TL;DR: Is there a good way to structure out of combat RP so players make decisions quickly and avoid arguing over what to do?
I'm a new DM and I recently did my first session running the starter set''s The Lost Mine of Phandelver with a group of 5 players (all new to the game as well). I noticed a recurring problem with the group that they often had completely different approaches to a given problem.
Deciding to split up to investigate or stay together for safety, following a plot hook or stay on the road to a city, these kinds of decisions sparked an intense argument between the players. They talk over each other and stubbornly state their points again and again until finally deciding to vote on a course of action.
I , as the DM, would like players to RP and discuss possible strats but I feel this kind of behaviour is only harmful. It slowed down the game a lot, so much so that after 3 hours, all they managed to do was fight the first encounter and get to a nearby city. Some of the players were even feeling left out as they did not want to engage in this and felt dragged along by their group mates. They kept looking to me to resolve this issue but I did not know how to handle this as I didn't want to take authority away from the players.
I was suggested by one of them after the session to allot 30 seconds to each player to tell me what their character is going to do. However, I feel this can hinder spur of the moment actions like jumping in front of someone to defend them or interrupting a player before he does something stupid.
Is there a nice way to structure this kind of behaviour and make players decide on courses of actions quick so the story keeps going? Should I talk to the players about this? I would like them to decide faster but not prevent them from thinking of solutions if the problem they're facing warrants it.
My experience is very minimal; I've only been DMing for 2 weeks now. But, to me, I don't think that there is an honest to god great way to do it if you don't want to take the power away from your players. It is something that they will fix on their own, given time. Most of my current players were all new to playing D&D. The first session for each of my groups was more of a learning how everyone plays session. I went the same route you are trying to stick to, I've given the power to my players, they have decided just about everything that has happened so far; for this reason one of my groups 2, 4-5hr, sessions in has not become a full group of 6 adventurers. The first session two of them ran into each other and became friends while the other 4 did random things across the city. While, both my other sessions have become a full party; one started as a full party the other decided to run into each other while entering the city and quickly became friends while enjoying the festival that was going on.
That first group would maybe closely resemble what happens if you give each of your players a chance to tell you what they want to do then let them do it, like one of your players suggested with the 30 seconds. I basically ran 5 different adventures at the same time. It's a headache, but it can be fun. One or two of them would prefer to follow the road while the rest follow the plot hook. They look at you to resolve the problem because you are the one telling the story for them. There are going to be times where you have to say no, even when you would prefer not to. To the players feeling left out, this will help a lot, because they get to decide what their characters are doing; they don't have to go with the rest of the group if they don't want to.
With wanting to get them to RP are they playing as their PC or as themselves? Is their PC maybe scared of goblins and that's why he would rather stick to the road than take the plot hook? Maybe the person who wants to follow the road instead of the plot hook in his characters ideals/bonds/flaws has put something along the lines of he never leaves a friend behind. If you used the provided hook for LMoP they are friends with Gundren, and they can obviously tell it was his horses that were dead. So if he wants to abandon trying to help Gundren then you could make him make a wisdom check, if he rolls low enough his ideals/bonds/flaws would stop him from abandoning his friend in need.
If you are wanting them to stick together, to help you, let them each give their opinion once, then just force them to vote if they can't decided off the bat. This will stop their arguing, perhaps, but it will make anyone else feel left out, so it's a sucky option, but an option nonetheless.
Remember, things happen while they are standing in the middle of the road next to several dead horses arguing. Throw a goblin scouting party at them. Throw a guard patrol who thinks they ambushed someone at them.
Overall, I think they will fix the problem themselves if you let them, at least my groups did.
The world can only be at peace when there is but a single soul left upon it. Not sure who said it but it will always be true. Conflict is part of Real Life. I have been a dm for most of my life and I never like the situation you are in. True, alot of times a group will find their own harmony and in many cases the Players need only gentle reminders that they are putting Bob and Mary in the lurch by forcing them to go along with their hairbrained idea. Early on, I have found it very useful to (as the DM) express that if one or more say yes or no, and their side loses, their vote(s) counts for double the next time. This makes the group weigh the options of railroading the casual gamer into doing things they really would rather not. Another thing I often point out is that the characters are suppose to be friends (hell, they have fought monsters together!), and that the game is about the Players being or becoming friends. Friends treat each other with consideration and respect and a host rule is often to be respectful of everyone in the house. A long time ago, I went so far as to create a talking stick and if you didn't have it you were not allowed to talk out of character. That group fell apart and I am ashamed to say I am not without fault (even though I tried to fix things before I found out what was really going wrong).
Advice: Ask for, then require consideration. Ask for, then require cooperation. Ask for, then require inside voices.
