DM'ing Advice Please....

[arguskos]

I live on a college campus, and I love D&D. As in, it's pretty much my only real hobby these days, since nothing else holds my interest really. However, I've been having some issues recently, in that my playgroup here is just, well, they suck horribly.

Now, I know that the knee-jerk reaction to that statement should be, "am I doing something wrong as the DM?" Believe me, I've asked myself, and them, and by and large, they've answered me saying, "nah, you're a fun DM, we enjoy your games." The issue then is that I'M not having fun.

I like story, I like roleplaying damnit! I want to have players who frikkin' roleplay. I've given them every chance to rp I can IMAGINE. I've gone along with all their strange, freaky schemes. I've even let my campaign be totally thrown to the wind if I think they'll roleplay while doing it. But, for all my efforts and attempts, these bastards just don't freaking get it. I've even asked them, "hey guys, can we try to be in character more often, and try to stereotype less? Please?" But, my appeals fall on deaf ears, and they almost invariably answer that their rampant "we is adventurerz, givez us ur lootz" is just them playing their character (even the ranger/dragonstalker COOK, who has no earthly reason to be a lootwhore).

I'm at my rope's end. I've stuck with these guys for almost a year now, just cause I don't have any other friends on this campus or in this town (I'm in Texas for school, and live in Ohio normally). Should I keep trying to encourage roleplaying, or just abandon this group to the winds and try to find some other crew to run with?

Thanks in advance for any advice... god knows I need some. :smallmad:

-argus

[JMobius]

I can sympathize. My current group has an odd schism in that we have two players who are really mostly interested in combat, two who mostly interested in roleplaying, and two who are fairly neutral. When one of the extreme parties GMs, it tends to lead to some distress.

I wouldn't abandon the group outright, particularly until you have other options for your hobby, unless you're really not having fun.

You need new players. See what you can do to find some. At the very least, if you know no one else, try asking your current group if they know someone who might be interested. Bring them in for a trial play, see if their style is more appealing.

[arguskos]

See, that's the issue. I'm just not enjoying myself any. I mean, sure, a good dungeon crawl can be theraputic, and damned fun sometimes (who DOESN'T like random slaughter some days? Really?), but just.... not all the time! I can't stand the "typical" paradigm of "kill ****, take their stuff", cause that's A) not really realistic, B) not really that amusing after the second or third adventure like that, and C), doesn't have a purpose beyond wasting time. I guess I can try new blood though, maybe it'll help, who knows? :smallsmile:

On a related note, what ways are there to deal with seriously problem players? As in, I have a player in the group who is a DM as well, and he has a major issue with challenging my authority in game. I don't like to fight with him, but I'm also a fairly defensive person, and if someone tells me I'm wrong about something, I typically want to resolve it there and then, detracting from the game as a whole. I know it's partly my fault to begin with, but, when I ask him not to do that, and to bring me his concerns on breaks or out of session, he ignores me, and calls me out in group. He's a nice guy too, and I'd like to be his friend (he's even a good rp'er, one of the few I knew here), but this behavior is just... tough to deal with. >_<

-argus

[Chronicled]

New campaign setup:

Every player gets the feat Vow of Poverty for free--play up the bonuses to stats that it gives. If that's not enough, then they are on a diplomatic mission to [expound as needed]; or they all have the feat Vow of Nonviolence (also free), but the former method would probably work better.

Now that they can't get loot and/or can't kill anything without massive mechanical penalties, amaze them with good DMing and plenty of RP opportunities.

[arguskos]

Wow... that's.... damned devious, Chronicled. That one is going into my book of stuff-to-use-someday.

-argus

[JMobius]

I can't stand the "typical" paradigm of "kill ****, take their stuff", cause that's A) not really realistic, B) not really that amusing after the second or third adventure like that, and C), doesn't have a purpose beyond wasting time. I guess I can try new blood though, maybe it'll help, who knows? :smallsmile:

I loathe the 'kill it and take its stuff' mechanic for most of the reasons stated. I'm one of the roleplaying extremists mentioned earlier, though. ;)

Another suggestion I might have, that's worked well for me: Consider a change of system. Like it or not, D&D RAW is quite biased toward the loot and kill gameplay mechanic. If you find it surreal and frustrating, try a system which does not offer so many rewards for killing, or even outright discourages it. Attempts to do so by GM fiat, such as forcing VoNV on the players, seems a bandaid that's just likely to frustrate players.

Another alternative is simply to start enforcing realistic consequences for surreal behavior. If the players act like thuggish murderers and plunderers, have people and creatures treat them that way. That +1 sword you took could be a family heirloom...

[Chronicled]

Wow... that's.... damned devious, Chronicled. That one is going into my book of stuff-to-use-someday.

-argus

Ideally, your players won't check online and find out that Vow of Poverty's bonuses aren't as good for minmaxing as what you'd get from Wealth by Level (and won't complain). I'm just happy to find something useful from the Book of Exalted Deeds.

If they agree to having their characters poor and somewhat peaceful, and still can't get out of the hackslash mindset, toss in some in-character reasons to behave. For example, some goddess pops down and mentions "Oh, so you're all really good people, I'm sure. But I'm looking for the holiest one around, to make them my champion. Send me a prayer if you spot that person." Also, make sure they know XP will be awarded for achieving goals and staying in character, not for killing anything (unless that's a goal).


Attempts to do so by GM fiat, such as forcing VoNV on the players, seems a bandaid that's just likely to frustrate players.

This is why you get the players to agree on it before the campaign starts. A good "sales-pitch" would help.

I agree with your suggestion of a system switch.

[arguskos]

I loathe the 'kill it and take its stuff' mechanic for most of the reasons stated. I'm one of the roleplaying extremists mentioned earlier, though. ;)

Another suggestion I might have, that's worked well for me: Consider a change of system. Like it or not, D&D RAW is quite biased toward the loot and kill gameplay mechanic. If you find it surreal and frustrating, try a system which does not offer so many rewards for killing, or even outright discourages it. Attempts to do so by GM fiat, such as forcing VoNV on the players, seems a bandaid that's just likely to frustrate players.

Another alternative is simply to start enforcing realistic consequences for surreal behavior. If the players act like thuggish murderers and plunderers, have people and creatures treat them that way. That +1 sword you took could be a family heirloom...

Interestingly, I've tried a bevy of other systems (Mage: The Awakening and it's friends in World of Darkness, GURPS, Exalted, Scion, and one other I can't recall atm), and found them all... well, lacking. Not sure why, but I just had troubles getting into the spirit of the games. They didn't sit well with me I guess. *shrug* It's a good point though, and I'll keep looking for alternative systems to try out.

