How to get the drop on stealthy players?

[Rogerdodger557]

Personally I consider managing to avoid an threatening encounter deserves XPs, but running away without doing anything doesn't.

I agree that avoiding combat should reward xp, but if all they do is avoid combat to the best of their abilities(as the OP is describing) they shouldn't be getting any.


Admittedly, this(the stop of xp) is an extreme reaction, but one that should be considered.

[Shaonir]

Yeah. Most of the time they solve things by making the NPCs fight each other (i.e. by exploiting rivalries, making the authorities show up, leading one monster to another, or redeeming the villain). These strokes of genius aren't really something I can punish by taking away the XP. At the end of the day, they're playing things in a clever way.

And they don't solve EVERYTHING without challenge... but it can often be entire chapters of the story... chapters where I assumed there would be a radical character change due to the nature of the conflict. But then they bypass it with no threat to themselves... and I'm left with the sense that they aren't "arcing" correctly.

I suppose I need to get used to the idea of some characters not growing in anything except their awesomeness.

[Malifice]

Yeah. Most of the time they solve things by making the NPCs fight each other (i.e. by exploiting rivalries, making the authorities show up, leading one monster to another, or redeeming the villain).

That is awesome.

They're interacting with the world as a whole, and resolving conflict with roleplaying and involvement with the world and its people.

This should be encouraged.

You can still throw combat at them though. Its as simple as:

DM: 'As you walk around the corner you spot a [monster of some kind] standing 60' away from you! It snarls at you and charges! Roll intitiative.'

[Unoriginal]

Yeah. Most of the time they solve things by making the NPCs fight each other (i.e. by exploiting rivalries, making the authorities show up, leading one monster to another, or redeeming the villain). These strokes of genius aren't really something I can punish by taking away the XP. At the end of the day, they're playing things in a clever way.

And they don't solve EVERYTHING without challenge... but it can often be entire chapters of the story... chapters where I assumed there would be a radical character change due to the nature of the conflict. But then they bypass it with no threat to themselves... and I'm left with the sense that they aren't "arcing" correctly.

I suppose I need to get used to the idea of some characters not growing in anything except their awesomeness.

Alright, while those are good, even excellent ideas... how is it not a challenge to do that?

Exploiting rivalries isn't easy, most of the time.

Having the authorities show up and fooling them isn't easy, most of the time.

Leading a monster to another and have them fight isn't easy, most of the time.

And redeeming a villain not an easy thing either.

Not to mention, all those things require to pay attention to the plot, the setting's lore, or the bad guys' backstories, which is precisely what you said they weren't doing.

In fact this is very different from what you said the players would do when I asked you.

Combat is not the only kind of challenge... are you making all those schemes of them challenging to pull off?

That is awesome.

They're interacting with the world as a whole, and resolving conflict with roleplaying and involvement with the world and its people.

This should be encouraged.

You can still throw combat at them though. Its as simple as:

DM: 'As you walk around the corner you spot a [monster of some kind] standing 60' away from you! It snarls at you and charges! Roll intitiative.'

This is true, but what OP is saying kinda raise more questions.

[Shaonir]

Alright, while those are good, even excellent ideas... how is it not a challenge to do that?

Exploiting rivalries isn't easy, most of the time.

Having the authorities show up and fooling them isn't easy, most of the time.

Leading a monster to another and have them fight isn't easy, most of the time.

And redeeming a villain not an easy thing either.

Not to mention, all those things require to pay attention to the plot, the setting's lore, or the bad guys' backstories, which is precisely what you said they weren't doing.

In fact this is very different from what you said the players would do when I asked you.

Combat is not the only kind of challenge... are you making all those schemes of them challenging to pull off?




This is true, but what OP is saying kinda raise more questions.

Well, this is what they do AFTER running away and observing the situation for several sessions. And I try to make it challenging, but there's a point where I give up, since the situation was supposed to have been resolved with a 30 second fight a few weeks ago.

And yes, it's clever, it's brilliant, and it should be rewarded. But there is no life-or-death moment. No point at which their life is on the line and all they have is the weapon in their hand to prevent the ruin of all their plans. They slow-plot and slow-roll, and never put themselves in personal danger.

My point is that this limits a traditional character arc. It's like watching a Steven Moffat drama, where the hero works everything out in the first scene and then just snarks from a position of invulnerability for the rest of the episode.

[Vaz]

Yiu need to go more in depth on an example. That you are wanting to encourage a particular kick down the door shoot the bad guy in the face style of play, you need to make it more rewarding for them to do so.

That could include literally hunting the players back to their location. There is always a bugger fish. Locate Object, Geas. Cursed Loot, Enemy Scry and Die, always a bigger fish, extraplanar enemies etc.

What level are this party? And can you give basically a blow by blow account of a recent adventure path what haooened. All I'm getting is vagaries which isn't useful: they're puoling off stunts which seem arbitsrily impossible.

From what you have said, it's you who are rewarding the stealthy play, by not penalizing them, which is cool. But you need to say to the players that you're trying to run a typical adventure but they're not accepting hooks, and that you're going to start introducing vengeful characters who is going to be hunting them down as a result of their actions either because of a desire to beat competition, or a proof of how capable the rivals are, or as revenge for the XYZ they have done.

Failing that, find yourself a new group, if you're not going to be okay with running a style of game this group wants to play, and they don't want to play your game. You are just incompatible.

