D&D 5E What do you do when your players are gunshy?

[Tymophil]

Ok so we have had a problem in my Tuesday night game for almost 5 years now.

We start a game/campaign strong. We have some great adventures, then at some random point the players just stop adventuring.

May I suggest that you add some new ingredients to their experience of adventuring?

Different goals: Maybe, for once, they to need to overcome an opposition, but rather…

• … gather information to decide wisely on a difficult matter.
• … avoid being killed… Somebody tries to kill them on a regular basis, and they need to find out why.

Different kind of challenges:

• Riddles to solve.
• Crime scenes to investigate.
• Prophecies to decipher.
• Messages to decode.
• Perilous places, but without any monster: traps, hazards, underwater passages, cliffs, etc.

Different evolution during the campaign:

• They get a hero status very early in the campaign and, later their actions get seen in a very different light because somebody convinces the people that they did it all wrong. That's when they need to rebuild their reputation.
• While they progress in their campaign, politics change and all they did so far was, in fact counter-productive. For example, they may have battled for the right heir to the throne, only to discover that he's a tyrant…

Different ways to evaluate the players performance:

• A trick I use quite often to get my players really involved. The DM describes a scene (using props is even better) and then listens to the players ideas. The second or third good one works… Most of the time, I evaluate the adequacy of the proposal with a skill test. The player will most likely see the result as a hint even before I open my mouth.
• Encourage non-lethal solutions for problems
• Use lots of NPC that interact OFTEN with the PC in unusual ways: the annoying neighbor, the admiring duchess, the friendly alchemist, etc.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

DM secrets that enhance the gaming experience should remain secret. It's like how a magician should never reveal the trick. Some of the best gaming sessions I've run are when I react to the players and improvise to enhance the story. The ideas that players have become fodder for action and exploration. The trick for the DM is to maintain the illusion of a living, dynamic world while still giving pcs the chance to succeed and fail and become stars in the imaginary world. A lot of it does depend on the type of players at the table too.

If I sense player frustration, I will certainly improvise to attempt to alleviate the frustration.

Does that extend to changing your techniques to full DM methodology transparency? (Ie, while the players don't know whether you have done it in a particular instance, they know whether you will or will not change previously established elements of the world in reaction to the way the story is going.)

Because for me, I'm one that does not like the DM to make such changes. I want DM technique transparency. Of course I don't know the NPC's motives or plots etc (unless I discover them in character). But I despise the idea of the DM trying to create an enjoyable situation by making us think he runs the game one way, while in fact running it another way. And the whole, "what if you don't know about it?" philosophy is morally objectionable to me. If I knew a DM was doing that (and told us he wasn't, as opposed to being transparent that that is how he runs his game) I wouldn't play in his games anymore. It's a betrayal of the experience that I as a player want, as well as bothering me on a moral level.

Now, if the players know that you DM that way (or wouldn't care one way or another), then there is nothing wrong with it, it's just a style preference. And a perfectly reasonable answer to my original question would be "No, the most I would do is tell my players that I may or may not ever change things in that manner, and if they don't like it they can play with another group." DMs have a right to do things there way. I'm just pointing out that there are players that are not going to appreciate having their enjoyment "enhanced" by deception.

 

[Rhenny]

Does that extend to changing your techniques to full DM methodology transparency? (Ie, while the players don't know whether you have done it in a particular instance, they know whether you will or will not change previously established elements of the world in reaction to the way the story is going.)

Because for me, I'm one that does not like the DM to make such changes. I want DM technique transparency. Of course I don't know the NPC's motives or plots etc (unless I discover them in character). But I despise the idea of the DM trying to create an enjoyable situation by making us think he runs the game one way, while in fact running it another way. And the whole, "what if you don't know about it?" philosophy is morally objectionable to me. If I knew a DM was doing that (and told us he wasn't, as opposed to being transparent that that is how he runs his game) I wouldn't play in his games anymore. It's a betrayal of the experience that I as a player want, as well as bothering me on a moral level.

Now, if the players know that you DM that way (or wouldn't care one way or another), then there is nothing wrong with it, it's just a style preference. And a perfectly reasonable answer to my original question would be "No, the most I would do is tell my players that I may or may not ever change things in that manner, and if they don't like it they can play with another group." DMs have a right to do things there way. I'm just pointing out that there are players that are not going to appreciate having their enjoyment "enhanced" by deception.

This is why DM and players need to be in agreement. I agree. If my players did not want this type of experience, I would not improvise to the same extent.

 

[raptor112]

I'm one of the players & from my point a view it didn't quite go down the way gmforpowergamers is making it sound. He's leaving out a bunch of stuff & exaggerating a few points. It comes down to the fact, at least for me, that it felt like the rug was pulled out from under us when he revealed the vault was a fake. We didn't know that he was genre savvy (none of his other villains are, from the best of my knowledge) and while we were told that he was tactical, he didn't tell us that he used bait and switch.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm one of the players & from my point a view it didn't quite go down the way gmforpowergamers is making it sound. He's leaving out a bunch of stuff & exaggerating a few points. It comes down to the fact, at least for me, that it felt like the rug was pulled out from under us when he revealed the vault was a fake. We didn't know that he was genre savvy (none of his other villains are, from the best of my knowledge) and while we were told that he was tactical, he didn't tell us that he used bait and switch.

Who didn't tell you - the DM, or the villain? The DM has no reason to tell you, and the villain...well, if he told you stuff like this he wouldn't be much of a villain, would he?

