I'm relatively new to DMing. I've got most of the rules down, but one aspect of the game that I'm having a hard time with is the party members all wanting a turn to make the same check. They're new to the game as well, and I see where the mindset can come from, where one character wants to look for a secret door or something but throws a bad roll. Other characters get the idea and everyone with a half-decent Intelligence score wants in on the action. All these checks are grinding the action way down, as they end up wanting to do this in every room, even though I've informed them that secret passages and such are rare. They are taking the perspective of a video game, where you clear out a room of bad guys then spend 15 minutes examining every inch of the room before moving on. They see it as having no cost while having the upside of maybe finding something hidden. This is just one aspect of the metagaming that seems to pervade every aspect of the game. They all min/max when creating a character, want to keep track of monster HP, they mistrust every NPC they come in contact with, etc. It's exhausting as a DM.
So, I'd love advice on how to handle the crazy amounts of checks they want to do, and I'm also hoping for some encouragement that this mindset is related to them being new players and that as we play longer they may get the idea that this is supposed to be fun and immersive, not a numbers game or an attempt to "not be fooled" by the DM.
One way you can limit some checks is to generally allow rolls for things a person is proficient in because they may have specialized knowledge. Otherwise, is the group wants to all get roll happy because one person wanted to try something, have it be a "group roll" where the average number of successes of the group determines the success or failure of the task. If everyone is searching for a thing and three of the five players fail their rolls, then the group fails because those that rolled poorly got in the way of the ones who were doing better.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The mongoose blew out its candle and was asleep in bed before the room went dark." —Llanowar fable
Metamongoose's advice is a good way to handle cases where the players and their characters actually need to search. However, if players are spending too much time searching empty rooms, sometimes the only way to prevent this behavior is to make it explicitly clear to your players that there's nothing to be found. Something like, "There's nothing else of interest in this room," usually works. Don't even allow your players to make a check; make it clear it would be a completely wasted effort. This is somewhat immersion-breaking but sometimes necessary to do. Ideally, after a few instances of this, your players will get the hint.
That said, don't discount searching entirely. It's an important part of the game and can be a powerful means of immersion. Consider adding hidden details to rooms and spaces that say something about the world or the story. These don't need to have any mechanical effect, and in fact you should make it clear when decorations are just decorations, but it might help encourage your players to take a deeper interest in the game.
As to the other behaviors you mentioned, a couple tips.
1. Players are going to min-max; it's unavoidable. One way to deal with this is to include more encounters that can't be solved with combat. If you find the whole party is punching above their weight, feel free to increase the difficulty of combat encounters as well.
2. Similarly, many players will attempt to track monster HP. I say let them. In fact, I usually make it clear to my players how injured a monster might be with narration, saying things like "the monster is lightly injured" or "the monster is badly wounded." There's really no harm in this, as in most cases it would be clear to the characters how injured a creature might be. What I would discourage is players "piggybacking" on each other's actions or talking too much between rounds of combat. Combat shouldn't be bureaucratic.
3. NPC paranoia also isn't uncommon. Fantasy stories are rife with tales of betrayal and deception, so it's not surprising that players won't trust most people they meet. In fact, it makes sense if most NPCs don't necessarily trust them either. If an NPC is trustworthy, make an effort to portray this by having them offer extra help; if the PCs' suspicions lead them to reject this help, that's their loss. If your PCs actually act on their suspicions and even harm NPCs who have done nothing wrong, make sure there are consequences for their actions, or that at the very least they see that they've injured an innocent person.
You mentioned a number of different points in your post, so I'll try to address each one in some way.
1: Rolls aren't needed to play the game. I used to ask for rolls all the time, it also taught my players to ask to roll all the time. I started to think passive scores, as well as thinking about what it was like in real life and how we assess situations. I also started to understand failure and risk vs imposing rolls because of habit. If there is no chance of failure, no negative to spending an hour on a task, no possibility of being interrupted, then there is no need to roll. Sometimes an arbitrary roll can create dramatic tension, but for the most part imposing a roll should make the players feel, or know, that there is a chance of failure.
2. Players don't metagame (usually). Metagaming is an often misused term to describe when players do something that another player or DM feels they shouldn't "in character". The characters want to track AC, that's not a real life thing you can track, you're metagaming. The players know that if you stake a vampire in the heart it should die, their characters have never met a vampire, it's metagaming. The players know about a conversation another player had but their characters weren't present, they're metagaming. All of that is untrue, players can deduce AC by knowing their 15 on a d20 missed but a 16 on another roll hit, that's logic. Vampires are a pop culture thing, seen all over the place, and referenced in historical stories for centuries, why can't that be in game? If you have a conversation in front of the table between one player and a NPC, how can the rest of the table not hear it, how can they forget it? In the end the characters know what the players know, if you want to keep a secret, don't say it in front of the players. Gentle reminders of "you aren't/weren't there." will also help them separate knowledge from action, which will reduce the "metagaming" issues you may run into.
