My Players Don't Think.

[Atanuero]

I'm basically having to dumb down some of the scenarios in my campaign because my players won't put in the strategic thought to come up with an answer. Other times, it seems like they're waiting to be railroaded. For example, when they arrive at a new town, if I don't tell them specifically where they need to go in the form of an NPC acting as little more than a signpost, they'll stand around and literally do nothing.

Another time, a failed infiltration attempt into a lizardfolk temple city caused the lizardfolk to speed up their invasion plans and basically have their army go marching a few weeks ahead of time. The problem with this is, the human army, with the PCs in it (the PCs were the ones who failed the infiltration) had just fought a battle and had large amounts of dead and wounded and was in no position to fight off a huge enemy in its own habitat (the humans were invading lizardfolk territory). Due to a lack of necessary precautions, the PCs realized they were followed (by an army of hundreds, no less) when the army was only about an hour away from the human camp.

The humans are comprised of phalanx troops, low-level wizards and healers, and low-level Knights and Paladins in heavy armor and with mounts, which are more powerful than any elite the lizardmen have. They also have some archers and skirmishers. They are outnumbered around 2-1, but they have a defensive position if they deploy correctly. I have literally given them everything they need to win this battle, they simply need to suggest the correct formation to the general in their war council.

They can't. It simply doesn't work-a circle of spears simply doesn't occur to them. Over the next hour they put forth dozens of suggestions, each more infeasible than the last because of time constraints or simple inability to do this. One person even suggests building a castle. In an hour!

And these kinds of things happen all the time. I have no idea what to do. I have all sorts of ideas that can be made into difficult choices or encounters, but I'm not sure my party can handle it. Anyone have any suggestions?

[Lappy9000]

I'm basically having to dumb down some of the scenarios in my campaign because my players won't put in the strategic thought to come up with an answer. Other times, it seems like they're waiting to be railroaded. For example, when they arrive at a new town, if I don't tell them specifically where they need to go in the form of an NPC acting as little more than a signpost, they'll stand around and literally do nothing.

Another time, a failed infiltration attempt into a lizardfolk temple city caused the lizardfolk to speed up their invasion plans and basically have their army go marching a few weeks ahead of time. The problem with this is, the human army, with the PCs in it (the PCs were the ones who failed the infiltration) had just fought a battle and had large amounts of dead and wounded and was in no position to fight off a huge enemy in its own habitat (the humans were invading lizardfolk territory). Due to a lack of necessary precautions, the PCs realized they were followed (by an army of hundreds, no less) when the army was only about an hour away from the human camp.

The humans are comprised of phalanx troops, low-level wizards and healers, and low-level Knights and Paladins in heavy armor and with mounts, which are more powerful than any elite the lizardmen have. They also have some archers and skirmishers. They are outnumbered around 2-1, but they have a defensive position if they deploy correctly. I have literally given them everything they need to win this battle, they simply need to suggest the correct formation to the general in their war council.

They can't. It simply doesn't work-a circle of spears simply doesn't occur to them. Over the next hour they put forth dozens of suggestions, each more infeasible than the last because of time constraints or simple inability to do this. One person even suggests building a castle. In an hour!

And these kinds of things happen all the time. I have no idea what to do. I have all sorts of ideas that can be made into difficult choices or encounters, but I'm not sure my party can handle it. Anyone have any suggestions?

Then let them lose the battle.

You provide the challenge. It's okay to fudge things in the player's favor occasionally, but you don't need to hold their hands. Getting creamed reminds everyone that they need to think prior to encounters, however, don't make it so difficult that it isn't fun. Just respond to their playing style.

[Knaight]

Go get a massive whiteboard, and doodle useful things on it when they are planning, making it look accidental. If your players point it out mumble something about enemy tactics. Or just let them get their butts handed to them on a stick.

[streakster]

Ahem. Tucker's Kobolds.


If that doesn't teach them the value of strategy, nothing will.

[Ricky S]

Hi,

Well your players do seem to be in a bit of a state... are they looking for tactical gaming or do they just want hack and slash? Also are they serious about dnd or do they waste a lot of time? My group only gets through about one encouter and some RP even in 4hours of gaming. Just tell them to think it through and try and get them to think laterally. You can also have the lizards decimate the army which would teach them a lesson or two. Although that may change the general layout of your campaign.

