Quote from: Emperor Norton;811399Having just finished playing Far Cry 3, where a large part of the gameplay is in careful reconnaissance and planning before infiltrating an outpost and taking it down... I don't think that video games are to blame.

HA HA "Finished" playing FC3.  YOU'RE STUCK THERE!  ...assuming you wanna keep doing open-world stuff.

But, yeah.  FC3 wants a light touch.  Case in point for those who don't know: you have to liberate a couple of tropical islands from the grip of mercenaries and modern-day pirates.  They operate out of bases made from abandoned gas stations, diners, hotels, docks, etc.  Each base has an alarm system; if you assault the base head-on, the base's occupants will trigger the alarm and bring a world of hurt in terms of reinforcements down on you.

The PROPER way to assault a base in FC3 is:  recon, recon, recon.  Find out where the alarms are.  Also note if they've got a wild animal or two penned up.  Wait for nightfall, then either sneak into the base to shut down the alarm manually (shutting down one box shuts them all down), or pick each junction box for the alarm system off with sniper fire (this is more risky as shooting a junction box next to a guard will immediately alert the whole base, and as soon as one is down they'll run to another box; unlike manual shutdown, shooting a box leaves the others operational).  If there's a tiger, leopard, bear, wild dogs, etc. penned up, shoot that open from a distance too.

At that point you can either snipe the panicked, un-reinforced guards or mosey into the base and pick them off one at a time with stealth kills using your knife.

The point isn't "Hey, FC3 is awesome, here's cool stuff" but rather this: like in Far Cry 3, taking down opponents requires forethought and planning.  It's what saves you from the quickload screen.

So, as others have said, no it isn't the fault of videogames.

People always like to complain about kids getting off their lawn and 'kids these days' (which always sounds hysterical when the speaker is in their 20s).

Thinking back to D&D as a kid and college student... yeah, it wasn't really different then.

I was in a AD&D 2e game where I got into my cleric character, an elephant-worshipper from southern lands who had a think for ivory fetishes of various kinds.

Other party members were a paladin and a ranger. Who were... fucking idiots.
The ultimate in RAAAARGH BOOT IN THE DOOR types.

We were busting up a cult. We were winning, and I called for the enemies to surrender to avoid bloodshed. The enemies dropped their weapons and put their hands up.

At which point the ranger and paladin went 'WOOHOO!' and slaughtered them mercilessly. The DM didn't feel this warranted the paladin losing his abilities. ...

In fact, I can't remember any of the groups I was in, early on, who did anything but run around like twitchy fuckheads.


Which isn't to say that's how everyone, or even most people, played in the old days, but the idea that young players are terrible unlike the good old days doesn't really mesh with my experiences and stuff I've heard from other people.
I suspect young players tend to be all over the map, always.

Quote from: Ravenswing;811733Yeah, seriously.  Part and parcel of the riff that you and me and Blackie are pushing seems to be surprisingly difficult for some folks here to grasp: it's the mindset encompassed by Gaming Geek Fallacy #4.

Honestly, I don't give a rat's ass how many times you "explain" or "demonstrate" your gaming style: at this stage in my RPG career, I'm going to play the way I want to play, I'm going to seek out campaigns which cater to that style, and I'm going to ditch campaigns I discover don't.

I don't what cool name or number to give it, but the failing you're showing is the assumption that someone else shares your experiences, knows what you know and has made the same decisions you have.  If you and someone else both "prefer chocolate ice cream", but they've never had strawberry and you have then when you both say "I prefer chocolate", it doesn't mean the same thing.

That seems to be the part you cannot grasp, that other people just might not be looking at the situation from the same place you are.

Granted, if someone has a lot of experience to go on, they can extrapolate (if I don't like the smell of strawberry shampoo, I may not want to try strawberry ice cream), but in the end, sometimes the old aphorisms have a point.  Don't knock it until you try it.

Assuming someone who doesn't have decades of gaming experience, hasn't played lots of different RPGs, isn't aware of game theory and analysis of different experiences, hasn't written for the gaming industry is playing the game a certain way for the same reasons you would play your game your way is a pretty big assumption.  A MUCH bigger assumption then noticing that they always play one way even when presented with many options to play other ways and thinking they don't have experience with many playstyles.

