Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Lance845 wrote:
An anecdote about the good rp you had in a 2nd ed game isnt discussing what the mechanic does. Your dm decideding to make up his own rules for loot and exp isnt discussing the system as is.

It was the xp chart from the core book - hence "xp being handed out completely by the book". Core rules had xp for character actions, and all pre-written adventures had xp for story actions including solving puzzles and avoiding conflict.

I find myself kicking at a moving net here though. The original argument presented by Easy E was "I am going to argue that classes are NOT helpful to new players.... at all." - followed by your spiderman superman class vs character post. We seem to have strayed away from that.

Its acording to 99% of the materials. The phb has rules for exp by cr based on monsters. Remember, traps mostly didnt have cr in 3rd. And social enxounters had none what so ever. Traps did have a very complicated system for calculating cr to determine what a trap COST to build it. It COULD be used to give it a exp value but wasnt really designed that way. The MM had exp values all over the place. And while the dmg did have the blanket statements of "...or do what you want." All over the place the general rules for exp even presented there was Monsters CR = exp.

A singular example in one post is not my entire argument. Which also goes for scottsmans post which i will respond to when i am at a computer to do so (currently typing on a phone). My "premise" is not one component of an argument. My premise is that mechanics have actual impact on the way players percieve and interact with the game and it effects game play. When you line up 7 races and a dozenish classes with a level system that does things to the players. HOW those things are built is a major component of that. But again, we are discussing it through the lense of dnd. So how dnd presents it has its impact and its not good for new players. It starts them off on entirely the wrong foot. When is the last time a new player sat down for dnd at your table and knew what town he was born in? What region/country he was from? What ties he had to a community? When was the last time your brand new to rpgs player had any idea of how how that character got to where he was in session 0/1? How does the level/class characyer creation and advancement system do ANYTHING to make your new player feel like they are playing an actual person?

the_scotsman wrote:

Spoiler:

 Lance845 wrote:
I am not claiming conspiracy and i am not saying players cannot go against the grain to do other things with a system that is built to encourage you to do otherwise.

I am participating in a discussion about the mechanic of level/class systems and what it does to players perception of their characters and how that impacts game play. Everyone is different and you can get outliers and with experience people can and will break the mold. But if you are talking about what the system does to and for new players then thats what i am talking about.

DnD is the often used lense of this discussion and that lense is old and mired in out dated legacy design decisions that stick around because.... Reasons.

An anecdote about the good rp you had in a 2nd ed game isnt discussing what the mechanic does. Your dm decideding to make up his own rules for loot and exp isnt discussing the system as is.

LotR has nothing to do with the original dnd. It has EVERYTHING to do with adnd. But adnd was still built around the skeleton of single model chainmail.

Systems exist with good character mechanic models (point buy/levelclass/hybrid) and good character creation that help new players become a person inside the world they live in instead of a PC beat stick dropped into the middle of a field and ready to kill. D20 not only isnt one of them, its one of the worst.

Your premise here appears to be that, because the character creation system in dnd 5e is laid out such that you select

1 race
2 class
3 ability scores
4 background

that leads players, naturally, to primarily describe their characters in terms of gameplay only...despite the fact that race in dnd has a relatively minor impact on how your character approaches gameplay as compared to your class and a much greater impact in terms of how they become a person inside the world they live (because race in dnd is essentially a shorthand with added visual language for how we would consider 'culture' in our human world where multiple different species of sentient being do not exist).

And your premise here relies, basically, on the player just...I don't know, not reading the first paragraphs of the section? before it gets into "Step 1: choose your race"?

No. Because despite any fluff that exists there is no "culture" in dnd out of the PHB, the DMG, or anything outside of setting books. DnD does not have a setting by default in 5th ed. It's "nominally" the forgotten realms. But only because the way they describe some races matches up with forgotten realms. 3rd was by default Greyhawk so at least there was a default setting there. Of course the Gazetteer was a separate book released much later. You get basically vague descriptions of some stereotypes about an entire group of people.

"Your first step in playing an adventurer in the Dungeons & Dragons game is to imagine and create a character of your own. Your character is a combination of various statistics, roleplaying hooks, and your imagination. You choose a race (such as human or halfling) and a class (such as fighter or wizard). You also invent the personality, appearance, and backstory of your character. Once completed, your character serves as your representative in the game, your avatar in the Dungeons & Dragons world.

Before you dive into step 1 below, think about the kind of adventurer you want to play. You might be a courageous fighter, a skulking rogue, a fervent cleric, or a flamboyant wizard. Or you might be more interested in an unconventional character, such as a brave rogue who likes hand-to-hand combat, or a sharpshooter who picks off enemies from afar. Do you like fantasy fiction featuring dwarves or elves? Try building a character of one of those races. Do you want your character to be the toughest adventurer at the table? Consider a class like barbarian or paladin. If you don't know where else to begin, take a look at the illustrations in this book to see what catches your interest.

Once you have a character in mind, roll on these steps in order, making decisions that reflect the character you want. Your conception of your character might evolve with each choice you make. What's important is that you come to the table with a character you're excited to play."

See. Without a setting what is the new player given to create a backstory with? What in any of that actually makes the character into anything like an actual person?

Maybe it would help if I gave you a contrasting example. Every single game ever made by White Wolf most famous for the World of Darkness games. Every. Single. Game. they make comes with a deep background that is baked right into the choices you make in your character creation. Now these books have absolutely HORRIBLE layout and are organized like complete gak. So don't think that helps new players at all. But from step 1 of making your character in any of those games you are building a person who inhabits a place in that world. You have family, friends, mentors, organizations, enemies, and rivals at your disposal. You have options for how you became what you are. They ask you from the beginning how your Mage awakened. How your Vampire was turned. How your Scion found out about his divine lineage. When your Aberrant super hero discovered his powers. They show you the world around you and present what these groups CAN mean and then ask you what these groups mean to you.

The things you spend your points on to build your character inherently invest you in who your character is not simply what they do and what they can look forward to doing when they have killed enough goblins.

But hey, maybe you're right. Maybe these unspecified other RPG systems are infinitely superior, and would never approach character creation in such simplistic terms - they would certainly approach things COMPLETELY differently. Let's just look at the last one you mentioned, GURPS. I'm just going to google GURPS fantasy and look at the first free PDF I can find on google, which looks to be the fourth edition.

Character creation is on page 104, and section one is, oh, "Racial Templates."

