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

[billd91]

Then don't think of it as giving a limited set of options, think of it as giving him some analysis into the most prominent or obvious options he has. I help players with analysis of their options whenever they ask for it or seem to need it. I sometimes find that their understanding of the situation is substantially different from mine. Analyzing their options, in these situations, often helps clarify things for them.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I lways try to structure my campaigns like a serialized TV show. Playing in them, however, is almost like watching the show on DVD with a director's commentary. I censor things that predict the future and I carefully disguise my motives, but I spend a lot of time talking with players about what their characters are perceiving and what their options are, as well as making suggestions about how they can use the rules. It makes it feel like more of a 'team effort'.

 

[Cor_Malek]

If the player is confused he might not realize he has options or be too intimidated at this point to ask questions at risk of feeling "stupid" being 16 sessions in and not having a grasp on the rules. Some players need a little more friendly coaching in the beginning before it clicks for them.

Throw the player a bone and offer him some choices. For example, "If you cast from there you will provoke a free hit, but if you wanted to you could try to carefully retreat and cast safely next round, take a step back or etc, etc."

I'm with IronWolf on this. It's very possible, that he's not asking for any advice not despite the fact that he doesn't know - but because he doesn't, and feels that he should already.
Long time aside, he's at newbie level - so treat him like a newbie. If there's a question with game mechanics, not tactics - help him out. For example, correct him: "yes, there actually is a spell like that!", but don't say "you should cast detect magic on that rod-like stick before throwing it away, mate". After 2 or 3 AoO, say something like "if you cast spells that close to him, he will do that every round, you know" but not "oh get on that ladder and cast mage armour already!"
My attitude and gameplay is often reactionary to what I can do with group. If I see that the group is used to railroading, I start with railroad adventures with illusion of choice - and work my way up. On the other hand, when I was grouped with players who really preferred rules light (as in total detest to pretty much any mechanics, "roll" being naughty word even during combat), I tried to slowly introduce various checks (but that example is not perfect, they really preferred low-mechanics RP, so I ceded as GM).
So in this case I'd aim for no technical aid whatsoever (as it's big part of ability to play a wizard), but start off giving all help necessary (though to a limit).

Note, that I presume that all he had until now was what he learned himself + some small info beforehand, not in-game help. If you tried it already for enough time, skip above, and go directly to paragraph below.

And if he still fails to learn anything - well not every class is for everyone! I have trouble playing wizards as well - a lot, actually. So my caster of choice is sorcerer, or some character who's casting is only secondary. I suspect that you don't have two wizards, so his lack of abilities hurts not only him - but fellow adventurers as well. Maybe he should just switch classes? I'd trade a bad wizard for competent bard in no time.

 

[Umbran]

So how much do you advice your players and give them hints off-game? Meaning that you're not talking through any NPC, just giving straight advice as a DM or hint to the player, thus influencing what is going on in-game.

I think of it this way: The players are at my table maybe a few hours every other week. The characters are in the world 24/7. The players are people - the characters typically include folks with Intelligence and Wisdom scores at the upper range of human normal - it is possible the characters are smarter than the players.

So, hints on very obvious tactics I'll give ("Dude, I said it was vulnerable to fire, and you've got Fireball!")

Also, *I* am human. I have given the players a description of the situation they're in, but did I do so completely and perfectly? Probably not.

So, if the players get stuck on something that I think should be obvious to a person who is actually in that world all that time, I'll allow a whatever appropriate skill or mental attribute check to get a hint.

In games where the PCs have some resource to spend that affects die rolls or actions (say, Action Points, of Deadlands' Fate Chips), I will usually allow them to spend on getting a hint.

 

[Jhaelen]

It seems to me that he really doesn't care anything related to game-mechanics.

I guess, that's precisely it. I have several players in my game that are what I consider 'casual players'. They don't give one jit about the game's rules, but they're good roleplayers.

They aren't interested in reading the SRD, and I can perfectly understand this - this thing is huge!

They know they can always ask me for advice, and I give it gladly.

Sometimes I'd wish they'd at least manage to remember some of the basics, like: casting a spell in a threatened are provokes an AOO. But I have to remind them about this every session (unless one of the other players reminds them of it).

Note, that I don't give any tactical advice. I'll just point out things that might not be obvious to them, e.g. which squares belong to a threatened area.

I also won't remind them more than once in a given session. If they keep making a mistake, I've already pointed out, they're fair game.

 

[Wednesday Boy]

I just expect him to try to have a solution to the problem, which can be found by asking questions and/or reading rules (which are available to him).

Some people learn much better by being taught rather than by teaching themselves (by reading about it). Maybe a sort of "on the job training" would make the rules stick better than when the player reads the rules themselves.

However, in your case it sounds like this player has chosen the wrong character. You might want to have a talk with him and tell him it sounds like he's having trouble keeping up with his character's abilities. Offer to let him switch characters if he wants. He might do better with a character that doesn't require as much bookkeeping, like a fighter or rogue.

That's what I was thinking too. Perhaps since the player likes spells, they'd have an easier time with a Sorcerer or Warlock.

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.

I see where you're coming from and I would agree if you were giving him strict options on how to act in an encounter or challange. But at least for examples like the AoO while spellcasting example, the options that you would be giving the player (move out of the threatened area, cast defensively, etc.) are actually rules. Whether they're having a difficult time learning the rules, no one should have to come up with them on their own.

 

[Camelot]

Definitely give advice on combat and game mechanics. If a player is new to the game and doesn't understand the rules, how else are they going to learn? Another player would have to explain it to them eventually, so you might as well now.

However, if you're talking about giving plot advice, I wouldn't do that. For example, when you have two tunnels, one that looks dark and has skeletons on the ground and the other that has light up ahead, and the players say they want to go down the dark one, don't start "suggesting" that they go down the other one. In that case, the DM has to plan the adventure ahead of time so that such situations don't arise, and drop hints from NPCs and scenery descriptions. If the players ignore even those, then they get the penalty!

 

[the Jester]

I don't advise the players outside of reminding them of things that their characters know.

A player like you describe would find his pc dying imc. Not out of my wanting to get rid of him, but out of the fact that my monsters fight to win.

Great! Now he can try something simpler!

 

[jbear]

I give new players a 'coaching period'. During that period I give advice and am lenient when they make mistakes. Once they reach a stage where they should know what they are doing then the gloves come off and they are on their own.

I don't share the OPs philosophy on roleplay, and I have never had a mentor to influence my Dming style. I do play and look at D&D as first and foremost a game whose primary goal is enjoyment. If I was to invite my friend to come to the gym to play a game of squash, for his benefit and mine I'm not only going to explain him the rules, I'm also going to explain about tactics and positioning on the court. Otherwise we're both going to have a boring and miserable time that will consist mainly of picking up the ball.

In my mind, D&D is also a game, and should be treated as such. New players should be explained the game, explained some fundamental tactics, and shown down the Path of Imagination whereby they are given creative liscence to go beyond those rules, and tactics and break and bend them with fun and original ideas that they come up with by themselves. Those ideas are no worse for wear from having a solid grounding in the rules/tactics.

 

[Umbran]

I guess, that's precisely it. I have several players in my game that are what I consider 'casual players'. They don't give one jit about the game's rules, but they're good roleplayers.

To me, whether a person is a "casual" gamer depends on their dedication to being there, and how attentive they are to events in the game, not on which aspect of the game they prefer to focus on.

If you know the rules down pat, but are there more for beer, pretzels, and out-of game jokes and conversation, you're still "casual".