I've got a group of murder hobo optimancers. After a while, watching them fuck themselves over for the fastest possible solution is making it hard to help them.
For example:
Underwater, there is a glowing black mass of dark water off in the distance. Party said nope, and bypassed. It was a water demon who wanted sacrifices from the ship. Bring enough they'd have gotten a very good weapon for undersea use. The demon was also there to give them some on the adventure. The demon would want some sacrifices from the tube and they'd get the weapon. Its just a way to disable some powerful abilities for the boss.
Same adventure, they see the tubes with the desiccated bodies attached to tentacles and they are deep underwater. They crack open the tube drowning the first creature in the tube. Didn't think to use their abilities/spells to communicate telepathically first. Nope, see tube, crack tube underwater, don't have a way for creature to breath underwater and let die. They will most likely be able to disable the additional abilities the monster would get, they just won't get the best possible rewards. Uga Bonga check.
I normally design content where they can fight, avoid or talk, but they are heavy on avoid and and fight to finish content fastest possible. Suggestion on ways to get them to use their real world brain and not using a D20 solve everything?
My personal style of play is load up on as much non-magical equipment and spell components, and play a wizard and make damn sure I've got a couple of utility spells loaded to find ways to avoid combat and save resources. Why cast unseen servant when you can save it by giving your rope with a hook on it to the rogue and have him hook open the latch on the other side to drop the drawbridge. Use that 10 foot with padding on the end and have the lead use it while walking to check for trip wires. Oh, see the kitchen over there, hey rogue let me cast invis on you and you can poison their food. That is how I like to play, I like combat as well but if I can use my real world brain to solve the problem rather than D20, so much more enjoyable. But a lot of these new players, if its not on their character sheet, they ain't using it.
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on August 05, 2024, 01:42:29 PMThat is how I like to play
It might be that they like to play differently. It doesn't necessarily make their way wrong (nor is your way wrong), just different. Are they having fun? Are you?
As long as you are running a system where the character sheet looks like a list of menu options, the players will play like that. Run an OSR system that isn't so push button. If you players refuse to play then get better players.
Start them off with very obvious, easy non-rolling solutions. Once that has worked a few times they'll start looking for such solutions and might be able to find something that's not so obvious and easy and is a bit more interesting.
Having spells and non-magical equipment on your character sheet and using it is not really any different than a character having special abilities or whatnot on their character sheets.
And beyond that, some people don't like using their brains for fun. People have been hack and slashing (or slaying in Brit speak) and power gaming since '75 and others have been complaining it just as long.
Quote from: JeremyR on August 05, 2024, 04:01:35 PMHaving spells and non-magical equipment on your character sheet and using it is not really any different than a character having special abilities or whatnot on their character sheets.
And beyond that, some people don't like using their brains for fun. People have been hack and slashing (or slaying in Brit speak) and power gaming since '75 and others have been complaining it just as long.
Oh I get it, but it makes it hard to give any information. And putting out a diary or scroll of what is going on after a while gets old because the players tend to kill everything.
Knock the guy out and tie him down and use charm afterwards to get information. When the DM gives you a hook use it. If you think the guy is going to attack, agree to his terms as a "hireling" take him out of town, tie him down and charm him and get what he really was going to do to you.
I give them plenty of combat, but my god, there are better ways of playing than exclusively combat. If you can bypass an encounter without combat, you save resources.
Greetings!
In one game session in one of my campaigns, the group was traveling along a road in the Vallorean Empire, when they came across a group of young Ogres, and an older Ogre, hunting the nearby woods and fishing by the nearby river. The Ogres had a nice camp set up, and two of the adolescent Ogres greeted the approaching party, and offered them some roasted Deer meat that they had just hunted earlier in the morning.
One of the Player Characters--a Wizard--dropped a Fireball on the Ogre's campsite. Another Player Character, a Fighter, unsheathed his sword, and charged into a mounted attack, riding down one of the adolescent Ogres, killing him, while the other adolescent Ogre, a girl, was hacked down as she fled, screaming.
A third Player Character, a Wizard, didn't feel right about the entire situation, and restrained the rest of the group. Meanwhile, two other adolescent Ogres tried to fight back against the two attacking Players, but they too, were slaughtered. The older Ogre, the wounded girl Ogre, and one other Ogre, managed to escape into the woods.
The Player Group moved on, though were engaged in a fierce argument about morality and the LAW. Two game sessions went by, with the Player Group pursuing various adventures.
The Player Group was back in town, sleeping at a favourite Roadhouse.
In the predawn hours, the Roadhouse was assaulted by a Platoon of Imperial Legionnaires, a Centurion, three Vallorean Imperial Wizards, two Vallorean Priests, and four Witch Hunters.
Soon, the Player Group was arrested, and imprisoned. The two primary offending Characters were brutally tortured, interrogated, and stretched out on the wrack. At dawn, they were sentenced to be burned at the stake. Through exceptional efforts, at the last minute, the Vallorean authorities commuted the guilty Character's death sentence to being placed on probation, plus restitution work to benefit the local Vallorean Ogre community, and severe fines. Likewise, as accomplices, heavy fines were also levied against the rest of the party as well. The lead Witch Hunter growled at them, that the next time they thought they could slaughter and plunder Vallorean citizens, there would be no mercy, no leniency--and they would all be judged in the fire!
The rest of the group harassed and jibed the primary Characters for this huge fuck up for weeks afterwards. Beyond that experience, being heavily fined, tortured, and imprisoned, and very nearly executed--the Player Group was definitely more keen on approaching situations in a non-violent manner, and doing some investigation, questioning, and role-playing, instead of just fire balling and hacking away as their first response to any situation.
