[D&D] Trying to get more from D&D

[Glendower]

They also tend to be very careful, since they don't want their characters to die. 
...
I know that's not very realistic, and maybe I should be more brutal when running a brutal game like D&D.  But we like it, and I'm not such a pushover that they think that I'll absolutely never kill a PC.

Could you give some actual play examples of being careful in play?  Has there been times where being careful has slowed down the flow of the game?  Are they rewarded for being careful, and if so, could you give an in play example? 

And just so we're clear, I'm not asking these questions to be judgmental.  It sounds like you have a great group of players!  This is not about should haves or could haves, character death can be really punishing.  In D&D a player is literally ejected from playing, it's the equivalent of twisting your ankle and being benched for the rest of the half.  I really like to hear how that tricky piece of the game is handled by your group, so that everyone is still having fun at the table.

[towishimp]

Could you give some actual play examples of being careful in play?  Has there been times where being careful has slowed down the flow of the game?  Are they rewarded for being careful, and if so, could you give an in play example? 

That's a good question.  I'm realizing that I keep throwing vague assertions out there; I'm just not sure what to elaborate on, so the questions are helpful and appreciated.

Most of the "being very careful" comes out in combat; it's not the stereotypical D&D "search every 5-foot dungeon tile for traps" careful.  That would be very disruptive to play.  Mostly, they are very careful in combat and other risky endeavors.  A few examples:

1) When climbing, the party is very care, complete with ropes and multiple attach points.  Basically, redundant safety measures to ensure that one bad check doesn't doom them all. 

In combat, they're equally careful.  The mage/psion walks around with defensive measures manifested almost constantly, which hurts his offensive power, but has definitely saved him on several occasions.  Tactically, they're very cautious, too.  The weaker characters (Tom's halfling scout [now deceased] and Amy's cleric) are almost pathologically afraid of melee, although Amy's gaining confidence as her character has survived several melees without major harm.  And their approach to combat is to make extensive use of missile weapons and magic to soften up enemies before engaging in melee (at least they try to...reigning in the paladin and NPC dwarf fighter can be difficult).  And their careful to never get cut off or surrounded, with no way to retreat should the tide turn against them.  I think overall, they're just very pragmatic as a group.  They don't have the impatience that I've seen in lots of D&D groups, where HP and magic are just resources to be expended fighting the bad guys.  Most of my players have a real concern about not getting their characters beat up (which I find very believable). 

This aspect of the group encourages my attempts to build in more roleplaying opportunities, too.  I've talked to a few of the players since I started this thread, and they've seemed supportive.  Amy said that her character (and the player, too...she's a newer roleplayer, so her character is very much like herself) wants to get to the bottom of the mystery more than anything; to her the monsters are just obstacles between her and solving the mystery behind the kidnappings.  Eric and Jerod regularly forget that the original plot hook was to find a wizard's apprentice, who had been kidnapped.  Amy's character never forgets, carries the apprentice's locket with her, and always asks about her when a new contact is met.

I'm starting to think that maybe I can even remove some of the more pointless fights from the campaign altogether, since the only purpose that they serve is to give the PCs experience and treasure.  If I use the Sweet d20 xp system, then I won't need the monsters for experience anymore, and I can take care of the financial aspect through other means.

[Thenomain]

In contrast to townishimp, our group takes great and extended care avoid combat and get out of it as quickly as possible.  This has translated into situations where we talk for quite some time about what we should do if we know we're going to get into combat.  We dislike this because the plan always fails (insert well-known quote about plans and combat), and combat is always chaotic.  We're very careful by not wasting a single thing if we don't have to.  Even casting a single "Detect Magic" is a strategic move for us, because once we hit that combat we need absolutely every option at our disposal.

Because of things like this, we accept non-XP rewards as being incredibly valuable.  A free potion, cheaper training, a contact, an answer, these things are probably the reasons we like to play.  But the potion might not be what we were told, the training might have a secondary price, the contact might lead trouble to us, the answer might cause more questions, so we're pushed deeper and deeper into the roleplaying vortex.  This is rather what I meant by "setting first" and "make the world alive".

Thinking back on it, too, I can think of very few pointless fights, unless we're dungeon-delving.  Even then, our GM makes sure that the creature is there for a reason, and if there is no reason in the module he's running then he changes the module.  ("Hmm, there's a golem in this room with nothing in it.  But there's a spellcaster high enough level to create a golem elsewhere.  So I'll just make a note that this golem belongs to that caster, and he's ... maybe he's digging a new room, making extra space.")  I know for a fact that we have allied with creatures in modules that nobody was supposed to ally with.

With this kind of GM, the ancient module "Keep on the Borderlands" became one involved and engaging module.  That things changed between visits kept us on our toes.

