fun.

Or how about the story (not yours) where everyone (including Bob) finds out that apparently Bob is deathly afraid of spiders when the GM puts a huge spider mini on the table? Imagine it wasn't the GM, but me, who caught that, and threw a sheet over the spider.

Point is, I'll defend other people's fun, if I can. And I won't let the GM abuse their "authority" to endanger that fun. And if the GM wants to accuse me of "arguing" with them when they try to remove the sheet, I'll happily swing the (verbal) clue-by-four about how their actions are hurtful to the group, until they learn to listen and to be considerate towards others instead of attacking and making things worse.

And, if its my fun that the GM is ruining, that does make me the victim, does it not? Well, when they ruin your fun, that ruins my fun. So I'm always the victim. So it's victim blaming to attack me for standing up for our fun.

Still sound toxic?

Now, I know (for values of "know" that take into account my growing senility) that you cannot read a table, so it's something you'll never be able to do. And I'm nowhere near perfect myself. But if *everyone* is trying to protect *everyone's* fun? That maximizes the chances that someone will notice, that fun will be preserved. And, at least equally importantly, it puts everyone in the mindset of listening to comments about fun instead of attacking the messenger. *That's* the table culture I want to create, where everyone gets the idea of "working together", instead of blaming people for "arguing".

BRC
2021-08-09, 12:46 PM
Emphasis on resources. Virtually every player in my group has either clinical depression or ADHD, which means that they forget all sorts of things. But, at the same time, they get touchy if you remind them of things they haven't forgotten, and touchy if you don't remind them about things they have, so its a narrow tightrope to walk.

I generally don't like to put in problems with only one right answer, but at the same time my players often complain about the difficulty when they lose (or come close to it), and so we will inevitably get into some variant of "The dragon was too hard, we could have died!" "That's why I gave you the option of getting a dragon slaying sword!" "Stop trying to railroad us / force us to read your mind!"

Now, sometimes I have given players choices and that has caused problems, like the session Quertus was referring to earlier where they were young kids trying to save their village from an invading army, I told them they needed to find help, gave them three choices of allies which they all rejected for various reasons, and then spent the session coming up with schemes for three kids to take down an entire army single handedly and getting mad at me when I kept giving them "are you sure you want to do that" idiot checks.

I think, in the future, the correct answer to "The dragon was too hard, we could have died!" should generally be "But you didn't! Great work everybody, you didn't even need the Dragonslaying sword! Who wants to make matching dragonskin biker jackets?"

Re: Reminding people of things, I find that a good trick there is to regularly have them check up on things, but phrase it as you asking them.

"Hey, can everybody give me a quick run-down of what magic items you have in your inventory for my notes?" and that sort of thing.


Now, regarding other stuff (I don't know if this is all the same player group, or across multiple player groups), sometimes players have different ideas about how to approach the game. Some people want to overcome a challenge, others want to tell a story.

The "Kids vs Army" Scenario sounds to me like you were presenting an "Overcome a Challenge" scenario, with the challenge being "Get one or more of these Allies to help defend the village", while your players wanted to tell the story of the Plucky Kids Saving The Village.

And so, you doing Idiot Checks to you is "Hey, you are pursuing a doomed path that won't let you win", and to them is you telling them that they're Telling The Wrong Story.

Good players are honest enough with themselves and you to say "yeah, I'm more interested in creating a story here than engaging with tactical puzzles", but everybody wants to think of themselves as a Genius Gamer Who Is Going To Crush The GM's Monsters with their Expert Tactics And Well-Built Characters!


Now, unless your players are truly idiots, I very much doubt they looked at the invading army, looked at the costs and benefits of the various allies on offer, and decided that their best bet choice was to wage a 3-teenager guerilla campaign. If they were viewing things as Strategists, then that's real dumb.

What's more likely is that they were more intrigued by the idea of the Plucky Kids Vs The Evil Army storyline, vs a "Go ask for help" storyline, and they drove forwards with the assumption that you would make victory possible for any path they took (Which is very much NOT how you approach the game. I think I'm a bit more forgiving than you, but I don't think I would have accepted "3 kids vs an army" as a viable strategy that might win).


There is another angle, a potential through-line I think I'm seeing, which is the cost of table-time.

One of the repeated themes is that you want your players to Think and Prepare about encounters. You want them to scout ahead and gather information, buy supplies in advance, research their foes and approach each fight tactically. Which is all well and good.
But all those things take time, specifically table-time spent scouting, researching, pouring over supply lists, and debating about combat approaches.

A core issue here may be one of Patience. Your players don't get any satisfaction out of preparation work, they want to Do The Thing, Fight the Baddy, Get The Reward.

So when you offer them side-quests like "Get the DragonSlaying Sword", that's just delaying the gratification of Fighting The Dragon. Even if it makes good tactical sense, they simply don't want to spend the table time building up to Do The Cool Thing. I don't know if this tracks with your experience at all, but Patience might be a relevant angle here.

Quertus
2021-08-10, 11:11 AM
On the broader sense of whose responsibility it is with regards to hooks - everyone at the table has at least some interest in gaming, but everyone at the table has some window of parameters as to what kind of gaming would be worth their time (e.g. better than going into the other room and playing console games). If a game is to happen, it's on everyone to do what they can to land in that shared window of intersecting interest. But if something is outside of that window, I don't think there's any responsibility for anyone at the table to actually move their window. So that means that yes, it is the GM's responsibility to come up with hooks that the players would be interested in playing out. And yes, it is the players' responsibility to come up with characters who would be motivated to pursue hooks that the players themselves would be interested in playing out. But if you come up with a hook where the players themselves would find it more interesting to go home and play on their computer than to explore at the table, they have no responsibility to bite. If that happens, drop that hook and try something else, don't hold onto it and say 'well if you wanted this other thing to be easy, you should have gone after that thing'.

So, I *mostly* agree with this, and strongly so. But I have a few… differences.

For example, this idea of an "interest window".

So, I agree that no one should be forced to love things.

But not everything in a game is going to fall within your interest window. Sometimes, that's because of prerequisites: you need boring historical background / character names / descriptions / whatever to make interesting connections / detailed backgrounds / false conclusions / whatever. (For whatever values match what you enjoy and what you don't. Like, most people don't actually *enjoy* character creation, but it's still generally a required step that you go through to get to what you do enjoy.)

But other times, it's stuff that falls within other people's interest window. To me, this is just like spotlight sharing - the game isn't always about you all the time.

So I take a really dim view of the maturity of those who would be "going into the other room and playing console games" just because part of the game falls outside their interest window.

And, since the game isn't always all about you, it's in your best interests to work to broaden the range of things you can enjoy / heighten the extent to which you can enjoy various scenes. Unless you're playing something truly monochrome, like a war game, of course. Not required, but still wise to consider - especially if you know your friends, and what kind of scenes they enjoy.

So it's not just a black and white "in window or not". Nor is it even a gray-scale "how much fun are you having" metric. And there's two reasons for that.

One reason is because it's not just "how much do you like", but also "how bad is it". If Bob is deathly afraid of spiders, or Carol cannot hear "pirates" without making "rapier" jokes that Dave just can't stand, or Edith cannot stand "regicide" themes, because she was a murderer king in a past life, then those are things that probably shouldn't be in games that involve those players. See also "fade to black".

And the second reason is because it's everyone's fun, all painted in different colors.

So, yes, the GM's job is really complicated in that regard. But i agree that it is their responsibility to provide content (not just hooks) that the group can paint in their full spectrum of colors. And while everyone really *should* keep an eye out for whether or not everyone is having fun, it is definitely the GM's responsibility not only to do so, but to respond to comments about fun optimization, and to adapt their content accordingly.

The *other* way my stance differs from what you said is that I differentiate between the players and the character. I think that it is wise to know yourself, and build characters with a lot of overlap between "games you would enjoy" and "games that they would produce". Which is one of the places that existing characters have advantages over new, untested characters. But I ran a character who couldn't participate in a war council that I would have loved, and Quertus, my signature academia mage for whom this account is named, loves research that would bore me to tears. My interests and those of my characters are not identical. Which is just another reason it's good to have a good session 0, and to match the characters with the adventure.


Are they also illiterate?
As a player:
I write stuff down.
I take notes.
Have been doing so since I was a teenager.

As I get older I tend to forget stuff so taking notes is something I do even more of as a player.

And since I like to do this - none of your players needs to do this - I also write the "journal" with summaries of each session of what we do, and often with memorable funny, odd, or amazing things that happened.

I can't guess what would happen if you suggested to your players to do this- the level of dysfunctionality you have painted for us is mind numbing.
Maybe someone will if you suggest it.

Not every player is inclined to do so...hence me being 'the scribe' in four different groups since 2014. I finally joined a CoS group where someone else is the scribe. Hooray!

I find having the players give the session recap is a useful tool here.

NichG
2021-08-10, 11:38 AM
So, I *mostly* agree with this, and strongly so. But I have a few… differences.

For example, this idea of an "interest window".

So, I agree that no one should be forced to love things.

But not everything in a game is going to fall within your interest window. Sometimes, that's because of prerequisites: you need boring historical background / character names / descriptions / whatever to make interesting connections / detailed backgrounds / false conclusions / whatever. (For whatever values match what you enjoy and what you don't. Like, most people don't actually *enjoy* character creation, but it's still generally a required step that you go through to get to what you do enjoy.)

But other times, it's stuff that falls within other people's interest window. To me, this is just like spotlight sharing - the game isn't always about you all the time.

So I take a really dim view of the maturity of those who would be "going into the other room and playing console games" just because part of the game falls outside their interest window.

And, since the game isn't always all about you, it's in your best interests to work to broaden the range of things you can enjoy / heighten the extent to which you can enjoy various scenes. Unless you're playing something truly monochrome, like a war game, of course. Not required, but still wise to consider - especially if you know your friends, and what kind of scenes they enjoy.