I, as the DM, didn't have to lecture them. The other players layed into them for being fucking murderhobos and stupid, brute violent fucks. It was epic! I certainly laughed. Lesson learned! The group was of course always wary and ready for action, but caution and better sense taught them to not reach for violence as their first response to every encounter. Doing so could certainly be very fatal to their Characters. They had also learned that even if such a situation was not fatal to them, they would nonetheless suffer severely, in being shamed, fined, punished, and potentially losing valuable allies and making bitter enemies unnecessarily.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: SHARK on August 05, 2024, 05:04:05 PMGreetings!
In one game session in one of my campaigns, the group was traveling along a road in the Vallorean Empire, when they came across a group of young Ogres, and an older Ogre, hunting the nearby woods and fishing by the nearby river. The Ogres had a nice camp set up, and two of the adolescent Ogres greeted the approaching party, and offered them some roasted Deer meat that they had just hunted earlier in the morning.
...
A question on your setting ... Are ogres recognized as people and protected by the law? And did the players know this?
If the players are having fun, you're doing your job right as a GM.
I try not to judge players on whether I think their plans or actions are good. Rather I try to be impartial on whether they're successful or not.
Quote from: Mishihari on August 05, 2024, 05:09:55 PMQuote from: SHARK on August 05, 2024, 05:04:05 PMGreetings!
In one game session in one of my campaigns, the group was traveling along a road in the Vallorean Empire, when they came across a group of young Ogres, and an older Ogre, hunting the nearby woods and fishing by the nearby river. The Ogres had a nice camp set up, and two of the adolescent Ogres greeted the approaching party, and offered them some roasted Deer meat that they had just hunted earlier in the morning.
...
A question on your setting ... Are ogres recognized as people and protected by the law? And did the players know this?
Greetings!
Yes, my friend. There are "Civilized" Ogres--several tribes have been embraced and civilized by the Vallorean Empire and given Vallorean citizenship. There are also, of course, savage, barbarian tribes of Ogres.
Indeed, the Players were all aware that this was a distinction within the Vallorean Empire. I shadowed this fact by the Ogres that were encountered were dressed like civilized fishermen and hunters--and they greeted the party in a friendly manner, and they themselves did not appear to be armed for war, or make any attempt at attacking or threatening the Player Group.
The one Player Character Wizard--a woman--picked up on these little details. The other Player Wizard and a Player Fighter did not, though. They were far more convinced by the belief that "All Ogres are evil monsters and must be ruthlessly destroyed!"
*Laughing*
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
As a GM, expect that the optimal or even logical way to do anything is never going to happen.
It's the nature of the game that players free will result in unexpected solutions. Often much more elaborate and time consuming than required.
For example; players spent time searching a room for a key to unlock the door so they could progress thru the creepy, abandoned mansion. 1. They could just kick in the door. 2. The door was unlocked already.
1. For anything outside of standard combat, don't allow the players to tell you what they are rolling, ever. Instead, they tell you what they want to do. Then you decide if a roll is warranted. Might be a gimme. Might be beyond their abilities. Might be a roll, but not the one they wanted. Be ruthlessly fair about this.
2. Either play a game that is deadly, or change the one you have to be more so. Players that bypass everything and look for the easiest way out on every thing they do engage with is a sign of trying to break the game for a win instead of playing it for a win. It's often a side effect of boredom. So ratchet up the danger of the system.
3. As a corollary to #2, ratchet down the deadliness of the encounters. Or at least many of them. You can still have some that are killers, especially if telegraphed. Players need a chance to make mistakes, or even fail. Because avoiding everything can also be a sign of too much worry, because every encounter is risky. If most encounters are something they can cope with, they'll be more willing to try different things, and maybe even run if it starts to go south.
4. All of the above works better if you have operational resource depletion, of some kind or another.
5. Use lots of wandering monsters and give little to no experience for dealing with them. Exactly how depends on the situation and the game. What I do is set up my wandering monster table(s) for the area, judge its overall deadliness, then give XP for that, when the party adventures in the area. Sometimes they get lucky. Sometimes they get hammered. Either way, they get the same XP. Be explicit that this is how it works (multiple times, until it sinks in). If the party is messing around, they get more and more wandering monsters, that rapidly become worth nothing. If the party is engaged, they maximize their returns. This also conveniently gives a channel for those players trying to game the system. In other words, if they are going to game it, set it up so that gaming it probably gives you the result you want.
Death is always on the table in my campaign.
I've got one player who is a born lemming. One was by an obvious cursed object and the party never thought: "wow, that's a really powerful adamantine jar, the arcane trickster can raise Frost Giant Zombies, and he no longer does any sneak attacks", by the time he had his 3rd Frost Giant Zombie, he turned on the party and he loved playing the bad guy. Just saying, there were 5 other guys and not one of them thought WTF? The DM is going to give the player three three CR9 undead doing 28 a hit two times + freezing stare for range, yeah that makes sense. Its like giving a player three pet young red dragons and the character no longer uses any of his abilities and is really quite and focused on killing certain mobs to raise them from the dead.
Now compared to a regular 5E campaign, yeah this is lethal, for a regular D&D campaign this is normal. Out of 6 players, those who play sane, this is for two years of play where players are level 12:
2 no deaths
1 one death, jumped into certain death without looking
1 two deaths (casual player, was face tanking giants in medium armor with no buffs for fun as a cleric, forgot the other death)
1 two deaths (was a newbie, died like a newbie)
1 11 deaths, he's the lemming, never had a player like that before in 30 years of play.
