I love the group I run but my players have a few habits that bug me. Which isn't a big deal. Most I can handle, like a bunch of cross-talk going on while I'm trying to explain something important, but this one feels like a real issue. When the group is trying to decide on a course of action, they can take forever to actually come to a decision.
For example, our current story arc has my players sailing their ship along icy rivers in a tundra country. The only way out is to follow the river to one of the two northern exits. One will lead to a war zone, the other the nation's capital. It's a harsh nation with very strict laws and since my players are a bunch of chaotic pirates, naturally they keep breaking them to the point where the law is keeping an eye on 'em. At this point I had them meet an oil tycoon who gave them a potential quest and some other information. So they had two options for how they could proceed here if they wanted to leave the country with some big quest reward:
1. The oil tycoon's personal chef is trapped in the war zone. Extricate the chef, and the tycoon will let them know where a secret store of oil is in the war zone that they can grab on their way out.
2. A gold mine has been found along the direction to the capital. Mining gold is illegal in this country, but if my players are sneaky about it, they can get a lot of treasure.
Obviously there's a lot to consider here, especially since the party had been previously told that for very minor infractions they were on a two-strike notice and strike three would lead to their arrest and likely hanging. But the party discussion just went in circles for a long while. There were also options to use one of the two exits without going for the loot rewards. But they just couldn't come to a consensus, even with an odd number of players to force a potential 3-2 vote, and it got to the point where they were asking NPC crewmen their opinions and when that didn't help, I offered to roll a d6 to decide which player's desire they'd follow (each of them was assigned a number from 1-5, and 6 was a reroll). And I feel like that isn't something I should be doing as DM. But they were just going on and on and revisiting the same points and nobody was convincing anyone else of anything, so I had to force something to get the story moving again.
Is there a way I could've handled this better? And is there anything I can say to prevent this from happening again in the future? Even though I was randomly picking from their desires, it still kinda felt like I was making the party's decision for them, where they should've been able to come to one as a group, and that's not how I wanna run this campaign. Advice would be appreciated.
Them asking crewmen says to me they were looking for the “correct” answer, and wanted you to give it to them. Maybe they’ve gotten the idea that there is one way they should go, and they’re worried about making the wrong choice. I’d suggest an out of character discussion where you assure them that the game will continue no matter if they choose A or B, or even if they pick C and decide to get off the boat and start walking in a random direction. Make sure they know there’s no wrong answer.
The other thing it says is there’s no real party leader. Most parties have one, even if it’s not explicitly stated, there’s a player who kind of falls into the role of rounding up options and eventually will basically say, it’s 3-2, so we’re doing what the 3 want. Or if it’s not even that clear, they make the call. If one hasn’t developed organically, you could suggest the party come up with one. They decide amongst themselves who will make those decisions and let everyone move on.
Beyond that, there’s in game tricks. You could say the boat is getting close to the fork, you need to decide. Then, choose now or it’s going to run aground. But those sorts of things just deal with a single situation; you want to get to the root problem.
The crew DOES have a Captain. The personalities of the others tend to steamroll him. It's something the player has told me he wants to work on.
But is that the character is the captain, or the player? It's more important to have a player willing to take the lead, since, ultimately, that's who's making the decisions. Ideally, that player would recognize the various character's positions. But what I'd meant was you need a player in a leadership role at the table more than a character in a leadership role in-game. Someone who is willing to just go around the table and say, are we doing this, and then lead the group to making a decision. And not everyone has to agree with every decision. That can often lead to some interesting character v. character interactions and drama -- as long as it doesn't lead to player v. player drama, though, you'll be OK. And usually, as long as everyone feels like they're being heard, even if they don't get their way, it works itself out.
In 1e, they used to recommend assigning one player to be a "caller" meaning that the players could argue amongst themselves, but the DM wouldn't act until that one player said: here's what we're going to do. It was mostly to avoid three players all saying different things at the same time and the DM having to sort out what order to do them in. But it did also help since it basically established that one person was going to be the one speaking for everyone, so they ended up falling into a leadership role.
Or, you could always take the initiative in it. If there's a character who's the captain, and they say they want to do something, then just go with that. The NPC crew, at least, should follow the captain. I might warn the players this is the plan from now on. Say something like: It's taking you too long to make decisions. Bob over there is the captain, so from now on, I'm just going to go with what he says. You all will have a few minutes to discuss things, but if it starts taking too long, what Bob says goes.