3. It's a numbers game if you make it one. Milestone leveling reduces the XP chase, reducing the mechanics in favor of colorful narrative reduces the skill rolls, combat will always be a numbers game. The players will, almost always, start by thinking that they've got to beat the DM, even my longest running players get caught up in that mind frame still. I've learned that congratulating them on critical hits, apologizing for getting a critical hit on them, giving them little nudges that help them succeed at a task, etc. have gone a long way to show the players that I'm rooting for them. As time goes on they'll realize that you're just telling a story, not trying to kill them, even if you are playing the monsters to win.
4. The spot light should shift every couple sessions. If your players keep jockeying for the spotlight then it's time to reassess what's going on with the story line(s). I have 5-6 players in my current games, it's a guarantee that I'll miss giving a few of them the spotlight during a session. However, few times do I get a complaint about feeling left out, few times do I get my players trying to steal the spotlight. The reason is because every 2-3 sessions I manipulate the session's events to highlight the skill set of 2-3 of the players, each time choosing a different combination. I also have personal stories that are based on the player's backstories, something that ties them into the adventure, and I'll pick on a player's backstory for a couple sessions. If the bard and barbarian are the ones I'll be giving the session to, I'll implement the backstory of the rogue as well, then the next week (or session) I'll use the bard and the rogue while the druid's backstory is touched on.
---
The job of a DM is exhausting, however it should leave you feeling fulfilled. Right after a session I ask the players if they had fun, what in particular they enjoyed, or ask them about a specific thing I did that I felt didn't go well, or went really well. This gives me insight on what the players enjoyed, what they didn't like, what troubles they're having, and what I can improve upon. It also helps me keep the players involved with the game beyond the dice, they are the biggest creative resource, and the second hardest critics to my work. This communication has helped me figure out that I need to improve on my descriptions, that they feel the game is moving slowly, and that they feel like the world is truly impacted by their actions. I learn, I feel good (most of the time), and I get to learn what my players want and think about the game. I then end up with 2 hours after a session where all I do is veg, my brain needs time to settle down and stop moving at light speed. I let my players clean up, gossip, and I just sit in my recliner watching an anime or finally grab something to eat (I usually forget to eat during our 4 hour sessions).
---
I hope some of this helps you with your dilemma, and here's to happy adventures in the future!
Failing a roll isn't just 'this didn't work' -- there's some kind of penalty.
The idea is that if you have enough time, you will eventually succeed at a task. So if there's no penalty to failing a check, there's usually not much reason to ask for a check. Instead? The Rogue fails Investigation figuring out a trap? Sets off the trap. Monk fails to climb that wall? Some of the rocks come down with them, making it more difficult to climb the next time by the removed handholds. Bard fails to persuade someone? Now their insight improves, as they were able to see through the bard and see the party's motivations -- why would the next persuasion check work?
Failure needs to have consequences, for some the consequences are as simple as: We are in this fight, and failing what you're doing means you don't get to do anything else. Making a skill check in battle is a full action, and I see lots of DMs handwave and allow it, but then you get lots of skill-check-grouping as everyone wants to do it. If you make it cost an action, they'll do it because its worthwhile, but they'll let the person who is best at it, do it. Some things you might think would need a check. Say, climbing a rope. But really, unless someone has a negative to athletics and should have to prove something, you really don't need to. Unless you're in combat, or there's some other consequence or time restraint, there's no reason to. Not everything needs a check!
Sometimes the consequence is just the passage of time. So maybe the Rogue rolls a 5 to pick a lock. Alright, you do it eventually - because you know how to pick a lock - but it takes longer than expected. There goes a half hour. An hour. The Wizard makes an Arcana check and rolls a 2. Alright, you spend an hour poring over your notes and learn... Adding a time consequence to rolls also avoids roll-lumping. The wizard just spent an hour on that. Do we really have the time to waste for the bard to spend time on it, too?
Then, you have group checks. The rules provided say if half the group succeeds, the whole group succeeds. So stealth, perception, or investigation can be really great for group checks. This lets everyone roll, and makes the group try harder to work together.
