TheRPGSite

We're playing DnD 5E. They are all familiar with 3.5. I started playing DnD back in 79-80. My current batch of players, all younger folks used to fire-and-forget style of blow-the-fuck-outta-everything video games, are a far cry from the more clever game play of 15+ years ago.

Don't get me wrong, they can be fun at times, but the relentless shoot-first charge in style just gets fucking boring for me. I'm the one gming and I started with the style that I was used to. Sneaky shit that required thought, analysis, and strategy. Mysteries and puzzles to figure out. Plenty of shit to whack with your sword or turn into a greasy spot with a fireball too. But damn it, I remember when you really wanted to bring along that ten foot pole to probe piles of rags, tap on floors and walls, and stick into the strange hole in the wall. Using a smoky candle or torch to search for secret doors and hidden rooms. Perhaps the smoke might get sucked through a tiny crack or get blown away from one, depending upon the air currents/pressure.

They've ended up getting killed more often from their ineptitude and bull-headedness. They're a pretty good group of people (all early to mid 20's in age). I just wish they'd do a little more thinking. The smallest shit throws them for a loop and I've found myself making stuff super simple and obvious to have any chance of being accomplished. I'm not saying that they're unintelligent, just that they are not used to thinking about things all that much.

This isn't so much of a damning criticism as a whimper of mild frustration. I've suggested all sorts of things to try and stimulate the analytical and innovative thought processes, but so far it has not been successful.

Fucking video games. I blame video games.

Has 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 do I solve it?

No mercy for the weak.  Let them keep dying and dying and dying.

Eventually somebody will ask you "how do we stop dying all the time."

And if they don't, keep killing them.

Lol. Yeah this is basically what I've been doing. They typically show up for a session with at least one extra character ready to go.

I figure, screw it. They'll learn or they'll keep dropping.

It has just gotten rather monotonous for me as the GM.

I don't think it's video games... at least not as much as it might seem.
I've always seen Players who want to think things out, ask questions side by side with others who just aren't entertained by that sort of thing and want to fight.
I've been running a game for two brothers... so same amount of video games and such... and the older (by a year) one is uber-cautious about everything while the younger one is the embodiment of pure chaos.
The older one also assumes I will let them die if they do something stupid while the younger one is almost daring me to kill his PC.
That's why the older one's PC is currently carrying the other PC's brainstem home in a jar for punishment and possible reassignment. We'll see if he changes his tactics next time we game... but I'm assuming he's going to have to die a few more times before he figures out he oughtta listen to his brother when he tells him they need to make plans.

Not that I think a Player is wrong if he wants to fight things, seek out the action... but don't go in assuming a win if you don't take measures to put the odds in your favor.

I'm only half serious when I blame video games... maybe. ;)

I don't have an equivalent big brother as in your group yet. I'm hoping one turns up.

I've talked to them all about careful game play, caution, the value of running away to fight another day. Sometimes yes you just have to start swinging your sword. But no character, in my games anyway, is immortal.

I'm not out to kill them off. I generally have a tendency to favour the player characters a bit. But damn. Stupid is as stupid does.

(shrugs)  It's easy to airily say "Stupid is as stupid does," but c'mon.  I don't think it's any more of a stretch for a player to say "I don't want to bother with tactics and I don't want to solve puzzles, I just want to hit things" than it is for a player to say "I don't want to bother with complex rules or spend a half hour on chargen, I just want to sit down and play the game" ... a sentiment expressed by more than one contributor to this thread.

If you've got a bunch of players who aren't into "careful and clever thought," it may well just be that that's not the style of game they want to play.  Blaming video games is facile: there were highly popular shoot-em-up video games ten years ago and twenty years ago and thirty years ago and FORTY years ago.

It's always a hell of a lot easier to find players who'll play the style you want to play than to try to force players to play in a style they don't want to play.

Having 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.

I saw that attitude long before video games.

The difference is back then we used to say "Who the hell taught you to play, cretin?"

I'm not saying that there is anything inherently wrong with that style of game play, I'm just saying that I would like to try and find a way to make it more interesting for me as a gamemaster for these players. I'm not crying badwrongfun or anything of that nature, nor am I intending to insult these folks, despite some of my wordplay. It's just a bit of frustration on my part.

I'm not exactly trying to force them to play my style, but I wouldn't mind a bit more thought involved instead of just hack and slash. A compromise, not a conversion. I'm in a bit of a player vacuum, where the overwhelming majority of available players are of this basic type.

I'm also talking DnD 5E. Not exactly rocket science in terms of complexity. I like it because it is simple. But simple system does not have to equal simple game play.

I'm not trying to stick my finger in anyone's ass regarding video games either. Not my thing. I think they're basically a waste of time for me.

I have no interest in getting into any video game +/- debate either.

I'm just looking for suggestions on what I can do to make the game more fun for me and to accomplish the goal of, and I know this is selfish and ridiculous of me, everyone having fun.

3e strongly rewarded that behavior.

XP and GP/loot is given out almost entirely based on kills. Everything else gets murky.


My biggest advice is to drop 'kill xp' entirely, and base advancement and general reward on various goals (either grabbed up as you go along or set ahead of time or some combo).

Either that or base it on old school XP = gp.

When players start realizing getting into every fight and charging in like idiots doesn't get them what they want, you should get better results. Particularly if you REALLY reward it -- the players intelligently plan on getting the Duke to back their chosen heir's bid for the crown, without any fighting or rolling? LOOT AND XP!


You get what you pay for.

Quote from: Wood Elf;811385It has just gotten rather monotonous for me as the GM.

The night we had a TPK to the Bag of Holding (the first time Gary Gygax ever introduced one), the night's gaming was over at that point, and Gary was pissed.

So make it clear it's monotonous.

"Next time you guys have a TPK the campaign is over."

Will and OG, those are not bad suggestions. Thank you.

Another, more difficult, path is to make them care about the characters. Although that may be cart before the horse.

But try to do... small stuff. The players are saving a farm. The players help build a bridge to several of the players' families' village. Make it rewarding, in various ways... connections, a thankful mayor, etc.

Again, you can't force it, but you can encourage it and see if the players are game.

I've used the humanitarian approach and they love making well thought out characters with rich backgrounds, but when the session starts, it is as if their brains drop into their shorts and all they want is to whack shit.

I incorporate quite a bit of character background into the game. I've always given xp for accomplishing story goals and non-combat related stuff. But maybe reducing xp for combat and placing a little more emphasis on goal xp would work.

The amount of character work they put in (3+ hours per character for 5E) versus how little thought they put into playing those characters is a strange paradox.

They're having a ball with the game and that's great.

I'm just watching as hook and hint go unnoticed. I'd just rather not railroad them with a big sign saying "Find adventure here!" or "You may wanna look for traps!".

I wonder if the Players might be of the mindset that "This is how D&D is supposed to be played!"... I've seen that before, approaching it as a skirmish wargame and nothing more... any other playstyle 'Isn't D&D'.
I've heard similar things in recent online games I've played in.

That could be, Simlasa. I know the games they ran in 3.5 were all along the pure hack and slash line. They're not against altering their style a bit, but I think it may be a "reflex" reaction once the game begins.

Apparently all the careful went over to the group I DM for. PLEASE! Take-It-Back!

No. Really. They have been super ultra cautious to the point one player is starting to come across as paranoid of 5es combat system/balance at this point. I dont mind them thinking things through. But theres been times where theyve been overly cautious.

As for the other type of pell mell wack-a-thon.

Some ideas.
1: Do not award EXP for killing things that didnt need killing. Definitly enforce 5e's low low low treasure chances too.

2: Present options where negotiation is better and then ENFORCE the consequences when they slaughter the village for their pocket change. Repercussions.

3: Try talking. "Ya know guys. There is more to this than wack-a-thon ya know?"

etc.

Shit I'll trade ya for a pair of cautious ones Omega!

Enforcing the consequences is part of what's getting them killed. I'm perfectly okay with that.

I'm really thinking that you and Will's suggestion to eliminate or virtually eliminate xp for killing stuff is the way to go.

I've always been a kind of a stingy bastard when it comes to magic items and treasure, so that's no prob.

When I've done the "Ya know guys..." thing they all just laugh and say "Yeah shit, you're probably right".

My lovely wife is a creature of 3.5.  I'm slowly getting her to grok the older style.  But... Slowly.

I was reading aloud to my wife from my OD&D clone rules tonight. When we got to stuff about marking down rations, hiring henchmen, rules for parley with monsters... That kind of stuff, she stopped me and said something like, "that really sounds like a waste of time. I don't want to worry about whether my character ate today."

We talked about it and I understood from our talk that the value of preparedness  in the older style game was lost on her entirely. She saw it as silly minutia. She asked "so the rest of the players have to sit there while I role play eating breakfast?"

We talked a little more about it and she understood why some perticular and seemingly unimportant rules were spelled out.  Still not sure she "gets" it and less sure she will learn to enjoy it.

Your players may be of a kind with my wife- skip the "boring" stuff and get me to the killing floor!

Speak plainly with each of them, first in private, and then as a group. Ask them whether they like puzzles and mysteries. Ask them whether being cautious is fun for them or not. Listen to them carefully, so that you can know to what degree they 1) have bought in and 2) want to buy in to the older way.

Only then can you really get a handle on why they keep suiciding against your dungeons.

Over time game styles have changed.

Initially it was about what you would do if you were in that situation

Then came imagine what this PC would do in this situation

Then came how can I maximise the amount of damage I can do in this situation within the rules of the game

Then came the rules have been altered to mean that everyone will do about the same damage and be as relevant to the situation if they can cleverly manage an arsenal of powers and we want to avoid PC death as that is a bit un-fun and time consuming

Now we are in the post modernist phase of RPGs where you can play whatever you like, all four flavours and a lot of other flavours are avilable. The trouble is because the frame of reference has shifted players all expect different things. There is no "truth" it's all relative.

So the shapeshifting magic casting multi-attack blow em all away round 1 3x killing machines are no less clever than the 10 foot pole crowd it's just their clever has shifted from "what would I do to get through this alive" to "how can I construct the most efficient PC from this rule set". The "what would my PC do in this situation" question has been replaced with "what is the best power combo to use to defeat this critter whilst not wasting my arsenal of resources".

None of these are superior to the others it's just a case and context thing.

I am a "roleplay" guy so my PCs often do stupid things if that is their character and I don't think "Oh I will do something stupid here for drama/story" I just get into my PC and so do what they would do. Some of them are sneaky bastards a few are more Leroy Jenkins....

1. Announce that you are playing Rolemaster Standard System from now on.
2. Guide them through the three hour process of creating a character.
3. Chortle as they get a dagger in the eyeball from a goblin in the first encounter and bleed out in 3 rounds.
4. Let them make new characters and watch as they play them very, very carefully.
5. ???
6. Profit

Remember, system matters, people!

Good solid ideas Scott. I'm a child of the "resource management" type of rpg. Teamwork. Strategy. Preparation. Tactics. Coordination.

Yeah jibbajibba, I'm a roleplayer like you. I get into my character and do what is appropriate for that character. Clever, stupid, or whatever.

That is a pretty decent way of spelling out the differences. I can see how that has happened.

My group is a good group of younger players. Solid, good, fun people. I think if I give it enough time and use a few of the ideas that have been presented, that it will all work out just dandy.

I'm not sure I entirely agree with you Shadow.

They have spent 3+ hours on their 5E characters. They love making characters. The first session ended with a near TPK against some cunning goblins and an opportunistic snake.

I've had players in Harn that didn't learn the first several times through either.

I'm not so sure that the system necessarily matters all that much, but regardless, we're using DnD 5E. It is a system that we all like and are happy with.

I'm thinking that the type of bait dangled is going to make all the difference here.

I haven't been awarding EXP in my first 5E game (Lost Mines of Phandelver) with all my beginner friends and so far it almost feels like they don't believe me when I say you only get EXP for tasks. Well, and random encounters. Maybe I should axe that too.

The same thing happened with "enforcing the consequences." I told them beforehand about it, but when it actually was happening some of them thought I was out to get them. But it's starting to sink in now.

Even giving EXP for tasks kind of warps the game though, because instead of "hey let's kill these guys for EXP" it was "let's go complete X task, not because it's in character or any in-game reason but because we'll get some EXP."

Maybe the best option is to not give out EXP at all on a regular basis, and don't let them know the methodology to it exactly? That way they will only make decisions on the basis of in-game factors.

There is also the conceit of the game: older games are more about average people just getting by in the wilderness and coming up in the world. Today's' games are all about people selected by destiny to be heroes. So the mindset that breeds is completely different.

Are they having fun even though their PCs are dying?

Are they learning anything? AKA, do they care about PC death?

