For those of your familiar with Matt Colville, he has repeatedly said that in his opinion D&D is not a storytelling game. Rather, it is a tactical wargame, the events and outcomes of which allow the Players to tell stories about the session that they just played. The storytelling comes between the sessions. And - in my experiences, especially with my current group - I think his position has a lot of truth to it.
However, I very much like the stories that come out of the player-characters and the world. Like most DMs that work with a homebrew world, I do love my Lore, even if much of it is lost on the players ( which is fine, and a whole other topic ).
It occurred to me that there absolutely is a place for collaborative storytelling in our sessions, and that it is in the recap. That is where the events of last week's session are retold in a rough story form - sometime by me, but usually by the "party stenographer" - the one player who keeps detailed notes - with a few interjections from other Players.
What I'm wondering is what ideas people might have for encouraging the party to expand on this, to draw more Players into the recap, how to encourage more detailed and rich storytelling in the recap, and - I guess - whether this is something the DM should be pursuing at all.
Note, I'm not looking for means to encourage Players to "speak in character", "act", or other things they're not comfortable with, just to recount - possibly but not necessarily from their character perspective - what they recall from the last session, and participating in building an overall collaborative "party history" out of the last session.
So - some open questions:
Is this something that should even be pursued, or is this solely a matter of player taste? If the players really wanted something like this, they would be doing it. Maybe I should just accept that detailed storytelling just isn't this groups forte'. Maybe if I want a detailed background story of the last session, I should just write one and give it to the party.
If this is something to pursue collaboratively - is this something that could be encouraged by mechanics? Does it make sense to reward Players for participation and contribution to the recap narrative? I think it's a no-brainer that Players should never-ever-ever be punished for not participating. If one were to craft rewards, what would those be, and how can they be redeemed? The idea of providing rewards in the recap which can be used to influence the outcome of the upcoming session is something that doesn't sit well with me - but I can't really see any other reward system which would be of value to the players.
If there was a mechanic for this, what to use? Is there a storytelling game that would have a quick round of, as the recap ( I'm thinking something likeUniversalis , although it doesn't quite fit here ), or is this the domain of homebrew storytelling rules?
If this is something to homebrew - what approach might you suggest?
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.
I don't think the recap is all that important. If your players are engaged and invested they'll discuss things out of the game as well. We have a Twitter group where all my players text during the week. When meeting face to face they talk about stuff that happened. Those are the stories that matter.
Writing recaps, or even elaborate re-tellings, it takes a lot of time in between play sessions. I do that myself, because i like doing it, and it takes as long to write as it did to play the session itself. If someone likes writing they'll invest that time themselves. If not then that's how it is. Trying to use ingame mechanics/rewards to "force" players to invest time in between sessions is unreasonable.
I'd just let it be instead of wasting time on it. It happens organically or not at all.
I think by making this a mechanic you're just going to exhaust your group. They're going to have less energy to play if they're doing this. At the top of each session I ask if anyone has any moments from last session they want to talk about. If they don't, I do a quick bullet point list to keep them up to date.
However, I do have something that invests them in their character which I think is more effective than attempting to mechanize investing them in the game. If they're invested in their character, they'll be more likely to invest in the stakes you provide in the game. At the top of each session I ask a character development question. Anyone who answers gains a point of inspiration. It's not required for them to answer, and some questions they may decide their character doesn't have an answer for, but it usually gets them into the headspace of their character right before we start, and also seems to be investing the other players into each other, getting tidbits of who their friends are.
As a side-note I also flat-out disagree with MC's opinion you quote above. I've never played in a game, or DMed a game, where combat was as important as the story, or where it felt like a 'tactical wargame'. That doesn't mean that there aren't D&D (5e) games like that, but I don't think it's fair to say they're all like that, or all like something else. That definitely feels like-- Matt Colville's games are like tactical wargames, which is fantastic for him, and his groups, who all obviously love it. And heck, I might love playing in a game like that, too-- But I have yet to play in any group where combat or tactics were even equally important to the campaign as the story.
As an example, the current group I'm DMing for don't like combat that is superfluous. If it doesn't tie into the story, the combat bores them. So cool boss fights get them excited, or fights where they know they have to achieve something through the combat (other than win/survive). Because of that, we might go 10 sessions without a single combat! In fact, we had a combat in the last session of my game which was the first combat in 9 sessions! The party just cares more about the roleplaying, skill checks, and interaction with the world/NPC, so I design around their desires to give them a fun time. The combat system of D&D is certainly a tactical game-- but your whole game being one is up to each individual group/DM and their preferences and experiences. Some games are closer to tactical wargames. Some are closer to the make believe games we played as kids, but with rules and dice mechanics to control the successes and consequences of actions. None of them are incorrect or less D&D than the other, but neither is more D&D than the other, either.
@Giblix - I agree 100% that an organic discussion is infinitely preferable to a mechanic which encourages the kind of behavior. I am reminded however - from the professional arena - that you get the behavior your measure and reward ( or else why do we give out XP? ), and I think that's where my OP comes from. I think that - even for you and your players - that recap is important, as you have an entire Twitter group devoted to creating it :) - however you appear to be creating it organically, which I agree is vastly better. I'm really trying not to "force" players to engage in it; I think a reward for participating/contributing is not the same as forcing players to engage in it, if players are not being punished for not participating, and the rewards for participating are not needed for them to enjoy play, or advance their characters.
Still - I think I agree with your overall idea of "let it happen organically, or not at all".
@MellieDM- I really like your idea of character investing questions, a lot. I think I understand what you're getting at - but do you have an example of the sort of thing you'd ask them? Also - I think I'm slightly jealous of your group, as mine seems to be pretty combat focused right now. I'm in the exact opposite end of the spectrum right now, with 5 combats in 2 sessions. It made complete sense from how the adventure had unfolded to that point, and the players were all really energized and said they had fun - but the DM was getting tired of combat by the end of it.
Also - who woulda thought MC could be controversial ;)
I think this might be a disconnect between the level of engagement the Players have with the world and with the characters, and level of engagement which the DM wishes they had.
My players are usually coming away with really positive comments about how much fun they had, especially last night where several people said how the end of the last session where they took out the BBEG was a dramatically satisfying combat. And ultimately, if they're having fun, it's not a complete loss in my books - even if they have a hard time remembering the name of the town they're in today, and get major figure names totally mixed up :p
If I want them to be more engaged, then there's a good part of that responsibility that lies with me to make the world more engaging for these particular players ... with the caveat that there are players which really don't want to engage the world - they're there to roll dice and kill monsters. Not all DMs and Players are a good fit.
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.
1) What do you want as a DM out of the game? 2) What do your players want out of the game?
And then... 3) How do you balance those two things?