If I were you I would just go through with the plan and see what happens. As a DM you can just kill people sometimes. Especially if a player is being ridiculously stupid. Just let them roll up a new character until they get revived, or they can just use that one.

What level are you PC"s?

[Jalor]

Ahem. Tucker's Kobolds.


If that doesn't teach them the value of strategy, nothing will.

I second that. Repeatedly TPK them with kobolds or somesuch until they catch on.

[erikun]

It sounds like your player are either:
1.) expecting to just bust in heads, which isn't what you're trying to play, or
2.) bored with the campaign, and just want to finish things.

Talk with your players, and find out which one it is. If it is the first, then you might want to change the "thinking" in the campaign. Rather than setup a complex trap for them to decipher and disarm, have them get into a fight while one of the opponents opens the floodgates; the party needs to move to one of the sides of the room (and quickly!) before getting swept away.

If it is the second, find out what is boring them. Perhaps they're tired of running through complex plans, and just want to kill stuff. Perhaps they think all day, and want some time off. Perhaps they like the game, and they're just sick of 3.5e mechanics getting in the way. Either way, you can't "fix" the problem until you know what it actually is.

[TempusCCK]

A helpful NPC who might be a better tactician could be a way to help them.

Let them roll intelligence checks to "come up with ideas"?

[Oracle_Hunter]

My first response when my PCs aren't acting like I think they should: find out why that's the case.

If they're just standing around and doing nothing, it's because they don't have a clue what the plot is about. No harm in sending a crier to the town square to sing out about a new quest, or even just suggest, as a DM, that they might want to find an inn. Sometimes players just get brainlocked.

If they're failing to plan military tactics like you'd want them too, it may be because they're not military history buffs. They might not have any concept of military strategy (it's not interesting to them) or they might not have realized they were supposed to be micromanaging the army. Here, it's best to cut the players some slack - this may just not be their bag. It's the same reason I don't use riddles or math puzzles in my games; if the players aren't big on them, then I'm just wasting everyone's time while they stare blankly at me and ask if they can roll Insight checks.

In your particular situation, it'd be best to get one of the Paladins or Knights to act like a Sergeant Rock figure to settle down the PCs and make some basic suggestions for the deployment of the army. This still leaves the PCs with plenty of choices as to their personal deployment - which is probably what they're best at.

In short: never blame your players for failing to follow your train of thought. D&D is a cooperative activity, and if your players don't get what's going on, they're probably not having fun, and it's your job to fix that.

[Hal]

I might add, sometimes an "obvious" solution to the DM might not be so obvious to the players. They may not know their options, or perhaps they think they've been put in a "Kobayashi Maru" style scenario.

[Lord Tataraus]

I know exactly what you mean, my group at home is very much the same. The problem you have is that you're playing a different game than they are. You want a complex tactical war game while your players want a hack 'n' slash dungeon crawl. You need to shift gears and do what they want to do or switch groups. For me, I went off to college and the group I have here is a thinking group and I have a lot more fun with them because we both want the same type of game.

[Porthos]

In short: never blame your players for failing to follow your train of thought. D&D is a cooperative activity, and if your players don't get what's going on, they're probably not having fun, and it's your job to fix that.

What he said.

Ask yourself this question: Are you trying to get players to play "your style" of gaming? If so: Why? Why beat yourself up and your players if they're just not interested in strategizing?

Sure you can keep beating them over the head in an attempt to get them to learn basic strategy, but I suspect they won't appreciate it.

[Jayabalard]

I'm basically having to dumb down some of the scenarios in my campaign because my players won't put in the strategic thought to come up with an answer.

And these kinds of things happen all the time. I have no idea what to do. I have all sorts of ideas that can be made into difficult choices or encounters, but I'm not sure my party can handle it. Anyone have any suggestions?

It sounds like you're just not a compatible DM for that group; you're not interested in the same type of game as they are. Either learn to like what they want or play, talk to them and see if they'd be willing to play your way,or agree to disagree and go your separate ways.