I don't see the point in being stingy with XP or magic items. If they want some magic goodies, run a stealth mission to steal some great ones. Then, if they die foolishly, they miss out on them.

They are having fun despite characters sometimes dropping like flies. Character death doesn't seem to make a big impression on them. That's fine as far as I am concerned. They are a bunch of goofballs (I mean that in a good way). I think it would be nice if they would, at least sometimes, play a little more carefully so that a character can make it beyond 5th level.

I'm not getting any complaints about lack of magic items or such. I'm not all that stingy with xp, just mostly magic stuff. In point of fact I'm not getting complaints about anything. It's just my experience that is a little lacking.

Quote from: jibbajibba;811413I am a "roleplay" guy so my PCs often do stupid things if that is their character and I don't think "Oh I will do something stupid here for drama/story" I just get into my PC and so do what they would do. Some of them are sneaky bastards a few are more Leroy Jenkins....

Same with me. I'm doing a Half-Orc Barbarian in my next game, with an int of 8 and a wis of 10. I doubt he is going to be coming up with clever plans. Now, he might follow someone else's clever plan, if he trusts them, but his first instinct in combat will be to charge the nearest thing.

Quote from: Simlasa;811408I wonder if the Players might be of the mindset that "This is how D&D is supposed to be played!"... I've seen that before, approaching it as a skirmish wargame and nothing more... any other playstyle 'Isn't D&D'.
I've heard similar things in recent online games I've played in.

It's not that they're playing it as a skirmish wargame, it's that they're playing stupid.

I play lots of skirmish wargames.  Play stupid against me and I'll hand you your ass in a bucket.

"You guys are playing like a bunch of fucking morons and it's not fun for me.  I quit."

Quote from: Emperor Norton;811434Same with me. I'm doing a Half-Orc Barbarian in my next game, with an int of 8 and a wis of 10. I doubt he is going to be coming up with clever plans. Now, he might follow someone else's clever plan, if he trusts them, but his first instinct in combat will be to charge the nearest thing.

When you deliberately roleplay a character in a non-optimal way, what do you want the GM to do? Are you okay with him going at you full throttle, or do you view that as "punishing" your roleplaying?

I had a player once he's motif was playing a klutzy, ditzy character that constantly got into risky situations. They didn't last long, because of that. But they got upset because they thought I was punishing them for putting themselves in those situations.

Quote from: Wood Elf;811433They are having fun despite characters sometimes dropping like flies. Character death doesn't seem to make a big impression on them. That's fine as far as I am concerned. They are a bunch of goofballs (I mean that in a good way). I think it would be nice if they would, at least sometimes, play a little more carefully so that a character can make it beyond 5th level.

I still get a video game vibe from this. Like they're playing Diablo and can just respawn with a new character and continue on their way.

Are you making there be story consequences for their deaths? Like if they die, they miss out on various missions or fail them. That way there are things that can't be undone by just making a new character.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;811434Same with me. I'm doing a Half-Orc Barbarian in my next game, with an int of 8 and a wis of 10. I doubt he is going to be coming up with clever plans. Now, he might follow someone else's clever plan, if he trusts them, but his first instinct in combat will be to charge the nearest thing.

And if he charges the 9 headed hydra and it rips him to bits, will you be okay with that?

If so, go for it.

Quote from: Wood Elf;811433They are having fun despite characters sometimes dropping like flies. Character death doesn't seem to make a big impression on them. That's fine as far as I am concerned. They are a bunch of goofballs (I mean that in a good way). I think it would be nice if they would, at least sometimes, play a little more carefully so that a character can make it beyond 5th level.

It sounds to me like you're beating your head against a wall. This group seems fine with the "concequences" of character death, so that's not going to be a deterrent.
Here's a question, can you think of a way so that you have more fun in the context of their playstyle? Maybe make the game more about tactical choices and less aboout strategic ones?

Quote from: Old Geezer;811439"You guys are playing like a bunch of fucking morons and it's not fun for me.  I quit."

I'm going with this answer.

Most of the discussion in this thread seems to follow the mostly unspoken assumption that the way Wood Elf wants them to play - being careful and paranoid and selective about when to fight and when to run away - is the "correct" way to play the game and that the way the players want to play - charging in and slaying things with little thought to tactics - is the "wrong" way to play.

So the players need to be "taught" or "corrected".

That's bullshit.

Both ways of playing are perfectly fine and valid, and there's nothing wrong with either of them. Neither way of playing is the problem.

The problem is that the players want to play one sort of game and Wood Elf want to run a different sort.

So the way to handle this situation isn't to try to coerce the players into playing in a different style through in-character "keep killing them till they learn" or out-of-character "don't give them XP for killing" shenanigans.

The adult way to handle the situation is to sit down and say "You guys like to play in style A and I like to run games in style B. So it's better for you to find someone who want so run games in style A and I find some people who want to play games in style B. This doesn't mean we can't still be friends, just that we'll be in different games."

Quote from: Wood Elf;811433They are having fun despite characters sometimes dropping like flies. Character death doesn't seem to make a big impression on them.

"You guys get one character each for this campaign. It dies, you're out. All dice rolls are in the open, no shenanigans. If you die, cry me a river. You can turn up and watch the following week if you want. Roll initiative!"

What Blacky said is also highly important.

I have a feeling you may not be explicit about expectations regarding mood, lethality, contrast, seriousness, and so on. Now may be a time to pause and have a talk clarifying those expectations. Be open and cut to the chase about where certain attitudes and actions will likely lead to. Speeds through the process of chargen & zany follies.

Also how good are you at shifting mood from zany hijinks to chilling lethality?

I think the 'muscle memory' aspect is probably a key one. They have inbuilt instincts for playing DnD, so best to get them to try something completely different.

I would try to switch things up by offering to run some Call of Cthulhu for them - learning to stop, think and play cautious are essential there! If they enjoy a bit of that you can then discuss how that type of play could be brought into your DnD. If they don't like cautious play (rather than not liking CoC or 1920s etc) then you have your answer and you should part ways as suggested.

Does age have anything to do with it?

My new group are all in their 30s nad got started with 1st and 2nd ed. After their first encounter, in which they each got dropped to 1 or 2 hp in the first round of combat, they've been amazingly clever in shifting the odds in their favor.

Cyclops lumbering through the woods? Fuck that, we'll make a distraction and go hide above its eye level in the trees (why would such an apex predator ever look up?). I was rather impressed and gave them the xp for defeating the encounter anyway.

Trouble is if your dm style is, I only want to run games where all the PC's are clever and paranoid then you are doing as much of a rail road as saying you can't kill the princess because, plot..

Certainly from my perspective you have to generate a desire to be careful rather than trying to impose it. This might prove impossible but things like getting them to identify more with their PCs, adding NPCs that create relations the players care about. In troducing some actual puzzel s or complex traps they need to think round.... if you engender the correct setting, and CoC is a great idea, then they may start to move toward a play style like that

I'm in my mid-30s, my group is in their late-20s/early-30s. I don't recognise this phenomenon at all. I don't remember the last time we had a PC death in any of our games that didn't happen in post-script (that includes a long-running WFRP2e game which started at the start). There's been no pulling of punches either, we just take calculated risks when necessary.

We don't start D&D games at 1st level (our recent 4e games started at 7th and 8th level), though, with the exception of our 13th Age game. But that said, a 1st level 13A character is pretty durable.

I feel like they want to play an action game, where that's the rule of the day and it works like an action movie, and the game you want to run is a heist game, where caution and planning are the rule of the day.

Maybe what you need is to give them a solid rolemodel... Maybe they'll see someone solving problems tactically, using resources intelligently, thinking in character and the lightbulb will go on.
...So maybe you need to get someone else to GM for once, so you can show them how its done as a player.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;811460Maybe what you need is to give them a solid rolemodel... Maybe they'll see someone solving problems tactically, using resources intelligently, thinking in character and the lightbulb will go on.
...So maybe you need to get someone else to GM for once, so you can show them how its done as a player.

I was thinking about this too. Bring in a big brother who has a handle on playing smart. Don't shove it in their faces, just someone who can demonstrate an alternative style.

Quote from: Scott Anderson;811461I was thinking about this too. Bring in a big brother who has a handle on playing smart. Don't shove it in their faces, just someone who can demonstrate an alternative style.

That assumes, of course, that the issue is that they just don't know any "better". They may not want to play a more cautious, considered style of game. In which case we have a fundamental disconnect in expectations.

Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;811446and valid, and there's nothing wrong with either of them. Neither way of playing is the problem.

The problem is that the players want to play one sort of game and Wood Elf want to run a different sort.

So the way to handle this situation isn't to try to coerce the players into playing in a different style through in-character "keep killing them till they learn" or out-of-character "don't give them XP for killing" shenanigans.

The adult way to handle the situation is to sit down and say "You guys like to play in style A and I like to run games in style B. So it's better for you to find someone who want so run games in style A and I find some people who want to play games in style B. This doesn't mean we can't still be friends, just that we'll be in different games."

I agree with this entirely. If you have a mismatch in styles you either all try to find a happy compromise or move on. The idea that the GM should indirectly seek to reform or re-educate the players strikes me as perhaps a little creepy.

Quote from: jibbajibba;811456Trouble is if your dm style is, I only want to run games where all the PC's are clever and paranoid then you are doing as much of a rail road as saying you can't kill the princess because, plot.

Oh I agree.

To clarify my specific experience, the 1st level characters charged some goblins head on and traded blows (none of the PCs were Fighters). I didn't make the enemies any stronger or more clever than they were in the pre-written adventure, and I used the average damage values to keep things "softer".

After they nearly died, I didn't get all smug or anything. They decided on their own that they didn't want to face any antagonists in a straight up fight without attempting to stack things in their favor. From then on, they used guile, great social skills and stealth to make things easier on them.

Another example: they convinced the goblins that they'd share any treasure with them if they helped in overthrowing their cruel hobgoblin boss. They had a very easy time defeating the boss and now are allied with a band of goblins.

EDIT: 5e is deceptively lethal for 1st level characters...

How about instead of killing their characters, you have them captured instead and use that as an opportunity to humiliate them for their foolishness? If engaging in kill-a-thons do not bother them, then change the consequences to something that does bother them.

Otherwise, you will have to go through the kill-a-thons until the Players get bored with them and try something else.

It sure seems like the ease of character creation has lessened the player's investment in their characters.

Quote from: jeff37923;811477How about instead of killing their characters, you have them captured instead and use that as an opportunity to humiliate them for their foolishness?

That's a good idea.

I've had goons keep PCs alive because one of them had a noble background and they wanted ransom money.

What's the objection? How they are playing, or the disconnect of constant new characters?

Because another option is not to actually ever have characters die 'for reals,' instead they are 'out' and maybe get a long-running minor injury whenever they would normally die.

(Barring things like 'the dragon chews you up' or 'a 5 ton boulder squishes you')

Quote from: Will;811490What's the objection? How they are playing, or the disconnect of constant new characters?

Because another option is not to actually ever have characters die 'for reals,' instead they are 'out' and maybe get a long-running minor injury whenever they would normally die.

(Barring things like 'the dragon chews you up' or 'a 5 ton boulder squishes you')

Wouldn't that start getting into the territory where it's just straight up not fun for the player?

There seems to be a tension between making them care via problems they suffer and "fun." Or at least immediate fun.

Sounds like they have a...
Charge in and win - Awesome!
Charge in and lose - Oh well, once more into the breach and close the wall up with our PC dead!
...vibe going on.

Death has no consequences, or they accept death willingly as part of their playstyle.  Not much you can do about that, but you can try.

1. Tie them to the setting.  Death will never matter at all if their character has no life off the sheet.  Give them something in the setting they will miss if they no longer have the character to interface with it.  This approach can take a while though.

2. As suggested, bring in a ringer player or have someone else GM while you play and simply introduce them to another style.  Don't punish them for playing they way they do, just let them see someone playing differently.  They may decide to give it a try.

3. Just tell them what's going on, but just make sure you don't do a Steve Martin "Chatty Cathy Doll" rant.  Yeah, for people who spend their time on RPG boards, the whole "expectations" thing gets done to death, but for most people, they know what they know, and don't know what they don't know, so you're gonna look like you're coming out of the complete blue with this.  You will surprise them that you're not having fun.

Quote from: Soylent Green;811465The idea that the GM should indirectly seek to reform or re-educate the players strikes me as perhaps a little creepy.

For god's sake, relax.  He's not trying to brainwash the young.  

Why does everyone always assume the players know exactly how rewarding an in-depth, detailed, immersive campaign can be?  Not only is it possible but based on gaming culture of the last decade, more then likely that they don't "know better", which is just a hostile way of saying they've never experienced it.  

When someone hasn't experienced another way of doing things, Show not Tell is frequently the better option.