There isn't excessive deaths, its 5E player grasping defeat out of the jaws of victory because they minimize all risks humanly possible not to lose. As long as buffs and debuffs are used its easy. The party really went into a DPS glass cannon race for two players, and one big tankie and then some support and balanced spellcaster.
I'm just doing some after action questions in discord to try to get them to think about play more. Its 5E and the fucking abilities they give them, take all those skills away and they'd have to use their damn brains more. It is what it is.
Honestly, both your examples look like very typical player behavior to me. "Nope"-ing your way out of an evil looking underwater miasma sounds like playing with your brain. The other one is a little dumb, but not thinking through the consequences is classic D&D player stuff.
Looking at the broader issues, I'd agree with others on here that to some extent this might just be who your players are, and its a "love it or leave it" situation. That said, I am a firm believer that most players will respond to the incentives they receive in the game.
If you want your players to take the "talk" option instead of "attack" or "avoid", you might have to give them goals that can't be achieved by the other two.
You probably also have to go out of your way to signpost that being an option. You're likely trying to counter decades of conditioning from other games, so needing to do a bit of handholding is to be expected.
A trick videogame developers sometimes use to signpost an NPC which is potentially --but not necessarily-- hostile is to put them in positions that make them look non-threatening. In a videogame that can be as simple having them sitting down or introducing them with their back to the player. In an RPG maybe give them some extremely innocuous activity to do like fishing or gardening? The non-threatening appearance trick works with situations too. If your sea demon instead resided in a luminescent crystal grotto, that might be more likely to coax your players in to check it out.
A technique I've used a few times is to let the NPC initiate the encounter. NPCs should think like real people, and real people tend to want to avoid fights to the death, so even monsters stronger than the PCs will sometimes be afraid of them. If you can arrange their opening line to communicate "I will fight you but I'd rather not", that can get the PCs wheels turning about their other options, especially if the fight looks like one they might not win.
EDIT: In addition to letting NPCs start the encounter non-violently, you can also let them talk during encounters to signal a willingness to de-escalate. This is particularly available in D&D, where the NPC losing their first few hit points in the early rounds can be written off as flesh wounds they'd still be willing to forgive. If your players not only attack a stranger, but refuse to put up their arms when the stranger keeps protesting they don't want to fight, then they're just sociopaths and you're probably out of luck. Obviously this option is off the table once your players start racking up kills in the encounter. At that point your best friend is homebrew rules that allow them to escape and later impose all those consequences other comments are talking about.
FURTHER EDIT: Also, give your NPCs friends and allies. If players get the sense they're treading on a complicated web of allegiances and relationships, and any NPC might have powerful friends who will avenge thoughtless cruelty, they should start being more careful who they piss off.
Then you need to make sure the incentives back up the other option. If the XP and loot rewards are reliably better for fighting than talking, that's what your players will always do. Likewise, you can't use this stuff to trick them. It only takes a few of instances of an apparently friendly NPC stabbing them in the back for players to opt for "shoot first; ask questions later". I'm not saying you can't ever do it, but that trick should be used extremely sparingly.
First, I'm not saying I'm right, I'm just saying this seems to work when I GM.
I make the world react to the behavior of the PCs. Once the players figure out that 60-70% of what's going on around them is a direct reaction to their behavior, they start playing differently. If they come to a city gate, they know the guards are going to react to them based on how they behave in the moment and how well they've curated their reputations.
Here's an actual gaming example from an adventure I was running. One of the players found a way to sneak into an orc base and he poisoned the stew and stabbed a few of them in their sleep. Later, when the party was retreating from an encounter that went bad, they bumped into the chief of the orcs and his personal retinue who had been using a dog to track the killer. The player that had done the poisoning put two and two together rather quickly and was really impressed that it clearly wasn't a scripted moment from the written adventure but me looking at everything and thinking about how this would play out as logically as I could. The entire game changed after that with the whole table planning and discussing about what possible ramifications might happen from certain decisions they made. I loved running that table.
I believe that a lot of modern gaming thought processes come from video gaming. In my mind, it's my job as a GM to recognize that and teach them that there are no actual scripted responses, only scripted personalities.
The short answer is to kill them off for being stupid. Let consequences reign.
The longer answer is to give them some oportunities and warnings first but if you reward stupidity it becomes the norm.
I could probably a rant about skill lists being vastly superior to special combat ability lists because they suggest possibilities and offer alternatives instead of locking the player into a constrained course of action. It the only reliable mechanical tool the PCs have is violence then that's the kind of game you'll get.
The self-preservation paranoia is too high. And the stupid is allowed too much setting permission of civilization's long arm of the law (a la SHARK's example of society laying down the law). Also some players are just write-offs: they don't get it, they don't want to get it, they will play as they want until you boot them.
For self-preservation paranoia I found it best to bring Reaction Rolls back into heavy rotation. Having a monster encounter where the monster seems happy to see you really puts murderhobos on the back foot. Granted it does help to follow through, structurally. For example, you can have a deadly dungeon floor where a minor mob, like spelunking orcs, finds the PC party a relief and tries to ally with them. Sure the murderhobos can murder them all as they seek cooperation, but if your deadly dungeon floor has far nastier mobs than orc parties in the Wandering Monster Table then you reinforce "pause & think."