[Flickerdart]

I tried to run a sandbox open-ended campaign once, and my players just sat around and waited for things to happen instead of taking initiative. Then I killed one of them out of spite. Or, rather, put them in a situation where not doing anything meant you died, and he just stood there.

[Calinero]

I'd recommend talking to the players. Remind them that you need to treat the game realistically, and that sometimes planning is necessary. If possible, give them an example of how planning can save their butts from what would normally be a difficult encounter. A good demonstration of the value of strategy? Tucker's Kobolds.

[Oracle_Hunter]

I gotta say that Tucker's Kobolds would be terrible here.

You're supposed to use Tucker's Kobolds when your PCs don't bother with tactics and are overconfident. Here, it just sounds like the PCs aren't particularly interested in military strategy. If you throw Tucker's Kobolds at them, they'll just get annoyed (particularly if you decide to spank them in this current scenario) because not only do they not care about what's going on, but they're losing too.

[Calinero]

Well, show them a scenario with Tucker's Kobolds, but from the perspective of the kobolds. You're fighting against several opponents who outclass you ridiculously. In a fair fight, you'd be done for. But what's this? A bit of foresight, a few traps, and bam! They're running for their lives!

[erikun]

But what if that's not what the players are looking for?

To you, it may look like you're encouraging strong tactical planning from the PCs. From their side, though, it may look like you're just dropping a family of adult red dragons into their laps, and expecting them to kill them off against all odds.

Find out what your players want, then work on providing that... on your own terms, of course. Even if they just want hack-and-slash, you can still make things "interesting" for them...

[Jayabalard]

I gotta say that Tucker's Kobolds would be terrible here.

You're supposed to use Tucker's Kobolds when your PCs don't bother with tactics and are overconfident. Here, it just sounds like the PCs aren't particularly interested in military strategy. If you throw Tucker's Kobolds at them, they'll just get annoyed (particularly if you decide to spank them in this current scenario) because not only do they not care about what's going on, but they're losing too.

Agreed; just throwing in something like Tucker's Kobolds isn't going to help the situation one bit; all it's going to accomplish is to make sure that noone is having fun.

[JeminiZero]

Then let them lose the battle.

You provide the challenge. It's okay to fudge things in the player's favor occasionally, but you don't need to hold their hands. Getting creamed reminds everyone that they need to think prior to encounters, however, don't make it so difficult that it isn't fun. Just respond to their playing style.

Realistically however, there is still an experienced battle hardened general in charge of the army. If the suggestions he hears from the PCs are crap, he will most likely go facepalm, berate them for their stupidity, and then show them how it should be done.

If they're failing to plan military tactics like you'd want them too, it may be because they're not military history buffs. They might not have any concept of military strategy (it's not interesting to them) or they might not have realized they were supposed to be micromanaging the army. Here, it's best to cut the players some slack - this may just not be their bag. It's the same reason I don't use riddles or math puzzles in my games; if the players aren't big on them, then I'm just wasting everyone's time while they stare blankly at me and ask if they can roll Insight checks.

I agree with this assessment, not everyone is familiar with strategic medieval warfare beyond the basic "Archers charge in front, while spear-dudes cower in the back". Eh, or was it the other way round?

[Nerd-o-rama]

To paraphrase many of the arguments before and put it in IC terms, the players clearly belong on the frontlines rather than the war council strategy committee. Leave the thinking to the NPCs if the players are incompetent, and just have them go kill stuff.

Really, a strategy that obvious should occur to a professional commander regardless of whether someone wearing a magic PC hat is around to suggest it.


I go through this whole thread without someone saying that, and then get ninja'd on it right as I post.

[Yakk]

Back up a second.

So the players want plot leads. So... give it to them.

But instead of railroading, make it clear that there are two distinct options (an NPC could even say that there are two options), with consequences to each.

Once you have the players making decisions between two options, offer them 3.

Have some information provided "free" of charge (or at your prompting), and sometimes have information "just in case" the players show initiative.

When the players show initiative, reward them. If they come up with a bad plan that doesn't match yours? Is there any way you could make it work? If so, make it work (but be challenging).

