Quote from: RPGPunditIf my players had their way, their characters would all constantly eat, sleep and bathe in full plate armour.

If the game doesn't have rules for sleeping in armor, invent them. If it becomes a tradeoff between protection and fatigue, some players will be paranoid, others won't.

QuoteHow the fuck do you deal with that, or with any of the other countless things that make no fucking sense that players try to do to get a one-up on their situation, stuff that if the character actually had to live through it would be unbelievably fucking annoying?

Make them live through it, through role-playing, in-game penalties, or both.

Quote"I have my sword drawn ALL the time"

Something like this isn't a big deal to me if they're in a combat setting like a dungeon, so I ignore it. If they're in a civilized area, there are probably laws against drawn weapons.

Quote"I'm CONSTANTLY checking for traps"

Let them. Them calculate how long the game system takes to search each section of the map and tell them. While one player is searching, constantly ask the other players "what are you doing?" Someone is going to get bored and do something else, then when the action happens Mr. Traps will be elsewhere and left out of the fun (and XP.

Also, encourage an SOP. This tends to focus them on when they'll check (doors, chests, etc.), and also makes it much easier to adjudicate ambushes and poisonings. If you know where people are and what they're doing during the repetitive portions of the adventures, you'll be better able to spring surprises on them that break the chinks in their defenses, while also springing some surprises that are easily defeated by their precautions.

Quote"My character wouldn't actually have been drinking and eating at the Grand Feast that I was guest of honour to, so I shouldn't have to make a check for the poison"

Narrate the feast. Mention a few courses and how great the wine is. If nobody interrupts to tell you they're not eating or drinking, then they were. If they do refuse to partake, the host of the event is probably going to be offended when his guests of honor refuse to accept his hospitality.

Quote"My PC in this sci-fi game where we're not closely monitoring wealth earns 2000credits a month, right? and my costs of living are what, 1000 credits? Ok, that means that after a year I have 12000 credits to buy weapons and explosives with because my character would NEVER spend any extra money on anything, ever".

One thing to do is to start having Lifestyles instead of Rent. It's the same basic thing, but costs a little more and includes all the random stuff you do outside of the adventure. That won't stop the problem of someone wanting a bunch of weapons, but at least they'll be going to a movie and treating themselves to a new electronic toy every now and then.

If they're just wanting more weapons, and they have the means, motive, and opportunity, let them have them. Are there any social repercussions to carrying these better weapons? If so, make them happen. If not, then what's the problem? If, for whatever reasons, they don't have access to better weapons then it doesn't matter how much money they save.

--

Generally, my philosophy in these instances is to look at the in game and system repercussions of their actions. If there aren't any, move on. If there are, make them happen. An important thing is to do that with all actions, not just the ones that seem a bit extreme to me, so it isn't a matter of GM Grumpiness when something I dislike faces consequences.

Sounds like your players are telling you they're not interested in traps, poison and night-time attacks. From where I'm sitting, it sounds like their actions are saying, "Look, traps aren't any fun. Getting poisoned isn't any fun. Being attacked while not wearing armor sucks. That's not the game we want."

The dude with the guns? Yeah, he's just being a cheater.

Quote from: J ArcaneIf a player gets raped in the ass everytime he lets his guard down, he's simply going to learn not to let his guard down, like, ever.  

Yup.  I seem to recall Pundit mentioning in a previous thread that he misses the old D&D trope of Save-or-Die.  If you are going to take that attitude, then yeah, sure enough... your players will start to get paranoid.  I recall, as a player, pulling some of that shit during the early years when we played original D&D/AD&D2e.  Later, when we moved to playing Star Wars, with a different, more open minded GM... not suprisingly, the idiocy subsided.  We didn't need to be paranoid, because we knew that a slight slip-up was not going to cost the lives of our characters.  Only repeated mistakes.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkYup.  I seem to recall Pundit mentioning in a previous thread that he misses the old D&D trope of Save-or-Die.

He could always go back to the original Chainmail rules where you just rolled once, loser died, winner was unharmed. Dave Arneson apparently chucked those out the first weekend they played, brought in his Ironclads rules - which is why we have "Armor Class" and "Hit Points". In terms of probability, "save vs death by sword" with a single roll can be exacty the same as "slug it out with hit points and armor class", but it doesn't feel the same. I suppose if nothing else because you can run away if you're losing

Or we could just roll at the beginning of the adventure to see if we all kill the dragon and get the treasure, or all die. Excitement!

I dunno, I think it's more fun to challenge the players' minds instead of their dice.

