"This scrying exacts a heavy toll"

[HoboKnight]

My players want to find an unfindable - a phylactery of a nameless lich, hidden in a sealed tomb, somewhere on Faerun(this is all the info they have). With all the nagging of my players and "muh magical powers" arguments, universe(DM) has delivered a location - an ancient undead wizard, who has specalised in scrying to a point, that he is able to find just about anything. But there is a price. A heavy toll.

My players do not care about gold or their characters dying or about killing a bunch of stuff. But they do care about levels. So here is my idea for a toll for this answer:
They get an exact location of an item, but... each PC loses a level. And the last part: one of the players is a really passive, uninterested player(we keep him in group, because he is a friend. His paladin status is soon to be revoked - due to his disinterest in things). The magical pool of uber scraying demands his attention. If, during travel to the location his attention fails, spell also fails.

I think these two things would make a really hefty price that would engage my players.

Is there anything else the pool could "charge" for its services? "A pound of flesh" inside and outside of game?

Thanks

PS: the other option is them going to Candlekeep, which they are working on now, but I need this as a backup.

[Anymage]

The level cost sound fine in theory, but in practice rolling back character advancements mid-session is a PITA. If it comes up at the end of a session so they can make the changes between games it's fair if you want to make something exceptionally costly. Just so long as the game doesn't hit a wall if they decide the price is too high and tell the scryer to get lost.

Making the whole adventure contingent on a checked out player being involved? That's questionable on multiple fronts. First, stripping the character of his paladinhood is generally bad form unless the player goes above and beyond to make a mockery of their oaths. Focusing on evils like a lich over the hags you've decided are the real big bads is just punitive DMing. Second, making the whole party's success hinge on punishing one player for their disinterest is liable to create unpleasant table dynamics. The price for being a checked out, passive player is that your character doesn't get plot threads tossed their way and instead gets to follow along as backup to other people's stories. Having in-game punishments for that player's character is counterproductive, and having in-game punishments for the whole party is even worse.

[False God]

Making the whole adventure contingent on a checked out player being involved? That's questionable on multiple fronts. First, stripping the character of his paladinhood is generally bad form unless the player goes above and beyond to make a mockery of their oaths. Focusing on evils like a lich over the hags you've decided are the real big bads is just punitive DMing. Second, making the whole party's success hinge on punishing one player for their disinterest is liable to create unpleasant table dynamics. The price for being a checked out, passive player is that your character doesn't get plot threads tossed their way and instead gets to follow along as backup to other people's stories. Having in-game punishments for that player's character is counterproductive, and having in-game punishments for the whole party is even worse.

Seconded.

I'd make the success of the scrying contingent on the focus of the whole party. They all paid the price right? A check at every X intervals to see if they're all still on the ball, with a collective DC that 3 players doing well (like rolling a raw 15) could pass, but 4 players rolling a 10 could pass. That way the participation of the Paladin is an asset to the adventure, but the rest of the group can get along without him if necessary.

Also, I'd note that if you're about to strip him of being a Paladin, you should be prepared to lose the character at a minimum and forcing the player to stick around being the "sniffing dog" of the party is only going to make them MORE disinterested.

It sounds like you need to take a little time to talk to this guy and see what you can do to get them more interested. Hinging the success of the party on him paying attention is a clear punishment, and all your players will be able to see that.

Generally, losing levels is a PITA because of the math and calculation involved. Is noone in your party capable of using scrying?

[Notafish]

I think there are two issues here: the need to make finding the lich a challenge, and a disinterested player. The disinterested player is an issue that should be addressed (gently) outside of table time, as others have said.

For exacting a heavy price, I don't see why it can't be all in-story. Your players might not seem to care about their characters dying, but presumably they have some interest in winning fights and not having too many negative conditions.

The undead super-scryer I assume has his own motivations, which could range from a long-term plot of his own to simply needing protection against the nameless lich in order to take on the job. So he's not going to do the scrying unless the players can get something for him - something phenomenally dangerous like a Sphere of Annhilation or the Book of Vile Darkness. The object doesn't necessarily need to be in a multi-session dungeon; it might just be guarded by something nasty and/or on an inconvenient plane of reality that the scryer can access but would prefer not to travel to due to planar travel side effects like the Feywild Time Warp or infectious madness of Pandemonium.

[Mastikator]

Anymage has a point. Make it something they can't get back even with advancement, like permanently losing an attunement slot, or permanent loss of ability stats.

[Telok]

Options:
Inability to learn (gain xp) for a year and a day.

Life drain. Permanent loss of 1 or 2 pt constitution.

Requires powering by sacrificing X number or magic items of power Y, matching all but 1 of their main items.

Memory loss. Their allies and family no longer remember them.

Luck drain, nat 20s are no longer crits. Permanent or year & a day.

Health drain, they no longer regain hp/hd/healing surges/etc. from resting.

[Maat Mons]

What happens if some of the players decide the cost is too steep, but others are fine with it? Can some of the characters go ahead with the ritual without the others? Does the ritual need a minimum number of participants which just so happens to be exactly as many characters as the group has? If one of the players refuses to participate, can they find an NPC to take their place in the ritual? Would that mean that one player avoids the level loss? If the players can coerce a bunch of NPCs into taking their places, could the whole group avoid any level loss?

Does the Wizard NPC lose a level every time he does his Super Scry? Or does he just trick dumb schmucks like the PCs into taking the level loss for him? Does he actually need a level from each PC to do his Super Scry? Or is it one level per Super Scry, and he's using the extra levels to fuel some of his own personal Scrying? Do the lost levels fuel the Scrying at all? Or is draining people of levels just a hobby for the NPC? Can the PCs drag their defeated enemies back to this guy to serve as husks to be drained of levels? What kind of boons would the NPC offer in return?