All in all: The DM calls for checks. Not the players. You're ALLOWED to say "One person can make this check, you guys decide." You might even get to a point like I'm at, where the players have an innate sense of what rolls they are responsible for. When anyone could make the check, x does investigation, y does nature and survival, t does sleight of hand and persuasion-- etc. I don't even have to tell them anymore.
Thanks for the input, this is all very helpful. I think I've been so obsessed with not railroading and letting the players drive the sessions that I've perhaps become a little too passive as the DM. I will work in the consequences of failed checks, that seems like a good idea. I think sometimes, especially when the players do something I'm not expecting, I get caught off-guard and react a little too slowly, and in those circumstances I need to be a little more prepared so I can keep everything on-track.
I like the advice given and relate to all of them. You should try the advice above first, but I also use (obviously not) "random" encounters at times when my players become too hesitant, risk-averse or when they demand too many rolls for the same thing. It sends a message that staying still or trying to work around the rules also has consequences.
D&D has a system that can be interpreted as binary: success or fail. There are quite a few RPGs out there that uses different mechanics. For example having rules that allow partial successes or even ways to turn fails into some sort of success. If I read it correctly, this is what MellieDM is talking about.
The key here to me is having fun and the story your building. If at any point there is something really cool for the PCs to discover - or even essential to the story - never let a failed throw stand in the way. This also foster the “I roll as well” attitude. Instead, let them succeed but at a cost. You can even add the “cost” as a choice. As this pushes the story forward, it also removes backtracking for another roll. For example:
- The secret door is found, but the sound has alerted the guards and to enter means facing them.
- You escape down the sheer cliff but halfway down your purse snags and you can either lose it to the waters below or hold on to it but lose your grip.
- You convince the Great chieftain of the Goblins but his price is your magical ring.
In all the above, you could push the story forward and add fail as a choice. The PCs can leave the secret entrance to avoid a fight, they can “pay” for the escape by their gold and decide whether or not the ring is worth the price.
It pushes the limit of the D&D rules a bit, perhaps, but it’s a story element that’s fun to use in my experience and also give the players a bit of say in what happens when things go pear shaped.
Lastly, a tip regarding this is talking with the players about the fun of failing if they clearly seem to se fails as bad for the game. The most memorable gaming experiences are not necessarily the successes but the fails - or problems you “pay” for succeeding - rather than just straight up having a win. PC fails are fun, as long as they don’t stop the story from going forward.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm relatively new to DMing. I've got most of the rules down, but one aspect of the game that I'm having a hard time with is the party members all wanting a turn to make the same check. They're new to the game as well, and I see where the mindset can come from, where one character wants to look for a secret door or something but throws a bad roll. Other characters get the idea and everyone with a half-decent Intelligence score wants in on the action. All these checks are grinding the action way down, as they end up wanting to do this in every room, even though I've informed them that secret passages and such are rare. They are taking the perspective of a video game, where you clear out a room of bad guys then spend 15 minutes examining every inch of the room before moving on. They see it as having no cost while having the upside of maybe finding something hidden. This is just one aspect of the metagaming that seems to pervade every aspect of the game. They all min/max when creating a character, want to keep track of monster HP, they mistrust every NPC they come in contact with, etc. It's exhausting as a DM.
So, I'd love advice on how to handle the crazy amounts of checks they want to do, and I'm also hoping for some encouragement that this mindset is related to them being new players and that as we play longer they may get the idea that this is supposed to be fun and immersive, not a numbers game or an attempt to "not be fooled" by the DM.
Leave the gun. Take the cannoli.
One way you can limit some checks is to generally allow rolls for things a person is proficient in because they may have specialized knowledge. Otherwise, is the group wants to all get roll happy because one person wanted to try something, have it be a "group roll" where the average number of successes of the group determines the success or failure of the task. If everyone is searching for a thing and three of the five players fail their rolls, then the group fails because those that rolled poorly got in the way of the ones who were doing better.
Metamongoose's advice is a good way to handle cases where the players and their characters actually need to search. However, if players are spending too much time searching empty rooms, sometimes the only way to prevent this behavior is to make it explicitly clear to your players that there's nothing to be found. Something like, "There's nothing else of interest in this room," usually works. Don't even allow your players to make a check; make it clear it would be a completely wasted effort. This is somewhat immersion-breaking but sometimes necessary to do. Ideally, after a few instances of this, your players will get the hint.
That said, don't discount searching entirely. It's an important part of the game and can be a powerful means of immersion. Consider adding hidden details to rooms and spaces that say something about the world or the story. These don't need to have any mechanical effect, and in fact you should make it clear when decorations are just decorations, but it might help encourage your players to take a deeper interest in the game.
As to the other behaviors you mentioned, a couple tips.