If your group loves combat, and you love story-- How do you make the combat tell a story? I quite like running combat as a DM, so even though my group isn't big on combat, I know if I can make a combat story-focused enough, that it can excite them. If I can design combat where they can do cool, creative things, they'll enjoy it. So, when I want to do a combat I get creative and add lots of possibilities, interactions, and environmental excitement to entice them. For you-- That may be the solution the other way. If you really want great story through combat, you bring in those things for you which has the doubled effective of deepening combat for your players! So they get to keep playing cool combats and using tactics, but at the same time they're inadvertently investing themselves into the story!
Here's some of the questions I've asked in the last few months! Some of them I also load so that I can get information from them for later.
What is the worst thing you have done to someone you loved?
Do you want people to know that you are a hero? Why or why not?
If you lived in our modern world, what kind of career would you have? Why?
What is the strangest thing you’ve done while drunk or otherwise intoxicated?
What is something that your parent or parental figure taught you?
What is your favourite/food meal? Why? (This had the double effect of filling in a trap 2 sessions later)
Who were you closest to growing up? What is your most treasured memory of them?
I had to give it some thought there - I can see how to make combat dramatic as combat - as you say, let the players, and have the NPCs, do cool tactical and dramatic things ( like last night, where the party was ambushed by flying creatures while climbing down a cold lava tube, and the druid wild-shaped into giant spider form to run up and down the sides of the tube effectively, then leaped off the side to grapple one of the creatures in mid air. Interesting Player dilemma when he managed to kill the creature he was riding .... ).
Having the combat introduce story elements - that's tougher. Maybe this is why in pulp fiction the Hero and Villain trade dialog in the fight scenes :) Maybe there's room for the Villains to make sneering comments about why the heroes will never succeed ( giving away clues about their dastardly plans ), or snarl accusations against the heroes for the things they've done ( and thereby letting slip clues about the things that are important to the Villains ), etc. - it's just seems a bit pulp-fiction to me, having story characters behaving in a particular way only for meta-story reasons ( and I'm a simulationist at heart ).
As for your questions, I agree - I've used questions like that for general character development. I've also asked more focuses versions of that sort of thing in the middle of game play as well, asking for clarification about aspects of their background which might be relevant to the scene at hand.
I think I was also envisioning questions at the top of the session to players about how the characters would have interpreted or felt about events that happened last session - like asking the Player of the newly introduced Warforged character who just killed the BBEG who was his own creator, how his character would react to that.
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.
I do a writeup in story form, then share the document with all the players. I inject some details for flavor because of the format but the character actions are only what the players did. This is all on my own, although I encouraged the players to make edits if they wanted to. Mostly, it's to keep a record of their adventures and to keep players in the loop for when they miss a session.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"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?"
I've done this before, and it's a lot of work - which I don't mind doing so long as it's used, but I have to question whether a) the Players really care or b) the Players know they don't have to pay attention now, since the DM will spoon-feed them all the relevant details anyways.
There is the temptation to make new elements of the story solvable if and only if they remember past elements of the past adventure, especially since it's now right there in their written summaries. Not sure that's a good path to do down :p
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.
The party had to get a book from an ally's warehouse library, which had become taken over by hobgoblins. Mid-battle, a Mind Flayer appeared who was interested in the same book -- that was a story hook introduced that gave the party more questions into why the hobgoblins (who had been enthralled by the Mind Flayer) had specifically chosen this warehouse in particular. Now, they killed the Mind Flayer so they couldn't find out the juicy secrets I had planned for them to discover, but they did learn things from the hobgoblins that introduced a new plot thread, and thickened the plot elsewhere.
I guess I don't mean like... This combat is going to tell the story-- But that the combat is the story. The reason this combat is happening is because of the things the party has done, the goals the party has, and the people they have interacted with. So therefore the combat is the story, and enjoying that combat drives investment more heavily, and leads to the players being more interactive with character motivation and reaction in and outside of combat. That's when you get non-optimal decisions that are based in character-- And that's the magic place where combat becomes story. When it's not about winning the combat, but participating in it in such a way that is honest to the character and the story. (I do the same with monsters/NPCs sometimes acting non-optimally because they have character driving them, not a stat block)
OK - so we're on the same page regarding combat, I think.
Combat has to make sense based on what's going on in the story. The hobgoblins didn't show up as a random encounter. Their actions came about due to events in the story, and the actions of your players affected how other plot elements will play out.
In my mind, combat isn't fundamentally different from non-combat. The players have a situation/encounter which gives them a problem to solve. One possible way to solve it is to whack it with swords. Whether or not they try this tactic, or something else, the situation the party finds themselves in has to flow out of past, and the technique they use to solve it ( or fail at solving it ) will affect the future.
I think we agree here.
The problem I'm having - looping back to the OP - is the party remembering the non-combat elements of the world. For example, this party has really struggled with investigation and puzzle solving because they don't seem to catch details of the world. Whether or not it because they're not paying attention, aren't engaged in the world, or whether I'm not presenting information clearly enough, I'm not 100% clear on, yet.
This is really why I was originally looking to get players directly involved in building the recap: it exposes players that didn't catch fact A, or nuance C, or clue Z, to these aspects in the recap - without me doing all the work and spoon-feeding the Players with a written recap ( that they may not actually read ).
Thinking on Critical Role, I kind of like the fact that Caleb has the Keen Mind feat, as Liam can ask Matt any detail that Caleb would have been exposed to in the last 30 days.
Maybe I should give away this feat for free to a player :)
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.
I think you need to ensure that the details of the world are made to be interesting for the players. Don't make something interesting to you without concern for their interests. My players remember who that Goddess is because a Paladin gave them a mechanical benefit blessing on her behalf. My players remember who those NPCs are because they had an interaction that *they* controlled the tone of. They remember x thing because it connected to y emotion. Humans remember things most strongly when they are attached to an emotion, and emotion happens when something generates their personal interests. Anything I think the players need to remember on their own, I tie into their character, and what interests them about their character.
And other things that they forget? Those things don't matter. I don't need them to remember the name of the city they were in 20 sessions ago. I don't need them to remember all of the deities, or the political structure, or whatever else. I don't want my players to feel like they have to work to play the game. I can give them the lore info their characters would know, and if they forget something else, then hey-- They forgot it. Maybe they'll learn it again, maybe they won't. I'll tell you one thing-- They have never forgotten the names of their favourite NPCs, and they've never forgotten the pieces of personal quest I've sprinkled into the game, because they care about that. And all they need to remember is what they care about-- It's my job to tailor the game to that interest.
If I think they should have remembered something, and they didn't, I prefer to look at what I could have done to make it more interesting to them. Why didn't they remember x? Well, because nothing memorable happened with x. It was just some information. Or hey, maybe it was because something more interesting happened at the same time.
Players are never going to be as invested in your original lore as you are. I say this as someone who has written thousands of pages of lore for my world. I care about that, and I sprinkle it in where it's relevant to them, but it's not as important to the players as the story.