Quote from: Wood Elf;811382Don't get me wrong, they can be fun at times, but the relentless shoot-first charge in style just gets fucking boring for me. I'm the one gming and I started with the style that I was used to. Sneaky shit that required thought, analysis, and strategy. Mysteries and puzzles to figure out. Plenty of shit to whack with your sword or turn into a greasy spot with a fireball too. But damn it, I remember when you really wanted to bring along that ten foot pole to probe piles of rags, tap on floors and walls, and stick into the strange hole in the wall. Using a smoky candle or torch to search for secret doors and hidden rooms. Perhaps the smoke might get sucked through a tiny crack or get blown away from one, depending upon the air currents/pressure.

Quote from: jibbajibba;811413Over time game styles have changed.

Initially it was about what you would do if you were in that situation

Then came imagine what this PC would do in this situation

Then came how can I maximise the amount of damage I can do in this situation within the rules of the game

I think jibbajibba is right. I suspect your players are accustomed to using their brains, but in the context of character builds and combat efficiency.

If you want to challenge them with the older style of explore and experiment then I'd suggest running The Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan. The whole adventure is interacting with the environment, exploring, figuring shit out. Figurines with weird powers. Statues that do stuff when you move them a certain way. Mosaics that give clues. Underground rivers, gas leaks, and other environmental challenges. And it's all done in an extremely artful and imaginative way. It features some very cool combat encounters as well.

If they play through Tamoachan and still don't like that style of play, then it's unlikely they ever will. At that point, time to move on and see if there's a style of play that is mutually agreeable.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;811493Wouldn't that start getting into the territory where it's just straight up not fun for the player?

There seems to be a tension between making them care via problems they suffer and "fun." Or at least immediate fun.

Maybe, it's worth asking.

But the description of the players is that they like to charge in and go balls-out.

In my experience that tends to mean people who like a 'rousing crazy adventure' mode of play, who also don't tend to care about risks and thrill of maybe dying.

My suggestion is a compromise between what the players seem to want (rambling crazy adventure) and what the GM might want (I THINK it's the lack of continuity of characters).

Now, if the GM actually wants the players to be more cautious and not play that way, regardless of death, then this wouldn't work.

Quote from: CRKrueger;811496For god's sake, relax.  He's not trying to brainwash the young.  

Why does everyone always assume the players know exactly how rewarding an in-depth, detailed, immersive campaign can be?  Not only is it possible but based on gaming culture of the last decade, more then likely that they don't "know better", which is just a hostile way of saying they've never experienced it.  

When someone hasn't experienced another way of doing things, Show not Tell is frequently the better option.

The first line somewhat contradicts the rest.

But as you said, I vote #2, talk it out. It's possible they know very well, but don't care or don't want to play that way.

Some people might want a very shallow 'blowing off steam after a week of work/school' kind of game.

Over the years, literally hundreds of pages of posts on this site have been created in heated bitter argument because one side believes what the other side claims to experience literally can't happen or does not exist.

It's not about what's "better", it's about what's "possible".  In a city campaign once in D&D, the players were having issues with unraveling what was going on, interacting with contacts, etc...  I asked a Shadowrun player to come in, even though he didn't really like D&D as a system.  He treated the city campaign like a city campaign in SR without technology.  You could literally see the lightbulbs go on in the other players' heads.  I teach for a living, I know the look well.   They dove in and loved it.

It wasn't a case of "well we know how to do an in-depth city campaign, we just prefer not to do that" or "we prefer not to subvert the trope of the dungeon by investigating contacts, etc" they were smart people, their brains just weren't going there, they were in "D&D Mode".  Once they found out experientially that they didn't have to be, the whole thing broke open.

Would talking it out with people who don't live, eat and breathe RPGs and RPG theory have done it?  Maybe.  But in a lot of cases, particularly when what they are doing, like RPGs, is really a mental state, experiential learning is  the way to go.

Now if they said "You know, I don't like this." then I could conclude that having actually experienced different modes of play, they are now choosing what they actually want, not the only thing they know.

I had the opposite experience as the OP.  When I DM'd my son (12 at the time) and his friends for the first time, they were some of the most creative players I had DM'd in a long while.  They didn't have any preconcieved notions as to what their PCs could or couldn't do.

Krueger:
Lucid, compellingly presented points.

(And because I know you love it: 'It sounds so strange coming from you!')

But more seriously, yeah, you've convinced me, at least.

Sacrosanct:
I think the thing about gaming groups is that they are wildly diverse and form in all sorts of random, unexamined ways. Experiences end up differing wildly, and Krueger makes a good point that most people aren't theory wonks who have examined what they are doing in detail.

Quote from: CRKrueger;811496Sounds like they have a...
Charge in and win - Awesome!
Charge in and lose - Oh well, once more into the breach and close the wall up with our PC dead!
...vibe going on.

Death has no consequences, or they accept death willingly as part of their playstyle.  Not much you can do about that, but you can try.

1. Tie them to the setting.  Death will never matter at all if their character has no life off the sheet.  Give them something in the setting they will miss if they no longer have the character to interface with it.  This approach can take a while though.

2. As suggested, bring in a ringer player or have someone else GM while you play and simply introduce them to another style.  Don't punish them for playing they way they do, just let them see someone playing differently.  They may decide to give it a try.

3. Just tell them what's going on, but just make sure you don't do a Steve Martin "Chatty Cathy Doll" rant.  Yeah, for people who spend their time on RPG boards, the whole "expectations" thing gets done to death, but for most people, they know what they know, and don't know what they don't know, so you're gonna look like you're coming out of the complete blue with this.  You will surprise them that you're not having fun.

For god's sake, relax.  He's not trying to brainwash the young.  

Why does everyone always assume the players know exactly how rewarding an in-depth, detailed, immersive campaign can be?  Not only is it possible but based on gaming culture of the last decade, more then likely that they don't "know better", which is just a hostile way of saying they've never experienced it.  

When someone hasn't experienced another way of doing things, Show not Tell is frequently the better option.

Yup all this stuff

Quote from: Old Geezer;811444And if he charges the 9 headed hydra and it rips him to bits, will you be okay with that?

If so, go for it.

He's a bit slow, not braindead.

He isn't likely to think of a plan involving stealth, trickery, leading enemies into ambushes, etc. But you don't have to do that to understand keeping your head down and retreating against a clearly superior foe.

Let someone else in the party come up with the plans. He isn't a leader anyway, he's brute force, and not that bright, and he knows that much.

Granted, if the party uses a plan that works once, he might start suggesting that plan in all future situations, whether it fits the situation or not. I find that that is actually one of the marks of someone who isn't exactly a creative mind. They see something work, and just try to apply that to everything.

Luckily, he isn't alone, or he probably wouldn't last very long.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;811520He's a bit slow, not braindead.

He isn't likely to think of a plan involving stealth, trickery, leading enemies into ambushes, etc. But you don't have to do that to understand keeping your head down and retreating against a clearly superior foe.

Let someone else in the party come up with the plans. He isn't a leader anyway, he's brute force, and not that bright, and he knows that much.

Granted, if the party uses a plan that works once, he might start suggesting that plan in all future situations, whether it fits the situation or not. I find that that is actually one of the marks of someone who isn't exactly a creative mind. They see something work, and just try to apply that to everything.

Luckily, he isn't alone, or he probably wouldn't last very long.

What about this: http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=811440&postcount=30

I've had both types of players in my table--"kill 'em all, fightfightFIGHT" and "let's think this through and come up with a plan'.

Both ways can be lots of fun, although when I have both at the table at the same time, there can be plenty of friction, as some players get tired of "all the talking".

While certainly the GM can influence things, it mostly just depends on the players. While the general mood here is "punish the hyperaggressive" players, keep in mind the talky-players also could get punished.

Spend 20 minutes outside the door of the Thieve's Den discussing strategy? Gee, maybe one of those sneaky types noticed the half dozen heavily armed characters chatting.

Decide to take a long rest to get superoptimized right before what should be the big battle? Cool, that means the monsters have time for reinforcements (or, my favorite, time to notice most of their friends are hacked to death, and to pack up and run away).

Really, both styles of play have plenty of room for punishment in them.

That the OP is saying the Players are enjoying themselves has me thinking this is somewhat like the Pathfinder group I play in.

We've had loads of PC deaths and TPKs... seldom gotten anything near 5th level. Not exactly because we charge into combat every time... but combination of bad ideas and bad rolls... the GM's willingness to follow things to their inevitable conclusions/consequences... it's kind of led to a bit of an Abbot & Costello Meet the Wolfman feel. None of us seem to mind the deaths and it's all been generally lighthearted. Doing what seems likely for the PCs vs. what seems smart from a meta perspective.
The GM MIGHT be getting a bit frustrated, I'm not sure... I know he's got a fuckload of Pathfinder books that we haven't used because we're constantly hovering at lower lvls. The one time he did try to jumpstart us into a Legendary campaign didn't go over well and led to a restart a couple sessions in.
Lately he's been talking about running Rise of the Runelords but warned us we can't play in the manner we've been going with... which just leaves me thinking it's not something I want to play, not right now at least.

I like making plans and strategery... but I don't give a shit about getting to higher levels and mad powerz... and each death is a chance at trying on some new character, some new funny accent and persona.
The last group I was in had neverending campaigns where no PC ever died and all the missions were 'EPIC'... and fuck, that was dull!

It's sounding, to me, like the GM wants a 'serious' game/campaign... and the Players just want a beer & pretzels bit of gaming.

http://youtu.be/WMAG9GkWySg?list=PLk0Hd0vmvFM9gzEALe-4fI0FTAERXsCQh

Quote from: Wood Elf;811382Has anyone else really struggled with this? How did you solve it?

Find more mature role-players.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;811520He's a bit slow, not braindead.

He isn't likely to think of a plan involving stealth, trickery, leading enemies into ambushes, etc. But you don't have to do that to understand keeping your head down and retreating against a clearly superior foe.

Let someone else in the party come up with the plans. He isn't a leader anyway, he's brute force, and not that bright, and he knows that much.

Granted, if the party uses a plan that works once, he might start suggesting that plan in all future situations, whether it fits the situation or not. I find that that is actually one of the marks of someone who isn't exactly a creative mind. They see something work, and just try to apply that to everything.

Luckily, he isn't alone, or he probably wouldn't last very long.

Fair enough; originally it sounded a bit more Leeroy Jenkins to me.

I have no objection to "Look, just tell me when you want me to smack something" characters.

How about saying

"This isn't fun for me" and having a reasonable, adult discussion with your players to reach an acceptable compromise.

....naaaah

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;811618Find more mature role-players.

While that play style might not be particularly sophisticated I wouldn't call it immature... it's just not what the OP/GM wants out of the game.

You just never know.  I've had a couple of young groups here.  First were great role players and devil-may-care combatants.   Last couple groups have been real thinkers. It seems to depend on the dominant personalities. They're all in the 17-22 age range.

Curiously enough, I've never had problems finding people who can bang two brain cells together, explore an environment, nibble at the edges of the prepared material, use everything on the character sheet including the lucky toad and jar of dead wasps, and generally force me to do some actual thinking.

Maybe it's something to do with actively recruiting players who aren't... lifestyle-choice gamers, for want of a better word. I'm not saying I don't want Gamer Scum at my table (I'd have to get up and leave for one thing), but I find groups wholly comprised of people who do more gaming than other stuff to be less interesting.

A 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.

Quote from: Kiero;811463That assumes, of course, that the issue is that they just don't know any "better". They may not want to play a more cautious, considered style of game. In which case we have a fundamental disconnect in expectations.

Yeah, 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. (http://ravenswing59.blogspot.com/2013/09/ggf-4.html)

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.

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. (http://ravenswing59.blogspot.com/2013/09/ggf-4.html)

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 entirely get it from a player perspective, the other players don't like to role play / role play too much, they are all optimisers/none of them optimise but from a DM perspective its harder .

You are basically saying unless your PCs play like this I am going to take my ball and go home.
That is much more problematic that if you are a player dropping a group. If you as a DM can't use the range of tools you have to drive the play style in the direction you want it to go then I think you just have to suck it up. The world is hte world it won't change no matter what the PCs do but if playing it deadly stll means they play disposable heroes ...

Quote from: jibbajibba;811739I entirely get it from a player perspective, the other players don't like to role play / role play too much, they are all optimisers/none of them optimise but from a DM perspective its harder .

You are basically saying unless your PCs play like this I am going to take my ball and go home.

To 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.

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. (http://ravenswing59.blogspot.com/2013/09/ggf-4.html)

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.

It goes both ways. The player can play how he wants, the DM can have players he wants. Ideally you get a match.

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. (http://ravenswing59.blogspot.com/2013/09/ggf-4.html)

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.

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.