I know that D&D RAW is focused on killing stuff and taking their loot, but one of the reasons I like D&D is the potential to NOT be that way, or at least, to be killing stuff for good reasons (like to prevent a war, save the princess, blahblahblah). I've also tried the "consequences" thing, and gotten bitched out of the room. Apparently, killing stuff randomly is ok, but when the world actually reacts to their actions, it's not ok. I am seriously confused as to why paladins showing up to avenge the temple to Elhonna the players sacked due to a mistaken insult is a bad thing, and why I shouldn't do that (also, pwning players with halfling paladins is really funny).

Though, I will try new systems. Maybe there's a better one out there.... (any hints on which ones work for you JMobius?)

-argus

[JMobius]

The current system that's managed to bridge the interest gap across all parties is Nobilis. It's got an amazing mythos which our roleplayers can do a lot with, but has the added appeal of being a 'god game' on a greater level than even Exalted, which appeals to anyone just looking to play an awesome and powerful character.

(I also never get tired of advocating for it. ;) )

[AKA_Bait]

On a related note, what ways are there to deal with seriously problem players? As in, I have a player in the group who is a DM as well, and he has a major issue with challenging my authority in game. I don't like to fight with him, but I'm also a fairly defensive person, and if someone tells me I'm wrong about something, I typically want to resolve it there and then, detracting from the game as a whole. I know it's partly my fault to begin with, but, when I ask him not to do that, and to bring me his concerns on breaks or out of session, he ignores me, and calls me out in group. He's a nice guy too, and I'd like to be his friend (he's even a good rp'er, one of the few I knew here), but this behavior is just... tough to deal with.

That can be a really tough problem to deal with, particularly if he doesn't listen when you ask him to take it up out of play. Oddly, this is one of the few situations where I would suggest being overtly (rather than underhandedly) draconian. You are the DM. If the player starts to argue give them about 30 seconds to make a case and then shut them down. If you are convinced, say so and go with their point. If not, say that the rule will be followed under your understanding of the rules for the rest of the session and any more discussion will be tabled until afterwards. Period. If they want to argue that point, remind them that keeping the game moving is more important than having all the rules exactly right and, as DM, you can alter the rules to suit the needs of the moment.


Another alternative is simply to start enforcing realistic consequences for surreal behavior. If the players act like thuggish murderers and plunderers, have people and creatures treat them that way. That +1 sword you took could be a family heirloom...

This would be my first suggestion also. Simply only give them options of adventures that make the "Fireball first, ask questions later" style of play a really, really, really bad idea in character.


I've also tried the "consequences" thing, and gotten bitched out of the room. Apparently, killing stuff randomly is ok, but when the world actually reacts to their actions, it's not ok. I am seriously confused as to why paladins showing up to avenge the temple to Elhonna the players sacked due to a mistaken insult is a bad thing, and why I shouldn't do that (also, pwning players with halfling paladins is really funny).


:smallconfused: Honestly, I'd tell my players to deal with it and they can moan all they like. Within the game world the other NPC's are just as 'real' as their characters. They have lives, goals, motivations and social ties. If the PC's go around killing people then heroes are going to come after them.

There are also other ways to deter players rather than after the fact retribution and violent consequences. A few are:

1. Have them run into someone who seems weak, but isn't. (High level VoP character for example). When they try to randomly take someone out, he kicks their butts, takes their loot, donates it to charity, and Quests them.

2. Have them get a reputation:

PCs walk into the inn looking to find out some information.
NPC Ted: "Hey Bob... aren't those the guys who sacked the temple and forced themselves on the preistess?"
NPC Bob: "Holy frijoles! Lets get out of here."

PC: Barkeep, give me an ale.
Barkeep Jim: I'll serve you this one, but I'm going to have to ask you to leave.
PC: What? Why?
Barkeep Jim: Everyone knows what you people did. I'm losing business just talking to you.

Also, Gather Infomation, Diplomacy and Bluff checks get harder. Folks just don't want to be around them. Heck, even the ladies of the evening won't look twice at them, out of fear for their own lives.

--

One note though, be sure that the adventure set ups that you are giving them are not too restrictive or ones where violence is the best soloution most of the time. In the latter, it's obvious why they would be really violent. In the former case, being led by the nose can make many players frustrated. The result? "I burn down the inn"

There's also a link in my sig to the guide at top of the forum. It might also be some use.

[valadil]

Dungeon crawling and roleplaying are two different games that share the name D&D. It seems that you're playing one game and your players are in another. I suggest getting new players. I'm not saying this because your players are wrong, but that you aren't a good match for each other. The game they want to play isn't the one you're offering and the game you want to host isn't what they're playing.

When I start a new game I make it clear that I'm not running another D&D game. I'm running an interactive storytelling group loosely based on D&D. I require backstories. Players who just want to test out their latest uber build don't take interest in this type of game.

If you're on a college campus there are plenty of other gamers around. You'll find some good ones. There's probably even a gaming club you can meet some gamers at. I've never had the need to do this, but I've always wanted to recruit players based on their characters. What I mean is, put an ad out that you're running a D&D game and that people should send you their character's back story. You'll then select a group of 4 or 5 characters whose back stories are mutually interesting and will fit well with your plot. Again, I've never attempted this and you may end up with some antisocial halfwit who just happened to write a good character.

[arguskos]

Stuff of win and excellence.
I've been reading that link, and finding it useful, though, honestly, hard to work out in the middle of a game.

Concerning telling the players to stuff it if they don't like that the world is actually realistic and there are consequences for being idiots, I don't like that, since it tends to create resentment, with cries of "DM Fiat! DM Fiat! You suck! You suck!" being rung from the hills and shouted in the streets (and no, I'm not joking, one of my players was so pissed about the paladin incident, he went out into the street, and shouted at the top of his lungs [at 3 AM] that I was a horrible DM and cruel to players). I have mentioned that they just can't get away with stuff like this, and that they'll have to deal with the consequences of random slaughter, but it doesn't make an impression.

However... I haven't tried the reputation thing, since they never seem to care a whole lot honestly. I will try it next chance I get, just to see if it helps, but I personally doubt it. Everything's worth a shot though, so I'll try it.


Dungeon crawling and roleplaying are two different games that share the name D&D. It seems that you're playing one game and your players are in another. I suggest getting new players. I'm not saying this because your players are wrong, but that you aren't a good match for each other. The game they want to play isn't the one you're offering and the game you want to host isn't what they're playing.

When I start a new game I make it clear that I'm not running another D&D game. I'm running an interactive storytelling group loosely based on D&D. I require backstories. Players who just want to test out their latest uber build don't take interest in this type of game.

