a way to deal with lax players?

[SnowHeart]

...i suggested to the player of the Wizard that he could swap into Warmage, which'd give the same spells, except more uses of them per day. he said he didn't want to, as he likes the flexibility of the Wizard (i don't know...)

Erg! WTF!? It sounds like they're just lazy. Not a lot you can really do about that unless you want to boot them from the table. I guess the fundamental question is: are the others at the table still having fun? I wouldn't scale back what you throw at the party -- keep it appropriate for their level. As long as the other players are still enjoying themselves and aren't getting killed off because of the two players' laziness (or lack of creativity) then it really isn't a problem. If they are bothered by it, then it's a problem, but if they're just having and having a good time... Meh.

Also, if you're trying to take the role of a damage-dealer, then at 6th level sticking mostly with MM and Fireball makes sense. I do NOT understand why he's playing a wizard if he wants to be so focused on blasting (or isn't able to think outside the box a little), but that's his decision. As the party gets to higher levels, tossing tougher mobs at them is going to force them to rethink. The lightning bolt at the ceiling is a step in the right direction, but the cleric should also be thinking of buffs and debuffs and the wizard of summoning, invisibility, etc. Sick some Will-o-Wisps on the party but do it with some advance notice (e.g., "You'll have to travel through this swamp but the old man tells you there are mysterious lights that float through it, luring travelers to their deaths.")

Ah well... It's late. G'night.

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

assuming that you've not read over the jist of the thread, the problem was originally that some players would rely upon one or two spells only, even if there were better fits for the encounter. this normally wouldn't matter, but when it was the party's artillery and main healer, it became problematic.

ie: party encounters a theoretical Monster X, who has Fire Resistence 25, yet 5th level mage lobs fireball after fireball on it, even though a knowledge check would determine that it's really not bothered by magical fire.

No, I got that. I just don't see what the problem is. There's 2 choices... you kill the characters because they're unprepared or you change the encounter so it's not an issue.


The fact that it _is_ an issue for you is what I'm not clear on. So they're not playing their characters as effectively as possible. So what? Let the other players (or their characters) deal with the lousy job that the "artillery" and "main healer" are doing.

From the sounds of it, you're expecting people to do A,B, and C, and a couple of them aren't falling into line. That's what I was talking about.

ie: party is warned against venturing into the forgotten crypt of a deity of disease and poison, so cleric loads up with 'Prayer x 4' on his spell list, instead of 'Remove Disease x2, Prayer x1, Restoration x1, ect'

So, again, this looks like "You're not doing it the way I'm planning for you to do things!". If they know they're going into some place that features disease and rot and don't load up... *shrug* that's their choice.

also, i'm not killing them in retaliation for anything, nor would i. i'd mentioned previously that almost 80% of the character deaths came from the same two players, who, although annoyed, didn't really seem to find it that much of a set-back.

*shrug*

I'll take your word for it. And if most of the deaths are coming from the same two "problem players" _and_ they don't seem to ever be anything more than mildly annoyed about making new characters or dying... I again fail to see the problem.

other members in the group sometimes browse their spell list and make suggestions, which fall on deaf ears, or they're told they should take a level in mage if they're so good at playing it. part of the problem is that magically, i couldn't throw something really interesting at the party, or there might be more deaths, due to the healer not really being a healer (but he's gotten quite a bit better about things lately) and the artillery not really doing much else. i suggested to the player of the Wizard that he could swap into Warmage, which'd give the same spells, except more uses of them per day. he said he didn't want to, as he likes the flexibility of the Wizard (i don't know...)

Ah, now see... here's where it makes more sense. You seem to be particularly annoyed about these two people. Your original post talks about how you pore over splats picking out spells, the title of this thread is "lax players" strongly implying that the players are failing to do their duty in some fashion, and now you've said you can't throw something "really interesting" at the party.

You're way more invested in this than those two players are. Plain and simple.

Me, I refuse to play casters in D&D because they're too much hassle. I mean, I'd be willing to do it, except everyone else at the table is way more invested in how those casters perform than I am.

I think you either need to not be so invested, convince these two players to invest more in your game, or bounce them.