[icefractal]

As for the price, levels seem appropriate. I'd say there's two main variations based on how antagonistic (or not) you want the wizard to be:
A) The scrying (conceptually an Epic spell, whether you're using those rules or not) costs that much XP, and the wizard isn't going to pay it himself for a location he doesn't personally care about.
B) The scrying doesn't have that cost, the wizard just charges for his services because he can. It's a lot harder to gain levels once you're undead, and having some saps "donate" them to you helps a lot.

In the second case (or even the first), this could alternately be modeled as "any XP you would gain goes to the wizard instead, until it's been a level's worth" if you want to avoid the recalculation of losing a level and/or want a reason for continued antagonism.

However ...

With all the nagging of my players and "muh magical powers" arguments, universe(DM) has delivered a location - an ancient undead wizard, who has specalised in scrying to a point, that he is able to find just about anything. But there is a price. A heavy toll.It may be miscommunication because of the text medium, but it seems like you're coming at this from a place of OOC antagonism, and that's not a good thing.

Why is it bad if the PCs find the phylactery? What were they supposed to do otherwise - never be able to defeat the lich? Use some alternate route (and do they know about that route)? If your planning is being driven by any desire to "punish" the players, then stop and put away the game until you cool down about it.

But that said, "peak-level protections require major effort to defeat" isn't unreasonable, so I'm not saying there's anything wrong with costing a level, as long as the motivations aren't OOC negative.


Now this:
And the last part: one of the players is a really passive, uninterested player(we keep him in group, because he is a friend. His paladin status is soon to be revoked - due to his disinterest in things). The magical pool of uber scraying demands his attention. If, during travel to the location his attention fails, spell also fails.No. Don't do this. If you want to kick the passive player out for being too passive / uninterested, then just do so, don't try to retaliate in some weird IC way or manipulate the other players against them.

If I was one of the other players, and we lost the divination because of this? I'd be mad at you, the GM, not the passive player, because it's the GM who established all this ("divination that fails if a player isn't paying attention IRL" is not a thing in any published material), and collective punishment sucks / is ethically wrong. And yes, it would be a punishment rather than "natural consequences of actions" - the fact that you're here asking about it specifically in regards to the passive player ensures this fact.

[Draconi Redfir]

maybe instead of forcing the uninterested / inattentive player to focus or else the whole campaign is lost, you should instead look into what he's actually interested in, and try adding some of that.

Does he like cars? Throw in a vehicle-related quest where you can build and customize your own vehicle.

Does he like sports? Try introducing an Olympic-style tournament that the PC's get invited to compete in.

Does he like space? Try having an alien ship crash-land and let the party figure out how to fix and fly it or something.

[gatorized]

My players want to find an unfindable - a phylactery of a nameless lich, hidden in a sealed tomb, somewhere on Faerun(this is all the info they have). With all the nagging of my players and "muh magical powers" arguments, universe(DM) has delivered a location - an ancient undead wizard, who has specalised in scrying to a point, that he is able to find just about anything. But there is a price. A heavy toll.

My players do not care about gold or their characters dying or about killing a bunch of stuff. But they do care about levels. So here is my idea for a toll for this answer:
They get an exact location of an item, but... each PC loses a level. And the last part: one of the players is a really passive, uninterested player(we keep him in group, because he is a friend. His paladin status is soon to be revoked - due to his disinterest in things). The magical pool of uber scraying demands his attention. If, during travel to the location his attention fails, spell also fails.

I think these two things would make a really hefty price that would engage my players.

Is there anything else the pool could "charge" for its services? "A pound of flesh" inside and outside of game?

Thanks

PS: the other option is them going to Candlekeep, which they are working on now, but I need this as a backup.

Why would you keep your friend in something he has no interest in? Don't you care about him?

[gbaji]

Hmmm... Why do the PCs care about this unknown and unnamed Lich in the first place? If this is a major plot/whatever of your game world, then you should write something into the game world to involve and engage the PCs, and they should follow some sort of path to get to an answer. If this lich is some sort of recurring enemy that they defeat only to have it return (cause.... lich, right?), then if the PCs want to spend the time/effort searching for the location of the phylactery, you should make this a grand adventure/search. Have them trace down vague clues as to the identity of the lich. Who was he before he was lichified? What has he done over the centuries? What clues as to past actions exist? Maybe they have to track back old to even ancient historical documents. Perhaps find buried tombs or lost cities from long ago, to track things down? But eventually, perhaps they can find where he was made into a lich, and under what circumstances, and perhaps gain some clues as to where he might have stashed his philactery.

I tend to focus more on "discovering things while adventuring" as the method to learn stuff. Having the PCs walk up to a magic answer machine that tells them where anything is if they pay the cost is maybe not a great solution (and have you thought through how your players may use this to potentially break future scenarios as well?).

And honestly? One of my very firm rules is to never take anything away from the PCs as a "cost" to merely completing your adventure. I suppose if level gain/loss is something common that just happens in your game, that's one thing. But most players really really don't like that.

I'd find another way to do this. Just about any other way.

And yeah. The whole paladin player thing is just a bad idea. It will likely backfire IMO. As a GM, you just have to accept that the level of engagement from a player is what that player is happy/comfortable with and go with it. If you just can't handle it, then boot the player. If not, don't punish the player just for playing the way they like. And certainly, tying the entire party's success or failure to this one player changing their playstyle in some way is a disaster waiting to happen.

