DM Help: Encouraging players to stay vigilant

[RealMarkP]

So, I'm finding that my players are not experienced enough with playing D&D to be paranoid and mistrustful of everything. They tend to walk into a cave or ruined fortress without making any checks. They are new, so for the first few sessions, I reminded them. But now it's dozens of sessions later, they're level 4, and they still don't know when to make checks.

How can I help my players along to realize this? Should I completely stop queing for checks and let them get burned (life is a good teacher)?

What I've done:
1. I only prompt them for 'checks', not naming which ones.
2. I printed off a consolidated list of skills and what you can do with them, the found this helpful.

 

[Quickleaf]

Believe it or not, ten-foot poling every square isn't human nature, it's learned behavior from certain old modules You might be operating on a different paradigm than your fresh players. Maybe for you D&D is about danger lurking behind the corner and resource management, say, but for them it's about Peter Jackson-style fantasy action adventure. Might be worthwhile chatting to get on the same page? Or try adjusting your adventures to their playstyle and see how you like it?

 

[GreyICE]

So, I'm finding that my players are not experienced enough with playing D&D to be paranoid and mistrustful of everything. They tend to walk into a cave or ruined fortress without making any checks. They are new, so for the first few sessions, I reminded them. But now it's dozens of sessions later, they're level 4, and they still don't know when to make checks.

How can I help my players along to realize this? Should I completely stop queing for checks and let them get burned (life is a good teacher)?

What I've done:
1. I only prompt them for 'checks', not naming which ones.
2. I printed off a consolidated list of skills and what you can do with them, the found this helpful.

Why do you want your players paranoid and mistrustful of everything? Seems like a good way to annoy them, anger them, and drive them away.

I mean what's the end goal? Why do you want them to get burned from trusting the DM?

If you want that atmosphere of creeping paranoia, I'd think you should work on your descriptive skills. Describe skeletons in the corner riddled with arrows, a half-disolved femur in the corner of the room with what looks like acid holes burnt in it, maybe a goblin burnt to a crisp. Make the players realize the dungeon is trapped as all hell. Hell, have someone warn them in town "aye, many have headed that way. Few have returned, bearing tales of floors collapsing beneath their friends feet, spikes that fly out of the walls, and pools of acid that burn the unwary."

Paranoia is a mental disorder, not the natural working condition of the human mind. You have to work to create it (at which point you have a players who are mimicking a group of mentally ill individuals. And then DMs wonder why their beloved NPCs get stabbed by the PCs and the PCs crack jokes about the village that was eaten by orcs).

 

[RealMarkP]

Why do you want your players paranoid and mistrustful of everything? Seems like a good way to annoy them, anger them, and drive them away.

I mean what's the end goal? Why do you want them to get burned from trusting the DM?

If you want that atmosphere of creeping paranoia, I'd think you should work on your descriptive skills. Describe skeletons in the corner riddled with arrows, a half-disolved femur in the corner of the room with what looks like acid holes burnt in it, maybe a goblin burnt to a crisp. Make the players realize the dungeon is trapped as all hell. Hell, have someone warn them in town "aye, many have headed that way. Few have returned, bearing tales of floors collapsing beneath their friends feet, spikes that fly out of the walls, and pools of acid that burn the unwary."

Paranoia is a mental disorder, not the natural working condition of the human mind.

Perhaps paranoia was a bad word. But I do want them to be vigilant enough to know that if there is a charred body in the corner, that there is a fire hazard around or if they hear something, that they should be aware that it may be danger, and take precautions. In this contrived case, they would happily charge ahead, stepping on the trap trigger and being blasted to bits. I also don't want them to search and tap every tile to make sure things are ok.

I try to be as descriptive as possible, pointing out charred walls, misaligned floor tiles, blood splatters, and so on. I put in a considerable effort into immersion.

 

[Kinak]

Honestly, I'm not sure it's a problem. If they're having fun and you're having fun, rock on. There's no reason they have to be paranoid all the time.

The point where you need to step in is when they start asking why they didn't notice things. If the bugbears jump out and the players are like "I should have seen them!" then you'll need to have a conversation.

I might be strange in this regard, but I feel like checks get in the way of real paranoia anyway. When I've got my players freaked out, they're asking questions and engaging with objects in the world, not saying "I make a perception check."

So here's my philosophy: Let them do what they want. If they say something vague like "I keep an eye out" respond with what type of check that is, even if nothing is about to jump them. If they say something specific like "I check under the bed" then let them know what's under the bed.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[frankthedm]

Problem is the recent D&D systems give XP to buffoons who stumble into traps. That creates a "why bother" attitude since no effort is needed to achieve the XP.

Traps that make the player miss out on combats may be better than lethal traps. After a lethal trap, the player gets to fill out a new sheet and B & Moan about arbitrary lethallity, but sitting out for an hour trapped in a wall while a combat is resolved will be far more motivating to avoid the same situation in the future.

 

[GreyICE]

Perhaps paranoia was a bad word. But I do want them to be vigilant enough to know that if there is a charred body in the corner, that there is a fire hazard around or if they hear something, that they should be aware that it may be danger, and take precautions. In this contrived case, they would happily charge ahead, stepping on the trap trigger and being blasted to bits. I also don't want them to search and tap every tile to make sure things are ok.