After that we have "Occupational Templates". Well that's completely different from Classes clearly, an occupation is how you fit into the world, it's not just what the combat capabilities of your character are. The first ones listed are, let's see:

Archer: This template works for any light
missile troops who provide support
to cavalry or heavier infantry. The
longbow is the classic weapon, but
other options are available

Artificer: Artificers are the technology specialists of fantasy worlds. They can’t
use spells or other forms of magic, but
they can make devices that seem
equally wonderful and mysterious to
the untrained, such as singing birds
made from gold, temple doors that
open by themselves, or Greek fire.

It goes on, Assassin, Bandit, Barbarian, etc with the description primarily being based on 'what your character does in combat.' You choose your background in step 3 rather than step 4, but that's only because you determine your basic stat attributes by taking the base values defined by your class and adding your template.

It does say that you can just define your own template for your class - sorry, Occupation - yourself, and that the templates provided are only examples, but that's the thing: They're the ONLY examples listed, and they are primarily combat-based.

I fail to see how a system where I start by choosing a race, and I choose "I want to be an elf" and that gets me:

Spoiler:

Elves are the quintessential fantasy
race: very similar to humans (and
cross-fertile with them, in many settings), but exceptionally beautiful,
ageless, and naturally magical. Some
descriptions make them superb
artists, while others say that they ultimately lack creativity; this version
avoids either option, while making
them sensitive to the beauty of landscapes and living creatures. Elves normally live in forested areas. They use
their magic to enhance the growth
and fertility of their forests. Survival
rolls in an elven forest are at +1 or better. They find clearing the land repugnant, and since elven leaders have centuries of skill in warfare, elven forests
tend to stay forested.
Elves are comparatively slender,
relying on speed and agility more than
raw strength. Determine their height
normally from their ST and add 2

Attribute Modifiers: ST-1 [-10]; DX+1
[20].
Secondary Characteristic Modifiers:
Per+1 [5].
Advantages: Appearance (Attractive)
[4]; Magery 0 [5]; Perfect Balance
[15]; Telescopic Vision 1 [5];
Unaging [15]; Voice [10].
Racially Learned Skills: Connoisseur
(Natural Environments) (A) IQ-1
[1]-9.

would encourage me to more narratively determine how my character fits into the world, vs choosing "I want to be an elf" and that gets me:

Spoiler:

Age. Although elves reach physical maturity at about the same age as humans, the elven understanding of adulthood goes beyond physical growth to encompass worldly experience. An elf typically claims adulthood and an adult name around the age of 100 and can live to be 750 years old.

Alignment. Elves love freedom, variety, and self-expression, so they lean strongly toward the gentler aspects of chaos. They value and protect others' freedom as well as their own, and they are more often good than not.

Size. Elves range from under 5 to over 6 feet tall and have slender builds. Your size is Medium.

Darkvision. Accustomed to twilit forests and the night sky, you have superior vision in dark and dim conditions. You can see in dim light within 60 feet of you as if it were bright light, and in darkness as if it were dim light. You can't discern color in darkness, only shades of gray.

Keen Senses. You have proficiency in the Perception skill.

Fey Ancestry. You have advantage on saving throws against being charmed, and magic can't put you to sleep.

Trance. Elves don't need to sleep. Instead, they meditate deeply, remaining semiconscious, for 4 hours a day. (The Common word for such meditation is "trance.") While meditating, you can dream after a fashion; such dreams are actually mental exercises that have become reflexive through years of practice. After resting in this way, you gain the same benefit that a human does from 8 hours of sleep.
If you meditate during a long rest, you finish the rest after only 4 hours. You otherwise obey all the rules for a long rest; only the duration is changed.

Languages. You can speak, read, and write Common and Elvish. Elvish is fluid, with subtle intonations and intricate grammar. Elven literature is rich and varied, and their songs and poems are famous among other races. Many bards learn their language so they can add Elvish ballads to their repertoires.

Elf Weapon Training. You have proficiency with the longsword, shortsword, shortbow, and longbow.

Cantrip. You know one cantrip of your choice from the wizard spell list. Intelligence is your spellcasting ability for it.

Extra Language. You can speak, read, and write one extra language of your choosing.

I learn approximately equal amounts about the culture assigned to elves from both, I get a few mechanical abilities from both. The only thing you could say is "excessively combat oriented" about the dnd race rules here is that I get training in a few extra weapons and some magic for being an elf, but the racial description in GURPS refers to combat multiple times - talking about how I 'rely on agility rather then strength' and about how my leaders have 'centuries of skill in warfare.'

I by no means was saying GURPS was good. I said GURPS was crunchy point buy. See above with the white wolf games. Look up the legends and adventures life path character creation for Forbidden Lands. Look up Coriolis. A game where the first choice in character creation is determining what your crew aboard a fire fly style space ship does (are you space truckers/traders, archeologists/explorers, mercenaries, etc..?), then building your ship, then determining your position on the crew, THEN picking your "class" which only provides you 3 pieces of equipment and an increase to the max you can raise a single attribute and a couple choices of talents (basically feats). "Class" like you describe race is barely an influence in what your character can be and only a small piece of the whole as opposed to dnds.90% of what they are. These games start you off by investing you in the world and putting the player in the headspace of thinking of their character as a person within that world.

DnD just says "How do you want to kill monsters? Are you a rmored warrior? A tough barbarian? A devote Paladin? etc etc...".

There is such a gap between what is good for a new player and what dnd gives you that they are not even in the same weight class.

 Lance845 wrote:
Its acording to 99% of the materials.

Well in this case the 1% was the entire experience reward section of the DMG.
To quote directly from the source (condensed):

Chapter 8: Experience
This chapter contains instructions for determining specific experience awards. It also gives guidelines about awarding experience in general. However, it does not provide absolute mathematical formulas for calculating experience in every situation.
Fun - players should be rewarded with experience points since they are making the game a good experience for all.
Survival - although having a character live from game session to game session is a reward in itself, a player should also receive experience points when his character survives.
Improvement - when a player thinks up a really good idea--solves a difficult puzzle, has his character talk the group out of a tight situation, or just finds a novel way around a problem--that's worth experience points
Variable Goals - In addition to the constant goals listed above, every game session will have some variable goals. Most of these come from the adventure. Some may come from the players' desires. Both types can be used to spur players on to more effective role-playing.
Story Goals - When the DM sets up a story, he decides how many experience points he thinks the player characters should get for accomplishing the big goal. This must be based on just how difficult the whole adventure will be. If the characters successfully accomplish this goal (which is by no means guaranteed), they will earn this bonus experience.
Group Awards - All characters earn experience for victory over their foes. A creature needn't die for the characters to score a victory. If the player characters ingeniously persuade the dragon to leave the village alone, this is as much--if not more--a victory as chopping the beast into dragonburgers!
Individual Experience Awards - divided into two categories. First are awards all player characters can earn, regardless of class. After these are the awards characters can earn according to their character group and class. This information is given on Tables 33 and 34.