I don't know anything about Far Cry but I think there is a flaw in this example  as it suggests earning the virtually currency XP is a stronger pull than  actual gameplay (which in fairness is probably true in MMOs). I am pretty sure no one has ever gone to the game shop thinking "Man, Imma gonna earn so much XP in this game!". I expect most people will be anticipating all the cool they will get to do, the definition of cool being something that varies from person to person.

Some people like clever and careful, that's cool. But if I am not one of those people, then what we're saying is I could play the game the way I want, go in Arnie style, mow everything in sight down grinning like a maniac  and earn less XP or I could play like my grandma and earn more XP.

Now if XP were real, hard cash, the stuff I can spend in the shops I can see why one might hesitate. But that given the only value XP have is that enrich the game experience the whole thing starts  a little twisted. It comes down to rewarding players with virtual currency for not playing the game they way they want to.

The rational thing to do is for the clever and careful player to buy Far Cry 3 and for the impulsive and daring players to play something else.

PS:
To be clear, the basic approach outlined in the Far Cry example is absolutely fine, giving more XP for solving problems in the more genre appropriate way is cool but in the end it remains the player's choice which way to proceed and I don't think the lure of more sweet, sweet XP would sway me from what I might consider more fun because XP without fun are pretty worthless.

Quote from: Soylent Green;812027I am pretty sure no one has ever gone to the game shop thinking "Man, Imma gonna earn so much XP in this game!".

A game shop, no.

A game, yes.  We still deliberately go on outdoor adventures in the mountains in OD&D when we're after serious XP.

Hell, even in dungeon adventures we do that.  Lower levels = better loot = bigger XP haul.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;812021Maybe 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?

Or disassociate levelling from XP altogether, and level when the GM says so.

I would just start tossing out XP for clever plans. And the fun part is that if they start realizing that clever plans = more xp + less hp loss meaning more possible adventuring per day, then it starts getting really heavy in the amount of extra XP they can earn.

Just really make sure that you make it obvious that is why they are getting it. Say "Ok, you get 500 xp for overcoming the challenge, and oh, take another 500 for coming up with a good plan to do it."

(If you don't want to speed up leveling, just make the challenges worth less, then make them worth about the same as they would be otherwise if they finished them cleverly).

Also be up front about this.

Some of the 'teach your players' stuff comes across as really patronizing to players.

http://www.madadventurers.com/angry-rants-lazy-dms-and-non-experience-systems/

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;811440It wasn't a case of "well we know how to do an in-depth city campaign, we just prefer not to do that" or "we prefer not to subvert the trope of the dungeon by investigating contacts, etc" they were smart people, their brains just weren't going there, they were in "D&D Mode".  Once they found out experientially that they didn't have to be, the whole thing broke open.

Having someone guide them at first is super helpful.  Trying to get a bunch of people who think "RPG = dungeon bash" to do a political city campaign can be pretty difficult.  If they're used to "problem = fight" (and yeah, I know that's a misconception of dungeon crawls, forgive this for the purpose of the example), then they're not going to understand the likely consequences of their actions, etc.

Trying to learn a new mode of play, when you're already immersed in a particular mode of play, without someone to kind of show you the ropes is almost always a frustrating and counter-productive experience.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;812021Maybe 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?

The only difficulty is if the game you intend is based on a certain income (gold spent on buying or making magic items or whatever) and that amount of gold doesn't match the XP you want. You could fix that (if you know the amounts of gold and XP you want) by adjusting the ratio of XP earned per gold piece.

I played in a game where only copper gave XP, so a treasure could be worth the same and have different amounts of XP. I think the DM only did it to mess with people (you had to carry the copper home if you wanted the XP) and with the idea from OD&D that XP equaled treasure; I was not aware of any in-game rationale.

Quote from: Kiero;812030Or disassociate levelling from XP altogether, and level when the GM says so.

This gets my vote. The way D&D's leveling works is fairly silly and arbitrary anyway; my PC goes to bed at one level with all his regular skills and abilities and wakes up the next morning suddenly able to make an extra attack/round, use new abilities, cast new spells and/or possibly have a neat new trick or two from a feat.

Why not take the process to its logical conclusion and just have everyone level up when the DM feels it's appropriate? It saves her/him prep time and effort in figuring out how much to award for non-combat gains and spares everyone else the bother of having another bloody number to keep track of.

To be clear, I don't think this should be the universal approach. In Earthdawn, f'rex, Legend Points actually serve a purpose in that they're essentially the currency one uses to improve one's character. In D&D, though, it's just an arbitrary number used to gauge theoretical progress toward the next level. My group's just been leveling up when the DM tells us to for a few years now and no one has felt the loss of tracking XP (least of all her brother and myself, who are the veteran players at the table). Hell, for all I know she actually is keeping track of it and telling us to level when the rules say so. From the outside, it's impossible to mark a distinction.

I like leveling when the GM (subject to some consensus) feels right.
And that is driven, to some extent, by the actions of the players in 'achieving stuff.'

I DO like players to articulate goals, to help get a sense of how things are progressing. (Even in sandbox, 'I want to kill that fucking hob warlord' can be a perfectly serviceable goal)


In a more traditionalist style, I prefer to give XP per dungeon/adventure, and add various subgoals.
So, for example, 'if the party acquires the sixteen gems of Arbalest in the lowest room of the Tomb of the Dour Arbalestine King, they get BLA XP. There's also a secret tome, the Tomb Tome of Toombs, that is worth BLER XP. IF they manage to rescue the villagers, that's another GORT XP.'

And then have at it.

Quote from: woodsmoke;812137Why not take the process to its logical conclusion and just have everyone level up when the DM feels it's appropriate? It saves her/him prep time and effort in figuring out how much to award for non-combat gains and spares everyone else the bother of having another bloody number to keep track of.

I'd prefer that too... with a general preference for it to happen during down time between adventures... say we've returned to town with loot, sought training and repair and whatever... come out shiny, new and improved.
Much less jarring than the sudden beam of light, mid battle and one guy's stats shoot up.

QuoteIn Earthdawn, f'rex, Legend Points actually serve a purpose in that they're essentially the currency one uses to improve one's character.

The whole time I was playing Earthdawn, several years, I saw maybe two Legend points spent. Not sure why... but they seemed like a last resort sort of thing.

Yeah (bonus) XP-per-event is perfectly serviceable too, and it works more or less perfectly whether you're running a game like D&D with an all-at-once leveling system or a more granular skill-based system like Star Wars or 7th Sea (or pseudo-skill-based like Earthdawn).

It also maintains the benefit of making the DM's job easier, which is something I always want to do as best I reasonably can as a player.

Quote from: Simlasa;812142I'd prefer that too... with a general preference for it to happen during down time between adventures... say we've returned to town with loot, sought training and repair and whatever... come out shiny, new and improved.
Much less jarring than the sudden beam of light, mid battle and one guy's stats shoot up.

Yeah, that's how we handle it. Works well enough for me.

Quote from: SimlasaThe whole time I was playing Earthdawn, several years, I saw maybe two Legend points spent. Not sure why... but they seemed like a last resort sort of thing.

...how did people improve their skills and talents and level their characters? Or did 3e/Classic change the way that works? As I recall, in first and second edition, you'd spend legend points to purchase new ranks and improve your abilities, which is how your character increased circles.

Quote from: Simlasa;812142I'd prefer that too... with a general preference for it to happen during down time between adventures... say we've returned to town with loot, sought training and repair and whatever... come out shiny, new and improved.
Much less jarring than the sudden beam of light, mid battle and one guy's stats shoot up.

Yeah, that's how we handle it. Works well enough for me.

Quote from: SimlasaThe whole time I was playing Earthdawn, several years, I saw maybe two Legend points spent. Not sure why... but they seemed like a last resort sort of thing.

...how did people improve their skills and talents and level their characters? Or did 3e/Classic change the way that works? As I recall, in first and second edition, you'd spend legend points to purchase new ranks and improve your abilities, which is how your character increased circles.

I can't remember ever playing D&D where XP was awarded earlier than at the end of the adventure - when the party got home or at least to a safe place where they could rest up - and we always assumed that it took weeks to gain the new level's abilities. (Is it just a long rest now, like recovering HP and spells?)

Leveling up in the middle of battle sounds like a dumb video game thing, but that doesn't mean the only alternative is for the GM to decide leveling without even tracking XP.

Quote from: dbm;812020Serious 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.

Interesting you should mention GURPS in this context, because GURPS has an extremely NON-granular XP system compared to many a game system.  

For those of you unfamiliar, the guidelines given in GURPS 3rd are, per session:

+1-3 pts, for good roleplaying;
-1-5 pts, for poor roleplaying;
+2-4 pts, for successful completion of a mission;
-1-2 pts, for partial failure of a mission or significant setbacks in a multi-session adventure;
-4-5 pts, for disastrous failure of a mission;
+1 pt, for a clever action or solution to a specific problem, in character, per action.

The recommendation is for 2-3 pts/session on the average, never to go below zero, never to go above five.

A similar system could be bolted on to any game system which hands out XP, D&D included.  Just decide how much XP constitutes a good day of play, a great day of play, or a rotten day of play, and work the percentages from there.  That way, you don't have to worry at all how much XP to hand out for a tough guard as opposed to a not-so-tough guard as opposed to a tough guard who was drunk, as opposed to ...

Quote from: Ravenswing;812156Interesting you should mention GURPS in this context, because GURPS has an extremely NON-granular XP system compared to many a game system.  

For those of you unfamiliar, the guidelines given in GURPS 3rd are, per session:

+1-3 pts, for good roleplaying;
-1-5 pts, for poor roleplaying;
+2-4 pts, for successful completion of a mission;
-1-2 pts, for partial failure of a mission or significant setbacks in a multi-session adventure;
-4-5 pts, for disastrous failure of a mission;
+1 pt, for a clever action or solution to a specific problem, in character, per action.

The recommendation is for 2-3 pts/session on the average, never to go below zero, never to go above five.

A similar system could be bolted on to any game system which hands out XP, D&D included.  Just decide how much XP constitutes a good day of play, a great day of play, or a rotten day of play, and work the percentages from there.  That way, you don't have to worry at all how much XP to hand out for a tough guard as opposed to a not-so-tough guard as opposed to a tough guard who was drunk, as opposed to ...

While the method of giving out XP in point based systems like GURPS and HERO might be considered non-granular by your definition the actual spending of that XP on character development is not.

Quote from: Ravenswing;812156Interesting you should mention GURPS in this context, because GURPS has an extremely NON-granular XP system compared to many a game system.  

I was addressing Emperor Norton's suggestion for rewarding (to paraphrase) stealth kills and the like, when the OP is playing D&D, a system notorious for not supporting a firing squad, let alone a knife-kill. :)

Sure, you can house rule these things extensively but classes like the Assassin kind of complicate the issue as they already have some capability in this area.

I'm genuinely interested in suggestion for how to make it work, other than playing a game which does support more 'realistic' damage.

Quote from: dbm;812210I was addressing Emperor Norton's suggestion for rewarding (to paraphrase) stealth kills and the like, when the OP is playing D&D, a system notorious for not supporting a firing squad, let alone a knife-kill. :)

Sure, you can house rule these things extensively but classes like the Assassin kind of complicate the issue as they already have some capability in this area.

I'm genuinely interested in suggestion for how to make it work, other than playing a game which does support more 'realistic' damage.

So it's not about the experience points at all; it's about whether you can achieve a stealth takedown?

It seems unlikely to me that the guard will have 50 HP; but if the guards are that tough, then you probably have very high level player characters who can deliver 50 points of damage quickly enough that he can't get the alarm off. If the DM is trying to make it feasible (but not certain) for a sneak attack to work, then the average guard is not going to be as strong as one PC and isn't going to have a bunch of other guards with him or close enough to hear a round of ordinary combat (maybe make the players roll a stealth check to be quiet enough). (Realistic damage isn't going to help if the guards are squads, each with the same hit points the player characters have.)

For more reasonable guard HP totals, if you do sneak up on the guard, you should get a surprise round plus a regular round, and the guard should not be able to sound the alarm until his action in the regular round. The rogue will get sneak attack (likely twice due to good initiative bonus). The fighter could get a lot of attacks (Extra Attack, Action Surge). And the spell casters might be able to take the guard out immediately anyway (2nd level spell slot on sleep jumps to mind for my 3rd level sorcerer - averages 31.5 HP by itself - and that's ranged and pretty quiet).

As you note, a more focused murderous character is possible: a 3rd level rogue with the assassin archetype and two shortswords would average 28 points of damage plus dexterity bonus [after making a stealth check - possibly with double proficiency and dexterity bonuses - above the target's passive perception and two attack rolls with advantage (proficiency and dexterity bonus)]. That's not an extreme optimization or an unusual approach for an assassin. But a 3rd level fighter with great sword and action surge could average over 16 plus twice strength bonus [if hitting with both], close to the average HP (21) for such a fighter with no constitution bonus.