For the soft tethers of setting, it's just that, state openly what the laws expect of you in the land and then enforce them. If that makes some PCs or whole PC parties wanted criminals so be it. As long as you state these expectations clearly, multiple times so no one is guessing what you are thinking, then you can feel free to have the setting whoop ass as appropriate. And if anyone whines note how you were explicitly clear repeatedly, insinuating they are bad at taking direction or willingly wanted this conflict with the setting.
As for the last... you either boot them or put up with them until your patience runs out. Dumb mule is not going to change until the pain is high enough. And given they likely have little to no respect for the fictive world, your time, or the rest of the table -- or wasting people's time is their passion -- it will be hard to increase in-game consequences pain enough for them to care. So you gotta resolve out-of-game problems with out-of-game mature negotiations and solutions. Ideally.
One of the selling points for bare bones OSR games relates to this.
Basic Fantasy for example. The game lacks almost any features, so you need to make your own. My brother plays a Dwarf Fighter. All the rules say to do is attack with their weapon.
Well, not him. He owns a pair of war dogs and bear traps. He doesn't just keep it simple. He also asks the GM to do various combat maneuvers like tripping and pinning weapons. Or bear-hugging an enemy immune to mundane weapons, and getting the party to tie it up.
Quote from: weirdguy564 on August 08, 2024, 10:29:26 AMOne of the selling points for bare bones OSR games relates to this.
Basic Fantasy for example. The game lacks almost any features, so you need to make your own. My brother plays a Dwarf Fighter. All the rules say to do is attack with their weapon.
Well, not him. He owns a pair of war dogs and bear traps. He doesn't just keep it simple. He also asks the GM to do various combat maneuvers like tripping and pinning weapons. Or bear-hugging an enemy immune to mundane weapons, and getting the party to tie it up.
But there is no button for that on the character sheet!!! How does he even know such things are possible? This is madness! /SARC off.
This sounds like some great fun stuff. Many players won't bother with creative solutions to problems if there is already a menu of mechanical options in the rules. It is harder to get players to do this in more modern systems that feature rules for everything. The best way to get players to interact with the situation and the setting is not having so many rules to interact with.
Quote from: SHARK on August 05, 2024, 06:53:59 PMQuote from: Mishihari on August 05, 2024, 05:09:55 PMQuote from: SHARK on August 05, 2024, 05:04:05 PMGreetings!
In one game session in one of my campaigns, the group was traveling along a road in the Vallorean Empire, when they came across a group of young Ogres, and an older Ogre, hunting the nearby woods and fishing by the nearby river. The Ogres had a nice camp set up, and two of the adolescent Ogres greeted the approaching party, and offered them some roasted Deer meat that they had just hunted earlier in the morning.
...
A question on your setting ... Are ogres recognized as people and protected by the law? And did the players know this?
Greetings!
Yes, my friend. There are "Civilized" Ogres--several tribes have been embraced and civilized by the Vallorean Empire and given Vallorean citizenship. There are also, of course, savage, barbarian tribes of Ogres.
Indeed, the Players were all aware that this was a distinction within the Vallorean Empire. I shadowed this fact by the Ogres that were encountered were dressed like civilized fishermen and hunters--and they greeted the party in a friendly manner, and they themselves did not appear to be armed for war, or make any attempt at attacking or threatening the Player Group.
The one Player Character Wizard--a woman--picked up on these little details. The other Player Wizard and a Player Fighter did not, though. They were far more convinced by the belief that "All Ogres are evil monsters and must be ruthlessly destroyed!"
*Laughing*
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
I am actually doing something like that to my daughters in the CoC/DG game.
In the middle of the mission/investigation they are on they are going to meet a tribe of (Lovecraft corrupted human living type) ghouls. Or more correctly a tribe of ghouls is going to throw them a note to meet them in an ally after sunset with a parley under a white flag. I'm pulling in some DG lore with a tribe of them in New York and a few other places actually helping DG agents.
I have given them hints over the last few missions that sometimes talking is an option until you know what is going on, so I'll see if any of them have paid attention or catch the hints.
The fun part is that they KNOW it is something in the underground caves and sewers that is doing the killings, but they don't know what exactly. They have some info that points to vermin. Do they assume everything in the sewers is 'vermin' and avoid the meeting or use it to ambush and kill the ghouls, or do they risk meeting an unknown group to find a group that will help them fight the ratlings and worshipers of Ninkilim (Mesopotamian goddess of vermin) that are the ones actually doing the murders and trying to chase the ghouls out of the city.
As others have said, this will relate to system. If everything the PC can do is written on their character sheet, they will naturally look down at their character sheet to apply Skill A to Problem B.
But more importantly, it's also a function of GMing. If every time a player comes up with a solution you as GM say, "roll against Skill X," and Skill X gives them only a 20% chance of success, it's natural for players to give up and simply smash their way through problems.
Being a GM is like being a parent, teacher, coach, government or whatever - reward the behaviour you like, and you'll get more of it. You can also punish the behaviour you dislike, but alternative behaviours leading to rewards need to be obvious, or else people simply withdraw from the system. If a government offers taxation but no benefits, everyone will dodge taxes. If a coach, teacher or parent offers rebukes and punishment when the child does wrong but no praise or rewards when they do right, the child loses interest in learning and getting better.
And so a competent GM will reward player creativity rather than seeking to punish them for using the game rules in place of being creative.
It's up to you, honeydipperdavi.
It's the inverse of your character sheet, and rulebook used as a whole.
If you have dozens of things on your sheet, then you will naturally want to use them. That is why they're on the sheet.