So it's not just a black and white "in window or not". Nor is it even a gray-scale "how much fun are you having" metric. And there's two reasons for that.


I really do mean for the 'interest window' to be holistic here - if on the whole you find that you regretted attending that night or would have rather done something else, then something is wrong. As in, it only makes sense for the group activity you share to be 'playing a tabletop game' if all involved can converge on a consensus such that they'd all rather do that thing than their other options for that time. That doesn't mean chopping things into 1 minute intervals and applying that logic at that scale, though there is some kind of natural scale above which I think it's better to start asking uncomfortable questions. And that scale may vary per person - I think its completely reasonable for someone who needs to be engaged constantly with no gaps longer than 15 seconds to say 'maybe tabletop RPGs aren't my cup of tea'. In fact, being able to recognize that about ones-self and express it to the group is really helpful. So I'd push back on any kind of table culture where being that sort of person would have a stigma of shame or whatever, since that will just get people to hide it. It's also not necessarily about a simple average of joy over time - one sour note can ruin a larger quantity of joy, or one moment of joy can pay for a lot of tedium, and that as well depends on the person.

I think one source of trouble can be when people lie to themselves about the true extents of their interest in the activity, saying e.g. 'I'll grin and bear it, surely it will become good eventually' or acting under the assumption that there's a moral imperative that game occur, or even game with a specific set of people ('because I'm friends with these people, I need to do the group activity they want to do even if I don't enjoy it' versus actually saying 'hey guys, I don't enjoy this, can we figure out something else to do or maybe I can do something separate with all of you at a different time so you can enjoy this thing that you all like but I happen not to'). That's the sort of thing that breeds unspoken resentment or mismatched expectations that show up as entitlement (person A thinks 'we had a really fun tabletop game, person B must be happy!' while person B thinks 'I went along with their tabletop game idea even though I was miserable, so next time they owe me to do my thing that they hate'). You also get Abilene paradox sorts of situations where there's an elephant in the room (no one actually wants to be playing this game) but everyone is trying to be so considerate of what they believe everyone else wants or they don't know how to raise the point, so things go on with everyone doing something they'd rather not.

And if that sort of situation is sustained, you will get players protecting their own joy as a coping mechanism by doing things like tuning out to read stuff on their phone or play computer games in parallel.




The *other* way my stance differs from what you said is that I differentiate between the players and the character. I think that it is wise to know yourself, and build characters with a lot of overlap between "games you would enjoy" and "games that they would produce". Which is one of the places that existing characters have advantages over new, untested characters. But I ran a character who couldn't participate in a war council that I would have loved, and Quertus, my signature academia mage for whom this account is named, loves research that would bore me to tears. My interests and those of my characters are not identical. Which is just another reason is good to have a good session 0, and match the characters with the adventure.


Maybe this is taking it a bit more literal than I meant? I don't mean 'if you hate personally doing literature search, you shouldn't play a character who enjoys literature search' since 'playing at literature search' and 'literature search' are really different activities. One is saying a few sentences about your character spending days in a library, and the other is actually doing it. It's great to play characters who can exploit the abstraction layer of the game to explore something you like the idea of but hate the practice of. But if you find your choice of character is keeping you away from the parts of the group activity that would bring you joy, especially if it's to the extent that you feel like tuning out, then I'd say that's a serious signal to either look for ways for your character to change, or to change characters. A character is a vehicle for you to explore a world or premise or idea - in the end, you have no real duty to run a character that doesn't serve your own interests at that table (I'm coming to see 'the party needs a healer' sorts of game designs as anti-patterns here).

Talakeal
2021-08-10, 12:24 PM
As to the other half…remember the time you were healing someone (maybe some barbed wire was involved?)? How the one player wanted to skip past, and did Divinations for the fastest/best way for them to get healed? Remember how the GM saw you were having fun, and stood up for your fun, saying that the fastest/best way to heal them was to let your character do their job?

Remember any of that, or has my senility eaten this story / misattributed it to you?

Well, if you do, imagine that it was the GM trying to ruin your fun, and me sticking up for your fun.

Or how about the story (not yours) where everyone (including Bob) finds out that apparently Bob is deathly afraid of spiders when the GM puts a huge spider mini on the table? Imagine it wasn't the GM, but me, who caught that, and threw a sheet over the spider.

Point is, I'll defend other people's fun, if I can. And I won't let the GM abuse their "authority" to endanger that fun. And if the GM wants to accuse me of "arguing" with them when they try to remove the sheet, I'll happily swing the (verbal) clue-by-four about how their actions are hurtful to the group, until they learn to listen and to be considerate towards others instead of attacking and making things worse.

And, if its my fun that the GM is ruining, that does make me the victim, does it not? Well, when they ruin your fun, that ruins my fun. So I'm always the victim. So it's victim blaming to attack me for standing up for our fun.

Still sound toxic?

Now, I know (for values of "know" that take into account my growing senility) that you cannot read a table, so it's something you'll never be able to do. And I'm nowhere near perfect myself. But if *everyone* is trying to protect *everyone's* fun? That maximizes the chances that someone will notice, that fun will be preserved. And, at least equally importantly, it puts everyone in the mindset of listening to comments about fun instead of attacking the messenger. *That's* the table culture I want to create, where everyone gets the idea of "working together", instead of blaming people for "arguing".

I will say with that clarification it goes from "clearly toxic" to "its complicated".

Your previous post read like something out of Big Lebowsky, with the guy getting angry and wondering why everyone thinks he is the bad guy when he is the one who is "right" about the rules.

Sticking up for people is generally good, but at the same time mobbing up on one person is also a form of bullying.

Just because the DM makes a bad call does not mean they deserve having the entire table gang up on them to brow beat them.

Likewise, a lot of players find game flow a lot more fun than meticulous adherence to the rules, and a pedantic rules lawyer can often disrupt fun for other people even if they are the one's whom the argument is in favor of.

You can also get situations where the GM is ignoring a rule for exactly the same reason you are objecting, to protect other people's fun. For example, here have been more than one occasion where I let a player get away with something that was technically illegal only to have the other players start wailing about how it is unfair and I am playing favorites.


But yes "And, if its my fun that the GM is ruining, that does make me the victim, does it not? Well, when they ruin your fun, that ruins my fun. So I'm always the victim. So it's victim blaming to attack me for standing up for our fun."

Absolutely sounds toxic because it is taking the viewpoint that it is a zero sum game where your fun is the only thing that matters.

You really need to know what your fun is and how the GM is ruining it before you can assess whether that statement is reasonable. To use an, intentionally extreme, example to illustrate my point, if the only thing you found fun was griefing your fellow players and you routinely killed the other PCs and the GM told you to knock it off, I don't think anyone would think you are the victim there.


With the kids stopping an army, that's the point where I would, as a DM, eventually (maybe after 20 minutes of spinning their wheels, or after the third or fourth idea I had to give an "are you sure...?" check on) step OOC and say, "Look, guys, you're three children. This is an army of thousands of orcs. When have three children without massive superpowers and without allies ever stopped an army?"

So quick summary (it was seven years ago so some details might be fuzzy):

Had three days before enemy army attacked.
They had previously explored the region and new it contained a sleeping arch-druid, a lich's tomb, and a dragon in a nearby pond. These were all ready made allies, although if they could come up with a clever plan to find other allies I wasn't going to shoot it down.
They (I think) forgot about the dragon, the druid's grove was "too scary" to explore, and they wouldn't work with the lich because of alignment reasons, although all of these decisions were 1:2 splits on player interest.
One players just wants to run away and abandon the village and doesn't really want to contribute to any plans.

So instead they tried burning the armies supplies (which hurts, but won't stop the attack, if anything it will only hasten it).
Then they animate some old suits of armor, which will certainly help defend the village, but won't stop an army.
Then they booby trap the village, which will again inflict some casualties, but won't stop an army.
Then they find some griffons which are trained for hunting, and decide that they need to ride the griffons to defeat the army. First off, three griffons won't beat an army, not even close. But also the griffons aren't trained, they don't have saddles, nobody in the group has animal handling or riding skills, and one player actually has an "offensive to animals" flaw. I tell them all of these, which only serves to convince them that the griffons are the solution to all of their problems and that I am intentionally trying to shoot it down because it will disrupt my session, and so then we go down that rabbit hole.

Eventually I tell them that these plans will all just get them killed, and say why not just go with asking the lich because that is the one working plan you have come up with even if it is morally unpleasant.

At that point the players say "If you were going to railroad us anyway, why didn't you just come right out and do it in the first place instead of wasting the whole afternoon?"


There's a difference between 'resources the party has' and 'things you'd like them to do' though. They don't need to explain why they didn't go for a certain hook - in a non-railroaded game, the choice to not pursue any given hook has to be feasible, and the reason should be completely up to the player - 'I don't like the name of that tomb', 'the NPC who gave us this hook had a funny accent and I arbitrarily hate him', etc. If most of the time the 'resources' you feel the need to remind the players of aren't actually resources they have in hand, but hooks for resources that they could get, then you shouldn't be thinking of those things as part of what the group could bring to bear on a situation - they've already rejected those things.

Maybe it'd be good practice if you considered anything the party doesn't pursue or express interest in pursuing in the table chatter to be dead to them after 1 session has passed. If they didn't contact the demon or discuss contacting the demon? It's off the table, move on, consider it gone. If you think about things that way, would it change what sorts of challenges you'd present to the group?

Maybe do stuff where the 'resources' aspects aren't primarily those things which are advertised up front (telling them 'if you do X you will get Y'), but are rather things that land in the party's hands after they do something else ('because you did X, now you get Y'). That would avoid the pattern where you would assume e.g. 'a dragon is a reasonable challenge for them, because I gave them a hint about a dragon-killing sword 8 sessions ago, and a valid way to solve the dragon challenge is to remember that hint, get the sword, and kill the dragon'.