I'd disagree with the whole "lazy" thing. I mean, is this some sort of a job or something? They're not lazy, they're just not as invested as some people think they ought to be. Then again, I'll freely admit that folks take this whole Invisible Barbie thing of rpgs waaaay more seriously than I think it warrants.

 

[Elethiomel]

You're way more invested in this than those two players are. Plain and simple.

Me, I refuse to play casters in D&D because they're too much hassle. I mean, I'd be willing to do it, except everyone else at the table is way more invested in how those casters perform than I am.

I think you either need to not be so invested, convince these two players to invest more in your game, or bounce them.

I'd disagree with the whole "lazy" thing. I mean, is this some sort of a job or something? They're not lazy, they're just not as invested as some people think they ought to be. Then again, I'll freely admit that folks take this whole Invisible Barbie thing of rpgs waaaay more seriously than I think it warrants.

I think it's more an issue of expecting different things from the game. These two players apparently expect to have some quick monster fights, kill things with fire, and go home with the loot. The other players and the GM seem to expect to have challenging encounters that will test their tactical and strategic mettle. It's two very different play styles; not a question of "taking it too seriously" or "not playing characters properly", but simply of differing expectations. Both the OP and you, Scurvy Platypus, show signs of thinking that your way to play the game is the "right way" (I think "folks take this whole Invisible Barbie thing of rpgs waaaay more seriously than I think it warrants" says something about this for your case). There is no right way to play DnD, but it's important to understand the expectations around the game in a particular gaming group. Many playstyles can mesh in a single game without problem, but some have issues with one another, as the OP illustrates.

 

[krupintupple]

i do think that scurvy did cut at the core of the problem - myself and others are perhaps more invested than these two are.

it's only annoying, insofar that some really cool options, such as summoning, dispelling, counterspelling, ect. aren't being used at all. i should probably de-invest myself though; i think that i'll stop letting splatbook material in, as if its not going to be used, there's no point combing through books in order to make for more ways to skin a cat.

however, the cleric is improving, but the mage isn't really. another player pointed out that a warmage would basically get the same staples the mage normally had, except his uses per day would increase dramatically. he's just not seeing it, and we'll have to accept that.

i think another bone of contention could be that if i were to send a challenging magical encounter after the group things could turn out really bad, or one or two of them may well die. i should probably take into consideration that the smarter players mostly avoid death whereas the lazier ones don't seem to care as much. i think i mostly felt it hurt story continuity when they've met their 3rd Aragorn in as many weeks in a seedy tavern.

finally, unattended items don't get the best saves, and with the fireball-happy mage, he's ruined his fair share of items. the rest of the party is really starting to take an issue with this, which is to say nothing of the subtlety of trying to sneak into an area when someone is setting off...the 4th of july at midnight.

 

[aboyd]

You know, you could institute the Raise Dead rule. That rule says that you follow the level loss of a Raise Dead spell even if they don't use it. In other words, if a character dies, and gets raised, they lose a level. If a character retires and the player brings in a new character, they lose a level. No matter what, 1 level is lost for each character swap.

What happens is that even if the player doesn't care, his allies DO. In my own campaign, one player wanted to swap characters just about every game session. But he did it so much he ended up at 3rd level while everyone was just about to hit 6th. He started talking about his next character and everyone shouted, "NO!" At a certain point, a weak character becomes a liability. Peer pressure worked, and he's stuck with his character now for a whopping 4 sessions. He's created five new characters in that time, but they're just sitting around unused. He even managed to go up a level instead of down.

If you're too invested (as I am, as are probably all the DMs posting to En World), spend that time on characters of your own. I've taken to not only creating cool NPC villains that use all the class features that my players ignore, but I've also taken to writing out the villain's first 10 or 20 attacks, so I can have a "roadmap" that leads me through each & every cool thing the enemy can do. I recently used a wizard with the Abrupt Jaunt optional class feature, and I must admit that the players were hellbent on killing the guy after he teleported out of threat range a couple of times.

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

I think it's more an issue of expecting different things from the game. These two players apparently expect to have some quick monster fights, kill things with fire, and go home with the loot. The other players and the GM seem to expect to have challenging encounters that will test their tactical and strategic mettle. It's two very different play styles; not a question of "taking it too seriously" or "not playing characters properly", but simply of differing expectations.