[OldTrees1]

Well, this is what they do AFTER running away and observing the situation for several sessions. And I try to make it challenging, but there's a point where I give up, since the situation was supposed to have been resolved with a 30 second fight a few weeks ago.

And yes, it's clever, it's brilliant, and it should be rewarded. But there is no life-or-death moment. No point at which their life is on the line and all they have is the weapon in their hand to prevent the ruin of all their plans. They slow-plot and slow-roll, and never put themselves in personal danger.

My point is that this limits a traditional character arc. It's like watching a Steven Moffat drama, where the hero works everything out in the first scene and then just snarks from a position of invulnerability for the rest of the episode.

The evidence continues to mount: The cooperative storytelling that is D&D will result in non "traditional story" structure with this group.

Sit down and find out what kind of game you ALL want to play.

It might be one where they encounter a threat, retreat, to recon, and then figure out how to fight it from a distance or even indirectly. In those games I suggest the threats be living threats. Threats with goals, motivations, and time to take action & reaction.

[Shaonir]

There is always a bugger fish.

I don't think raping my players is the answer.

And can you give basically a blow by blow account of a recent adventure path what haooened.

Er... no... not blow-by-blow. That would kill us both.

But here's a scuffle-by-scuffle. Council of Thieves. I had a player with Pyrotechnics, who used it to escape the Hellknights, then used it again to spring Arael. They ran past everything in the Asmodean Knot and didn't kill Sian. I downtimed the Grave Candle stuff after getting too many party wipes. They ran through Delvehaven and only defeated one of the vampires. I let them kill the others in a cut scene by using the Morrowfall. They sneaked into the Nessian Spiral after missing most of the plot on the surface. They then DIDN'T kill Liebdaga, and so the Pit Fiend demolished part of the city. They didn't depose Madjaw or get the big beetle thingy. Most of the battle of the Maggot Tree happened off-screen (although they DID take on Stiglor, which was my one moment of old-school joy). They then SIDED with the vampires, turned evil, and allowed the Drovenge Twins to win, meaning the last two chapters were essentially roleplay only.

Still a cool game. But just... weird... Their approach kinda works in an adventure like Council of Thieves. But in Runelords and Carrion Crown it was hell.


So yes - lots of enabling here (it's like they're my friends or something...). I think a lot of the published adventures assume players are going to be more Murder Hobo than Evil Genius.

[Beelzebubba]

there's a point where I give up, since the situation was supposed to have been resolved with a 30 second fight a few weeks ago.

Says who? So you're deciding how they should resolve things?

This is a game, not a book. Nothing is *supposed* to happen. You present a situation, and these characters engage with it on their terms.

there is no life-or-death moment. No point at which their life is on the line and all they have is the weapon in their hand to prevent the ruin of all their plans. They slow-plot and slow-roll, and never put themselves in personal danger.

That is *awesome*. It reminds me a lot of our AD&D antics. The game was SO much more dangerous that using that sort of strategy was the only way to survive. (Medusas, Catobeplas, Cockatrices, Rust Monsters, Rot Grubs, etcetera).

We beat the BBEG one campaign by basically stealthing through his conquered area and picking his forces apart. We created misdirection, we lured them into great ambush points, and we never fought fair. Fair was a sucker's bet. We killed the BBEG in his bed chambers by sneaking through his sewage system.

My point is that this limits a traditional character arc. It's like watching a Steven Moffat drama, where the hero works everything out in the first scene and then just snarks from a position of invulnerability for the rest of the episode.

Well, why are you trying to shoehorn them in to a 'traditional' arc like you're the director of some brash Hollywood epic then? That works with players with a LOTR mindset, but these guys are Ocean's 11. (And, God, I wish my current table were more like that. Building those styles of adventures are so fun.)

The more you post, the less sure I am that your problem is about them needing to change. The way they are playing is completely valid. It just needs a certain approach to plotting and designing from your end, and them giving you character goals that you can use to entice them in.

Instead of deciding 'now is the time for a 30 second fight', it's more like presenting them a gameplay puzzle with a bunch of interlocking pieces for them to figure out, with a tempting goal in the middle that makes them engage, and then seeding that with the potential for a lot of '30 second fights'.

It's a bit harder than designing set pieces, but it demands the players give you a bit more of a group purpose or charter. At this point, it may require a bit of retrofitting and negotiation - you obviously need them to give you more about what they really want in order to design. And you need to let go of a certain set of assumptions about how the game 'should' be played.

Are you willing to do that?

[Vaz]

Why do you not have then followed? It sounds like you're actually rewarding the Stealth gameplay too much.

The Pyrotechnics one for example: Verbal Components so that the knights can hear them, and only 60ft range. Just have the knights move towards the sound of it being cast.

Again, this comes down to having a tete a tete with the players ans resolving one of two actions

1. You continue to play the game you currently are doing, and you learn to enjoy the style they are playing
2. You stop DMing for them and find a group that you are more happy to DM for and they find a DM who is more willing to have all of his work ignored.

You are perfectly within your right to say 'look guys, i'm trying my hardest to give you an adventure, but if you're not going after the hook, and run away at the first sign of difficulty, it makes it hard for me to even prepare for a session. And most of all, I'm not having fun.'

It feels like you're not rewarding them enough for still completing the encounter. One of the things I don' t like about 5e is how it comes down to the Dice Roll, and largely character build is pointless.

I asked for a blow by blow, because I feel that there is some mismanagement on the DM side of things if the party is consistently able to foil the plans.