Bait-and-switch is a fine time-honoured villain technique...all the info that ever gets out to the greater world is that the McGuffin is in place X where in fact it's in place Y, and place X's only function is that it's where you go to get yourself killed.

Lan-"in other words, the reason it feels like the rug's been pulled out from under you is because it has been; give the villain this small victory and move on"-efan

 

[raptor112]

Who didn't tell you - the DM, or the villain? The DM has no reason to tell you, and the villain...well, if he told you stuff like this he wouldn't be much of a villain, would he?

Bait-and-switch is a fine time-honoured villain technique...all the info that ever gets out to the greater world is that the McGuffin is in place X where in fact it's in place Y, and place X's only function is that it's where you go to get yourself killed.

Lan-"in other words, the reason it feels like the rug's been pulled out from under you is because it has been; give the villain this small victory and move on"-efan

The DM, who is the OP of this thread, said down thread that he told us that this villain uses bait and switch tactics & he, as I recall, said no such thing to us the players. It felt completely out of place in this campaign, and the DM was confused as to why, after a really rough couple of games, that we would get pissed at the fact that he pulled the bait and switch. Most times I don't mind that, but this time it felt cheap.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

The DM, who is the OP of this thread, said down thread that he told us that this villain uses bait and switch tactics & he, as I recall, said no such thing to us the players. It felt completely out of place in this campaign, and the DM was confused as to why, after a really rough couple of games, that we would get pissed at the fact that he pulled the bait and switch. Most times I don't mind that, but this time it felt cheap.

I wasn't there, so I can't really know what the experience was like. But going from this thread, I'd say there are a couple of important points.

1) Were you, as players, aware that your DM has the villains do their things and doesn't change them? In other words, was anyone under the misconception that the DM hadn't already decided long ago where the artifact was, and that he just decided on the spot based on how he wanted it to happen at the moment? I think knowing how he operates as a general rule would make a huge difference.

2) If it was a clear DM-Player understanding that the DM had already decided the state of these sorts of things, (and therefore the artifact wasn't in the vault because that's not where the villain put it previously), then it seems like the frustration could either be channeled into character (perfectly reasonable--and a lot of fun), or it is symptomatic of some other (probably temporary) issues.

 

[NotZenon]

honestly it just sounds like time for a break. let someone else DM for awhile.

 

[Herobizkit]

Well, being told "if you don't want to save the world, game's over, boys" leads me to believe that they can't fail, or they can't play.

well they can fail still...but failing is a major campaign changer, so I still don't get 'can't fail' thing... as for the 'or can't play' I don't understand that either... (and I really want to)

if they don't want to save the world then next switch of campaigns vote for a different type of game...

And here's what I mean. If the players decide they no longer want to save the world, your solution is to trash the campaign and make a brand new setting from scratch rather than move on and let the former events play out.

Think of it like real-like jobs. Say you're working at McDonald's for a few years, then later decide you don't want that anymore, so you apply and start working at a call centre. When that doesn't pan out, say you go to college for a few years and get some extra training as an electrician...

In both cases, McDonald's doesn't crumple and people still call the call centre; the only difference is, you no longer affect what happens there. Same thing goes for campaigns. People change their minds all the time - why does the world have to end because the heroes decide the main plot isn't their plot any more?

Now, that said, if they're disgusted with their _charatacters_, that's a good reason to tableflip. But if their characters are fine and the world is fine, why not start them down a new path and let the old path continue in the background?

with the exception of the one where they are drawing up 3 characters to fit roles (and that is the idea of the campaign) I just don't under stand... most are listed as level/race requirements and that's it...

Which I get, I suppose, but WHY are these restrictions in place? My best guess is because they fit YOUR idea of the campaign world/setting you've created. And in all fairness, these aren't unreasonable requests. I'm curious as to why you need to house rule casters, though (except for Dark Sun - that one I understand very well).

ok, what about "Your parents sold your soul to this monster, and he is going to take over the world," and "This monster manipulated people into killing your family and friends because he feared one of you may raise and oppse him" or "that star alignment you fear, is what is giving this monster a chance to escape" because those of the motivations based on the backgrounds PCs wrote that made the game take shape...

Now, did YOU pick these or did the players actually say that's what they wanted? Because, again, if you decided "this is how your character is" based on what they wrote, you are taking narrative control away from the players and making it YOUR story.

I think I'm starting to understand what's the issue here... as a writer, you enjoy creating worlds, settings, and plots, and when you try and lay these down on players who think and do what THEY want, it often rails against what YOU want or expect to happen. Then, when you try and nudge/force the plot to go the way you want, the players feel cheated or trapped and want out.

You're a setting junkie!

I'm not terribly sure what to offer as a solution to this at present. I recall reading some articles online a few months back about situations like this... if I can find them again, I'll point them to you.

 

[Mephista]

The DM, who is the OP of this thread, said down thread that he told us that this villain uses bait and switch tactics & he, as I recall, said no such thing to us the players. It felt completely out of place in this campaign, and the DM was confused as to why, after a really rough couple of games, that we would get pissed at the fact that he pulled the bait and switch. Most times I don't mind that, but this time it felt cheap.

So, it sounds like it was just a flop of a plot. Fair enough, sometimes that happens. Give feedback, learn the pitfalls, move on to a new one. Personally, I would have given at least some small reward beyond the "Princess is in another castle" line. Make it a phyrric victory.


Honestly, if one thing I've picked up from this thread, its that there's a clear issue of miscommunication going on with this table.