If you're on a college campus there are plenty of other gamers around. You'll find some good ones. There's probably even a gaming club you can meet some gamers at. I've never had the need to do this, but I've always wanted to recruit players based on their characters. What I mean is, put an ad out that you're running a D&D game and that people should send you their character's back story. You'll then select a group of 4 or 5 characters whose back stories are mutually interesting and will fit well with your plot. Again, I've never attempted this and you may end up with some antisocial halfwit who just happened to write a good character.
I agree completely valadil. I have been coming around to the idea that I'm looking for more than just combat, and they aren't. I still like them though, and they have their moments, just... not many. :smallsigh:

I'll try the idea of just posting notices and asking for backgrounds first, character sheets second though. That's a good idea, and probably worth it. Thanks for the idea.

-argus

[valadil]

I'll try the idea of just posting notices and asking for backgrounds first, character sheets second though. That's a good idea, and probably worth it. Thanks for the idea.

-argus

Glad you like it. Would you mind letting me know how it works it? Choosing players based on their potential characters is an idea I've had kicking around in my head for a while but I haven't had the opportunity to try it yet.

[arguskos]

Whenever I get to it, I'll let you know. :) Also, if you happen to be in Dallas, Texas, and want to play a game, give me a PM. ;)

-argus

[AKA_Bait]

Concerning telling the players to stuff it if they don't like that the world is actually realistic and there are consequences for being idiots, I don't like that, since it tends to create resentment, with cries of "DM Fiat! DM Fiat! You suck! You suck!" being rung from the hills and shouted in the streets (and no, I'm not joking, one of my players was so pissed about the paladin incident, he went out into the street, and shouted at the top of his lungs [at 3 AM] that I was a horrible DM and cruel to players). I have mentioned that they just can't get away with stuff like this, and that they'll have to deal with the consequences of random slaughter, but it doesn't make an impression.

I didn't really want to say this, since a D&D group is a terrible thing to waste, but given that behaviour, Valadil's probably right that another group is in order. If you want to try to keep the group, or some of it around, then just go for what you want and screw the resentment. If they can't deal with it, they will quit the game. Be strong! Be firm! Punish them without breaking any of the rules. They can't claim DM fiat if everything you do is letter perfect. If they want to go scream in the streets... lock them out of the house and tell them they can come back when they are ready to play with adults. That's among the most immature reactions I have ever heard of (let alone seen) as a result of a D&D game. If they quit, it's not a huge loss. These are college students, they should know better by now.



However... I haven't tried the reputation thing, since they never seem to care a whole lot honestly. I will try it next chance I get, just to see if it helps, but I personally doubt it. Everything's worth a shot though, so I'll try it.

Just be sure they really feel it. Not just dirty looks on the street. Stores closing when they see the party coming. Parents pulling their children indoors. Members of the city watch following them around at a discreet distance.

Also, give them some plot hooks to 'redeem' themselves in the eyes of normal folks. Do some service for the mayor, or duke, or whoever that doesn't involve killing things and taking their stuff but instead ending a plague or some such.

[arguskos]

Concerning your suggestions about the reputation thing... ok, that I can dig. It makes sense too. The street thing was.... a bit extreme. I ended right then that day (in fact, that was our last session, two weeks ago).

I agree, a D&D group is a TERRIBLE thing to waste, but they're sorta forcing my hand here. I'd love to keep em around, but I'm not sure it's worth it. I'll try your suggestions (everyone's actually) next time we meet, but if they fall though, I'm trying valadil's suggestion of posting a notice about character backgrounds, etc.

Thanks again folks. :)

-argus

[Raum]

It's unpopular to say here but GMs have no more authority than the players are willing to cede. On the flip side, players should expect (even demand) to be playing in a living world - a world which changes based on their actions whether 'good' or 'evil'.

It sounds as if the group never discussed what type of game to play. Players appear to expect one thing while the GM is planning something else. Perhaps it's time to discuss it with them. If you can resolve play style differences you'll have far more fun. If you can't, end it while you're still friends.

[PnP Fan]

I haven't read the whole thread, so pardon me if someone else has suggested this:
1. stop DMing for them. Take a break, let one of them do it for awhile. that way you don't have to spend as much of your spare time prepping for the game. Then, when you play in the group, show them what you mean by RP. Force DM npcs to talk to you, have conversations, maybe even form relationships. It could be that they just don't know what you're talking about. This has the added bonus of giving you your time back so you can focus on a) school and b) finding a different group if your style just doesn't match their "beer and pretzels" viewpoint.

2. Give them an adventure that they can't fight their way through. Mystery stories are fantastic for this. You're pretty much stuck using divination, logic, and looking for information via RP in order to put the pieces of the puzzle together. In the process of questioning witnesses/friends of the victim, you can slip some intrigue from the larger setting in, plothooks for the next story. Then, give them a really tough fight, at least a level or two higher than a normal encounter. Make it as close a fight as you can. What you wind up giving them is a) positive reinforcement via success on the detective portion of the story, b) negative reinforcement on the fight by making it a really close fight (don't be afraid to take someone to negative hp). Finally, lie to them. Make it such that they are afraid to go into combat, because they never know exactly what it is they are going up against. Those Orcs aren't really Orcs, they're Doppleganger Assassins 2 levels higher than the PCs. And now their going to pay. Beware though, once they start worrying about the fights, you'll have another problem to deal with, Player Paranoia that grinds the story to a halt.

[Tormsskull]

arguskos, I'm guessing that you are a running a type A campaign, or what is the more traditional type of campaign. You put together a campaign world, designed a bunch of stuff, and then invited the players to play. As opposed to a type B campaign where everyone sits down at the table and designs the campaign together.

Assuming this is true (type A), did you mention to the players at game start that you wanted to have a significant level of roleplaying in the campaign? If so, then you just need to remind the players that they all knew going into the campaign that roleplaying was going to be involved. Once that's done, here are a few things you can do to help them along:


Talk with each of the players individually. Often times people are intimidated to roleplay by their own initiative. It feels foreign to them, and maybe they think they will look foolish in front of their friends. Talk to each player about their character, goals, motivations, etc.
If one of the players is more apt to roleplay than others, take that player aside and discuss your concerns about a lack of roleplay. Ask the player if he can help you to foster a better roleplaying environment. The player can help by setting a good example for the other players, engaging the other players in conversation, etc.
Introduce interesting NPCs & moral dilemmas. Make sure that the PC's actions have consequences. That will show the players that how they act in game has an actual effect.
Once you have instituted the other suggestions or the players start to open up more to roleplaying, ask all of the players to vote for the best roleplayer that session by writing it on a small piece of paper and then handing it to you. You get a vote as well. Tally the votes and then tell everyone the next session who won, and give them a small reward (perhaps bonus exp, but a small amount).
At the start of each session, ask one of the players to recap what had happened the previous session. They will probably forget some things which hopefully another player will jump in and help them out with. If the players totally miss an important detail, feel free to bring it up.