Sneaking into a Knights Castle is all well and good, but then causing a smoke bomb to go off in a military establishment is not particularly clever, rushing out additional armed guards, alarms, and general hullaballoo. If they assassinated a couple of people then that leaves the bodies about. If they just stealth in splinter cell style, well patrols will move through so a previously safe route is no longer safe.

[Shaonir]

Once again... not trying to write Lord of the Rings here.

I'm arguing the point that a "true character moment" - one that catapults a character forward on their emotional development - cannot come from the shadows, or from a place of detached, genius masterminding. The true moment remains, as it has through the history of storytelling, the moment when a character's life is on the line and they have a weapon in their hand and have to make the swing. And I was looking for advice on how to encourage more of those moments.

But it looks like Joseph Campbell has been beaten to death and pinned to the wall of this particular dungeon. *glances around the forum* So I guess we should leave that point alone. Some of you believe that RPG is no place for the Hero's Journey... others might disagree, but they're probably hiding under the tables and whimpering right now.

So... thanks for the advice everyone! Good to see people thinking about this stuff.

*crawls under the table*

[OldTrees1]

Once again... not trying to write Lord of the Rings here.

I'm arguing the point that a "true character moment" - one that catapults a character forward on their emotional development - cannot come from the shadows, or from a place of detached, genius masterminding. The true moment remains, as it has through the history of storytelling, the moment when a character's life is on the line and they have a weapon in their hand and have to make the swing. And I was looking for advice on how to encourage more of those moments.

But it looks like Joseph Campbell has been beaten to death and pinned to the wall of this particular dungeon. *glances around the forum* So I guess we should leave that point alone. Some of you believe that RPG is no place for the Hero's Journey... others might disagree, but they're probably hiding under the tables and whimpering right now.

So... thanks for the advice everyone! Good to see people thinking about this stuff.

*crawls under the table*

*crawls out from under the table*

It is not about if we believe the Hero's Journey does or does not belong in RPGs. Either of those positions is nonsensical because it ignores the people playing the game. Nobody here is saying either of those things.

We are pleading with you to play with your players in a game you can all enjoy rather than be disappointed when they fail to live up to a story structure you unilaterally decided upon. The Players control their characters. Sometimes this means the Players attempt to have a Hero's Journey. Other times they attempt to have an Ocean's 11 approach instead. Yet other times they want to attempt Xanatos Gambits. There are many story structures that belong in RPGs.

You are the cause of your own misery. You are having unfounded expectations about dictating how the PCs will respond. Instead, sit down with the players and find what game you will all enjoy. HINT: IF this group in particular might not play the Hero's Journey, that does not mean other group's won't NOR does it mean that you can't enjoy a game with these players. All it means is adjusting your expectations and the expectations of the group such that they align so you can enjoy the game.

So: Talk to them, listen to them, communicate with them, and accept you are not the only person at the table with story structure preferences.

[Shaonir]

*crawls out from under the table*

It is not about if we believe the Hero's Journey does or does not belong in RPGs. Either of those positions is nonsensical because it ignores the people playing the game. Nobody here is saying either of those things.

We are pleading with you to play with your players in a game you can all enjoy rather than be disappointed when they fail to live up to a story structure you unilaterally decided upon. The Players control their characters. Sometimes this means the Players attempt to have a Hero's Journey. Other times they attempt to have an Ocean's 11 approach instead. Yet other times they want to attempt Xanatos Gambits. There are many story structures that belong in RPGs.

You are the cause of your own misery. You are having unfounded expectations about dictating how the PCs will respond. Instead, sit down with the players and find what game you will all enjoy. HINT: IF this group in particular might not play the Hero's Journey, that does not mean other group's won't NOR does it mean that you can't enjoy a game with these players. All it means is adjusting your expectations and the expectations of the group such that they align so you can enjoy the game.

So: Talk to them, listen to them, communicate with them, and accept you are not the only person at the table with story structure preferences.

*voice from under the table* I'm curious... do you guys make the same arguments when DMs complain about murder hobos, showboaters, over-powered class builds, and rules lawyers?

Does the fault lie with the DM for not providing the correct arena for those players?

Because I have people running off the map; I have people bypassing monsters that I've spent a long time statting; and I have NPCs and story elements that I'm unable to unfold because the party isn't engaging with them.

I feel like a lot of you are going straight for the jugular on me, and mainly because the players are being "clever". I agree they are clever. But I'm looking for ideas to make things easier as a story-planner. Ideas that go beyond flagellating myself for being a terrible, terrible DM.

Because FYI, I was christened Catholic. I've got the self-hating stuff polished.

[Xetheral]

Once again... not trying to write Lord of the Rings here.

I'm arguing the point that a "true character moment" - one that catapults a character forward on their emotional development - cannot come from the shadows, or from a place of detached, genius masterminding. The true moment remains, as it has through the history of storytelling, the moment when a character's life is on the line and they have a weapon in their hand and have to make the swing. And I was looking for advice on how to encourage more of those moments.

But it looks like Joseph Campbell has been beaten to death and pinned to the wall of this particular dungeon. *glances around the forum* So I guess we should leave that point alone. Some of you believe that RPG is no place for the Hero's Journey... others might disagree, but they're probably hiding under the tables and whimpering right now.

So... thanks for the advice everyone! Good to see people thinking about this stuff.

*crawls under the table*

D&D is a fine place for most styles of play, including one focusing on the Hero's Journey. But any style requires player buy-in, and you don't have that. Encouraging more Hero's Journey moments won't work unless and until the players share your desire for them.