Generally I don't balance encounters around a specific asset, nor do I run games with dangling hooks. Players still complain about close fights though, and at that point them ignoring an asset that could have made the fight easier starts to frustrate me.

Also, a lot of the time they plan things but never actually do them and then blame me. For example, in the last game one of the players was cursed, said they planned on getting the curse removed, but never actually did, and exploded at me for not reminding them the next time the curse was triggered.


On the broader sense of whose responsibility it is with regards to hooks - everyone at the table has at least some interest in gaming, but everyone at the table has some window of parameters as to what kind of gaming would be worth their time (e.g. better than going into the other room and playing console games). If a game is to happen, it's on everyone to do what they can to land in that shared window of intersecting interest. But if something is outside of that window, I don't think there's any responsibility for anyone at the table to actually move their window. So that means that yes, it is the GM's responsibility to come up with hooks that the players would be interested in playing out. And yes, it is the players' responsibility to come up with characters who would be motivated to pursue hooks that the players themselves would be interested in playing out. But if you come up with a hook where the players themselves would find it more interesting to go home and play on their computer than to explore at the table, they have no responsibility to bite. If that happens, drop that hook and try something else, don't hold onto it and say 'well if you wanted this other thing to be easy, you should have gone after that thing'.

Quertus covered this better than I can.


Are they also illiterate?
As a player:
I write stuff down.
I take notes.
Have been doing so since I was a teenager.

As I get older I tend to forget stuff so taking notes is something I do even more of as a player.

And since I like to do this - none of your players needs to do this - I also write the "journal" with summaries of each session of what we do, and often with memorable funny, odd, or amazing things that happened.

I can't guess what would happen if you suggested to your players to do this- the level of dysfunctionality you have painted for us is mind numbing.
Maybe someone will if you suggest it.

Not every player is inclined to do so...hence me being 'the scribe' in four different groups since 2014. I finally joined a CoS group where someone else is the scribe. Hooray!

I have also started keeping campaign diaries both as a player and a DM, and I regret not having done it all along.

I am trying to get the players to do it as well, with mixed success. Brian is the only one who cares enough to try, but he often has trouble actually making use of his notes as its hard to find something when you need it if you don't remember what it is.


One of the repeated themes is that you want your players to Think and Prepare about encounters. You want them to scout ahead and gather information, buy supplies in advance, research their foes and approach each fight tactically. Which is all well and good.
But all those things take time, specifically table-time spent scouting, researching, pouring over supply lists, and debating about combat approaches.

A core issue here may be one of Patience. Your players don't get any satisfaction out of preparation work, they want to Do The Thing, Fight the Baddy, Get The Reward.

So when you offer them side-quests like "Get the DragonSlaying Sword", that's just delaying the gratification of Fighting The Dragon. Even if it makes good tactical sense, they simply don't want to spend the table time building up to Do The Cool Thing. I don't know if this tracks with your experience at all, but Patience might be a relevant angle here.

Its less that I want them to as I want them to be viable strategies which players can choose to use or not, each with their own costs and benefits.

If the players don't want to do recon, that's fine, they can and do win without it.

The problem is that the players hate surprises and always accuse the GM of cheating when they are surprised, but being surprised is a natural result of the no recon play-style.


I think, in the future, the correct answer to "The dragon was too hard, we could have died!" should generally be "But you didn't! Great work everybody, you didn't even need the Dragonslaying sword! Who wants to make matching dragonskin biker jackets?"

This is totally the attitude I try and foster in my group, but they are much more "glass is half empty" types who always fixate on what could have been.


I find having the players give the session recap is a useful tool here.

Opinions are divided on this.

Fear the Boot insists that this is a very good thing, The Angry GM insists its a very bad thing, and I can see both of their arguments.

Basically, it boils down to an opportunity for the GM to subtly guide the PCs toward important details vs. a tool for the GM to learn what the PCs picked up on.


I really cannot help but boggle at any question of whether "its the DM's fault for not making interesting enough adventures for the players to try engaging with them". Is there any question whether it's the author's fault that the book is boring, or the chef's fault that the food is tasteless? Because, if that's actually in question, then I should be a breast seller, and you should all buy my books.

So I'm pretty firmly on the side that, yes, it's the GM's fault if their content is boring.

Well, it depends.

At a restaurant I am probably not going to finish my food, but I am not going to complain or send it back unless it is actively screwed up. Same with a boring book.

If a friend works hard to cook the meal for me, I am going to do my best to be polite and enjoy it the best that I can, because I recognized they worked hard in trying to do something to please me, and just because they didn't pull it off doesn't mean that I should let their time and effort go to waste entirely.

I find that gaming falls much more into the latter category; even totally tone deaf DMs are still trying, and even the best of them has an occasional misfire.

There's also the fact that there are many different players, and not all of them find the same things interesting or object to them for the same reasons.



But I actually meant something more like… Hmmm… the party of Quertus, a Paladin, etc… aren't interested in (and some morally oppose) the "slay the just and rightful king" quest line. So the GM shouldn't keep badgering the party about it. Granted, it's a little different in a more sandboxy campaign, where "murder the quest-giver" or "turn the quest-giver over to the authorities" or "blackmail the quest-giver" are actually on the table, rather than just, "guys, it's regicide or no game, because that's all I've got prepared".


The paladin in an evil game is really more of an issue of miscommunication. If people are deliberately presenting evil scenarios to paladins (or bringing paladins to evil campaigns) there are some bigger issues going on that, imo, are only tangentially related to my problems.

On the other hand though, deliberately making inflexible characters is, imo, playing on hard mode and you really shouldn't blame the DM for the game being harder if you have made that choice,

PhoenixPhyre
2021-08-10, 01:45 PM
About DMs not sticking to the rules:

In D&D 5e, at least, DMs are not only empowered to deviate from the printed rules as they see fit, they're encouraged to do so. And empowered and encouraged to judge what the rules mean for their table. If a player started trying to weaponize the rules by stopping play until their idea of what the rules mean is implemented, I'd consider that a table-hostile action. Repeated such things would result in asking the player to not come back.

That does not mean I don't take player views into consideration. But you darn well don't do that during a session. At all. Period. Full stop. At most, you can say "isn't the default <interpretation>?", to which the DM either can change his mind or can say "I'm ruling it as <Y>". If they do the latter, you wait until after the session to talk to them, and even then you don't insist. Of course, the player also retains the right to walk away should things not be acceptable, but holding the table hostage to your rules lawyering[1] is bad form. I'd place it around "yelling and getting angry" on the scale of badness. Not as bad as physically threatening others or throwing things, but absolutely unacceptable.

[1] which, surprisingly, is unfair to lawyers. Most rules lawyering would get you quickly sanctioned by a court for frivolous arguments, with the recommendation that you take some CLE (continuing legal education) classes and/or have your license revoked. At minimum, you'd get your argument denied and you'd likely lose the case. Seriously, they're bad. Turns out there's this thing called context and canons of construction that are kinda important....

Talakeal
2021-08-10, 03:19 PM
[1] which, surprisingly, is unfair to lawyers. Most rules lawyering would get you quickly sanctioned by a court for frivolous arguments, with the recommendation that you take some CLE (continuing legal education) classes and/or have your license revoked. At minimum, you'd get your argument denied and you'd likely lose the case. Seriously, they're bad. Turns out there's this thing called context and canons of construction that are kinda important....

I have had several lawyers tell me that it is more about how lawyers are supposed to argue whatever position it takes to win the case rather than what they actually believe the law says / feel is right.

PhoenixPhyre
2021-08-10, 03:25 PM
I have had several lawyers tell me that it is more about how lawyers are supposed to argue whatever position it takes to win the case rather than what they actually believe the law says / feel is right.

Positions, sure[1]. But I'm more talking about methods. And rules lawyering (as practiced in D&D, at least), tend to use methods (such as completely ignoring context and arguing "magic words" or "it doesn't say I can't", as well as hyper-literalism that destroys sense) that are considered frivolous or inappropriate.

[1] it's not actually true--lawyers have an ethical duty not to take certain positions, such as ones they know have been foreclosed by binding precedent.

Telok
2021-08-10, 11:24 PM
About DMs not sticking to the rules:

In D&D 5e, at least, DMs are not only empowered to deviate from the printed rules as they see fit, they're encouraged to do so. And empowered and encouraged to judge what the rules mean for their table.

That's why the darkness spell automatically hid the npc drow, but the pc drow and warlock casting the spell didn't get hidden. And again with invisibility, and again with npcs getting set stealth for ambushes while each pc had to roll every time. Then people got all pissy and quit the game when it was mentioned, because the dm was right and the book says so.

Yeah, it was bad dming. Yeah, it can happen in any system. Yeah, any dm can rule zero anything anyways no matter what the system. But it was a flashback to learning rpgs with antagonistic tweens who only had Gygax's obtuse DMG.

I know you don't mean to, but it really echos a lot of middle school power trip adolescent dms.

PhoenixPhyre
2021-08-10, 11:37 PM
That's why the darkness spell automatically hid the npc drow, but the pc drow and warlock casting the spell didn't get hidden. And again with invisibility, and again with npcs getting set stealth for ambushes while each pc had to roll every time. Then people got all pissy and quit the game when it was mentioned, because the dm was right and the book says so.

Yeah, it was bad dming. Yeah, it can happen in any system. Yeah, any dm can rule zero anything anyways no matter what the system. But it was a flashback to learning rpgs with antagonistic tweens who only had Gygax's obtuse DMG.

I know you don't mean to, but it really echos a lot of middle school power trip adolescent dms.

No system can survive 'power trip adolescent dms'. Because rules are not self-enforcing. And if the players try to enforce it against antagonism, the table dissolves. No rule set can replace (or even correct) for people who don't want to use the rules. It doesn't matter what the rules say. Written text is powerless. And unlike a competitive tournament game, there are no neutral referees. The DM is absolutely not impartial (and cannot be); neither are the players. As a result, adding more rules just gets in the way of those who don't act like jerks, without meaningfully constraining those who do. Write whatever you want, it's irrelevant at best and weaponized at worst.