Your job as a GM is not to force the players to play the way you want them to, or to find individual player's foibles/weaknesess and exploit them. It's to create a game environment that they enjoy playing in. I have players that I know will pick up on the slightest clues and dig into them like a dog with a bone. I have other players that I could literally hit over the head with a clue by four and they will not "get it". So yeah. If my scenario requires someone to follow up on some clues, I'm not going to hand the clues just to the second type of player and then pat myself on the back for creating a "force them to pay attention to clues" sitution. No one is going to appreciate this. Not one bit.

Just let the players play to their strengths.

[HoboKnight]

Hey guys, this will be a long post. I really appreciate the input of all contributors and I think a sub-problem(for which I had another thread in mind, but this one will do) got detected correctly, so I'd like some more advice on it.
I feel I need to illuminate the situation a bit more.
F. is a player in my group. He had never played C/RPGs and was never really interested in dnd. Then we got him in our group, because he is a friend and tbh… I think he was lonely. Basically, uninterested in mechanics and with a minor interest in a plot. In fact, he is a grandmaster in offloading decisions to other players. Why is he in our group? Because he is a bit lonely and a good friend.

He's the kind of player who will take any class to play, but it will take him months to figure out basics(and will forget them even then). He has been playing with us for about 6 years now, but still… well, I wanted to write, he struggles to find Skills on his character sheet, but the point is - there is no struggle. After he is prodded to find it, he is browsing through and the base for browsing is not because he wants to find the skill stat - it is because other players urged him to do so.(he's not even sure WHY is he looking for this and how does this apply to the game)
He is able to accept an ungodly amount of "penaties":

his character not getting as much XP as others - no problem
not getting loot as others(his character had Broom of flying on his CS FOR MONTHS without even knowing it) - no problem
taking time out of game (at certain point, due to story he did not play for 2 weeks, he was just at the table) - no problem
needing to pay a round if he naps again during initiative - no problem
being banned from the game - no problem(but we don't want to do that because he is a good friend)



The ONLY thing that works is player pressure. Only when other players(not DM) pressure him, because he is not contributing to the party, does he awaken a bit.
He is currently playing a paladin, but all insights/visions/quests from his god, he either:

offloads to other players
sees as an inconvenience


When offloading does not work, he rants a bit - he just NEVER takes responsibility. We started the game with his character being tricked by a group of hags. Consequences was much suffering for a large settlement, children included(his character would not suffer any consequences due to this, because it was a story/plot intro). I thought this will give him some motivation to be more engaged in the future. It did not. This guy could be sitting in a guardhouse of a concentration camp and trains would be coming in and all he would do is shrug and just say "things happen".

ON THE OTHER HAND. He is a good friend. Very smart about life, society and work. Great friend and support to some of the other players(including me). There is however, in his life too, this streak of helplessness. He is the kind of guy who will sit in the rain in front of a bar, because it inconveniences him to ask a bartender to open an umbrella for him.
As a party we like to work on that. We feel he is made, if not for great things(he already is great), at least for greater things then now. And the party is willing to push him.
I as a DM, who invests great amounts of time and mental resources in the game and who, mostly is his good friend, am frustrated with him. So the only leverage I see is him losing paladin status(dereliction of duty).
Deleriction of duty:

his paladin resided in a small town which got infected by hags and demons. He did NOTHING. His other party members did
he got faced with the suffering these antagonists cause, it's "things happen" mode again. And a shrug
Now his god drafted an actual angel to lead him, but angels guidance and nudges in a right direction are seen as a nuisance


He's not slaughtering newborns, but is unphased if this is happening. And, as said, kicking him out of the group/having his paladin fall/other penalties do not work. Peer pressure only works. Basically the only thing he engages in is when another PC demands some money from him. It's a joke, it's an engagement, so he becomes a bit active. Protecting goldpieces, he would not spend a decade playing, because he's not even thinking about usefullness of items.

So, guys, this is the story. Your advice so far was really good, I'd appreciate additional - or questions.

[Anymage]

First, if someone is lonely and just wants to hang out with their friends that's fine on its own. They wind up being backup to other people driving the plot, but on its own that's fine. If F seemed to fade out because other players kept talking over him and he couldn't get a word in edgewise that would be one thing you could handle as a DM, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

Second, it's sounding like F has some significant psychological condition here. My layman's guess is depression, but diagnosing him would be a gross violation of both board rules and professional ethics. (For one I'm not professionally trained in any mental health field, but if I were diagnoses take a lot more than hearing about the situation secondhand from an internet post.) So I think the following is all I can safely say within board rules;

If F has the resources to see a proper mental health professional, strongly encourage him to do so. It might be a biological thing that needs medicine to treat, it might be from feeling so beat down that he's given up, it might well be a combination of both. Encourage him to see a professional who can help diagnose and then treat his problems.
Popular and intuitive remedies for mental health problems are often ineffective to counterproductive. Trying to light a fire under him by making him feel punished (both directly by having game events fail, and indirectly by having other players feel mad at him for having game events fail) is unlikely to have any impact beyond the immediate term, and ultimately reinforcing his "it happens" perspective. Unless you or one of your other players are trained professionals, your best move is pointing him at someone who is.
From a table aspect and a general social aspect, carrots work better than sticks at making people feel engaged in anything beyond the immediate term. If there's a crossroads in the plot and you can get the whole rest of the group on board, have something in the decision be relevant to his character's backstory and have everybody else agree to direct the decision back to him until he's at least given an opinion on this. Tables can often be chaotic and noisy, quieter players can get drowned out in the process, and as I said earlier it's helpful if the DM and other considerate players can help shush things a bit to give those players some room to share their input. But general questions of how to encourage quieter players (and its flip side, how to keep particularly noisy ones from drowning others out) are of limited use when it sounds like F has much deeper problems going on.

