I'm having a bit of a problem with my players! Our last campaigns were 2e, and the DM was punishingly brutal with combat, every NPC was a jerk or took advantage of the players.
I am running the 5e starter set Lost Mine of Phandelver, and my players refuse to make allies or engage with NPCs, because their characters are all naturally distrusting, and it doesn't help that the players are as well! For example, I added a neutral good NPC who is a cleric to make certain early combats 'easier,' in case I scaled it improperly, and they hate her and think she's a screw-up because she's not blasting things left and right for them! It's also difficult because the last session, one player kind of dominated the story and everyone followed, but the story was all off the cuff... the DM made everything up in his own world as we went along. Now I am introducing NPCs based on the campaign and the players don't bite or form relationships with any of the NPCs! It feels like a lot of the pre-session work I do is wasted because they rarely bite. For example, one of the first things I did once they entered town, was have the priest Sister Garaelle give them a Bless spell in return for a small donation, which was a wonderful boon for when they first fought the Redbrands. I was hoping the players would catch on that this was actually a huge favor and that they'd return to form a relationship. But they rarely ever bite!
They sometimes whisper at the table, not wanting me to hear so that they can formulate a plan, thinking I need to be 'beaten' and outwitted like our old DM. At one point in our last session, they got out of a hard combat, and were faced with either following the trail of a fleeing enemy in their weakened state, or going back to town to rest following the next day. It took them a half hour to decide!
For example, I added a neutral good NPC who is a cleric to make certain early combats 'easier,' in case I scaled it improperly, and they hate her and think she's a screw-up because she's not blasting things left and right for them!
Broadly, I think one of the most important things you do as a DM is read the table then balance on the fly. If you find that your players don't want to RP as much, at a certain point, it is on you to adapt. I'm not saying that you're at that point yet, but it's something you should keep in the back of your mind. Maybe the old DM had it right, and these players just don't like "in town" portion of the game.
At the same time, LMoP features a wide variety of enemies. The module, even with no variance, will force at least one moment of potential realization, when you get to Venomfang. With some tweaking, you can add in several others. There are several enemies where diplomacy will get you further than hobo-like murder.
I would say, just keep doing what you're doing until you actually complete LMoP. The session immediately after the module ends will serve as a better indication on their mindset. If they immediately start looking for the next quest-giver, it is possible that they just like grinding dungeons. At the point, IMO you move on to TYoP.
Reteaching players is very difficult, and is a chore at best.
First thing I want to stress is to talk to your players, ask them what they want, what they expect, what they fear. Get all the information you can about what they like and dislike about the game. Express often that you are not the same person as their last DM, explain that you want to have a game that isn't DM vs Player. Let them know, both in game and out, that your NPCs are not going to be weapons, that some of them are there to help.
Give them the example of Sister Garaelle and how she was a boon to the party. Explain how you wanted to use her to help, and explain that this is something you'll do. Give them that information straight out and stick to it. Explain that the cleric was an NPC not a party member, that the npc was there to help, not over shadow them. Explain your tactics to them, be as transparent as possible while you play Phandelver. Don't throw twists at them unless the campaign says to, explain your decisions and be consistent. The goal here is to earn their trust by doing what you say and showing them that you're not an antagonist DM.
It will take time, there will be arguments, there will be distrust, but as long as you are willing to be patient and work through the stumbling blocks, they will come around. I've had to break bad habits of players, and I've had to reintroduce players to the game that had terrible groups, I've had to teach DMs how not to be combative with their players, and I've had to teach DMs how to be assertive. All of these took time, communication and consistency, just like your table will.
Thanks for the responses! I am trying my best to be transparent, after the session, with what my intentions were, and prove that I am not trying to one up them during the game.
Quote from Hybridfive>>
I'm a little confused about this portion of your statement. What does it have to do with your previous DM?!