The real key is don't play with power tripping people period. Without trust, there is no game, no matter the rule set. Trust that the DM is working for the good of the game at that table. Trust that the players are working for the good of the game at that table. Take either of those away and you don't have a functional game.

Satinavian
2021-08-11, 12:39 AM
Still always play with "rules are group decision, not DM decision". Generally works way better. Also if a DM insists on having that power alone during session 0 it is a clear indicator he might be some power obsessed control freak, wants to railroad hard and change rules for that on a whim or at least doesn't trust the players. It is a red flag. D&Ds rule zero can stay in D&D.

icefractal
2021-08-11, 02:17 AM
No system can survive 'power trip adolescent dms'. Because rules are not self-enforcing. And if the players try to enforce it against antagonism, the table dissolves.This is true, but it's a red herring, IME.

The problem is 99% of the time not antagonistic GMs, power-tripping GMs, evil GMs out to make players suffer, or anything like that. It's tired GMs, distracted GMs, well meaning but flawed GMs who subconsciously always nudge things in the direction of their intended plot, with a result that ends up being soft railroading. And they don't make for a terrible, horror-story-worthy game, they just make for a game that's less fun and makes the characters' actions feel kinda pointless.

For those GMs, rules can work for the same reason that "rumble strips" work on sleepy/inattentive drivers. Of course the driver (or GM) could easily ignore the feedback and drive off the road, but they're not going to, because that's not their intent. Knowing that they'd need to override the system makes them consider whether this course of action is a good idea, and usually that's enough

And sometimes, they'll decide that yes, they do want to override the system, which of course they're still allowed to. But own that decision - don't hide it in "I'm not house-ruling, I'm interpreting"

Pex
2021-08-11, 03:53 AM
No system can survive 'power trip adolescent dms'. Because rules are not self-enforcing. And if the players try to enforce it against antagonism, the table dissolves. No rule set can replace (or even correct) for people who don't want to use the rules. It doesn't matter what the rules say. Written text is powerless. And unlike a competitive tournament game, there are no neutral referees. The DM is absolutely not impartial (and cannot be); neither are the players. As a result, adding more rules just gets in the way of those who don't act like jerks, without meaningfully constraining those who do. Write whatever you want, it's irrelevant at best and weaponized at worst.

The real key is don't play with power tripping people period. Without trust, there is no game, no matter the rule set. Trust that the DM is working for the good of the game at that table. Trust that the players are working for the good of the game at that table. Take either of those away and you don't have a functional game.

As mention in another thread where is the line drawn on what rules the game should have and what rules it shouldn't? Accepting the DM is working for the good of the game he may still need rules to help run the game. He can't or doesn't want to have to make it up in some aspect the rules aren't covering. It's easier to have rules and ignore them than need rules but have nothing. Since the DM is playing for the good of the game the rules he's ignoring won't be a problem if he finds they restrict his particular style. The DM who needs those rules has them. Both win.

Morgaln
2021-08-11, 05:03 AM
So quick summary (it was seven years ago so some details might be fuzzy):

Had three days before enemy army attacked.
They had previously explored the region and new it contained a sleeping arch-druid, a lich's tomb, and a dragon in a nearby pond. These were all ready made allies, although if they could come up with a clever plan to find other allies I wasn't going to shoot it down.
They (I think) forgot about the dragon, the druid's grove was "too scary" to explore, and they wouldn't work with the lich because of alignment reasons, although all of these decisions were 1:2 splits on player interest.
One players just wants to run away and abandon the village and doesn't really want to contribute to any plans.

So instead they tried burning the armies supplies (which hurts, but won't stop the attack, if anything it will only hasten it).
Then they animate some old suits of armor, which will certainly help defend the village, but won't stop an army.
Then they booby trap the village, which will again inflict some casualties, but won't stop an army.
Then they find some griffons which are trained for hunting, and decide that they need to ride the griffons to defeat the army. First off, three griffons won't beat an army, not even close. But also the griffons aren't trained, they don't have saddles, nobody in the group has animal handling or riding skills, and one player actually has an "offensive to animals" flaw. I tell them all of these, which only serves to convince them that the griffons are the solution to all of their problems and that I am intentionally trying to shoot it down because it will disrupt my session, and so then we go down that rabbit hole.

Eventually I tell them that these plans will all just get them killed, and say why not just go with asking the lich because that is the one working plan you have come up with even if it is morally unpleasant.

At that point the players say "If you were going to railroad us anyway, why didn't you just come right out and do it in the first place instead of wasting the whole afternoon?"



Honestly, I can understand your players. It is highly unsatisfying when all you're supposed to do in a game is to go and find the super-powerful being that will solve your problems for you. I've been in a campaign that was nothing but this; whatever the problem was, they way to solve it was to get someone into position to deal with it: hire the guy with the attack helicopter, summon the avatar of fire, get the rebel organisation to attack, have the big bad's daughter fight her, the list goes on. We were nothing but glorified messenger boys and escorts; it felt like we had no agency, no actual part in the story; we were just spectators in the whole story. The GM however (who in fairness was new to GMing) was genuinely confused by our complaints, because "finding people" was an active solution for her.
For us, as for you, it comes back to something people keep pointing out to you: your players wanted to play a different type of game than you did. Your players did actually come up with several creative ideas for solving their problem. They engaged with your plot, just in a different way than you wanted them to. Would it have worked in a realistic setting? Certainly not. But pop culture is full of stories about young kids saving the day, so if you make your players play young kids, you are inviting all the tropes that come with that kind of story. Which includes a certain leeway with verisimilitude. In fact, declaring that the druid's grove is "too scary" sounds like some players at least got into the spirit of things and decided to pla their characters instead of doing things from a purely tactical point of view.

Another thought that came to me while typing this post: This might also be a mismatch in how you and your players defined the situation. From your own words ("I told them they needed to find help"), it reads like for you, the game wasn't actually about stopping the army. The army wasn't even there to be engaged with, it was just a plot device to justify the game. For you, the problem that the players had to solve was "convince these powerful creatures to ally with you." So when the players did other things, they didn't engage at all with what you saw as the game, which would explain the dismissive attitude you have towards their efforts.
Your players, however saw the army as the problem that needed to be solved and they came up with plans do deal with that. From that point of view, it certainly does sound like railroading when you suggest "finding allies" as the only possible solution.
Whether this is true or not, you need to answer; were ways to deal with the army other than finding allies on the table from the start or did you not even consider that as a viable strategy?

Talakeal
2021-08-11, 11:04 AM
Honestly, I can understand your players. It is highly unsatisfying when all you're supposed to do in a game is to go and find the super-powerful being that will solve your problems for you. I've been in a campaign that was nothing but this; whatever the problem was, they way to solve it was to get someone into position to deal with it: hire the guy with the attack helicopter, summon the avatar of fire, get the rebel organisation to attack, have the big bad's daughter fight her, the list goes on. We were nothing but glorified messenger boys and escorts; it felt like we had no agency, no actual part in the story; we were just spectators in the whole story. The GM however (who in fairness was new to GMing) was genuinely confused by our complaints, because "finding people" was an active solution for her.
For us, as for you, it comes back to something people keep pointing out to you: your players wanted to play a different type of game than you did. Your players did actually come up with several creative ideas for solving their problem. They engaged with your plot, just in a different way than you wanted them to. Would it have worked in a realistic setting? Certainly not. But pop culture is full of stories about young kids saving the day, so if you make your players play young kids, you are inviting all the tropes that come with that kind of story. Which includes a certain leeway with verisimilitude. In fact, declaring that the druid's grove is "too scary" sounds like some players at least got into the spirit of things and decided to pla their characters instead of doing things from a purely tactical point of view.

Another thought that came to me while typing this post: This might also be a mismatch in how you and your players defined the situation. From your own words ("I told them they needed to find help"), it reads like for you, the game wasn't actually about stopping the army. The army wasn't even there to be engaged with, it was just a plot device to justify the game. For you, the problem that the players had to solve was "convince these powerful creatures to ally with you." So when the players did other things, they didn't engage at all with what you saw as the game, which would explain the dismissive attitude you have towards their efforts.
Your players, however saw the army as the problem that needed to be solved and they came up with plans do deal with that. From that point of view, it certainly does sound like railroading when you suggest "finding allies" as the only possible solution.
Whether this is true or not, you need to answer; were ways to deal with the army other than finding allies on the table from the start or did you not even consider that as a viable strategy?

Did I put in a way for three kids to take out an army on their own? No.
If they had figured out a way to make it work, would I have shot it down? Also no.

IMO railroading is the DM coming up with excuses to shoot down reasonable plans, it is not simply having a plot, not providing an answer, or saying no. In this case, I think the players actually used railroading to mean the opposite of what it normally does, they were mad that I wasn't coming up with excuses why an implausible plan would work. Maybe that warrants another thread?

In either case, it wasn't really supposed to be a long involved scenario. The idea was to introduce the villains, allow the players to use one of the resources they found in the previous session to temporarily thwart the villain, and then set up the long term conflict. Looking back on it, it was actually pretty bare bones.

Segev
2021-08-11, 11:52 AM
Did I put in a way for three kids to take out an army on their own? No.
If they had figured out a way to make it work, would I have shot it down? Also no.

IMO railroading is the DM coming up with excuses to shoot down reasonable plans, it is not simply having a plot, not providing an answer, or saying no. In this case, I think the players actually used railroading to mean the opposite of what it normally does, they were mad that I wasn't coming up with excuses why an implausible plan would work. Maybe that warrants another thread?

In either case, it wasn't really supposed to be a long involved scenario. The idea was to introduce the villains, allow the players to use one of the resources they found in the previous session to temporarily thwart the villain, and then set up the long term conflict. Looking back on it, it was actually pretty bare bones.