[Ionathus]

F. is a player in my group. He had never played C/RPGs and was never really interested in dnd. Then we got him in our group, because he is a friend and tbh… I think he was lonely. Basically, uninterested in mechanics and with a minor interest in a plot. In fact, he is a grandmaster in offloading decisions to other players. Why is he in our group? Because he is a bit lonely and a good friend.
<snip>
ON THE OTHER HAND. He is a good friend. Very smart about life, society and work. Great friend and support to some of the other players(including me). There is however, in his life too, this streak of helplessness. He is the kind of guy who will sit in the rain in front of a bar, because it inconveniences him to ask a bartender to open an umbrella for him.
As a party we like to work on that. We feel he is made, if not for great things(he already is great), at least for greater things then now. And the party is willing to push him.

Dear god, man, no. No no no no no.

You are not your friend's life coach. You are not your friend's therapist. You are not your friend's counselor or guardian or supervisor. You are your friend's friend.

He's coming to D&D because he was lonely and now he's having fun. Just freaking have fun with him. Don't turn this into some bizarre psychological roleplay with the goal of helping him overcome his IRL personal struggles "whether he wants to or not." That's not your call, and it's pretty damn messed up that you thought it was.

I have seen tremendous personal breakthroughs as a result of D&D. Two separate friends have transitioned after first playing with gender as a PC in my D&D campaigns. But that **** has to be self-motivated. It's deeply questionable for the DM to set out with the goal of changing someone's behavior or personality through in-character events. This is the absolutely wrong mentality to approach DMing, and I think you need to seriously evaluate your relationship with this guy and whether or not you're truly doing your best to support and encourage him...or whether you're trying to manipulate him to behave the way you think he should.

EDIT: Echoing what Anymage said in their ninja'd post. If you are concerned about your friend's wellbeing or mental state, convince him to seek professional help. Trying to solve his problems yourself at the table is pointless at best, and potentially harmful at worst.

[gbaji]

And now I'm curious. Did he actually choose to be a paladin? Knowing what that class entailed? Sounds like somehow he ended up iwth a character class that doesn't suit him at all.

IME, pretty much all new players, and some players regardless of how long they have been playing, will do best playing a character they can relate to, or... well... that they "want to play". As you become more experienced playing, you can try different things and see how they feel, and otherwise "stretch" yourself in terms of RP. But if this is just about him having some fun and playing with some friends, just let him play his character the way he wants to play?

He very clearly does not seem to actually want to play the daring hero who leaps into the fray to save the innnocent and helpless or whatever, since from what you'd described, he actually seems to have no interest in that at all. Maybe the solution is to not try to force him to play a paladin the way you think a paladin should be played, but maybe find some way to transform his character/class to something he actually does want to play?

I do think that lumping stuff on him that frankly look a lot like punishments isn't the right approach. Doubly so if this player is actually suffering from some sort of depression. If he just wants to folllow along with the other members of the party and participate, then just let him do that. It'll be a lot more enjoyable experience for all involved IMO.

[Pex]

Why are DMs so afraid of players knowing things? Players are supposed to find out stuff. That's the exploration part of the game. While there is a point to not having an I Cast Know Everything spell, spellcasters using their spells to learn stuff is spellcasters doing their job. For there to be a campaign a spell won't say Phylactery Is Here in Session 1, it might lead to a place where there's a clue, go there, adventure, and find it. That leads to another clue. It's a mystery hunt.

In other cases it doesn't matter the players Know Where The McGuffin Is. Great, they know where it is. Wonderful. Congratulations. The problem is how to get there. It could be located in a place you cannot just walk to. You can't teleport directly there. Once in the general area you need to deal with environmental hazards, native monsters, monsters specifically there to guard the entranceway, traps, local politics making things difficult. It takes adventures to get to the place.

What you don't do is punish players for the audacity of trying to find out stuff to play the game where they need to find out stuff, such as taking away character levels it took months of real world time and effort to get just to find the answer of one question.

[Ionathus]

If he just wants to folllow along with the other members of the party and participate, then just let him do that. It'll be a lot more enjoyable experience for all involved IMO.

I want to echo this sentiment.

For whatever reason, loads of DMs and online commenters seem afraid that any player who's uninterested in tactics or roleplay is having a bad time. But there are loads of different player types, and not everybody gets the same things out of D&D. So many DMs seem to encounter a player who doesn't want to roleplay and think it's their job to make the player want to roleplay, and if they can just find the right carrots or sticks to motivate them, then they'll "finally" be a good player. Not so.

Some players are just there for the companionship. Some are just there to see what story their other friends tell, and are happy to be pseudo-audience members and background characters in the narrative. Some players are just there for the snacks.

I have a friend like this in one of the games I run. They show up about half the time because their schedule is crazy, and they have a tough time staying engaged in the overall plot. But they are always down for a little table-approved mayhem, so whenever the opportunity to help the group by causing chaos emerges, they fully jump into that chance. Everyone at the table recognizes that the game is never going to be "about" their PC in the way it is about the others', because they simply can't meet us at that level of investment. But they're still a blast to have at the table whenever it works.