Since you and your players differ so much stylistically, you might try arranging an explicit OOC compromise: you'll run a custom sandbox campaign (rather than published adventure paths) more suited to the combat-as-war style your players prefer, and they agree to build multifaceted characters with arcs in mind and deliberate room to grow personality-wise (preferably with multiple divergent potential paths, to leave room for in-game events to determine the final arc).

I'm sure you'll be able to help them build characters out of their comfort-zone. But here are some pointers for you on combining combat-as-war with strong character arcs:

Spoiler: Suggested Techniques

Show

The PCs will be the ones in control of combat odds because they'll fight where they have the advantage (or can take it), and avoid combat where they can't. Character-defining moments will come from the hard decisions about when to fight, rather than in combat itself. Accordingly, make sure the sandbox is complex enough to provide a diversity of such choices. Examples include:

1. multiple sets of simultaneously-vulnerable enemies, but only sufficient time to annihilate one set before the opportunity passes;
2. just-barely-overwhelming opponents that threaten the characters' prosperity;
3. powerful consumable resources (e.g., wealth, magic items, fragile allies, political capital) that can make overwhelming-opponents beatable, but in smaller supply than the number of overwhelming opponents;
4. simultaneous, mutually-exclusive requests for aid from powerful and generous/exploitable allies.

Trying to tie the PCs to specific locations, NPCs, or plotlines goes against the spirit of a combat-as-war game. Instead, give them lucrative opportunities to tie themselves into the game world. This means making portable wealth in (relatively) short supply, but providing plentiful opportunities to obtain fixed sources of wealth. This can be as straightforward as an opportunity to outright purchase a mine at well below market value, or as subtle as a prosperous town with a power vacuum ripe for extortion (even better if the PCs created the power vacuum, or if the town is a source of a unique resource). More abstractly, this can include opportunities to earn the favor/allegiance/obedience of powerful indviduals or political structures. Once they take advantage of one of these opportunities, make sure they reap the benefits they expect and more, to encourage them to tie themselves down further. The advantage to you is that threats (direct, subtle, or oblique) to their sources of wealth and power can lead to character-defining choices. Examples:

1. A dragon too powerful to directly confront opens a new mine that will compete with the PCs' mine. The PCs have to choose between spending resources to overcome this opponent, or accepting the diminuation of their source of wealth. The more effort the PCs put into exploiting the mine, the more gut-wrenching the choice becomes.
2. A young, charismatic cleric in the prosperous town the PCs are extorting starts persuading many of the residents to embark on a religious crusade that the PCs support (or engineered!), forcing them to choose between silencing the cleric (risking a backlash) or accepting the economic collapse of their town. The cleric isn't a combat threat, but the choice of how (and whether) to deal with the situation is critical, forcing the PCs to choose between competing priorities (hopefully with an added moral dimenion).
3. The PC's town is in no direct danger (yet), but marauders have targeted a nearby town. Neither town is strong enough to resist the invaders on its own, forcing the PCs to choose between proactively assisting the nearby town, or risking the possibility of the marauders later turning their attention to the PCs town. (Oblique threats like this are better than direct threats. Too many direct threats reduce the value to the PCs of acquiring fixed sources of wealth.)
4. The King's spymaster, secretly subverted by the PCs, made a mistake and is in danger of being exposed by the King's heir. The PCs now have to choose between wading into the highest levels of politics and intrigue to protect their asset, or leaving the spymaster out to dry. (This is even better if the Spymaster's potential ruin was triggered by the PCs demanding something risky.)

Finally, just make sure that there is a lot happening in the game world at the same time. Three or four significant plotlines occuring simultaneouly inherently create a dynamic world with more opportunities for character-defining choices, even if the PCs elect not to get involved directly with any of them.

[Unoriginal]

Once again... not trying to write Lord of the Rings here.

I'm arguing the point that a "true character moment" - one that catapults a character forward on their emotional development - cannot come from the shadows, or from a place of detached, genius masterminding. The true moment remains, as it has through the history of storytelling, the moment when a character's life is on the line and they have a weapon in their hand and have to make the swing. And I was looking for advice on how to encourage more of those moments.

I'd be curious to hear your arguments about this point, because so far you've not expressed them. At least not clearly.

But it looks like Joseph Campbell has been beaten to death and pinned to the wall of this particular dungeon. *glances around the forum* So I guess we should leave that point alone. Some of you believe that RPG is no place for the Hero's Journey... others might disagree, but they're probably hiding under the tables and whimpering right now.

Shaonir, no offense, but you don't seem to know what Campbell's work and the Hero's Journey are very well.

Look at Star Wars: A New Hope, which is often acknowledged to follow Campbell's theory.

The Hero runs away from the bad guys, hide, disguise himself, has to be rescued, then flee again for the majority of the movie, without ever encountering the main antagonists. Even when he goes on the offensive, it's a "hit the weak point of the superweapon we discovered by ruse and deduction thanks to stolen intell" mission, and his actual job in the mission is to act as a distraction so others can do the hitting. It's only when no one else that he takes the shot, and the closer he come from the main antagonists is that the Second-in-Command aims at him before the Hero's friend hit him and put him out of the fight.

So... thanks for the advice everyone! Good to see people thinking about this stuff.

*crawls under the table*

Look, dude, you told us your problem, we told you how we would handle it, or how you could handle it.