Getting the behavior you reward...why else give XP?? How about I don't give XP and just use milestones. Leveling when I see fit. This has indeed prevented murder hobo behavior and gradually made players look for alternate ways to solve situations. However this principle doesn't mean we should try to find solutions to non-existing problems. You can say, during a session 0 for example, that you expect a roleplay/story oriented experience. Look for players that want that as well. Don't have a game that people are enjoying and then try to force them to do other things. When it comes to in-game mechanics show by example so the players get an impression of the possibilities. Whether they incorporate it in their playstyle is up to them. Same with story related elements. Trying to incorporate mechanics to gradually force them to play the way you want will backfire in due time.
Asking questions around the play session is always helpful. After each session I ask some questions as well. Stuff like... "I'd like more then 1 combat per session" or "we should keep our responses more centralized instead of everyone mumbling to themselves". That helps to improve the overall experience. As for actual character investment questions rarely have to be asked since they ramble on about stuff themselves. At that time it is important to listen and distill the core essence. Always keeping a few lines of communication open so they can send ideas they have is also important imo. Some players are invested to the point they spend a fair amount of free time thinking about their characters. Other players don't send a thing. So be it. No need to try and drag stuff out of everyone. You can occasionally give a reminder/soft nudge, but if they don't bite then let them be. It is wasted energy that could be spend elsewhere to improve the overall experience.
My group is in between you two it seems. I try to simulate, to a point and keeping everything plausible. There are sessions of 4-5 hours with only 1 combat encounter. Depending on situation there could also be sessions with only combat however. And I do agree that this topic is mostly about the experience players have and what the DM wishes them to have. We as DM's put in a lot of time and effort. The players know only a fraction of the world they're in and that is fine. I want them to see and experience it all, but that will never happen. However if they go off-track I can improvise some on the spot side content that shows them a tomb/ruin of lost civilizations. As well as occasional rumors here and there that they can choose to engage with or not. Get them invested in history of your world that way. Patience is key.
On top of that I registered a forum for us to use, but they haven't even registered accounts on it. But that is ok since they still read occasional pieces that are important to them. Such as stats for items they found etc. Also great to have a hidden area to have an extra copy of all your notes. When our campaign ends all them notes will be made publicly available since they are curious at that. Here I also do the story write-ups as recaps. However they're are only what the players did so they're not getting any additional information that way. Wrote these pieces mainly for my own entertainment, but it takes as much time as the play session itself. Will probably adjust the format to save myself time and write it more mechanically then story. Investment of players really varies. And once again... if they don't live up to our expectations that is fine as well.
Combat as a story isn't that difficult imo. Just look at samurai movies and such. The attack patterns, tactical movements and occasional insults and taunts as well as the environment are all already telling a story. They find a Forge where Duergar were looking to find the secret technique to craft awesome master gear. After dealing with that they will eventually end up in a war situation. The higher ups in that army wear the gear which the players can recognize. These all tell a story and show how everything in the world is connected. That when the players interrupted the production of gear these higher ups during war will make comments about it. Simply showing how wide spread the reach of the army is can lead to a lot of political/diplomatic intrigue as follow up.
When it comes to random encounters I watched an episode of WebDM. As DM you always know what kind of opponents and areas the players are going to traverse through. That information is useful for the Random Encounter Table since in this example you'd then have: 1. 2 hob goblins scouts 2. a hob goblin warband 3. Goblin / Warg raid party In short you make stuff that fits the theme, but gives a random variable as to what kind of event will occur. This can lead to interesting improvisation regarding possible behavior/information they might possess.
Players having trouble remembering and engaging with puzzles is common. Puzzles and riddles are imo just horrible to pull off. I do them as minimally as possible. Even if you provide all the information players often struggle and get frustrated with even the simplest of puzzles. The few riddles and puzzles I had... the players just asked the NPC to solve it for them. Instead I prefer to keep it more simple and exciting where the puzzle is a trap of sorts. With a room that is filling with sand and they have to work together to find hidden keys and hidden keyholes. Adding some excitement to this threatening trap-puzzle. My players however remember locations, because they often do something silly/stupid. And that memory triggers then the rest. For example... On their way to the underground tomb. One of them was left behind since he lost track of time trying to tame a captured Kruthik. Eventually he caught up, but it was dark and he was dashing. The others heard movement behind them with the cleric shooting a crossbow bolt that missed. Barbarian lit his torch and now both the ranger+cleric shot at the fire source. Both arrows hit with the barbarian surviving at only 1hp. This lead to some fun RP and now they have a memorable memory of when they went down to a tomb. That's the kind of engagement you want imo.
Giving information is a skill of itself. Don't present to much, because they'll just mentally tune out. Describe the area clearly, but global. As in "this wall is made from high quality crafted masonic tiles. the bottom half consists of reliefs showing some sort of historic tale. Dwarves in various poses and clothes". After which the players can then decide to take a closer look to figure out what the historic tale is. What are the dwarves dressed exactly? are there trap buttons in the relief? etc etc. I even let my players find a volume of 800 year old history documentation regarding a dwarven empire that no longer exists. That is also how I described it. Whether at one point they want to read and learn more is up to them. They can still sell it to an historian that can share snippets and see if the players bite then. If not then that's ok as well. Players don't always want to be engaged with everything in the world. Just as we, in our daily lives, don't find it interesting to delve into every topic possible either.
For both the puzzles and information... I wouldn't give players the free feat. Seriously. Trying to find solutions to problems that don't exist will just make the entire experience/system convoluted over time. Waste of time and energy. Instead listen and watch. If your players have trouble with puzzles ... either do puzzles differently or throw them out entirely.
I agree with Melle. If the characters forget stuff that's acceptable. We forget stuff from time to time as well. I even go as far as to say that ... Should they lose one of the cards that describes a magic item. Then they lost that item in game as well.
Caveat up front here - I do really appreciate the time and effort everyone is putting in giving me feedback.
Let me tackle these one at a time ...
The issue I'm addressing here is not universal in my party. I have at least one player who seems to be engaged, alert, and playing intelligently ( in my opinion :p ) - unfortunately, they seem to have no interest in party leadership. Also unfortunately, they are soon moving to Australia ( I'm serious ). I have at least one other player who does a lot of work on their character - but unfortunately their interest seems to be isolated to the character, not the-character-in-the-world or the-character-in-the-party. Lots of introspective navel gazing and existential character angst.
I use miles stones, I don't have a problem with murder hobos, and the XP question is really a rhetorical supporting question, not the central point: if you measure and reward a particular behavior, that's the behavior your get. Decades of professional experience in the Industrial/Logistics industry with large workforces has taught me that. That's why XP often leads to murder hobos. I don't like that, I'd like people to just be adults and adhere to what we all agreed to up front. Welcome to Humanity 101.
Therefore, my original idea was to change what was being measured and rewarded, in a hope to shaping the player behavior. Not to the point where people are no longer enjoying the game, not to force the players to play the game ( completely ) my way, but perhaps to broaden their attention a bit.
You seem to be saying to not try and shape the player behavior; Fair enough.
