Getting away from the DnD mindset of play

[samurai6966]

So I'm running a game (forums.penny-arcade.com/showthread.php?t=130391) on Penny Arcade called X-Academy: Law and Injustice. It's a game were the Mutant Registration Act was passed and mutants have to register and go to Mutant Zone (ghettos/concentration camps). The players are students of Professor X's and it starts off with the school being attacked.

My problem is that I want to get away from the DnD mindset of playing to fight and everyone has to follow the leader. I have one player who doesn't want to do a suicide mission of saving the X-men. He wants to find a safe spot, gather help, then save the X-men. But everyone else wants to move with the "Leader" Gabriel "Guardian Angel". It seems like Gab is looking for the next fight, and some are barely posting until it's combat time. How can I gently move everyone's mindset away from the DnD way of playing to more individual thinking? Or is this a bad thing to try to do?

[Revan]

I'd say it depends on your players. Maybe have your gung-ho players get captured and possibly through good rping and diplomacy (maybe some backdoor deals) the one player could end up freeing his colleagues. Not everything has to be a battle and if they are following Xavier's teachings they would try the diplomatic option first if there is one. Now, I don't really know anything about your setting aside from what you posted here so what I'm saying may not have any relevance at all.

[malice]

You can't just "persuade" several people who aren't interested in listening to you. What you CAN do, is lead by example, play it safe, and those who survive will see your easy success and follow suit.

Nothing convinces a party that they are goose-stepping to their own doom like being allowed to find that doom. Nothing convinces them you're right like seeing you survive the encounter that killed the lot of them.

You need to play it safe and make sure you're the smart guy in every encounter. You should try to do SOMETHING otherwise your survival will be meaningless (nothing impressive about non-combatants surviving) but you should emphasize your survival enough that they see the consequences of their play style vs. yours.

Some people will never figure it out. They get to lose over and over again. These are not your target audience, so you just minimize the damage they inflict on you and the rest of the party.

Things to avoid: Lecturing, condescension, "told ya so", and anything else that makes you an ass. I've always tried to play smart, but I've also always avoided acting like a snob. Just because you're right today doesn't mean you won't be wrong tomorrow.

[takewithfood]

It sounds like you don't have a terribly linear game here, and that's great. They're tough to run, I know, but they can be a lot of fun to play in. I think the trouble with non-linear games is that most players expect linear play. They expect to be led by the nose to the next plot, where the goal is to beat up all the opposition and then be rewarded for it.

Sounds like you have one player who gets it, and another who either doesn't get it or doesn't care; the rest are either confused or apathetic. Not good, though it really isn't your fault.

When this happens to me, in one of my games, I tend to level with the players and let them know that they really can do anything they want - even if it's a really, really stupid decision. I won't stop them, though I may warn them if their common sense seems to be lacking.

If leveling with them doesn't work, as Malice says, you may need to let them walk into their own doom. Whether or not the more cautious player goes with them is up to him.

In a D&D game, my players once encountered a dragon waaaay too early for them to reasonably defeat it. Their best option was to run away or bargain or plead or do anything except draw swords and run at it - but they assumed that I wouldn't be putting them up against a dragon unless they were meant to kill it, so they drew swords and ran at it. *facepalm*

It was a tough lesson, but most of the party learned from it. One player notably did not learn, but he suddenly found himself outnumbered by more level-headed players. The players also started paying more attention and discussed their options more frequently and at greater length, as they knew full well that being reckless is just as dangerous as rolling a bunch of 1s.

I'm not saying this is the best method, but sometimes there isn't a way around it, you know? I agree with Malice that lecturing and "told ya so" attitudes don't work, they just make people want to prove their method really does work; examples are all that will sink in, whether they're examples of what to do, or what not to do. I don't know you at all, but already you don't seem like the type of person who would be a jerk about it. ^__^

Best of luck! Let us know how it turns out.

~TWF

[Jet]

Im with Revan and others. Let them feel the stupidity of their actions by capturing them and preferably torturing as well (unless you dont feel like it). Leave one or two players outside of that situation, preferably the only sane guy and the close second and have them infiltrate the prison to save their companions. In comic books it happens all the time- weaker members tend to do stuff like that much more easily, but as long as everyone is having fun while doing it, its okay. That is, except the captured ones who cant do squat due to being, well, imprisoned.