[Rob Alexander]

I can see how this:

the PCs were asked to clean out a cavern system full of trolls.  Doing so was challenging, but rapidly degenerated into us going around in a circle each round, rolling dice, and taking damage.

Leads to this:

I'm starting to think that maybe I can even remove some of the more pointless fights from the campaign altogether, since the only purpose that they serve is to give the PCs experience and treasure.

But I'd just like to check how all your players stand on this issue. It's clear that e.g. Amy and you are bored by the 'pointless fights', but how do the more gamist-oriented players feel? Are they excited and engaged during these combats?

It's certainly possible to maintain gamist-supporting challenges (providing opportunities to "step on up") while reducing the number of fights overall. If, at the same time, you up the ante a bit (by increasing the per-fight threat of character death, for example) you may even improve the game for the challenge-oriented players. 

But, if you've read e.g. Amy's interests right, the consequences of there being actual risk may damage the game for her. E.g. for optimum gamist support you may need to raise the threat that the apprentice you mentioned will never be found.

[towishimp]

Rob: As a quick aside, I like the idea of putting time pressure (either real or perceived) on the PCs to rescue the apprentice.  That would cut even further into the whole "rest after every fight" mentality that can become ingrained in D&D parties.  It would also, as you point out, it creates a fear for Amy's character, as well as create tension within the party as Amy's cleric tries to hurry them along so that they might reach the apprentice before it's too late.

But I'd just like to check how all your players stand on this issue. It's clear that e.g. Amy and you are bored by the 'pointless fights', but how do the more gamist-oriented players feel? Are they excited and engaged during these combats?

It's certainly possible to maintain gamist-supporting challenges (providing opportunities to "step on up") while reducing the number of fights overall. If, at the same time, you up the ante a bit (by increasing the per-fight threat of character death, for example) you may even improve the game for the challenge-oriented players. 

But, if you've read e.g. Amy's interests right, the consequences of there being actual risk may damage the game for her. E.g. for optimum gamist support you may need to raise the threat that the apprentice you mentioned will never be found.

This is definitely a valid concern.  As I said in a previous post, I'm mindful of the fact that I'm pretty certain that if we continued as we are and finished the campaign, a good time would be had by all.  Not as good a time as might be possible, and not everyone would have as good a time, but it would be fun.  So if I tweak anything, I'm going to clear it with my players first. 

And what I've heard so far from them is that the troll fight was dreadful, even for the gamists.  It was so for several reasons:
1) No meaningful goal: The whole purpose of the fight was just to win the favor of a local group of gnomes that the PCs don't think that much of anyhow.  They agreed to fight them because they need allies, and the gnomes are the only game in town so far.  At several points during the fight, several players and one character suggested that the fight was pointless and should be abandoned.

2) Tactically uninteresting: Trolls are stupid, and they just charged in, attacking ferociously but without a plan or any regard for their own lives.  That's how trolls are.  The big problem was that the PC front-line fighters have excellent ACs, especially the dwarf.  So they were relatively safe as they hacked away at the trolls.  The terrain also made it so the trolls couldn't get around a flank to attack the spellcasters/other weaker party members.  Some of these things could be my fault as a DM (e.g. if I had realized that the trolls wouldn't hit very often, I could've come up with something to make the fight more interesting). 

So far, the only steps I've taken to retool the campaign are to remove one small and pointless fight and to put in some extra work on planning the battles.  So there will be one less fight, and the rest of the enemies they encounter will be more dynamic in how they fight.

[Glendower]

And what I've heard so far from them is that the troll fight was dreadful, even for the Gamists.  It was so for several reasons:
1) No meaningful goal: (snipped)

2) Tactically uninteresting: (snipped)

So far, the only steps I've taken to retool the campaign are to remove one small and pointless fight and to put in some extra work on planning the battles.  So there will be one less fight, and the rest of the enemies they encounter will be more dynamic in how they fight.

All right.  What I might suggest is to give some thought and discussion on how to achieve the first point, of creating a meaningful goal. 

You've been using some Big Model terms here and there, but there's something I want to mention.  I don't think that Creative Agenda (Gamism, and all that) is the issue.  I don't read any dysfunctional play, and the most promising sign of everyone being on board in terms of Agenda was that The Troll fight was universally disliked.  I think that everyone is playing using the Gamist Agenda. 

Remember, Gamism isn't just fighting effectively, it's also about doing everything possible to gain victory over the game.    Now, what's Amy doing?  She's trying to save the Apprentice and solve the kidnappings.  Why?  To Win, of course! 