But, in rules lite systems you just have a couple. The rest you can make up as you go. You almost have to, probably in the first scene of the first game.
That is why I'm now a fan of rules lite stuff.
If they don't have anyone to show them that this type of style works, they may never discover it on their own. But you could potentially guide them to it. Have them make an Intelligence check, and if they succeed, let them know something their character would be aware of that involves solving a problem with some of their existing tools.
After giving some of these hints the players may start applying what they've learned to future situations.
Just shift how X.P. is re ... is it rewarded or awarded? Anyhow, if you want your team to talk to your monsters, you only give em X.P. for talking to monsters. Instead of killing em. Players just chase whatever carrot you put out there.
If I ever ran 5e again
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/40/b4/1d/40b41d46a779193ebf7bf37aaea5a23c.gif)
I'd only give players X.P. for acquiring GOLD. Just like the good old days.
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on August 05, 2024, 01:42:29 PMI've got a group of murder hobo optimancers.
Time to get a new group.
Players are common. GMs are scarce.
I'm running Traveller every Saturday at the FLGS and something odd happened today. I was thanked for running the game by my players. I say that is odd because they are having fun and I am having fun, so it is a mutually beneficial thing and no thanks are expected. Then my players expounded upon why and it relates directly to this thread.
I'm running an exploration game where they are investigating ancient ruins, some of which are still active. The ancients moved stars at their whim and built worlds as art projects and uplifted species just to have better servants. EVERYTHING ancient that is still active can destroy them and their ship with the blink of an eye, they are completely outclassed so combat is out of the question. Missiles have antimatter warheads and other live ordnance includes black hole bombs capable of cracking open Phobos or Deimos. Again, straight combat is a losing proposition.
So they have to outsmart their opponents. In the past eight months of a game every Saturday, there have been only 2 combats that they have fought in with every dirty trick that they could think of to try and even the playing field being used. It has been incredible to GM because I don't have to nerf their opposition.
That's the key. Make the bad guys too strong to take on in a set piece battle royale where yelling "Charge!" and doing a full frontal assault can't possibly work. Force the players to think, or kill their characters when they throw themselves on the spears of their enemies. Tell your players to go read Listen Up You Primitive Screwheads and Murphy's Laws of Combat while you as GM read them and also read the Evil Overlord List and you fucking live it for those players by not being a pussy while running the game.
You have to be able to kill the player characters in game or they will continue to do dumb stuff.
My players had gotten bored shitless with playing 5E because combat is meaningless when that is all there is and they always win.
I don't know how you design your campaigns in terms of XP and content but I will tell you what I do.
All my games are XP by fiat. All characters level at 100xp. So... each level you start at 0xp and progress to 100xp to level.
Encounters are usually worth 5-10xp. But some encounters will have conditions where I tell them up front, there are multiple ways to resolve this encounter, each version has a different XP reward. This is a general rule for most encounters. So if killing a monster would fetch you 5xp normally, charming it and getting it to attack your other enemies would be worth more. And so on...
Kill guards = 5xp. Parley with them and convince them to let you pass = 10xp.
To use your example with the tubes... beat the encounter =5xp. You get 2xp bonus for each creature you save.
Something like that.
The point is that you condition the through rewards to take the more interesting and thoughtful route.
It has generally worked well for me.
Quote from: Captain_Pazuzu on August 18, 2024, 02:17:07 PMBut some encounters will have conditions where I tell them up front, there are multiple ways to resolve this encounter, each version has a different XP reward.
This seems weirdly arbitrary to me. Do you tell them which solutions have which XP values? If so, then this isn't problem solving, it's selecting an option from a menu. If not, then how are they supposed to know which ones you feel are better than others?
Quote from: HappyDaze on August 20, 2024, 11:40:51 AMQuote from: Captain_Pazuzu on August 18, 2024, 02:17:07 PMBut some encounters will have conditions where I tell them up front, there are multiple ways to resolve this encounter, each version has a different XP reward.
This seems weirdly arbitrary to me. Do you tell them which solutions have which XP values? If so, then this isn't problem solving, it's selecting an option from a menu. If not, then how are they supposed to know which ones you feel are better than others?
Yeah I tried this route at one point and found I didn't like it. It felt too arbitrary. I think the better way to do this kind of thing is to assign XP to an objective, and then award it no matter how your players achieve it.
Quote from: ForgottenF on August 20, 2024, 07:16:54 PMQuote from: HappyDaze on August 20, 2024, 11:40:51 AMQuote from: Captain_Pazuzu on August 18, 2024, 02:17:07 PMBut some encounters will have conditions where I tell them up front, there are multiple ways to resolve this encounter, each version has a different XP reward.
This seems weirdly arbitrary to me. Do you tell them which solutions have which XP values? If so, then this isn't problem solving, it's selecting an option from a menu. If not, then how are they supposed to know which ones you feel are better than others?
Yeah I tried this route at one point and found I didn't like it. It felt too arbitrary. I think the better way to do this kind of thing is to assign XP to an objective, and then award it no matter how your players achieve it.
If I can elaborate... I don't generally mean different outcomes in terms of what they are supposed to do. (Ex. you can parlay or fight)
I generally mean adding layers to encounters.
An example would be a scenario in which they are trying to evacuate a temple during a zombie apocalypse. The main goal might be to evacuate civilians. An extra goal might be to ensure the survival of as many of the Temple's priests as you can. Or maybe a bonus for zero civilian casualties. This adds some competing objectives during combat so that the players have to make decisions.