I will concur with OldTrees1 that you're creating your own misery, but not for the same reasons as they're saying: the issue is, as you said, you're *enabling* them to do that kind of capper stuff easily.

It SHOULDN'T be easy. Well, maybe in PF where PCs are ultra-strong, it should, but 5e is not based on the same scale of power.

You could do any or several of those things:

Put your PCs in situations where they're low on ressources and short on time (like, as I've been saying several times, Out of the Abyss or similar).

Have bad guys that change plans.

Have antagonists who know that someone may observe them, and so will take precautions, countermeasures and create false plots or operations as interference.

Have people betray the PCs, lie to them, create false evidences, hire assassins to deal with the PCs, make people believe someone else is responsible.

Have bad guys who refuse to join forces with the PCs.

Have authority figures who are hard to fool.

Have the world react to that group of masterminds who are doing whatever in the shadows.

Have bad guys that need to be beaten in order to accomplish the PCs' goals

Have people try to tempt one PC individually to make them work with different goals than the rest of the group, or target them in particular.

Have other masterminds counter-play what the PCs intend to do because it would ruin their own plans if the PCs get their way.


OR don't do that, and either talk with your players about how you're not having any fun DMing for them, or find other players you will enjoy DMing for.

[Shaonir]

Sorry that I wasted you time, Unoriginal. I hope you can move past this.

[OldTrees1]

*voice from under the table* I'm curious... do you guys make the same arguments when DMs complain about murder hobos, showboaters, over-powered class builds, and rules lawyers?

Does the fault lie with the DM for not providing the correct arena for those players?

1) Talking to each other is a very powerful tool regardless of who is or even whether anyone is at fault.
2) The fault does not always lie with the DM. However the person asking advice of the forum is usually only able to control their own actions (IRL mind control is rare). So the forum will usually give advice for how YOU can help improve the situation regardless of if you are the DM, a Player, a spouse, or even a neighbor 3 doors down that likes to dance the polka.

Because I have people running off the map; I have people bypassing monsters that I've spent a long time statting; and I have NPCs and story elements that I'm unable to unfold because the party isn't engaging with them.

I feel like a lot of you are going straight for the jugular on me, and mainly because the players are being "clever". I agree they are clever. But I'm looking for ideas to make things easier as a story-planner. Ideas that go beyond flagellating myself for being a terrible, terrible DM.

Because FYI, I was christened Catholic. I've got the self-hating stuff polished.

Being a DM is hard. Some of these are issues the Players could be better behaved in. Some of these are you extending the role of the DM into the role of the Players. This is why talking to each other, listening to each other, communicating with each other, and finding a game (if there is one) that you can all enjoy is the go to advice.

We are not going for your jugular. We are trying to help you find out and address the root of this issue through actions you can do. Talking to the other players will help find out why they are playing Ocean 11 when you are expecting a traditional story. Having this conversation will help you find a way for everyone to be on the same page when making the story together (the DM through the world and NPCs and the Players through the PCs).

[Unoriginal]

*voice from under the table* I'm curious... do you guys make the same arguments when DMs complain about murder hobos, showboaters, over-powered class builds, and rules lawyers?

If the advice is "don't play with people you don't like to play with", then yes.

Does the fault lie with the DM for not providing the correct arena for those players?

It's not a question of fault.

You and your players don't like the same kind of play. That's all.

Because I have people running off the map; I have people bypassing monsters that I've spent a long time statting; and I have NPCs and story elements that I'm unable to unfold because the party isn't engaging with them.

That's nice of you, but again, if you don't like that kind of story, nothing will make you like them, and nothing will make your players like what you like.

I feel like a lot of you are going straight for the jugular on me, and mainly because the players are being "clever". I agree they are clever. But I'm looking for ideas to make things easier as a story-planner. Ideas that go beyond flagellating myself for being a terrible, terrible DM.

Because FYI, I was christened Catholic. I've got the self-hating stuff polished.

We've been talking with you for four pages about what you could do, we're not "going straight for the jugular".

and mainly because the players are being "clever".

I think they're less being "clever" and more that they have ideas, so you feel obligated to indulge them.

To explain my point: making the troll guarding the dungeon be taken out by a nearby monster is a good idea, but it doesn't mean that there is a monster capable of taking out that troll nearby, or that the PCs will succeed at the task of convincing/tricking the monster into attacking a troll. In fact, the presence of this troll here would make it far more likely that there *aren't* any troll-killing monsters nearby.


Same way that if PCs rough up a NPC is a public setting (ex, a tavern), fooling the guard sergeant who showed up would not be easy, and fleeing the scene is likely to get the PCs researched by the authority.

Actions are not auto-success, and actions have consequences. A DM should not be afraid of saying "no", or "you fail."

[Shaonir]

1) Talking to each other is a very powerful tool regardless of who is or even whether anyone is at fault.
2) The fault does not always lie with the DM. However the person asking advice of the forum is usually only able to control their own actions (IRL mind control is rare). So the forum will usually give advice for how YOU can help improve the situation regardless of if you are the DM, a Player, a spouse, or even a neighbor 3 doors down that likes to dance the polka.




Being a DM is hard. Some of these are issues the Players could be better behaved in. Some of these are you extending the role of the DM into the role of the Players. This is why talking to each other, listening to each other, communicating with each other, and finding a game (if there is one) that you can all enjoy is the go to advice.