Followed by charts, etc - for example Player role-plays his character well* = 100-200 (*This award can be greater if the player character sacrifices some game advantage to role-play his character. A noble fighter who refuses a substantial reward because it would not be in character qualifies.)

 Lance845 wrote:
The phb has rules for exp by cr based on monsters. Remember, traps mostly didnt have cr in 3rd.

3rd edition? DMG(3.5), page 70 onwards. All traps sorted by challenge rating (and also listed that way in the SRD files)
Page 40-41 for XP notes for non-combat encounters, roleplaying awards, story progression, puzzle solving.

 Lance845 wrote:
But again, we are discussing it through the lense of dnd. So how dnd presents it has its impact and its not good for new players. It starts them off on entirely the wrong foot.

I asked you earlier how you would feel if the PHB started with a chapter dedicated to the characters background and motivations, with the same class system after that point.
You replied with the murderhobo point - so with that hopefully addressed I point you back to the original question - if the problem you are seeing really the class system itself or its prominance as the first thing the player works with?

 Lance845 wrote:
When is the last time a new player sat down for dnd at your table and knew what town he was born in? What region/country he was from? What ties he had to a community?

I can honestly say that whether or not any of the hundreds of characters I have played over the decades had this information was entirely down to me, and not to the system.
Sometimes I figure out a background. Sometimes I don't. Sometimes I do a bit.
Whether or not the game system in question has a class or free-form advancement has had no bearing on it at all.

This is just going to inevitably descend into the eternal if/then bucket of interactions with Lance about RPGs.

If not DnD - Highlight All Postitives, Downplay All Negatives

If DnD - Afford Absolutely Zero Flexibility, Make Wild Claims About What Does And Does Not Exist Within The System

You want me to go look at a White Wolf game - I'll use the only one Im familiar with and have the PDF for on my Drive, which is Changeling the Lost.

Step 1 of character creation: Core Concept.

This doesn't have a "step number" in dnd 5e, it's just the first few paragraphs, but otherwise it asks pretty similar questions. Basically, it asks you to come up with an overall idea for your character prior to ever choosing a race (in this case, half a race, because everyone in Changeling is half human, but same general idea)

Step 2: Attributes. So you allocate your skill points first in this system rather than allocating them after choosing race and class. OK.

Step 3: Skills. Basically we got a modernized version of DnD's skill checks, and by modernized I mean it's a modern setting, not that mechanically they function much differently because they don't. In DnD, my skill proficiencies are primarily driven by my race and class selection, and my background. In changeling I have absolute freedom, I can just say "OK I pick Firearms, Weaponry, Brawl, Stealth, and Survival for my chartered accountant" and I'm off to the murderhobo races.

Step 4: Specialties. Nothing I've picked so far has done anything to inform the reason my character is a part of this group

Step five I pick my race and my court, step six I pick my Merits which are like specialties but not, step seven I pick my various hit points and resources and such, and step eight, finally, the game asks me "so, uh, what's your guy like?"

I'm not being facetious there: "By this point, your character has been established pretty
well in terms of dots and rules. You know what he’s good at, what he’s not so great at and what he hasn’t a chance in Hell of accomplishing barring a miracle. But all of this is just one half of the character; much as an actor takes the character written on the page and infuses it with life, you must now decide how to bring the dots and points together to create a living, breathing character. What’s he like, physically as well as emotionally?"

I know a lot about my particular character's experiences in becoming a half-fairy, I know all about their magical abiliites, just how much fairy magic they've got going on, what their secret disguise face looks like and what their true monstery face looks like, I have a general idea of what skill checks they're gonna be good at, and I know what emotion they need to inspire to get glamor points and what court they have fealty to, but I know very little about why they're in a group of people acting and working together. And that's something you run into as a group trying to play this game immediately: Why are we all here? Why is this happy pixie fairy person who wants to inspire joy and comfort in humans around her palling around with the shadows-themed spooky detective who gets power from making people feel like they're being watched?

At a certain point though that can be OK: this isn't a game where your characters are necessarily supposed to be a well oiled team, you're a group of hopefully very distinct freaks who have to do something together and what that is is driven by the GM. You're supposed to be weird fairy monster people, and so you know the most about how you interact with the weird fairy monster world. if you set up a game of Changeling the Lost and then had the players try to RP in a high fantasy world where everything fairy related was out in the open and the characters had no reason to hide their identities or do stuff in secret, then you'd be wasting your fething time using this sytem over a different system designed to support that kind of a game.

DnD is a game about the players being wandering adventurers. Ultimately that's your job. By default, you're going to be roaming from place to place, encountering adventure and danger, and interacting with most locations as first time visitors rather than as people familiar with the areas. It's a setting designed to emulate a high fantasy adventure, and that's what it works for, so "how does your character do a fight" is ultimately pretty important.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:
When is the last time a new player sat down for dnd at your table and knew what town he was born in? What region/country he was from? What ties he had to a community? When was the last time your brand new to rpgs player had any idea of how how that character got to where he was in session 0/1?

Literally all of them, every time, no matter what game system we were running. Do you let people sit down at your table WITHOUT knowing this stuff?

Changeling campaign: I was running this one, I let all players know they were going to be starting in a small town outside of pheonix Arizona with a fairly large population of changelings of various backgrounds and affiliations who want to get away from court politics and lead quiet lives, and also that they all work together as members of a sort of community town council (they didn't stay there long, but that's where they started). Everyone had a background for their character, and why they wanted to come to this small town to get away from excitement and settle down.