Of course, you're not obligated to keep a player like this at your table, especially if it's disrupting the rest of the group or seriously hurting your feelings/investment as the DM. You're allowed to have fun too, and if they just don't seem to care, then it's okay to recognize that and ask them to only show up for casual board game night instead.

But stop trying to mold them into your idea of a "model player". It's never going to happen, and you're going to frustrate (or even alienate) everyone involved if you try to brute force it.


Why are DMs so afraid of players knowing things? Players are supposed to find out stuff. That's the exploration part of the game. While there is a point to not having an I Cast Know Everything spell, spellcasters using their spells to learn stuff is spellcasters doing their job. For there to be a campaign a spell won't say Phylactery Is Here in Session 1, it might lead to a place where there's a clue, go there, adventure, and find it. That leads to another clue. It's a mystery hunt.

In other cases it doesn't matter the players Know Where The McGuffin Is. Great, they know where it is. Wonderful. Congratulations. The problem is how to get there. It could be located in a place you cannot just walk to. You can't teleport directly there. Once in the general area you need to deal with environmental hazards, native monsters, monsters specifically there to guard the entranceway, traps, local politics making things difficult. It takes adventures to get to the place.

What you don't do is punish players for the audacity of trying to find out stuff to play the game where they need to find out stuff, such as taking away character levels it took months of real world time and effort to get just to find the answer of one question.

This is all excellent as well, especially the final paragraph. You, the DM, set all of the terms of the world. I can imagine scenarios where a character level is a reasonable price to pay for some insane request or failure. This is not it. You are arbitrarily inserting unrealistic costs into the core gameplay loop of D&D because the PCs aren't doing it the "right" way that you picked out ahead of time. Give them a quest to go on in exchange for the scrying. If it doesn't feel like a big enough price, make the quest harder. Pretty simple equation IMO.

[gbaji]

Why are DMs so afraid of players knowing things? Players are supposed to find out stuff. That's the exploration part of the game. While there is a point to not having an I Cast Know Everything spell, spellcasters using their spells to learn stuff is spellcasters doing their job. For there to be a campaign a spell won't say Phylactery Is Here in Session 1, it might lead to a place where there's a clue, go there, adventure, and find it. That leads to another clue. It's a mystery hunt.

In other cases it doesn't matter the players Know Where The McGuffin Is. Great, they know where it is. Wonderful. Congratulations. The problem is how to get there. It could be located in a place you cannot just walk to. You can't teleport directly there. Once in the general area you need to deal with environmental hazards, native monsters, monsters specifically there to guard the entranceway, traps, local politics making things difficult. It takes adventures to get to the place.

What you don't do is punish players for the audacity of trying to find out stuff to play the game where they need to find out stuff, such as taking away character levels it took months of real world time and effort to get just to find the answer of one question.

Exactly. To me, the "adventure" is the party wandering around, tracking down clues, and exploring all sorts of different locations while "on the hunt" for some bad guy (and/or his philactery in this case). That's the part that the players want to play out, and that is "fun to play". There are an absolute ton of different ways to provide the PCs with information so that they know where to go so as to have these fun adventures. Making the mere obtaining of that information cost a level? That's not fun.

As the GM, you are the one writing the scenario. You put this lich into the game, and decided to make the lich a "problem the players want/need to solve". It's also somewhat on you to actually write the bits about how they do that. This is not to say railroad them, but if the philactery is in some ancient tomb somewhere, and the only key to gain access is in the "land of doom" somewhere, and to find the map to the key you must first explore the "cave of mystery" or whatever, those are just a series of adventures the PCs have to go through to get to what they want.

You can litearally start them off with knowing exactly where the philactery is if you want (or allow them to discover via any means). But that's not really the adventure part of the game IMO. Heck. Even if "finding out where the philactery" is going to be a thing they need to do, and even if "only Frank the powerful all-knowing mystic knows", the last thing I'd have Frank do is "charge them a level" (how does that even work game mechanically?). I'd have Frank send them off on a side quest for something he wants, in return for the information (which, you know, could lead to yet more adventure hooks if/when the party figures out what Frank is maybe up to).

Adventuring? Fun. Losing levels? Not fun. So yeah, the answer to "how do they <do whatever>" should always lean towards the "more adventuring" side of things and less the "spend a level" side.

[Telok]

Why are DMs so afraid of players knowing things? Players are supposed to find out stuff. That's the exploration part of the game. ....

....What you don't do is punish players for the audacity of trying to find out stuff to play the game where they need to find out stuff...

I'm going to have to almost disagree with you here Pex. I don't think the op's players want to find stuff out. They want killing & looting.


My players want to find an unfindable - a phylactery of a nameless lich, hidden in a sealed tomb, somewhere on Faerun(this is all the info they have).

The op didn't say they needed help with a "pcs explore & find" scenario. The question of this part was if the cost was OK-ish given that money, death, and other stuff wasn't an actual cost to the party. It sounds like the players are interested in skipping the whole mystery, and clues, and exploring the world to find out stuff. I suspect that given a location they'll want to fast travel to the dungeon and begin kicking in doors.

I could be wrong. There are scant details surrounding the info gathering going on other than 'party has near zero info' and 'party want to buy the answer'.

[HoboKnight]

Again, great insights.
@gbaji
I talked to him at the start of the campaign, pitched an idea of him playing a paladin, answer was "yeah, ok". Basically, he'd take any class(even a caster). Guy is jelly-er than a black pudding.

Depression: I dunno. When it comes to other fields of life, guy is decisive, strong and strong-opinionated. But here, he acts like I mentioned. I'm no expert tho.