Remember: when you produce a puzzle with a particular solution in mind, even if you don't tell the player what the solution is, it is railroading.

Possibly they have reached a point of learned helplessness -- they try a solution, it doesn't match what you think the solution is, and it fails horribly. If that is their experience, then why come up with solutions when (in their experience) the solutions fail horribly?

Let's look at the OP's post:

I'm basically having to dumb down some of the scenarios in my campaign because my players won't put in the strategic thought to come up with an answer. Other times, it seems like they're waiting to be railroaded. For example, when they arrive at a new town, if I don't tell them specifically where they need to go in the form of an NPC acting as little more than a signpost, they'll stand around and literally do nothing.

In your scenarios, was there a single good solution, or did you think up dozens? If the players think up a solution that you didn't plan, and you see flaws in, does it tend to result in a disaster for the players?

If so, you are training them not to come up with solutions. And then I'd expect them to sit around, waiting for your "the real solution bait" to show up, and then use the solution you already had in mind for the problem.

Another time, a failed infiltration attempt into a lizardfolk temple city caused the lizardfolk to speed up their invasion plans and basically have their army go marching a few weeks ahead of time.

So, their failed infiltration -- I presume they did something you consider tactically dumb, and the result was the failure of the infiltration and the resulting army moving earlier?

Did provoking the lizard army to attack earlier ever generate positive side effects? (after all, if it was the ideal time to march, they would have already marched -- so marching early due to being provoked should have weakend the action...)

The problem with this is, the human army, with the PCs in it (the PCs were the ones who failed the infiltration) had just fought a battle and had large amounts of dead and wounded and was in no position to fight off a huge enemy in its own habitat (the humans were invading lizardfolk territory). Due to a lack of necessary precautions, the PCs realized they were followed (by an army of hundreds, no less) when the army was only about an hour away from the human camp.

So, the PCs did something (failed to presume an army would follow them), and this resulted in you punishing them with an army on their ass.

Was there, by any chance, a Ranger with survival skill in the group? Or anyone who (in the RP sense) might be tactically experienced? Did you offer a skill roll to say "you might be followed"?

The humans are comprised of phalanx troops, low-level wizards and healers, and low-level Knights and Paladins in heavy armor and with mounts, which are more powerful than any elite the lizardmen have. They also have some archers and skirmishers. They are outnumbered around 2-1, but they have a defensive position if they deploy correctly. I have literally given them everything they need to win this battle, they simply need to suggest the correct formation to the general in their war council.

You used the singular -- 'the correct formation'. This implies that you had a single, solitary correct formation in mind when you set it up. And any other solution wouldn't solve the problem?

They can't. It simply doesn't work-a circle of spears simply doesn't occur to them.

Bingo.

Look, if you are going to railroad the players, let them know what the railroad is. Don't wait for them to make any mistake, and then screw them for the mistake. The bad guys should screw up as well.

I had a DM who did that kind of thing -- he's produce an adventure hook, we'd bite (and even come up with something sort of neat). He then found any flaws in our plan, had the NPCs attack those flaws directly, and punish the players for having a plan with any flaws. When asked afterwards, he stated "I figured the characters wouldn't take the adventure hook, given how impossible solving the problem was going to be if you did!"

Instead of making a "I build the world with problems that I know there exists at least 1 solution to", and punishing players who dare make decisions or miss choices that you decide are important, try working with the players in your metagame state. Produce a game that the players would enjoy, while slanting it in a non-putative way towards a style you enjoy.

Provide multiple, explicit choices. If the players miss something (covering their tracks), provide skill checks to say "maybe you are covering your tracks", or even make a skill check to see how well your Ranger covered their tracks (the character being a Ranger and all, fleeing from hostiles).

Default:
Players:: We run away.
You: (They didn't mention covering their tracks. The lizards can follow them easily...)
You arrive at the army. They say "what happened"?
Players: we explain that we where defeated and had t orun
You: The guards say "did you cover your tracks?"
Players: No, we where running
You: The guards look at you if you where idiots. "The army will be following you!"