When I say require what I mean is that when someone is not complying with your request for consideration, point it out. I call it the Warhammer of Peer Pressuring +5 (+10 vs jerks and friends with curfews). As far as quickening things, I have found a cheap little thirty-second hour glass sitting on the table tends to make the group find concensus before the sand runs out and if they cannot, well, the hobgoblins didn't want to wait for your to decide before they had dinner (which happens to be YOU).
Good Luck and I hope things improve. The Dm is suppose to be having fun, not babysitting their friends.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I do not like the word... prisoner. It implies a helpless state, and I assure you, I am never helpless.
Make consequences happen in game time as they argue. Are your characters bickering over how to knock out the guards outside the bandit hideout? Well, while you were arguing, guard change happened, giving the enemies two fresh pairs of eyes to perception check against what you already rolled for stealth. Or maybe the previous shift doesn't go inside right away, hanging outside to smoke a quick pipe and shoot the breeze with their friends and putting the party at disadvantage. Do that a couple times and your players will start sensing the urgency. You'll see players start saying "not so loud, they'll hear us", or "we gotta be quick, lives are on the line."
If you feel that penalizing them for their behavior in game is too harsh, you can still do similar things to stir the pot and force their hand without it being detrimental. The bandit leader comes out to yell at his subordinates for being too lax at their post, and maybe reveals something story-wise mid rant like a good villain should. Maybe a new shipment comes in from a recent raid, including a badly wounded wagonmaster and his screaming daughter. Raise the stakes, force the players' hands, make them realize they can'talways have the perfect plan.
Make consequences happen in game time as they argue. Are your characters bickering over how to knock out the guards outside the bandit hideout? Well, while you were arguing, guard change happened, giving the enemies two fresh pairs of eyes to perception check against what you already rolled for stealth. Or maybe the previous shift doesn't go inside right away, hanging outside to smoke a quick pipe and shoot the breeze with their friends and putting the party at disadvantage. Do that a couple times and your players will start sensing the urgency. You'll see players start saying "not so loud, they'll hear us", or "we gotta be quick, lives are on the line."
Raise the stakes, force the players' hands, make them realize they can't always have the perfect plan.
Great advice. Here, you're using a story-based way to push them along, increasing in-game tension, and not breaking from immersion (in fact, it increases it!). It does take some experience to handle this correctly, especially because group-decision paralysis happens at unexpected times. So in a pinch, it's ok to put the group on a 1-minute or 30-second timer and remind them- "hey, we have x hours to play, let's not spend it arguing over everything. There may not be an 'optimal choice' anyway, so make a call and let's PLAY."
As players become more experienced, they'll see the wisdom in only a brief discussion before making a decision. It becomes more about playing to see what happens and not about 'winning' or someone's ego.
Sure, use the Acquisitions Inc. method of solving these sorts of situations. Set one person in the group to be the "Decisionist" or a person who makes most of the decisions. If there is disagreement on what to do, call a vote and each party member gets a quick vote and the Decisionist gets two in order to break ties. The side with the most votes determines the course of action.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The mongoose blew out its candle and was asleep in bed before the room went dark." —Llanowar fable
As suggested by others, I convert discussion/arguing time into game time - at a pretty generous conversation rate. If enough game time passes in the world, stuff happens.
If they want to park and argue about which street the bad guys fled down, the bad guys get that much further ahead for each minute they stand arguing.
If they need to stop outside the keep gates and discuss how they're going to get inside, that's X number of perception rolls that the keep guards get to spot them.
Players catch on pretty quick when you interrupt their discussion with a "while you're huddled down whispering this, you hear a shout from above 'Hey, you there, what's your business at this hour? ".
That doesn't force any mechanics on the players, or the group, and gives them incentive to not waste a lot of time.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
My experience is very minimal; I've only been DMing for 2 weeks now. But, to me, I don't think that there is an honest to god great way to do it if you don't want to take the power away from your players. It is something that they will fix on their own, given time. Most of my current players were all new to playing D&D. The first session for each of my groups was more of a learning how everyone plays session. I went the same route you are trying to stick to, I've given the power to my players, they have decided just about everything that has happened so far; for this reason one of my groups 2, 4-5hr, sessions in has not become a full group of 6 adventurers. The first session two of them ran into each other and became friends while the other 4 did random things across the city. While, both my other sessions have become a full party; one started as a full party the other decided to run into each other while entering the city and quickly became friends while enjoying the festival that was going on.
That first group would maybe closely resemble what happens if you give each of your players a chance to tell you what they want to do then let them do it, like one of your players suggested with the 30 seconds. I basically ran 5 different adventures at the same time. It's a headache, but it can be fun. One or two of them would prefer to follow the road while the rest follow the plot hook. They look at you to resolve the problem because you are the one telling the story for them. There are going to be times where you have to say no, even when you would prefer not to. To the players feeling left out, this will help a lot, because they get to decide what their characters are doing; they don't have to go with the rest of the group if they don't want to.
