D&D 5E Encouraging Independent Thought

[crashtestdummy]

One game system we've played in the part included experience points for ideas. This actively encouraged the players to get involved and present ideas because they received experience points as a consequence. It means a little bit of bookkeeping for the DM as they have to make a note of who is making ideas, and also to rate them (useless or silly ideas don't get experience points -- the ideas that helped resolve situations got the most experience points), but once players see the people getting the most involved getting the most experience, it gives them an incentive to also participate.

In that particular system, after calculating experience from other sources (eg. defeating monsters), there was an additional pool of experience equal to 50% of the total that was allocated for idea points. That is probably too large for DnD, but even a 20% pool should encourage players to get involved with the planning and discussion phases.

 

[ExploderWizard]

In my experience you can't make people be more invested and engaged with the game than they are willing to be. Some players are happy to just go along with the group decisions and do their part to overcome challenges. Thats it for them, no thinking about campaign stuff away from the game and just showing up to throw some dice and have fun. There isn't anything really wrong with that if the player is enjoying the game.

I can feel for DMs who have a whole group of super casual players. If all the other players are happy being laid back and letting the one player do all the thinking and planning then so be it. All you can do as the DM is make sure the other players have the opportunity to have their voices and opinions heard. You can't force them to do so.

One thing you can do is make sure you get input from every player in important situations. Address each player individually and ask " what are you doing right now?" This gives every player a chance to have an impact on the situation as it develops. You can make a point of asking the dominant caller player last so that each player gets an opportunity to have input prior to the lead character suggesting a course of action that everyone just follows.

 

[Jediking]

(At this point my eyebrows have raised up and around and over my knees.)

Where the hell are your eyebrows located??

 

[Wednesday Boy]

One idea that might get the group to participate more is by giving the quieter ones leadership roles and the talkative ones rank-and-file roles. Sometimes giving the quieter players authority helps involve them more. It will require buy-in from the players. If the quiet ones don't want to be a leader, forcing them into the role isn't a good idea. And if the talkative ones won't let others play the leaders, the idea will flop.

What I suggest players do is to listen to an idea, accept it, and add your own own idea on top of that to make it better in a way that doesn't negate the original idea. This way everyone gets to add their piece and nobody feels like their idea was dismissed. This is just "yes, and..." improvisation and it works very well in RPGs in my experience.

That's a fantastic suggestion. Our group doesn't have an issue with in-fighting but sometimes the pacing stagnates because we try to come up with different ways (and ultimately using the best way) to deal with a situation. "Yes, and-ing" the original idea sounds like a great way to collaborate together and keep the game moving. I'm going to try that with my group next time we play.

Out of curiosity, what does your group do if the original idea is very hairbrained or dangerous? Do you still "yes, and" it or do you scrap some of the stinkers.

 

[famousringo]

I'm not sure.

What would you do to encourage independent thought?

 

[Proto]

Out of curiosity, what does your group do if the original idea is very hairbrained or dangerous? Do you still "yes, and" it or do you scrap some of the stinkers.

Depending on the level of ridiculousness I tend to let it slide and work with it. Last game I lead I let them break the economy of a city using fool's gold but we never made it to the repercussions of their actions before real world traveling broke the group. I'm hoping to utilize this more since I do like it when they throw ridiculous curve balls and get me thinking in different creative ways.

Some of them aren't as creative as others so I'll try and vary giving them the lead on things. I was thinking maybe for the quiet ones I'll just get them to tell me how their characters are physically reacting to things, like body language and facial expressions. Stuff like that would be easy for NPCs to pick up and comment on.

 

[iserith]

That's a fantastic suggestion. Our group doesn't have an issue with in-fighting but sometimes the pacing stagnates because we try to come up with different ways (and ultimately using the best way) to deal with a situation. "Yes, and-ing" the original idea sounds like a great way to collaborate together and keep the game moving. I'm going to try that with my group next time we play.

Thanks. Sometimes you'll find players that, for whatever reason, relish this form of debate. I hate it personally and view it as a stalling tactic and way of playing it safe because no actual decisions or actions are being taken. Instead, they get bogged down in questioning each other's courses of actions based on hypothetical concerns that may never arise.

I'm okay with players demonstrating their characters think different about a situation via social interaction, but only so long as I know ultimately it will be resolved in the "Yes, and..." fashion and move forward relatively quickly.

Out of curiosity, what does your group do if the original idea is very hairbrained or dangerous? Do you still "yes, and" it or do you scrap some of the stinkers.

This tends not to be an issue because nobody wants to make an offer that is not in good faith. If a hair-brained or dangerous idea is proffered, the "and" part of "yes, and..." tends to mitigate the danger somewhat while keeping the original idea intact. Though, of course, sometimes the hair-brained or dangerous idea is also awesome as flumph in which case, they just roll with it!

 

[Rhenny]

I try to get the players used to taking turns even out of combat so that they all can add to the story and help decide the direction of the story. This helps the less charismatic or boisterous ones get a chance to add in and it limits the contributions that the more outgoing players get.