In D&D I prefer that it's not trivial for one character to slit a guard's throat, because sooner or later (usually sooner) my PC is going down from that realistic combat, and that doesn't feel very heroic.

Quote from: rawma;812269that doesn't feel very heroic.

A lot of this comes down to what kind of heroism you are interested in, or whether you care about it at all.

I wasn't suggesting extra xp for stealth kills, that was just how Far Cry 3 handled it, and how it encouraged a specific approach to the game. I was suggesting xp for planning and executing plans rather than rushing in crazy.

It was a "reward what you want to see your characters do" thing, you got lost in the specifics of the example.

Quote from: Will;812273A lot of this comes down to what kind of heroism you are interested in, or whether you care about it at all.

Maybe I should have said "doesn't feel very much like D&D"? I have no problem with people liking other games with different kinds of heroism, but if you're going with what D&D does in normal cases you're going to have to accept the consequences in edge cases.

I guess, ultimately, the system constrains the level of smart thinking you can apply. Smart thinking in DnD tends to be around arranging resistance against appropriate damage types, preparing the most useful spells and the like. It's not always possible to model real-world tactics or approaches effectively given some of the fundamental mechanics of the game (most notably HP and fairly binary health).

It's when you try to go beyond these fundamental assumptions that things get a little weird.

But all games pretty much have them. If you tried to take on a dozen foes in GURPS or Runequest you would probably be toast, but a high level character in DnD can probably stand against multiple low level opponents without too much risk of death (5e bounded accuracy not withstanding).

Quote from: dbm;812210I was addressing Emperor Norton's suggestion for rewarding (to paraphrase) stealth kills and the like, when the OP is playing D&D, a system notorious for not supporting a firing squad, let alone a knife-kill. :)

Sure, you can house rule these things extensively but classes like the Assassin kind of complicate the issue as they already have some capability in this area.

I'm genuinely interested in suggestion for how to make it work, other than playing a game which does support more 'realistic' damage.

(shrugs)  You had the suggestion.  And of course this involves house ruling: how else would you do it?

This doesn't require you to switch systems.  The GURPS method bolts perfectly well onto D&D.  If a suggested average GURPS XP session = 2-3 pts, then all you need do is figure out what you consider to be an average D&D XP handout ... and the beauty is that this can be tailored for all tastes.  You think that it's more important for a player to be excellent in combat than in roleplay?  Then make a disproportionate daily award for excellence in combat.  You want to place a priority on clever problem-solving?  Then make a disproportionate award for that.

I expect a D&D player who's been at it for more than a few months has a perfectly good handle on how much XP should be handed out.  (Hell, if you've got a regular group, why not spend ten minutes before the next session chalk-talking the system out?)

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.

Well if I had players that all they did was jump into a meatgrinder willy nilly EVERY TIME... it can get a little old when options were presented but are never taken.

That and in some RPGs combat takes up alot of time. Whereas in 5e D&D combat breezes along. And it wasnt that bad in BX or AD&D either. Least wasnt for us. As a DM I like a balance. Also as a player. I love to negotiate with encounters. But I also like to poke into places I shouldnt and face whatever thingies crawl out of the woodwork.

Its also possible the players really like the combat side. Some really get into it and some dont. Or they really like rolling up new characters. Some get into that too.

But in the end the DM is pushing all the right buttons somehow. An achievement others wish they could pull off.

Quote from: Ravenswing;812329(shrugs)  You had the suggestion.  And of course this involves house ruling: how else would you do it?

I think his concern was "how do you reward stealth kills with a system that doesn't really allow for stealth kills".

He got caught up in the details of the example, rather than the general point.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;812021Maybe 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?

That could actually increase the kill-a-thon as now the PCs have no other way to get EXP other than killing everything and looting. You might entice with quest rewards. But thats going to possibly become pocket change compared to just loot-n-plunder unless you cleave close to 5es very treasure low premise.

Quote from: Omega;812372That would actually increase the kill-a-thon as now the PCs have no other way to get EXP other than killing everything and looting. You might entice with quest rewards. But thats going to possibly become pocket change compared to just loot-n-plunder unless you cleave close to 5es very treasure low premise.

Uh, you just make sure the bulk of the treasure isn't carried by monsters/people.

Quote from: Omega;812372That would actually increase the kill-a-thon as now the PCs have no other way to get EXP other than killing everything and looting. You might entice with quest rewards. But thats going to possibly become pocket change compared to just loot-n-plunder unless you cleave close to 5es very treasure low premise.

But everyone says in AD&D it discouraged people from killing since it wouldn't gain them exp; it would just be a distraction and they would want to steal it without getting into combat.

Right now, I'm awarding EXP for completing tasks. But I found a problem with that too: what tasks do you give exp for? How do players know which tasks are "exp approved" ones and not just something random they decided to do? Are they going to expect exp every time they do the smallest errand? Couldn't any successful action be spun as a task? "We defeated these zombies; they won't hurt anyone, so we did the task of making this place safer."

This is an area I think it'd be GOOD to emulate video games. :)

Have a card, including ones you make up on the spot, saying 'Goal: make area safer' and set it down when it comes up.

You might also mark it with Minor/Standard/Major or whatnot, add extra cards as optional extras, etc.

Variety is an asset, so players can choose what interests them and is up to their level of challenge ("Mapper, which way to the stairs back up?").

In a big and long campaign, everything will eventually suit someone; the toughest puzzle will get solved, the toughest monster foiled, and likewise the Hapless Tribe of kobolds (or replacement, if they're wiped out) meet their modest match.

Quote from: Omega;812372That could actually increase the kill-a-thon as now the PCs have no other way to get EXP other than killing everything and looting. You might entice with quest rewards. But thats going to possibly become pocket change compared to just loot-n-plunder unless you cleave close to 5es very treasure low premise.

The suggestion was xp for gold only, but "like AD&D" (1st ed.) would more accurately mean xp for TREASURE only. Yes, the DMG offered a rule requiring non-cash goods to be sold in order to get maximum value (as opposed for instance to keeping a magic item), but all such 'rules' are meant to be broken when appropriate.

(AD&D did include small awards simply for defeating foes, and some very powerful ones might actually be worth more made dead than otherwise impoverished, as their interests are not in hoards of the sort humans desire.)

If points are ONLY for accomplishing the goal, NOT for creating egregious and potentially career-ending complications, sound strategy is to try to accomplish the former while minimizing the latter.

What is treasure? Money, though the value may be low, but not only that! REAL WEALTH - which ultimately is happiness, but can be expressed in terms of assets in pursuit (which in turn can be money-valued in a market) - can take many, many forms.

Having rescued one's True Love, is the proper value really to be assessed by trying to sell that worthy? Aside from doubt whether the transaction is even feasible in the first place, I think not!

Quote from: rawma;812146(Is it just a long rest now, like recovering HP and spells?)

Leveling up in the middle of battle sounds like a dumb video game thing, but that doesn't mean the only alternative is for the GM to decide leveling without even tracking XP.

It doesnt say. Or at least I am not seeing anything on how long it takes. It may have been left vague on purpose.

The DMG gives some guidelines for various alternatives.

So the DM can safely say whenever and probably be right.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;812375But everyone says in AD&D it discouraged people from killing since it wouldn't gain them exp; it would just be a distraction and they would want to steal it without getting into combat.

That everyone isnt everyone.

Monsters have treasures ON them and eventually they have some items that sell for quite a bit. But you have to pry that stuff from their cold dead hands/claws/tentacles/pseudopods/grasping appendages/signifigant other...

The orc chief has a +1 sword and some gold. His trapped chest has some healing potions and maybe some gold. The gnoll chief though has some pocket change and all his goodies are in a hidden in a hole in the wall but doesnt take kindly to visitors. The evil wizard has ALL his damn stuff on him and he aint parting with them the easy way. etc.

Quote from: Omega;812390That everyone isnt everyone.

Monsters have treasures ON them and eventually they have some items that sell for quite a bit. But you have to pry that stuff from their cold dead hands/claws/tentacles/pseudopods/grasping appendages/signifigant other...

The orc chief has a +1 sword and some gold. His trapped chest has some healing potions and maybe some gold. The gnoll chief though has some pocket change and all his goodies are in a hidden in a hole in the wall but doesnt take kindly to visitors. The evil wizard has ALL his damn stuff on him and he aint parting with them the easy way. etc.

If the only way you can see is to kill 'im, and the only way you can see to kill 'im is stupid frontal assault, then it's likely to be your body up for looting soon - especially if you're burdened with all your worldly goods!

And trying to slaughter every bunch of kobolds for their usual treasure in old D&D (I'm talking lair here) is just what Forrest Gump said.

Quote from: Omega;812363Well if I had players that all they did was jump into a meatgrinder willy nilly EVERY TIME... it can get a little old when options were presented but are never taken.

Exactly.  I fucking hate it when people are stupid, but there really are some players who refuse to do anything other than "I run in and start hacking."

I simply refuse to play with them.  Not gaming is way better than bad gaming, and if I'm not having fun, it's bad gaming.

And as I said earlier, I say explicitly "if your idea of tactics is CHARGE!, your character will die.  A lot."

Quote from: Phillip;812380Variety is an asset, so players can choose what interests them and is up to their level of challenge ("Mapper, which way to the stairs back up?").

MAPPER:  We go north.
REF:  Ten feet, twenty feet, thirty feet north.  North ends, passage southeast, passage west.
MAPPER:  Um... my map says door north, passage east.
REF:  How about that.
MAPPER:  Fuck...
REF:   YOU'RE WELCOME!:D

Quote from: Old Geezer;812409MAPPER:  We go north.
REF:  Ten feet, twenty feet, thirty feet north.  North ends, passage southeast, passage west.
MAPPER:  Um... my map says door north, passage east.
REF:  How about that.
MAPPER:  Fuck...
REF:   YOU'RE WELCOME!:D

Dear gods that sounds really fucking boring.

Quote from: Kiero;812444Dear gods that sounds really fucking boring.

How so? The players, or mapper in this case told the DM where they were backtracking and the DM helpfully spelled out that what they mapped wasnt were it should be now.

Exactly this happened to me in my first AD&D session with our library club.

By first session and I was the mapper. We are going along backtracking from a dead end, map-map-map and all of a sudden I notice the map is going ways it cant. We'd walked through a teleport archway somewhere along the way.

Quote from: Omega;812451How so? The players, or mapper in this case told the DM where they were backtracking and the DM helpfully spelled out that what they mapped wasnt were it should be now.

Exactly this happened to me in my first AD&D session with our library club.

By first session and I was the mapper. We are going along backtracking from a dead end, map-map-map and all of a sudden I notice the map is going ways it cant. We'd walked through a teleport archway somewhere along the way.

Mapping. Something I'm glad has mostly died as a necessary activity in playing RPGs. Course it also ties into another dull concept, the dungeon. What better way to avoid all the richness of 95% of a campaign setting than spending it in a hole in the ground far away from civilisation.

Quote from: robiswrong;812364I think his concern was "how do you reward stealth kills with a system that doesn't really allow for stealth kills".

He got caught up in the details of the example, rather than the general point.

Broadly, yes.

I guess my ultimate (rhetorical) question was: what do you do when you want players to consider 'strategy x' more often but the system you are playing doesn't support 'strategy x'?

You either wing it, house rule it, ignore it (give up on 'strategy x') or shift to a system which supports strategy 'x' whilst still supporting the mainstay strategies too.

Quote from: Kiero;812453Mapping. Something I'm glad has mostly died as a necessary activity in playing RPGs. Course it also ties into another dull concept, the dungeon. What better way to avoid all the richness of 95% of a campaign setting than spending it in a hole in the ground far away from civilisation.

While spending all your time in a hole in the ground would let you miss out on a lot of cool stuff, you're kind of missing all the points - primarily the name of the game: Dungeons&Dragons.
Another point is that getting lost is tremendous fun. Misadventures in mapping is always a hoot (almost always, at least), no matter which side of the screen I'm on.

There's also the fact that "dungeon" isn't always literally an underground cavernous maze. It can (and has been) a haunted mansion, a spaceship, a town, a hotel, an outdoor ruin, a hive for giant ants/bees etc...

Quote from: baragei;812466While spending all your time in a hole in the ground would let you miss out on a lot of cool stuff, you're kind of missing all the points - primarily the name of the game: Dungeons&Dragons.
Another point is that getting lost is tremendous fun. Misadventures in mapping is always a hoot (almost always, at least), no matter which side of the screen I'm on.

I don't give a flying fuck what the game is called (nor for that matter do I care how the writer of a game "intends" it to be played); dungeons are a waste of my time, and mapping is tedious, make-work bullshit.