We are not trying to stab you in the jugular. We are not encouraging you to self hate. We see a DM-PC disconnect and how it brought you disappointment but also how you refrained from merely taking control of their characters. Yes we have been focusing on the weak spot in your skill because that is an area to improve, instead of spending time complementing the proficiencies in your skill. This is because solving that one weak spot is the place that makes things easier as a DM.

The weakspot in my skill being a reliance on the Hero's Journey? Just trying to clarify. Cos I concur on that point.

(Even though I apparently don't understand the Hero's Journey, or Star Wars, or Lord of the Rings, or how to DM, or how to read a book, or how to watch a movie, and how to articulate, or construct an Aristotlean thesis statement, or how to deal with the burden of proof).

[Unoriginal]

Sorry that I wasted you time, Unoriginal. I hope you can move past this.

Or you could try to RESPOND to me and my points, rather than unilaterally deciding you've wasted my time.

I'm answering your questions so we can have a dialogue, so it'd be nice if you could try doing the same, even a little. Or at least explain why my advice is useless.

I mean, I've answered your "How to get the drop on stealthy players?" question directly, several times, and you never even acknowledged it.

[Shaonir]

Or you could try to RESPOND to me and my points, rather than unilaterally deciding you've wasted my time.

I'm answering your questions so we can have a dialogue, so it'd be nice if you could try doing the same, even a little. Or at least explain why my advice is useless.

I mean, I've answered your "How to get the drop on stealthy players?" question directly, several times, and you never even acknowledged it.

And you've continually accused me of not explaining myself, which I think I have. I'm sorry I haven't given you a detailed session-by-session account of the exact techniques I employ. I assumed that would be tedious. But from the moment you entered this thread you've seemed to be resentful of everything I say.

No one is forcing you to respond here. If you don't like my answers, you can move on to someone who isn't a lost cause.

If the question has truly been answered, then why are you still here, trying to convince me that I'm scum?

[OldTrees1]

The weakspot in my skill being a reliance on the Hero's Journey? Just trying to clarify. Cos I concur on that point.

Not quite what I meant although it is related.

The weakspot is twofold:
A) The feeling that if the PCs go off script then that is a failing of the game.
B) DM-Player disconnect in what kind of game you all are playing.

The former (A) is a bigger weakness.
The latter (B) is one that you will alway be working on. Every DM can speak to disconnects they have had and how they have worked to identify & resolve those disconnects. Talking is usually the first step.

Honestly I can't narrow down to one theory about why your players are playing action at a distance to your straightforward hero's journey. However each of my theories sees you as coming out with a better campaign after the talk.

Perhaps they are seeing the straightforward path as being more lethal than you intended: In this case both you and the Players want to play your straightforward hero's journey. After the talk you go back to the game and their PCs are more confident and brash about the encounters they face. (like Legolas and Gimli in LotR)

Perhaps they want to be playing a bunch of sneaky ninjas: In this case you craft the hero's journey of the ninjas that don't have time or strength to go through the straightforward way and thus have challenges and obstacles they face in their efforts to sneak to what they need to retrieve. (like Sam and Frodo in LotR)

Perhaps they want to be playing as leaders of a faction vs the enemy faction: In this case the conflicts do become more indirect. The PCs manipulate their social resources to try to create an opening to their objective. In return the enemies try to disrupt those social resources to create openings to hit the PCs where it hurts. The BBEG has a weapon and a hostage, do the PCs disable the weapon or save the hostage? Does it really matter to character development if the action is direct or indirect as long as the PC knows the choice they are making?

(Even though I apparently don't understand the Hero's Journey, or Star Wars, or Lord of the Rings, or how to DM, or how to read a book, or how to watch a movie, and how to articulate, or construct an Aristotlean thesis statement, or how to deal with the burden of proof).

I see no evidence of these criticisms. The closest is that, like all DMs, you have areas you could continue to improve.

[Unoriginal]

[QUOTE=Shaonir;22871059]But from the moment you entered this thread you've seemed to be resentful of everything I say.

Yeah, no. I wouldn't be trying to help otherwise.

If the question has truly been answered, then why are you still here, trying to convince me that I'm scum?

I'm not bloody trying to convince you that you're scum. The only two negative things I've said about you is that you didn't explain your problem well (as it took several pages and many people asking to go to the root of the problem) and that your players were only able to pull the stuff they did because you, as a DM, let them go away with it easily (something you kinda acknowledged).

Now, maybe my answer wasn't clear enough, so I'll repeat it: if you want something that both you and your players may like, try running Out of the Abyss. It's a module that both reward being stealthy, ressourceful, avoiding powerful enemies until you're in a position of strength and do some intrigues while having the PCs interacting with NPCs, learning about the plot, and providing bad guys the PCs can't plan around or avoid, especially if they get the drop on the PCs.

(Even though I apparently don't understand the Hero's Journey

Well, since you bring that up, let me ask you a question:

How would, according to you, a RPG adventure that follow the Hero's Journey go?


Because I kinda doubt you want an adventure that does the "The Call to Adventure-> Refusal of the Call-> Supernatural Aid->Crossing the First Threshold->Belly of the Whale-> The Road of Trials-> The Meeting with the Goddess-> The Woman As Temptress-> Atonement with the Father-> Apotheosis-> The Ultimate Boon-> Refusal of the Return-> The Magic Flight-> Rescue from Without ->The Crossing of the Return Threshold->Master of Two Worlds ->Freedom to Live" structure.

[Shaonir]

Yeah, no. I wouldn't be trying to help otherwise.