Here are some other things I do (or at least I try to do when I run a game...many of my games are with people who I have known for a while):

I make it clear to all the players that they are each playing their own character and they have the ability to do whatever they feel will make it fun for themselves and others.

I encourage them to think in character as much as possible, and act freely and naturally without fear that they will do the "wrong" thing. Too often, players who fear making mistakes or not playing optimally will agonize over their decisions and often feel badly if something goes wrong. I try to get them to understand that when things go wrong, it adds to the fun as long as each decision made is a decision made in good faith knowing the character and the overall goal to have fun. I play monsters the same way. Sometimes they do interesting things that seem logical even if they are not optimal.

I let them discuss tactics in a reasonable way, but in the heat of battle, I cut short too much tactical talk. In game, when they are out of combat they can plan. In combat, they execute/act.

 

[pming]

Hiya!
[MENTION=6854554]Proto[/MENTION], I hate to suggest this...as some groups degenerate instantly...but...when something comes up "what would your character do?" type of scenario; take that player out of the room and into another.

I think what is happening is that the other players have gotten used to the dominating girl as "unless I strongly object, lets do what she wants". Or, sort of a "learned behaviour" type thing. If the dominating player type isn't at the table, then each player doesn't have that 'crutch' to fall back on and they have to make their own choices and live with their own consequences. Once each player grows a backbone, so to speak, you can do it less and less to the point of where my group and I are at. My players do what they think their character would do...even upto the point of dileberately putting another character's life in danger (if it is in-character to do so...doesn't happen very often, but it does happen). If, after a few of these little "incidents", neither character is dead, one of the players will introduce a new character and the old one that "didn't get along with X" leaves. Because, well, that's what would happen in real life. If you don't kill someone you hate at work, you or he/she usually end up leaving or getting fired. Adventuring groups tend to be surprisingly similar in psychological make up...hmmmm....there's a study in there somewhere! "Hey, government? Give me a grant to study RPG'er psychology for a few years!"...

As for how to get the players to actually think from the perspective of their characters... that's a bit more tricky. Some people just don't really like that part of the game...others love it. When you have someone who loves it and someone who could give a wererats rump about it sit down and play together. Well, sparks fly for a bit, then it evens out and both sides compromise.

That said, I am running a Masterbook RPG campaign right now called Zombocalypse!. Yeah, zombie-survival. It is, basically, a reworked "State of Decay: Year One Survival Edition" video game, but put to paper. One of the things I like about SoD is that it has a "Community Morale" meter that goes up and down based on your actions and what psychological make up each character has. A "Total Lush" (re: drunkard) will frequently get into shouting matches with someone who is "A Team Player". Someone who is "Kind Hearted" will not like someone who is a "Psychopath". To that end I made each player choose two "core psychological traits"; one 'good', one 'bad'. I implemented a "Colour" (a basic 'alignment' type thing) for each PC/NPC. The farther away your colour is from another, the more an adjustment to Difficulty Number's would be. The same colour and you get a bonus. They typical "Roy G Biv" colour scheme everyone learned in kindergarten is used (Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo and Violet). Each difference is a 2 point mod, so a maximum of -6.

Ahem. I digress. The point is that I'm giving in-game mechanical adjustments based on character traits. This could be done in a slightly more loose form for 5e. You could give bonus XP (for role-playing) as an added incentive. In this way, each player has two 'traits' to latch on to when role-playing. I THINK this was the general intent of the whole "Background" thing...but I was surprised there wasn't more "mechanical meat" to it as an option in the DMG. As a purely RP choice thing, it's perfect. No requirements, no advantages or penalties other than the almost-never-used "Inspiration Dice" mechanic (I'm still not sure how to use that in my 5e games...).

Anyway, long in the tooth post here, sorry. Another option is to take a serious look into Precis Intermedia Games "Plot Development Cards" ( http://www.pigames.net/store/product_info.php?products_id=809 ). They focus on story/plot, not characters per se, but they have a lot of very character-based results. Like "A family member appears. (INSPIRATION; Who is the family member? Whose family? Why is he here?)", or "Someone is stalking a character. (INSPIRATION; the stalker could be a person, animal, spirit, or not really there. Why is the stalker doing this? Does the victim know about the stalking?)" These cards pretty much lead directly into player character 'psyche' as the GM and Player collectively work out the details in an organic, free-flowing type of way. We love these cards...hell, we love the regular "Drama Deck" cards for use in Masterbook (same web site...at top, under Catalog, look for Masterbook). Those are a LOT of fun and really add to the game, IMHO. I'm stunned why this didn't catch on when they were first introduced back in TORG days (iirc). When a player 'plays' a Plot Dev card, they get a Life Point (think of it as a "Hero Point"...not a 'hit point'...as in "This Point can save your Life")/

Sorry again for the rambling. Key: Players need to be weened from relying on dominant players (player), psychological traits should be written down for character, mechanical incentive to RP those traits.