Masks campaign: We started in a mundane high school, so "why are you here" was obviously baked in. I had every character pick two other members of the group and come up with a reason why they hang out with that person to establish them as a group, and everyone had their family situation in mind (exchange student from a race of aliens who look like reverse mermaids with human bodies and fish heads who was instructed by her diplomat father to conceal her superhuman abilities to avoid freaking out the humans, rich boy who flunked out of a private school who gains ghost themed powers and starts wearing a mask so he can start a tiktok channel about doing ghost adventures, edgy teen who was raised by a pair of ultra-supportive straightlaced superhero dads who decided to decided to run away from home because she didn't have anything to rebel against, earnest orphan who was adopted as a Young Ward by a woman presenting herself as a dark brooding batman style superhero who then got arrested for super villainy and is being held at a facility that would be incredibly easy for her sidekick with her particular powers to break her out of.)

Quarantine Remote DnD campaign #1: We started super by the book with mines of phandelver, which I think comes with an immediate reason for you all to be there at the time. We had my mother in the camaign so she was a relative of the people who you're trying to find, and she'd hired the rest of us on. We all have backgrounds, towns we're from or at least areas, things we want to be doing, and ways in which we are and aren't as familiar with the various other members of the party.

Quarantine Remote DnD campaign #2: We all started in a scientific expedition to a newly discovered island, so we all came up with reasons were hired on to the expedition or in one case had a plan for how the expedition discovered us, as well as how well we knew eachother from the boat ride over. I was there as part of the team of academy scientists with a specialty in studying insects, one person was an attache from the royal army, one person was a ranger brought in with the cartography team to try and map out the geography, and one person was a miniature golem we found in the ruins in session 1. Most of us kept details from our backstories purposefully vague so that we could add to them later on with relatives, connections, areas we'd lived, exes, etc to keep our characters invested in the campaign.

The initial argument had nothing to do with D&D. It was the idea that class systems do not help new players.

As I think about this more, I have softened a bit. I think some sort of initial template, class, archetype, or background to start with that gives some initial benefits or factors is good. However, once play actually begins, I see Classes as a pigeon hole for players.

After all, my background is as a Corporate Executive, Efficiency expert, Small Business Owner, and Baker. Therefore, I might get some bonus skill points here and there, maybe a bonus to 1 attribute, and some unique starting equipment involving a rolling pin and computer with statistical analysis tools.

However, if I started fighting monsters and going on "adventures" today why would any of that impact how I get better at adventuring? Sure, it might give me some initial benefits.... but it would not shape my adventuring skills going forward that a level based class system does.

Instead, if I actually started going on adventures and killing monsters I would probably want to spend time getting better at driving, shooting, and long distance running! These would have very little to do with my "Business Guy" class. After all, I am an adventurer now!

 Easy E wrote:
Instead, if I actually started going on adventures and killing monsters I would probably want to spend time getting better at driving, shooting, and long distance running! These would have very little to do with my "Business Guy" class. After all, I am an adventurer now!

There aren't many games that lock you into a class, though long gaps between levels and unified xp (i.e. 3rd edition rather than 2nd edition dnd) does make it increasingly difficult to change the focus of a character.

I suppose that is not unwarranted as far as systems go in terms of it being more difficult for established characters to change course. There was a variation on class systems in a mech game called 'lancer' - while the class skills were replaced by parts licences each 'class' represented three levels of investment in a particular area: novice through to master. Opening up any given level of a class allowed you to use all of the options at that level but your character had an absolute total of how many options from all of their classes they could take at any given point.

Yeah, I feel that. Our Masks campaign definitely felt like it had a natural 'lifespan' because of the way that there just wasn't that much to the various classes, and we unlocked everything they could do and basically completed the story we were telling with the various characters after like 5 months of weekly play. Some of it comes down to intentionality - Masks doesn't feel like a system designed for your characters and campaign to last forever. Your characters are supposed to go on some adventures, learn some lessons, grow up, and move on from the scope of being awkward teen superheroes. It's a genre defined by tropes, and the classes help to guide you along playing out one of those tropes.

In a game where it's portraying a less trope-driven genre, I think classes can absolutely be more of a detriment and it's better to just use them as a start-up template.

Newbie DM here, running for some friends. What are some good ways to get through to people that, just because their (dnd5e) class doesn't have a feature, or they're not proficient in a skill, that they can still use it? Or get them to use features that they do have, that are useful, without outright telling them to use it in a situation?

For the example, I gave my party a little puzzle to get some extra treasure, and the party as a whole is handling things well. They're not stumped or anything, but only 3 of the 5 people are interacting. I wrote the puzzle to require no class features, spell slots, or limited resources to beat, with many flexible ways to get through it. I've got a paladin and Wild Magic barbarian who don't think they can do anything, and aren't really trying their skill checks to gather information, despite saying that there are things they can do.

Being new to this whole thing relatively speaking, I'm not sure what to do with the situation. I know there's plenty for them to do, using class features or not, but vaguely saying that they can doesn't seem to help. I don't want to just tell them what they can do. What would you/should I do in a situation like this?

 Thadin wrote:
Newbie DM here, running for some friends. What are some good ways to get through to people that, just because their (dnd5e) class doesn't have a feature, or they're not proficient in a skill, that they can still use it? Or get them to use features that they do have, that are useful, without outright telling them to use it in a situation?

For the example, I gave my party a little puzzle to get some extra treasure, and the party as a whole is handling things well. They're not stumped or anything, but only 3 of the 5 people are interacting. I wrote the puzzle to require no class features, spell slots, or limited resources to beat, with many flexible ways to get through it. I've got a paladin and Wild Magic barbarian who don't think they can do anything, and aren't really trying their skill checks to gather information, despite saying that there are things they can do.

Being new to this whole thing relatively speaking, I'm not sure what to do with the situation. I know there's plenty for them to do, using class features or not, but vaguely saying that they can doesn't seem to help. I don't want to just tell them what they can do. What would you/should I do in a situation like this?

I'm not currently GMing any of the campaigns I'm playing in, but the "PBTA Approach" to skills and abilities out of combat is something we've stuck with in DnD as well.

That's basically "You (the player) don't need to say the name of your ability. Tell the DM what you want to do, and the DM will tell you what ability to roll."

obviously, if you were trying to make a Nature Check which you have a +5 in, and your Dm just always defaults to asking you to roll Investigation when you're looking around for stuff, even if it's in a natural environment when Nature would make sense, then you can ask to roll Nature instead. But I've found this keeps things flowing more in terms of the players continuing to do roleplay.