With wanting to get them to RP are they playing as their PC or as themselves? Is their PC maybe scared of goblins and that's why he would rather stick to the road than take the plot hook? Maybe the person who wants to follow the road instead of the plot hook in his characters ideals/bonds/flaws has put something along the lines of he never leaves a friend behind. If you used the provided hook for LMoP they are friends with Gundren, and they can obviously tell it was his horses that were dead. So if he wants to abandon trying to help Gundren then you could make him make a wisdom check, if he rolls low enough his ideals/bonds/flaws would stop him from abandoning his friend in need.
If you are wanting them to stick together, to help you, let them each give their opinion once, then just force them to vote if they can't decided off the bat. This will stop their arguing, perhaps, but it will make anyone else feel left out, so it's a sucky option, but an option nonetheless.
Remember, things happen while they are standing in the middle of the road next to several dead horses arguing. Throw a goblin scouting party at them. Throw a guard patrol who thinks they ambushed someone at them.
Overall, I think they will fix the problem themselves if you let them, at least my groups did.
Thank you for your detailed post and personal experience. I feel like the first group you mentioned is really similar to mine. However, you mention that in some cases, a few of the player would follow the plot hook and others won't. You know the LMoP campaign it seems and in this case, those that do follow the plot hook (two in my case, a rogue and a barbarian) would be facing an entire goblin hideout with no means to call for backup. Other than the obvious difficulty, there would also be the issue of how to handle splitting the group i.e. while one party is exploring the hideout, the other party will be bored waiting for their turn to RP. How did you handle or would you suggest handling that?
The last part of your post is actually the answer I was looking for. I wanted to know what I could do in my power as the DM to progress the story along. I didn't want to wait for them to decide either but I was forced to because I didn't know how to proceed. Thinking back, the entire Triboar Trail was quite uneventful for my party aside from the ambush. I should add more flavour to their travels as well to sell my world as a real place where people live.
The world can only be at peace when there is but a single soul left upon it. Not sure who said it but it will always be true. Conflict is part of Real Life. I have been a dm for most of my life and I never like the situation you are in. True, alot of times a group will find their own harmony and in many cases the Players need only gentle reminders that they are putting Bob and Mary in the lurch by forcing them to go along with their hairbrained idea. Early on, I have found it very useful to (as the DM) express that if one or more say yes or no, and their side loses, their vote(s) counts for double the next time. This makes the group weigh the options of railroading the casual gamer into doing things they really would rather not. Another thing I often point out is that the characters are suppose to be friends (hell, they have fought monsters together!), and that the game is about the Players being or becoming friends. Friends treat each other with consideration and respect and a host rule is often to be respectful of everyone in the house. A long time ago, I went so far as to create a talking stick and if you didn't have it you were not allowed to talk out of character. That group fell apart and I am ashamed to say I am not without fault (even though I tried to fix things before I found out what was really going wrong).
Advice: Ask for, then require consideration. Ask for, then require cooperation. Ask for, then require inside voices.
When I say require what I mean is that when someone is not complying with your request for consideration, point it out. I call it the Warhammer of Peer Pressuring +5 (+10 vs jerks and friends with curfews). As far as quickening things, I have found a cheap little thirty-second hour glass sitting on the table tends to make the group find concensus before the sand runs out and if they cannot, well, the hobgoblins didn't want to wait for your to decide before they had dinner (which happens to be YOU).
Good Luck and I hope things improve. The Dm is suppose to be having fun, not babysitting their friends.
Isn't that the truth. I somewhat enjoy the conflicts my players are having because it means they are really into their characters. One of them even told me when I pointed out that he's being a bit unfair to the others. "That's what my character is like." I should give them reminders as well. I don't know if you know the campaign but two of them seemed to really get stuck on why Gundren was being so secretive about the wagon mission. This mistrust spread to the others as well and soon they did not care for what had happened to him. I feel with carefully placed reminders, this would not have happened. Even if they did the same thing in the end, at least their motives would be less dubious.
I will see if I can find such a small hourglass. I think I'll keep it running behind the DM screen to keep track of how much time the party is taking a decision and if it runs out, do something in-game about it. That way, I will know exactly how much time has passed and they won't keep arguing while having just defeated a goblin ambush near the goblin's hideout.
Make consequences happen in game time as they argue. Are your characters bickering over how to knock out the guards outside the bandit hideout? Well, while you were arguing, guard change happened, giving the enemies two fresh pairs of eyes to perception check against what you already rolled for stealth. Or maybe the previous shift doesn't go inside right away, hanging outside to smoke a quick pipe and shoot the breeze with their friends and putting the party at disadvantage. Do that a couple times and your players will start sensing the urgency. You'll see players start saying "not so loud, they'll hear us", or "we gotta be quick, lives are on the line."