You probably would if it helped you get your kicks from belittling people. And now we're both stuck in a forum argument and trying to have the last word. So there's your reason for flogging this dead horse. Let's move on from that point.

How would, according to you, a RPG adventure that follow the Hero's Journey go?

If I answered that, you would pick apart my answer and accuse me of being unclear again. I see the pattern here.

Because I kinda doubt you want an adventure that does the "The Call to Adventure-> Refusal of the Call-> Supernatural Aid->Crossing the First Threshold->Belly of the Whale-> The Road of Trials-> The Meeting with the Goddess-> The Woman As Temptress-> Atonement with the Father-> Apotheosis-> The Ultimate Boon-> Refusal of the Return-> The Magic Flight-> Rescue from Without ->The Crossing of the Return Threshold->Master of Two Worlds ->Freedom to Live" structure.

Then you misunderstand. My complaint is that there is no Belly of the Whale in my adventures. No Atonement or Apotheosis.

Our comprehension of one another is at an impasse.

You will probably want to disagree with me on that. But it would cause a paradox.

[Beelzebubba]

Does the fault lie with the DM for not providing the correct arena for those players?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no...

Because I have people running off the map; I have people bypassing monsters that I've spent a long time statting; and I have NPCs and story elements that I'm unable to unfold because the party isn't engaging with them.

...the problem is, those things may be them being jerks, or it may be you spending time on things the party hasn't signed on for yet. What you've said so far still leaves it ambiguous.

I agree they are clever. But I'm looking for ideas to make things easier as a story-planner. Ideas that go beyond flagellating myself for being a terrible, terrible DM.

Because FYI, I was christened Catholic. I've got the self-hating stuff polished.

Hah! I have a Catholic Mom. We're bros!

To the idea we're hating on you, well, I'm definitely not. I've learned a few hard lessons after running games for a couple of decades, and I'm trying to pass them on.

Proper planning isn't about designing things a long way out, in detail, to cover all contingencies of one story, and getting your characters to engage with it. It's about first learning what the characters want to engage with, creating a rough general plan around that, getting the players to 'bite' on a specific part of it, and ONLY THEN building detailed content, one session at a time.

It's a flip in perspective. It requires the party to actually give the DM a direction, and the DM to understand it.

If your characters are absolutely blank slates that have no predictable motivations, and they're not willing to let you in on them, then yeah, your players being jerks, and this isn't something you can fix. You need to have them literally write 'My character's biggest goal in life is to ____' before you DM another game. If they can't do that, then forget it.

Or, if you want to DM with your style, a strong narrative with a big Hollywood flavor, set up another group. Some tables absolutely need to be led into certain kinds of situations with certain kinds of outcomes, and they'd love it. Just write up your style in a 'Session 0' document and recruit with it.

I hope that makes sense. I spent way too long on this if it doesn't.

[Unoriginal]

You probably would if it helped you get your kicks from belittling people. And now we're both stuck in a forum argument and trying to have the last word. So there's your reason for flogging this dead horse. Let's move on from that point.

Suuuure. Let's do that.

If I answered that, you would pick apart my answer and accuse me of being unclear again. I see the pattern here.

Yeah, no. Now you're accusing me of things for no reason.

Then you misunderstand. My complaint is that there is no Belly of the Whale in my adventures. No Atonement or Apotheosis.

Alright, so you *want* your adventure to follow this structure ?

Our comprehension of one another is at an impasse.

You will probably want to disagree with me on that. But it would cause a paradox.

Do you want help, or not?


Again, you did not even acknowledge my answer to your question:

Now, maybe my answer wasn't clear enough, so I'll repeat it: if you want something that both you and your players may like, try running Out of the Abyss. It's a module that both reward being stealthy, ressourceful, avoiding powerful enemies until you're in a position of strength and do some intrigues while having the PCs interacting with NPCs, learning about the plot, and providing bad guys the PCs can't plan around or avoid, especially if they get the drop on the PCs.

I respectfully ask you to tell me if, yes or no, an adventure like this or similar would fit what you want.

[Shaonir]

Do you want help, or not?

I've reached the end of what you can teach me. But thanks.

I hope that makes sense. I spent way too long on this if it doesn't.

It does, and thanks for the good advice. The answer to this is not berating one another, but having an open dialogue where neither person is on trial for not expressing things correctly.

All in all there are some great tips in this thread, and I am grateful to most of you for helping me reflect on this from a position of zen.

It's like I've been through a little Hero's Journey of my own, and come out a better person.

[Vaz]

What the actual ****

[Thrudd]

Tips for making adventures work better -

It must start at character design. That the characters have reason (and the players understand and accept that reason) to engage in the adventures you envision is essential. You have to demand characters that are appropriate for your game, even if it means restricting your players from choices (and it likely will). You can't have a pacifist character with no combat ability in a game that is going to be all tactical combat battles. You can't have a character that wants nothing but to peacefully farm the land with their family in a game where they are meant to be hunting for treasures in the wilderness. Tell the players what the gist of your campaign is and what sort of things their characters should want to do. It helps if you are using a game system that is tuned for the sort of game you hope to run, so that most character options are, by default, appropriate for whatever you plan on doing.

Ideally, you will also tie game/character advancement to achieving the goals you want the players to achieve. If you want a tight plot with preconceived character/story arcs, then one way to do this is to reward the players only when they hit the beats you want them to hit. This likely means the milestone-levelling option rather than awarding XP.