.....I will say I don't enjoy straight up puzzles in an RPG setting very often. It takes someone REALLY skilled at crafting them for the situation to be "The players play their characters as their characters do what they would do to figure out a puzzle" and not "The players stop roleplaying and try to work together to solve a puzzle originally designed for fifth graders that's being verbally relayed to them, making it much harder to do"

all the iconic "Character solves a puzzle" scenes from movies that we remember, like Indiana Jones in Last Crusade, are good and memorable not because of how clever the puzzle is, but because of the character interacting with the puzzle. Frequently this involved that character making very obvious mistakes - like misspelling the latin name of god - for the audience to feel like Clever Lads and knowing something the character didn't know for a second.

I feel like I avoided the ambiguity well, because rather than a spoken-out puzzle that I can slip up on, I made a map using Dungeonfog, and made the clues for the puzzle built in to the visuals of the map, but also let players just roll skill checks, if they couldnt see anything, or just wanted to skill check. I will take in to consideration the comment about puzzle though. I'll have to ask my party how they felt about it afterwards.

The PBTA Approach, is something I do too. They want to do something, I determine what they roll after they say what they want. Or, they can just tell me what they want to roll, and I provide the info based off of the skill they chose.

My biggest hurdle I feel, is helping the players realize just what their character can do, and that they're not so limited, without straight-up telling them, in the moment, what things they can try or use. I intend to go over all of this with them, after the puzzle is cleared, and my advice-seeking is mostly geared towards that. Helping players realize what they can do. Just saying "You can try anything, or ask me anything, don't feel limited by that" hasn't got the point across, I feel.

Yup, that's always a challenge. Particularly for those characters that don't have 'special stuff' written out on their sheet or spell list.

I can't think of an RPG I've ever played in where we didn't run into the problem of having players who are more engaged and interested and tuned in than others, and having the GM trying to straddle the line between not making the entire campaign for the people who turn up and get into it, and also not trying to throw stuff at the unengaged players who just aren't into it.

Even in my current friends-campaign which is far and away the single best RPG experience I've ever played in, we have a player who in any given session will be having either a Bad Day or a Good Day. On a Good Day, he provides a fun, fairly silly but not overly obnoxious character who's engaged with what the party is doing but isn't really as concerned with his own background or doing things specifically for his character, and on a Bad Day he's just not participating unless prompted.

At the end of the day, it's OK to put more effort into the players who put more effort in back for you.

Try actively asking them now and then what they are doing while the other characters go about their investigations, and maybe highlight that it doesn't necessarily have to be to do with the solution. just what the actual character is doing at that moment. In other words, they're,probably not just standing motionless staring into space, so,prod the player for some specifics. even if they go for something unrelated. With a little DM magic, you can tie that unrelated activity into the encounter and bring it back to the group as a whole.

For example, you ask the Barbarian what they're doing and they say they're just restlessly pacing, waiting for a fight. Turn that passive action into an active,one by asking for a perception check, and based on the roll, there's new information for the group as a whole. Maybe they do really well, and notice recent tracks or hear nearby motion that might even hint at the next encounter. They might roll badly and with the classic DM trick of stressing that they definitely feel safe for the moment, the reverse psychology of a low roll in fact ups the tension for the party as a whole, adding new impetus to solve the puzzle.

Then there's always the Mines of Moria random observation trick. Gandalf is trying to solve the riddle on the door, while Frodo is mostly just sitting there. But in a flash of inspiration, he asks Gandalf what the Elvish for 'friend' is and that gives Gandalf the missing piece of the puzzle, pulling him back from overthinking it. So to put it in DnD terms, the party are ultimately making no headway and starting to go round in the dreaded overthinking loop, so you pull the focus off them and onto the inactive players, with the aim of turning their actions into that little nudge back on track. You ask the Paladin what they're up to, and they say they're taking a quiet moment to pray while the party isn't in imminent danger. You narrate that while doing this, some chance thing leads them to notice an undiscovered element of the puzzle, prompting the rest of the party to change tack. If they're lighting a candle to pray, and the party have missed a hidden door, have a draft from that door extinguish the candle by chance, making sure to highlight where this happened. Even if the Paladin then doesn't follow up on that, someone else might, and the party is one step closer to success.

Ultimately, though, the moment a player realises the true scope of what they can do is not one you can force, it's something that'll click for each one in their own time. Last year I introduced some new players with no TTRPG experience (or gaming experience at all) to the game, and while they were all getting along fairly well from the start, the moment that sticks out is when, about 4 sessions in, one player picked up on an offhand comment I made in describing a tavern common room; she ended up using her newly acquired invisibility spell to sneak into a secret room behind the bar, only for the local crime lord to show up mid-investigation and add some real stakes and tension to the moment. It then clicked for that player that she had made that moment of tension and drama happen just by following up a throwaway background description, and I could tell them that she'd just figured out the true beauty of an RPG and how player agency works. Which is a long winded way of saying that they'll definitely get there eventually, and players being a little more passive until that 'aha' moment doesn't mean you or they are doing anything wrong at all.

 Paradigm wrote:
Try actively asking them now and then what they are doing while the other characters go about their investigations, and maybe highlight that it doesn't necessarily have to be to do with the solution. just what the actual character is doing at that moment. In other words, they're,probably not just standing motionless staring into space, so,prod the player for some specifics. even if they go for something unrelated. With a little DM magic, you can tie that unrelated activity into the encounter and bring it back to the group as a whole.

This is the way. As a DM, you always need to keep the spotlight of the scene moving from character to character, even if some of them are not really "doing" anything relevant at the moment. It is this moving spotlight that keeps players engaged and away from their electronic devices. Think of a movie or TV show, they are always cutting to different characters to build story, suspense, and help the audience understand the characters better.

Really skilled players will and can move the spotlight around for you too. However, I am guessing your players are not that experienced in RPG too.

A bit of an aside, but may help people choose to shift the spotlight around is I encourage RPG, "cool stuff", and paying attention at the table is by putting a pile of checkers in the center of the table. Whenever a player does something really cool, clever, or in character ANY ONE at the table can grab a checker and give it to them. This they can then turn in for Advantage/re-rolls (depends on system) OR save it for extra XP at the end of the game. Players are surprisingly stingy with handing these things out and sometimes you have to grease the wheels by handing out the first one.

Here's a question: Does anyone else really hate interacting with players about rules outside of the game? I find nothing is burning me out faster these days than having to discuss rules or systems with players outside of game. I just hate it, it sucks all the fun out of things for me. Every week there is some small debate about some aspect of the rules or systems we are using, some kind of "homework" I have to do clarifying things for the players or whatever.