If you feel that penalizing them for their behavior in game is too harsh, you can still do similar things to stir the pot and force their hand without it being detrimental. The bandit leader comes out to yell at his subordinates for being too lax at their post, and maybe reveals something story-wise mid rant like a good villain should. Maybe a new shipment comes in from a recent raid, including a badly wounded wagonmaster and his screaming daughter. Raise the stakes, force the players' hands, make them realize they can'talways have the perfect plan.
Thank you for the examples. Actually, I do not feel like penalizing them in-game is too harsh. I am of a mind that working as a team while maintaining your individuality is part of the game. Players can have their own motives to work together with everyone but they should still work together in the end. If players fail to do so, I feel I am in the right to raise the difficult a teensy bit as if they failed an important ability check. However, if this happens too often, I like your idea of an exposé of sorts to make the players more vested in the game. It's a natural way of getting the players to care more.
I'm sorry I couldn't reply to everyone without making this post really long but thank you all so much for the advice! I have exams at the moment but I will try again right after and see how it goes. I wish to do justice to my players and make the time we spend together fun and entertaining. I do not know how this site works exactly (if we have to close threads on answers or not), but after the next session near the end of this month, I will let you know how it goes :)
Thank you for your detailed post and personal experience. I feel like the first group you mentioned is really similar to mine. However, you mention that in some cases, a few of the player would follow the plot hook and others won't. You know the LMoP campaign it seems and in this case, those that do follow the plot hook (two in my case, a rogue and a barbarian) would be facing an entire goblin hideout with no means to call for backup. Other than the obvious difficulty, there would also be the issue of how to handle splitting the group i.e. while one party is exploring the hideout, the other party will be bored waiting for their turn to RP. How did you handle or would you suggest handling that?
The last part of your post is actually the answer I was looking for. I wanted to know what I could do in my power as the DM to progress the story along. I didn't want to wait for them to decide either but I was forced to because I didn't know how to proceed. Thinking back, the entire Triboar Trail was quite uneventful for my party aside from the ambush. I should add more flavour to their travels as well to sell my world as a real place where people live.
You can make changes as you see fit, if you want to (fudged rolls, fewer goblins among anything else). When they go in and see the wolves, instead of doing the animal handling check to calm them down to stop them from trying to attack them, they could attempt animal handling to get them to accompany them temporarily within the cave. You replied to Noman_Ashthorn saying you don't think penalizing them in game is too harsh, so the ones who didn't want to follow the hook, that is the penalty. They don't get to roleplay and join in on the fun. Or you could allow them to roleplay and talk among themselves as their characters are walking towards Phandelver, rather uneventful for them but they'll get to roleplay to themselves while you take care of the important stuff.
I am able to handle splitting up a bit easier, because my groups are all doing text campaigns. We get together weekly, but we don't use voice, just text. If groups split up and I see it reasonable, I move them into separate channels in discord and flip between each channel as needed to keep them going. Obviously this doesn't work well with face to face groups.
The suggested player time as in-game time is great advice. You can use the same mechanic to stress the players, emphasizing time constraint. Don’t use it all the time. Save it for the moments where it heightens the drama and the story. When the PCs need to make sit decisions and that means the players must do so as well. VIsual indications of that constraint can work wonders. A digital timer, an hourglass (with very short turns) etc. all work well.
For example: which corridor to chase the fleeing villain through, what they do when the dragon stirs and wakes up, etc
Thank you for your detailed post and personal experience. I feel like the first group you mentioned is really similar to mine. However, you mention that in some cases, a few of the player would follow the plot hook and others won't. You know the LMoP campaign it seems and in this case, those that do follow the plot hook (two in my case, a rogue and a barbarian) would be facing an entire goblin hideout with no means to call for backup. Other than the obvious difficulty, there would also be the issue of how to handle splitting the group i.e. while one party is exploring the hideout, the other party will be bored waiting for their turn to RP. How did you handle or would you suggest handling that?
The last part of your post is actually the answer I was looking for. I wanted to know what I could do in my power as the DM to progress the story along. I didn't want to wait for them to decide either but I was forced to because I didn't know how to proceed. Thinking back, the entire Triboar Trail was quite uneventful for my party aside from the ambush. I should add more flavour to their travels as well to sell my world as a real place where people live.
You can make changes as you see fit, if you want to (fudged rolls, fewer goblins among anything else). When they go in and see the wolves, instead of doing the animal handling check to calm them down to stop them from trying to attack them, they could attempt animal handling to get them to accompany them temporarily within the cave. You replied to Noman_Ashthorn saying you don't think penalizing them in game is too harsh, so the ones who didn't want to follow the hook, that is the penalty. They don't get to roleplay and join in on the fun. Or you could allow them to roleplay and talk among themselves as their characters are walking towards Phandelver, rather uneventful for them but they'll get to roleplay to themselves while you take care of the important stuff.