That's all I can think of for now. Good luck.

[valadil]

I know I've been advocating trying to find a group more suitable for the type of game you want to run. If you do want to stick with this group, because they're your friends and nobody wants to ditch their friends, here's something to try.

Use plot hooks that your players give you. I think your players don't get into it as much because they're just going along for the ride. They're all passengers watching the story unfold around them rather than shaping the story on their own.

The reason I require background stories from all my PCs isn't because I'm a jerk who gives his friends homework. It's because their backstories are full of plot hooks I can use later. I took on PC's nemesis from back home and he just happened to come back later and evolve into the BBEG. That player was sold on the rest of the campaign, even though I'd never seen him really get into roleplaying before.

Plot hooks don't only come from the character background though. Take anything weird or quirky that happens and just let it pick up momentum. And for the love of Pelor, make it personal. Maybe your plot is that they're trying to infiltrate and dismantle some thieves guild. But the subtlety of talking to the thieves is boring them. Have someone pick pocket the players. Or cheat them at cards. Or something. Just make it personal enough that they push that plot on their own.

[arguskos]

Cool... I leave for the night, and I get lots of new ideas. Thanks folks. :smallsmile:

It's unpopular to say here but GMs have no more authority than the players are willing to cede. On the flip side, players should expect (even demand) to be playing in a living world - a world which changes based on their actions whether 'good' or 'evil'.
Honestly, I agree with your sentiment here. I can see how I don't have any more authority then I'm given. However, they should know that the world is a living one, with time passing, and things going on. I like running games in Faerun, and like using Living Realms as a basis for what's going on outside the campaign arc, and they know that (at least, I've told them that. I guess that doesn't mean they KNOW it. >_>).


It sounds as if the group never discussed what type of game to play. Players appear to expect one thing while the GM is planning something else. Perhaps it's time to discuss it with them. If you can resolve play style differences you'll have far more fun. If you can't, end it while you're still friends.


arguskos, I'm guessing that you are a running a type A campaign, or what is the more traditional type of campaign. You put together a campaign world, designed a bunch of stuff, and then invited the players to play. As opposed to a type B campaign where everyone sits down at the table and designs the campaign together.

Assuming this is true (type A), did you mention to the players at game start that you wanted to have a significant level of roleplaying in the campaign? If so, then you just need to remind the players that they all knew going into the campaign that roleplaying was going to be involved. Once that's done, here are a few things you can do to help them along:
To the first... yeah. That's my fault I think. We never really sat down and discussed what sorta game we wanted. I took some input when I announced I was running a game, but beyond their suggestions of general themes, the player's weren't too totally involved. My bad, and I guess this is a good learning experience. :smallredface:

However, that said, I DID mention that I wanted some roleplaying, and that RP'ing would lead to rewards being handed out (nothing major, just some extra XP here and there, similar stuff).


1. Talk with each of the players individually. Often times people are intimidated to roleplay by their own initiative. It feels foreign to them, and maybe they think they will look foolish in front of their friends. Talk to each player about their character, goals, motivations, etc.
2. If one of the players is more apt to roleplay than others, take that player aside and discuss your concerns about a lack of roleplay. Ask the player if he can help you to foster a better roleplaying environment. The player can help by setting a good example for the other players, engaging the other players in conversation, etc.
3. Introduce interesting NPCs & moral dilemmas. Make sure that the PC's actions have consequences. That will show the players that how they act in game has an actual effect.
4. Once you have instituted the other suggestions or the players start to open up more to roleplaying, ask all of the players to vote for the best roleplayer that session by writing it on a small piece of paper and then handing it to you. You get a vote as well. Tally the votes and then tell everyone the next session who won, and give them a small reward (perhaps bonus exp, but a small amount).
5. At the start of each session, ask one of the players to recap what had happened the previous session. They will probably forget some things which hopefully another player will jump in and help them out with. If the players totally miss an important detail, feel free to bring it up.
I actually tried some of these ideas, and got some really limited results. I think there's a disconnect at this point between what I want from the game, and what they want from the game. I don't have a session yet for a few weeks, so I can't test this out for a little while, but I'll try hunting down everyone and talking to them again, and getting a bit more RP flowing.



Use plot hooks that your players give you. I think your players don't get into it as much because they're just going along for the ride. They're all passengers watching the story unfold around them rather than shaping the story on their own.
I'll definitely try this. I do the latter (like the Thieves Guild example), but that typically ends with the players causing some sort of ruckus and destroying lots of stuff. Here, I'll show you what I mean:

Recently, the party saved a LG city from a demonic invasion, by literally fighting off the demon hordes long enough to have one player charge the summoner, and force him to quit the field of battle so they could kill all the demons. Then they went off and did something else for a little while (story point), and returned to the city. When they came back, they were asked by the local paladins to come with them to the city jail, on accusation (and I specified, ACCUSATION) of treason and conspiring with demons to destroy the city. Now, rather than RP the encounter, like I wanted, the party decided to A) fight their way out of a LG city, when they aren't being threatened, just asked to come with the paladins, and when that failed, B) to use skill checks (Diplomacy and Bluff) to just get off the hook. What I wanted to happen was the following: they RP with the paladins, get more info as to what's going on, and since most of them are LAWFUL and/or GOOD, they should probably go along with it, since they know they're innocent, and in this LG society, this means they're off the hook rather quickly. I hadn't really planned the whole arrest scene, but it worked out nicely, since the BBEG was an enchanter trying to frame the PC's for stuff, and this played out nicely. I thought it was an interesting plot hook, it was fairly personal (they saved the city, and get arrested for it? That's pretty personal), and a good chance for the party paladin to sorta take charge and stuff (something he had complained to me about earlier, that I never really gave him a chance to shine). Did I just work this poorly, or was I unreasonable, or what? I think I did everything alright, but obviously, they didn't agree. :smallannoyed:

On a final note, I can see now that perhaps I haven't been handling this situation as best I could, and maybe much of this is on my shoulders. Thanks for helping me to see that I could/should be handling this better. :smallwink:

-argus

[valadil]

From what you've said about your players, I'm not surprised they wanted to fight their way out of being detained by paladins. And I'm not sure you could have set it up any differently so that they wouldn't have tried violence. But I think there's some room for improvement on the diplomacy checks.