The main objective is the same. Evacuate the civilians. But there are now multiple dimensions to consider.
Does that make sense?
Quote from: ForgottenF on August 20, 2024, 07:16:54 PMQuote from: HappyDaze on August 20, 2024, 11:40:51 AMQuote from: Captain_Pazuzu on August 18, 2024, 02:17:07 PMBut some encounters will have conditions where I tell them up front, there are multiple ways to resolve this encounter, each version has a different XP reward.
This seems weirdly arbitrary to me. Do you tell them which solutions have which XP values? If so, then this isn't problem solving, it's selecting an option from a menu. If not, then how are they supposed to know which ones you feel are better than others?
Yeah I tried this route at one point and found I didn't like it. It felt too arbitrary. I think the better way to do this kind of thing is to assign XP to an objective, and then award it no matter how your players achieve it.
Yes.
One of the other ways I used to de-stress the "Gotta Kill 'em All!" attitude of players was to state clearly that alternate solutions and survival also gives you XP. So if you parley an encounter successfully with a temp benefit you get 75% XP, if you parley/bribe an encounter to leave each other alone get 50% XP, if you flee and survive you get 25% XP. An Ambush is its own reward, removing a combat threat more easily.
Then I give out alternate XP from the DMG, that list that favors the non-fighting classes, so thieves doing thieving things, casters doing caster things, etc. Yes it can leave fighters seemingly in the XP lurch, all that less than 100% XP for survival than glorious victory, but more early money to gear up helps make mid-to-late adventure fights easier. So sacks of meat or copper pieces as bribes as you go forth looting ends up being easier XP gain with less risk, greater loot return for better gear.
I mean some modern players live for that tactical battle rush, but often want it less fatal at the same time. If your game is not about that and offers many potential outcome options, well, in some ways it's more stressful because there's real decision making for every encounter. But you get used to it and find alternate solutions to the brute force method -- and that can be so fun too! :)
Quote from: Opaopajr on September 01, 2024, 01:00:53 AMOne of the other ways I used to de-stress the "Gotta Kill 'em All!" attitude of players was to state clearly that alternate solutions and survival also gives you XP. So if you parley an encounter successfully with a temp benefit you get 75% XP, if you parley/bribe an encounter to leave each other alone get 50% XP, if you flee and survive you get 25% XP. An Ambush is its own reward, removing a combat threat more easily.
Then I give out alternate XP from the DMG, that list that favors the non-fighting classes, so thieves doing thieving things, casters doing caster things, etc. Yes it can leave fighters seemingly in the XP lurch, all that less than 100% XP for survival than glorious victory, but more early money to gear up helps make mid-to-late adventure fights easier. So sacks of meat or copper pieces as bribes as you go forth looting ends up being easier XP gain with less risk, greater loot return for better gear.
I mean some modern players live for that tactical battle rush, but often want it less fatal at the same time. If your game is not about that and offers many potential outcome options, well, in some ways it's more stressful because there's real decision making for every encounter. But you get used to it and find alternate solutions to the brute force method -- and that can be so fun too! :)
I'm not a big fan of giving partial xp for parlaying, etc. You get more of what you incentivize, and if you get more xp for killing it than talking to it, most people will default to kill. The way I look at it, a monster is an obstacle to whatever the party wants. Whether defeated, intimidated, bargained with, or tricked, once the monster is no longer standing in the way, the party should receive xp for the full value of the monster..
Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 01, 2024, 04:29:12 PMThe way I look at it, a monster is an obstacle to whatever the party wants. Whether defeated, intimidated, bargained with, or tricked, once the monster is no longer standing in the way, the party should receive xp for the full value of the monster..
Or get right to the heart of the matter, and stop giving out XP for "defeating monsters" as a general rule at all, and instead give XP
only for getting "whatever the party wants".
Sure, sometimes, what they want will be to defeat an evil monster and that's fine too. But why award
any XP for it if it's merely the
obstacle to the goal?
If the monster itself isn't the Macguffin, I award ZERO XP. I've been playing this way 5 years now, and as soon as I started my players went from 99% combat to 66% combat to solve their problems. That metric is just right for me, so that tells me ZERO is just the right amount.
Quote from: Zalman on September 01, 2024, 06:44:22 PMQuote from: Eirikrautha on September 01, 2024, 04:29:12 PMThe way I look at it, a monster is an obstacle to whatever the party wants. Whether defeated, intimidated, bargained with, or tricked, once the monster is no longer standing in the way, the party should receive xp for the full value of the monster..
Or get right to the heart of the matter, and stop giving out XP for "defeating monsters" as a general rule at all, and instead give XP only for getting "whatever the party wants".
Sure, sometimes, what they want will be to defeat an evil monster and that's fine too. But why award any XP for it if it's merely the obstacle to the goal?
If the monster itself isn't the Macguffin, I award ZERO XP. I've been playing this way 5 years now, and as soon as I started my players went from 99% combat to 66% combat to solve their problems. That metric is just right for me, so that tells me ZERO is just the right amount.
Hey, if that works for your group, more power to you. I like to differentiate the level of threat or difficulty by including the xp for the monster/guardian. It makes more sense to my group for a Macguffin guarded by a dragon to be worth more xp than one guarded by a few orcs. Whether you roll that xp into the goal or just give it for bypassing/defeating the guardian seems to me a matter of taste...
Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 01, 2024, 10:52:56 PMWhether you roll that xp into the goal or just give it for bypassing/defeating the guardian seems to me a matter of taste...