I am able to handle splitting up a bit easier, because my groups are all doing text campaigns. We get together weekly, but we don't use voice, just text. If groups split up and I see it reasonable, I move them into separate channels in discord and flip between each channel as needed to keep them going. Obviously this doesn't work well with face to face groups.
That's where the difference lies then. I'm hosting sessions at my dormitory and therefore it's face to face. While some of the players are telling me what they would do, others have to keep quiet and wait their turn, which becomes boring for them. This is even more exaggerated if, rather than just one player's turn, they have to wait for several players. By the time it's their turn, they've already forgotten what they wanted to do. I don't know how I would handle the party splitting up in that case. I believe I'll just ask them to stick together or make them want to stick together due to in-game reasons. They said after the session as well that splitting up is not really a good idea in the game so there's some hope there :)
As a disclaimer, I'm new to the DM party to (for 5e at least), but I've had a similar experience with a group I played with many years ago.
I think for new players, it can be a combination of approaching with a 'video game mentality' of the 'correct' way to approach situations, to 'win' the game, and also being paralysed by immense freedom of choice. I've also just started running the LMoP campaign, and I was keen to avoid this, without railroading the game or taking away player agency. I think some of the other replies you've had are spot on, but particularly the one about consequences.
A few tips I've found quite useful:
Paint some clear options, that will lead to some rewarding direction, but without forcing their hand. Sometimes, 'you can do anything, what would you like to do?' can really lead to indecision, especially for newer players that don't know there are no 'wrong' choices. e.g. After the first goblin ambush, the party were deliberating whether to continue to Phandalin or to investigate the goblins. I made sure to be very descriptive about the empty map case, that (on a decent skill check), that this was a coordinated, deliberate ambush. I added a goblin that had come wandering out of the trail to the north to give them someone to interrogate (which they did), and they all quickly agreed that investigating the goblins was a priority.
Consequences are king. If they stand around in the road deliberating, make sure that time passes. Nothing promotes urgency than losing daylight. Give enemies the opportunity to sneak up on the squabbling party. Have the NPCs lose faith that this is a well organised party of adventurers that can get things done.
All parties have a leader - but let them roleplay it out in character, not as a tactical player discussion. In our party, the human fighter, with a noble background, assumed the role of leader as thought it was his birth right. The wizard, happy to go along with the fighter, so long as he could ensure they'll help the townsfolk of Phandalin, allowed him to make the big decisions. It's fine for players to disagree with each others, but there's nothing wrong with promoting a little in-character discussion to establish a leader for the adventure. Inspiration is a great way of doing this; reward leaders for taking the lead with rallying speeches, or to the bard that grumbles about the decision, but reluctantly goes along with it (and turns the adventure into a satirical song the tavern later).
Be wary of allowing the party to split and go on separate adventures. It's hard to run, and gives half the table nothing to do while you're running the other half's adventure. If they want to split up, give them a hard time. Don't scale down encounters, and provide obstacles that would be easier to overcome if the whole party was together. That's when D&D is best afterall, when everyone gets to play their part.
As suggested by others, I convert discussion/arguing time into game time - at a pretty generous conversation rate. If enough game time passes in the world, stuff happens.
That is what I do as well. If the players at the table are having a long discussion then that means their characters are doing the same.
Most of the time it doesn't matter. However, if they have buff spells cast then time does matter. For example, if the players spend 10 minutes discussing then I tell them that their bardic inspiration is no longer available.
There was a similar issue brought up a month or so ago, but the issue then was players that argue with the DM rather than each other. However, I feel my solution is applicable to disruptive players on a universal basis. As such, I would like to plagiarize myself to add my two bits in on handling disruptive players who persist in being disruptive.
Need to reduce you population of uppity, argumentative, disruptive players who argue your rulings at every turn? Do they make dire emergencies out of every inconvenience?
Have their most recently equipped item turn out to be a mimic. One biding its time before biting time.
Player character still alive? Player still being argumentative and disruptive? "WELL WILL YOU LOOK AT THAT! That mimic wasn't alone! Boy, Anon, you really need to be more careful with what you strap onto your body."
Player takes offense that you keep pulling random mimics out of thin air? "You mean like this?" and another mimic appears.
"Please stop with the mimics!" "Did someone say mimic?!"
And the cycle continues until the disruptive player leaves, or is left a broken and apologetic mass of compliance.
SURGEON GENERAL ADVISORY: Following Sam_Hain's advise can lead to unexpected and undesirable side effects such as sudden loss of players or friends, unexplained increase in haters, bouts of authoritarian power trips, or an unhealthy obsession with or fear of common every day objects being mimics.