[WildKnight]

It's not my normal policy to agree with him, but I think playah is on to something there. Consequences consequences consequences (used realistically and fairly, not as "punishment"). If they don't work, the players in question are probably idiots, and should be replaced with me.

As a general thing, though, I think its important to point out that a player who wants to fight isn't always an idiot. We all come to the table (or in this case, the keyboard) for different reasons. I try to tell people before the game starts that I run role-playing oriented, character driven games where combat tends to be run as an afterthought, so those that just wanna throw down will stay away.

[samurai6966]

I may have gotten lucky. The guy who is our gun-ho leader is Gabriel. One character (Vane) decided to split from the group and instead of going to a meeting that could be a trap, follow the Underground Railroad to mutant friendly country and hope to gain help there. Just now, another player decided to join Vane splitting the party in half and pretty much killing the DnD mindset Gabriel was setting up. Now I have to change plans quickly as I thought only Vane would be going to Wakanda.

[Ricochet]

You might want to give your players what they want instead. If some players prefer hack'n'slash while others prefer planning and tactics give them both.
Example: Xavier's is under attack by sentinels. While the heavy hitters (Colossus, Wolverine, Storm) hold of the sentinels, the not so heavy hitters (Shadowcat, Nightcrawler) take action and relocate the younger students to a safehouse.

[Manah]

If they don't work, the players in question are probably idiots, and should be replaced with me.

Geez, WK... is there even a single day which ends without you coming up with such a great quote as this one?

[WildKnight]

Dec 20, 2010 13:01:49 GMT -5 Manah said:

If they don't work, the players in question are probably idiots, and should be replaced with me.

Geez, WK... is there even a single day which ends without you coming up with such a great quote as this one?

Nope.

[ironfox]

One question I have is, why do you keep referring to hack and slash gaming as a DnD mindset? I've been running a DnD game for over two months now and there have only been two instances where combat lasted more than a round or two.

Game system doesn't dictate style of play, GMs and players do.

[WildKnight]

Dec 20, 2010 16:41:33 GMT -5 ironfox said:

One question I have is, why do you keep referring to hack and slash gaming as a DnD mindset?

Because it is.

Game system doesn't dictate style of play, GMs and players do.

Nonsense. Systems are frequently "weighted" toward one play style or another. D&D is a hack 'n slash game. Just because you can use it differently doesn't mean its not designed that way.

[ironfox]

Game system doesn't dictate style of play, GMs and players do.

Nonsense. Systems are frequently "weighted" toward one play style or another. D&D is a hack 'n slash game. Just because you can use it differently doesn't mean its not designed that way.

I think "Nonsense" is a bit strong to use here. I played DnD exclusively for 8 years (not out of preference but ignorance) with at least a half a dozen GM... er... DMs and the combat to RP ratio was pretty well balanced.

In the beginning, middle and end, the GM and players tell the system what to do, not the other way around. That's been my experience at least.

EDIT: I um, quoted my own quote. That was a mistake. I meant to quote WK's "Nonsense" sentence.

My bad.

EDIT: EDIT: Fixed, ish...

[WildKnight]

Yeah, I enjoy D&D too (well, excluding 4th Edition), but the fact is, D&D is a combat game. You can ignore that fact if it makes you happy, but it doesn't actually change the facts involved.

That doesn't mean that all you can do with the system is run combats. It simply means that that is what the system is designed to do well, just like the new Smallville system is designed to run a TV-series style cast, and the old WoD games were designed to keep the system out of the way of good story-telling.

[ironfox]

There are TONS of combat rules for DnD. But really, what other rules should there be? Rules for RP? Thre are guidelines for what a character can do when interacting with NPCs as far as Diplomacy, Intimidate etc. but otherwise RP rules sounds silly.

Trap disarming and skill checks for other physical endeavors can be fun but I doubt anybody is spending a whole lot of time on Cliffhanger the RPG.