D&D General Saving Players From Themselves

[Malmuria]

Ultraviolet Grasslands has some interesting tables for non-combat xp (as well as for combat xp). But then the game/module (which I have not yet played) also builds out all the areas where you could collect XP. Exploration is very much the whole point of what you would be doing in that game, and there are rules for managing and finding necessary resources as you go (including a whole caravan tracker sheet).

Conflict XP:

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I agree with you, but good luck convincing anyone who doesn’t already use XP as an incentive to do so.

Oh yeah. I wouldnt track XP even if it was considered the most important unchangeable rule of D&D .

 

[Malmuria]

Oh yeah. I wouldnt track XP even if it was considered the most important unchangeable rule of D&D .

what if XP was more in the single digits rather than being in the thousands? I feel like that would make it a lot more manageable for players to track.

 

[niklinna]

I think it's important to recognize a distinction between extrinsic rewards—XP, gold, and the like—and intrinsic rewards—activities that are just fun to do in and of themselves. Players that enjoy doing combats even without XP rewards are likely to continue picking fights, for example.

As for disallowing certain subclasses, feats, races—the DM has to have a say in the game they want to play too! It's just a matter of finding players who agree.

As an aside, this all reminds me of when I played Myth: The Fallen Lords, oh so long ago now. I noticed pretty early on I could win most scenarios with a low number of casualties (I still remember the laid-back way the guy said it too). Anyhow, I decided I was gonna repeat each scenario with zero casualties before I moved on. Took a while to figure out good strategies & tactics for it, but I managed it! Nothing in the game pushed me that way, but I decided that was going to be my goal. Intrinsic reward, again.

 

[ad_hoc]

I don't think having restrictive rules is a 'stick' as it is just defining the game. I always have a rule of 'no evil PCs' which the players all agree to. If they start to edge toward being evil I remind them what they agreed to but there are no penalties in game for it. It's just part of the agreement to play the game. The 'penalty' being that we don't play.

I suppose you could say there are 'carrots' for being good and engaging in the game. I'm likely to just declare success when players come up with an entertaining course of action for something or really engage with an NPC.

So over time that does reward that behaviour.

One overt reward that I have is that sometimes there is treasure in random encounters which encourages the players to engage with them rather than skipping them.

 

[Ovinomancer]

In discussing how challenging the game is or should be and player behavior, @Mordhau shared a couple of links.

Players optimize the fun out of games.


Reading the article and watching the video brought several things together in a weird kind of "aha!" and "well duh!" moment.

The TL;DR version of both is: players will always default to taking the easiest route possible to yield the best possible results, even if that destroys the intent or fun of the game. If the designers want to encourage certain types of play, it's far better to use a carrot rather than a stick.

Now, one problem is the article and video are talking about video game designers and the obvious corollary would be D&D's designers, the folks at WotC. But this is an RPG run by a DM with a lot of control over what is encouraged and discouraged in play at the table. DMs basically are designers of the games they run so I think this applies as much to the DM if not more so.

A perennial problem with this kind of explicit system of encouragement is someone will inevitably come along and complain that rewarding certain behavior is a not-so-subtle punishment for players who choose not to play in certain ways. I think that complaint is ridiculous enough on its face to be easily dismissed out of hand.

I don't see how you can do this, as this is exactly the intent of rewarding wanted behavior and not rewarding unwanted behavior. Let's look at your lists below:

But I also think there's room for some stick. Mostly in the form of banned things like subclasses, feats, races, etc. Some things are just going to break the kind of game the DM wants to run and should be excluded rather than rewarding players who don't pick those things. Like if the DM wants to run an all-human game. Giving human characters an XP boost isn't really sufficient to maintain the cohesion of the game the DM wants to run.

So the point of this thread is to get some more D&D eyes on these articles and to talk about ways DMs can carrot their players into the kinds of behaviors they want to see.

The old saw of "give XP for gold instead of killing monsters" as a means to encourage exploration and discourage murderhobos is an obvious example.