Basically, the only NPCs the last DM would create that also had unique personality also vastly overpowered the players in combat, that is the players could not assert any power over them... they were always multiple levels higher than the party. I attempted to make an NPC who was useful to help me balance combat for the first several sessions... they had no cleric, and when she was first introduced she was a level higher than them. Now she is a level lower than them. I was worried that the encounters would be imbalanced until I got into the groove of balancing everything, at which point I could have the cleric start receiving damage, and that would cause a second dilemma, which was protecting her... there could be consequences that weren't a TPK. They chose to berate her despite her usefulness, because she was not overpowered like my last DM's NPCs. Now she won't ally with them anymore... like DMThac0 says, she was not a party member, but a boon that they could get for being diplomatic.
This is also a problem because while trying to get them out of their PTSD, they now think I'm going to be taking it easy on them, which is not the case. I am simply giving them opportunities to make allies.
I am also trying to be very clear about what my intention was, after the fact, while meta-gaming with some of the players for the next session. I let them discover exactly what the threat was before combat by using their investigation, perception, and insight, and rolling high enough. But they still have to respond in real time during combat.
You might just need to lay out the fact that different styles of play/DMing exist, and explain which one you are. It's true that, as a group of human beings, there needs to be enough give and take to get the group to get along and enjoy the game.
But you can start by explaining to them the basic differences in types of play style, campaign style, DM style. This is a very unstructured list, these overlap in many ways.
DM vs Players - your old DM was this way. A lot of people enjoy this as a challenge, and often the worlds are as you described--nobody will help the players, it's them vs the world. The DM is out to get them, and they are out to survive and 'win'.
Purely Tactical - the sessions are less about role-playing, and more about mission planning, combat optimizing, and execution. 4e was all over this style of play.
Storytelling - the group is concerned with telling a cool, enjoyable story. The DM isn't out to get them, the players aren't trying to pull one over on the DM. The challenges might still be significant, but the objective isn't that any of the players at the table (DM included) are against each other (even if the characters might be).
Carefully Planned Scenarios - the DM is planning essentially a connected series of one-shot adventures, all hooked into the same overall plot. There's less of a desire for the players to go off on tangents (although not a desire to railroad the story either). A good DM will see what the players are doing at the end of one session, and plan some things out that might happen in the next one, but not force anything.
Sandbox - the DM has more but often less developed ideas about the world, and the players are much more free to go wherever they want. A good DM here will improvise as they go, putting more details into something that she had a basic notion of previously (or sometimes have to make stuff up completely out of wholecloth).
So you need to just explain the different kinds of games, and tell the players what kind of DM you are/would like to be. Sounds to me like you're going to be carefully planning each session to an extent, with the goal of storytelling. But as you've told them (and tell them again), telling a cool story doesn't mean 'telling a story about where everything was easy. Easy isn't cool. :)
It might take some time, but if they know what kind of game you want to run, they may come around.
I'm having a bit of a problem with my players! Our last campaigns were 2e, and the DM was punishingly brutal with combat, every NPC was a jerk or took advantage of the players.
I am running the 5e starter set Lost Mine of Phandelver, and my players refuse to make allies or engage with NPCs, because their characters are all naturally distrusting, and it doesn't help that the players are as well! For example, I added a neutral good NPC who is a cleric to make certain early combats 'easier,' in case I scaled it improperly, and they hate her and think she's a screw-up because she's not blasting things left and right for them! It's also difficult because the last session, one player kind of dominated the story and everyone followed, but the story was all off the cuff... the DM made everything up in his own world as we went along. Now I am introducing NPCs based on the campaign and the players don't bite or form relationships with any of the NPCs! It feels like a lot of the pre-session work I do is wasted because they rarely bite. For example, one of the first things I did once they entered town, was have the priest Sister Garaelle give them a Bless spell in return for a small donation, which was a wonderful boon for when they first fought the Redbrands. I was hoping the players would catch on that this was actually a huge favor and that they'd return to form a relationship. But they rarely ever bite!
They sometimes whisper at the table, not wanting me to hear so that they can formulate a plan, thinking I need to be 'beaten' and outwitted like our old DM. At one point in our last session, they got out of a hard combat, and were faced with either following the trail of a fleeing enemy in their weakened state, or going back to town to rest following the next day. It took them a half hour to decide!
