This is something I struggle with as a player. While I enjoy when my party is good at spotting a trap and avoiding unnecessary conflict; the negative repercussion is that you can play hours or sessions without having any encounters/challenges/conflicts. Now I don't want to have a random pub brawl and do I want my group to find ways to successfully navigate around any situations that can pose a threat; but the lack of the "Uh! Oh!" moments can lead to a boring or humdrum experience.
So what do you use as a gauge (or don't you use anything) to take that risk, have you character be inspired to make the bad choice, to explore for none other reason it is there; or make up a reason to have your characters do something because we are playing a game. Maybe my neurosis is taking over, but I want to make sure I don't ruin other players experiences because I recognize the GM is giving an "In" to engage and I want to play it out. Part of the fun in the game comes form conflict. Not necessarily battles. Puzzles, negotiations. mysteries, and, yes, fights.
How does one judge if they are "in the right" to instigate an event and when they should feel accomplished when they avoid anything that poses a threat to the party?
I wouldn't love it if a fellow player creates a problem just to create a problem or be a jerk, but I do play with some people who are wonderful at staying very in character and doing things that might be objectively annoying and sometimes create conflict but for very reasonable reasons. Often these characters are very focused on what are to them very positive goals and they're not so much thinking about what might be optimal for other party members. It could be devotion to their god, an obsession with ritual, not being very smart, focused on an invention, etc.
What makes it work is that even if there are negative repercussions, the character does not intend them. They just didn't think it through or didn't have the information they needed to understand it would cause harm. This can work even if the player has awareness that it's suboptimal.
If you have a party of people who are smart and careful, that is still fun. If that's how those characters play, conflict is still all around you via poor choices by NPCs and monsters. If you're feeling that your sessions don't have enough going on, you might check in with your DM and feel them out.
I feel like if the game requires you to fail to notice traps or initiate unnecessary fights in order for things to be fun, it's an indication that you have a bad GM.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I feel like if the game requires you to fail to notice traps or initiate unnecessary fights in order for things to be fun, it's an indication that you have a bad GM.
They said "conflicts", which they said included encounters, mysteries, puzzles etc. I'm not sure if you picked up on that or thought they meant just violence, but if the former, I can't agree - they're the bread and butter of the game. If players keep booing out of the hooks and fun parts of the game...it's time to have a serious chat about engaging with the game.
So what do you use as a gauge (or don't you use anything) to take that risk, have you character be inspired to make the bad choice, to explore for none other reason it is there; or make up a reason to have your characters do something because we are playing a game. Maybe my neurosis is taking over, but I want to make sure I don't ruin other players experiences because I recognize the GM is giving an "In" to engage and I want to play it out. Part of the fun in the game comes form conflict. Not necessarily battles. Puzzles, negotiations. mysteries, and, yes, fights.
How does one judge if they are "in the right" to instigate an event and when they should feel accomplished when they avoid anything that poses a threat to the party?
Just do it. Have fun. If you're constantly doing it, then it can be annoying, but every now and a again, so long as it makes sense and you're not just prodding the bear to get people into trouble, you should be fine with any party that has a sense of humour.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I feel like if the game requires you to fail to notice traps or initiate unnecessary fights in order for things to be fun, it's an indication that you have a bad GM.
They said "conflicts", which they said included encounters, mysteries, puzzles etc. I'm not sure if you picked up on that or thought they meant just violence, but if the former, I can't agree - they're the bread and butter of the game. If players keep booing out of the hooks and fun parts of the game...it's time to have a serious chat about engaging with the game.
Well, if your character is actively avoiding puzzles, social interactions, and plot hooks, your character is not an adventurer and you should roll up a new one.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Outsmarting the enemies is more fun than stabbing them.
That said, if the good guys outsmart the enemies all the time, the question is, are the villains idiots? Remember, you - the DM - are playing the villains. Do not play the villains as idiots.
How to DM a villain smarter than yourself:
Steps:
Come up with a villain plan that is your very best. Something there is no possible way the players can defeat. I.E. We will put the princess in a death trap that if they step on any part of the floor, it seals the doors and fills the room with a deadly gas! Put in some dead bodies to hint that the room is a trap.
Assume they will defeat it. Add Plan B to your original plan, making it just the bait to get them into the real trap. The princess is actually a vampire and those dead bodies are her undead minions.
Put in a power upgrade for the monsters. Perhaps a scroll of a necrotic spell the vampire has on them. But do not not nessarily use it.
If the players happen to barely defeat Plan A, cancel Plan B. There never was a vampire or undead, just a great trap you built. The vampire + minions bit. It is not a necessity, just there in case the players won too easily.
If the players do too well against Plan B, use the Upgrade. Have the vampire read the scroll(s).
If the players have a nice time fighting Plan B, forget about the Upgrade. Have the vampire be too cocky and think "I do not need to waste a scroll on these losers." Leave the scroll as a treasure boost for the players.
This technique I find works well. Basically, it's like a video game with a difficulty slider and the DM is changing the slider value based on how well the players do.
I wouldn't love it if a fellow player creates a problem just to create a problem or be a jerk, but I do play with some people who are wonderful at staying very in character and doing things that might be objectively annoying and sometimes create conflict but for very reasonable reasons. Often these characters are very focused on what are to them very positive goals and they're not so much thinking about what might be optimal for other party members. It could be devotion to their god, an obsession with ritual, not being very smart, focused on an invention, etc.
What makes it work is that even if there are negative repercussions, the character does not intend them. They just didn't think it through or didn't have the information they needed to understand it would cause harm. This can work even if the player has awareness that it's suboptimal. A character who sometimes makes imperfect or risky choices can add dynamics and create interesting situations, as long as it's not chaos in the game. If everyone in your group is too cautious, conflicts can still arise due to NPCs and monsters. Try to discuss with the GM the possibility of adding more challenges or surprises. The same thing happens in all areas of games. I used to go to the casino to play and honestly, I saw a lot of strange people and that was enough for me. I'd rather sit at home and get casino bonuses on https://gamblizard.ca/ online. It will be calmer for me. When all this chaos happens around you, you can go crazy. In my case, I turned on the computer, turned on unobtrusive music and played for myself.
If you have a party of people who are smart and careful, that is still fun. If that's how those characters play, conflict is still all around you via poor choices by NPCs and monsters. If you're feeling that your sessions don't have enough going on, you might check in with your DM and feel them out.
A character who sometimes makes imperfect or risky choices can add dynamics and create interesting situations, as long as it's not chaos in the game.
Yeah, I personally (as a player) have a character that has super high intelligence but sort of lacks common sense, so he'll just be like "Hey what's up (insert name here)" right in front of that person's mortal enemy, so that leads to some fun encounters. Unfortunately, the encounters often end with us killing all the enemies, and they don't even bother trying to run away, so... realism is already kind of out the door here.
It's an odd thing but I have found that players generally play smart which results often in avoiding traps, circumventing fights or finding a workaround for puzzles. This is a natural reaction/approach of a clever group, but by the same token, everyone at the table has an expectation that at some point "something" exciting will happen. So even if they are working to actively avoid "excitement" in a sense, they expect some anyway.
Random Encounter Tables, "no way to avoid it" problems and scripted "This happens now" moments are all good ways to just infuse a game with some energy. I do understand what the OP means, but you also have to keep in mind that players don't always see the game session the same way a DM does.
You might think a session with the players sitting around at a bar chatting for two hours "is a waste of time", but to the players that might be the most fun part about role-playing.
I guess what I'm saying is, before you do anything about it, talk to your players and make sure that your reflection matches there's. I have often been surprised about how much different I see a game compared to how my players see it.
To be honest - it is entirely on the DM. If the DM creates content that the party can always avoid then that is a conscious choice.
If the party has a goal or objective, then there will always be obstacles in the way to achieving that goal. It is not necessary to provide a non-combat solution to every situation nor is it desirable to solve every situation with combat. Since the adventure design is on the DM, then this type of content issue is also on the DM.
However, from the tone of the initial message, I wonder if the issue is not the content provided by the DM but a mismatch of player playstyles. Some folks are naturally cautious, enjoy solving puzzles, finding traps and disarming them, they may not enjoy that Ah-ha moment of surprise when their character is then at risk and could die. Other PLAYERS on the other hand, sometimes don't have the patience for that play style. They want something to happen NOW ... and if there isn't something happening, they sometimes choose to have the character do something reckless to make it happen. Sometimes the player may have a role playing excuse to justify the actions "It is what my character would do" but these can often be pretty thin unless the character has established some specific role playing elements.
Honestly, from a "real" role playing perspective, any adventurer is not going to recklessly risk their life because they are bored since very soon they won't be around to be an adventurer anymore. In most game worlds, adventuring is a dangerous and lucrative profession with high risk and high rewards so if a character wants to live to spend those rewards they won't be stupid or reckless. In addition, no one would willingly choose to adventure with a character that is stupid and reckless and risks killing off the party because "nothing is happening NOW".
So from a role playing perspective, the player who wants to make things happen NOW, usually isn't role playing since the character probably wouldn't really do that if they expected to live very long.