Don't just roll dice for diplomacy. That goes for bluff and gather information too. Have the players talk first and give them a bonus depending on how well they talked. I usually give +2 or +4 for a good argument/lie/question and +2 or +4 if it's played out well. A potential +8 to the skill check is pretty substantial. I never penalize their check - instead if the character digs himself into a hole I'll keep up the conversation while he recovers and then do the roll once he can get a bonus. The last thing you want to do is convince a socially awkward roleplayer that all his characters should keep quiet so that his out of game deficiencies don't penalize him in game.

Since your players seem reluctant to RP, I'd start using these bonuses. I'd also tell the players what their odds are of beating certain diplomacy checks. For instance, a paladin who tried to question them, but then had to subdue the PCs when they resisted arrest would get a hefty bonus against diplomacy. Tell them that they pretty much have to roll a 20 if they're going to beat the paladin and then offer that they can RP the argument to get a bonus to the check.

These bonuses are a nice way to get mechanics focused players to converse with NPCs. Eventually you can require that they act out an argument before they can even make the diplomacy roll. If they get used to that you can even throw out the dice all together and just have a conversation that resolves itself.

[arguskos]

Hmm. So, if I understand correctly, the idea is to give bonuses for convincing RP diplomacy on the check of the same name? If so, then what happens when they really, REALLY blow the RPing? Does the other guy just get bonuses to his Sense Motive check, rather than them getting penalties to the Diplomacy?

For example (yet another real-life session that just went totally south), the party met the BBEG's second-in-command later. However, one of the more impulsive party members charged at him, and promptly got smacked down by his two Entropic Reaper bodyguards (they were in plain sight too, and the party had already fought one). The Reapers crit, bringing the unlucky player to 4 life (seriously, it was a brutal crit, and I felt bad about it). Now, the bad guy has a hostage, and the players are at a disadvantage. They try talking first, since fighting didn't work, and end up threatening the bad guy with death and torture (good-aligned? really?) if he doesn't let their friend go. I played this out as long as I could, but it just didn't work, and they just took the usual tack of "play friendly, then whack stuff", which led the the villain getting really pissed off (you know, like you would too, if you offered to deal reasonably with people, and instead they wanted to capture, torture, and kill you) and combat starting when another player finally attacked a Reaper.

In the given situation, using your method, how would you adjudicate this? I'd say that the bad guy gets bonuses to his Diplomacy, and they don't get jack, or even get penalties (they undermined any potential argument they could make when they threatened the one in the position to deal).

-argus

[valadil]

Well there's always the common sense check. DC 5 wisdom check that lets you tell your players when they're being dumb. Stuff like "good aligned characters don't torture." This sort of thing can keep prevent your PCs from digging themselves into a hole.

Like I said before, I try to delay the diplomacy roll until the player has come out positive. In the situation you described I'd have the BBEG taunt them. "Oh so the heroic knights of whatevertherename is are torturers now? Well if they'd stoop to torture I wonder what lows someone like myself would reach?" And then pat the captured PC on the back. If the players start making threats he can have one of his minions take notes and indicate that the captured PC will receive whatever threats they make rather than a nice clean death. The PCs need to realize that threats won't help anything. Then the BBEG can go back and try to bring up negotiations again.

Another option still is to give them ideas for what they can talk about. I wouldn't just straight up tell them, but hide it in a skill check. Like, make them roll sense motive during their negotiations and say "he thinks the threats of torture are a joke, but he's been staring at Butor's greataxe - maybe you could offer a trade?" You wouldn't give them the bonus for coming up with a convincing argument, but you could give them a bonus for roleplaying the argument well.

[OverWilliam]

I would say the simplest solution is the best. The 'kill it and take its loot' archetype relies on being able to kill it in the first place.

"Ok, guys, we're going to play a new game: it's called Tread Lightly. I'm going to tell you right up front, no catches and no hooks, no tricks and no lies, everything in this world is a lot more powerful than you are. That means... Everything. Everything else that normally has class levels in this game is Gestalt, and everything that doesn't normally have class levels does. Tick them off, and you will suffer immense pain. Maybe you'll manage to kill them, but either way you WILL suffer immense pain.

Now that we've got that settled, I've got a man who'd like to talk to you about a princess..."

[arguskos]

OverWilliam, you'd think that. Seriously. I already play a fairly powerful game of D&D, where I don't pull punches as the DM (esp. not when they deserve it), though I'm not brutal or overly cruel (no CR 13's at level 3 for example). However, these guys STILL try to kill it and take it's stuff, and when it kills them back, they bitch. :smallmad: Cause it's ok when they do it, but not when I do it. :smallfurious:

To valadil, I like the DC 5 "Hurr idiocy hurr" check. I'll have to use that one... though I have players that will fail it, I'm sure (the barbarian with a Wisdom of 2 is a likely candidate). I'll certainly try it though, esp when they run into Kelvan again (if ever we play again).

-argus

[OverWilliam]

Don't beat me down, man, I'm trying to help you. :smallwink:

I think the key is to make the distinction, 'that was easy mode' and change the name of the game. Even if you do run a mean game now, they think that's normal. It's all about cranking it up on them and FORCING them to look at an alternative.

In fact, I just had an idea. Limited time basis, just for one game or so, give each of them three 'lives' just like in a videogame. I don't know about anyone else, but me running along, think 'oh, I can make that jump' and plummet to my death instead, it only ticks me off if I have to re-start the level because of something that looked jump-able that I just barely missed. If I have a life or two left, it's more along the lines of 'man, I wasted a life on THAT? I a'int doing that again...'

The problem with teaching by experience with DnD is that if you die, you're dead. Sure there are some workarounds, but it's hard to learn from your mistakes if anything that ends with you at -9 HP or higher is a 'win'. Making DEATH a little less of a 'DM wants us to not have fun' and more of a 'you suck, try it again' might help.

Example:
"You come across a merchant caravan."

"LET'S KILL IT AND TAKE ITS STUFF!!!11!!one!!"

They die.

Normally it's "No fair, DM sets up a fight and then kills us for attacking, bad DM, bad DM". This way, it's "That sucked! Why'd you kill us?"

"What, you didn't think a merchant caravan wouldn't be protected against bandits? Idiots, you deserved it. Each of you only have one life left, let's try that again."

It may not work as well as I think it might, but it's a shot anyway.

[arguskos]

Not beating ya down man (there'd be more shillelaghs involved in that :smallwink:), I'm just damned frustrated with my party.