I try to be as descriptive as possible, pointing out charred walls, misaligned floor tiles, blood splatters, and so on. I put in a considerable effort into immersion.

My suggestion, then, is to make traps either part of combat encounters or preludes to combat encounters. At the end of the day, traps minus encounters are kinda bland, they cost you surges (or in 3E, wand charges). If the trap starts off the encounter or is part of the encounter, then the grid can be out, and people always pay more attention when the grid is out.

Fire trap that does 20 damage: "Meh that's two surges/3 CLW charges."

Fire trap that alerts a group of nearby orcs that there's enemies in the room and they charge in: "Oh hell the rogue is at half health and they get a surprise round!"

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

So, I'm finding that my players are not experienced enough with playing D&D to be paranoid and mistrustful of everything. They tend to walk into a cave or ruined fortress without making any checks. They are new, so for the first few sessions, I reminded them. But now it's dozens of sessions later, they're level 4, and they still don't know when to make checks.

How can I help my players along to realize this? Should I completely stop queing for checks and let them get burned (life is a good teacher)?

What I've done:
1. I only prompt them for 'checks', not naming which ones.
2. I printed off a consolidated list of skills and what you can do with them, the found this helpful.

This is good. Overly cautious PCs leads to boring play.

Perception (or whatever) checks should be automatic. They can still spot hidden threats. Sometimes. There's a reason NPCs get surprise, Stealth checks or whatever in any game system.

I read a webcomic a year or two ago, where a character kept saying "I disbelieve the walls, the floor, the doors..." driving the DM and the other players insane. (Said player was specifically old school.)

New game design has traps as part of an encounter rather than traps being the encounter. Old school traps often existed simply to drain hit points and/or spells (usually healing spells) from parties that were insufficiently cautious. That gets boring fast.

Paranoia takes time. Even people who have real good reasons to be paranoid (mob bosses, dictators) get tired of it every once in a while, and unlike adventuring PCs they don't get do-overs. Perhaps just have the players develop a "standard entryway checklist" - I think SWAT teams do this kind of thing, when they check every room and should "Clear!" when they've discerned no threats in it.

 

[Randomthoughts]

How can I help my players along to realize this? Should I completely stop queing for checks and let them get burned (life is a good teacher)?

What I've done:
1. I only prompt them for 'checks', not naming which ones.
2. I printed off a consolidated list of skills and what you can do with them, the found this helpful.

I see this, first and foremost, as a mismatch of GM vs playing styles. So, I'm not going to try to persuade you to change (since the other posters have reflected my personal preferences).

Expecting players to follow-up on your verbal clues (in essence, pay attention to what you are saying) isn't asking to much IME. But I know some players just play to relax, have fun and socialize. Paying too much attention might seem like work to them.

Anyway, if you want the kind of gritty feel you seem to be looking for, you will have to eventually spring the trap, with consequences. But I'd try a few things first:

1. Make really sure your descriptions match the severity of the consequence. IOW, big trap warrants big clues.

2. Similarly, start with small consequences then work up. They don't pay attention, a flash bang goes off and 1-2 of them are blinded for a turn while enemies ambush them. Later on, they could be stunned, take damage or worse.

BTW, the "scale" of consequence depends a lot on the edition you are running. I know for 4e, a typical, same-encounter level trap won't kill a PC and I have no reluctance to spring one say if they fail a roll. Earlier editions might (as I try to remember my days with 1e and 2e...).

3. Model the behavior you want them to perform through a NPC, like a scout or paranoid thief-companion. Describe how that NPC behaves, like checking for triggers or tell tale clues.

4. Illustrate the severe consequences of not being vigilant on a NPC or two. Like, have a few retainers wandering off the beaten path (wearing the requisite red tunics ) blown to smithereens for failing to check something. At least the PCs are "on notice" that something really bad may happen.

There are two main scenerios where PC vigilance often comes up: (1) travel (the cliched "marching order") and (2) camping (while resting). I try to get their routine down (e.g., who is travelling in front, what is the watch schedule?) to save time. So, when I throw things that are "out of their norm", like hearing a clanging noise while camping, they usually know there is something to look for.

Good luck!

 

[RealMarkP]

My suggestion, then, is to make traps either part of combat encounters or preludes to combat encounters.

This is a great idea. I'm going to incorporate this into the next dungeon. Currently running 'The Forge of Fury' with a slight alteration. Fits well.

[...] if you want the kind of gritty feel you seem to be looking for, you will have to eventually spring the trap, with consequences. But I'd try a few things first [...]

I've been thinking about this. What I might do, is slowly start springing traps or consequences after providing enough description to warrant the trap/consequence. I get the feeling that my group of players might learn better from experience than from cues.

Perception (or whatever) checks should be automatic. They can still spot hidden threats. Sometimes. There's a reason NPCs get surprise, Stealth checks or whatever in any game system.

I do this already. I say "I'm assuming you're taking 10 on this XYZ check while doing ABC. What's the total?". At which they choose either to roll a proper check or go with a 10 (+bonuses).

Asking for checks once in a while, is fine. I find it annoying to ask for checks all the time or mention that a Hide/Move Silently check can give you a surprise round on your foe.