However, in a game where the DM refuses to kill characters or impose consequences for such actions that are logical and fit with the situation in the game world then a "character"/player learns that reckless behaviour is rewarded since no matter what stupid action they choose to take, they somehow live through it. I used to run games where I generally didn't like the idea of killing PCs ... but then one of the players with a chaotic character discovered that somehow they survived even outrageously unlikely actions. The player naturally leaned into it since it fit their play style but it reached the point where I as the DM realized that in future games I had to impose reasonable and logical consequences for in game actions in order to retain even a semblance of role playing verisimilitude in the long run (depending on the player personality).
TL;DR -
1) being cautious is not a block to exciting content - it is up to the DM since they control the world and sometimes events happen that can't be avoided, mitigated or seen in advance.
2) A party with cautious players can play slower since they discuss almost everything and try to look at every option/possibility as they proceed. This playstyle is not something every player likes. Some just REALLY want to roll initiative. It is on the DM to provide the mix of content that will satisfy the different play styles of players in the party - which means mixing things up.
3) A player that chooses to have their character do something careless/reckless just to get something to happen isn't usually role playing, they are mostly just bored or want something exciting to happen. In this case, it is up to the DM to recognize the different playstyles and incorporate content that keeps both groups happy. I'd personally recommend against a player trying to make things happen by taking stupid actions - with many DMs, the odds of the character dying eventually if they do it too often should be significant - in addition, if it happens too often, the other characters are left with the question of WHY would they ever choose to adventure with a character that is going to get killed or get them all killed.
P.S. If the problem is the players actively avoiding content and choosing not to complete goals or quests because they can't find a perfectly safe way to do it then the DM and players need to have an out of character chat about what they are looking for from the game :)
This is something I struggle with as a player. While I enjoy when my party is good at spotting a trap and avoiding unnecessary conflict; the negative repercussion is that you can play hours or sessions without having any encounters/challenges/conflicts. Now I don't want to have a random pub brawl and do I want my group to find ways to successfully navigate around any situations that can pose a threat; but the lack of the "Uh! Oh!" moments can lead to a boring or humdrum experience.
So what do you use as a gauge (or don't you use anything) to take that risk, have you character be inspired to make the bad choice, to explore for none other reason it is there; or make up a reason to have your characters do something because we are playing a game. Maybe my neurosis is taking over, but I want to make sure I don't ruin other players experiences because I recognize the GM is giving an "In" to engage and I want to play it out. Part of the fun in the game comes form conflict. Not necessarily battles. Puzzles, negotiations. mysteries, and, yes, fights.
How does one judge if they are "in the right" to instigate an event and when they should feel accomplished when they avoid anything that poses a threat to the party?
From what I can tell you are talking about your experiences in a Homebrew campaign/adventure, instead of a premade adventure. That's the main problem. Most people who came into D&D only know or mostly know about Homebrew. Homebrew is not necessarily D&D. It's the DM's rules and world and they don't always run parallel to D&D's. In addition, most are unbalance because the implementation is based on the DM's mindset. One of the best adventures I can tell people to go in (including DM's) is B 1-9 In Search of Adventure.
It's the perfect way to learn how to D&D. Both as a player and as a DM. Oops. I digressed.
I think one important aspect is also how "fair" the DM makes the game. I find that in modern games there seems to be an expectation that the world needs to be "fair" like a video game. Make good choices? Get reward. Make bad choices? Get punished.
But life isn't fair, and I think some of the prewritten adventures show that well. In Dungeon if the Mad Mage, you might solve a puzzle and the reward is that you find a cursed item and nothing else. You might explore and clear a large section of the dungeon that is completely devoid of rewards, only deadly traps. Or you complete a quest and as a reward you get betrayed...
Sure, as a trend good choices should maximize the chance of getting a good outcome, but I also think there should be a fair amount of bad outcomes from good choices. If you make 100% good choices, but 25% of them still lead to bad outcomes (as opposed to 75% if you made bad choices) that still leaves lots of "Uh Oh" moments.
Welcome to difficulty levels and prestaged encounters. Realistically the dm should be using a variety of different difficulty levels for traps and puzzles. This helps create encounters as the party will not succeed on all such rolls ( yes they may fail the easy one and make some harder ones and find “ the fifth way out” on the hardest one but that’s ok - each is a reward of a different sort. There should be some things that you just can’t get around and have to go thru - maybe not a lot but at least a few- both combats and roleplay encounters.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This is something I struggle with as a player. While I enjoy when my party is good at spotting a trap and avoiding unnecessary conflict; the negative repercussion is that you can play hours or sessions without having any encounters/challenges/conflicts. Now I don't want to have a random pub brawl and do I want my group to find ways to successfully navigate around any situations that can pose a threat; but the lack of the "Uh! Oh!" moments can lead to a boring or humdrum experience.