Quote from: Kyle AaronOr we could just roll at the beginning of the adventure to see if we all kill the dragon and get the treasure, or all die. Excitement!

I played with a GM who used to roll "chance of death" for each character at the start of each session.  He swears it was always in jest, but I reckon he took the results way too seriously.

Quote from: cr0mSounds like your players are telling you they're not interested in traps, poison and night-time attacks. From where I'm sitting, it sounds like their actions are saying, "Look, traps aren't any fun. Getting poisoned isn't any fun. Being attacked while not wearing armor sucks. That's not the game we want."

That's just mental. OF COURSE they want traps, they want poison, they want suprise attacks.  They would find a mollycoddling pc-game where they were untouchable to be terminally boring.

They just don't want to be the ones to end up suffering from the poison or surprise attacks; they want that to either not end up happening at all, or to the other players.  Just like in real life, in other words.

Half of the idiocy that spews from the Forge comes from this unbelievably stupid idea that the players are always being clear about what they want or don't want, and that's how you end up producing unbelievably stupid games.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Tyberious FunkI played with a GM who used to roll "chance of death" for each character at the start of each session.  He swears it was always in jest, but I reckon he took the results way too seriously.

That's awesome! I'll try it tonight, see what the lads say. Hmmm, how many Risk Dice to roll...

Quote from: RPGPunditThat's just mental. OF COURSE they want traps, they want poison, they want suprise attacks.  They would find a mollycoddling pc-game where they were untouchable to be terminally boring.

They just don't want to be the ones to end up suffering from the poison or surprise attacks; they want that to either not end up happening at all, or to the other players.  Just like in real life, in other words.

Your players are lucky that you know them well enough to know what they want out of a game. Loads of GMs aren't in that situation, so they have to figure it out by extrapolating from what the players do, say and other cues.

But aren't you agreeing with me? You said yourself that they want poison, etc to not end up happening or to other players. Isn't that the same as not being interested in that stuff? I spend a fair amount of time playing with people I don't know all that well, so I have to do this kind of detective work (and I also, you know, talk to 'em).

Quote from: cr0mYour players are lucky that you know them well enough to know what they want out of a game. Loads of GMs aren't in that situation, so they have to figure it out by extrapolating from what the players do, say and other cues.

But aren't you agreeing with me? You said yourself that they want poison, etc to not end up happening or to other players. Isn't that the same as not being interested in that stuff? I spend a fair amount of time playing with people I don't know all that well, so I have to do this kind of detective work (and I also, you know, talk to 'em).

Surprisingly, no - it's not the same.  In other words, they want those kinds of things to be part of the Way The World Works (C), just not to them.  It's a big difference because if you make that break - if you assume it happens in the rest of the world ("Did you hear the news? Duke Reingold was poisoned at the banquet for his daughter's wedding!") but never to them - there's a disconnect.

This is all a taste issue, really. You have some folks, like Pundit, who want the world to work in a consistent manner.  If you're in the woods for two weeks, you're have a 10% chance every night of being attacked. If you want to sleep in your armor just in case, that's fine, but you're going to be tired the next day and it will have impacts X, Y, and/or Z. You have others that aren't so keen to hew to a consistent world if that means affecting pace in various ways. I won't attack in the woods at night because it's not what this game is really about/doesn't more the plot forward/etc.  For them, the answer lies in other suggestions (don't do it in the first place, etc.).

The only reason I disagree with them in this case is that their approach doesn't apply to the underlying implied approach Pundit uses. Don't answer for your tastes, answer for his. If you don't know, ask. If Mr. Kim asked, the answer is likely to be very different - as is evidenced in this thread.

Or I could be way off...

Quote from: cr0mBut aren't you agreeing with me? You said yourself that they want poison, etc to not end up happening or to other players. Isn't that the same as not being interested in that stuff?

NO! Not at all. They're very interested in that being part of the game, they just want to try really hard for it not to happen to them, and are willing to go to ridiculous lengths to try to assure of that. But they would miss these things if they weren't there, because part of the drama and thrill and risk of the game would go away too.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditNO! Not at all. They're very interested in that being part of the game, they just want to try really hard for it not to happen to them, and are willing to go to ridiculous lengths to try to assure of that. But they would miss these things if they weren't there, because part of the drama and thrill and risk of the game would go away too.

Have you tried it? The limiting factor would probably turn out to be your tolerance for it, not theirs.

Quote from: RPGPunditNO! Not at all. They're very interested in that being part of the game, they just want to try really hard for it not to happen to them, and are willing to go to ridiculous lengths to try to assure of that. But they would miss these things if they weren't there, because part of the drama and thrill and risk of the game would go away too.