The OP said he is specifically giving them situations and hooks to allow for a different style of gameplay, so which is more likely...

1. I'm an RPG expert who knows all the various playstyles, so therefore should be able to detect what the GM is doing and completely ignore it despite his continued signals to play that style.

2. I'm in "Beer & Pretzels D&D Mode" not because out of 549 different modes I could drop into I always choose this one, but because I've never played D&D differently? :hmm:

Quote from: RandallS;811741To be honest, while taking my ball and going home is my last choice, no gaming is better than running a play style I have no interest in. I'm upfront about my campaign and style of play when I recruit players and that is the style I'm going to run. While I certainly try to accommodate player interests with that style and campaign setting, if they don't like my style of game or the limitations in the setting, they need to find another game to play because I'm not changing it for them.

If they want to play in a campaign that tolerates lots of min-maxing or rewards charge in without thinking hack-n-slash or that leads them through a railroad or is played RAW (or whatever else my campaign isn't) but still choose my campaign to play in, that's just tough because I'm going to run the same style of campaign I have for the past 35+ years -- and I will not feel bad about it. Some probably think is makes me an asshole GM, but I think players who choose to play in a game when they know upfront it does not match what they want and expect the GM to change that game to match there desired style of play are just as big of assholes as the worst killer GM.

Yup I never said I would change my game just that I wouldn't impose a play style. Doesn't mean the monsters would get easier or the game would change just that the adventures would be reckless fellows.
Now I woudl still try to do all the stuff we talked about upthread, link them tot eh setting , make them care about their PCs make them want to survive, Use NPCs to demonstrate that cautious can be just as cool, or that reckless gets you killed real quick, but I will never say to a player "You can't role play your PC like that cos I don't like it"

Quote from: Omega;811726A thought though.

If the players are enjoying it despite or because they are dropping like flies...

Then you are doing something very very right as a DM that they are having that much fun even in a meatgrinder.

I think this is a pretty important point. Which is why I'm wondering if there's some way Wood Elf can tweak his style to have more fun with that, instead of trying to beat a different play style into the players.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;811743It goes both ways. The player can play how he wants, the DM can have players he wants. Ideally you get a match.

This.  Motherfucking this.

If Ravenswing wants to brandish his miniscule balls and roar about how "I'm going to play the way I want to play," then by Crom's hairy nutsack I'm going to brandish my miniscule balls and rant that "I'm going to RUN A GAME the way I want."

I ain't the players' dancing monkey.  I run the game I want to run, and if they don't want to play in it, the door is over there.

In 42 years I've never had an empty table so I must be doing something right, but running a game like the OP describes where the referee is continually frustrated is about as much fun as having your nuts hit with a hammer.  It doesn't even matter why the ref isn't having fun; if the ref isn't having fun, the game will suck and eventually die.

Quote from: Wood Elf;811382Has anyone else really struggled with this? How did you solve it?
I'm not trying to get into a young vs. old gamer fight or edition wars or anything like that, I'm just searching for some suggestions.

How did I solve it?

I deliberately designed a dungeon full of things that would kill players who played in the manner you described, but would be quite manageable for players who put even a bit of thought in.

Then before the game started I made it clear in my campaign pitch that I had done so.

The problem sorted itself out.  The Leeeroy Jenkins Brigade simply didn't play, I had half a dozen players who wanted to play the game I wanted to run, and all was well.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;811782I think this is a pretty important point. Which is why I'm wondering if there's some way Wood Elf can tweak his style to have more fun with that, instead of trying to beat a different play style into the players.

Good thing he never mentioned that at all then, and was wondering the best way to positively show them a style they probably have never experienced.

Quote from: CRKrueger;811895Good thing he never mentioned that at all then, and was wondering the best way to positively show them a style they probably have never experienced.

He's tried talking to them, explaining the whole thing, and setting up scenarios that reward that style of play. And it hasn't worked.

I can't think of any other way that doesn't involve a silly hyperbolistic example, like strangling a player whenever their character dies.