Alternative prompting-based:
Players: We run away
You: If you move at full speed, your ranger is at a -10 to cover your tracks. How far do you go at full speed, and do you slow down to make your tracks harder to follow?

Branching:
Players: We run away
You: You can take a strait route, but that makes your tracks easy to follow (a -10 penalty). You can duck through a river, but that will slow you down a bit, and some scouts might catch up with you. You can run away in a different direction and then lose them, but that will take even longer.

---

Ie: in the prompting case, you prompt them with the possible consequences of their actions (the lizards will be able to track them) before it screws them. In the branching case, you provide them with various multiple options, and explain their possibly consequences.

[Hawriel]

Your using the word strategy wrong. All of you. Strategy is the ability to use a nations political, economic, phycological and military forces. Sence your players are not kings, nobles or military officers in command of field armies, your players have no hand in active strategic planning. It makes my head hurt when peaple do not understand the big difference between strategy and tactics. Gamers and football coaches are particularly guilty if using these words as if they are the same.


You are hoping that your players can make simple opperational plans and have a general tactical ability.

If your military delema. Make the appropriate NPCs in this army respond as a person of there station should or would. IF the characters are not nobles then NPCs have a free hand in apposing them or just kicking them out of the army. If this is not possable let them see the consiquences of their actions. The army will be defeated by their ineptitude. Any one who servives will most likely never trust the PCs again. They will have to live (if they do) with that stigma. Even if a NPC can over turn bone head player decisions there should be consiquence for promoting such idiocy. The COs and NCOs of this army would lose trust in the PCs if not down right hate them. It most likley would spread to the common soldiers. I say let them hang themselves.

[Dove]

Back up a second.

So the players want plot leads. So... give it to them.

But instead of railroading, make it clear that there are two distinct options (an NPC could even say that there are two options), with consequences to each.

Once you have the players making decisions between two options, offer them 3.

Have some information provided "free" of charge (or at your prompting), and sometimes have information "just in case" the players show initiative.

When the players show initiative, reward them. If they come up with a bad plan that doesn't match yours? Is there any way you could make it work? If so, make it work (but be challenging).

Remember: when you produce a puzzle with a particular solution in mind, even if you don't tell the player what the solution is, it is railroading.

I second this wholeheartedly. Always watch what you're rewarding and punishing. If you want the players to take initiative, you have to reward it when it happens, even in a flawed form. If you want the players to think tactically, you have to reward it when it happens, even if you think their plan should fail. Above all, if you punish them for not finding your solution to a problem, you're encouraging them to look for your solution. They'll just stare at you dumbly and wait for you to tell them what it is.

Players are remarkably trainable. Over time, you wind up with exactly the players you deserve.

To change things, I agree with Yakk: start easy. Start with just having the PCs make choices--clearly delineated choices were both options are right.

Make it clear they have to think, and--at least at the start--make failure safe. By that I mean, take the consequences of their actions seriously, but don't punish. Just let their actions define the direction the story goes. Once they catch on that they have real power over events, then you can start holding them accountable for how they wield it. But not until they routinely think that way.

Also, it sounds to me like you need more carrots and less sticks. Put situations out there where the default strategy works marginally, but a clever strategy works awesomely. Put 'bonus' encounters out there--monsters the PCs could chase if they wanted to, a giant stone dragon they could fleshify and fight . . . if they wanted to. PCs can get pretty darn creative when there's bonus lootz and XPs on the line.

Also, it can be hard for players to come up with things spur-of-the-moment. Strategies are born of detail, and of visible alternatives. If my party is about to be attacked by a swarm of orcs, and you ask me what I do, you're going to get a "Uhhhhh. . . I dunno" from me. I'll assume you have a solution and I don't have enough information to guess it yet. But if my party is on the top of a hill at midnight in the ruins of a fallen castle with a high tower, a muddy moat, and a series of working arcane traps, I'm going to have a lot more ideas. As DM, the world has a lot of detail in your head, and the players don't automatically know it. Draw the castle. Draw the moat. Describe the traps. Describe the NPCs. Describe the orcs. Heck, just keep talking until something sparks an idea.