Part of this is because of the half assed design of 5e where so much stuff is left to the DM to sort out. But I find I have absolutely zero interest in doing that these days. Just none. I also don't want to discuss character backstory or come up with tailored plots. I've made a huge world to interact with and a bunch of cool NPCs and I just want to meet up once a week and watch the players romp around inside that world and have fun. I don't have any interest in discussing spell options or whatever else outside of game.

And I've made that clear so many times to my group but this gak continues to crop up. I stopped a previous campaign because of this and specifically designed this campaign to minimise that sort of stuff, but it's still ongoing. Dunno, very frustrated. Definitely down to some personalities in the group but they are work colleagues and it is difficult to kick anyone out for various reasons.

Do you guys feel like that sort of thing is just the DM's "job"? Cos I'm here to have fun. I don't want a second job, I can barely handle my real one.

I rather enjoy rules discussions out of game/character both as a player and GM. As long as the GM isn't going completely wacko with a decision and stays consistent about its application both between players and npcs (no "one rule for me and another for thee" situation), I'm usually fine with it as long as he or she gives me the opportunity to change my character if my build is based around the typical/common application of the rule.

I used to, now it is like I have developed an allergic reaction to it or something. I just want to get on with the gameplay, I don't want to discuss the system behind it.

The first bunch of issues came with magic items, which I think are a core part of dungeons and dragons but the designers of 5e don't seem to agree. My first campaign went off he rails because of endless discussions about magic items and hunts for magic item shops and all this stuff. So my new campaign has no magic item shops at all, and I made up a system whereby every item is autosold on return to town, but you can buy the item back from the group, essentially getting it at half price. I also use gold as XP at the moment, so players have a nice (in my view) strategic choice between levelling at a faster rate or getting cool gear. The adventure I am running is a huge wizards conclave full of ruined towers, and it is a treasure hunt so I wanted to incentivise treasure hunting. There are rival gangs of NPC treasure hunters to content with as well as various factions in the ruins themselves, and the PCs can choose how to approach it however they like. There is loads of treasure and more items than people could ever need in this location, so it's not like they're short on cool stuff or money to spend.

I thought I had developed a fairly airtight system but problems have developed with players going into debt with other players or wanting to "hold" items until they get to town to be sold, so there is a constant running discussion about all this stuff and I am just completely turned off by it. You can say it is my own fault for not running things by the book, and perhaps that is so, but I thought it was a fairly easy system and I made a google sheet for the party that automatically broke the treasure value into shares for everyone allowing them to keep track of what they had received and so on. The latest wrangle is what about spellbooks and is it unfair and blah blah.

Urgh. Makes me just want to quit. Make this massive, fully mapped out with vision blocking adventure locale full of factions and rival adventurers to play around in and people basically want to argue over an excel spreadsheet.

To be fair, it's entirely possible that the reason they're quibbling is that they just find that system to run up against their enjoyment of the game. But given the DM/player dynamic, they'd rather just try and get the most out of the system than outright challenge you on its existence. I see what you're going for with a shared loot/XP/gold progression system, but equally I can see that the players just might not enjoy it, as it's a very big change from the standard DnD format of each of these things contributing in their own way.

From an outside perspective, it certainly does sound like something very unusual/unexpected to anyone with prior DnD experience, and I can definitely see it being unfun if they've not all agreed to such a mechanic beforehand. I know that if I were playing a game and discovered an awesome magic item, I'd be very sceptical of the DM that says that rather than using it, I have to essentially wait until the next adventure and then buy back the very thing I found, discount or no. Unless there's some built-in lore reason for such a delay (Artefacts are often cursed or dangerous, proper Identification of magic items is therefore essential, and the 'cost' represents getting that service performed, for instance), I'd say it's not out of order for the Paladin that finds a Holy Avenger to want to immediately start swinging it around, and get frustrated when they're told they can't based purely on a bespoke rework of the game's progression rules.

To some extent, you've got to cater to your players and if they're not enjoying an element of the game, maybe it just shouldn't be there. Which isn't to say the DM has no right to have as much fun as the players, but the ways to play DnD or any RPG vary so much that there always has to be some compromise. A game with a complex living economy that on paper is a work of genius simulation will be wasted on a party that just want to fight the biggest, baddest monsters, and a game where even two goblins and a dire wolf is a life-or-death tactical exercise is going to be lost on players that are after a personal narrative journey and see combat as an excuse to Do Cool Stuff rather than a wargame in miniature. Or in your case, a system designed to stop players endlessly chasing magic items as their own reward is clashing with the fact that they just enjoy having magic items as an element of their fun. I hope I'm not overstepping here and certainly it's not a criticism of you as a DM, but it does sound like they're trying to get around this system because in a perfect world, they just don't want it to be there in the first place.


More generally, I do find rules discussion out of game tedious, but it does only happen rarely with my group. Generally, when a strange interaction of rules comes up we just make a ruling in the moment (led by the DM) and from then on, that's the rule. We've only very rarely had a dispute last longer than that one decision, as a) we accept that whoever's running gets the final say and b) we're collectively more interested in keeping the game flowing than doing it 'right; (we already have so many bespoke magic items and such that even perfectly written rules would cause the odd weird interaction, so we generally just go on whatever's coolest and move on).

As for the 'effort' of character backstories and tailored plots, I honestly can't imagine running or playing a game without those elements. Again, each to their own, but for me that's what DnD is, on both sides of the screen. Whether it's creating a campaign narrative as DM or a single character as a player, it's a major creative outlet for me and without it, I might as well just go back to playing Warhammer or chess. And for a player to want to ramble about their backstory to me is demonstrative of a level of engagement in and respect of my game that it's only fair I reciprocate, and hearing just how much thought goes into that is a genuine privilege.

Thanks for the thoughtful and well reason response mate, I always enjoy your posts.

Just to clarify, the waiting til they sell the item thing was invented by the players. It is not something I stipulate. In my general experience, players just divvy the item up to whoever would be best at using it. But my group has a lot of very quiet people in it and one guy was just hogging all the magic items to a crazy extent, so they clubbed together an instituted this to try and curtail his behaviour. He also hogged items (and tried to control what items others had) in my previous game. So he's obviously a problem player, and normally I would kick him. Unfortunately due to the dynamics in play that is not really possible in this case (for reasons that are not worth getting into).