*cough*

Actually, I _did_ say something like that...

It sounds like really it's a mis-match between you and at least a couple of the other players in terms of what you want/expect from the game.

Me, I'm not going to speculate on what it is that krupintupple and the other folks at his table are after in terms of play and running the game. People show up at the table with all kinds of agendas and those get further muddled by all sorts of different things.

I don't think krupintupple (or his other players) take it too seriously, I just happen to think they're more invested in the game in particular ways than the other two people are.

Both the OP and you, Scurvy Platypus, show signs of thinking that your way to play the game is the "right way" (I think "folks take this whole Invisible Barbie thing of rpgs waaaay more seriously than I think it warrants" says something about this for your case). There is no right way to play DnD, but it's important to understand the expectations around the game in a particular gaming group. Many playstyles can mesh in a single game without problem, but some have issues with one another, as the OP illustrates.

Woah there. I'm certainly not going to be out there telling folks that my way is the "right" way... heck no. I'm one of those dirty "casual" guys that a lot of people seem to feel are ruining the hobby and a blight on GMs everywhere. The guy that doesn't feel like reading the background book? Yup, that's me. Forgotten Realms? The only way I'll have anything to do with it is if I'm running my old grey box edition of it. I'm the guy that doesn't remember to add in flanking bonuses and have plenty of fun running a straight by core book fighter, despite everyone on the internet talking for years about how gimped and worthless the Fighter is. I _know_ my way of playing is alien to most folks on the message boards; hell, I don't even consider myself a _gamer_ even though I run/play rpgs. My values are way different than most other gamers I've seen for...over a decade at least.

I think you're misunderstanding what I said...

They're not lazy, they're just not as invested as some people think they ought to be. Then again, I'll freely admit that folks take this whole Invisible Barbie thing of rpgs waaaay more seriously than I think it warrants.

There's two seperate thoughts there. The second one is what you're talking about. It's a personal opinion... rpgs are a way of playing Invisible Barbie. You dress up your Barbie, and then go off and do stuff with it. I watched an awful lot of Barbie play over the years and there's a lot of similarity to what I've seen go on in rpgs.

People taking it way more seriously than it warrants in my opinion? Oh hell yes. Every time you see folks start Edition warring? Every time you see folks fighting about what system is "better"? All those fights (usually not around here) about rpg theory? How about all those people you've run into over the years (or at least that I have) that have difficulty having a conversation without talking about the latest exploits of their character? People nerd-raging because fluff from such-and-such a book conflicts with this other book? Nerd-rage over this or that change that's been made to [whatever]... it's _really_ not hard for me to find people taking stuff way too seriously.

Folks have a right to be invested in something to whatever degree they feel like. It doesn't mean I'm not going to think that some of 'em are taking it too seriously. I'm not going to say they're "wrong" for doing so, I'm just not going to really understand why they've got that much investment in something so intangible when they can say "[this] is the way it works instead..." and instantly resolve whatever problem is going on.

i do think that scurvy did cut at the core of the problem - myself and others are perhaps more invested than these two are.

Hey man, thanks for reading my thoughts and responding. Sometimes on a forum it can be kinda difficult to actually develop a good dialogue...

it's only annoying, insofar that some really cool options, such as summoning, dispelling, counterspelling, ect. aren't being used at all. i should probably de-invest myself though; i think that i'll stop letting splatbook material in, as if its not going to be used, there's no point combing through books in order to make for more ways to skin a cat.

Maybe. On the other hand, if you're looking to spice up your game with some of this stuff... I say go for it, but maybe not full-bore. Set up a bad-guy that relies a bunch on Summoning and issues some smackdown. Have another one that's all about Counterspelling... maybe later the two can work together, with the Counterspeller suppressing PC magic, while the Summoner ships in the pain.

It's been my experience over the years that many players don't go for this or that option because they feel a GM isn't open to it, or is going to cock-block them every time they try something. If you've got something cool that you wish the players would try playing around with, use it yourself in a limited fashion and then let the PCs get in on some of the action.