XP for not charging in if you want to promote slower, more cautious play.

De facto punishes players that do want to charge in because they will advance slower than those that follow the incentivized actions.

XP for charging in if you want to promote faster, more aggressive play.

Same, in reverse.

XP for at least trying to parley with monsters to promote not treating every encounter like a fight.

XP for gold spent instead of gold acquired can encourage a more sword & sorcery feel and/or encourage players to not hoard their wealth.

In my West Marches game, characters get XP for exploring but none for killing monsters.

So what about other DMs? What are your favorite carrots to offer players to encourage the type of play you want to see?

ETA: No, this isn't just about using XP as a reward and giving extra XP to encourage certain behaviors. Any rewards. Any carrots.

Rather than go through all of these, I hope the point is made -- if you incentivize a behavior, you are disincentivizing other behaviors. So, no, you can't dismiss this as ridiculous because it's the actual point of explicitly incentivizing specific behaviors.

And, for the point being made, I 100% agree that incentive structures are a big, big, big part of good game design.

 

[Oofta]

Well, first, I've played all the Doom games including the old, old version. I can't stand to play more than an hour or so of the new one. I keep trying to pick it back up, but it's just so one-track-minded on the style of game you're forced to play. What they decided was "most fun way to play" is just boring to me. Kind of contradictory since it's all about being constant run-and-gun, but it's kind of like having ice cream for every meal. Gets old fast.

So I kind of reject the basic premise that there is a "correct" way to play the game. Since I don't believe in people playing the game the way I think they should, I'm not going to try to push people into a certain style.

On the other hand I do accept that I probably influence play style just because of my DM style. It's not through XP (which I kind of despise) or any metagame mechanic but through the game play itself. I try to run fun and dynamic fights while encouraging thinking outside the box a bit, even if I do have to tell people at times that what they're doing isn't possible and instead suggest things they can do along the same lines. Certain styles of game are probably just going to be more successful and rewarding story wise no matter how much I try to be agnostic.

A lot of this is just handled during session 0 or before. I don't want evil PCs, I prefer heroic campaigns so I let people know up front. That and simply ask for and give feedback. It's amazing how often it seems like people want to indirectly affect the player's behavior when really the best way may be just to have a conversation about it.

So I guess that's really my takeaway. Talk to your players openly about what kind of game you want to run and what they want to play. Repeat this every once in a while. Be open to criticism and remember everyone is there to have fun. Don't make the mistake that everyone wants to play exactly the way you find fun and RIP Doom, I hope someday you return to your roots.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

what if XP was more in the single digits rather than being in the thousands? I feel like that would make it a lot more manageable for players to track.

I’m only willing to track xp in games where advancement is more piece by piece, buying traits and such bit by bit.

Also I don’t like having PCs advance differently.

 

[Mordhau]

It's less about there being a 'correct' way to play a game and more about human psychology leading to players putting themselves in positions where they actually have less fun. Or helping them to find where the fun is - finding aways to avoid trading-off strategically or tacically effective vs fun.

"Optimising the fun out of the game" was the initial insight from Sid Meier and I've seen that in various editions of D&D. A lot of optimisation builds are made out building towards one particularly effective way to do something and then spamming it. This actually reduces people's ability to tactically respond to situations.

Another situation would be the classic five minute work day. You go in to the dungeon, go nova, retreat, rest and do it again. Is it effective? Yes. Is it fun? Probably not, beyond the novelty of having successfully discovered and implemented an effective strategy. It's going to quickly get boring.

Now the usual response to the five minute workday is that the DM should not let it happen? Yes. But why not? Because the DM recognises a dysfunctional situation when they see it.

 

[Mordhau]

There are lots of ways you can reward PCs other than XP. In a rpg a lot of these rewards could just be in game. A lot of the solutions typically given to these kinds of situations are usually in game ones (apply time pressure etc). It's just that people always tend to recommend the stick.

The key insight is that the carrot may be better.