1. Players are going to min-max; it's unavoidable. One way to deal with this is to include more encounters that can't be solved with combat. If you find the whole party is punching above their weight, feel free to increase the difficulty of combat encounters as well.
2. Similarly, many players will attempt to track monster HP. I say let them. In fact, I usually make it clear to my players how injured a monster might be with narration, saying things like "the monster is lightly injured" or "the monster is badly wounded." There's really no harm in this, as in most cases it would be clear to the characters how injured a creature might be. What I would discourage is players "piggybacking" on each other's actions or talking too much between rounds of combat. Combat shouldn't be bureaucratic.
3. NPC paranoia also isn't uncommon. Fantasy stories are rife with tales of betrayal and deception, so it's not surprising that players won't trust most people they meet. In fact, it makes sense if most NPCs don't necessarily trust them either. If an NPC is trustworthy, make an effort to portray this by having them offer extra help; if the PCs' suspicions lead them to reject this help, that's their loss. If your PCs actually act on their suspicions and even harm NPCs who have done nothing wrong, make sure there are consequences for their actions, or that at the very least they see that they've injured an innocent person.
You mentioned a number of different points in your post, so I'll try to address each one in some way.
1: Rolls aren't needed to play the game. I used to ask for rolls all the time, it also taught my players to ask to roll all the time. I started to think passive scores, as well as thinking about what it was like in real life and how we assess situations. I also started to understand failure and risk vs imposing rolls because of habit. If there is no chance of failure, no negative to spending an hour on a task, no possibility of being interrupted, then there is no need to roll. Sometimes an arbitrary roll can create dramatic tension, but for the most part imposing a roll should make the players feel, or know, that there is a chance of failure.
2. Players don't metagame (usually). Metagaming is an often misused term to describe when players do something that another player or DM feels they shouldn't "in character". The characters want to track AC, that's not a real life thing you can track, you're metagaming. The players know that if you stake a vampire in the heart it should die, their characters have never met a vampire, it's metagaming. The players know about a conversation another player had but their characters weren't present, they're metagaming. All of that is untrue, players can deduce AC by knowing their 15 on a d20 missed but a 16 on another roll hit, that's logic. Vampires are a pop culture thing, seen all over the place, and referenced in historical stories for centuries, why can't that be in game? If you have a conversation in front of the table between one player and a NPC, how can the rest of the table not hear it, how can they forget it? In the end the characters know what the players know, if you want to keep a secret, don't say it in front of the players. Gentle reminders of "you aren't/weren't there." will also help them separate knowledge from action, which will reduce the "metagaming" issues you may run into.
3. It's a numbers game if you make it one. Milestone leveling reduces the XP chase, reducing the mechanics in favor of colorful narrative reduces the skill rolls, combat will always be a numbers game. The players will, almost always, start by thinking that they've got to beat the DM, even my longest running players get caught up in that mind frame still. I've learned that congratulating them on critical hits, apologizing for getting a critical hit on them, giving them little nudges that help them succeed at a task, etc. have gone a long way to show the players that I'm rooting for them. As time goes on they'll realize that you're just telling a story, not trying to kill them, even if you are playing the monsters to win.
4. The spot light should shift every couple sessions. If your players keep jockeying for the spotlight then it's time to reassess what's going on with the story line(s). I have 5-6 players in my current games, it's a guarantee that I'll miss giving a few of them the spotlight during a session. However, few times do I get a complaint about feeling left out, few times do I get my players trying to steal the spotlight. The reason is because every 2-3 sessions I manipulate the session's events to highlight the skill set of 2-3 of the players, each time choosing a different combination. I also have personal stories that are based on the player's backstories, something that ties them into the adventure, and I'll pick on a player's backstory for a couple sessions. If the bard and barbarian are the ones I'll be giving the session to, I'll implement the backstory of the rogue as well, then the next week (or session) I'll use the bard and the rogue while the druid's backstory is touched on.
---
The job of a DM is exhausting, however it should leave you feeling fulfilled. Right after a session I ask the players if they had fun, what in particular they enjoyed, or ask them about a specific thing I did that I felt didn't go well, or went really well. This gives me insight on what the players enjoyed, what they didn't like, what troubles they're having, and what I can improve upon. It also helps me keep the players involved with the game beyond the dice, they are the biggest creative resource, and the second hardest critics to my work. This communication has helped me figure out that I need to improve on my descriptions, that they feel the game is moving slowly, and that they feel like the world is truly impacted by their actions. I learn, I feel good (most of the time), and I get to learn what my players want and think about the game. I then end up with 2 hours after a session where all I do is veg, my brain needs time to settle down and stop moving at light speed. I let my players clean up, gossip, and I just sit in my recliner watching an anime or finally grab something to eat (I usually forget to eat during our 4 hour sessions).