And you guys competently picked on my frustration as a DM and, to an extent, frustration of other players. I have to correct myself: it is only in part our vire guy is meant for greater things, frustration plays a key role in our potential decisions.

Also a great chunk I missed: talking to him. We talked. Talked again. Talked as a group. Guy (passively) agrees with things, accepts them and just returns to his old tracks in two weeks time.

[Mastikator]

TBH I think the guy just wants to hang out with his friends and wants the game to be a break from his regular life. Which I know can be frustrating as a DM because you put a lot of work into the campaign and he sorta just takes the game for granted. But he's not going to change, IMO accept him for what he is and let him perpetually be in the passenger seat of the group. Tell him if he has an interest that he wants to pursue then the onus is on him to tell you that. That is not punishment BTW, that's accepting him for what he is.

[Draconi Redfir]

Perhaps a change in class is in order for F?

If he's being very passive about everything, perhaps he'd more enjoy a support role of some kind rather then a frontliner. Perhaps he could become a class that just buffs the other partymembers but doesn't participate in combat itself? that way he only needs to actively participate at the very start of combat / the adventuring day, and maybe a few times mid-combat if he feels like some shorter-duration spells or specific spells are in order. Some healing abilities might work out too.

The Angel could be a good way to do this, if he sees the Angel offering him guidance as a nuisance, then have the Angel talk to him and offer him a change in purpose. His class levels get changed to Oracle or Sorcerer, or Bard, or Mystic Theurge, something where he doesn't need to worry about preparing spells in advance and just has a short list of spells and some spell-slots. Then, the Angel goes away.

One thing i would definitely encourage is ASK HIM IF HE WANTS TO DO THIS FIRST, don't just do this without consulting him, it's very possible I'm wrong in my interpretation here.


I'd definitely think just sitting down with him and asking him questions is for the best. While questions like "Do you enjoy the class you are playing?" probably won't work, as that'd likely just get a "yes" or "i don't know" etc. You want a different style questions like

"Would you prefer playing a more passive support role in the party?"
"Do you think you would have more fun if you didn't need to worry about your actions in combat"
"is there anything we can do to make things more interesting for you?" etc.

Just questions like that, more aiming for "Is A better then B? Is B better then C?" etc to try and get the best outcome for him. it might take awhile, but saying "i think I'd have more fun with B" is easier then saying "I'm not having fun with A" i think.

Basically determine what his preferred playstyle is, and aim to cater to it. Directly communicate with him one-on-one to see how much and how little of an active participant he wants to be and let him play a character that fits that role. Again the Angel could help change his character from a Paladin into whatever the two of you determine is more appropriate for him. If he prefers being a passive observer, then something like a buffer and occasional healer could let him do that while still being a valuable asset to the team.

[Slipjig]

I don't like the level loss idea, it seems both arbitrary and fiddly. I prefer either losing 2 points of CON or their primary stat. THAT will feel like a real sacrifice, as opposed to "oh well, we'll have to earn the level back".

I also like curses that are narratively interesting. Maybe the character's love forgets them (or vice versa). Maybe they give off a horrible stench that nauseates anyone within five feet of them. Maybe dogs growl anytime they are nearby. Maybe their hands always appear to be coated in blood, or they can never sleep in the same place twice. Maybe they suffer horrible nightmares, and have to drink themselves unconscious to get the benefit of a Long Rest.

[Pex]

I'm going to have to almost disagree with you here Pex. I don't think the op's players want to find stuff out. They want killing & looting.



The op didn't say they needed help with a "pcs explore & find" scenario. The question of this part was if the cost was OK-ish given that money, death, and other stuff wasn't an actual cost to the party. It sounds like the players are interested in skipping the whole mystery, and clues, and exploring the world to find out stuff. I suspect that given a location they'll want to fast travel to the dungeon and begin kicking in doors.

I could be wrong. There are scant details surrounding the info gathering going on other than 'party has near zero info' and 'party want to buy the answer'.

Math Logic, F -> T is still a true statement.

If you're right about the scenario my point still stands. However, the problem is then a different issue - the players are not interested in the Exploration part of an RPG. Which is fine, not everyone likes all of Social Interaction, Exploration, and Combat the same, but I would still say taking away levels is not the way to go. It punishes players' real world time and effort to gain those levels by taking them away on something they already don't like making them hate it more.

[gbaji]

Perhaps a change in class is in order for F?

If he's being very passive about everything, perhaps he'd more enjoy a support role of some kind rather then a frontliner. Perhaps he could become a class that just buffs the other partymembers but doesn't participate in combat itself? that way he only needs to actively participate at the very start of combat / the adventuring day, and maybe a few times mid-combat if he feels like some shorter-duration spells or specific spells are in order. Some healing abilities might work out too.

I don't think (could be wrong though) that this is about what abilities/spells are used during play though. At least, that's not the impression I got from the OP. And to whatever degree "not interested in game details" may be present, I'm not sure how any casting class is going to be easier/better (though maybe?).

I think the issue is that the player is running a paladin, and the GM/OP expects that the paladin in the group should be the one motivating/pushing the rest of the group to "do the right thing"/"save the innocents"/"lift the curse" kind of stuff. Which is not an unreasonable expectation for a GM to have, but if the player just isn't interested in being the one making the party direction/objective decider, then that's just a poor fit. I just don't think it's an issue of melee vs spells, or active vs buff type mechanical actions. It's that he's being expected to act as "party leader", and doesn't want that role.