The trick is to do it in a limited enough fashion that the players can see the cool and how they can utilize it for themselves, without making them feel like you're just steamrollering them with cool stuff they'd never get to use. That's the hard part.

however, the cleric is improving, but the mage isn't really. another player pointed out that a warmage would basically get the same staples the mage normally had, except his uses per day would increase dramatically. he's just not seeing it, and we'll have to accept that.

Some dogs, you'll just never be able to teach new tricks. I've had a few of those over the years and it can be frustrating. It does sound like you/others in your group have managed to catch the Cleric's interest though, so that's groovy. In time, it could be that the player of the mage will see how the Cleric is having (presumably) more fun and less deaths and will become more receptive to suggestions.

I've known more than a few players that dug in their heels and refused to do something different, just because they hated people telling them what to do/how to do it. Kinda that old saw about "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink". The rejoinder to that is often "but you _can_ salt his feed". The Cleric having more fun and less deaths might be the salt that the mage needs in his feed.

i think another bone of contention could be that if i were to send a challenging magical encounter after the group things could turn out really bad, or one or two of them may well die. i should probably take into consideration that the smarter players mostly avoid death whereas the lazier ones don't seem to care as much. i think i mostly felt it hurt story continuity when they've met their 3rd Aragorn in as many weeks in a seedy tavern.

Heh. Yeah, serious potential problem there. There really isn't a good solution to this in my own experience. Everything from in-game rewards to "roleplaying" bonus experience to targetted enemies... it's all like water off a duck's back. At the end of the day, this is just one of those things that seems to need to be sorted out outside the game, as it's too easy for misunderstanding and hurt feelings to occur otherwise. And even then, it can be upsetting for some players to find out that what they're after in a game isn't the same thing as everyone else. I personally don't think there's an easy solution, which is why a lot of groups just kinda suffer (mostly) quietly.

finally, unattended items don't get the best saves, and with the fireball-happy mage, he's ruined his fair share of items. the rest of the party is really starting to take an issue with this, which is to say nothing of the subtlety of trying to sneak into an area when someone is setting off...the 4th of july at midnight.

Seems like the right way to go. If you're feeling a little heavy-handed you could even use this a bit yourself. Have a villain of somesort that's a bit fireball happy and let the party benefit from it (and come across some of the ruined stuff too). Don't make the NPC in question be a caricature of the mage and don't get all preachy either, just let the party get one (or more) over on the fellow because of his tactics. I'd be reeeeeaaalllyyy surprised if some other member of the group didn't point out to the mage how it is they've gotten one over on the villain because of it, as well as how it'd make their lives easier if the mage wasn't doing the same thing.

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

I've taken to not only creating cool NPC villains that use all the class features that my players ignore, but I've also taken to writing out the villain's first 10 or 20 attacks, so I can have a "roadmap" that leads me through each & every cool thing the enemy can do. I recently used a wizard with the Abrupt Jaunt optional class feature, and I must admit that the players were hellbent on killing the guy after he teleported out of threat range a couple of times.

Totally.

If a GM does something that's cool and freely admits how they did it and that the PCs could have done/be doing it, players are frequently going to pick up that ball and run with it.

I pretty royally POed my wife when I had a villain that used some of the party's tactics against the group too, so you'll want to be a bit careful. It was also a teleporter villain, which is why I mention it. Some stuff just seems to bring out the rage on either the GM's part or the player's.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

i suggested to the player of the Wizard that he could swap into Warmage, which'd give the same spells, except more uses of them per day. he said he didn't want to, as he likes the flexibility of the Wizard (i don't know...)

I wouldn't normally suggest this, and I normally despise it when DMs give the players who couldn't optimize to save their lives freebees...but maybe you should offer to let him play a warmage WITH the wizard's spell list. To use anything not on the warmage list, he has to actually prepare it beforehand (occupying those spell slots), but otherwise retains the fallback option of wizard versatility. Except now he's in a class actually designed to do what he does. It's horribly broken and overpowered....if he takes advantage of it. If you're certain he won't, may as well at least entice him to be better at the few things he actually does. Just a thought.