Also, it's important to realize that D&D is fundamentally a game, and one of the important features of a game is that everyone is playing by the same rules. For example, D&D doesn't even have rules for massed combat that I know of, and certainly nothing on the effects of different formations. Were I facing the same situation as you described in the first post--injured and badly outnumbered, with an hour before a fight--I wouldn't be thinking about historical formations and precedents. I'd be thinking about where to put troops on a battle grid to take advantage of flanking and magical resources and PC actions, and what sort of terrain was around that we could get to in an hours' time, and any high level wizards we could get a Sending to for help. Because those are the rules of the game, as I understand it.

Which leads to a key part of the player-DM contract: play the same game. Always, always, always introduce a mechanic in a benign situation before you expect the players to use it. If bad guys can follow your tracks, you should be following a few of theirs before you have to think of covering yours. If formations matter in massed combat, you should be fighting a few bad guys with +2's to attacks and damage from their deployment before you have to think about doing the same. Some D&D games, going all vigilante on local criminals will get you run out of town; some games, the law is pretty blase about it. Don't make players guess--demonstrate which it is before they have to make a choice where it matters.

Don't make the machanics a riddle. If you have an encounter and plan for the PCs to use a certain mechanic, make sure it's been looked at recently. Goodness knows all sorts of games run on and on without players making full use of divinations and detect magic and discern lies and all the myriad clever tricks they have. You can't expect them to remember, at the drop of a hat, that anyone they let get captured will probably be charmed, mindraped, or used as a source of scrying implements. You have to demonstrate it first. Or, if worst comes to worst, just tell them. Yes, I'm serious. If they're missing something big, just tell them. "Now, you didn't think of it, but your character would have reason to know that . . . "

If that suggestion seems impossible--if telling your players outright, "Deploying in a phalanx would make you twice as strong as you are defensively"--would make the puzzle too easy, well, it's not a puzzle then. It's a guessing game. And that's bad game design right there. Your encounters need to be resilient enough to still be interesting after everyone understands all the rules in play.

I know, D&D is all about playing sadistic clever tricks on your players. But they have to be clever tricks. When they are revealed, the players should go, "Oh, of course, we should have seen that coming!" Playing the game by different rules than everyone else isn't clever. It's cheating.

[Ethdred]

Your using the word strategy wrong. All of you. Strategy is the ability to use a nations political, economic, phycological and military forces. Sence your players are not kings, nobles or military officers in command of field armies, your players have no hand in active strategic planning. It makes my head hurt when peaple do not understand the big difference between strategy and tactics. Gamers and football coaches are particularly guilty if using these words as if they are the same.

If you're going to criticise people's use of words, it really helps if a) you can spell your own words properly and b) you are right. Strategy is not limited to use of a nation's forces and resources. There are varying levels of strategy, which can go down to quite low levels. Admittedly the word is badly understood and frequently mis-used, especially when people are actually talking about tactics. But it is quite possible for a party to have a strategy before a battle. (What's our main aim? To destroy the enemy, or just delay them, or cover our retreat etc.) Similarly, they could have a strategy for entering a dungeon (it might be as simple as 'kill everything and take their stuff' or 'cause as little disturbance as possible in order to free the prisoners') though very few parties would actually explicitly state this before going in. Your tactics are how you then implement your strategy (roughly speaking).


As for the OP, I agree with the others who say it sounds like you are trying to play 'guess what I'm thinking'. It sounds like your players just aren't cut out for this sort of adventure. So either, as suggested, mentor them with an NPC army commander - who can give them strategic direction while they sort out the tactics they will use - or just ask them what sort of adventures they would fell more comfortable with. And don't be so harsh on their ideas - can we build a castle in an hour - no, but can we build some sort of defences, even a simple palisade or wall of carts - very possibly.

[only1doug]

I'm basically having to dumb down some of the scenarios in my campaign because my players won't put in the strategic thought to come up with an answer. Other times, it seems like they're waiting to be railroaded. For example, when they arrive at a new town, if I don't tell them specifically where they need to go in the form of an NPC acting as little more than a signpost, they'll stand around and literally do nothing.