Oh noes, I used (D&D-derived) ACKS to run a historical game which had neither dungeons, nor dragons in it!

Quote from: Kiero;812453Mapping. Something I'm glad has mostly died as a necessary activity in playing RPGs. Course it also ties into another dull concept, the dungeon. What better way to avoid all the richness of 95% of a campaign setting than spending it in a hole in the ground far away from civilisation.

Quote from: Kiero;812472I don't give a flying fuck what the game is called (nor for that matter do I care how the writer of a game "intends" it to be played); dungeons are a waste of my time, and mapping is tedious, make-work bullshit.

Oh noes, I used (D&D-derived) ACKS to run a historical game which had neither dungeons, nor dragons in it!

There are a lot of players that seem to want to play D&D yet also seem to hate it. Truly bizarre.

I love it when players don't map. I do not enforce the process at all it is up to the players to do so or not. If they can find their way around without mapping then good for them.

Kiero, when you tell people that their way of playing a game is horrible and sucks, you sound like a fucking self-absorbed prick.

Maybe stop doing that so much and be a bit more chill about people liking, you know... different stuff.

It might make people a bit more willing to extend the same favor in return.

Quote from: Will;812485Kiero, when you tell people that their way of playing a game is horrible and sucks, you sound like a fucking self-absorbed prick.

He just has strong views and doesn't mind expressing them in the least empathetic fashion possible. That makes him a tad sociopathic, but not exactly self-absorbed. ;)

I'm not sure how easy it is to distinguish 'sociopathic' and 'self-absorbed,' but in the spirit of conciliatory and productive discourse, I'll go with it.

This article by the Angry DM posted up today is relevant to this thread's topic: http://www.madadventurers.com/angry-rants-overpowered-encounters/

He says D&D isn't made for non-balanced encounters.

I would say that while I don't like the whole mapping deal (as a GM, it puts way too much pressure on me to always be super accurate with my descriptions), if other people enjoy that kind of stuff, more power to them.

I really like this part of that Angry DM article, and I plan on implementing something like it:

QuoteIf you want retreat and withdrawal to be a real, useful possibility, you've got to make some adjustments to allow it as an option. One trick is to tell the players flat out that if they all declare a retreat, you will immediately drop the initiative order and resolve things narratively. Let all the PCs explain how they are getting away (or covering their allies) and then resolve the actions like you would any non-combat scene. Don’t let them automatically flee, but get it the hell out of the combat rules. On top of that, you might want to house rule something to protect fleeing creatures from ranged attacks. Give ranged attacks disadvantage (or advantage on saving throws) because a fleeing, evading creature is hard to hit in D&D 5E...

...

First and foremost, tell them explicitly that, in your game, they will encounter fights they can’t win. Tell them you expect them to recognize when they are outmatched and to keep themselves alive. Give them permission to flee and tell them it is a feature of your campaign, not a sign of failure. That retreating, regrouping, gaining power, or dealing with something in a less direct way, is part of the normal course of the game.

Second, make sure they understand that you’re making retreat possible by adjusting the combat rules to allow for it. Declare flat out that if the party declares a retreat or fighting withdrawal, you’ll handle it differently to make it a real possibility. That way, they aren’t trying to formulate a plan for retreat that fits into the D&D combat structure.

Third, use foreshadowing and flavor text to cue the players...

It's funny that the author says: "stick to balanced encounters because D&D just CAN'T HANDLE retreat at all" when he actually makes some extremely decent rulings on handling retreat in the system without breaking anything. Ha.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;812527I would say that while I don't like the whole mapping deal (as a GM, it puts way too much pressure on me to always be super accurate with my descriptions), if other people enjoy that kind of stuff, more power to them.

I think it requires you to be as accurate with your descriptions as the people in the situation would be with their observations.

Quote from: Necrozius;812528I really like this part of that Angry DM article, and I plan on implementing something like it:



It's funny that the author says: "stick to balanced encounters because D&D just CAN'T HANDLE retreat at all" when he actually makes some extremely decent rulings on handling retreat in the system without breaking anything. Ha.

I noticed that. What he means is that the rules as-is don't do it well. But of course the DM can make his own rules to get around it.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;812533I noticed that. What he means is that the rules as-is don't do it well. But of course the DM can make his own rules to get around it.

So simply, I might add, that I'm surprised that I never thought of it before. Definitely an eye-opening article to me. Good stuff, thanks for the link!

Quote from: robiswrong;812529I think it requires you to be as accurate with your descriptions as the people in the situation would be with their observations.

My point though is, what if the mapper perfectly records what I say, but I misspoke at one point? Then they get lost, something was mapped wrong at one point, I don't have perfect memory of everything I said in the night, so I just assume that he messed up... its just too much trouble for me personally.

Like I said, if other groups/GMs like doing that, more power to them, but its not for me.

Quote from: Omega;812451How so? The players, or mapper in this case told the DM where they were backtracking and the DM helpfully spelled out that what they mapped wasnt were it should be now.

Exactly this happened to me in my first AD&D session with our library club.

By first session and I was the mapper. We are going along backtracking from a dead end, map-map-map and all of a sudden I notice the map is going ways it cant. We'd walked through a teleport archway somewhere along the way.

You DO realize who you're talking to, don't you?

Quote from: Will;812485Kiero, when you tell people that their way of playing a game is horrible and sucks, you sound like a fucking self-absorbed prick.

After eight years of watching him do so on multiple forums, I have been forced to conclude that he IS a fucking self absorbed prick.

He is also a whiny little crybaby who can't stand the thought of anybody having anything more than he has.

"His character is 25th level but mine's only 24th!!! The game is ruined!!!  WAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!"

I wish I were exaggerating, he's stated publicly repeatedly that even a one level difference is utterly deal breaking.

Frankly, I'm surprised he has any friends willing to game with him at all.

I'm often torn on whether someone is being histrionic for effect or just as part of their basic character, but then I remind myself that, practically, it doesn't matter.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;812527I would say that while I don't like the whole mapping deal (as a GM, it puts way too much pressure on me to always be super accurate with my descriptions), if other people enjoy that kind of stuff, more power to them.

I don't like mapping because its entirely unbelievable.

If you have ever Larped and have ever been in a cave with a candle and thought about getting out a sheet of partchment an ink well and a quill you will know what I mean.

In addition the act of remembering you saying north 35 feet, west 30 feet se 45 feet etc is absolutely nothing like actually walking that.
I could read you the directions to a place and ask you what they were 5 minutes later and you may well have no idea I could take you to a place and you may well remember the precise route 2 years later. It depends on the mind and the subject.
Real caves and dungeons aren't drawn on graph paper they don't align to a N-S grid angles aren't 90 or 45 degrees and they are 3 dimensional not 2 dimensional so you might go over a spot after walking 100 meters that is now 10 meters lower.

Someone is now going to say that cavers map caves and of course they do but they do that precisely and use all sorts of actual measuring devices and so on and the mapping of a cave is not something you do as part of the exploration it is an entire process in and of itself. A process that woudl in all probablility be very dull to role play rather like roleplaying drawing a map for example.

Quote from: jibbajibba;812604I don't like mapping because its entirely unbelievable.

If you have ever Larped and have ever been in a cave with a candle and thought about getting out a sheet of partchment an ink well and a quill you will know what I mean.

Jan had maps of the tunnels under both colleges she attended.

I am pretty sure people have made maps for Treasure Trapped and other LARPs since.

I have maps from various games I've played. I've made maps of the tunnels while exploring Minecraft even and was one of the reasons I recreated Keep on the Borderlands there to get a feel of wandering the place.

As noted in another thread here. I do most of my maps on graph. But a player at a convention introduced me to an alternative method of charting the junctions and turns and not worrying about exact distance. So hed jot down a line and branches whenever they came to a division. The sort of thing an adventurer could easily do while the group decides which way to go.

Although I like dungeons, I'm not thrilled with mapping as a major game activity; it's been a long time since I saw such a large/deep dungeon that we needed more than a simple "map" of the sort Omega describes.

I also don't care for most of the mapping (or anti-mapping) tricks: a sloping passage to take the party to a lower dungeon level without them noticing is built entirely on the premise that the danger is sorted by dungeon level. If you have teleport rooms where you don't know you were teleported, why bother with any mechanical tricks?

The Fellowship of the Ring made it through Moria without making a map or having a map to consult beyond party members' unreliable memory. It seems much more heroic that way.

Quote from: Omega;812626Jan had maps of the tunnels under both colleges she attended.

I am pretty sure people have made maps for Treasure Trapped and other LARPs since.

I have maps from various games I've played. I've made maps of the tunnels while exploring Minecraft even and was one of the reasons I recreated Keep on the Borderlands there to get a feel of wandering the place.

As noted in another thread here. I do most of my maps on graph. But a player at a convention introduced me to an alternative method of charting the junctions and turns and not worrying about exact distance. So hed jot down a line and branches whenever they came to a division. The sort of thing an adventurer could easily do while the group decides which way to go.

Yes you can have a topological plan of a place nodes and branches etc but it wouldn't help with the situations described above where distances and direction are being called out in 5 feet increments and you are using a pen on paper not ink and parchment.
Like I say you can map stuff of course you can but mapping stuff is an activity that is quite easy when you are playing minecraft or Diablo at your computer or walking round some steam tunnels wearing a miner's lamp with a pad and a biro.

If you want to test yourself. Go to a place you have never been and map it in the dark as you sneak about. Then compare it to an actual map.

Also as an aside actual temples and so on are usually very simple. I have visited a vast number of temple complexes from Luxor to Bagan, Minos to Palenque and you can grab the sense of the layout very quickly. Unless the place is designed to be a labyrinth they generally make sense. Even with mazes you can't beat the shear exhileration of running through one and top speed without a care as to where you end up. My daughter and I used to do it whenever we found one.

Now the most confusing places I have ever been are definitely cities. The medina in Fez, bits of Venice, the one way system round the outsite of Florence, the multi level bits in HK, a lot of Toyko... we rarely map these or describe then in the same way we describe the classice dungeon. Why is that ?

I can agree with mapping being busywork and, if we're going to be pedantic, not a very realistic aspect of adventuring. And structures seldom get so big that you need anything but a crudely drawn layout to manoeuvre around in it.  

I still thoroughly enjoy drawing maps as a player. Oh, somebody put me out of my misery;)

Quote from: Von;811717Curiously enough, I've never had problems finding people who can bang two brain cells together, explore an environment, nibble at the edges of the prepared material, use everything on the character sheet including the lucky toad and jar of dead wasps, and generally force me to do some actual thinking.

Maybe it's something to do with actively recruiting players who aren't... lifestyle-choice gamers, for want of a better word. I'm not saying I don't want Gamer Scum at my table (I'd have to get up and leave for one thing), but I find groups wholly comprised of people who do more gaming than other stuff to be less interesting.

Yeah, this. I game with...well, normal people.

Quote from: robiswrong;812529I think it requires you to be as accurate with your descriptions as the people in the situation would be with their observations.

I would base the detail and amount of description on player inquiry, bar perhaps a bare minimum. If they didn't ask, they don't know - at the same time, if they don't ask, no need to bore them with details.

Quote from: jibbajibba;812647Now the most confusing places I have ever been are definitely cities. The medina in Fez, bits of Venice, the one way system round the outsite of Florence, the multi level bits in HK, a lot of Toyko... we rarely map these or describe then in the same way we describe the classice dungeon. Why is that ?

If I've understood the thread correctly, it's because the game is called Dungeons and Dragons, not Cities and Chimeras.

I'm afraid that, like our man Kiero, I am not inherently interested in dungeons, at least from the DM's perspective. I cut my teeth on urban-based WFRP adventuring and Vampire: the Masquerade, and while I'm not incapable of running a dungeon, I get bored unless it's at least as complex as a fantasy city and primarily navigated through social interaction and investigation without mechanics.

As a player I am far more dungeon-tolerant, since I'm grateful for the slackening of responsibility. The extent to which other people's fun is dependent on me boils down to "help a brother out" and "don't go being a twat now", rather than lining up all the bells, whistles, bread and circuses - which I enjoy as an activity, but which is a little tiring after fifteen years as Designated DM in my immediate circle.

ETA: And thank you, TristramEvans. You are clearly a person of taste and discretion.

Quote from: jibbajibba;812604I don't like mapping because its entirely unbelievable.

If you have ever Larped and have ever been in a cave with a candle and thought about getting out a sheet of partchment an ink well and a quill you will know what I mean.

In addition the act of remembering you saying north 35 feet, west 30 feet se 45 feet etc is absolutely nothing like actually walking that.

Yep, my own objection exactly.  I defy people to walk through an area and know precisely that they've gone 35 feet, that precisely the corridor's turned 30 degrees ... and as anyone who knows anything about mapping understands, so much as a 10% error rate will screw the result up unbelievably before too long.