As to gold for XP in general, it's actually a very old rule that is part of D&D since the start. But it is unusual these days for sure. Most of my players have told me they like it because it helps to control this and makes it free of conflict, it's mostly one or two players whining against it all the time. So yeah it definitely impedes their fun but it enhances the fun of other people at the table (and they don't care about the whining because they don't have to engage). I think gold for XP is interesting. A lot of people don't use XP and assign it whenever they feel like it. That was how I did it for probably my first 12 years of playing. Then I decided I would like groups with mixed levels in them for a more interesting group dynamic, and was running more West Marches style games, so I gave XP for exploration and finding secrets. Other people give XP for achieving goals. These are incentive methods - the XP for goals basically rewards you for interacting with the story. Some people give XP for killing monsters, which incentivizes monster killing. My current game is based around the idea of adventurers as treasure hunters exploring ancient ruins. So to incentivise treasure hunting I wanted to try I out gold as XP. This encourages smart solutions with regard to solving problems and engaging with the world, and puts the acquisition of XP firmly in the control of the players. In effect, they decide what risks to take to get gold, and they decide when they level up, when they get items, and so on. Maximum agency for the players. I do not make up gold on the fly, the entire (massive) adventure location is stocked with treasure already, so it is something they can plan around and strategise for.

I don't really agree that you always have to compromise for player fun though. I did that for a long time and ended up with pretty severe burnout. Now I protect my fun a bit more fiercely. I'm not forcing anyone to play with me and if they don't like it it's fine if they stop. I may stop running for this group because the issues seem fairly difficult to solve and I have tried several times to do so (including directly telling the players about this stuff very bluntly).

I'm not worried about you criticising me as a DM. I've been doing this for nearly 20 years, I know I am very good at it. I am not as good as usual at the moment because I am just tired out in my life in general, but I'm still good. I have just developed a bit of a different style over time that is not what modern D&D is quite so much.

As to backstory, I think the real story is what we do in play. I like motivation, I like character, but I'm not interested in writing and interweaving five different stories into one cohesive narrative any more. I did that for years. Now, what you were before is not as important as what you are doing now. Who is showing up to the table, what are they doing, and why are they doing it? I give really high agency to my players within the world and allow them to chart their own path completely, and I put a lot of work into ensuring the world has a high level of fidelity and a sense of realism when they do it. In effect I try to simulate a fantasy world and let them immerse themselves in it rather than writing a fantasy story and letting them play through it, if you follow me. We get a cool story out of it, but that's what happens at the table and is often unexpected for all of us.

All of that said, you are probably right. The player (and kinda one other player) doesn't like the system and is bucking against it for that reason. He's been a problem for a long while. That is the real issue, my fatigue in dealing with the rules is really just fatigue from dealing with this person.

Thanks. I hope my long answer wasn't too boring. You helped me out here!

Fair enough, if the players are on board for the most part then most of what I said is moot, you just hear so many horror stories of games falling apart due to the DM and players just not being on the same page that I figured it was worth raising. And in my experience it can sometimes be hard to see that from the DM perspective if none of the players will actually speak up about it. (I'm lucky in that my brother will happily call me out when my games get too convoluted or self-indulgent and he feels the players could be getting more out of certain aspects )

If it's a single player that's the issue, then I think it really does need to be a dialogue not about the game but about the attitude to it. Even if you can't kick them altogether, a frank conversation about how it's affecting you and/or the other players might be inevitable, and in my experience it's better to do that sooner than later, especially if you're actively losing inspiration for the game because of it. I was in that situation a couple of years ago, where I'd walk away from perfectly good sessions pissed at a handful of things one player would consistently do that just didn't tally with what the rest of us were playing for, and I probably left that conversation way too late until we got to a complete gakshow of a session and the whole campaign fell apart for the better part of a year. It's since recovered, without that particular player, but I didn't realise until after we resumed how much I was starting to hate running the game because of that mismatch in attitudes. So yeah, lots of sympathy there, it's never pleasant and all too necessary at times.

Do you know if the other players are having the same frustrations with this one player? If they are, that definitely gives you a bit more of a chance to bring it up, as it then becomes a group issue rather than something that could just be seen as the DM saying 'my way or the highway' (whether that's the intent or not).

A slight tangent, but I really do think future DMGs need a bit of an expanded section of the out-of-game social side of actually maintaining a group, how to approach dealing with problematic players and such. There's all the advice in the world out there on how to structure an adventure or hack a monster statblock, but a dearth of genuinely good advice on dealing with the far messier side of things. The move towards tools for making everyone feel comfortable at the table is a good start, but a chapter on the day-to-day of holding a campaign together and resolving these conflicts wouldn't go amiss.

As for compromising, I certainly don't mean the DM should just cater to the players, and I agree protecting your fun is very important. I more mean it's a give-and-take rather than a meet-in-the-middle situation. For instance, one of my players ran a campaign for the group last year that was, on paper, a tactical survival game with a high level of danger, resource management, troops to command and all that jazz. Ordinarily, I'd find that setup pretty damn dull, but because he also put in some really great NPCs I could spend time interacting with it didn't drag at all and I really enjoyed it. So did the more tactically-minded player who loved getting the nitty-gritty of tactical battle that tends to go out the window in favour of action movie heroics in our usual game.. Of course, this can end up with the DM spread way too thin trying to please everyone (and themselves), especially in larger groups, but it's something I always try to keep in mind. Though again, if your players are on the same page aside from that one exception, then then you're doing it right!

Thanks for the history lesson on the gold-to-XP stuff, I'd honestly never come across it before (as a 5e newcomer who tried running an XP-based game for about 3 weeks before getting bored of the maths and switching to milestone). Doesn't really sound like something I'd enjoy, but it does seem like a very well though out update of the system and if the players are (mostly) on board then you can't say fairer than that!

Thanks. Milestone is the most popular way to distribute levels for a reason. It fits the style most people enjoy the best (a storytelling style). I've been messing around with other XP systems because I am interested in how the incentives impact the game aspect of the whole thing. The absolute worst I think is monster XP only. I am actually playing in a game that has that right now, and it is only because everyone playing is pretty experienced and likes to play fully in character that it is not creating weird situations.

As to the player, I've actually had several blunt conversations with him. He's just not really able to stop himself with these behaviours I think. Not a bad person, but he has some difficulties. Because of other factors, I don't really want to boot him. Other players get a bit annoyed but I think it mostly impacts me. I'm a people pleaser and his personality type is just kind of endlessly discontented, and that drives me crazy because I feel like I constantly have to address his unhappiness and he is always nagging on at me about this or that.