The emphasized part is where it comes across as "railroading." Your own words, here, are, that there was an idea (this is actually fine, but relevant to what follows) that leads into "allowing the players" to use their choice from a multiple-choice list of possible solutions, of which you were quite sure no other solution could work.

I am not even saying you're wrong, here, but when the scenario is set up to be impossible-except-for-scripted-solutions, even if it legitimately is impossible, that's a form that railroading takes.

Sometimes this kind of railroading is quite realistic! Sometimes things are just way over the heads of people, even fictional characters.

Getting player buy-in for such things is the best way to make them work. The second-best way is, when you realize the players are trying to come up with something and you can't see anything they're coming up with working enough that you're willing to try to get on board and brainstorm with them how to solve whatever flaws you see in the plan, to simply do what you eventually did and tell them, "Three kids aren't likely to stop an army by themselves. You've got these possibilities that could work."

Well, you told them, "Why not just go ask the lich," which I'm sure they took as being The One Solution, while I'm sure you'd have been fine with the dragon or...whatever else there was (I forget).

But if you'd stopped them earlier and said, "The most likely things you can think of to stop this army would be help from one of [these three forces you've already met]," the less likely they are to feel you've betrayed them in some fashion.

Personally, with something like them successfully ruining the army's supplies, I'd have asked them to think about the next thing the army is likely to do, which is seek new supplies, and how their village HAS supplies. Make that a problem for them to solve, rather than telling them their plan to stop the army didn't work.

But regardless, when you have multiple choice problems where you think the only likely-to-work solutions are the multiple choices, just come out and say so. They might whine about railroading, but you are at least giving them their choice of train station and they won't feel like you're wasting their time by pretending they have other options. (I don't care if you're NOT pretending that, or if you're NOT wasting their time but instead are just frustrated that they're wasting their own time; the time will not be wasted if you just tell them up front.)

NichG
2021-08-11, 12:48 PM
Did I put in a way for three kids to take out an army on their own? No.
If they had figured out a way to make it work, would I have shot it down? Also no.

IMO railroading is the DM coming up with excuses to shoot down reasonable plans, it is not simply having a plot, not providing an answer, or saying no. In this case, I think the players actually used railroading to mean the opposite of what it normally does, they were mad that I wasn't coming up with excuses why an implausible plan would work. Maybe that warrants another thread?

In either case, it wasn't really supposed to be a long involved scenario. The idea was to introduce the villains, allow the players to use one of the resources they found in the previous session to temporarily thwart the villain, and then set up the long term conflict. Looking back on it, it was actually pretty bare bones.

Any time there's a situation in which you intend for the players to do a certain thing (any flavor of 'the players should', 'the players must', 'the players will'), that's a degree of railroading mindset. Saying 'X can't work' isn't railroading, but creating a scenario where all X except A,B,C can't work is. Railroading can happen before game has begun - if you write of a narrow corridor between towns with impassable forest to either side in the setting docs, that's exactly the same degree as first telling the players about the impassable forest when they suggest not wanting to go to the next town in the corridor.

BRC
2021-08-11, 01:43 PM
Did I put in a way for three kids to take out an army on their own? No.
If they had figured out a way to make it work, would I have shot it down? Also no.

IMO railroading is the DM coming up with excuses to shoot down reasonable plans, it is not simply having a plot, not providing an answer, or saying no. In this case, I think the players actually used railroading to mean the opposite of what it normally does, they were mad that I wasn't coming up with excuses why an implausible plan would work. Maybe that warrants another thread?

In either case, it wasn't really supposed to be a long involved scenario. The idea was to introduce the villains, allow the players to use one of the resources they found in the previous session to temporarily thwart the villain, and then set up the long term conflict. Looking back on it, it was actually pretty bare bones.


I'm with you as far as charges of "Railroading" here. Railroading is a spectrum, and technically speaking, any time the GM doesn't just nod along to whatever the player says is a form of railroading.

Railroading usually manifests when the GM shoots down reasonable suggestions by inventing new details for why a course of action the players want to take doesn't work, but that's not what the act of Railroading is, that's just a symptom.


Now, what you did, preparing a scenario in which some options (Fight the army as three teenagers) were doomed was well within the bounds of "not Railroading". The bigger issue was a misalignment of the PC's goals.

In your mind the PC's goals were "Get somebody else to help save the village, so the PC's can level up and take the fight to the Villains later on", or maybe just "Find a way to survive this invasion".

While your players had the goal of "Defeat the enemy army", and didn't like any of the options you provided them for allies.


And the issue is one of presentation. There is an unspoken assumption that any goal the GM presents the PCs with will be something achievable, and Railroading usually comes in when the GM says "Yes this goal is achievable, if you follow my script!"

When the PC's hear the goal as "Defeat the Enemy Army", and the GM says "Well, you could go ask one of these nearby powerful individual for help", that come across as railroady, psychologically speaking.

Meanwhile, the identical scenario, when the players internalize the goal as "Convince this nearby powerful individual for help" DOESN'T seem like a railroad, because the question they're chewing on is "How do we get this guy to help us", and there are lots of options there, rather than "How do we win this battle", which has only a few valid options.

The scenarios are basically identical, it's only a question of how the players internalize the goal that turns it from "UGH, I guess we have to go ask this guy for help" to "Okay, how do we convince this guy to help".


Edit: There's this idea that Railroading can only occur in instances where the GM creates narratively awkward situations that only allow one solution, and so simply writing good, realistic, nuanced scenarios will prevent Railroading.

But this isn't the case. Your scenario was entirely realistic and reasonable, but it can still feel constraining and railroady if the players have a different idea of what their goal is.

Quertus
2021-08-12, 11:49 AM
.

Sticking up for people is generally good, but at the same time mobbing up on one person is also a form of bullying.

Nobody was talking about "bullying" here, except when I described the GM bullying players with accusations of "arguing" when we all know it takes two to argue.

So no, no one is talking about ganging up on the GM. I'm talking about trying to create a culture of GMs who listen, who no players would ever *need* to gang up upon. Any GM that *needs* players to gang up on them for them to listen has already failed.

Now, sure, sometimes people fail at communication, and having other people rephrase something, or say "he's not crazy" can be important.

But a GM who would accuse people of arguing with them has the wrong mindset, has already failed. As, probably, has a GM who thinks of helping others as ganging up against them


Just because the DM makes a bad call does not mean they deserve having the entire table gang up on them to brow beat them.

A GM who *defends* a bad call by *attacking* those who try to improve the table fun? They *deserve* far worse than having multiple people correct them. But that's not the point.


Likewise, a lot of players find game flow a lot more fun than meticulous adherence to the rules, and a pedantic rules lawyer can often disrupt fun for other people even if they are the one's whom the argument is in favor of.

Which is why you don't let the GM rules lawyer - you let whichever player knows the rules adjudicate the scene. Problem solved. (Most of my best tables run some variant of this way, btw.)


You can also get situations where the GM is ignoring a rule for exactly the same reason you are objecting, to protect other people's fun. For example, here have been more than one occasion where I let a player get away with something that was technically illegal only to have the other players start wailing about how it is unfair and I am playing favorites.

Which is why I want *everyone* to have this mindset; why I want *everyone* to be capable of having a reasonable conversation without accusations of "arguing" or "ganging up" or "rules lawyering". Where we're all "fun optimizing". That's the culture I try to create.


But yes "And, if its my fun that the GM is ruining, that does make me the victim, does it not? Well, when they ruin your fun, that ruins my fun. So I'm always the victim. So it's victim blaming to attack me for standing up for our fun."

Absolutely sounds toxic because it is taking the viewpoint that it is a zero sum game where your fun is the only thing that matters.

That… doesn't follow. To the extent that, if you were a new, unknown user, I'd fear feeding a troll. But, since you're not, I'll assume some strange miscommunication.

As NichG has expressed more eloquently than my summary, in most non-dysfunctional games, we're here to have fun. And so, at a certain layer, uh, yeah, fun *is* what matters.

But, beyond that, my post says that more fun makes more fun. Which - as I understand the phrase - is the opposite of a "zero sum" situation.

So I'm really curious how it is that I believe that I've figuratively written, "the soup is hot", and found that you've claimed that my position is that the soup is cold.


You really need to know what your fun is and how the GM is ruining it before you can assess whether that statement is reasonable. To use an, intentionally extreme, example to illustrate my point, if the only thing you found fun was griefing your fellow players and you routinely killed the other PCs and the GM told you to knock it off, I don't think anyone would think you are the victim there.

Yes, if the only thing the GM can enjoy is griefing the players, they should be told to knock it off. And that follows the thread of the conversation much better than your reply, afaict - correct me if I've missed something.


Quertus covered this better than I can.

It's nice to know that I can occasionally write well, and to be on the opposite end of this statement for a change.


Opinions are divided on this.

Fear the Boot insists that this is a very good thing, The Angry GM insists its a very bad thing, and I can see both of their arguments.

Basically, it boils down to an opportunity for the GM to subtly guide the PCs toward important details vs. a tool for the GM to learn what the PCs picked up on.

Angry is, IMO, the smartest voice on the internet for gaming. That said… he asks all the right questions, and gives all the wrong answers. Unlike others, who don't even ask the right questions.

So, Angry being against it is an argument for it. :smallwink:

Know your group. Most of my groups? Me? Bad idea. Much like hating the spoilers of a "previously, on…" intro, we'd get too much metagame information out of such a guided recap, and hate it. Or exploit it. And that's not counting issues of, "What? That's not what you said the first time! Why didn't you tell us that 5 sessions ago?!"

Your group? Tough call. On the one hand, they have no memory. On the other hand, they'll explode if you forget something in your recap. Also, they sound like they need opportunities for growth, not opportunities to become more reliant upon you.


Well, it depends.

At a restaurant I am probably not going to finish my food, but I am not going to complain or send it back unless it is actively screwed up. Same with a boring book.