That makes sense--they want you to stick it to them in every way possible, so they can enjoy out-thinking you. So then what's the problem with their wanting to shower in their armor, etc? Is it that it breaks your suspension of disbelief?

Quote from: cr0mThat makes sense--they want you to stick it to them in every way possible, so they can enjoy out-thinking you. So then what's the problem with their wanting to shower in their armor, etc? Is it that it breaks your suspension of disbelief?

In a world were the GM rolls on the random brick falling from the sky table, do not be shocked or outraged to see the player characters constantly wearing hardhats.  

Quote from: James J SkachYou have some folks, like Pundit, who want the world to work in a consistent manner. If you're in the woods for two weeks, you're have a 10% chance every night of being attacked.

This approach has also lead to bears.  Bears that every so often the party fell upon that would attack to the death that were almost always immediately in melee range after a turn.  After a while, you may even find yourself between the cub and mother to make the situation more plausible.  That's always fun to see an animal that a 0 level peasant with a bow could kill take out a party manned with a fighter and cleric in full plate, a sorcerer, and even more inexplicably the ranger or druid.

Edited to say, the bears weren't always that bad.  Sometimes if you were lucky, you could find their treasure hoard with a handful of copper and the magical dagger they kept around.

I don't have any great advice for the rest of it, but the traps thing is pretty easy to fix.

Use the D&D gold standard. Always steal from the best.

You can find a version of it in Holmes Basic, Moldvay/Cook B/X, BECMI, Rules Cyclopedia, or AD&D 1st edition. Checking for traps is a non-issue in these games because the rules have it covered. (I don't know about OD&D, but it may be true there as well -- I just don't have a copy, so I can't say.)

Here's how it works. There are two basic units of gameplay. One is the round (combat!) and the other is the turn (10 minutes). Whenever you're not in combat, you're keeping track of the passage of time and your party's movements using the turn system. So your base movement on your character sheet actually refers to your movement per turn in the dungeon. It takes one turn to search a 10x10 square for traps (or for secret doors, or for hidden treasure, etc.). You can't constantly check for traps unless you're only moving one 10x10 square forward for every ten minute unit of game time.

And you can't do that (well, you could, but you don't want to) because every X turns, a wandering monster check is rolled. In Holmes, I think it's every 3 turns. In Moldvay/Cook, it's every 2 turns. So players are free to check a 10x10 square for traps, secret doors, or treasure any time they want to. And they know they're using a full turn to do it. And they know about wandering monster checks. This creates an economy of time and movement, and the players can make their own decision as to how they manage it.

Those are the basics, though I'm leaving out some interesting parts to save time and space. If you want to follow up on it, check pp. 9-11 in Holmes B19-22 in Moldvay, or chapter 7 of the Rules Cyclopedia (plus maybe some other sections of the RC). There's some stuff about it on p. 37 of the 1e DMG, and probably more in other 1e places. We've been playing Moldvay/Cook, so that's the version I'm actually familiar with.  

I like the turn system a lot -- I'm probably going to use it in my D&D 4 campaign if I end up buying in. I'd be using it in D&D3.x but we haven't been playing it since we started playing Moldvay/Cook on D&D nights, so it's a moot point. Like I said before, there's actually more to it once you start looking at how it interacts with the rules for resting (one out of every 6 turns or take a penalty), reaction rolls, surprise checks, and the main options for what the party (and monsters) choose to do when they actually encounter each other (wait, fight, run, talk). It all interacts to give the players hard choices to make. It works best when you're being sensible about trap placement (i.e., not just randomly scattering them all over the dungeon in any old place).

It's something that I guess AD&D 2nd edition did away with (?), to the detriment of all D&D games since.  

Rich

Quote from: cr0mThat makes sense--they want you to stick it to them in every way possible, so they can enjoy out-thinking you. So then what's the problem with their wanting to shower in their armor, etc? Is it that it breaks your suspension of disbelief?

Yes, mine and the other players'. There's lots of things they can and should be and do end up doing that are precaution enough (like regularly checking for traps, taking turns standing guard when they camp out at night, keeping a weapon at hand when they sleep, and sensing motive or perception checks if they feel that something might be off at the big banquet.

Often, these crazy ideas come up AFTER an attack comes along, when they retroactively try to argue for how they didn't really drink the poisoned wine, or how they were sleeping in their full plate, because they fucked up on doing the regular things they ought to do to keep safe.

RPGPundit