So what do you use as a gauge (or don't you use anything) to take that risk, have you character be inspired to make the bad choice, to explore for none other reason it is there; or make up a reason to have your characters do something because we are playing a game. Maybe my neurosis is taking over, but I want to make sure I don't ruin other players experiences because I recognize the GM is giving an "In" to engage and I want to play it out. Part of the fun in the game comes form conflict. Not necessarily battles. Puzzles, negotiations. mysteries, and, yes, fights.
How does one judge if they are "in the right" to instigate an event and when they should feel accomplished when they avoid anything that poses a threat to the party?
I wouldn't love it if a fellow player creates a problem just to create a problem or be a jerk, but I do play with some people who are wonderful at staying very in character and doing things that might be objectively annoying and sometimes create conflict but for very reasonable reasons. Often these characters are very focused on what are to them very positive goals and they're not so much thinking about what might be optimal for other party members. It could be devotion to their god, an obsession with ritual, not being very smart, focused on an invention, etc.
What makes it work is that even if there are negative repercussions, the character does not intend them. They just didn't think it through or didn't have the information they needed to understand it would cause harm. This can work even if the player has awareness that it's suboptimal.
If you have a party of people who are smart and careful, that is still fun. If that's how those characters play, conflict is still all around you via poor choices by NPCs and monsters. If you're feeling that your sessions don't have enough going on, you might check in with your DM and feel them out.
I feel like if the game requires you to fail to notice traps or initiate unnecessary fights in order for things to be fun, it's an indication that you have a bad GM.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
They said "conflicts", which they said included encounters, mysteries, puzzles etc. I'm not sure if you picked up on that or thought they meant just violence, but if the former, I can't agree - they're the bread and butter of the game. If players keep booing out of the hooks and fun parts of the game...it's time to have a serious chat about engaging with the game.
Just do it. Have fun. If you're constantly doing it, then it can be annoying, but every now and a again, so long as it makes sense and you're not just prodding the bear to get people into trouble, you should be fine with any party that has a sense of humour.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Well, if your character is actively avoiding puzzles, social interactions, and plot hooks, your character is not an adventurer and you should roll up a new one.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Outsmarting the enemies is more fun than stabbing them.
That said, if the good guys outsmart the enemies all the time, the question is, are the villains idiots? Remember, you - the DM - are playing the villains. Do not play the villains as idiots.
How to DM a villain smarter than yourself:
Steps:
This technique I find works well. Basically, it's like a video game with a difficulty slider and the DM is changing the slider value based on how well the players do.
A character who sometimes makes imperfect or risky choices can add dynamics and create interesting situations, as long as it's not chaos in the game.
Yeah, I personally (as a player) have a character that has super high intelligence but sort of lacks common sense, so he'll just be like "Hey what's up (insert name here)" right in front of that person's mortal enemy, so that leads to some fun encounters. Unfortunately, the encounters often end with us killing all the enemies, and they don't even bother trying to run away, so... realism is already kind of out the door here.
Roll for Initiative: [roll]1d20+7[/roll]
Proud member of the EVIL JEFF CULT! PRAISE JEFF!
Homebrew Races: HERE Homebrew Spells: HERE Homebrew Monsters: HERE
MORE OF ME! (And platypodes/platypi/platypuses) (Extended signature)
It's an odd thing but I have found that players generally play smart which results often in avoiding traps, circumventing fights or finding a workaround for puzzles. This is a natural reaction/approach of a clever group, but by the same token, everyone at the table has an expectation that at some point "something" exciting will happen. So even if they are working to actively avoid "excitement" in a sense, they expect some anyway.
Random Encounter Tables, "no way to avoid it" problems and scripted "This happens now" moments are all good ways to just infuse a game with some energy. I do understand what the OP means, but you also have to keep in mind that players don't always see the game session the same way a DM does.
You might think a session with the players sitting around at a bar chatting for two hours "is a waste of time", but to the players that might be the most fun part about role-playing.
I guess what I'm saying is, before you do anything about it, talk to your players and make sure that your reflection matches there's. I have often been surprised about how much different I see a game compared to how my players see it.
To be honest - it is entirely on the DM. If the DM creates content that the party can always avoid then that is a conscious choice.
If the party has a goal or objective, then there will always be obstacles in the way to achieving that goal. It is not necessary to provide a non-combat solution to every situation nor is it desirable to solve every situation with combat. Since the adventure design is on the DM, then this type of content issue is also on the DM.