If a friend works hard to cook the meal for me, I am going to do my best to be polite and enjoy it the best that I can, because I recognized they worked hard in trying to do something to please me, and just because they didn't pull it off doesn't mean that I should let their time and effort go to waste entirely.

I find that gaming falls much more into the latter category; even totally tone deaf DMs are still trying, and even the best of them has an occasional misfire.

There's also the fact that there are many different players, and not all of them find the same things interesting or object to them for the same reasons.

I'm… not seeing how that changes whose fault the tastelessness is. In fact, I'll take that one step further, and say that it does not change whose fault the tastelessness is.


That's why the darkness spell automatically hid the npc drow, but the pc drow and warlock casting the spell didn't get hidden. And again with invisibility, and again with npcs getting set stealth for ambushes while each pc had to roll every time. Then people got all pissy and quit the game when it was mentioned, because the dm was right and the book says so.

Yeah, it was bad dming. Yeah, it can happen in any system. Yeah, any dm can rule zero anything anyways no matter what the system. But it was a flashback to learning rpgs with antagonistic tweens who only had Gygax's obtuse DMG.

I know you don't mean to, but it really echos a lot of middle school power trip adolescent dms.


Still always play with "rules are group decision, not DM decision". Generally works way better. Also if a DM insists on having that power alone during session 0 it is a clear indicator he might be some power obsessed control freak, wants to railroad hard and change rules for that on a whim or at least doesn't trust the players. It is a red flag. D&Ds rule zero can stay in D&D.


This is true, but it's a red herring, IME.

The problem is 99% of the time not antagonistic GMs, power-tripping GMs, evil GMs out to make players suffer, or anything like that. It's tired GMs, distracted GMs, well meaning but flawed GMs who subconsciously always nudge things in the direction of their intended plot, with a result that ends up being soft railroading. And they don't make for a terrible, horror-story-worthy game, they just make for a game that's less fun and makes the characters' actions feel kinda pointless.

For those GMs, rules can work for the same reason that "rumble strips" work on sleepy/inattentive drivers. Of course the driver (or GM) could easily ignore the feedback and drive off the road, but they're not going to, because that's not their intent. Knowing that they'd need to override the system makes them consider whether this course of action is a good idea, and usually that's enough

And sometimes, they'll decide that yes, they do want to override the system, which of course they're still allowed to. But own that decision - don't hide it in "I'm not house-ruling, I'm interpreting"

Kudos. Just kudos.

The WotC boards were filled with more toxicity than one finds in D&D DM advice. It's so nice to see such refreshing takes on this issue.

The GM is in the *worst* position to spare the mental resources to perceive the fun of the table, *and* in the position to do the most harm. Yet far too many GMs have the hubris to behave otherwise… and that's even assuming that the GM has the table's best interests at heart. Which is sadly not as common as one might think, IME.

So give me a table culture where everyone is responsible for the table's fun over one tyrant GM who doesn't get the concept of a group working together any day.

Talakeal
2021-08-12, 04:21 PM
So, I mostly agree with the last few posts about railroading, and am not really interested in re-dissecting one bad session from ~six years ago.

I think, maybe, I should start a new thread though about obstacles vs puzzles and sandbox vs railroad, to help clarify terms and establish a spectrum (or maybe its a grid?).

Like, a DM who arbitrates impartially is in the middle, on one side you get them trying to warp the setting so that the players are unable to take any actions they don't want them to, on the other hand, you also have DMs on the other side who warp the setting so that whatever plan the players try WILL work.

Likewise, you have situations where the DM just throws the players into a situation and lets them sink or swim on their own merits, situations where they have a clear goal and the GM throws one or more obstacles in their path, or gives them one or more ways to solve it.

I am on pain killers right now so maybe that didn't make a whole lot of sense, but I think I will get my thoughts together on the issue and post a new thread sometime soon.


@Quertus: Ok, so I think we are both just failing to communicate the idea that it takes two to argue and that the enjoyment of the group as a whole is important. The tone that I am getting from you that I am picking up as toxic is sort of an attitude of "I am always right, so therefore I am always justified in arguing, therefore the other guy is bullying me for arguing back," which may or may not be how you intended to come across.

What I am trying to say is that even if you are in the right, you need to pick you battles. To continue the earlier analogy, "bad food" is subjective, so it may well be your fault if the food isn't to your liking, but even if the chef is objectively making bland food, you can still be in the wrong by making a scene about it.


The idea of someone other than the GM being the referee is an interesting take. I personally would never want to be in a group where one of the players picked up that role, its just too big a conflict of interests, but, were it possible to find a third party with the rules knowledge and interest to referee impartially, that might be pretty cool. Of course, it may well cause a lot more problems than it would solve. Interesting topic for a discussion though if anyone wants to continue it.

KorvinStarmast
2021-08-12, 04:55 PM
I know you don't mean to, but it really echos a lot of middle school power trip adolescent dms. I am a player in one of Phoenix's games: no, you are not even close. Quite the opposite.

No system can survive 'power trip adolescent dms'. Because rules are not self-enforcing. And if the players try to enforce it against antagonism, the table dissolves. No rule set can replace (or even correct) for people who don't want to use the rules. It doesn't matter what the rules say. Written text is powerless. And unlike a competitive tournament game, there are no neutral referees. The DM is absolutely not impartial (and cannot be); neither are the players. As a result, adding more rules just gets in the way of those who don't act like jerks, without meaningfully constraining those who do. Write whatever you want, it's irrelevant at best and weaponized at worst. Thank you for saying that.
Without trust, there is no game, no matter the rule set. Similarly, if the refs are crooked, who wants to watch a basketball game? Nobody.

As mention in another thread where is the line drawn on what rules the game should have and what rules it shouldn't? That's the wrong question, or more to the point, the framing is wrong. I'll quote Dave Arneson, yet again, partially: the rules lawyers are the enemy. (That observation becomes even more cogent when one appreciates how many years he spent as a referee for miniatures games before he became a referee for a fantasy campaign ...) I'll now badly quote (and possibly misquote) the D&D 5e DMG and observe that the rules serve the game and the players. (That's their purpose, anyway).

Kymme
2021-08-12, 05:28 PM
This is true, but it's a red herring, IME.

The problem is 99% of the time not antagonistic GMs, power-tripping GMs, evil GMs out to make players suffer, or anything like that. It's tired GMs, distracted GMs, well meaning but flawed GMs who subconsciously always nudge things in the direction of their intended plot, with a result that ends up being soft railroading. And they don't make for a terrible, horror-story-worthy game, they just make for a game that's less fun and makes the characters' actions feel kinda pointless.

For those GMs, rules can work for the same reason that "rumble strips" work on sleepy/inattentive drivers. Of course the driver (or GM) could easily ignore the feedback and drive off the road, but they're not going to, because that's not their intent. Knowing that they'd need to override the system makes them consider whether this course of action is a good idea, and usually that's enough

And sometimes, they'll decide that yes, they do want to override the system, which of course they're still allowed to. But own that decision - don't hide it in "I'm not house-ruling, I'm interpreting"

I don't even think that those tired, distracted, or well-meaning-but-flawed GMs are really the problem at all. The problem is that the system is leaving them out in the cold. It's super helpful to have guidance as a GM, to have direction, to have an actual framework you exist inside of, one that is shared by the players and facilitates communication between the players and the GM.

There's a mechanic in a game called Masks: A New Generation called Assess the Situation. It activates when your character takes a moment to process what is happening around them and think about what to do. They make a roll and, should they succeed, their player asks the GM several questions from a list. One of those questions is: "What here can I use to X?" Which is like, the absolute magic bullet to these situations where the GM presents their players with a problem that they know the player characters have the equipment and resources to solve, but for whatever reason the players are having trouble thinking of it. This mechanic puts the players and the GM on the same page. It facilitates communication, and I think that communication is tantamount to an enjoyable gaming experience.

NichG
2021-08-12, 05:38 PM
The idea of someone other than the GM being the referee is an interesting take. I personally would never want to be in a group where one of the players picked up that role, its just too big a conflict of interests, but, were it possible to find a third party with the rules knowledge and interest to referee impartially, that might be pretty cool. Of course, it may well cause a lot more problems than it would solve. Interesting topic for a discussion though if anyone wants to continue it.

This makes me want to design one of those high-concept games that probably no one would ever play, where the single 'special' table role is that one person controls the solitary hero, and all the various elements that are normally DM jobs are purchased by the other players for some kind of build point resource or even some kind of rank auction system. So e.g. at the start of the game the non-hero players each take on some aspect of the world ('the ocean', 'society', etc) just to have something to point to, and can bid on roles like:

- Referee: the authority to determine how actions are resolved and what happens immediately after
- Land: the authority to determine ambient environmental factors of the world, the shape of terrain, the paths between places
- Relics: the authority to determine what items exist and what they do
- Strife: the authority to determine the characteristics and behaviors of those entities hostile to the hero
- Comrades: the authority to determine the characteristics and behaviors of the hero's friends, family, sidekicks, and supporters
- Society: the authority to determine the characteristics and behaviors of groups of people in the world, and how they relate to the hero
- Metaphysics: the authority to determine the hidden truths underlying the world.

Non-hero players each have some budget of points at character gen, and can spend them bidding on each of those aspects, on a 'favors' pool which they can spend from per-game to temporarily boost their rank in a conflict, or on 'domains' which give them a bonus to their rank on all issues involving that domain. Whenever a matter involving one of these attributes must be decided, the player with the highest rank gets to determine that detail, or they can cede it to a player of a lower rank. However, all decisions must be prompted by the hero and what they are doing - a player can't decide to just start detailing things in a far away area until that area becomes relevant. And every subsequent decision that a player makes lowers their effective rank by 1 in that attribute until someone else has had a chance to make a decision. Once something has been decided to be a certain way, it remains as such and not even the player who decided it can change it. Furthermore, the hero can never permanently be defeated (various ways this could be done, not sure what's best - maybe something like 'if the hero dies, the world ends - the fates may no longer decide anything, and all becomes stagnant; the job of the fates is to get the hero to accept the state of the world without choosing to leave it').