Metagame arguments can be dealt with simply with the above method. When players (as opposed to characters) start arguing, set a timer. Give them 2 minutes to sort themselves out. If they haven't made a decision when the timer runs out: Release the Mimics! (or whatever other sort of penalty you favor).
For in-game arguments between characters that seem to go on forever, ask your players to abridge the argument, since role-playing the whole thing will take too long. Unless the in-game argument gets personal and moves to a metagame argument, these arguments are usually easier to deal with and don't usually require an incentive.
TL;DR: Is there a good way to structure out of combat RP so players make decisions quickly and avoid arguing over what to do?
I'm a new DM and I recently did my first session running the starter set''s The Lost Mine of Phandelver with a group of 5 players (all new to the game as well). I noticed a recurring problem with the group that they often had completely different approaches to a given problem.
Deciding to split up to investigate or stay together for safety, following a plot hook or stay on the road to a city, these kinds of decisions sparked an intense argument between the players. They talk over each other and stubbornly state their points again and again until finally deciding to vote on a course of action.
I , as the DM, would like players to RP and discuss possible strats but I feel this kind of behaviour is only harmful. It slowed down the game a lot, so much so that after 3 hours, all they managed to do was fight the first encounter and get to a nearby city. Some of the players were even feeling left out as they did not want to engage in this and felt dragged along by their group mates. They kept looking to me to resolve this issue but I did not know how to handle this as I didn't want to take authority away from the players.
I was suggested by one of them after the session to allot 30 seconds to each player to tell me what their character is going to do. However, I feel this can hinder spur of the moment actions like jumping in front of someone to defend them or interrupting a player before he does something stupid.
Is there a nice way to structure this kind of behaviour and make players decide on courses of actions quick so the story keeps going? Should I talk to the players about this? I would like them to decide faster but not prevent them from thinking of solutions if the problem they're facing warrants it.
My experience is very minimal; I've only been DMing for 2 weeks now. But, to me, I don't think that there is an honest to god great way to do it if you don't want to take the power away from your players. It is something that they will fix on their own, given time. Most of my current players were all new to playing D&D. The first session for each of my groups was more of a learning how everyone plays session. I went the same route you are trying to stick to, I've given the power to my players, they have decided just about everything that has happened so far; for this reason one of my groups 2, 4-5hr, sessions in has not become a full group of 6 adventurers. The first session two of them ran into each other and became friends while the other 4 did random things across the city. While, both my other sessions have become a full party; one started as a full party the other decided to run into each other while entering the city and quickly became friends while enjoying the festival that was going on.
That first group would maybe closely resemble what happens if you give each of your players a chance to tell you what they want to do then let them do it, like one of your players suggested with the 30 seconds. I basically ran 5 different adventures at the same time. It's a headache, but it can be fun. One or two of them would prefer to follow the road while the rest follow the plot hook. They look at you to resolve the problem because you are the one telling the story for them. There are going to be times where you have to say no, even when you would prefer not to. To the players feeling left out, this will help a lot, because they get to decide what their characters are doing; they don't have to go with the rest of the group if they don't want to.
With wanting to get them to RP are they playing as their PC or as themselves? Is their PC maybe scared of goblins and that's why he would rather stick to the road than take the plot hook? Maybe the person who wants to follow the road instead of the plot hook in his characters ideals/bonds/flaws has put something along the lines of he never leaves a friend behind. If you used the provided hook for LMoP they are friends with Gundren, and they can obviously tell it was his horses that were dead. So if he wants to abandon trying to help Gundren then you could make him make a wisdom check, if he rolls low enough his ideals/bonds/flaws would stop him from abandoning his friend in need.
If you are wanting them to stick together, to help you, let them each give their opinion once, then just force them to vote if they can't decided off the bat. This will stop their arguing, perhaps, but it will make anyone else feel left out, so it's a sucky option, but an option nonetheless.
Remember, things happen while they are standing in the middle of the road next to several dead horses arguing. Throw a goblin scouting party at them. Throw a guard patrol who thinks they ambushed someone at them.
Overall, I think they will fix the problem themselves if you let them, at least my groups did.
The world can only be at peace when there is but a single soul left upon it. Not sure who said it but it will always be true. Conflict is part of Real Life. I have been a dm for most of my life and I never like the situation you are in. True, alot of times a group will find their own harmony and in many cases the Players need only gentle reminders that they are putting Bob and Mary in the lurch by forcing them to go along with their hairbrained idea. Early on, I have found it very useful to (as the DM) express that if one or more say yes or no, and their side loses, their vote(s) counts for double the next time. This makes the group weigh the options of railroading the casual gamer into doing things they really would rather not. Another thing I often point out is that the characters are suppose to be friends (hell, they have fought monsters together!), and that the game is about the Players being or becoming friends. Friends treat each other with consideration and respect and a host rule is often to be respectful of everyone in the house. A long time ago, I went so far as to create a talking stick and if you didn't have it you were not allowed to talk out of character. That group fell apart and I am ashamed to say I am not without fault (even though I tried to fix things before I found out what was really going wrong).