<snip>

Its time to have a Teach PC's initiative 101:

You arrive in town, it's a large village, at the crossroads you can see a Tavern, an Inn, a Shrine to Ffallargn and what appears to be a general store.

(taverns are for drinking, Inns are lodging houses)

now wait for the Players to decide what to do, if they sit around looking at you waiting for you to speak (3mins of not discussing their options);

It's starting to get dark now, the sun is setting.

if they still don't choose what to do (again 3 mins of not talking about options);

It's been dark for awhile now and its starting to get cold; you are feeling hungry.

(still just standing there? tavern shuts, NPC's head to their huts, will give odd looks at adventurers standing in the middle of the road)

(still no movement? Inn shuts up for the night, if you feel kind have the innkeeper come and ask them if they want lodging, if they were nasty to NPC's leaving tavern then don't. either way its too late now for a warm meal, best they can get is bread and cheese).

(standing around in Inn? Innkeeper herds them to bed (he has to get up in morning))
(still standing in street? Fatigue rolls)


Morning (did they request a wakeup call?) at 11am the Innkeeper will rouse them or charge for another day.
(did they sleep in the street? town mayor (the blacksmith) requests they move on, vagrants aren't welcome)
(did they stand around all night? more fatigue tests, town mayor will speak to them (as above)


if they show no initative then they can remain in town forever, slowly starving to death (if they don't bother eating) or be run out of town by townsfolk who are nervous of people who stand in one place for 12 hours.

[WychWeird]

Strategy: the science or art of combining and employing the means of war in planning and directing large military movements and operations.
Tactic: a plan, procedure, or expedient for promoting a desired end or result.

As has been stated previously by others, it would seem as though you're expecting your players to plan strategies and employ specific tactics in order to produce a specific outcome. I know that I'm not the greatest strategist or tactician so I couldn't be expected to emulate and employ the concepts of Sun Tzu, so perhaps you're simple expecting too much from them to begin with.

Try with something simpler, as an example: the party rogue has listened at a door and has advised that there are a number of people in the room beyond - the party will now enter into a discussion (of tactics) on what to do next - you can spice things up by giving them a time limit (DM: Surprise! The door opens and an angry looking kobold stares at you and calls to his friends...) With your army example, why not have an NPC pass the party the secret plans uttering with his dying breath, "Get these to the general as quickly as you can, all our lives depend on it...." Let the PCs then devise ways of finding and getting the info to the general - the end result if they succeed is everyone survives with medals and crumpets for all! Huzzah! (And the PCs feel like they've successfully contributed.)

As a suggestion, see if you can get hold of the old D&D basic and expert modules The Keep on the Borderlands and The Isle of Dread - (update to suit your campaign) these are great modules for getting into (A)D&D - there's plenty of hooks to link into a larger campaign or even follow up with the AD&D Drow or Giant series (I think I'm showing my age...) - these are classic adventures which encourage some thinking as gung-ho parties seldom make it past the first couple of rooms...

But above all else, it should be enjoyable for PCs and DM alike

[Starbuck_II]

if they show no initative then they can remain in town forever, slowly starving to death (if they don't bother eating) or be run out of town by townsfolk who are nervous of people who stand in one place for 12 hours.

Hey, I'd be scared or impressed by a perrson who stood there for 12 hours as a commoner's viewpoint. Only a fool would run them out of town.

[Kiero]

And these kinds of things happen all the time. I have no idea what to do. I have all sorts of ideas that can be made into difficult choices or encounters, but I'm not sure my party can handle it. Anyone have any suggestions?

Talk to them. As in sit them down and say you're unhappy with the amount of strategic nous they're showing, and see why that is. Perhaps they don't know you're expecting it of them, or they're not actually interested in doing it. Some players like being led by the nose, after all. Or perhaps their experiences and your table, and others, have schooled them against that kind of pro-activity.

[chiasaur11]

Hey, I'd be scared or impressed by a perrson who stood there for 12 hours as a commoner's viewpoint. Only a fool would run them out of town.

Yeah.

A man stands in the middle of the road for twelve hours in heavy armor, I'd think he was waiting for something.

And I would think that something was in for a world of hurt.