It makes a big difference. What happens if the party slays the dragon but doesn't retrieve the Macguffin? In your game that result is rewarded, in mine it is not.
Quote from: Zalman on September 02, 2024, 03:03:59 PMQuote from: Eirikrautha on September 01, 2024, 10:52:56 PMWhether you roll that xp into the goal or just give it for bypassing/defeating the guardian seems to me a matter of taste...
It makes a big difference. What happens if the party slays the dragon but doesn't retrieve the Macguffin? In your game that result is rewarded, in mine it is not.
If killing a dragon isn't accomplishing something in a game, then I don't know why anyone is playing...
EDIT: I originally thought that our differences were just a matter of taste (just where or how to award xp for overcoming challenges). Now, based on your reply and further thought, I see that your way is just stupid. My mistake. Only awarding xp for what the DM wants the players to do is the opposite of player agency.
Quote from: Zalman on September 02, 2024, 03:03:59 PMQuote from: Eirikrautha on September 01, 2024, 10:52:56 PMWhether you roll that xp into the goal or just give it for bypassing/defeating the guardian seems to me a matter of taste...
It makes a big difference. What happens if the party slays the dragon but doesn't retrieve the Macguffin? In your game that result is rewarded, in mine it is not.
So slaying the dragon and perhaps getting its other treasure awards nothing? That is harsh. So basically the party has to jump through all quest hoops if they want to level up?
Greetings!
In my own campaigns, I provide XP to the Players for everything they do, based upon type of achievement and experience. Enthusiastically engaging in roleplaying, gets XP. Exploring new territory, geography and such, gets XP. Fighting and defeating evil monsters, likewise gains XP. Gaining treasure, successfully completing a particular Quest objective, as well as secondary goals, objectives, special challenges, all gain an XP reward.
I've been doing this for many, many years now. Such a XP system works very well, rewarding players appropriately for everything they do in the game.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 02, 2024, 06:17:58 PMQuote from: Zalman on September 02, 2024, 03:03:59 PMQuote from: Eirikrautha on September 01, 2024, 10:52:56 PMWhether you roll that xp into the goal or just give it for bypassing/defeating the guardian seems to me a matter of taste...
It makes a big difference. What happens if the party slays the dragon but doesn't retrieve the Macguffin? In your game that result is rewarded, in mine it is not.
If killing a dragon isn't accomplishing something in a game, then I don't know why anyone is playing...
EDIT: I originally thought that our differences were just a matter of taste (just where or how to award xp for overcoming challenges). Now, based on your reply and further thought, I see that your way is just stupid. My mistake. Only awarding xp for what the DM wants the players to do is the opposite of player agency.
This post is just dumb. "I killed a thing now you must give me XP by the rules I demand. Murder-hobo for life!"
I don't give XP just for killing things either. I give goal based XP; You take mission, you complete mission, you get the XP rewards from the mission. There are always multiple missions available and always open missions if players choose to pursue them. If players want to kill a dragon and get XP for it, then they need to get a dragon slaying mission.
I actually use an old fashion D&D perspective on monsters, they aren't all evil. Some are just going about their daily lives, some are benevolent. Many monsters, like dragons, I play as NPCs. If you just stab shit because it looks different, then you're just an evil asshole
Quote from: BadApple on September 03, 2024, 08:21:10 AMIf players want to kill a dragon and get XP for it, then they need to get a dragon slaying mission.
I put it to you that if someone brought the head of a Mexican cartel to FBI HQ in Washington, they would receive fame, glory and reward
even if nobody had asked them to do it.
Some things are quite simply glorious and should be rewarded. I do not understand how anyone could spend five minutes playing a roleplaying game, watching an adventure movie or reading a fantasy, scifi or historical fiction novel and not understand glorious heroism.
You are morally-deficient, which I assume must come from playing D&D5e or something equally dreadful.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron on September 03, 2024, 08:31:22 AMQuote from: BadApple on September 03, 2024, 08:21:10 AMIf players want to kill a dragon and get XP for it, then they need to get a dragon slaying mission.
I put it to you that if someone brought the head of a Mexican cartel to FBI HQ in Washington, they would receive fame, glory and reward even if nobody had asked them to do it.
Some things are quite simply glorious and should be rewarded. I do not understand how anyone could spend five minutes playing a roleplaying game, watching an adventure movie or reading a fantasy, scifi or historical fiction novel and not understand glorious heroism.
You are morally-deficient, which I assume must come from playing D&D5e or something equally dreadful.
Are all dragons evil? No, not according to the MM. You're being just as dumb as he is with this bullshit.
If a dragon shows up in town and starts a rampage then yeah, kill it. If you have to take a month long hike to it's home to burglarize it's home and murder it having dinner then you're a shit. Why would people believe it let alone celebrate that?
Quote from: BadApple on September 03, 2024, 08:21:10 AMQuote from: Eirikrautha on September 02, 2024, 06:17:58 PMIf killing a dragon isn't accomplishing something in a game, then I don't know why anyone is playing...
EDIT: I originally thought that our differences were just a matter of taste (just where or how to award xp for overcoming challenges). Now, based on your reply and further thought, I see that your way is just stupid. My mistake. Only awarding xp for what the DM wants the players to do is the opposite of player agency.
This post is just dumb. "I killed a thing now you must give me XP by the rules I demand. Murder-hobo for life!"