So at this point I'm thinking there are two practical approaches to the issue. 1. Is to find another gaming group, and 2. Is to attempt to adapt his DM style to provide him some kind of fun while satisfying the player's playstyle.

I'm open to other suggestions.

Holy shit, I'm gone for two days and this thread explodes! Lots of good stuff to look over and consider here folks. I'll come up with a more intelligent response after I get a chance to read through and think about everything that has been said. Thank you!!

Actually, going back to Far Cry 3 and the planning and recon stuff, you could probably take some cues from that:

Taking over an outpost awarded 500xp. Having no alarms go off gave you gave you an extra 50xp. Taking over an outpost without being spotted, which required all the legwork and planning gave 1500xp.

A regular kill with a gun gave you 10xp. A stealth takedown gave you 50xp, and a followup takedown could be more than that. (And stealth takedowning a heavy soldier was like 600!)

Basically, by near the end where I had a ton of access to healing and a lot more health, I COULD take out an entire outpost by just going in guns blazing, but I still didn't because A. it took more resources, and B, and b was the big one, I was less rewarded for it.

Just reward players more for better plans.

I mean, they obviously aren't responding to the "stick" of killing their characters, so maybe a carrot will work better?

Quote from: Emperor Norton;811955Actually, going back to Far Cry 3 and the planning and recon stuff, you could probably take some cues from that:

Taking over an outpost awarded 500xp. Having no alarms go off gave you gave you an extra 50xp. Taking over an outpost without being spotted, which required all the legwork and planning gave 1500xp.

A regular kill with a gun gave you 10xp. A stealth takedown gave you 50xp, and a followup takedown could be more than that. (And stealth takedowning a heavy soldier was like 600!)

Basically, by near the end where I had a ton of access to healing and a lot more health, I COULD take out an entire outpost by just going in guns blazing, but I still didn't because A. it took more resources, and B, and b was the big one, I was less rewarded for it.

Just reward players more for better plans.

I mean, they obviously aren't responding to the "stick" of killing their characters, so maybe a carrot will work better?

This.

The thought process is very sound.

A slightly different modification of it was what fell out of AD&D for us back in the day. Since magic items had a higher xp value than monsters and were more portable than gold, the obvious preferred process was to have PCs try and infiltrate the lair and steal the magic items while engaging in as little combat as possible.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;811955Actually, going back to Far Cry 3 and the planning and recon stuff, you could probably take some cues from that:

Taking over an outpost awarded 500xp. Having no alarms go off gave you gave you an extra 50xp. Taking over an outpost without being spotted, which required all the legwork and planning gave 1500xp.

A regular kill with a gun gave you 10xp. A stealth takedown gave you 50xp, and a followup takedown could be more than that. (And stealth takedowning a heavy soldier was like 600!)

Those are great ideas.

Serious question: How would you model this in DnD where a tough guard probably has 50hp?

In my experience this is one of the big limits of the game when compared to games with more simulation its combat like GURPS, Runequest or even Rolemaster.

Maybe you should just award EXP for gold only like AD&D.

I thought of doing that myself for 5E. Or does that break the system?

Quote from: CRKrueger;811773(snip)

Sorry, no.  The vast majority of people in this hobby are not, in fact, raw newbies who don't know any better, and who are ripe for education in Different And Fulfilling Ways To Play.  It does happen, I've had players surprised and delighted to discover a new way of doing things, but it's very uncommon.

(Come to that, for every player who's come to my campaign and opened up like a flower at the neat new way of doing things, there's been at LEAST one who didn't care for it and voted with his feet.)

What's far more common -- you know it, I know it, and every honest observer reading this thread knows it -- is the POV warrior certain to the marrow of his bones that if only he repeats himself enough times, he'll convince his captive audience of the rightness of his way of doing things.  Last time didn't work?  Hrm.  Then he'll repeat himself again, only this time a bit louder and with more arm-waving.

Wood Elf doesn't seem to be one of these people, but I don't want to be one either.  So I'm not going to bust my balls trying to convince a hack-n-slasher disinterested in RP that my campaign is where he'll Learn How To Do It Differently, and I'm not going to bust my balls trying to wrench a GM into catering to my style of play when it's obvious she has other ideas.

That's all.  It's really rather a simple premise.