DM's: How much do you help out your players in offgame?

[khantroll]

I don't help the players outside of NPCs. If they want to use a fireball in the middle of five foot hallway it isn't my problem.

That being said, I don't have to worry about it most of the time. I have one new player, and while I can't seem to get the magic system through his head, he quite adapt at playing rogues and fighters. I'm not sure whether it is ability or luck, though.

If I had a player like anest1s describes, though, I might be a little more lenient. I have had at least one player quit our group because regardless of what we play, we play it fast and hard and she just couldn't catch on. Everyone else in the group, even the new guy mentioned above, works in electronic product development. We make living making snap decisions based on specifications we've read and remember. On the other hand, she's a cashier at a casino who doesn't read much beyond Harry Potter.

Some people just don't catch on as quickly as others. In my experience, when it comes to RPGs a lot of has to do with background and interest. If they enjoy the game though, they'll get it eventually regardless of how hard/easy you are on them.

 

[Beginning of the End]

Where are the other players in all this? Why aren't they offering their own expertise to help this guy out?

(Wait. Let me guess. You've got some table rule about players not controlling another player's PC and you've taken it to an extreme.)

My two cents: There's a difference between saying, "Hey. Bill. Your tank's almost empty, you need to buy some gas." And stealing Bill's car.

You should be able to make suggestions and offer advice without taking away the player's control over their character.

A couple more thoughts:

(1) When I GM, I rarely give advice or even participate in table discussions regarding proposed courses of action. But I will clarify if it appears that the players have become unjustifiably confused about something (communicating an entire world through the spoken word can create problems that would not be experienced by the characters); and I will occasionally offer specific input regarding the best way, from a mechanical standpoint, that the player can achieve their goal.

I tend to use a light touch in this regard, but I can largely get away with that because there are other players are the table who have mastered the rules and will freely offer their advice.

(2) These reservations on my part go out the window if it's a new player who's still struggling with the rules. I frankly consider it anti-social to invite someone to play a game and then refuse to explain the rules to them. I wouldn't even do that in a competitive game like Chess or Monopoly; doing it in a cooperative game like D&D is just mean.

(3) The SRD is a great reference tool. It's a terrible way to learn the rules. It lacks the examples and tutorials and supporting verbiage that make the material accessible. It can also be a non-starter for people who don't like reading online.

If you want this guy to become a better player, I'd recommend:

(a) Become willing to tutor him. Don't take control of his character; but be willing to offer him advice on how best to achieve his stated intention.

(b) Get him a copy of the PHB or a starter set so that he will have a more approachable manual to read through.

(c) Allow other players at the table to help him; perhaps even encourage them to do so. (But don't let them take control of his character, either.)

(d) Consider the "wizard" might not be the best class for him.

 

[Beginning of the End]

Double post.

 

[Dausuul]

I don't really have hard-and-fast rules on when I give advice as a DM and when I don't.

If a player is a newbie or generally not rules-savvy (some people just don't have the "tactics gene"), I'll point out likely negative consequences of their actions, and may suggest options they seem to be overlooking. With veteran players, I mostly let them take care of themselves, but I always clarify if players have a misunderstanding about something in the game world that their characters would know. I give more advice in complex situations and when a PC's life is at stake. In all cases, I pay attention and ratchet back my level of advice-giving if it seems to be annoying the recipient, or notch it up if they seem lost and none of the other players is helping out.

Of course, my advice is limited to what's within the scope of the PCs' knowledge. I may warn them when they're about to provoke opportunity attacks from the raging orc barbarian--but not when they're going to provoke from the invisible rogue that no one has yet detected.

 

[Lanefan]

Some fine advice here, but there needs to be a caveat: a time limit.

Tell this player (out of game) that for the rest of the current adventure you and the other players will offer advice, ideas, etc. on how best to run his character. Not run it for him, but give advice while at all times leaving final decisions up to him.

Also tell him that if he hasn't learned what he's doing by the current adventure's end his characters are gonna get slaughtered in the next one as he'll be on his own; and he'd better have a cadre of spare characters ready...

Then ring up the gravesmen's union and put 'em on standby.

Lanefan

 

[Jon_Dahl]

Where are the other players in all this? Why aren't they offering their own expertise to help this guy out?

(Wait. Let me guess. You've got some table rule about players not controlling another player's PC and you've taken it to an extreme.)

.

Good guess but I'm afraid it's wrong. I let sort of anarchy to reign among my players. They can advice each other all they want. Usually only thing that makes me use my authority is talking while fighting. I don't like it when the supposed-to-be-fast combat degenerates quickly into a "let us all talk about this orc waving an axe!" And I'm not exaggarating. This is the only thing, otherwise I let them play as they please. If I see them metagaming too much, I may give them smaller amount of XP for good roleplaying. But this amount is so miniscule anyhow that they never notice the difference or even know that there is such a thing.

 

[S'mon]

I'll definitely give advice on how a PC's abilities work, though with 4e I'm usually pretty ignorant unless it's Fighters (as I've played Fighters) as I find the books really hard to read/absorb.

If the players are stuck in-game I'm happy to suggest 2-3 possible reasonable courses of action that should be obvious to the PCs.

 

[Redcrow]

I will advise my players if their chosen course of action will have consequences they may not realize but their characters would reasonably know. If a player is unable to find a spell, item, weapon, etc. in the book I will also point them in the right direction if I myself happen to know where to look.

If a player is still struggling to get a handle on their character after several sessions then I would make some out-of-game suggestions to the player starting with the possibility they might enjoy playing a character that is easier to manage. If they insist on continuing to play their current character then I might suggest some things they can do to better manage that character such as making some easy reference notes/cards.

Casual players don't always do so well in crunch-heavy games. Some can handle it and others not so much.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Depends on a few factors.

If the players is new to the game, I'll often provide some insight as to what they have in terms of options, and what actually using those options may mean outside of the immediate effect.

If I've placed a super trap or puzzle that's too hard, I'd rather handwave it away than kill the momentum of a game night. Fewer things more frustrating than sitting at the table because the GM designed a trap that requires a wizard/arcane user to overcome and there's no arcane user in the party that night.

 

[Hussar]

I'm going to be honest with you Ironwolf and tell you that I consider giving options the absolute abomination of roleplaying and it reminds me of computer games. The way I was "brought" up to roleplaying, the #1 rule is that the entire game is lost if you are giving options like 1, 2 and 3. If our game would "degenerate" (just IMO because of my strong brainwashing by my mentor-DM!) to that level, it would be better to change DM.

I know that I'm not right. But I also do know that I should study harder in life, exercise more, eat vegetables every day and donate blood, but I don't. There is just some things that are beyond our character and world-view. And giving options like in a PC-games is too much for me to stomach.

I would suggest that you reign in your distaste for a while and help this guy out.

Outlining the most obvious choices is not presenting a menu, it's describing the situation. I mean, that's just life, not video games.

You're about to be hit by a truck, what do you do?

ummmmmmmmmm

Well, you could stand there like a deer in the headlights, you could try moving, you could try jumping over the truck... is there anything else you can think of?

Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Rather than let this poor schmuck flail wildly, totally overwhelmed by the idea that he has infinite choices, why not lay out the situation for him, at least a few times?