The other objection is this.  So someone in the party is mapping.  That means the person has a parchment, quill and an inkwell, and a portable desk to keep it all steady (because, you know, those errors).  Someone else has to be holding a light source up for the person.

Someone explain to me how that doesn't turn into a complete ratfuck when sudden combat breaks out.  The mapper isn't, and can't, get ready for combat.  Any sudden movements and the map gets splattered.  Put it all down, slowly and carefully?  Great, that takes time -- and here's hoping no one backs over the desk or jostles it enough to spill that ink.  (And me, if I'm a bunch of bad guys, I like my crossbowman to aim at the fellow who's bending over and has his back to us, rather than at the front line fighter with the shield who's positioned to block anything aimed at him.)

Quote from: Ravenswing;812684Someone explain to me how that doesn't turn into a complete ratfuck when sudden combat breaks out.  The mapper isn't, and can't, get ready for combat.  Any sudden movements and the map gets splattered.  Put it all down, slowly and carefully?  Great, that takes time -- and here's hoping no one backs over the desk or jostles it enough to spill that ink.  (And me, if I'm a bunch of bad guys, I like my crossbowman to aim at the fellow who's bending over and has his back to us, rather than at the front line fighter with the shield who's positioned to block anything aimed at him.)

Use a book, in case of emergency, close book. Worst case you smudge it a bit and make an imprint on the next page. Still roughly usable. Ink, carry extra bottles to cover for the ones you break dropping them.

I alway thought the obsession over liquid ink funny.

Charcoal stick, chalk, crayon, pencil, pastel, metal-point, grease marker, etching, etc.

Vellum/skin, papyrus, clay, polished metal/stone, pressure sensitive dried leaves, wax tablet, etc.

Come now, this isn't hard. We haven't even tapped into fantasy yet.

Now I'm envisioning magical GPS and automapping demons...

Quote from: baragei;812665I can agree with mapping being busywork and, if we're going to be pedantic, not a very realistic aspect of adventuring. And structures seldom get so big that you need anything but a crudely drawn layout to manoeuvre around in it.

I played fantasy boffer LARPs for 15 years. Large dungeons are not common because they are labor intensive to setup. But I have played through a handful. In general memorization and keeping track of the wall under your right hand is sufficent. And there is usually some guy in the party that had a sixth sense about spatial relationships and was able to ferret out hidden rooms by instinct alone.

However with tabletop, you are deprived of the full sensory experience. So a lot of the cues are not present sitting around  table with pen and paper. Hence the need to compensate with mapping out on paper.

For my games I use miniatures, props and dwarven forge. I don't have enough dwarven forge to map out an entire dungeon level but I do have enough to map out a lot of it. I consider this a fair approximation of what I experienced while LARPing.

The closest thing I found how it work work as if you were really there is Roll20's dynamic lighting. They have a feature where you can block out a dungeon and assign individual light sources to characters and object. With it turned on, I have players get lost and separated without a dice roll in the dungeon something I never had happen before in a tabletop session.

Quote from: Will;812707Now I'm envisioning magical GPS and automapping demons...

Probably already done by Terry Pratchett.

Mapping dungeons is important, because when the party gets lost in the bowels of a dungeon because they didn't map and start freaking out that they're going to die down there is awesome...

I usually have my PCs take chalk along... for various reasons but primarily to mark trees and walls so we can find our way back.

Quote from: Simlasa;812734I usually have my PCs take chalk along... for various reasons but primarily to mark trees and walls so we can find our way back.

see that actually works :)

But only a certain sort of PC will do that.

I can't see a reckless swashbuckler or a fearless barbarian type carefully marking their way through a dungeon for example. Likewise a really arrogant mage might well beleive that they have no need for just mundane activities.

Quote from: Will;812707Now I'm envisioning magical GPS and automapping demons...

It would be very unsurprising. Somebody (Old Geezer may be able to tell us who) enjoyed giving out too much copper for the players to carry out, and some mage (presumably Tenser) dealt with it by researching Tenser's Floating Disk.

Quote from: Planet Algol;812733Mapping dungeons is important, because when the party gets lost in the bowels of a dungeon because they didn't map and start freaking out that they're going to die down there is awesome...

As I have noted before. I was surprised at how easy it was to get turned around and lost in something as relatively simple as the Caves of Chaos. I built ti scale the Keep on the Borderlands in Minecraft so I could actually walk around the place.

And in MC itself. Easy to get lost in the abandoned mines and forts too. Or even the basic caves as some can really branch and twist.

Quote from: Omega;812802And in MC itself. Easy to get lost in the abandoned mines and forts too. Or even the basic caves as some can really branch and twist.

I use the trick of only putting torches along the right side of tunnels going in... so follow the left side torches to find the way back out.

Minecraft gave me an extra keen appreciation of the vertical opportunities in designing underground areas... those tunnels that suddenly turn downward into deep black pits or wandering into an area and realizing there is a huge tunnel/cavern overhead, full of monsters that might jump down on you.
Hard to map those spaces well unless you really take your time about it.

If that's the type of play the players like, treat them like an audience and tailor your scenarios to that. That doesn't mean that they need to be all hack-and slash combat, but that should be the central focus. To give them some incentive for more clever play, add some thinking that is directly relevant to combat.

Keep the puzzles small but important - e.g. they are given a single clue (without working for it) that the main bad guy has a particular vulnerability, but the clue is a little bit cryptic. The entire rest of the session plays out as a simple hack and slash, but at the critical time, they need to work out what the clue means or the bad guy is pretty much invulnerable and they slowly but steadily lose the final battle.

For the first one, make it less deadly in that things get slowly more desperate until they realise that someone needs to work out the clue. That gives you more latitude to give them extra time while maintaining pressure to solve it. For instance, the bad guy stops attacking and makes the classic speech about along the lines "you can never defeat me...", etc, which might give them a further hint.

Over time you can add more "thinking" elements until it becomes an expected part of the game. You may never get them all excited about puzzle solving all night, but you might find a mix that works for everyone.

If you panic, it's easy to split groups - I've seen groups of inexperienced hikers split in a forest at dusk, and I've even turned a group round in a circle when I was starting out - I panicked in a thunderstorm on open moorland and tried to navigate by landmarks rather than compass.

Landmarks are very useful - ideally you want two as that lets you triangulate your position.

Even without a compass, the position of the sun in the sky is useful, as are stars, and yes, even hoary old stuff like which side of the tree trunk certain plants grow on has its uses.

Compass and pacing works surprisingly accurately with very little practice, and travelling in the dark or fog or snowstorms by dead-reckoning requires experience but is certainly doable.  It's very important in winter conditions, where landmarks like cliff edges are deathtraps - if think you're standing on the edge, you may actually be standing on a cornice of wind-compacted snow.

Underground or in an unfamiliar building with few windows, it's very easy to get screwed even without hostiles.  As for shipwrecks or submerged caverns -deathtraps.  Especially when you add time limits and "event pits" (one bad thing messes your plans, and from then on you're struggling to get out of danger - indeed it's much easier to get further into trouble). If you're relying on equipment or magic spells to keep you alive, well, there's another thing to go wrong.

3D geometry makes it even worse (says the ex-geologist who used to explore abandoned mineworkings when he was a student - not recommended).  Chalk, string, markings, distinctive locations - all useful.  And you want vellum or cloth/rag paper, not the usual stuff made from wood pulp - both are tougher and don't disintegrate in the wet.

Torches (in the D&D sense) have a limited lifespan, are bulky to carry and foul your air really quickly.  Candles (or magical lights) in little jars might be a better bet, but how many can you carry?

Most dungeoneers forget the block of lard or butter for getting stuck party members out of tight squeezes (yes, modern cavers do use butter...).

Thank you for the real world informed perspective!

It's great to ground and inspire game stuff with that kind of information.

I used to get lost every year in the Thunderbird Hotel. I REALLY should have mapped that place!

I have a question about players being dumb and granting experience points.

In my current game I am giving experience based on tasks. It's a pre-written module, so it will be for those quests written in the game.

However, that makes me wonder what to do when I'm playing a sandbox game (or even in this module if the players go do something else). When would I award experience then? In a sense, if I give experience for non "official" quests, isn't that basically telling the players they can pretty much go do anything and get experience for it.

And then there are battles. They got into a fight with some people that wasn't really meant to be a fight, and won. I did not give them experience for that though, because it wasn't a task, and it wasn't a fight that needed to happen. Would you give them experience for that?

Basically the question is, what counts as a completed task when you're giving out experience that way. Who decides it was a task. How significant does it have to be.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;812974However, that makes me wonder what to do when I'm playing a sandbox game (or even in this module if the players go do something else). When would I award experience then? In a sense, if I give experience for non "official" quests, isn't that basically telling the players they can pretty much go do anything and get experience for it.

And then there are battles. They got into a fight with some people that wasn't really meant to be a fight, and won. I did not give them experience for that though, because it wasn't a task, and it wasn't a fight that needed to happen. Would you give them experience for that?

Basically the question is, what counts as a completed task when you're giving out experience that way. Who decides it was a task. How significant does it have to be.

It depends. :)

The players might decide round the table what they want to do, in effect setting their own goals. Or you might place encounter sites out in the world for them to find and interact with, in effect elective goals.

In either case, the goals should include notable challenge and risk to be worth XP. No quests to 'get a round in at the pub' unless the pub happens to be in the middle of a besieged city and you are currently outside... ("Quick lads, we're in...")

... I personally would walk on a game if the GM said that we only got XP for "GM approved tasks". That kind of thought leads to a removal of player agency in such a passive aggressive way. "You can do anything you want, but if you don't want to do what I want, you don't advance."

Quote from: Emperor Norton;813054... I personally would walk on a game if the GM said that we only got XP for "GM approved tasks". That kind of thought leads to a removal of player agency in such a passive aggressive way. "You can do anything you want, but if you don't want to do what I want, you don't advance."

Yes, that's why I was wondering how viable giving experience for completing tasks was. And also, the players don't know ahead of time which one of these tasks is the one that will give experience. (That's arguably a good thing though since it removes a layer of metagaming.)

So what method do you use instead then?

Quote from: Momotaro;812820If you panic, it's easy to split groups - I've seen groups of inexperienced hikers split in a forest at dusk, and I've even turned a group round in a circle when I was starting out - I panicked in a thunderstorm on open moorland and tried to navigate by landmarks rather than compass.

And it's not hard for inexperienced folks to panic when they're lost in the woods.  The advice I give to newbie hikers is simple: the instant you think you're lost, sit down.  Build a small fire.  Have a drink from your water bottle.  If you've got anything to eat, have a bite.  Don't think of anything for five minutes.

See: you're not really lost, you've got a camp right there.  And now that the panic's ebbed, and the forest doesn't seem like such a hostile place, think about it.  Go back over your trail, in your head.  Picture every landmark you've seen.  You're probably not lost at all.

Quote from: Necrozius;812528It's funny that the author says: "stick to balanced encounters because D&D just CAN'T HANDLE retreat at all" when he actually makes some extremely decent rulings on handling retreat in the system without breaking anything. Ha.

Funny that it's changed so much (if indeed it has) as to make it impossible to handle retreat just as soldiers have handled it in the real world. IF that's the case, then it's one more reason to get back to the old understanding that, in an RPG, 'rules' are just guidelines to be be dropped when something else is more appropriate.

Quote from: Kiero;812453Mapping. Something I'm glad has mostly died as a necessary activity in playing RPGs. Course it also ties into another dull concept, the dungeon. What better way to avoid all the richness of 95% of a campaign setting than spending it in a hole in the ground far away from civilisation.

It's not everyone's delight, but neither is anything else. If you want some great red wine and blue cheese, for instance, I'm not the one to make a recommendation. On the other hand, I can appreciate a good dungeon.

Quote from: angry-rantsA typical combat is designed to resolve in three to five rounds.

What's a typical combat? Anyhow, "and it's kissing cousin Pathfinder" clearly indicates we're not talking about TSR-era D&D. In that, it's common to have closely matched fights last two or three times as long.

When you get down to an average of four rounds, you're typically talking a big advantage for one side or the other. Guess for whom usually? But it's not too hard to notice when yours is the side getting so clobbered. (The alternative reason is that both sides have had their damage output jacked up big time.)

QuoteEspecially because, with the way balance works, once the PCs start to lose, they are likely to continue losing.

If it's not just bad luck on the dice? Yeah, probabilities are called that for a reason.

One approach to consider is the philosophy of the original Monty Haul (Jim Ward).

So far from advocating a "give-away" game (which MH has been taken to mean), Jim opposed the safe handing-out of power that passes for "game balance" in some quarters. He preferred a "game equilibrium" in which great power comes at - and with! - great risks.