The best option is probably to have the group come to a decision. I think D&D is a great place for someone to work on skills like assertiveness and decision making in roll play, IF those around them understand and are supportive. That doesn't mean they roll over to their decisions, but don't give them a hard time when things go sideways, that can and does happen regardless of the choice.
I can imagine too that your captain might not want to be blamed for making the "wrong" choice when faced with not so great options. Not every decision should be rolled on, but if indecisiveness is slowing the game down it might help. Let the party know that as the captain, their character needs to make a definitive choice. You can let one of the other players make persuasion throws against their wisdom or charisma saves to see if they can sway his character's opinion. Other players for or against can try to give their side advantage. This gamifies the decision, hopefully making it more fun for everyone.
Let the other players know that there will be story arcs where their character's skills or background will put them in the leadership seat. Perhaps they make an overland expedition hunting for treasure, and the captain defers to the ranger. Maybe the streetwise rogue takes lead while in port.
This isn’t perfect since you can’t use it all the time, but consider having something that is attacking the ship / party if they stay too long in the same place.
You can let one of the other players make persuasion throws against their wisdom or charisma saves to see if they can sway his character's opinion. Other players for or against can try to give their side advantage. This gamifies the decision, hopefully making it more fun for everyone.
Whatever else you do. Do not do this. Never turn D&D into a PvP game. Players should not use their character's skills against each other.
I’ve allowed players to charm/dominate other players but that was with a pretty adult group that was made up of friends. Using skills against each other doesn’t make any kind of sense, barring the fun Bluff and Sense Motive situation.
Two questions: Are the player enjoying the debate? Are you enjoying the players debating?
Perhaps ask them would they be enjoying it more if they had just immediately made a quick decision and got on with it.
If it's the second issue just tell them that, for you to enjoy the game, it would be great if they came to a decision.
If the nation is at war, instead of sentencing them to death, confiscation of goods (perhaps temporarily) and conscription for a service might suit all sides better.
Otherwise, you could just check about the possibility of having in-game time pass and deplete resources and have random encounters if they would be of interest and a challenge. Go through downtime activities, though options might be limited out in the sticks.
Whenever my players are time-pressured and need to make quick decisions and start to debate longer that i think should, i will tell them that they have only 10 seconds left to tell me what they do, 9, 8, 7 etc...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I love the group I run but my players have a few habits that bug me. Which isn't a big deal. Most I can handle, like a bunch of cross-talk going on while I'm trying to explain something important, but this one feels like a real issue. When the group is trying to decide on a course of action, they can take forever to actually come to a decision.
For example, our current story arc has my players sailing their ship along icy rivers in a tundra country. The only way out is to follow the river to one of the two northern exits. One will lead to a war zone, the other the nation's capital. It's a harsh nation with very strict laws and since my players are a bunch of chaotic pirates, naturally they keep breaking them to the point where the law is keeping an eye on 'em. At this point I had them meet an oil tycoon who gave them a potential quest and some other information. So they had two options for how they could proceed here if they wanted to leave the country with some big quest reward:
1. The oil tycoon's personal chef is trapped in the war zone. Extricate the chef, and the tycoon will let them know where a secret store of oil is in the war zone that they can grab on their way out.
2. A gold mine has been found along the direction to the capital. Mining gold is illegal in this country, but if my players are sneaky about it, they can get a lot of treasure.
Obviously there's a lot to consider here, especially since the party had been previously told that for very minor infractions they were on a two-strike notice and strike three would lead to their arrest and likely hanging. But the party discussion just went in circles for a long while. There were also options to use one of the two exits without going for the loot rewards. But they just couldn't come to a consensus, even with an odd number of players to force a potential 3-2 vote, and it got to the point where they were asking NPC crewmen their opinions and when that didn't help, I offered to roll a d6 to decide which player's desire they'd follow (each of them was assigned a number from 1-5, and 6 was a reroll). And I feel like that isn't something I should be doing as DM. But they were just going on and on and revisiting the same points and nobody was convincing anyone else of anything, so I had to force something to get the story moving again.
Is there a way I could've handled this better? And is there anything I can say to prevent this from happening again in the future? Even though I was randomly picking from their desires, it still kinda felt like I was making the party's decision for them, where they should've been able to come to one as a group, and that's not how I wanna run this campaign. Advice would be appreciated.
Them asking crewmen says to me they were looking for the “correct” answer, and wanted you to give it to them. Maybe they’ve gotten the idea that there is one way they should go, and they’re worried about making the wrong choice.