As a note, I've done a similar thing before. Rather than giving them a "lives" system, I did a "saves/reloads" system a few times. Basically, they each got 2 "reload" points each campaign (they had to be really frugal with them). Cashing in one gave them a reload point, so if they went off and got TPK'd by the end of that session/combat, they could just reload from the save point, and try it again. It made them a touch too reliant on reloads, though, it was an immensely amusing and fun mechanic (once, a player used a save point right before beginning a single-handed assault on a heavily defended city [Waterdeep, if you play in the Realms ever]. He got pretty far, before the archmages that live there noticed and blew him away. When I asked why he did it, he said he always wanted to siege a city). Who knows, maybe the three lives mechanic would work better than the save point one?

-argus

[OverWilliam]

Well I'm thinking about exploiting it to use it too often... Haphasardly suiciding because of knowing you have saves to burn would only make it worse. Actually, that save/reload thing might work better, but ONLY in case of a TPK... I dunno.

Good luck to you either way. :smallwink:

[Chronicled]

You could always run a commoner/NPC class only campaign... those can actually be really fun. (See this link (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=763260) for proof.) When you're a level 1 commoner, you tend to get a bit more creative in overcoming challenges. (Admittedly, some people will decide to burn through characters--throw bodies at the problems--rather than being careful to keep theirs alive...)

[d12]

"Ok, guys, we're going to play a new game: it's called Tread Lightly. I'm going to tell you right up front, no catches and no hooks, no tricks and no lies, everything in this world is a lot more powerful than you are. That means... Everything. Everything else that normally has class levels in this game is Gestalt, and everything that doesn't normally have class levels does. Tick them off, and you will suffer immense pain. Maybe you'll manage to kill them, but either way you WILL suffer immense pain.

Now that we've got that settled, I've got a man who'd like to talk to you about a princess..."

So, if the party is substantially weaker than absolutely everything else in existence, why is this guy approaching them, of all people, about this princess? Surely there's a Big Damn Heroes brigade or two floating around, and if there isn't, one shouldn't be hard to whip up. After all, all they need to do is randomly pick 4-6 people who are not the PCs. The proper course of action, if presented with such a situation, is for the players to say, "Our guys do what they can to eek out a subsistence living until they die of whatever causes may come to consume them. Next game." After that, it can become an endurance match to see who is the first to throw up their hands and say "ok, this game sucks" and find something better to do than ride the Reroll Ferris Wheel. It may be possible for the players to grudgingly accept being the weakest bunch of saps in the universe, and yet constantly called upon to do tasks better suited to just about anybody else, or the DM to deign to allow the players parity with everything else in existence. It all depends on how dedicated/stubborn everybody is feeling. A whole lot of wasted time can be spared by just sitting down and figuring out just exactly what everybody wants and trying to come to some quasi-happy medium. Such a scenario as described above strikes me as Global Thermonuclear Warfare--the only victory condition is not playing.

Honestly though, some people just really do not want anything to do with any degree of roleplaying in the least (God knows I'm one of them). Various people may have various reasons, but for me, I just don't get anything out of it, and really don't appreciate being told how I'm having badwrongfun if I get more enjoyment out of bisecting imaginary opponents than crying about problems I don't actually have. If the players are half as committed to being hack n slash gamers as I am, there is just no way it's going to happen to any degree for any significant span of time. Bringing in other players who are more RP-inclined may by the only course of action for sparing your own sanity, but then of course you've got to start watching out for time monopolization by one faction or another. If after protracted discussions they are so unwavering, there probably isn't much to be done but dissolve the game and try to find a different group if it really is so intensely unenjoyable. I really don't see why so many people seem to be willing put themselves through so much stress and drama over something so inconsequential.

[Viruzzo]

Bringing in other players who are more RP-inclined may by the only course of action for sparing your own sanity, but then of course you've got to start watching out for time monopolization by one faction or another.
And that's almost certainly like to happen, so don't bother. An unhappy group is still better than two unhappy sub-groups.
My two completely different solutions are:
1) just sit back and let someone else DM, and try to get in that slashy mood with them
2) proceed with a "no 4th wall" approach: try to make them behave a little more like their PCs, while letting them reason and talk out of character; eventually you may even lead them to the path of nerdcore roleplaying ("I will talk in elven since my ranger wasn't taught common")! Well, not really. Maybe it's for the better.

And one last thing: if they players are having fun and like you being their DM, maybe you should just relax and see the good points in their playstyle (every one has some), keeping in mind that the point of it all is having fun. If you really cannot, see the above solutions, but heed that for everything to settle you need to be less RPish with them anyway, as a DM or not. As d12 said, non-RPers are hardly converted.

[arguskos]

You could always run a commoner/NPC class only campaign... those can actually be really fun.
I'd love to play this, and have suggested it to my players a few times, but they weren't terribly interested. Which is a shame, since I'd LOVE to play a game as an evil Adept, and become an Adept Lich. :smallwink:


lots of awesome stuff
I haven't yet had a chance to sit everyone down and talk to them as a group about my concerns, esp. since most people had to go home for the summer and can't be reached for love or money atm. I last saw them around 2-3 weeks ago, so I haven't used some of the solutions espoused here yet that I hadn't already figured out. However, if they don't fly, then yeah, to save my sanity, I'm cutting fence and getting a different group.

As to why I (and others) go so far to bring some folks around, in my case it's because these people are my friends, and I'm not having fun. They might be, but damnit, the DM isn't the slave behind the screen. If he's not enjoying himself, there's a problem. Perhaps it's just that our styles (mine as DM, and theirs are PC's) are not compatible, and that's fine. That's why discussion exists. :smallwink:


1) just sit back and let someone else DM, and try to get in that slashy mood with them
2) proceed with a "no 4th wall" approach: try to make them behave a little more like their PCs, while letting them reason and talk out of character; eventually you may lead them to the path of nerdcore roleplaying ("I will talk in elven since my ranger wasn't taught common").
Can you please explain "slashy mood"? I'm not sure I quite get it.

#2 isn't likely to happen much, and frankly, I'm not sure how to do it. However, it (like everything) is totally worth a try. :smallsmile:


And one last thing: if they players are having fun and like you being their DM, maybe you should just relax and see the good points in their playstyle (every one has some), keeping in mind that the point of it all is having fun. If you really cannot, see the above solutions, but heed that for everything to settle you need to be less RPish with them anyway, as a DM or not. As d12 said, non-RPers are hardly converted.
To this, all I can say is, I've been trying. I really have, but I just have issues with them. I'm not having fun. Should I sacrifice so they can have fun at my expense? I'm pretty sure you'd agree the answer is no, so here I am, confused as to what to do. I don't mind compromising, and I see their good points, but I'm still just not enjoying being totally derailed every single session without fail, without reason even! I know the first rule of DMing is: if possible, players will always go off module/adventure. However, I'd like it if once, just once, they'd actually go off adventure thanks to RP reasons, rather than "nah, the loot isn't gonna be that great, let's go kill a dragon instead", which just bothers me.