Ah well. We're both now middle aged men so we gotta sack it up. But it really frustrates me, especially when my patience is lower for other reasons.

I kinda feel like "the social monster" is the highest CR monster in D&D. It is definitely responsible for more campaign endings than any dragon or lich!

Tarrasque bard confirmed!

Idea for a character;

Goblin Rider.

Start as a Ranger, reach level 3 and go beast master to get pet. Then multiclass Fighter and go Cavalier. Use your pet as a mount and ride into battle gloriously!

 Thadin wrote:

My biggest hurdle I feel, is helping the players realize just what their character can do, and that they're not so limited, without straight-up telling them, in the moment, what things they can try or use. I intend to go over all of this with them, after the puzzle is cleared, and my advice-seeking is mostly geared towards that. Helping players realize what they can do. Just saying "You can try anything, or ask me anything, don't feel limited by that" hasn't got the point across, I feel.

I hate to sound like I am pitching a different system to you, but this is something GUMSHOE addresses by design and it does have a supplement for Pathfinder called Lorefinder that should be readily convertible to D&D. The premise is investigative skills auto succeed at finding core clues that advance the story, all you have to do is ask. Bonus clues require a point spend or a skill check. The system's advice for players not thinking to use a skill is, in short, to keep a list of characters and their skill and inform of what they found based on skill rank and spotlight sharing. For example, Character X as you have Knowledge ABC you notice the following clue... This teaches the player how to use their skills, and makes the player character relevant.

 Da Boss wrote:
Part of this is because of the half assed design of 5e where so much stuff is left to the DM to sort out. But I find I have absolutely zero interest in doing that these days. Just none. I also don't want to discuss character backstory or come up with tailored plots. I've made a huge world to interact with and a bunch of cool NPCs and I just want to meet up once a week and watch the players romp around inside that world and have fun. I don't have any interest in discussing spell options or whatever else outside of game.

The best "answer" to backstories and plots I have seen was in Ashen Stars (GUMSHOES). Players submit their own subplots that are related to the overall theme, and these may become the A or B plot of a session or episode as needed.

 Da Boss wrote:
I don't really agree that you always have to compromise for player fun though. I did that for a long time and ended up with pretty severe burnout. Now I protect my fun a bit more fiercely. I'm not forcing anyone to play with me and if they don't like it it's fine if they stop. I may stop running for this group because the issues seem fairly difficult to solve and I have tried several times to do so (including directly telling the players about this stuff very bluntly).

The GM is also a player, perhaps the most important player if the game cannot be run without a such a moderator. Thus, the compromise cuts both ways. The players ought to be as committed to the GMs enjoyment of the game as the GM is to theirs.

 LordofHats wrote:
Idea for a character;
Goblin Rider.

A little disappointed that it's not a character riding a goblin... :p

 LordofHats wrote:
Idea for a character;

Goblin Rider.

Start as a Ranger, reach level 3 and go beast master to get pet. Then multiclass Fighter and go Cavalier. Use your pet as a mount and ride into battle gloriously!

It's a fine idea but mechanically do you get enough of a benefit from Cavalier to justify the multiclassing? Admittedly I only looked at the first couple of levels of it but honestly I'd personally rather keep leveling up the ranger beast master pet mount.

Mechanically justifying it, idk. The idea is meant to be fun not optimal (in general, multi-classing is almost never optimal). But Fighters are fairly front loaded. A 2/3 level dip into fighter is probably one of the better multi-class options. Realistically, the better option is to just take the Mounted Combatant feat and be done with it. But I want my flavor dangit!

Really main downside to it is that it's a bit MAD and I'd need to prioritize ranger levels to keep the mounts stats up (it also delays extra attack at level 5 which is important for martial classes). A 3 level dip in cavalier though gives Action Surge, an extra Fighting Style, Born to the Saddle, Unwavering Mark, Second Wind and an extra proficiency plus heavy armor. All of those are glorious for the style of play the character would use.

The real question is do I make him a mounted archer, a lancer (Goblins can disengage as a bonus action, so hit and run is viable combined with Unwavering Mark), or a brawler with the pet as an extra attack and source of constant advantage. Under the new rules in Tasha's, the beast will automatically take the dodge action and can use it's full movement so it will be fairly survivable. My current Steel Defender is rather tanky for it's stat block and uses the same basic ruleset.

It would also be nice if I could get my hands on some crafted armor for the pet since their AC is still on the lower end.

Then comes the question of what mount to take? I has to be medium to serve as a mount. A boar has nice looking stat block for task and it seems fitting for a Goblin to have a boar as a mount.Giant Badgers have multi-attack which is very nice for offense. Giant Snakes have weren't that bad under the old beastmaster rules if you cheesed them. A giant Spider would be even more fitting than a boar and comes with a lot of nice mobility perks. A mounted archer on a giant spider could do a lot of silly stuff since the thing has innate access to spider climb. Nothing says gtfo like a goblin on a spider shooting arrows from the ceiling XD Hyenas and Wolves have pack tactics, which is a surprisingly nice perk for a more melee oriented build.

Of course, there's also the cheesy option of going full cavalier and using another PC as a mount XD

Fair enough. I'd suggest though since you mentioned getting heavy armor that you start in fighter instead of "dipping" into it which would imply multiclassing into it later. Multiclassing into fighter doesn't give you heavy armor proficiency iirc.

Goblin Wolf Rider or Spider Rider seems appropriate

Small rangers riding their companions has been a thing forever and it's a lot of fun. I played a goblin ranger that rode his wolf companion back in 3e.

@Da Boss-

Quibbling about the rules is half of the fun of D&D for a lot of people. It is all about the "meta" and how to maximize the rules. No different than a lot of games that way.

However, I am much more like you and am sick of that. That is why I do not DM D&D anymore. I still will DM, just not that system.

As for personalized Plots and character back stories, I am MUCH more sympathetic too. From a players perspective, all they have is their character and the fact they are even interested in this means they do not WANT to be just Murder Hobos.

Like you I create a world with a bunch of hooks. If they start tying it into their own back story and personal plots, that is fine by me; but I make them do the heavy lifting.

For example, a character wants to discover their long lost father? Great, what are you doing "in-game" to do it? What clues are you looking for? Who are you asking, where are you going to do it? Why are your companions coming along? I heavily improvise everything though so this actually helps my games run better though as the characters are propelling the action rather than me.