However, from the tone of the initial message, I wonder if the issue is not the content provided by the DM but a mismatch of player playstyles. Some folks are naturally cautious, enjoy solving puzzles, finding traps and disarming them, they may not enjoy that Ah-ha moment of surprise when their character is then at risk and could die. Other PLAYERS on the other hand, sometimes don't have the patience for that play style. They want something to happen NOW ... and if there isn't something happening, they sometimes choose to have the character do something reckless to make it happen. Sometimes the player may have a role playing excuse to justify the actions "It is what my character would do" but these can often be pretty thin unless the character has established some specific role playing elements.
Honestly, from a "real" role playing perspective, any adventurer is not going to recklessly risk their life because they are bored since very soon they won't be around to be an adventurer anymore. In most game worlds, adventuring is a dangerous and lucrative profession with high risk and high rewards so if a character wants to live to spend those rewards they won't be stupid or reckless. In addition, no one would willingly choose to adventure with a character that is stupid and reckless and risks killing off the party because "nothing is happening NOW".
So from a role playing perspective, the player who wants to make things happen NOW, usually isn't role playing since the character probably wouldn't really do that if they expected to live very long.
However, in a game where the DM refuses to kill characters or impose consequences for such actions that are logical and fit with the situation in the game world then a "character"/player learns that reckless behaviour is rewarded since no matter what stupid action they choose to take, they somehow live through it. I used to run games where I generally didn't like the idea of killing PCs ... but then one of the players with a chaotic character discovered that somehow they survived even outrageously unlikely actions. The player naturally leaned into it since it fit their play style but it reached the point where I as the DM realized that in future games I had to impose reasonable and logical consequences for in game actions in order to retain even a semblance of role playing verisimilitude in the long run (depending on the player personality).
TL;DR -
1) being cautious is not a block to exciting content - it is up to the DM since they control the world and sometimes events happen that can't be avoided, mitigated or seen in advance.
2) A party with cautious players can play slower since they discuss almost everything and try to look at every option/possibility as they proceed. This playstyle is not something every player likes. Some just REALLY want to roll initiative. It is on the DM to provide the mix of content that will satisfy the different play styles of players in the party - which means mixing things up.
3) A player that chooses to have their character do something careless/reckless just to get something to happen isn't usually role playing, they are mostly just bored or want something exciting to happen. In this case, it is up to the DM to recognize the different playstyles and incorporate content that keeps both groups happy. I'd personally recommend against a player trying to make things happen by taking stupid actions - with many DMs, the odds of the character dying eventually if they do it too often should be significant - in addition, if it happens too often, the other characters are left with the question of WHY would they ever choose to adventure with a character that is going to get killed or get them all killed.
P.S. If the problem is the players actively avoiding content and choosing not to complete goals or quests because they can't find a perfectly safe way to do it then the DM and players need to have an out of character chat about what they are looking for from the game :)
From what I can tell you are talking about your experiences in a Homebrew campaign/adventure, instead of a premade adventure. That's the main problem. Most people who came into D&D only know or mostly know about Homebrew. Homebrew is not necessarily D&D. It's the DM's rules and world and they don't always run parallel to D&D's. In addition, most are unbalance because the implementation is based on the DM's mindset. One of the best adventures I can tell people to go in (including DM's) is B 1-9 In Search of Adventure.
It's the perfect way to learn how to D&D. Both as a player and as a DM. Oops. I digressed.
I think one important aspect is also how "fair" the DM makes the game. I find that in modern games there seems to be an expectation that the world needs to be "fair" like a video game. Make good choices? Get reward. Make bad choices? Get punished.
But life isn't fair, and I think some of the prewritten adventures show that well. In Dungeon if the Mad Mage, you might solve a puzzle and the reward is that you find a cursed item and nothing else. You might explore and clear a large section of the dungeon that is completely devoid of rewards, only deadly traps. Or you complete a quest and as a reward you get betrayed...
Sure, as a trend good choices should maximize the chance of getting a good outcome, but I also think there should be a fair amount of bad outcomes from good choices. If you make 100% good choices, but 25% of them still lead to bad outcomes (as opposed to 75% if you made bad choices) that still leaves lots of "Uh Oh" moments.
Welcome to difficulty levels and prestaged encounters. Realistically the dm should be using a variety of different difficulty levels for traps and puzzles. This helps create encounters as the party will not succeed on all such rolls ( yes they may fail the easy one and make some harder ones and find “ the fifth way out” on the hardest one but that’s ok - each is a reward of a different sort. There should be some things that you just can’t get around and have to go thru - maybe not a lot but at least a few- both combats and roleplay encounters.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.