| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| #1TiarnMar 24, 2015 23:49:58 | Due to things like moving, graduations, job changes, etc., my gaming group has been shaken up a bit. Some people left, new people joined, as can be expected when you're looking at a group over years of play. Unfortunately, with that comes, of course, styles of play that were not there before. Ordinarily, I'd see this as a wonderful opportunity to learn, grow, and all that. However, I'm having trouble with the actual practice of that, since I sometimes do not know what to do to cause fun for these players. And I'm not talking about "method actors" vs "power gamers" vs "strategist" vs "whatever we're calling them now". I've found it fairly easy to have a healthy mix of roleplaying, combat, and puzzles. Or at least healthy enough to keep people having fun. I've illustrated the problems I'm noticing below and would love any and all suggestions on how to help them have fun, too.
Please note: I'm not complaining about these issues, just noticing that they are a different style and asking for help in finding the "tools" to add to my "toolbox" as a DM to bring people with this style fun.
1) The biggest and most noticeable is what I've termed the "must succeed" trait. Almost without fail, if these players roll a low number, they get upset. (Though oddly, not if they roll high and still fail, it only seems to occur if they roll low.) It doesn't seem to be isolated to combat, but any time the dice is in the single digits, there is visible frustration. Sometimes they will even say simply "I failed," exasperatedly without even telling me the number, despite my encouragement that some things may have low DCs (or the fact that a 9 and their +6 is still 15, which can most certainly hit a lot of ACs). In addition, any and every damaging hit upon them, or negative status, or failure at a saving throw also upsets them. Now, I understand that getting knocked unconscous, or being paralyzed a lot, etc isn't fun for anyone. But this seems to be almost every time without fail. It appears as if they want no challenge whatsoever and to simply walk through every encounter, be that combat or scaling a wall. Honestly, I'm not sure there's really anything I can do about this one, other than shrug it off and go on, because it's literally the dice that cause the problem. (Except for the saves and damaging hits, I could control that, but it seems unfair to just fudge the dice so everything misses or the monsters don't target these particular players) But any advice on this one would be wonderful.
2) A second trait is one which I find extreme difficulty. And to be honest it has caused some disruption at the table. Whenever I run a plot that is going to take more work than "show up at a place and kill monsters" attention lags a bit. (NOTE: When I use the word "plot" I don't mean everything is prearranged ahead of time. I mean the "plan" of the villain or the situation occurring. I don't plot out my games, I plan situations the PCs (hopefully) will react to) Sometimes, if there is no immediate solution visible, there may be outbursts. These are generally polite, but still said with frustration.
An example: There was a bounty in a city to stop the undead problem in a rather large graveyard full of mausoleums. Knowing only that information, the PCs decided to go immediately there and check it out. A powerful "zombie" attacked them. When they killed it, I told those with proficiency in Religion and those not trained but who succeeded at a check (which wound up being nearly everyone in the end) that the "zombie" did not die like a normal undead. Instead, it fell over as if being puppetted by something and was merely a dead thing. The PCs pressed on. They were attacked by a second "zombie" which they quickly dispatched. At this point Player X went to the closest mausoleum and looked inside. He found it untended and empty (aside from the normal, mausoleum stuff). This caused him to become upset and he immediately said, "Maybe this is time that the DM should hand us another clue. What can I roll?" A different PC, however, responded to him, saying "I think this problem may be something else. I think we're dealing with possession, we should research hauntings and stuff in the area." This, of course diffused the situation, and the PCs went on to find more information about their situation.
But my point is that it seems there is frustration if the first plan/investigation they attempt is not immediately successful. I cannot cut out things like this completely, as that would greatly upset and bore my other players, who love to solve mysteries and research, etc. I would imagine a healthy mix would be the solution here, but it seems like these frustrations occur with every plot that is not solved in the first scene.