Advice: Ask for, then require consideration. Ask for, then require cooperation. Ask for, then require inside voices.
When I say require what I mean is that when someone is not complying with your request for consideration, point it out. I call it the Warhammer of Peer Pressuring +5 (+10 vs jerks and friends with curfews). As far as quickening things, I have found a cheap little thirty-second hour glass sitting on the table tends to make the group find concensus before the sand runs out and if they cannot, well, the hobgoblins didn't want to wait for your to decide before they had dinner (which happens to be YOU).
Good Luck and I hope things improve. The Dm is suppose to be having fun, not babysitting their friends.
I do not like the word... prisoner. It implies a helpless state, and I assure you, I am never helpless.
--Artemis Entreri
Make consequences happen in game time as they argue. Are your characters bickering over how to knock out the guards outside the bandit hideout? Well, while you were arguing, guard change happened, giving the enemies two fresh pairs of eyes to perception check against what you already rolled for stealth. Or maybe the previous shift doesn't go inside right away, hanging outside to smoke a quick pipe and shoot the breeze with their friends and putting the party at disadvantage. Do that a couple times and your players will start sensing the urgency. You'll see players start saying "not so loud, they'll hear us", or "we gotta be quick, lives are on the line."
If you feel that penalizing them for their behavior in game is too harsh, you can still do similar things to stir the pot and force their hand without it being detrimental. The bandit leader comes out to yell at his subordinates for being too lax at their post, and maybe reveals something story-wise mid rant like a good villain should. Maybe a new shipment comes in from a recent raid, including a badly wounded wagonmaster and his screaming daughter. Raise the stakes, force the players' hands, make them realize they can'talways have the perfect plan.
#OpenDnD. #DnDBegone
Great advice. Here, you're using a story-based way to push them along, increasing in-game tension, and not breaking from immersion (in fact, it increases it!). It does take some experience to handle this correctly, especially because group-decision paralysis happens at unexpected times. So in a pinch, it's ok to put the group on a 1-minute or 30-second timer and remind them- "hey, we have x hours to play, let's not spend it arguing over everything. There may not be an 'optimal choice' anyway, so make a call and let's PLAY."
As players become more experienced, they'll see the wisdom in only a brief discussion before making a decision. It becomes more about playing to see what happens and not about 'winning' or someone's ego.
Sure, use the Acquisitions Inc. method of solving these sorts of situations. Set one person in the group to be the "Decisionist" or a person who makes most of the decisions. If there is disagreement on what to do, call a vote and each party member gets a quick vote and the Decisionist gets two in order to break ties. The side with the most votes determines the course of action.
As suggested by others, I convert discussion/arguing time into game time - at a pretty generous conversation rate. If enough game time passes in the world, stuff happens.
If they want to park and argue about which street the bad guys fled down, the bad guys get that much further ahead for each minute they stand arguing.
If they need to stop outside the keep gates and discuss how they're going to get inside, that's X number of perception rolls that the keep guards get to spot them.
Players catch on pretty quick when you interrupt their discussion with a "while you're huddled down whispering this, you hear a shout from above 'Hey, you there, what's your business at this hour? ".
That doesn't force any mechanics on the players, or the group, and gives them incentive to not waste a lot of time.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Holy crap! Thank you so much for all the advice guys. This was my first post on this website and I honestly didn't expect such a response :D
Thank you for your detailed post and personal experience. I feel like the first group you mentioned is really similar to mine. However, you mention that in some cases, a few of the player would follow the plot hook and others won't. You know the LMoP campaign it seems and in this case, those that do follow the plot hook (two in my case, a rogue and a barbarian) would be facing an entire goblin hideout with no means to call for backup. Other than the obvious difficulty, there would also be the issue of how to handle splitting the group i.e. while one party is exploring the hideout, the other party will be bored waiting for their turn to RP. How did you handle or would you suggest handling that?
The last part of your post is actually the answer I was looking for. I wanted to know what I could do in my power as the DM to progress the story along. I didn't want to wait for them to decide either but I was forced to because I didn't know how to proceed. Thinking back, the entire Triboar Trail was quite uneventful for my party aside from the ambush. I should add more flavour to their travels as well to sell my world as a real place where people live.
Isn't that the truth. I somewhat enjoy the conflicts my players are having because it means they are really into their characters. One of them even told me when I pointed out that he's being a bit unfair to the others. "That's what my character is like." I should give them reminders as well. I don't know if you know the campaign but two of them seemed to really get stuck on why Gundren was being so secretive about the wagon mission. This mistrust spread to the others as well and soon they did not care for what had happened to him. I feel with carefully placed reminders, this would not have happened. Even if they did the same thing in the end, at least their motives would be less dubious.