I have no idea what the 'point' of play would be other than as a sort of story-telling game. How should the player playing the hero 'run the game' the way that a DM is responsible for? Would the player running the hero be trying to ask questions of the world, the way one way of looking at the DM role is as someone who sets challenges for players?

Excession
2021-08-12, 06:43 PM
@Quertus: Ok, so I think we are both just failing to communicate the idea that it takes two to argue and that the enjoyment of the group as a whole is important. The tone that I am getting from you that I am picking up as toxic is sort of an attitude of "I am always right, so therefore I am always justified in arguing, therefore the other guy is bullying me for arguing back," which may or may not be how you intended to come across.
I think ideally you should assume a player has a point when they argue about something. They are raising it as an issue because they feel aggrieved. That feeling is valid. If you feel they are wrong, your feeling is also valid. The point of the argument is to fix any communication issues that led to the problem and to find a solution that helps both parties feel better about the situation. The argument doesn't need to be a bad thing, call it a discussion if you prefer, but it doesn't need to be a shouting match.

The alternatives seem to be to:

Assume the other party as arguing in bad faith. They are bringing something up to be disruptive, because they just like arguing, or to attack you.
Dismiss the other party as invalid or unimportant, which can only hurt them. If you want to hurt them then please stop.
Promise to come back to the problem later, then actually do that.

Admittedly this stuff is hard to actually pull off in the moment.


The idea of someone other than the GM being the referee is an interesting take.
The way I read that idea is not that another player is a referee, it's that the rules are. A good rules lawyer should be able to tell you neutrally what the rules say, and what they don't say, and let the other players and GM do what they want with that information.

As I understand it, you're playing a system you wrote yourself, right? That is also a conflict of interest and power imbalance. You get two votes in everything because "what the rules mean" and "what the GM says" are now both up to you. That isn't necessarily a problem but it is something to be aware of.


This makes me want to design one of those high-concept games that probably no one would ever play, where the single 'special' table role is that one person controls the solitary hero, and all the various elements that are normally DM jobs are purchased by the other players for some kind of build point resource or even some kind of rank auction system. So e.g. at the start of the game the non-hero players each take on some aspect of the world ('the ocean', 'society', etc) just to have something to point to, and can bid on roles like:

I would totally read the rules to this game then not play it :smallwink:. Out of interest, I have at times delegated some of these roles to the players. For less important encounters I used to just drop a bunch of dry erase markers on the table and say "draw a ruined tavern, you are approaching from the road" while I found the right monster stats for the fight. It gave them something to do while I was busy and gave them more agency over the world. Complaints of the terrain always favouring the enemy should disappear when the players draw the terrain :smallbiggrin:

I have also done things like pointing to a blank spot on the world map and asking "What is here?". It was a dragon, and the players got to fight it.

Cluedrew
2021-08-12, 07:05 PM
This makes me want to design one of those high-concept games that probably no one would ever play, where the single 'special' table role is that one person controls the solitary hero, and all the various elements that are normally DM jobs are purchased by the other players for some kind of build point resource or even some kind of rank auction system. [...] I have no idea what the 'point' of play would be other than as a sort of story-telling game.The same point as other role-playing games I guess. But really it sounds like a lot of fun, or I see a bunch of fun ways to approach this to open up new campaign ideas. For instance, anything with a single-protagonist would suddenly become viable, maybe you could set it up as a world-building game, about the story of some mythic figure in the past of a setting that you could play in normally afterwards. Maybe only run it as a one-shot to reverse roles for a day and see the other side.

Pex
2021-08-13, 02:02 AM
I am a player in one of Phoenix's games:. . .

I can imagine the conversations had over pizza break on what Pex posted about today.
:smallyuk::smallbiggrin:


That's the wrong question, or more to the point, the framing is wrong. I'll quote Dave Arneson, yet again, partially: the rules lawyers are the enemy. (That observation becomes even more cogent when one appreciates how many years he spent as a referee for miniatures games before he became a referee for a fantasy campaign ...) I'll now badly quote (and possibly misquote) the D&D 5e DMG and observe that the rules serve the game and the players. (That's their purpose, anyway).

Yes, and some DMs need those rules written to help them. I stand by my point. The issue is different people having different opinions on where the proverbial line should be drawn. The game designers make the decision where it is, but that doesn't mean everyone who plays their game has to like that decision nor even agree with their personal opinion of the matter.


This makes me want to design one of those high-concept games that probably no one would ever play, where the single 'special' table role is that one person controls the solitary hero, and all the various elements that are normally DM jobs are purchased by the other players for some kind of build point resource or even some kind of rank auction system. So e.g. at the start of the game the non-hero players each take on some aspect of the world ('the ocean', 'society', etc) just to have something to point to, and can bid on roles like:

- Referee: the authority to determine how actions are resolved and what happens immediately after
- Land: the authority to determine ambient environmental factors of the world, the shape of terrain, the paths between places
- Relics: the authority to determine what items exist and what they do
- Strife: the authority to determine the characteristics and behaviors of those entities hostile to the hero
- Comrades: the authority to determine the characteristics and behaviors of the hero's friends, family, sidekicks, and supporters
- Society: the authority to determine the characteristics and behaviors of groups of people in the world, and how they relate to the hero
- Metaphysics: the authority to determine the hidden truths underlying the world.

Non-hero players each have some budget of points at character gen, and can spend them bidding on each of those aspects, on a 'favors' pool which they can spend from per-game to temporarily boost their rank in a conflict, or on 'domains' which give them a bonus to their rank on all issues involving that domain. Whenever a matter involving one of these attributes must be decided, the player with the highest rank gets to determine that detail, or they can cede it to a player of a lower rank. However, all decisions must be prompted by the hero and what they are doing - a player can't decide to just start detailing things in a far away area until that area becomes relevant. And every subsequent decision that a player makes lowers their effective rank by 1 in that attribute until someone else has had a chance to make a decision. Once something has been decided to be a certain way, it remains as such and not even the player who decided it can change it. Furthermore, the hero can never permanently be defeated (various ways this could be done, not sure what's best - maybe something like 'if the hero dies, the world ends - the fates may no longer decide anything, and all becomes stagnant; the job of the fates is to get the hero to accept the state of the world without choosing to leave it').

I have no idea what the 'point' of play would be other than as a sort of story-telling game. How should the player playing the hero 'run the game' the way that a DM is responsible for? Would the player running the hero be trying to ask questions of the world, the way one way of looking at the DM role is as someone who sets challenges for players?

This sounds fun to me. I wouldn't want it as a regular RPG campaign, but to me it makes for a fun party game. Devil in the details to help not have players make the gameworld too hard or too easy. It could be a cooperative game where the goal is for the Hero to succeed in some task by a certain amount of real world time, say an hour.

NichG
2021-08-13, 02:38 AM
This sounds fun to me. I wouldn't want it as a regular RPG campaign, but to me it makes for a fun party game. Devil in the details to help not have players make the gameworld too hard or too easy. It could be a cooperative game where the goal is for the Hero to succeed in some task by a certain amount of real world time, say an hour.

I almost think the way to do it is for each of the non-hero players to pick or randomly draw or somehow collectively put together some particular thing that they each have to get to happen over the course of the game without explicitly telling the hero player - basically stuff that is really secondary to whatever the main thing the hero player is trying to express with their adventure, but which might require complications to achieve. So e.g. a player might have 'get the hero to face their own mortality' or 'even when the world is at risk, there's always time for romance' or 'the fate of the world turned on the third and final time that the hero would meet the disfigured traveller'.

Maybe those things could even be table-public, but pulled from a list of ambiguous prophecy phrases.

Kardwill
2021-08-13, 03:06 AM
rules[/I] are. A good rules lawyer should be able to tell you neutrally what the rules say, and what they don't say, and let the other players and GM do what they want with that information.


Some games like Fate core use the table consensus as the ultimate referee. The GM does most instant decisions, but if a disagreement arise (about the rules, the gameworld, the way the game is going), then the entire table gets to decide how it will work (and that decision can be "let's follow the GM's ruling" or "let's follow the challenge rule on p.134". It just doesn't have to be.) I like it, since it simply "makes official" what is already an unwritten rule at many tables, and encourages cooperation between the GM and the other players.

Another example is Wushu, where whatever the players or GM says does happen, unless it ends a conflict before the rule said it could be ended, or the idea is vetoed (because it's not the kind of story that was decided at the beginnign of the game, it misused another PC, goes against something already established, etc...). Every player has that right to veto any other player.

And there are many "GMless" storygames where the GM role is in fact distributed amongst the players, or changes player according to the scene. Although those games heavily rely on a strict adherence to the rules and the game structure.

Of course, those systems need a collaborative group willing to go along with their fellow players, and will fall apart quickly when confronted to belligerent knuckleheads. But on the other hand, I've yet to see any game that survives contact with said belligerent knucklehead.

Satinavian
2021-08-13, 05:02 AM
The idea of someone other than the GM being the referee is an interesting take. I personally would never want to be in a group where one of the players picked up that role, its just too big a conflict of interests, but, were it possible to find a third party with the rules knowledge and interest to referee impartially, that might be pretty cool. Of course, it may well cause a lot more problems than it would solve. Interesting topic for a discussion though if anyone wants to continue it.
I experienced it often with a player doing it and it always worked extremely well.

But you do need the right players for that and you do need an existing trusting relationship between player and GM. I would not set up a new group like this and i would not make it standard modus operandi when writing a rule system.

Considering your special circumstances, i would not recommend it either.

Talakeal
2021-08-13, 01:51 PM
The way I read that idea is not that another player is a referee, it's that the rules are. A good rules lawyer should be able to tell you neutrally what the rules say, and what they don't say, and let the other players and GM do what they want with that information.