IE, They gain their first level after accepting the call to adventure following whatever scripted event (the village getting attacked by goblins, etc.) They gain the next level after they have passed a threshold guardian and found the mentor. If they try to bypass any of these events, if they run from the adventure or skirt past the guardian or fail to recognize or try to kill the mentor, no levels. Until they accept the call and go on the path you want them on, they will not get any levels, and you will keep throwing them calls for adventure or threshold guardians until they choose to face it and go where you want them to go, physically and emotionally. Perhaps you will have conceived multiple options for achieving each story/character beat, and the level can be awarded when any one is hit. IMO, this is a bad fit for D&D in general and will likely not go over well, but you can try to pound that square peg into the round hole if you want to (this isn't being a bad DM - it's just a less-than-efficient/more difficult way to use of the game system - this is the root of many people's problems trying to plan stories for D&D). To me, it comes off as the players needing to read your mind to know what they are supposed to do next, and/or be in meta-game mode thinking about the hero's journey or what sort of thing they think you think makes a good story rather than thinking about what their characters would do in the fictional world.

If you are willing to give up the idea of the game needing to hit specific "story beats", the best way to plan adventures for D&D is to present the characters/players with specific, objective (in-world) goals, and award XP or levels for achieving those objectives. The manner in which the objective is achieved should not be restricted other than by the in-world reality of the scenario. The more straightforward the objective is, the better - retrieve the item and bring it back here. Find the guy and stop him from doing something. Rescue the captive and get them back here alive. There should of course be complications and complex situations in between the characters and their objective, but the objective itself is rather simple. You may have a multi-part mission with different objectives or primary and secondary objectives, with different amounts of XP awarded for each one. If the characters sneak past a certain area or fail to follow a clue to a certain NPC, perhaps they miss the opportunity to get some XP from a secondary objective. That's ok, you should anticipate this.

Your story ultimately will be built on the ongoing events in the world around the characters, the motives and activities of NPCs, which are revealed to the players over time. If you want to end the campaign (there's no reason this sort of campaign ever really needs to end if you don't want it to), you can bring plot lines from different missions together into a final climactic objective, and the players can succeed or fail for a final time.

Know your setting, your locales, your NPCs and monsters, so you can improvise events in a reasonable way. Keep track of the passage of time for the same reason. Have an idea what is likely to happen if the characters approach the location immediately or if they spend some extra days scouting. Use tables for possible events that occur over time - if the situation warrants it, there should be possible consequences to delaying just as there are risks to rushing in.


With characters correctly keyed to your campaign, you should avoid the majority of problems with players refusing to engage with your creation on the grounds of "my character wouldn't do that!" Your rebuttal should be "I told you that your character is supposed to want to do that. So either have your character get on-board, or make a different character that does want to do this."

With game-advancement keyed specifically to objectives, you can avoid the case of players just going completely "off map" for the most part. Whether the objective is following your scripted plot and completing certain "scenes", or an actual in-world objective like a quest, players should know what are the parameters for success and failure in your game and can make appropriate game decisions. If success is measured by how many monsters they kill, then they will be looking for ways to kill monsters with as little risk to their characters as possible. If success is measured by progress along the hero's journey, then they will be looking for the stages of the journey. If they go "off-map" in any case, keep offering them opportunity to get back "on map" with prompts, and they should certainly notice when XP is not being awarded as they dally about. Ideally, they will have no reason or inclination to go "off-map", because they are pursuing the things that their characters want, which are the same things your game is about.

View the game not as a complete story that you are telling, but as a series of decision points. The story's progress must change based on the outcome of each decision, and ultimately the players' performance must be the dictator of the story's direction. Successfully meeting objectives, which players are fully aware of and actively pursuing, is the method by which you judge progress and give game awards (levels, treasures, etc.) You ensure they are approaching your decision points by prepping them for the game with appropriate characters and clearly communicating what the game is about.

[Malifice]

Once again... not trying to write Lord of the Rings here.

I'm arguing the point that a "true character moment" - one that catapults a character forward on their emotional development - cannot come from the shadows, or from a place of detached, genius masterminding. The true moment remains, as it has through the history of storytelling, the moment when a character's life is on the line and they have a weapon in their hand and have to make the swing. And I was looking for advice on how to encourage more of those moments.

But it looks like Joseph Campbell has been beaten to death and pinned to the wall of this particular dungeon. *glances around the forum* So I guess we should leave that point alone. Some of you believe that RPG is no place for the Hero's Journey... others might disagree, but they're probably hiding under the tables and whimpering right now.

So... thanks for the advice everyone! Good to see people thinking about this stuff.

*crawls under the table*

Yet when I think of the hero's journey (Luke skywalker) or Lord of the rings, I note the protagonists spent an awful lot of time sneaking around.

Frodo literally snuck all the way into Mordor. Luke skywalker snuck all the way into the detention block of the Death Star. Both protagonists spent the entire story literally evading being chased by Storm troopers or ring wraiths.

Over the course of the entire story of both protagonists (Luke in a new Hope and Frodo over the course of all three books), I think they used their weapons maybe a grand total of twice each.

Luke while escaping the Death Star, and again when he came back to blow it up.

And it's hard to argue that both characters defining moment in their journey had anything to do with swinging a weapon. In fact both characters defining moment had everything to do with not swinging a weapon. It was Frodo's refusal to kill Gollum that was the defining feature of his journey.

It was Luke's refusal to kill Vader that was his.