It's just funny because I'm kinda RPing a similar character right now in my current game. He's a "paladin(ish)" type. Supposed to be about honor, doing the right thing, etc (not really a paladin class in this game though). But he's also a pratical jokester, who kinda doesn't take things too seriously, goofs off, and otherwise downplays things (just the personality I decided to run). So yeah, we'll discover something horrible is going on, and he'll be like "OMG! That's terrible. Someone should really do something about that". Beat.... "Oh wait! That's us, right? We should go do something about that. Yessir. On the job. Reporting for duty. Ready to serve".

But yeah. If the player just isn't comfortable with being the one who decides "Yeah. Those villagers are in trouble. We need to go help them out" (and then taking action and pushing the rest of the party to execute on that), then no amount of trying to force him to do that, or punish him if he doesn't, is going to work.



I don't like the level loss idea, it seems both arbitrary and fiddly. I prefer either losing 2 points of CON or their primary stat. THAT will feel like a real sacrifice, as opposed to "oh well, we'll have to earn the level back".

I also like curses that are narratively interesting. Maybe the character's love forgets them (or vice versa). Maybe they give off a horrible stench that nauseates anyone within five feet of them. Maybe dogs growl anytime they are nearby. Maybe their hands always appear to be coated in blood, or they can never sleep in the same place twice. Maybe they suffer horrible nightmares, and have to drink themselves unconscious to get the benefit of a Long Rest.

Eh. I find those to be arbitrary and fiddly as well. And the biggest question (which I guess I hinted at earlier, but wasn't explicit): What does the powerful undead wizard who specializes in scrying magic get out of any of that?

It's not enough to just come up with something that will "cost the party". It's the wizard who is expending time and effort (and a special set of skills) to help out the party. He's going to want something that's actually valuable to him in return. Causing them pain and suffering and grief doesn't actually help him in any way, so why on earth would that be "the cost" for the information?

Similarly: How does the party members losing a level help the wizard? Unless he's somehow draining the levels (and gaining some power along the way, which is like "woah" level evil magic), it's also just "something that hurts the PCs" for the sake of generating an arbitrary cost. You have to think of the game setting/world as being more than just a backdrop that the PCs operate within, with things only mattering to the degree that they affect (positively or negatively) the party. The world exists. The people (NPCs) in the world exist. They have wants, hopes, desires, loves, hates, dreams, etc. Play that out.

What does this powerful wizard want/need? Make that the cost for his assistance. It should not at all be about the cost to the PCs, but the benefit to the NPC.

[Spore]

I was that "apathetic" friend in our group years ago. My D&D group were my only friends back then. The best choice I could have done was quit the game. Not to drag our group down, not to use up my precious free time with inane ****, and to be able to proceed with other hobbies that actually spark interest.

I was in an emotional ****hole for a year after that, yes. But then I started card gaming, went out of my shell a bit, and now I am happier than ever. It is a process that took 7 years now, and I am still not at my goal, but dragging your friend behind like a mule is just a mistake.

For the lich, the "evil" DM choice is always to sacrifice a beloved NPC. Sally-May, the friendly farmer girl that moonlights as a bartender because she likes the elderly barkeep just so damn much? The phylactery notices your attachment to her, and it dislikes emotions because the lich was vanquished as it was a soulless emotionless monster. Purge that emotion from your heart and let the knowledge be revealed!

[HoboKnight]

Thanks, guys. I guess "accepting F as is" is a good way to go, with taking my frustration in account. In fact we had a chat yesterday(with another friend present) and I have to say I'm quite amazed how masterfully is F able to evade the issue. With the help of my friend we managed to present the problems and with F … made a plan for the future. We'll see how it goes.

As for this Scrying wiz, you really made me think and I agree planned price for this scrying is too punitive. And I realized I need to work on the wizard's background and his desires. In fact it is a guy from HotDQ, Diderius: https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Diderius He is actually a neutral-aligned Mummy Lord… what would a Mummy Lord want? I'd like to make it at least a little bit icky. But no level-deleting.

thanks!

[Perch]

My players want to find an unfindable - a phylactery of a nameless lich, hidden in a sealed tomb, somewhere on Faerun(this is all the info they have). With all the nagging of my players and "muh magical powers" arguments, universe(DM) has delivered a location - an ancient undead wizard, who has specalised in scrying to a point, that he is able to find just about anything. But there is a price. A heavy toll.

My players do not care about gold or their characters dying or about killing a bunch of stuff. But they do care about levels. So here is my idea for a toll for this answer:
They get an exact location of an item, but... each PC loses a level. And the last part: one of the players is a really passive, uninterested player(we keep him in group, because he is a friend. His paladin status is soon to be revoked - due to his disinterest in things). The magical pool of uber scraying demands his attention. If, during travel to the location his attention fails, spell also fails.

I think these two things would make a really hefty price that would engage my players.

Is there anything else the pool could "charge" for its services? "A pound of flesh" inside and outside of game?

Thanks

PS: the other option is them going to Candlekeep, which they are working on now, but I need this as a backup.

Why some DMs have this need to just... Punish players... For having fun??? :smallconfused:

So weird...

[gatorized]

It occurs to me that instead of being passive aggressive, you could have simply not put this in the world if you didn't want them to find it.

Also, why don't you want them to find it?

[Telok]

Also, why don't you want them to find it?

Except that the op did put in a way to find something with near zero effort after the fact. They were asking if the cost was appropriate.

Now, personally, when players in my games give up trying to do something themselves and just buy the solution because they can't think of things to try to get what they want, then I'll have them roll idea checks and mention things they could do that might work. Something like "you know Mr.X responds to <thing>, so you could set up a trap and try to get more info that way".