This is not an non-existing problem. I am not trying to "find solutions to problems that don't exist". There is a clear issues here: One of the players at the table is increasingly unhappy with the game - me.
I do - and in this case did - ludicrously detailed session 0's, followed up with email discussion chasers, before we even created characters. Session 0 is not always a solution for harmonizing expectations. Not all players are self-aware enough as players to be able to answer the questions. Mostly - in my case - because over half the group is relatively new to RPGs. Some players say one thing, and play another. I also have looped back several times with brief follow up sessions every couple of months.
I don't expect the Players to be enthralled with the Lore of the world. I totally get that is something that might be important to me, at a world level - but if it doesn't impact the characters directly, I don't expect them to be invested in the details of the world. I do not expect them to "remember the name of the city they were in 20 sessions ago". I would like them to pay enough attention to be able to tell me the name of the city they are standing in right now. I would like them to remember the name of the NPC they've just met. I would like them to have paid enough attention to have caught the name of the god whose temple they're in. This is perhaps the crux right here. I'm don't expect the players to memorize the world lore, but I'm annoyed when they're not even paying attention to the world when something isn't trying to hit them with a weapon.
I'm not overwhelming them with complex details. My rule of thumb for NPC description - for example - is to give a generic overall description, and I'll throw in one distinguishing physical detail, and possibly give them one particular mannerism. I use similar guidelines for environment description. If they want/need more detail, they'll ask.
The 5 combats in two sessions is an anomaly in my group; but, the group seems pretty combat focused.
I don't typically use completely random encounters. I most likely have sketched out something like "bad guy patrols in this area, 30% chance of encounter" - with some sketch notes as to what a "bad guy patrol" is going to be like. I don't use encounters at all, unless they make sense with the events unfolding. Someone paying attention can get story elements, and clues, out of even the random encounters, and the combat encounters.
I'm not talking about complex puzzles, or convoluted mysteries here. I'm talking about what I consider basic game play. Real game example: one of the party has been kidnapped ( player needing to take extended work-related absence ), you know that one of the thieves guild splinter factions is responsible, you have underworld contacts which could start to give you information about who they are, and where to find them ... blank stares followed by muddled flailing. In this case, I was able to feed them another clue ( and then another improvised one after that, when they killed their potential information source before they could talk to her ... ) - but at what point does shifting the narrative around, inventing and and throwing handfuls of clues at the party hoping one of them will stick, become me playing the damn game for them, rather than setting up an adventure and allowing them to play with it? How much spoon feeding is too much, and how much player attention, thought, and effort is reasonable to expect?
I think that if I boil down everything that's being said, the advice I'm hearing is:
Work on trying to present details in such a manner that is more engaging for these players.
Try not to be invested in the players noticing the world. I agree here, to a point - but I think there's a minimum of attention and effort I'm willing to accept here ( where are you? who are you talking to? What did I just tell you? ), and a maximum amount of effort I'm willing to do to play the game for the players. Perhaps at that point, I need to just accept that the characters are going to flounder and fail. That's life.
Try and find a ways to work more of the story elements into the combat aspects.
Ultimately, really only play with players whose style is compatible. That may not be this group of players - or at least not all of then.
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.
I agree that Session 0 isn't the be all, end all. In fact I never done a session 0. Thusfar been lucky enough that we talk plenty and thus could "steer" things subtly in the direction I'd want. We mostly were in sync. Except for one aspect where I want to do a heroic story and they just want to set up thieve/assassin guilds and be somewhat evil. Told them I don't want to run such a game at all, outside an occasional one shot. Glad they changed. However don't expect other groups to be like that.
From what I read everyone is having fun with a relatively shallow story with mostly combat. While the DM wants to play in a totally different style. Massive disconnect there with the players unable to adjust. Since they seemingly say one thing and do something else. Guess its time to draw conclusions here and either play the style they want and accept it. Or find another group of people to DM for.
But uhm... If they can't even remember the name of the city they're in or the NPC they just spoke with... are you sure they're not interested and not just... well... idiots? Just wondering since that would require a whole different approach. One for which I would not have the patience. And doubt any mechanical rewards would aid as well.
I dunno, my players don't always remember the name of the city they're in, cause it's not a real place. Sometimes they don't remember an NPC name, since they spent more time with what the NPC was doing/saying, than mulling over their name. Sometimes they get caught up in the story or what their characters are thinking and then they go 'Oh we're in uh... Port something.' And that doesn't really matter. Is it important to the story that they remember the city is called Praeport? Not really (to me). Is it important that they remember there's an alchemist there, who's a witch, that they like? Yeah, definitely. If they can say "Oh, that city where the witch is, the one with the tattoos!" They do remember it, they just don't remember the name-- And I don't really see why the name really matters that much. I care that my players remember the substance of a place. I can remind them of names. Then: "Oh what if we go see that witch that gave (PC) a potion in the graveyard last night?"-- Me: "Khilercast?" -- Them: "Yeah!"
And they do remember the ones that are important. The recurring characters, the ones who leave a lasting impact on them. Mist, who betrayed them. Lord Brightwood who is a mystery they desperately want to solve for personal reasons. Lionel and Anna, children that they saved and nurtured. They remember the people they really care about-- And that's actually a great barometer for a DM. What do your players remember? Well, that's what they care about most. Those are the things you know they'll hook onto if you bring them in. They make DMing easier for you that way.
Heck, as a player in the game I'm currently in, I remember we were in a city that none of us could pronounce right, so we all had 100 different names for it-- Krietzetzen, Krezpacific, Krietzen, Krazific -- I still can't tell you which one is the actual name or if any of them are the actual name. But I do remember that the wizard there helped us by ridding us of horrible curses, and I remember the bridge that you could not cross if you were not of a Lawful or Neutral alignment without being attacked by crazy magic water snakes. I remember that there were tunnels under the city that smugglers were using to bring in exotic foods that my character was morally opposed to -- and who, after we sabotaged, we learned were approved by the city leaders, and that the smuggling was for show! I remember we fought an assassin from the big bad villain group there. I remember that we later learned the wizard was trying to become a lich, and so we definitely need to go back later-- And I even remember it's near the orc stronghold where we did the Orclympics. So... Does it matter that even when we were there, I did not know what the name of the place was? That I don't remember the name of the lich wizard? I mean, I remember all of the details, substance, and plot that happened there.
I'm just curious to know your opinion on this: Why does it matter so much that your players remember fantasy nouns? If you had to choose between them remembering the things that happened in a place/with an NPC, or knowing the name of the place/an NPC, which would you prefer?
But uhm... If they can't even remember the name of the city they're in or the NPC they just spoke with... are you sure they're not interested and not just... well... idiots?
Many thanks for making me laugh :)
To be honest I'm exaggerating a bit here for dramatic effect :p There are days here where it does feel that way however.