3) I'm going to call this trait the "Things should be black and white." At first I would think this issue comes from a lack of roleplaying experience. It seems a trend that most people, upon starting rpgs engage in a lot of "kill the goblins, loot the dungeon, stop the evil necromancer" play. Then, as they become more experienced move on to deeper immersion or more "grey areas" (Why are the goblins raiding? Oh, it's because they had a famine and have no food. Why is the necromancer invading? Oh, the king of this country kidnapped his kids and is keeping them in a keep) This isn't a judgement, just an observation of tastes. However, the players that seem to have a problem with these grey areas have been playing rpgs for a few years now. So I would have expected them to at least encountered this type of play, if not enjoy it. But it seems like they do not want to engage the world at all, they just want to kill the goblins and loot the bodies. Ordinarily, I wouldn't think this is a problem, after all, they could just let the players that enjoy that sort of thing make the tough calls. (If they don't care to make the choices, be a follower-type and just follow the party leader.) But it seems like every time this sort of thing comes up, they want to argue for the point of doing nothing. ("We can't kill the goblins, they're just trying to get food. So let's just keep traveling." "We can't kill the necromancer, he just wants his kids, and we can't fight the evil, kidnapping king, he's not undead. So lets just go.") I literally do not understand this one. Their ideas/arguments are almost always "let's not get involved."
These are probably the big three right now. And yes, I know talking to them would be the most reasonable thing, and I have some. But every time I bring it up subtely, I get "I don't know what you're talking about" responses. I would imagine they are afraid of hurting my feelings or just not getting my subtlety. So, on that note, how can I bring these traits/questions up bluntly without sounding insulting or patronizing?
But that's really an aside. I really do want the game to be fun for them too, and I don't think "hey, here's a problem we need to fix" is going to do that. That's causing them to find the fun in my style. I want to be able to make the game fun for them too, but on their own terms. So how can I include more moments/scenarios that counteract the situations above?
Wow, that became a wall of text. Sorry about that. |
| #2alienuxMar 25, 2015 6:22:54 | It sounds like some of these players just misunderstand the basic fact that they are playing a game that is moved forward by pursuing goals and motivations and by going through a series of successes and failures.
I'm not sure what to say about the 1st issue (regardling low rolls). I mean it's a game that often uses dice to determine an outcome, and by that very nature of the game, some of those outcomes are going to be failures. Why else play a game that uses dice? Dice are not always needed to determine a resolution to a situation, but c'mon, this is D&D and it's a big part of it. If they're worried about failing at something in a game, they might as well just put the pencils and dice away and just make up a group story.
Having said that, I have had one player who was so worried their character would die that they were reluctant to do anything remotely dangerous or just got worried when it was time to roll initiative. Explaining to this player that the game isn't about winning or losing, but about playing a role in a group story, did help some.
As for the 3rd issue regarding not getting involved in the adventure hooks, I guess I'd question why they're playing. They're playing adventurers who, by definition, go on adventures. If they aren't willing to do that, there really isn't much point in them playing. I know some people here (I think Bawylie is one) who have a session zero to establish that if someone is going to play in a game as an adventurer, it's required that they pursue adventures.
It sounds like, in all of these particular instances, that some of your players want instant gratification without chance for failure. Maybe there is just some unnecessary fear of failure with this particluar group, for some reason. To me, that would make for a very boring game, and honestly, would barely fit into the category of bing a game. If you want no chance for failure, why roll dice? If you aren't going to pursue hooks, why gear up as adventurers? |
| #3iserithMar 25, 2015 7:45:24 |
|
| #4fullm3talOptimusMar 25, 2015 8:23:30 | I've been thinking on this topic a lot lately, I've played with several groups of people over the past few years. The group that first introduced me to 4e about four years ago are really into the RP side of it but they also obsess over having the best combat characters they can, so to me they are an even mix of the two. The group that I introduced a couple years ago, all of which are friends I grew up with, are pretty much power gamers, they can enjoy some of the flavor I put in the world, like settings and plot points and twist and NPCs, but they are really only there to f*ck sh^t up and get their XP and go on to the next fight. Another group I had for a while was pretty similar to the first, and they more than anything liked the cool/interestng stuff that I came up with, they liked my stories.
I wish everyone focused more on the fact that they have characters to play and use to interact with the world through but I know some people just want to have combat, and if that's what is fun for them than I do my best to give it to them because I want them to enjoy their time at the table.
As far as situation 1) If they dont understand the roll that the die have in the game, there isnt much you can do other than keept telling them what you have been: low rolls happen, but they don't always mean a failure and you still have to rolll you die pretty often bc of the nature of the game. that said I try to avoid die roll if there is a pretty freakin good chance they will succeed or if it makes sense story wise that they would, then time goes by and less crucnchy.