I’d suggest an out of character discussion where you assure them that the game will continue no matter if they choose A or B, or even if they pick C and decide to get off the boat and start walking in a random direction. Make sure they know there’s no wrong answer.
The other thing it says is there’s no real party leader. Most parties have one, even if it’s not explicitly stated, there’s a player who kind of falls into the role of rounding up options and eventually will basically say, it’s 3-2, so we’re doing what the 3 want. Or if it’s not even that clear, they make the call. If one hasn’t developed organically, you could suggest the party come up with one. They decide amongst themselves who will make those decisions and let everyone move on.
Beyond that, there’s in game tricks. You could say the boat is getting close to the fork, you need to decide. Then, choose now or it’s going to run aground. But those sorts of things just deal with a single situation; you want to get to the root problem.
I mean, with threat of death hanging over their head no matter which decision they make, it's no wonder they're taking their time figuring it out!
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
The crew DOES have a Captain. The personalities of the others tend to steamroll him. It's something the player has told me he wants to work on.
But is that the character is the captain, or the player? It's more important to have a player willing to take the lead, since, ultimately, that's who's making the decisions. Ideally, that player would recognize the various character's positions. But what I'd meant was you need a player in a leadership role at the table more than a character in a leadership role in-game. Someone who is willing to just go around the table and say, are we doing this, and then lead the group to making a decision. And not everyone has to agree with every decision. That can often lead to some interesting character v. character interactions and drama -- as long as it doesn't lead to player v. player drama, though, you'll be OK. And usually, as long as everyone feels like they're being heard, even if they don't get their way, it works itself out.
In 1e, they used to recommend assigning one player to be a "caller" meaning that the players could argue amongst themselves, but the DM wouldn't act until that one player said: here's what we're going to do. It was mostly to avoid three players all saying different things at the same time and the DM having to sort out what order to do them in. But it did also help since it basically established that one person was going to be the one speaking for everyone, so they ended up falling into a leadership role.
Or, you could always take the initiative in it. If there's a character who's the captain, and they say they want to do something, then just go with that. The NPC crew, at least, should follow the captain. I might warn the players this is the plan from now on. Say something like: It's taking you too long to make decisions. Bob over there is the captain, so from now on, I'm just going to go with what he says. You all will have a few minutes to discuss things, but if it starts taking too long, what Bob says goes.
The best option is probably to have the group come to a decision. I think D&D is a great place for someone to work on skills like assertiveness and decision making in roll play, IF those around them understand and are supportive. That doesn't mean they roll over to their decisions, but don't give them a hard time when things go sideways, that can and does happen regardless of the choice.
I can imagine too that your captain might not want to be blamed for making the "wrong" choice when faced with not so great options. Not every decision should be rolled on, but if indecisiveness is slowing the game down it might help. Let the party know that as the captain, their character needs to make a definitive choice. You can let one of the other players make persuasion throws against their wisdom or charisma saves to see if they can sway his character's opinion. Other players for or against can try to give their side advantage. This gamifies the decision, hopefully making it more fun for everyone.
Let the other players know that there will be story arcs where their character's skills or background will put them in the leadership seat. Perhaps they make an overland expedition hunting for treasure, and the captain defers to the ranger. Maybe the streetwise rogue takes lead while in port.
This isn’t perfect since you can’t use it all the time, but consider having something that is attacking the ship / party if they stay too long in the same place.
Whatever else you do. Do not do this. Never turn D&D into a PvP game. Players should not use their character's skills against each other.
I’ve allowed players to charm/dominate other players but that was with a pretty adult group that was made up of friends. Using skills against each other doesn’t make any kind of sense, barring the fun Bluff and Sense Motive situation.
Two questions:
Are the player enjoying the debate?
Are you enjoying the players debating?
Perhaps ask them would they be enjoying it more if they had just immediately made a quick decision and got on with it.
If it's the second issue just tell them that, for you to enjoy the game, it would be great if they came to a decision.
If the nation is at war, instead of sentencing them to death, confiscation of goods (perhaps temporarily) and conscription for a service might suit all sides better.
Otherwise, you could just check about the possibility of having in-game time pass and deplete resources and have random encounters if they would be of interest and a challenge. Go through downtime activities, though options might be limited out in the sticks.
Whenever my players are time-pressured and need to make quick decisions and start to debate longer that i think should, i will tell them that they have only 10 seconds left to tell me what they do, 9, 8, 7 etc...