I think my approach - from the various suggestions here, thank you - will be:
Try and tailor the details to the players
Have a discussion with the group about player engagement: what would make them engaged in the world? Or are they actually engaged in the world and the DM isn't seeing it; ( always leave space for the possibility that you yourself are the source of your own problems :p )
Try and relax a bit with this; figure out where the lines are regarding how much I'm willing to spoon feed the party and when I'm willing to let the party fail;
Figure out ultimately when the DM and the Player just aren't a good fit and learn when to cut the losses.
As the game I am a player in recently folded ( as the DM is moving to Australia ), I may attempt to run a few online/discord one-shots. This would give me exposure to more players, more types of players, and who knows - maybe I can locate players more fitting my style this way.
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.
I'm just curious to know your opinion on this: Why does it matter so much that your players remember fantasy nouns? If you had to choose between them remembering the things that happened in a place/with an NPC, or knowing the name of the place/an NPC, which would you prefer?
You make an excellent distinction here.
I don't really care about the nounsper se - what I care about it paying attention to details, and being engaged enough to make an effort in playing the game.
I'm using nouns as a shortcut here, as I'm assuming - perhaps completely incorrectly - that if you can't parrot the names that have just been given to you, you probably weren't paying attention to any of the other details. If you're floundering with "One of the bad guy groups has your friend; here's some potential contacts that can give you information about the makeup/location of the bad guy groups; what do you want to do next?", it seems to me that you're putting minimal effort into trying to solve the adventure, and are mostly just along for the ride to watch the adventure unfold around you. There are absolutely Players like that - and there's nothing intrinsically wrong with that - but a party can't be completely ( or even mostly ) composed of such Players and hope to get anywhere.
The scenarios your describe, where the party might not have the labels down, but understands the situation, is great! I absolutely agree that Players don't need to have all the minutiae down pat, and that asking the DM, "Hey, would my character know/remember ... " is not only acceptable, it's fantastic, as it means the Player is engaged, even if they don't have a photographic memory, or made detailed notes.
It comes down to perceived player apathy about the world around them, I think. And who knows - I might be right out to lunch, or overly sensitive here :p
I think DMs put an awful lot of work and anxiety into creating interesting situations and adventures - and while it would be totally unreasonable for me to expect Players to chase down all the minutiae, and memorize all the lore, and create novel-like character journals, I'd like them to at least be aware of the overall situation, the flow of events, and their basic capabilities.
I think Giblix hit the nail square on the head with "everyone is having fun with a relatively shallow story with mostly combat. While the DM wants to play in a totally different style".
And I do like that the party is having fun with it. Sometimes simple, shallow, orc-bashing is just what you want, and tons of fun. Just like sometimes you want mac-and-cheese. Maybe I'm being pretentious, but I don't want the story equivalent of mac-and-cheese all the time.
For all the whining I'm doing here, the party may not be at fault. I may not be at fault ( although I'd never rule that out ). We just might not be meshing with our style.
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.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
For those of your familiar with Matt Colville, he has repeatedly said that in his opinion D&D is not a storytelling game. Rather, it is a tactical wargame, the events and outcomes of which allow the Players to tell stories about the session that they just played. The storytelling comes between the sessions. And - in my experiences, especially with my current group - I think his position has a lot of truth to it.
However, I very much like the stories that come out of the player-characters and the world. Like most DMs that work with a homebrew world, I do love my Lore, even if much of it is lost on the players ( which is fine, and a whole other topic ).
It occurred to me that there absolutely is a place for collaborative storytelling in our sessions, and that it is in the recap. That is where the events of last week's session are retold in a rough story form - sometime by me, but usually by the "party stenographer" - the one player who keeps detailed notes - with a few interjections from other Players.
What I'm wondering is what ideas people might have for encouraging the party to expand on this, to draw more Players into the recap, how to encourage more detailed and rich storytelling in the recap, and - I guess - whether this is something the DM should be pursuing at all.
Note, I'm not looking for means to encourage Players to "speak in character", "act", or other things they're not comfortable with, just to recount - possibly but not necessarily from their character perspective - what they recall from the last session, and participating in building an overall collaborative "party history" out of the last session.
So - some open questions:
Thoughts?
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.
I don't think the recap is all that important. If your players are engaged and invested they'll discuss things out of the game as well. We have a Twitter group where all my players text during the week. When meeting face to face they talk about stuff that happened. Those are the stories that matter.
Writing recaps, or even elaborate re-tellings, it takes a lot of time in between play sessions. I do that myself, because i like doing it, and it takes as long to write as it did to play the session itself. If someone likes writing they'll invest that time themselves. If not then that's how it is. Trying to use ingame mechanics/rewards to "force" players to invest time in between sessions is unreasonable.
I'd just let it be instead of wasting time on it. It happens organically or not at all.
I think by making this a mechanic you're just going to exhaust your group. They're going to have less energy to play if they're doing this. At the top of each session I ask if anyone has any moments from last session they want to talk about. If they don't, I do a quick bullet point list to keep them up to date.
However, I do have something that invests them in their character which I think is more effective than attempting to mechanize investing them in the game. If they're invested in their character, they'll be more likely to invest in the stakes you provide in the game. At the top of each session I ask a character development question. Anyone who answers gains a point of inspiration. It's not required for them to answer, and some questions they may decide their character doesn't have an answer for, but it usually gets them into the headspace of their character right before we start, and also seems to be investing the other players into each other, getting tidbits of who their friends are.
As a side-note I also flat-out disagree with MC's opinion you quote above. I've never played in a game, or DMed a game, where combat was as important as the story, or where it felt like a 'tactical wargame'. That doesn't mean that there aren't D&D (5e) games like that, but I don't think it's fair to say they're all like that, or all like something else. That definitely feels like-- Matt Colville's games are like tactical wargames, which is fantastic for him, and his groups, who all obviously love it. And heck, I might love playing in a game like that, too-- But I have yet to play in any group where combat or tactics were even equally important to the campaign as the story.
As an example, the current group I'm DMing for don't like combat that is superfluous. If it doesn't tie into the story, the combat bores them. So cool boss fights get them excited, or fights where they know they have to achieve something through the combat (other than win/survive). Because of that, we might go 10 sessions without a single combat! In fact, we had a combat in the last session of my game which was the first combat in 9 sessions! The party just cares more about the roleplaying, skill checks, and interaction with the world/NPC, so I design around their desires to give them a fun time. The combat system of D&D is certainly a tactical game-- but your whole game being one is up to each individual group/DM and their preferences and experiences. Some games are closer to tactical wargames. Some are closer to the make believe games we played as kids, but with rules and dice mechanics to control the successes and consequences of actions. None of them are incorrect or less D&D than the other, but neither is more D&D than the other, either.
Awesome detailed feedback!