[gatorized]

Except that the op did put in a way to find something with near zero effort after the fact. They were asking if the cost was appropriate.


After being nagged into it by his players. So he didn't want to put it in the game. Which is why I asked why he put something he didn't want them to find in the game.

[Satinavian]

Also a great chunk I missed: talking to him. We talked. Talked again. Talked as a group. Guy (passively) agrees with things, accepts them and just returns to his old tracks in two weeks time.
Then you have only three options :

1.) Continue as is and accept the bahvior.

2.) Kick him.

3.) Switch to another activity like boardgames.


Nothing else will work. If he is just not invested in the stuff you all care about, no amount of pressure will make him invested.

[Reversefigure4]

Then you have only three options :

1.) Continue as is and accept the behaviour.

2.) Kick him.

3.) Switch to another activity like boardgames.


Or 4 (or 1A, really): Pitch his part of the game to fit his level of disinterest. Knowing that the player basically just wants to show up and hang out with his friends, make a character that fits that both mechanically and backstory-wise.

So you have something like Joe the Neutral Fighter, a character with the Weapon Focus string of feats (Focus:Axe, Specialisation:Axe, greater focus: Axe, etc). Joe has almost no during-game mechanical decisions to make beyond "where to move" and "what enemy to hit with Axe". Mechanically, the most choiceless character possible (so not a wizard or cleric)

Joe's backstory is that he is the Squire for Player B's character. He wants to help B with whatever B's character wants. Or he's B's bodyguard. Or employee. Or that he and B serve the same god and B is the chosen one. Just make a backstory that's "go along with what the party wants". Not a leader, not a Paladin, not a chosen one. Just Some Guy.

People might find this boring - and it is to most - but that's ok. This guy doesn't want to make decisions, or get invested, or have plots about him. He just wants to show up and roll some dice. Make the character that lets him do it the most easily.

Certainly it's better to cater to his disinterest than build a character that requires interest then punish him - and the group(!) - for not doing it right.

[Lemmy]

As someone who often is, as someone here put it, "in the passenger seat of the group", I can say that it may very well be the case that your player just wants to chill, hang out with his friends and experience the campaign's development without putting much thought into it.

If he's not disrupting the game or lessening the fun of other players, I say: Just let him be and enjoy the time you spend together.

[gatorized]

As someone who often is, as someone here put it, "in the passenger seat of the group", I can say that it may very well be the case that your player just wants to chill, hang out with his friends and experience the campaign's development without putting much thought into it.

If he's not disrupting the game or lessening the fun of other players, I say: Just let him be and enjoy the time you spend together.

Roleplaying games are not passive activities. If you don't want to participate, don't attend.

[Lemmy]

Roleplaying games are not passive activities. If you don't want to participate, don't attend.
Who says not making decisions for the group is the same as "not participating"??

Not everyone wants to be a protagonist with story plots focused on them. Someone else can be Aragorn... Sometimes I just want to bring my axe/bow/whatever along for the ride and talk to my friends.

Well... It's your prerogative to kick anyone out of your group for whatever reason. So, you do you.

[gatorized]

Who says not making decisions for the group is the same as "not participating"??

Not everyone wants to be a protagonist with story plots focused on them. Someone else can be Aragorn... Sometimes I just want to bring my axe/bow/whatever along for the ride and talk to my friends.

Well... It's your prerogative to kick anyone out of your group for whatever reason. So, you do you.

Why did you change your assertion from "not putting thought into it" to "not making decisions for the group"?

[False God]

Roleplaying games are not passive activities. If you don't want to participate, don't attend.

"Not participating" is not the same as passive engagement.

[gbaji]

Why did you change your assertion from "not putting thought into it" to "not making decisions for the group"?

I'm not sure it matters. Those two statements are similar enough in this context.

The real question, which was previously asked, and which you did not answer was:

How does that equate to "not participating"? Heck. We can substitute either "not putting much thought into it" or "not making decisions for that group", and the same question arises. Neither are equivalent to "not participating".

I can show up to game night, hang out with my friends, munch on snacks, and just have my character follow the party leader and help out with whatever the party wants to do. All without making any significant decision beyond "I'll move over here and attack the orc" (ie: "not putting much thought into it"), and still "participate" in the game.

I have zero problem at all with a player who makes no strategic decisions for the group at all. Just moves their character on the board when a combat occurs, and rolls their dice. They are absolutely participating. And, if that's what they enjoy doing, then who the heck am I to force something different on them? At the very least, that's one fewer player to get involved in an argument whenever the party is divided on what to do (which is a thing that happens sometimes).


Let's not lose sight of the case in the OP where the GM has literally thrust a leadership role on a player who does not seem interested in it. I thiink there's a significant middle ground in between "your paladin must decide to go out of his way to deal with something he's heard about or will be punished" and "you're not particpating in the game". If the player just wants to run a character who travels with the other party members and helps them out with whatever they are doing, what the heck is wrong with that?

[Lemmy]

Why did you change your assertion from "not putting thought into it" to "not making decisions for the group"?
you might notice that in my first post I said "...without putting MUCH thought into it".

That's very different from "putting no thoughts at all", and even more different from "not participating'.

[Rynjin]

Roleplaying games are not passive activities. If you don't want to participate, don't attend.

Speak for yourself, I'm madder that he didn't attend the last couple of games. :smallannoyed:

[Lemmy]

Speak for yourself, I'm madder that he didn't attend the last couple of games. :smallannoyed:
In my defense... I had 2 birthdays and 1 wedding to attend.

[FabulousFizban]

When searching for a needle in a haystack, it is useful to have a magnet.