Been out of the saddle for a long while, recently started gaming again, and I dug up some new players at my local store. For a very short period, before suggesting that maybe my games aren't for them and cycling in new people.
And it's always over the same issue; I'll introduce something, a local legend of a monster, a competent NPC, a tale of a mysterious house where people who come in never come out, something like that. Party will inevitably go running over to whatever the fuck it is and attack, often getting in way over their heads, beaten up or even killed, and then blaming me for making things too hard.
It's been a long time, and maybe nostalgia is coloring my perceptions, but I don't seem to remember having this the last time I ran things, but that was almost 20 years ago, so I could be misremembering.
Has something changed? Have I lost the ability to describe "this might be too tough for you, maybe you should clear away or at least try to size up the situation first"? If the latter, how do I regain it?
>finds new players
>expects them to be experienced enough not to rush in
Alternatively:
>runs game for new people without warning them about the kind of game you want to run
>sets up situation that kills the players
>confused when players' ideas of what the game should be and what your ideas of what the game should be are different
Everybody here is at fault, both you and your players. At your age you should be more than capable of communicating your idea for the game to the players being BEFORE you actually play the game with those players. Why do you need "a very short period" to tell if you guys are not seeing eye to eye?
>>47121423
> Why do you need "a very short period" to tell if you guys are not seeing eye to eye?
Because, well, to be honest, I guess I didn't think it needed saying. I usually give the players 2-3 things that someone is either paying or ordering them to do at any given moment that needed to be done yesterday, and then a few "features of interest" which aren't immediate priorities; they're also usually more dangerous or at least requiring of some kind of preparation, since there's more time and leisure to go about it, as opposed to saving that village which will be gone if they don't do something to divert the goblin horde or whatever.
I never needed to point this out before, or at least I don't remember having to. There's dangerous shit out there. Before poking it with a stick, you might want to see what it does when provoked. And part of it is, some of it seems so stupid. My last incident involved a gladiator that they saw in an arena fight while tailing a nobleman. They decided that the HAD to fight the city champion, and were somehow surprised when he's actually a very good fighter.
I don't really get it, you know? And to be honest, I'm a little skeptical that someone who would go through a chain of reasoning like that would be deterred by an up-front warning.
>>47121536
Do you never talk about what kind of game you're going to be running with your players? You just drop them into a setting that you've obviously put some work into and not even explain what they should expect? Random people who you don't know how they play or what they even like?
To be fair, there's some expectation that they would also ask you the same thing, but if neither of you are doing it, it's kind of your job as GM to ask.
>>47121683
Of course I tell them what the world is like, what the general setting is, points of interest that would be basic knowledge of what the characters would know.
But I didn't ever really think to include meta-systemic stuff. And I'm not sure it's 100% a good idea to give the players that kind of insight at a particular DM's mental processes. At a certain point, you're essentially giving away tactical information, telling them what are and aren't good ideas, which infringe upon their choices.
>>47121737
>infringe upon their choices
You're already doing that by pointing out "points of interest."
Most players do not have the capability of playing in the kind of open world that you seem to envision. Some, yes, and if you find those people hold on to them because they are few in number.
Is it really that telling to tell your players "don't expect to be able to fight anything and win. Sometimes you will just always lose. I will do my best to give you in-character warnings about when that may happen, but ultimately if you walk into a dangerous situation and stay there, your character will die"?
As a long time forever DM you need to be screening your players better and not allowing trash from general pop. at the FLGS play at your table.
>>47121328
Two options:
(1) very carefully cater to your players' needs, baby them, make sure they know everything they need to know about the world and that they're never in over their heads.
(2) Get better players. Don't game with randos, game with people you know.
>>47121788
>You're already doing that by pointing out "points of interest.
I mean, on some level, I suppose I am, but it seems a far lesser infringement by noting common knowledge in setting than it is to say something along the lines of "Yeah, usually, when I throw a challenge at you that isn't immediately coming for you, you can bet it's really tough.", since it in and of itself is a kind of meta-knowledge.
>Most players do not have the capability of playing in the kind of open world that you seem to envision.
I'm not a sandboxer, far from it. But I would have thought most players would have the ability to hear about something and not try to pick a fight with it, certainly before figuring something about its capabilities. And at least when I was last playing ,that did seem to be the norm, not the exception.
>>47121830
>>47121914
Well, thanks for the tips. I suppose I can screen better.
Also, be advised, I'm sticking in this thread, but I'm having a bit to drink, so my responses, should the thread continue, are likely to get less coherent in time.
>>47122037
>But I would have thought most players would have the ability to hear about something and not try to pick a fight with it, certainly before figuring something about its capabilities.
I have one damn word for you my noble grognard:gazebo
Seriously though, you have missed a generation trained by video rpgs that everything is a Checkov's Gun.
Not blaming them, but there it is.
They're dump like the above anon said, everyone's at fault.
There is nothing wrong or too revealing about letting your players know that not everything they encounter is able to be defeated or even intended to be fought or interacted with.
If you describe a lake, they might think you intend them to explore it when you just added it for flavor.
If you had warned them, and they jump in the lake every time, you can mock and dump them.
But if just figure they should get it without actually communicating, you will remain in the spot you're in, with no one to blame but yourself.
>>47122523
>They're dump like
They're dumb, but like
>>47121328
>Has something changed? Have I lost the ability to describe "this might be too tough for you, maybe you should clear away or at least try to size up the situation first"?
Quite possibly, to either of those. It could also just be that you're getting idiot players who assume everything the DM says is a plot hook for something they can deal with now.
I'd suggest explicitly telling new players that not everything you will talk about is meant to be something you need to (or could) deal with now, just to make sure they're aware that that's a thing that can happen.
Furthermore, try to ease them into things. If they're about to attack something that's too strong for them, let them know. If they do run into something that's too tough for them, consider making it a little easier than normal for them to run away. You might also want to try to make sure they have an idea of the level ranges for normal people, elite soldiers, etc so they know "that dude who took on an entire patrol of elite soldiers must be a complete badass! If we try to take him on we'd better have something to give us a huge advantage."
A lot of players are used to only being presented with challenges that they have a fair chance to overcome, probably through a combination of a few factors:
- Video games tend to do this, and with convenient saving and loading they also have little reason to not save -> try something that might be risky -> oh shit it's too tough -> reload and come back later.
- DMs who run games based around that mindset.
- DMs who accidentally run games that way because they only prepare one (or sometimes several) level-appropriate challenges and so unless the players do something really stupid (like attacking the king in the middle of the throne room).
OP, are you MEXICAN!?