Thank you both :)
@Giblix - I agree 100% that an organic discussion is infinitely preferable to a mechanic which encourages the kind of behavior. I am reminded however - from the professional arena - that you get the behavior your measure and reward ( or else why do we give out XP? ), and I think that's where my OP comes from. I think that - even for you and your players - that recap is important, as you have an entire Twitter group devoted to creating it :) - however you appear to be creating it organically, which I agree is vastly better. I'm really trying not to "force" players to engage in it; I think a reward for participating/contributing is not the same as forcing players to engage in it, if players are not being punished for not participating, and the rewards for participating are not needed for them to enjoy play, or advance their characters.
Still - I think I agree with your overall idea of "let it happen organically, or not at all".
@MellieDM - I really like your idea of character investing questions, a lot. I think I understand what you're getting at - but do you have an example of the sort of thing you'd ask them? Also - I think I'm slightly jealous of your group, as mine seems to be pretty combat focused right now. I'm in the exact opposite end of the spectrum right now, with 5 combats in 2 sessions. It made complete sense from how the adventure had unfolded to that point, and the players were all really energized and said they had fun - but the DM was getting tired of combat by the end of it.
Also - who woulda thought MC could be controversial ;)
I think this might be a disconnect between the level of engagement the Players have with the world and with the characters, and level of engagement which the DM wishes they had.
My players are usually coming away with really positive comments about how much fun they had, especially last night where several people said how the end of the last session where they took out the BBEG was a dramatically satisfying combat. And ultimately, if they're having fun, it's not a complete loss in my books - even if they have a hard time remembering the name of the town they're in today, and get major figure names totally mixed up :p
If I want them to be more engaged, then there's a good part of that responsibility that lies with me to make the world more engaging for these particular players ... with the caveat that there are players which really don't want to engage the world - they're there to roll dice and kill monsters. Not all DMs and Players are a good fit.
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.
For me, it definitely comes down to:
1) What do you want as a DM out of the game?
2) What do your players want out of the game?
And then... 3) How do you balance those two things?
If your group loves combat, and you love story-- How do you make the combat tell a story? I quite like running combat as a DM, so even though my group isn't big on combat, I know if I can make a combat story-focused enough, that it can excite them. If I can design combat where they can do cool, creative things, they'll enjoy it. So, when I want to do a combat I get creative and add lots of possibilities, interactions, and environmental excitement to entice them. For you-- That may be the solution the other way. If you really want great story through combat, you bring in those things for you which has the doubled effective of deepening combat for your players! So they get to keep playing cool combats and using tactics, but at the same time they're inadvertently investing themselves into the story!
Here's some of the questions I've asked in the last few months! Some of them I also load so that I can get information from them for later.
What is the worst thing you have done to someone you loved?
Do you want people to know that you are a hero? Why or why not?
If you lived in our modern world, what kind of career would you have? Why?
What is the strangest thing you’ve done while drunk or otherwise intoxicated?
What is something that your parent or parental figure taught you?
What is your favourite/food meal? Why?
(This had the double effect of filling in a trap 2 sessions later)
Who were you closest to growing up? What is your most treasured memory of them?
Some really good advice, thanks :)
I had to give it some thought there - I can see how to make combat dramatic as combat - as you say, let the players, and have the NPCs, do cool tactical and dramatic things ( like last night, where the party was ambushed by flying creatures while climbing down a cold lava tube, and the druid wild-shaped into giant spider form to run up and down the sides of the tube effectively, then leaped off the side to grapple one of the creatures in mid air. Interesting Player dilemma when he managed to kill the creature he was riding .... ).
Having the combat introduce story elements - that's tougher. Maybe this is why in pulp fiction the Hero and Villain trade dialog in the fight scenes :) Maybe there's room for the Villains to make sneering comments about why the heroes will never succeed ( giving away clues about their dastardly plans ), or snarl accusations against the heroes for the things they've done ( and thereby letting slip clues about the things that are important to the Villains ), etc. - it's just seems a bit pulp-fiction to me, having story characters behaving in a particular way only for meta-story reasons ( and I'm a simulationist at heart ).
As for your questions, I agree - I've used questions like that for general character development. I've also asked more focuses versions of that sort of thing in the middle of game play as well, asking for clarification about aspects of their background which might be relevant to the scene at hand.
I think I was also envisioning questions at the top of the session to players about how the characters would have interpreted or felt about events that happened last session - like asking the Player of the newly introduced Warforged character who just killed the BBEG who was his own creator, how his character would react to that.
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.
I do a writeup in story form, then share the document with all the players. I inject some details for flavor because of the format but the character actions are only what the players did. This is all on my own, although I encouraged the players to make edits if they wanted to. Mostly, it's to keep a record of their adventures and to keep players in the loop for when they miss a session.
"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
I've done this before, and it's a lot of work - which I don't mind doing so long as it's used, but I have to question whether a) the Players really care or b) the Players know they don't have to pay attention now, since the DM will spoon-feed them all the relevant details anyways.
There is the temptation to make new elements of the story solvable if and only if they remember past elements of the past adventure, especially since it's now right there in their written summaries. Not sure that's a good path to do down :p
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.
For combat incentivising story--
The party had to get a book from an ally's warehouse library, which had become taken over by hobgoblins. Mid-battle, a Mind Flayer appeared who was interested in the same book -- that was a story hook introduced that gave the party more questions into why the hobgoblins (who had been enthralled by the Mind Flayer) had specifically chosen this warehouse in particular. Now, they killed the Mind Flayer so they couldn't find out the juicy secrets I had planned for them to discover, but they did learn things from the hobgoblins that introduced a new plot thread, and thickened the plot elsewhere.
I guess I don't mean like... This combat is going to tell the story-- But that the combat is the story. The reason this combat is happening is because of the things the party has done, the goals the party has, and the people they have interacted with. So therefore the combat is the story, and enjoying that combat drives investment more heavily, and leads to the players being more interactive with character motivation and reaction in and outside of combat. That's when you get non-optimal decisions that are based in character-- And that's the magic place where combat becomes story. When it's not about winning the combat, but participating in it in such a way that is honest to the character and the story. (I do the same with monsters/NPCs sometimes acting non-optimally because they have character driving them, not a stat block)
Yeah, I realize it is a lot of work, but I'm doing it more for myself and partly for them, not all of them read it anyway =)
"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
@MellieDM
OK - so we're on the same page regarding combat, I think.
Combat has to make sense based on what's going on in the story. The hobgoblins didn't show up as a random encounter. Their actions came about due to events in the story, and the actions of your players affected how other plot elements will play out.
In my mind, combat isn't fundamentally different from non-combat. The players have a situation/encounter which gives them a problem to solve. One possible way to solve it is to whack it with swords. Whether or not they try this tactic, or something else, the situation the party finds themselves in has to flow out of past, and the technique they use to solve it ( or fail at solving it ) will affect the future.
I think we agree here.
The problem I'm having - looping back to the OP - is the party remembering the non-combat elements of the world. For example, this party has really struggled with investigation and puzzle solving because they don't seem to catch details of the world. Whether or not it because they're not paying attention, aren't engaged in the world, or whether I'm not presenting information clearly enough, I'm not 100% clear on, yet.