One thing I observe here is that only one person cares about your kidnapping plot, that being Amy. Eric and Jerrod don't care, and I doubt Tom cares as well (you didn't indicate either way).    In order for a game to be smoking hot, you need everyone to be jazzed about every piece of exploration.   

I think they're into their characters, so that's fine. 

They dig the system, as far as I can see (though Sweet 20 is a pretty nice rules upgrade for D20), though Amy's fear of getting killed and the general high paranoia of death might encourage you to try to lessen the fear of death a little.  Less fear of death inspires more bravery and risk taking, which can make for a lot more fun in play and less paralysis from overly careful playing.  The concept of House Ruling something like "There is no death, only greater complication" is an idea you might want to think about.  If they get knocked to 0 HP, they are unconscious.  They could get captured, or the creature could hang them up Luke Skywalker style to eat later (allowing a daring escape), or robbed, or what have you.  Death literally forces you out of play, and that isn't fun.  Complications are fun!

I don't exactly know what that setting is, it sounds like standard Greyhawk D&D.  I don't think this is a problem either. 

The color doesn't sound like the problem either, I think you likely provide plenty of descriptions and I don't think the game is lacking in that.

But situation, there's your stumbling block.  Only Amy cares about your situation. And without a really grabby situation that makes the players jump up in excitement, you get problems in game.  Now let's take the situation of the Gnomes.  Why do they care about the gnomes, why should they be their friends?  Why should they care about the Apprentice being kidnapped?  What reason is there to head into caves and caverns?

The situation is a critical piece, because without it, you don't get a lot of motivation to explore.  My suggestion is to focus on this piece, to make the situation more dire, more important.  Tie the life of the Apprentice to the characters.  Make an apprentice the brother/sister of one of the characters.  Have the Apprentice possess the secret of unmaking life, and it's only a matter of time before the baddies pry it out of them.  Most importantly, every single player needs to have a clear reason to go after the Apprentice.  Amy seemed to have created a reason for herself.  The rest need some help in coming up with one.  The fact that Eric and Jerod keep forgetting why they're even doing all this is a big huge flag. 

Have you thought about opening the floor to some discussion on the original plot?   Everyone make suggestions, and everyone toss back and forth ideas on why every individual character wants to save the Apprentice.  That'll help hit on a reason for each person, and with situation in place, they'll tear through any barrier with purpose.  Situation creates meaning, and with meaning you solve the first issue.

[Callan S.]

I don't see anything that particularly shows an agenda. All the conservative actions - its just actions - it means they care about something. But effective system use while pursuing what you care about doesn't automatically make it gamism (otherwise Capes play would be gamist).

With Jon's suggestions about situation, an extension of making it important is to say what you will be resolving on game night (like the apprentices location) and they should only turn up to play if that's exciting for them.

Though that's generally an unpopular option with GM's, as they want a good game to come about because of their mad GM'ing skillz.

[Jasper the Mimbo]

This thread is right up my alley. As a theatre student I've had the "what makes a story worth telling" question banged into my head for years. Here goes.

A tip on how to deal with the Dramatist (or Heavy Roleplayer) type of person. The reason they dislike combat is because their character has nothing invested in the combat. People like this practically require a nemisis. A good way of getting them on board with combat from the get go is to get them to build a character that is tied into your central theme, and then gearing the fights toward the character's bias. The player will think he's getting a lot of attention, the other players don't get combat spoiled by the dissenter, and you get to keep ramping up the dramatic tension. Even if you want to use random monsters, as long as they have something that ties them to the plot or nemisis it'll work, even if it's an owlbear chewing on the corpse of of one of the evil duke's couriers so the players have to kill it to get the info they want or something equally contrived.

The trick is to know where your story is going. Not pre-planning or railrading, but theme-wise. In dramatic analyisis we call it the Spine of the story. Think of the Lord of the Rings. What if it was a game. It seems so big, but really the path of the story was set in the poems at the very beginning. The spine would read something like this:

"In an age of mistrust, on the brink of distruction, a group of unlikely heroes struggle against impossible odds and their own doubts to bring peace and hope to a fractured land."

With this as the Spine we know that the characters will have no down time, the opposition is nigh-unstoppable, the characters thmselves are flawed, and everywhere they cannot rely on anyone but each other. The world is grim and tired. As a GM, your only job is to ask if the situation you've concocted reinforces the spine. The story practically tells itself as long as it does. Having this layed out at the beginning also helps players make characters that will be thematically appropriate to the story you are trying to tell.

Characters can have their own spines, too, and the game is the most fun for everyone if the character's Spines reinforce the central one. Catch phrases are good for this. "Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya..." or "With great power comes great responsibility" Think about it.

So find a spine, tell your players what it is, and ask them to help you reinforce it. You'll probably like the results.