I will see if I can find such a small hourglass. I think I'll keep it running behind the DM screen to keep track of how much time the party is taking a decision and if it runs out, do something in-game about it. That way, I will know exactly how much time has passed and they won't keep arguing while having just defeated a goblin ambush near the goblin's hideout.
Thank you for the examples. Actually, I do not feel like penalizing them in-game is too harsh. I am of a mind that working as a team while maintaining your individuality is part of the game. Players can have their own motives to work together with everyone but they should still work together in the end. If players fail to do so, I feel I am in the right to raise the difficult a teensy bit as if they failed an important ability check. However, if this happens too often, I like your idea of an exposé of sorts to make the players more vested in the game. It's a natural way of getting the players to care more.
I'm sorry I couldn't reply to everyone without making this post really long but thank you all so much for the advice! I have exams at the moment but I will try again right after and see how it goes. I wish to do justice to my players and make the time we spend together fun and entertaining. I do not know how this site works exactly (if we have to close threads on answers or not), but after the next session near the end of this month, I will let you know how it goes :)
You can make changes as you see fit, if you want to (fudged rolls, fewer goblins among anything else). When they go in and see the wolves, instead of doing the animal handling check to calm them down to stop them from trying to attack them, they could attempt animal handling to get them to accompany them temporarily within the cave. You replied to Noman_Ashthorn saying you don't think penalizing them in game is too harsh, so the ones who didn't want to follow the hook, that is the penalty. They don't get to roleplay and join in on the fun. Or you could allow them to roleplay and talk among themselves as their characters are walking towards Phandelver, rather uneventful for them but they'll get to roleplay to themselves while you take care of the important stuff.
I am able to handle splitting up a bit easier, because my groups are all doing text campaigns. We get together weekly, but we don't use voice, just text. If groups split up and I see it reasonable, I move them into separate channels in discord and flip between each channel as needed to keep them going. Obviously this doesn't work well with face to face groups.
The suggested player time as in-game time is great advice. You can use the same mechanic to stress the players, emphasizing time constraint. Don’t use it all the time. Save it for the moments where it heightens the drama and the story. When the PCs need to make sit decisions and that means the players must do so as well. VIsual indications of that constraint can work wonders. A digital timer, an hourglass (with very short turns) etc. all work well.
For example: which corridor to chase the fleeing villain through, what they do when the dragon stirs and wakes up, etc
That's where the difference lies then. I'm hosting sessions at my dormitory and therefore it's face to face. While some of the players are telling me what they would do, others have to keep quiet and wait their turn, which becomes boring for them. This is even more exaggerated if, rather than just one player's turn, they have to wait for several players. By the time it's their turn, they've already forgotten what they wanted to do. I don't know how I would handle the party splitting up in that case. I believe I'll just ask them to stick together or make them want to stick together due to in-game reasons. They said after the session as well that splitting up is not really a good idea in the game so there's some hope there :)
As a disclaimer, I'm new to the DM party to (for 5e at least), but I've had a similar experience with a group I played with many years ago.
I think for new players, it can be a combination of approaching with a 'video game mentality' of the 'correct' way to approach situations, to 'win' the game, and also being paralysed by immense freedom of choice. I've also just started running the LMoP campaign, and I was keen to avoid this, without railroading the game or taking away player agency. I think some of the other replies you've had are spot on, but particularly the one about consequences.
A few tips I've found quite useful:
Hope that helps! Let us know how you get on!
That is what I do as well. If the players at the table are having a long discussion then that means their characters are doing the same.
Most of the time it doesn't matter. However, if they have buff spells cast then time does matter. For example, if the players spend 10 minutes discussing then I tell them that their bardic inspiration is no longer available.
There was a similar issue brought up a month or so ago, but the issue then was players that argue with the DM rather than each other. However, I feel my solution is applicable to disruptive players on a universal basis. As such, I would like to plagiarize myself to add my two bits in on handling disruptive players who persist in being disruptive.
Self Plagiarism:
Metagame arguments can be dealt with simply with the above method. When players (as opposed to characters) start arguing, set a timer. Give them 2 minutes to sort themselves out. If they haven't made a decision when the timer runs out: Release the Mimics! (or whatever other sort of penalty you favor).
For in-game arguments between characters that seem to go on forever, ask your players to abridge the argument, since role-playing the whole thing will take too long. Unless the in-game argument gets personal and moves to a metagame argument, these arguments are usually easier to deal with and don't usually require an incentive.
Ongoing Projects: The Mimic Book of Mimics :: SHARK WEEK
Completed Projects: The Trick-or-Treat Table
My Homebrews: Races :: Classes :: Spells :: Items :: Monsters