This is really why I was originally looking to get players directly involved in building the recap: it exposes players that didn't catch fact A, or nuance C, or clue Z, to these aspects in the recap - without me doing all the work and spoon-feeding the Players with a written recap ( that they may not actually read ).
Thinking on Critical Role, I kind of like the fact that Caleb has the Keen Mind feat, as Liam can ask Matt any detail that Caleb would have been exposed to in the last 30 days.
Maybe I should give away this feat for free to a player :)
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.
I think you need to ensure that the details of the world are made to be interesting for the players. Don't make something interesting to you without concern for their interests. My players remember who that Goddess is because a Paladin gave them a mechanical benefit blessing on her behalf. My players remember who those NPCs are because they had an interaction that *they* controlled the tone of. They remember x thing because it connected to y emotion. Humans remember things most strongly when they are attached to an emotion, and emotion happens when something generates their personal interests. Anything I think the players need to remember on their own, I tie into their character, and what interests them about their character.
And other things that they forget? Those things don't matter. I don't need them to remember the name of the city they were in 20 sessions ago. I don't need them to remember all of the deities, or the political structure, or whatever else. I don't want my players to feel like they have to work to play the game. I can give them the lore info their characters would know, and if they forget something else, then hey-- They forgot it. Maybe they'll learn it again, maybe they won't. I'll tell you one thing-- They have never forgotten the names of their favourite NPCs, and they've never forgotten the pieces of personal quest I've sprinkled into the game, because they care about that. And all they need to remember is what they care about-- It's my job to tailor the game to that interest.
If I think they should have remembered something, and they didn't, I prefer to look at what I could have done to make it more interesting to them. Why didn't they remember x? Well, because nothing memorable happened with x. It was just some information. Or hey, maybe it was because something more interesting happened at the same time.
Players are never going to be as invested in your original lore as you are. I say this as someone who has written thousands of pages of lore for my world. I care about that, and I sprinkle it in where it's relevant to them, but it's not as important to the players as the story.
Getting the behavior you reward...why else give XP?? How about I don't give XP and just use milestones. Leveling when I see fit. This has indeed prevented murder hobo behavior and gradually made players look for alternate ways to solve situations. However this principle doesn't mean we should try to find solutions to non-existing problems. You can say, during a session 0 for example, that you expect a roleplay/story oriented experience. Look for players that want that as well. Don't have a game that people are enjoying and then try to force them to do other things. When it comes to in-game mechanics show by example so the players get an impression of the possibilities. Whether they incorporate it in their playstyle is up to them. Same with story related elements. Trying to incorporate mechanics to gradually force them to play the way you want will backfire in due time.
Asking questions around the play session is always helpful. After each session I ask some questions as well. Stuff like... "I'd like more then 1 combat per session" or "we should keep our responses more centralized instead of everyone mumbling to themselves". That helps to improve the overall experience. As for actual character investment questions rarely have to be asked since they ramble on about stuff themselves. At that time it is important to listen and distill the core essence. Always keeping a few lines of communication open so they can send ideas they have is also important imo. Some players are invested to the point they spend a fair amount of free time thinking about their characters. Other players don't send a thing. So be it. No need to try and drag stuff out of everyone. You can occasionally give a reminder/soft nudge, but if they don't bite then let them be. It is wasted energy that could be spend elsewhere to improve the overall experience.
My group is in between you two it seems. I try to simulate, to a point and keeping everything plausible. There are sessions of 4-5 hours with only 1 combat encounter. Depending on situation there could also be sessions with only combat however. And I do agree that this topic is mostly about the experience players have and what the DM wishes them to have. We as DM's put in a lot of time and effort. The players know only a fraction of the world they're in and that is fine. I want them to see and experience it all, but that will never happen. However if they go off-track I can improvise some on the spot side content that shows them a tomb/ruin of lost civilizations. As well as occasional rumors here and there that they can choose to engage with or not. Get them invested in history of your world that way. Patience is key.
On top of that I registered a forum for us to use, but they haven't even registered accounts on it. But that is ok since they still read occasional pieces that are important to them. Such as stats for items they found etc. Also great to have a hidden area to have an extra copy of all your notes. When our campaign ends all them notes will be made publicly available since they are curious at that. Here I also do the story write-ups as recaps. However they're are only what the players did so they're not getting any additional information that way. Wrote these pieces mainly for my own entertainment, but it takes as much time as the play session itself. Will probably adjust the format to save myself time and write it more mechanically then story. Investment of players really varies. And once again... if they don't live up to our expectations that is fine as well.
Combat as a story isn't that difficult imo. Just look at samurai movies and such. The attack patterns, tactical movements and occasional insults and taunts as well as the environment are all already telling a story. They find a Forge where Duergar were looking to find the secret technique to craft awesome master gear. After dealing with that they will eventually end up in a war situation. The higher ups in that army wear the gear which the players can recognize. These all tell a story and show how everything in the world is connected. That when the players interrupted the production of gear these higher ups during war will make comments about it. Simply showing how wide spread the reach of the army is can lead to a lot of political/diplomatic intrigue as follow up.
When it comes to random encounters I watched an episode of WebDM. As DM you always know what kind of opponents and areas the players are going to traverse through. That information is useful for the Random Encounter Table since in this example you'd then have:
1. 2 hob goblins scouts
2. a hob goblin warband
3. Goblin / Warg raid party
In short you make stuff that fits the theme, but gives a random variable as to what kind of event will occur. This can lead to interesting improvisation regarding possible behavior/information they might possess.
Players having trouble remembering and engaging with puzzles is common. Puzzles and riddles are imo just horrible to pull off. I do them as minimally as possible. Even if you provide all the information players often struggle and get frustrated with even the simplest of puzzles. The few riddles and puzzles I had... the players just asked the NPC to solve it for them. Instead I prefer to keep it more simple and exciting where the puzzle is a trap of sorts. With a room that is filling with sand and they have to work together to find hidden keys and hidden keyholes. Adding some excitement to this threatening trap-puzzle. My players however remember locations, because they often do something silly/stupid. And that memory triggers then the rest.
For example... On their way to the underground tomb. One of them was left behind since he lost track of time trying to tame a captured Kruthik. Eventually he caught up, but it was dark and he was dashing. The others heard movement behind them with the cleric shooting a crossbow bolt that missed. Barbarian lit his torch and now both the ranger+cleric shot at the fire source. Both arrows hit with the barbarian surviving at only 1hp. This lead to some fun RP and now they have a memorable memory of when they went down to a tomb. That's the kind of engagement you want imo.