Situation 2) Give that other player a beer because they ROCK, I love having people at the table that have my back when someone gets moody and blames me that they havent figured something out, it is so nice when someone takes pressure off you even for a second. Only thing I can say is, be ready to improv some more clues and stay patient
Situation 3) That is frustrating, since when does something not being easy mean you get to walk away from it, but again, different play styles and all. If everyone in the group feels that way, it may be eassier to give up on having grey areas, as much as it sucks for you, if that is all that the group does then why waste you time? Or, maybe give them some form of enticment, I recently needed something interesting to get my players to make a trip to the 5 major cities in an area, well they already had planned on doing some of them but I have a lot of other dungeon crawls set up, so I had an NPC hire them as guides/protection on his own journey, and when they heard how much he was willing to pay they were jumping up and down (again, they really only want to kill monsters and get gold and be awesome).
Hope that helps though, I feel your struggles!
|
| (Reply to #3)Ranthalan |
|
| #6bawylieMar 25, 2015 11:01:26 | Your players have grown accustomed to particular consequences of behaviors, die rolls, and complexities.
IMO you need to re-set their expectations. Have you considered retraining them?
Consider this. A player follows a lead that comes to a dead end. And again. And again. This player may learn to expect no reward for their efforts until the DM clues them in on the right lead. Another player in the same circumstances is willing to try things at random until they can progress.
Another player rolls average results on their dice. But is accustomed to failure on results of anything lower than 15. As a result, mediocre die rolls are stressful and low ones are devastating.
Im not saying any of this is your fault. These players have learned and expect certain results from certain behaviors. They need to learn new expectations for the new game. This doesn't mean going full easy-mode on them. It means setting expectations BEFORE they do. And faithfully following thru.
You can and should talk to them. Rationally, they will understand. But you also need to change how they feel. And to do that, you have to pre-empt their default responses.
Heres a thing Id do. "It sounds like you're trying to Blah blah. You'll be making a Blah blah check. The DC is 15. If you succeed, you'll blah blah. But if you fail, you'll still Blah blah, but also some boopeedoopeedoo will happen. What do you do?"
I would also work to tie emotional stimulus to actions and weaken the relationship to die rolls. Make sure what they DO is more meaningful than what they roll. Etx. |
| #7SynjinMar 25, 2015 11:29:34 |
|
| #8CCSMar 25, 2015 19:34:29 | Concerning your "Things should be Black & White" trait: Have you stopped to consider that your players don't WANT to play grey, moral quandary crap? Afterall, I'm betting their getting a full dose of that just through daily life. Come game night it's time to either save the world or conquer it.... As for them arguing to "do nothing" when you present this stuff? That's them directly telling you that they don't want play this type of stuff. And no, just being a follower or following the party leader IS NOT AN OPTION. Why? Because doing so means that they A) don't get any say, B) have to endure their game time being wasted. Wich is not what they've signed up to do.... How do I know this? Because I have a DM that often tries to run this type of stuff. A little bit goes a very long way. And after a while the group (save 1 person) generally tries to avoid becoming entangled. Because it's trap. Its like a *&!# tar-baby - if you touch it (even with a 10' pole) you'll get stuck in it for a very long, very boring time. So best to just leave it alone as much as possible. |
| #9TiarnMar 25, 2015 22:25:22 |
|
| #10bawylieMar 25, 2015 23:57:15 | When I have badly trained players, I often tell them to put the dice down. Then I ask them what they're doing, what they hope to accomplish, and how they're doing it. I tell them that until I ask for a roll, the results don't count.
"I rolled an 8." "Great, but I have no idea what you're doing. So put your 8 away and tell me what your character is actually doing. I'll let you know when I want you to roll something." "But I want to roll." "Play with dice all you like. The results only matter if I ask for a roll." |
| #11iserithMar 26, 2015 6:00:38 |
|
| #12DemoMonkeyMar 28, 2015 9:24:08 | 30 second fixes
Issue 1) Throw a lot of low DC/low AC things at them so that their 6's and 8's actually succeed. Do this often enough to train them out of the "lsingle digits mean a fail" response. You can always add more weak monsters to boost the challenge.
Also, speed speed speed. Rolling a 4 sucks. Rolling a 4 and having to wait !0+ minutes for another turn sucks more.
Issue 2) Throw in some "low hanging fruit" reward for immediate investigation; not the actual solution, but some small reward that will help in some way. Eg: "The empthy mausoleum doesn't contain evidence of a necromancer,.. but it should.. Make of that what you will." That gives them a clue right there that something else is going on. Remember, absence of the expected is useful info in and of itself.
Issue 3) Motivate the characters on a personal, rather than a moral level. Eg:The goblins are attacking because there is a famine. One of the (black-and-white players) characters backstory is that goblins destroyed his family farm. BAM, to THAT player, there is no moral quandary.