---
I hope some of this helps you with your dilemma, and here's to happy adventures in the future!
Here's how I ended this problem in mine:
Failing a roll isn't just 'this didn't work' -- there's some kind of penalty.
The idea is that if you have enough time, you will eventually succeed at a task. So if there's no penalty to failing a check, there's usually not much reason to ask for a check. Instead? The Rogue fails Investigation figuring out a trap? Sets off the trap. Monk fails to climb that wall? Some of the rocks come down with them, making it more difficult to climb the next time by the removed handholds. Bard fails to persuade someone? Now their insight improves, as they were able to see through the bard and see the party's motivations -- why would the next persuasion check work?
Failure needs to have consequences, for some the consequences are as simple as: We are in this fight, and failing what you're doing means you don't get to do anything else. Making a skill check in battle is a full action, and I see lots of DMs handwave and allow it, but then you get lots of skill-check-grouping as everyone wants to do it. If you make it cost an action, they'll do it because its worthwhile, but they'll let the person who is best at it, do it. Some things you might think would need a check. Say, climbing a rope. But really, unless someone has a negative to athletics and should have to prove something, you really don't need to. Unless you're in combat, or there's some other consequence or time restraint, there's no reason to. Not everything needs a check!
Sometimes the consequence is just the passage of time. So maybe the Rogue rolls a 5 to pick a lock. Alright, you do it eventually - because you know how to pick a lock - but it takes longer than expected. There goes a half hour. An hour. The Wizard makes an Arcana check and rolls a 2. Alright, you spend an hour poring over your notes and learn... Adding a time consequence to rolls also avoids roll-lumping. The wizard just spent an hour on that. Do we really have the time to waste for the bard to spend time on it, too?
Then, you have group checks. The rules provided say if half the group succeeds, the whole group succeeds. So stealth, perception, or investigation can be really great for group checks. This lets everyone roll, and makes the group try harder to work together.
All in all: The DM calls for checks. Not the players. You're ALLOWED to say "One person can make this check, you guys decide." You might even get to a point like I'm at, where the players have an innate sense of what rolls they are responsible for. When anyone could make the check, x does investigation, y does nature and survival, t does sleight of hand and persuasion-- etc. I don't even have to tell them anymore.
Thanks for the input, this is all very helpful. I think I've been so obsessed with not railroading and letting the players drive the sessions that I've perhaps become a little too passive as the DM. I will work in the consequences of failed checks, that seems like a good idea. I think sometimes, especially when the players do something I'm not expecting, I get caught off-guard and react a little too slowly, and in those circumstances I need to be a little more prepared so I can keep everything on-track.
Leave the gun. Take the cannoli.
I like the advice given and relate to all of them. You should try the advice above first, but I also use (obviously not) "random" encounters at times when my players become too hesitant, risk-averse or when they demand too many rolls for the same thing. It sends a message that staying still or trying to work around the rules also has consequences.
D&D has a system that can be interpreted as binary: success or fail. There are quite a few RPGs out there that uses different mechanics. For example having rules that allow partial successes or even ways to turn fails into some sort of success. If I read it correctly, this is what MellieDM is talking about.
The key here to me is having fun and the story your building. If at any point there is something really cool for the PCs to discover - or even essential to the story - never let a failed throw stand in the way. This also foster the “I roll as well” attitude. Instead, let them succeed but at a cost. You can even add the “cost” as a choice. As this pushes the story forward, it also removes backtracking for another roll. For example:
- The secret door is found, but the sound has alerted the guards and to enter means facing them.
- You escape down the sheer cliff but halfway down your purse snags and you can either lose it to the waters below or hold on to it but lose your grip.
- You convince the Great chieftain of the Goblins but his price is your magical ring.
In all the above, you could push the story forward and add fail as a choice. The PCs can leave the secret entrance to avoid a fight, they can “pay” for the escape by their gold and decide whether or not the ring is worth the price.
It pushes the limit of the D&D rules a bit, perhaps, but it’s a story element that’s fun to use in my experience and also give the players a bit of say in what happens when things go pear shaped.
Lastly, a tip regarding this is talking with the players about the fun of failing if they clearly seem to se fails as bad for the game. The most memorable gaming experiences are not necessarily the successes but the fails - or problems you “pay” for succeeding - rather than just straight up having a win. PC fails are fun, as long as they don’t stop the story from going forward.