Maybe I'm just incompatible (likely in fact). Who knows? I'll give these suggestions a try, and see what happens.

-argus

[Viruzzo]

Can you please explain "slashy mood"? I'm not sure I quite get it.
Playing the game "hack'n'slash" style, for the fun of killing stuff growingly bigger and nastier.


#2 isn't likely to happen much, and frankly, I'm not sure how to do it.
It's a tricky one, and it's feasability depends also on how much your players are good at socializing with each other (if they're friends since some time it's gonna be fine). The first step may be to introduce some humor in the game, as introducing NPCs that are either comical themselves or an easy target for player derision (nicknames are fundamental!). If you have a "jester" player that keeps the fun high, help him by giving him some good situations to make good jokes with (young damsels are always handy). Give the players some pathetic NPC they have to escort or cooperate with, and try to make them accustomed to it, then you can pull out some half-RP half-loot rescue quest.
When the players start to think a bit from the PC PoV even if they may still be not behaving as such, it means it's starting to work.


However, I'd like it if once, just once, they'd actually go off adventure thanks to RP reasons, rather than "nah, the loot isn't gonna be that great, let's go kill a dragon instead", which just bothers me.
Try to hide the loot value of an enemy from them. Let them see that sometimes a goblin may have some uber stuff hidden in its lair for some story reason, and that they would lose it if they do not follow the hints a little.

[OverWilliam]

If the players are half as committed to being hack n slash gamers as I am, there is just no way it's going to happen to any degree for any significant span of time.

So... that's your advice? Sucks to be you, DM, but your only course of action is to suck it up and continue to not have fun until these people deign to allow a compromise that might allow you to glean some enjoyment from something that you're doing all the work for in the first place? How is this any better than my, as you called it, 'Wargames' scenario?

[arguskos]

Playing the game "hack'n'slash" style, for the fun of killing stuff growingly bigger and nastier.
Ah, that's what I thought, but I wasn't sure.


It's a tricky one, and it's feasability depends also on how much your players are good at socializing with each other (if they're friends since some time it's gonna be fine). The first step may be to introduce some humor in the game, as introducing NPCs that are either comical themselves or an easy target for player derision (nicknames are fundamental!). If you have a "jester" player that keeps the fun high, help him by giving him some good situations to make good jokes with (young damsels are always handy). Give the players some pathetic NPC they have to escort or cooperate with, and try to make them accustomed to it, then you can pull out some half-RP half-loot rescue quest.
When the players start to think a bit from the PC PoV even if they may still be not behaving as such, it means it's starting to work.
Ok, I see what you're getting at, and frankly, I like it. A lot. It seems like it's likely to work pretty well, and I'm definitely going to give it a shot (I have no shortage of "silly" NPC's, and they like a good laugh, it's one of the best things about the group: laughter is never in short supply for too long).


Try to hide the loot value of an enemy from them. Let them see that sometimes a goblin may have some uber stuff hidden in its lair for some story reason, and that they would lose it if they do not follow the hints a little.
See, the thing is, I'm NOT telling them what the loot might be. Ok, example time: I presented them with a plot hook that lead to the Caverns of Tsojcanth adventure (I found a 3.5 update somewhere, and it looked awesome). They told me, "We're not going there, it's just some mountain, and probably has crappy treasure. Where's the nearest evil dragon the barkeep's heard of?" In case you don't know, the Caverns of Tsojcanth has THREE major artifacts in it, including the frikkin' Demonomicon. I hide loot values, but they're just crazy I think.

-argus

[Voshkod]

Play a game w/o loot. A modern spy campaign. Amber diceless. Get away from D&D.

[Covered In Bees]

Play a game w/o loot. A modern spy campaign. Amber diceless. Get away from D&D.

I'm chuckling at the idea of the typical D&D player being confronted with the Amber DRPG.

[Arganth]

Something I don't understand is how the paladin can still have all his powers after sacking the good-aligned temple.

[EndlessWrath]

Unfortunately... dungeons and dragons rewards players more for "Roll-playing" rather than Role-playing... this is evident in the larger focus in combat rather than other such abilities focused toward rp.

Here's a few things I've tried that might help:
1) for the player that is also a DM (didn't get a chance to read through all the comments so i dunno if you've resolved this yet BUT!). As a DM he should know its not the easiest thing rounding up players to your game. Nor is it easy to not be a player... DM is the toughest role in D&D which is why it gives you the perks of God. Talk to him and point out that your having trouble with his unnecessary criticism. It doesn't matter how he would do it... this is (dare I say it) Your World. not his. If he has a thing on General rule mechanic that you might not have known, he's welcome to help you out...but remind him... D&D Rule 0: the DM is always right. If he's not, he is now.

2) with the role-playing problems...

A)This is a problem that has come up in EVERY campaign ever. DMs love to make a world of interesting people where as Players want to win. Inspire your players to rp by giving rewards for Role-playing. As the level of role-play goes up, so does the requirements for the next reward. I'm not saying you should use this ALL the time...but bonus exp for a good role-player who's actually trying to roleplay not for a reward, should suffice. You're players will get the hint.
B) Remember this isn't your game. Sure your the DM, but its as much the players game as it is yours. Try to come to a balance between role-playing and "Roll-playing".
C) Base certain rewards on role-playing. Heres an example of what I mean. One of the games I'm in doesn't have a "start-out gold list". Rather... you start out with X gold. X is based on your background... now I'm sure this will ensue a bunch of Rich Nobles going on adventures... but you'd be surprised. I've chosen to be the town Drunk/barkeep...I've started with 35gp and a quarterstaff. To each his own eh?
D) Never force role-playing. Rather... find something that interests your players into role-playing. Perhaps instead of a woman flirting with a character, he'd prefer to be called a god of death. Perhaps instead of being ordered to go slay a dragon, he's ordered to utterly destroy it and bring its skull back so we can fasten it to his armor. You gotta find what sparks the players into this game besides dealing death and stealing loot. although those are powerful forces too.
E) Final solution: Role-play their Roll-play. Have them describe what happens. Have them role-play all the actions they take. If the barbarian kills an orc chieften...Ask him how it happened? maybe it'll sound like Garthog Drew his mighty Axe and in one fell swoop it split the evil orc in half.

or it could sound like this... I totally pwned dis n00b wit all my awesome 547000 dmg! He explodey!
Either way it gets him excited and spotlights him. Another way: Lets say he had to gather info... and the dc was 15 and he rolled a 14. maybe if they RP what they asked they might get a circumstance bonus of +1? these are all for consideration.