Aside: if the players want to roll dice first and ask questions later, let them. Just set a clear, up front rule that any roll they make before you call for it is made at Disadvantage. The problem will solve itself.
Best of luck!
|
| #13EckMar 28, 2015 19:54:30 | My dad told me to praise people in public, but to criticize them in private. So anything that is said as a criticism should be done in private.
1. As others have said you'll need to talk to the players where this is a problem. Tell them that the behavior bothers you. If they deny that they do this (as you said) then ask them if you can point it out when it happens. Then you can talk about it as a group using calm logic. There's always going to be low dice rolls. The only alternative is if you want to house rule it so that there are no failures, and frankly that's not any fun. Out of curiosity, how old are the low-roll pouters?
2. Explain to these people that there's two styles of play at the table and you're trying to acommodate both styles. There will be obvious hack-and-slash adventures, but other times there's going to be a mystery/exploration adventure. They can try to have fun with it. Barring that, they just need to learn to share.
3. See also #2.
If they're just out-right not going to have fun with that style of game, give them a heads up before the adventure on whether it's going to be a straight hack-and-slash black-and-white kind of game. If it's not, they can choose to skip that night and everyone will be happier for it.
- Eck
|
| #14BoldItalicMar 29, 2015 23:37:25 | Player: "I make an Investigation check. I roll an 8." DM: "You see an eight." Player "Huh?" DM "You haven't told me what your character is doing."
|
| #15Byakugan01Mar 30, 2015 0:30:30 | OK, i can totally answer this one.
Most/all of your players are in their 20s to early 30s? They all play a lot of or DID play a lot of MMOs? They are completely conditioned and accustomed to linear dungeons with absolutely no way to go but down the next hallway. God forbid an encounter happens on their way OUT of the dungeon. This will convince them you are angry at them and want to TPK them at all costs.
These are a new breed of gamers we call Millenials. They get very frustrated if anything they attempt does not immediately result in a resounding success. They expect the monsters to all fall over for them, and you are picking on them if you so much as cause them to stub their character's toe.
They will be confused if every clue does not have a giant flashing sign that says ---> CLUE HERE<---- They are not here to play trivial persuit and they' have never heard of MYST. They are here to be given stuff their crappy boss at work won't give them. This should include lavish praise from all NPCs in the next town they visit, and a new title will be in order. |
| (Reply to #15)bawylie |
|
| (Reply to #16)AaronOfBarbaria |
|
| #18QwertyAzertyMar 30, 2015 10:53:57 |
|
| #19DemoMonkeyMar 30, 2015 11:37:45 | *sigh*
And once again the internets horror of absolutes raises it's head.
Replace the phrase "These are a new breed of gamers we call Millenials" in Byakugan's post with "These are a particular breed of gamers, sometimes Millenials." and take another pass on judging whether their statement actually reflects what happens at some tables. |
| (Reply to #19)Ranthalan |
|
| #21Byakugan01Mar 30, 2015 15:32:09 | My post was not meant to be synical at all. I was giving comical but slightly exaggerated examples.
Mostly because i just watched a hillarious video on you-tube about Millenials in the work place. Then i read this thread and i was thinking to myself 'wow its the same people, lol!'
In case you were wondering, one of the other traits of millenials is they dont like being labeled, unless its a cool sounding prestigious label. Their refusal to conform to stereotypes is become itself a bit of a stereotype. |
| #22sirkaikillah11Mar 30, 2015 15:41:46 | I dm a group of 10 players from the casual gamer who shows periodically and never learns the rules, to power gamers who pride themselves on breaking the system to role players who email me background stories explaining thier pcs actions and views in the last session.
In regards to issue number 1. I have a player like this. He is just visibly upset everytime his pc is unsuccessful. He gets over it, I get over the table gets over it. We move on.
In regards to issue 2. I have some players who are bored when they are not rolling dice slaying monsters. I have other players who can spent the campaign investigating every possible clue and would be happy to never get in fight. For me as the dm the goal is finding that balance for all my players.
In regards to issue 3. I got to make a guess at what is the issue in this one, because I'm lost on the subtleties of the conflict. That my be the issue, sublety. From your example its like you have given your players a moral dilemma, should we kill the goblins for being hungry? Should we kill the necromancer for wanting his children back? You brought that such nuances for the npcs, why shouldn't the players play off those subtelties. IF your goal is to have them destroy these enemies then give them a reason to overcome thier pcs moral dillemma at attcking hungry goblins and a necromantic father searching for his children. But really give them such moral dillemas you should expect some role playing and soul searching for pcs given such moral dilemmas.
|
| #23sirkaikillah11Mar 30, 2015 15:49:46 |
|
| #24paulstraitMar 30, 2015 16:07:35 |
|
| #25bawylieMar 30, 2015 22:41:36 | Same, on that cusp.