I don't give XP just for killing things either. I give goal based XP; You take mission, you complete mission, you get the XP rewards from the mission. There are always multiple missions available and always open missions if players choose to pursue them. If players want to kill a dragon and get XP for it, then they need to get a dragon slaying mission.
BadApple - is it impossible for PCs to work for themselves, then, in your games? They always have to be employed by NPCs to do what NPCs want, and they never pursue their own goals?
I can picture that, but it's very different from how I run games.
Quote from: BadApple on September 03, 2024, 08:38:28 AMQuote from: Kyle Aaron on September 03, 2024, 08:31:22 AMQuote from: BadApple on September 03, 2024, 08:21:10 AMIf players want to kill a dragon and get XP for it, then they need to get a dragon slaying mission.
I put it to you that if someone brought the head of a Mexican cartel to FBI HQ in Washington, they would receive fame, glory and reward even if nobody had asked them to do it.
Some things are quite simply glorious and should be rewarded. I do not understand how anyone could spend five minutes playing a roleplaying game, watching an adventure movie or reading a fantasy, scifi or historical fiction novel and not understand glorious heroism.
You are morally-deficient, which I assume must come from playing D&D5e or something equally dreadful.
Are all dragons evil? No, not according to the MM. You're being just as dumb as he is with this bullshit.
If a dragon shows up in town and starts a rampage then yeah, kill it. If you have to take a month long hike to it's home to burglarize it's home and murder it having dinner then you're a shit. Why would people believe it let alone celebrate that?
Greetings!
Yeah, in my own campaign world of Thandor, there are both evil and good Dragons. That is also more or less in-line with our own historical mythology, as well as the traditional rules.
I also use a Skill system in my game, so that various skills and specialized Knowledge can be a very interesting and useful asset to have. Good dragons can make the absolute best of allies and friends. Regardless of what Class your character is, a Dragon is sure to be able to teach you plenty. Even with non-professional class skills, a Dragon's knowledge and lore of geography, history, herbalism, animals, magic, and so many things has simply got to be pretty fantastic. Add in flying, powerful magical abilities, and the raw combat power to take on and annihilate entire mortal armies is a creature worth paying attention to--and befriending, if possible.
Challenging any Dragon in combat is a terrifying prospect. Unless the Dragon is younger and much reduced in stature and power, taking on a full-strength Dragon can easily be a fatal proposition for any party of Adventurers. Furthermore, attempting to defeat a Dragon in such a manner may provoke the creature's immense wrath, whereupon the Dragon takes vengeance against one or more nearby communities. This can by itself be similiar to a nuclear missile stroke, with absolute death, devastation, and ruin for such communities. Humans, Elves, Dwarves, whatever. They all die like matchsticks before the blaze of wrath. Like cutting down ripe wheat.
My players always seriously consider WTF they are doing anytime a Dragon enters the scene. *Laughing*
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: SHARK on September 03, 2024, 04:07:53 PMGreetings!
Yeah, in my own campaign world of Thandor, there are both evil and good Dragons. That is also more or less in-line with our own historical mythology, as well as the traditional rules.
I also use a Skill system in my game, so that various skills and specialized Knowledge can be a very interesting and useful asset to have. Good dragons can make the absolute best of allies and friends. Regardless of what Class your character is, a Dragon is sure to be able to teach you plenty. Even with non-professional class skills, a Dragon's knowledge and lore of geography, history, herbalism, animals, magic, and so many things has simply got to be pretty fantastic. Add in flying, powerful magical abilities, and the raw combat power to take on and annihilate entire mortal armies is a creature worth paying attention to--and befriending, if possible.
Challenging any Dragon in combat is a terrifying prospect. Unless the Dragon is younger and much reduced in stature and power, taking on a full-strength Dragon can easily be a fatal proposition for any party of Adventurers. Furthermore, attempting to defeat a Dragon in such a manner may provoke the creature's immense wrath, whereupon the Dragon takes vengeance against one or more nearby communities. This can by itself be similiar to a nuclear missile stroke, with absolute death, devastation, and ruin for such communities. Humans, Elves, Dwarves, whatever. They all die like matchsticks before the blaze of wrath. Like cutting down ripe wheat.
My players always seriously consider WTF they are doing anytime a Dragon enters the scene. *Laughing*
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Rgr on that !
That is one thing I didn't like about 1e how it nerfed dragons. Dragons are Samug. They destroy towns, ruin dwarf holds, eat everyon and every thing, ruin areas, hoard wealth etc. And ARE TO BE FEARED ! (even the good ones should be scarry ... What is the Lewis quote about Aslan "He is a good lion but he is NOT a tame lion so ..." )
I know it isn't a perfect example, but it is close. I'm in the middle of an CoC/DG mission with my girls' game. There is a serial killer murder spree going on and they have to figure out who/why and stop it. There is an ancient Mesopotamian cult of the vermin goddess and some 'ratlings' in the city doing it. However, there is also a group of (Lovecraft type living) ghouls there too not doing the killing and being attacked by the cult/ratlings themselves. The group did they things they needed to to stumble onto the ghouls and the ghouls made contact with the group to offer an alliance. They didn't go murder hobo and kill the ghouls (despite knowing they were cannibals eating the dead and possibly a type of corrupted degenerate humans) and they actually talked with them and made a good mutualy helpful agreement with them.
With that (if they survive the coming fight with the cult & ratlings) at the end of the mission, they will get extra sanity back for making the deal with the ghouls and they will get some clues that will help on a future mission (and possibly have a long term allies to get 'supernatural info' from). It isn't exactly the same as awarding exp but they defeated the ghouls by making them allies.