D&D General XP Awards for -- what????

[Lanefan]

Sure, things get done when the characters get them done in milestone. Then again, I play with folks who like to play their characters so

If I'm in a game where taking risks can get my character killed, and there's no incentive for taking risks to balance that out, the logic is pretty simple: don't take risks.

Thing is, if nobody takes risks then adventuring quickly comes to a screeching - and very boring - halt.

 

[payn]

If I'm in a game where taking risks can get my character killed, and there's no incentive for taking risks to balance that out, the logic is pretty simple: don't take risks.

Thing is, if nobody takes risks then adventuring quickly comes to a screeching - and very boring - halt.

Well, that is, very specific to your table.

 

[tetrasodium]

It's not a failure to participate, though. Instead, IME it's fully participating as a player and using that participation to make sure the risks, when they arise, aren't shared equally. And often it's little things that add up in the long run: never going first in the marching order, making sure someone else takes on the dangerous BBEG while you (universal "you" here) deal with the less-risky sidekicks, never volunteering to be the first to field-test an unknown item, and so forth - in cases where you would normally be the best character to do that thing.

And it's nigh impossible to call this stuff out in an out-of-game conversation in a manner that doesn't just turn into an argument. Hell knows, I've tried.

There's a difference between passenger characters and passenger players.

I've encountered similar, it's incredibly difficult for the gm to call out that sort of behavior. A section about the importance of risk sharing & coordinating as a group somewhere in the new PHb would be extremely welcome.

Sure sometimes bob is a wallflower, but that only goes so far before bob is a burden on the group that the GM needs to compensate for with tougher encounters.

 

[Vaalingrade]

If I'm in a game where taking risks can get my character killed, and there's no incentive for taking risks to balance that out, the logic is pretty simple: don't take risks.

Thing is, if nobody takes risks then adventuring quickly comes to a screeching - and very boring - halt.

I just don't do the bolded part. Works fine.

 

[iserith]

It's not a failure to participate, though. Instead, IME it's fully participating as a player and using that participation to make sure the risks, when they arise, aren't shared equally. And often it's little things that add up in the long run: never going first in the marching order, making sure someone else takes on the dangerous BBEG while you (universal "you" here) deal with the less-risky sidekicks, never volunteering to be the first to field-test an unknown item, and so forth - in cases where you would normally be the best character to do that thing.

And it's nigh impossible to call this stuff out in an out-of-game conversation in a manner that doesn't just turn into an argument. Hell knows, I've tried.

There's a difference between passenger characters and passenger players.

That's for the players to work out among themselves.

 

[tetrasodium]

That's for the players to work out among themselves.

That's easy to say but the GM is the one who gets blamed if the players are bored & frustrated because most or even all of them are treating everything like tomb of horrors & failing to move forward without the GM directly doing something to force them into breaking out of scry & fry/10 foot pole poking. The GM also shoulders blame for railroading if they take action to force players into moving forwsard. It's a no-win scenario for a GM.

 

[iserith]

That's easy to say but the GM is the one who gets blamed if the players are bored & frustrated because most or even all of them are treating everything like tomb of horrors & failing to move forward without the GM directly doing something to force them into breaking out of scry & fry/10 foot pole poking. The GM also shoulders blame for railroading if they take action to force players into moving forwsard. It's a no-win scenario for a GM.

Sorry, no - the players are the ones at fault here. They have all the power to move forward in this situation and make the game not boring or frustrating (provided it's not boring or frustrating even when the players are moving forward). They need to figure that out among themselves.

 

[tetrasodium]

Sorry, no - the players are the ones at fault here. They have all the power to move forward in this situation and make the game not boring or frustrating (provided it's not boring or frustrating even when the players are moving forward). They need to figure that out among themselves.

The players are absolutely at fault but the GM gets blamed if the game is boring because of excess caution or railroaded.

 

[iserith]

The players are absolutely at fault but the GM gets blamed if the game is boring because of excess caution or railroaded.

Then it's up to the DM to explain to them how they are wrong in that conclusion. They can choose to move forward. If they don't, that's on them.

 

[tetrasodium]

Then it's up to the DM to explain to them how they are wrong in that conclusion. They can choose to move forward. If they don't, that's on them.

The problem there is the one @Lanefan pointed out in #190. That discussion is almost guaranteed to result in an argument & a GM that looks like they are trying to force a player to do something they don't want to. Just explaining why it's a problem is easy for the problem player to ignore & for everyone else to just shrug it off because "Bob sez he's trying" when Bob is really just blowing off the whole thing.