My groups include 12-16 players, oldest are late 60s, youngest are 10. Remainder from my peer group (millennials).
Now, the kids prefer black and white conflicts, morally speaking, but are up for all kinds of challenges. Everyone else I play with is good for all kinds of stuff. Because of a number of factors, including proper reinforcement, DM trust, and not being whiny or entitled (traits that aren't limited to whatever generation succeeds yours, but exist across all ages). |
| #26ThorgritAnvilforgeMar 31, 2015 1:54:25 | 1. Only thing I can think of that might address part of this would be to change up dice rolls. Throw out the super-swingy d20, and use a 3d6 bell curve. Static bonuses remain static as normal. Rolls will be 10 or 11 much more than any other numbers, which will favor the side with the higher static bonuses - usually your players. Yes, this will make encounters slightly easier, especially ones with many low-power monsters that rely on "lucky" hits to do any damage to a PC. Advantage/disadvantage could be rolling 4d6 and dropping the lowest/highest. For crits, rolling 18 would be super rare (0.463%), so rolling any combo that leads to natural 15 (4.63%) would simulate 20 on a d20 most closely (5%).
2. My suggestions for this situation are ones I would find difficult to pull off myself. Shove clues everywhere, but lead in different directions so they're less inclined to follow them all. (But if stymied they still have a list of things to check out while you think of a way to lead them to action.) In the case you mention, you could point to one of the PCs and say, "You vaguely recall hearing about something like this, but can't remember the details. Something (ally NPC) said one time, in connection with (historical event)." Even if you didn't plan have the mausoleum involved, could put some clues there; some spell reagent that normally has nothing to do with creating undead, or something to indicate what the purpose of the "zombie" was.
If you feel the players need to, you could point out that you could track down the NPC that might know about it, research at a library or meet an NPC in town who collects history books, ask around in town if anyone's bought a significant quantity of the unusual spell reagent, or track the movements of the "zombie" to see if knowing where it was going could provide any further insight.
Since you mention Eberron, there's also something from Whispers of the Vampire's Blade (a 3e Eberron adventure): "To paraphrase author Raymond Chandler, whenever the action lags, have a guy kick in the door and start a fight." Some quick combat for those that like it, and a clue that either leads directly to the action, or opens a whole new can of worms.
3. This sounds like a deceptively easy answer: if they want back and white, give 'em black and white. (Edit: reading further on down, it was indeed deceptive. Rest of my post may be irrelevant, but included just in case it isn't, and I dislike erasing things.)
I can appreciate not wanting to deal with moral complexity, when I've had a tough day at work just barely getting along with argumentative co-workers, a manager that says everything I do is wrong, and those I supervise coming up with excuse after excuse. Sometimes you just really don't want complexity. There's times and places for a grand epic movie with many twists and turns, and there's times for thin-to-no plot movies that are just excuses for explosions. Some just want a beer-and-pretzels hack and slash.
If you really want it, though, try to put them in situations where apathy is the worst of all possible solutions. Like, every 200 years, evil creatures come and attack. The fortress nearby (they find out) was actually created and magically attuned to attract them when they arrive, while keeping them at bay long enough for forces inside to destroy them. However, with age, that knowledge is lost as superstition. The fort now only holds a minimum supply for withstanding a siege. In the intervening years, the land around has become settled, with a farming town or two, which will surely attract the evil creatures first. PCs are the only hope, and have 3 choices:
1. Seek out and evacuate the townsfolk to the fort, getting them out of immediate danger, but due to low supplies the fort may or may not be able to withstand the attack and destroy all the creatures. |
| #27sirkaikillah11Mar 31, 2015 11:29:00 |
|
| #28sirkaikillah11Mar 31, 2015 12:03:44 |
|
| #29DemoMonkeyMar 31, 2015 12:34:27 | I don't think the dwarf was very honorable at all. It's disrespectful not to eat what you kill. |
| #30sirkaikillah11Mar 31, 2015 14:58:23 |
|
| #31akr71Apr 01, 2015 7:55:50 |
|
| (Reply to #21)AaronOfBarbaria |
|