One thing he recommended was placing more goodies guarded by traps instead of monsters. (This sure fits in his Metamorphosis Alpha and Gamma World games, in which 'traps' are often accidental rather than contrived hazards.)

Another thing was that monsters should use stuff. If you want that Phlobotomizer, a direct assault is going to get you a taste of it (and maybe use up its charges).

Once you get it, the Killer Queen isn't going to give up her jones for a Phlobotomizer just because a "pee-see" has got it. She'll send the Bee Girls after said figure, and be glad if it's saved her some trouble. "Wham bam, thank you man."

If the players want to get - and keep - their mitts on stuff, they'll get either cunning or dead.

If they don't find that fun, they'll get themselves off to a game that's more their speed.

Jim Ward is also an inveterate gambler; in the introduction to "Bottle City" Rob Kuntz said that if there was a lever, Jim would yank it.

It's one of the big reason D&D has so many "Cake or Death" type traps in it; that's what the players liked.

Really, OD&D and AD&D 1st edition was influenced more than anything else by the particular play style of three people; Gary Gygax, Rob Kuntz, and Ernie Gygax.  By 1974 Rob and Ernie were already complaining that the game was too easy.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;812974However, that makes me wonder what to do when I'm playing a sandbox game (or even in this module if the players go do something else). When would I award experience then? In a sense, if I give experience for non "official" quests, isn't that basically telling the players they can pretty much go do anything and get experience for it.

And then there are battles. They got into a fight with some people that wasn't really meant to be a fight, and won. I did not give them experience for that though, because it wasn't a task, and it wasn't a fight that needed to happen. Would you give them experience for that?

Basically the question is, what counts as a completed task when you're giving out experience that way. Who decides it was a task. How significant does it have to be.

1: That depends on how hardline you want to get about only awarding EXP for quests and nothing else. The more you slip the potential is there for the players to take advantage of that.

2: Dont award EXP then. They knew offing these people wasnt part of the mission and was not even necessary. But did it anyhow. They got their own reward with the "thrill of the kill".

3: What counts is what rules you set down as counts and stick to it. If you sau "Only quests grant EXP." Then only quests grant EXP. Otherwise what was the point of saying "Only quests grant EXP." when you really meant "Only quests grant EXP. Except for all those EXPs on legs you might deem to bump off.".

I tell the players that attacking civilians will have repercussions and likely get them killed. Attacking a merchant WILL have repercussions. And they go and do it. Then hello. Meet your new friend Mr Repercussions.

Quote from: Omega;8131593: What counts is what rules you set down as counts and stick to it. If you sau "Only quests grant EXP." Then only quests grant EXP. Otherwise what was the point of saying "Only quests grant EXP." when you really meant "Only quests grant EXP. Except for all those EXPs on legs you might deem to bump off.".

I agree, but my question is, "SHOULD I be granting EXP for only quests" because I am concerned that it might be a kind of GM railroading. At least with giving EXP for monsters, you are giving experience for anything the players decide to fight and that is up to them. The problem is that it produces players that just want to kill everything, but giving experience only for quests means you're basically saying that if they don't follow the path you think they should then they get no experience.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;813192I agree, but my question is, "SHOULD I be granting EXP for only quests" because I am concerned that it might be a kind of GM railroading. At least with giving EXP for monsters, you are giving experience for anything the players decide to fight and that is up to them. The problem is that it produces players that just want to kill everything, but giving experience only for quests means you're basically saying that if they don't follow the path you think they should then they get no experience.

There is another option, that can help keep the players focused on the tasks at hand without railroading them.

Use XP for everything they do in pursuit of goals chosen by the players.

Present them with multiple possible quests or endeavors and let them decide their path. Obstacles to their goals will count towards XP and others will not. You won't be deciding what they do, the players will be.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;813231There is another option, that can help keep the players focused on the tasks at hand without railroading them.

Use XP for everything they do in pursuit of goals chosen by the players.

Present them with multiple possible quests or endeavors and let them decide their path. Obstacles to their goals will count towards XP and others will not. You won't be deciding what they do, the players will be.

I already do that. Presenting them with multiple possible endeavors and letting them decide, that is. And I don't reveal which "official" quests are the ones that gain experience.

Although, now that I think about it, this might not be an issue in a homebrewed campaign. This is all because I'm running a module, which has official quests already designated, which caused me to ask what to do about experience given for tasks when players don't go after those quests.

I suppose in a non-module, everything could just be a quest of sorts since there wouldn't be an officially endorsed one. Although you still have to decide what magnitude of task constitutes something worthy of experience.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;813252I already do that. Presenting them with multiple possible endeavors and letting them decide, that is. And I don't reveal which "official" quests are the ones that gain experience.

Although, now that I think about it, this might not be an issue in a homebrewed campaign. This is all because I'm running a module, which has official quests already designated, which caused me to ask what to do about experience given for tasks when players don't go after those quests.

I suppose in a non-module, everything could just be a quest of sorts since there wouldn't be an officially endorsed one. Although you still have to decide what magnitude of task constitutes something worthy of experience.

Which is why modules suck.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;813252I already do that. Presenting them with multiple possible endeavors and letting them decide, that is. And I don't reveal which "official" quests are the ones that gain experience.

Although, now that I think about it, this might not be an issue in a homebrewed campaign. This is all because I'm running a module, which has official quests already designated, which caused me to ask what to do about experience given for tasks when players don't go after those quests.

I suppose in a non-module, everything could just be a quest of sorts since there wouldn't be an officially endorsed one. Although you still have to decide what magnitude of task constitutes something worthy of experience.

I don't think the concept is getting through. There ARE no "official" quests that grant xp and others that don't. Whatever goals the players set their sights on become official quests.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;813192I agree, but my question is, "SHOULD I be granting EXP for only quests" because I am concerned that it might be a kind of GM railroading.

Railroading only if there is only say 1 quest each time.

Set up a bunch of quests and let the players decide what they do.

Example: A "Help Wanted" board outside the tavern or constables office. Listing a few things people want done. The constable might want someone to deal with some goblins, the blacksmith might want someone to investigate who stole a  sword he crafted, the town cleric might want someone to go out to the ruins and kindly ask the spectre to stop waylaying travellers and sharing his cookie recipies. A Gnoll wants someone to retrieve a tribal totem, a farmer wants someone to explore into the wilderness north for better farmlands.

Variety and choice.

Quote from: Old Geezer;813274Which is why modules suck.

Nah, only poorly written ones. Or ones the DM forces on the players. bleah!

Good modules either allow alot of freedom, or are essentially a big quest the players opted into. yay!

The only games that I run that players do silly outrageous stuff are supers games. They know that if they try to be crazy heroes when I run D&D, they will very likely end up dead. If this is really an "issue", it's the DMs fault.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;813192I agree, but my question is, "SHOULD I be granting EXP for only quests" because I am concerned that it might be a kind of GM railroading.

"What do you guys want to do?"

"Uh, we're going to assassinate the Baron!"

"Cool.  If you manage that, I'll give you 5Kxp."

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;813252I already do that. Presenting them with multiple possible endeavors and letting them decide, that is. And I don't reveal which "official" quests are the ones that gain experience.

Although, now that I think about it, this might not be an issue in a homebrewed campaign. This is all because I'm running a module, which has official quests already designated, which caused me to ask what to do about experience given for tasks when players don't go after those quests.

I suppose in a non-module, everything could just be a quest of sorts since there wouldn't be an officially endorsed one. Although you still have to decide what magnitude of task constitutes something worthy of experience.

I divide all things that occur in my game into XP packets that I divide amongst those that participate in completing them.

However, I also get the players to set PC objectives. So Frank the wizard wants to track down his old teacher (from background) I decide that the teacher has been captured by a demon and made to work for him. Now the player says my objective is "find my teacher" I say that is a 10,000 Xp quest. Wow replies the player okay can I break the quest into more management chunks? Sure lets see, trace his last movements 2,000xp, find out who took him 3000 xp, find him the final 5000xp....
Now the PC has 3 objectives these are quite separate from teh immediate game world activities (defeat Duke Carmor's army = 10,000xp; Join Duke Carmor's Army and defeat the people of Legrance = 5,000 xp; Usurp Duke Carmor and then use his army to make yourselves kings = 20,000xp) that are shared and for which the xp rewards are hidden.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;812526This article by the Angry DM posted up today is relevant to this thread's topic: http://www.madadventurers.com/angry-rants-overpowered-encounters/

He says D&D isn't made for non-balanced encounters.

He may be correct for WOTC D&D and PF, but it's not really true for TSR editions. That's one of the reasons I will not GM WOTC editions or play in them if they are run RAW. However, it is easy to make over-powered encounters work better in WOTC D&D: add back in monster reaction rolls (so every time monsters are encountered, they don't auto-attack), morale for monsters, and switch to group initiative.

It might be worth doing something like a 'wrap up' discussion about major goals achieved in the last adventure or whatnot, and using that to decide on XP rewards.

Come up with guidelines, like:
In an adventure (defined in more sandboxy things as some period with a definable start and end point, like 'going into the dungeon of despair and then exiting'), you can have a Major Goal.
And the group can decide how successful that goal is, and there's XP scaled on how many sessions went toward that goal.

Then the group can come up with a number of 'notable accomplishments,' maybe up to 1 or 2 per session of the adventure, worth bonus XP.


For example, maybe you decide that an adventure should take about 4 sessions and deliver about 1 'level' worth of XP. In D&D 3e, that would mean:
Adventure goal: 250 xp x average party level x # of sessions
250 base adjusted by how successful (or fun) it was, possibly some sessions don't count, depending on what the players were doing.

Accomplishments: 50 xp x average party level


So, an adventure taking 4 sessions, the party could make up to 1200 xp x average party level (1000 for the goal, up to 200 in side accomplishments)


The potential advantages are that it encourages the group to reflect on what they've done, enjoy their achievements, and do all the 'paperwork' in one short burst rather than strewn about and interrupting stuff during the game.

Obviously a lot of people don't really enjoy this sort of reward scheme and want the fun of immediate give and take -- we deactivated the trap, XP!

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;813252I already do that. Presenting them with multiple possible endeavors and letting them decide, that is. And I don't reveal which "official" quests are the ones that gain experience.

Although, now that I think about it, this might not be an issue in a homebrewed campaign. This is all because I'm running a module, which has official quests already designated, which caused me to ask what to do about experience given for tasks when players don't go after those quests.

I suppose in a non-module, everything could just be a quest of sorts since there wouldn't be an officially endorsed one. Although you still have to decide what magnitude of task constitutes something worthy of experience.

I am confused. Not uncommon, I will grant, but perhaps with cause this time.

You want to award experience for particular quests; why? To motivate the players to prefer those quests, I guess? But if you don't tell them which quests get an experience award, let alone which get more, how can they possibly be influenced? And that's without the next step of wondering why you want to influence their choices, if you're looking for a sandbox game.

My recommendation is first to award experience based on the risk involved in what they did; you can judge the risk in advance, or on a theoretical basis, but it probably shouldn't be based on the actual events, since that just penalizes clever strategies. Second, award experience based on meaning of their actions: killing a large number of guards but allowing an evil stronghold to reinforce is not worth as much as killing the same number of guards in order to eliminate that stronghold. (In particular, playing Russian Roulette would be risky but not worth experience comparable to that risk, because it's really meaningless.) NPCs who inform the players of quests have thus attached meaning to that quest; but the players might assign meaning to their own plans (unless you think they're gaming the system), especially if the meaning is consistent with the character's motivation, background, etc.

I don't like XP for treasure, unless there's really no use for treasure; if there's something to buy, it's its own reward. But I suppose XP could be a thing you could buy. (It did do a good job of instilling greed for treasure, especially dragon hoards, in OD&D.)

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;813192I agree, but my question is, "SHOULD I be granting EXP for only quests" because I am concerned that it might be a kind of GM railroading. At least with giving EXP for monsters, you are giving experience for anything the players decide to fight and that is up to them. The problem is that it produces players that just want to kill everything, but giving experience only for quests means you're basically saying that if they don't follow the path you think they should then they get no experience.

If you've got some narrower meaning of 'quest' in mind, how about shifting to 'objective'.

One thing you might try is to get an advance statement of objective. Then you can assess beforehand the gestalt challenge, if you're using that criterion.

Another criterion that's been used (for instance in C&S, but also in D&D variants) is to go the opposite way and consider discrete activities in terms of their "learning experience" value. A warrior might get a lot of points for a tough fight, but nothing for one that was no real challenge. A wizard's xp would come mainly from magic, a thief's from thiefy stuff (perhaps scored for loot), and so on.

The more you go that way, the more record-keeping is involved. Even with just old-style treasure and monster points, there's a fair bit compared with bumping it up to higher-level objectives.

Experience for treasure was implemented in a more roundabout way in RuneQuest: You spent money to buy training.