Giving information is a skill of itself. Don't present to much, because they'll just mentally tune out. Describe the area clearly, but global. As in "this wall is made from high quality crafted masonic tiles. the bottom half consists of reliefs showing some sort of historic tale. Dwarves in various poses and clothes". After which the players can then decide to take a closer look to figure out what the historic tale is. What are the dwarves dressed exactly? are there trap buttons in the relief? etc etc. I even let my players find a volume of 800 year old history documentation regarding a dwarven empire that no longer exists. That is also how I described it. Whether at one point they want to read and learn more is up to them. They can still sell it to an historian that can share snippets and see if the players bite then. If not then that's ok as well. Players don't always want to be engaged with everything in the world. Just as we, in our daily lives, don't find it interesting to delve into every topic possible either.
For both the puzzles and information... I wouldn't give players the free feat. Seriously. Trying to find solutions to problems that don't exist will just make the entire experience/system convoluted over time. Waste of time and energy. Instead listen and watch. If your players have trouble with puzzles ... either do puzzles differently or throw them out entirely.
I agree with Melle. If the characters forget stuff that's acceptable. We forget stuff from time to time as well. I even go as far as to say that ... Should they lose one of the cards that describes a magic item. Then they lost that item in game as well.
Caveat up front here - I do really appreciate the time and effort everyone is putting in giving me feedback.
Let me tackle these one at a time ...
I think that if I boil down everything that's being said, the advice I'm hearing is:
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.
I agree that Session 0 isn't the be all, end all. In fact I never done a session 0. Thusfar been lucky enough that we talk plenty and thus could "steer" things subtly in the direction I'd want. We mostly were in sync. Except for one aspect where I want to do a heroic story and they just want to set up thieve/assassin guilds and be somewhat evil. Told them I don't want to run such a game at all, outside an occasional one shot. Glad they changed. However don't expect other groups to be like that.
From what I read everyone is having fun with a relatively shallow story with mostly combat. While the DM wants to play in a totally different style. Massive disconnect there with the players unable to adjust. Since they seemingly say one thing and do something else. Guess its time to draw conclusions here and either play the style they want and accept it. Or find another group of people to DM for.
But uhm... If they can't even remember the name of the city they're in or the NPC they just spoke with... are you sure they're not interested and not just... well... idiots? Just wondering since that would require a whole different approach. One for which I would not have the patience. And doubt any mechanical rewards would aid as well.
I dunno, my players don't always remember the name of the city they're in, cause it's not a real place. Sometimes they don't remember an NPC name, since they spent more time with what the NPC was doing/saying, than mulling over their name. Sometimes they get caught up in the story or what their characters are thinking and then they go 'Oh we're in uh... Port something.' And that doesn't really matter. Is it important to the story that they remember the city is called Praeport? Not really (to me). Is it important that they remember there's an alchemist there, who's a witch, that they like? Yeah, definitely. If they can say "Oh, that city where the witch is, the one with the tattoos!" They do remember it, they just don't remember the name-- And I don't really see why the name really matters that much. I care that my players remember the substance of a place. I can remind them of names. Then: "Oh what if we go see that witch that gave (PC) a potion in the graveyard last night?"-- Me: "Khilercast?" -- Them: "Yeah!"
And they do remember the ones that are important. The recurring characters, the ones who leave a lasting impact on them. Mist, who betrayed them. Lord Brightwood who is a mystery they desperately want to solve for personal reasons. Lionel and Anna, children that they saved and nurtured. They remember the people they really care about-- And that's actually a great barometer for a DM. What do your players remember? Well, that's what they care about most. Those are the things you know they'll hook onto if you bring them in. They make DMing easier for you that way.
Heck, as a player in the game I'm currently in, I remember we were in a city that none of us could pronounce right, so we all had 100 different names for it-- Krietzetzen, Krezpacific, Krietzen, Krazific -- I still can't tell you which one is the actual name or if any of them are the actual name. But I do remember that the wizard there helped us by ridding us of horrible curses, and I remember the bridge that you could not cross if you were not of a Lawful or Neutral alignment without being attacked by crazy magic water snakes. I remember that there were tunnels under the city that smugglers were using to bring in exotic foods that my character was morally opposed to -- and who, after we sabotaged, we learned were approved by the city leaders, and that the smuggling was for show! I remember we fought an assassin from the big bad villain group there. I remember that we later learned the wizard was trying to become a lich, and so we definitely need to go back later-- And I even remember it's near the orc stronghold where we did the Orclympics. So... Does it matter that even when we were there, I did not know what the name of the place was? That I don't remember the name of the lich wizard? I mean, I remember all of the details, substance, and plot that happened there.
I'm just curious to know your opinion on this: Why does it matter so much that your players remember fantasy nouns? If you had to choose between them remembering the things that happened in a place/with an NPC, or knowing the name of the place/an NPC, which would you prefer?
Many thanks for making me laugh :)
To be honest I'm exaggerating a bit here for dramatic effect :p There are days here where it does feel that way however.
I think my approach - from the various suggestions here, thank you - will be:
As the game I am a player in recently folded ( as the DM is moving to Australia ), I may attempt to run a few online/discord one-shots. This would give me exposure to more players, more types of players, and who knows - maybe I can locate players more fitting my style this way.
I appreciate everyone's patience and advice!
Thanks :)
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.
You make an excellent distinction here.
I don't really care about the nouns per se - what I care about it paying attention to details, and being engaged enough to make an effort in playing the game.
I'm using nouns as a shortcut here, as I'm assuming - perhaps completely incorrectly - that if you can't parrot the names that have just been given to you, you probably weren't paying attention to any of the other details. If you're floundering with "One of the bad guy groups has your friend; here's some potential contacts that can give you information about the makeup/location of the bad guy groups; what do you want to do next?", it seems to me that you're putting minimal effort into trying to solve the adventure, and are mostly just along for the ride to watch the adventure unfold around you. There are absolutely Players like that - and there's nothing intrinsically wrong with that - but a party can't be completely ( or even mostly ) composed of such Players and hope to get anywhere.
The scenarios your describe, where the party might not have the labels down, but understands the situation, is great! I absolutely agree that Players don't need to have all the minutiae down pat, and that asking the DM, "Hey, would my character know/remember ... " is not only acceptable, it's fantastic, as it means the Player is engaged, even if they don't have a photographic memory, or made detailed notes.
It comes down to perceived player apathy about the world around them, I think. And who knows - I might be right out to lunch, or overly sensitive here :p
I think DMs put an awful lot of work and anxiety into creating interesting situations and adventures - and while it would be totally unreasonable for me to expect Players to chase down all the minutiae, and memorize all the lore, and create novel-like character journals, I'd like them to at least be aware of the overall situation, the flow of events, and their basic capabilities.
I think Giblix hit the nail square on the head with "everyone is having fun with a relatively shallow story with mostly combat. While the DM wants to play in a totally different style".
And I do like that the party is having fun with it. Sometimes simple, shallow, orc-bashing is just what you want, and tons of fun. Just like sometimes you want mac-and-cheese. Maybe I'm being pretentious, but I don't want the story equivalent of mac-and-cheese all the time.
For all the whining I'm doing here, the party may not be at fault. I may not be at fault ( although I'd never rule that out ). We just might not be meshing with our style.
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.