But why are they bringing this up?

Why do we need a specific person to do this?

There is a world of difference in these scenarios:

"Does anyone remember if a bodak is undead or an outsider?"

"Wait a minute, did you just move and cast a full round casting time spell in the same turn? That's illegal, you can't do that!"

"This wording is ambiguous and could be read in two different ways. Bob is the designated referee, he get's to make the call."

"Let's stop the game to have a three hour argument over whether the darkness spell is opaque."


Assume the other party as arguing in bad faith. They are bringing something up to be disruptive, because they just like arguing, or to attack you.
Dismiss the other party as invalid or unimportant, which can only hurt them. If you want to hurt them then please stop.
Promise to come back to the problem later, then actually do that.

This just baffles me.

People make bad faith or unimportant arguments all the time. It is human nature regardless of the person or the context.

One thing my players make me do all the time is stop the game to break down an NPC build. This takes a long time, and almost always serves no purpose, as even if they do find an error, it is invariably a small one that either doesn't make a difference or could have been achieved some other way. Are you really saying that it is somehow sadistic for me to ask them not to do that during the game?


As I understand it, you're playing a system you wrote yourself, right? That is also a conflict of interest and power imbalance. You get two votes in everything because "what the rules mean" and "what the GM says" are now both up to you. That isn't necessarily a problem but it is something to be aware of.

I am really curious about where you see a conflict of interest here. Could you please elaborate?

As for a power imbalance, yeah, it is. Although in many ways it is less of an imbalance than in traditional RPGs as I actually feel bound to respect rules that I have written. D&D, for example, is full of stupid rules and gives the GM authority to do whatever they want, so I am a hell of a lot more likely to change or fudge the rules on the spot in D&D than I am in a system I wrote.

Quertus
2021-08-13, 02:04 PM
I think that communication is tantamount to an enjoyable gaming experience.

There's definitely a strong correlation, and games without communication are rarely enjoyable.


@Quertus: Ok, so I think we are both just failing to communicate the idea that it takes two to argue and that the enjoyment of the group as a whole is important.

Glad we're on the same page so far.


The tone that I am getting from you that I am picking up as toxic is sort of an attitude of "I am always right, so therefore I am always justified in arguing, therefore the other guy is bullying me for arguing back," which may or may not be how you intended to come across.

Well, if you were trying to describe the attitude of the *GM*, or of bad GMing advice, then we'd have communicated almost successfully. Because, I agree, that attitude is toxic. Yet many GMs have that attitude, and there's plenty of bad GM advice out there that encourages that toxicity.

The GM is wrong for *claiming* or *believing* that the player is "arguing" - for belittling the player's contribution to improving the fun of the game for its existence rather than its merits - not for "arguing back", exactly.

I'm trying to promote a culture of communication and "fun optimization". A GM just assuming that anything the player says is wrong, or "arguing", who cannot conceptualize the possibility that one of the players sees that Bob is deathly afraid of spiders, or any other scenario where they see better than the GM how to safeguard / improve the fun of the game? A GM who cannot have a reasonable conversation, cannot actually listen to their players, and must resort to attacks and bullying? That's what I'm arguing against.

Or, as Excession said,



I think ideally you should assume a player has a point when they argue about something. They are raising it as an issue because they feel aggrieved. That feeling is valid. If you feel they are wrong, your feeling is also valid. The point of the argument is to fix any communication issues that led to the problem and to find a solution that helps both parties feel better about the situation. The argument doesn't need to be a bad thing, call it a discussion if you prefer, but it doesn't need to be a shouting match.

The alternatives seem to be to:

Assume the other party as arguing in bad faith. They are bringing something up to be disruptive, because they just like arguing, or to attack you.
Dismiss the other party as invalid or unimportant, which can only hurt them. If you want to hurt them then please stop.
Promise to come back to the problem later, then actually do that.

Admittedly this stuff is hard to actually pull off in the moment.

Excession, you missed the ever popular, "Promise to come back to the problem later, then don't do that". And "deal with it later"? If, for example, Bob is deathly afraid of spiders, or somebody needs to "fade to black", "later" is too late - the damage is already done. And, really, the damage is already done for most any incoherence that isn't addressed immediately, IME.

But your sentiment of "assume they have a point" is spot on, and acknowledging them feeling aggrieved is brilliant.


What I am trying to say is that even if you are in the right, you need to pick you battles. To continue the earlier analogy, "bad food" is subjective, so it may well be your fault if the food isn't to your liking, but even if the chef is objectively making bland food, you can still be in the wrong by making a scene about it.

The chef cannot make food that is to your liking if they do not know what "to your liking" means. Once again, communication is key - the players need to speak up, and the GM needs to listen; otherwise, the chef will never know how to make food that the players will enjoy.

OK, I've mixed my metaphors - what's the next step in this recipe?

How, or how often, such communication should occur? Such details are outside the scope of my commentary.

But… yes, a player who didn't bother communicating how bland the chef's meal is can *also* share some blame. But remember context: it's a chef throwing meat cleavers and screaming at customers who attempt to provide that feedback.


The idea of someone other than the GM being the referee is an interesting take. I personally would never want to be in a group where one of the players picked up that role, its just too big a conflict of interests, but, were it possible to find a third party with the rules knowledge and interest to referee impartially, that might be pretty cool. Of course, it may well cause a lot more problems than it would solve. Interesting topic for a discussion though if anyone wants to continue it.

Once again on point, Excession:



The way I read that idea is not that another player is a referee, it's that the rules are. A good rules lawyer should be able to tell you neutrally what the rules say, and what they don't say, and let the other players and GM do what they want with that information.


That is, indeed, more of what I meant.

Anything outside the scope of the rules, that the GM has to "rule 0"? Even there, the GM as the only source, while often fine, still gave us the SUE Files. And every GM can have a bad day. So it's best to listen to your players there, too. I suspect one of my former GMs will go to his grave still being teased about his buoyancy rules.

And, third time, for the win:



As I understand it, you're playing a system you wrote yourself, right? That is also a conflict of interest and power imbalance. You get two votes in everything because "what the rules mean" and "what the GM says" are now both up to you. That isn't necessarily a problem but it is something to be aware of.

I definitely agree that this is a conflict of interests - probably moreso than simply being a player.

Hmmm… from a certain point of view, one could argue that "railroading" is when just "GM" and "rules adjudication" proves a conflict of interests, no additional "game designer" role necessary for problems to occur.

So, yeah, despite the fact that it hasn't really been a problem with any… *otherwise good* GMs whose homebrew I've played, it's still worth paying attention to.

Talakeal
2021-08-13, 06:29 PM
I definitely agree that this is a conflict of interests - probably moreso than simply being a player.

Hmmm… from a certain point of view, one could argue that "railroading" is when just "GM" and "rules adjudication" proves a conflict of interests, no additional "game designer" role necessary for problems to occur.

So, yeah, despite the fact that it hasn't really been a problem with any… *otherwise good* GMs whose homebrew I've played, it's still worth paying attention to.

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.

Pex
2021-08-13, 10:19 PM
I almost think the way to do it is for each of the non-hero players to pick or randomly draw or somehow collectively put together some particular thing that they each have to get to happen over the course of the game without explicitly telling the hero player - basically stuff that is really secondary to whatever the main thing the hero player is trying to express with their adventure, but which might require complications to achieve. So e.g. a player might have 'get the hero to face their own mortality' or 'even when the world is at risk, there's always time for romance' or 'the fate of the world turned on the third and final time that the hero would meet the disfigured traveller'.

Maybe those things could even be table-public, but pulled from a list of ambiguous prophecy phrases.

It's been a very long time since I played it, but this reminds me of a Rocky & Bullwinkle RPG I played. It's semi-cooperative, and there is a winner. Depending on the scenario, you win individually if you can get the story to conclude your personal goal. Everyone has cards to manipulate events. You also have a character trait to influence events as well. There's a wheel to spin that allows you to win if at the current happenings of the story you can monologue your win condition. If you don't spin that space that monologue doesn't happen and game continues. The other scenario is team play of "Good Guys" and "Bad Guys" trying to manipulate events to their side's goal.


But why are they bringing this up?

Why do we need a specific person to do this?

There is a world of difference in these scenarios:

"Does anyone remember if a bodak is undead or an outsider?"

"Wait a minute, did you just move and cast a full round casting time spell in the same turn? That's illegal, you can't do that!"

"This wording is ambiguous and could be read in two different ways. Bob is the designated referee, he get's to make the call."

"Let's stop the game to have a three hour argument over whether the darkness spell is opaque."




There shouldn't be a long debate about a rule, but "good rules lawyering" is allowed because everyone at the table, including the DM, wants to follow the rules. Following the rules matters. Absolutely the DM can know the rule and ignore it anyway. The good rules lawyer also picks his battles. Sometimes a player is so caught up in the moment he has this brilliant idea of awesomeness and does it. The DM is also excited for the player, and the Thing happens. Problem is technically a rule was broken. The good rules lawyer keeps quiet. It's not breaking the game. No one is cheating. Let it go. 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.




Well, if you were trying to describe the attitude of the *GM*, or of bad GMing advice, then we'd have communicated almost successfully. Because, I agree, that attitude is toxic. Yet many GMs have that attitude, and there's plenty of bad GM advice out there that encourages that toxicity.

The GM is wrong for *claiming* or *believing* that the player is "arguing" - for belittling the player's contribution to improving the fun of the game for its existence rather than its merits - not for "arguing back", exactly.

I'm trying to promote a culture of communication and "fun optimization". A GM just assuming that anything the player says is wrong, or "arguing", who cannot conceptualize the possibility that one of the players sees that Bob is deathly afraid of spiders, or any other scenario where they see better than the GM how to safeguard / improve the fun of the game? A GM who cannot have a reasonable conversation, cannot actually listen to their players, and must resort to attacks and bullying? That's what I'm arguing against.



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.