----
Basically... none of these options are right or wrong...these are just things I've used in the past. Good luck with that.

[Raum]

Unfortunately... dungeons and dragons rewards players more for "Roll-playing" rather than Role-playing... this is evident in the larger focus in combat rather than other such abilities focused toward rp.Actually I tend to prefer systems which concentrate mechanics on combat. It's when they add mechanics to replace narrative that it starts to interfere with role play. Mechanics must resolve conflicts and should (my opinion) enhance or initiate narrative.


...bonus exp for a good role-player who's actually trying to roleplay not for a reward, should suffice. You're players will get the hint.You may also consider role play rewards. Titles, fame, and accolades from peers often have more impact than XP or gold.


B) Remember this isn't your game. Sure your the DM, but its as much the players game as it is yours. Try to come to a balance between role-playing and "Roll-playing". Excellent advice! I'll add to it a bit...go talk to your players about where they want the balance to be. Don't just pick something unilaterally.

[Neon Knight]

They want loot? Make loot part of the roleplay.

Give em' a statue, like those Chinese Earthquake detectors. You know, the one with the big central pot with dragon's mouths that hold metal spheres (either precious metals or gems in this case) above small statues of frogs. This statue is enchanted. It can't be harmed, altered, or destroyed by conventional means. The only way to get the gems out? Roleplay in some manner. Perhaps interact with an animated statue with control over the device and please it sufficiently to get a shiny reward.

Describe loot in the same detail you would people and places. Give them exotic and interesting pieces of plunder with vivid stories behind them, tales of passion and intrigue imbuing their creation with sadness and wonder. And make these histories part of the process of acquiring, utilizing, and benefiting from their loot.

They want fortune? Then use their desires against them. Intelligent and cursed items, magical armor that needs to be repaired by the ghost of the dwarf who forged it...

Just imagine the possibilities. Any valuable item you can think of can be twisted to cause or require interaction.

[EndlessWrath]

Actually I tend to prefer systems which concentrate mechanics on combat. It's when they add mechanics to replace narrative that it starts to interfere with role play. Mechanics must resolve conflicts and should (my opinion) enhance or initiate narrative.

I agree with you...however i don't think my point was well brought across...thats my b. What i meant was, Dungeons and Dragons gives players reason to focus more on combat and such rather than role-playing. A large majority of players choose a class and think how deadly the character can be BEFORE actually making the person. Another sad example is that Combat can take hours...while roleplaying may last a few minutes at best (I'm talking 1 battle vs 1 role-play encounter, not role-playing in general).

You're not wrong, Mechanics must be there so the fighting part can be absolved, but the focus on the mechanics have caused players to look more toward a way to win battles rather than the story/role-play. I'm not saying putting mechanics on Role-playing NOR am I saying that mechanics for battles must be removed... I'm merely explaining a fact.

[Neon Knight]

I'm not saying putting mechanics on Role-playing NOR am I saying that mechanics for battles must be removed... I'm merely explaining a fact.

If it's a fact, you can prove it.

Prove it.

[EndlessWrath]

If it's a fact, you can prove it.

Prove it.

I already did....*Points upward* Read earlier posts.. no don't glance at them.... read them

[Neon Knight]

That's not proof. That's you typing sentences. I want sources. Clinical studies. Scientific investigation. Peer reviewed scholarly investigations that prove beyond a doubt that 100% of people find that Dungeons and Dragons "gives players reason to focus more on combat and such rather than role-playing." That "A large majority of players choose a class and think how deadly the character can be BEFORE actually making the person."

I want you to give me evidence of this beyond your assurances that it is true.

[Raum]

I agree with you...however i don't think my point was well brought across...thats my b. What i meant was, Dungeons and Dragons gives players reason to focus more on combat and such rather than role-playing. A large majority of players choose a class and think how deadly the character can be BEFORE actually making the person. Please cite sources.


Another sad example is that Combat can take hours...while roleplaying may last a few minutes at best (I'm talking 1 battle vs 1 role-play encounter, not role-playing in general).It's all relative. If you spend 3 hours in combat and 5 in role play the long combat doesn't seem like much. That said, combat in D&D does take too long for me these days, but that's because I don't have the same amount of time I used to devote to gaming. When I gamed all day (and much of the night) on Saturdays several hours of combat left plenty of time for role play. Point is, it's the same game. My availability has changed not the game's support for role play.


You're not wrong, Mechanics must be there so the fighting part can be absolved, but the focus on the mechanics have caused players to look more toward a way to win battles rather than the story/role-play. Where are you getting this information? Let's assume for a minute that RPG systems with mechanics concentrating primarily on conflict resolution do orient players towards "winning battles rather than story/role-play." It's news to me...but making that assumption, every RPG I've played and most I've read has the same orientation. For that matter, what do you want an RPG to concentrate on? If it concentrates on social skill and social interaction it comes perilously close to replacing my role playing with system mechanics.


I'm not saying putting mechanics on Role-playing NOR am I saying that mechanics for battles must be removed... I'm merely explaining a fact.Fact? Perhaps...I don't see much evidence though, just unsupported statements. Mostly you're managing to confuse me though. :) If you're not saying remove combat mechanics and also not saying add mechanics to role playing, what are you saying? Go system-less?

I really didn't want to defend D&D. It certainly has issues I dislike. But when you make a generic statement of "a concentration on combat discourages role play" you're talking about 90% of the RPGs out there. I've seen no evidence supporting such a statement.

Getting back to the thread subject, I have a couple of questions for arguskos: You stated you like story, can you expand on that? I suspect most of your players would state the same preference if asked so details matter. Did you dislike the story unfolded in play because it went directions you didn't like? Or because the players didn't get involved in directing the story?

If it's the second you'll need to find a way to engage the players. The easiest method is probably pissing off the PCs. Since you want story and not combat, avoid using tropes like theft or assassination. Those will likely piss them off but they engender combat not role play. Use defenseless NPCs who have some reason to dislike them. A minstrel (not a Bard) singing humorous songs. A gang of children throwing mud at interlopers who trampled their play area on the way in to town. A farmer's wife accusing them of killing her chickens. Etc.

Don't overdo it though, no one wants to play 'pissed' all the time. Once you have them engaged you'll need to find other ways to keep them engaged. Look at their character sheets for areas to concentrate on. Backgrounds help but don't ignore skills either. Find reasons for them to need non-combat skills.