I am a little confused about this portion of your statement. What does it have to do with your previous DM?
Broadly, I think one of the most important things you do as a DM is read the table then balance on the fly. If you find that your players don't want to RP as much, at a certain point, it is on you to adapt. I'm not saying that you're at that point yet, but it's something you should keep in the back of your mind. Maybe the old DM had it right, and these players just don't like "in town" portion of the game.
At the same time, LMoP features a wide variety of enemies. The module, even with no variance, will force at least one moment of potential realization, when you get to Venomfang. With some tweaking, you can add in several others. There are several enemies where diplomacy will get you further than hobo-like murder.
I would say, just keep doing what you're doing until you actually complete LMoP. The session immediately after the module ends will serve as a better indication on their mindset. If they immediately start looking for the next quest-giver, it is possible that they just like grinding dungeons. At the point, IMO you move on to TYoP.
Reteaching players is very difficult, and is a chore at best.
First thing I want to stress is to talk to your players, ask them what they want, what they expect, what they fear. Get all the information you can about what they like and dislike about the game. Express often that you are not the same person as their last DM, explain that you want to have a game that isn't DM vs Player. Let them know, both in game and out, that your NPCs are not going to be weapons, that some of them are there to help.
Give them the example of Sister Garaelle and how she was a boon to the party. Explain how you wanted to use her to help, and explain that this is something you'll do. Give them that information straight out and stick to it. Explain that the cleric was an NPC not a party member, that the npc was there to help, not over shadow them. Explain your tactics to them, be as transparent as possible while you play Phandelver. Don't throw twists at them unless the campaign says to, explain your decisions and be consistent. The goal here is to earn their trust by doing what you say and showing them that you're not an antagonist DM.
It will take time, there will be arguments, there will be distrust, but as long as you are willing to be patient and work through the stumbling blocks, they will come around. I've had to break bad habits of players, and I've had to reintroduce players to the game that had terrible groups, I've had to teach DMs how not to be combative with their players, and I've had to teach DMs how to be assertive. All of these took time, communication and consistency, just like your table will.
Thanks for the responses! I am trying my best to be transparent, after the session, with what my intentions were, and prove that I am not trying to one up them during the game.
Basically, the only NPCs the last DM would create that also had unique personality also vastly overpowered the players in combat, that is the players could not assert any power over them... they were always multiple levels higher than the party. I attempted to make an NPC who was useful to help me balance combat for the first several sessions... they had no cleric, and when she was first introduced she was a level higher than them. Now she is a level lower than them. I was worried that the encounters would be imbalanced until I got into the groove of balancing everything, at which point I could have the cleric start receiving damage, and that would cause a second dilemma, which was protecting her... there could be consequences that weren't a TPK. They chose to berate her despite her usefulness, because she was not overpowered like my last DM's NPCs. Now she won't ally with them anymore... like DMThac0 says, she was not a party member, but a boon that they could get for being diplomatic.
This is also a problem because while trying to get them out of their PTSD, they now think I'm going to be taking it easy on them, which is not the case. I am simply giving them opportunities to make allies.
I am also trying to be very clear about what my intention was, after the fact, while meta-gaming with some of the players for the next session. I let them discover exactly what the threat was before combat by using their investigation, perception, and insight, and rolling high enough. But they still have to respond in real time during combat.
You might just need to lay out the fact that different styles of play/DMing exist, and explain which one you are. It's true that, as a group of human beings, there needs to be enough give and take to get the group to get along and enjoy the game.
But you can start by explaining to them the basic differences in types of play style, campaign style, DM style. This is a very unstructured list, these overlap in many ways.
So you need to just explain the different kinds of games, and tell the players what kind of DM you are/would like to be. Sounds to me like you're going to be carefully planning each session to an extent, with the goal of storytelling. But as you've told them (and tell them again), telling a cool story doesn't mean 'telling a story about where everything was easy. Easy isn't cool. :)
It might take some time, but if they know what kind of game you want to run, they may come around.
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
And stop using a screen. Open rolling can help reduce player suspicion if they think you're "out to get them".
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale