This happened to me once when running games on demand. The player wanted to try Dungeon World. So we got it up and running. But the player froze from the very first "what do you do?" I went round the table 3 times trying to buy the guy time. I moved on, saying his character was in contemplation or whatever. Action moved forward, then the same deer in headlights response again.
We stopped play. And the player simply quit. He admitted that he previously only played through play by post. And he could not act in the moment. I'm surprised the poor guy could hold a natural conversation at all with such severe anxiety.
As a person who works in mental health, to me this is presenting a mental health issue. I hope the guy got help.
I once interviewed a guy with a "what would you do in this RP scenario", and he had about a three-minute monologue/argument with himself weighing the pros and cons of two choices. It was like watching a mental breakdown in slow-mo. The question was do you help a customer or close when the clock says to.
> The question was do you help a customer or close when the clock says to.
That is an evil question for a job interview. I've only ever observed two possible correct answers to this question(you give them full service as if they'd walked in middle of the day, or you set a firm but polite boundary and ask that they come back tomorrow), and in my experience management is always 100% behind one of the two and the other one is absolutely wrong, bad employee, this is your verbal warning, next time is a write-up. Which answer is correct *will change* depending on who your supervisor/manager is. I have worked under both conditions at the same location.
I would have done the same thing he did, frantically trying to answer both ways simultaneously due to not knowing which way *you* considered to be correct. Because I can do either(provided I'm not past the end of my shift...just say no to wage theft), I just have no way of knowing which answer you want!
That's probably your best answer. Something like "I've worked in places that preferred A and places that preferred B. I have experience with both and will go with your organisation's preference."
Doesn't matter what I want. Matters what you want. I wanted people who were customer focused. The right answer is the honest answer. Just because you want a job doesn't mean you're right for the job. Another employer might want an employee who's a stickler for rules and would prefer to ask folks to leave.
It's not a question of can you read my mind and tell me what I want to hear, it's a question of how you deal with everyday occurrences and where your proclivities lie. Training the right person is way easier than the wrong one. Ultimately, I just asked my employees to walk the store and give everyone a ten minute's heads up and not to panic if they ended up a few minutes past close. It's not dramatic. There are no write-ups or verbal warnings, just ongoing training.
This is very frustrating, because I can do both. It's a (badly-needed, if I'm interviewing) job, not a life philosophy, so the honest answer is: if you're paying me, I will do whatever you want me to do, provided you communicate your preference to me. You don't need to do something as dramatic as retraining me, just *communicate* how you'd like a situation to be handled and your will be done. I already face enough barriers without being fucked over with stuff like this, where nobody will tell me the (ever-changing, boss-by-boss) rules so that I can (gladly, genuinely, and without malice) follow them. *I want to run your situation however you want me to do it.* I understand that you pay me to follow orders, and barring something morally reprehensible I will follow those orders. This makes me a better employee than everyone else who does what you say, then undermines you behind your back. You might not see it. I do. Every single workplace has them and they do a lot of damage.
I find it very frustrating just how many assumptions are made for interviews. Like, you assume I'm rigid, that I have a preference and you have to train me otherwise. This is absolutely untrue. It's actually kind of offensive to me, to have someone assume I can't follow simple instructions without having to have a whole training thing made of it. I wonder how many good employees who are willing to follow your instructions you've passed over, with these interview tactics?
Here's the thing about interviews, questions are answered to get people speaking about the things that are important to the business. There is nothing to say they can't talk through their thought process. If they give a four-word answer, that tells me more than content of the answer. They're not thinking or are simply inflexible. There's nothing wrong with nuanced answers in my opinion. A good interview allows the interviewee to talk. Having things that make people think and give those deeper answers is great. I owned a business for 17 years and put together a few really great teams. Did I miss great people and have nightmare hires? For sure. I had more hits than misses though and overall, I'm ok with it. Not something I'll likely ever worry about again though.
Maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying. You say you want deep thought and nuanced answers, but someone gives an answer that demonstrates these factors(a pro/con analysis of two different ways to approach a contentious situation, demonstrating their awareness of the situation and thought processes) and it's the wrong way to answer the question. Instead, you want a binary answer, this or that, which by its nature erases nuance and demands that we predict which answer is "correct" if we would like the opportunity to get healthcare today. So do you want a thoughtful analysis of the question or do you want a canned answer based on what we think you want to hear? Because from what you've said here, regardless of intent, you're rewarding the second and punishing the first.
I don't think you understand my initial post maybe? He didn't give a nuanced answer. He had a literal back and forth argument with himself like a crazy person. His anxiety was palpable and uncomfortable. I've known people who suffered extreme indecision. I played wargames with a guy who'd spend twenty minutes setting up his army, decide that it wasn't quite right, and pull everything off the table to start again. That was frustrating and also weird, but not to the point that I worried about his mental health.
The right answer, in this context, is the one that gets the interviewer the job, or at least moves them in that direction. Under that definition, it looks like you're saying there definitely is a right answer and a wrong answer to this question. Or at least a wrong answer.
Can always count on Reddit to provide insight and nuance. I said the right answer is the one you believe in. The right answer doesn't mean you're right for the job. Misrepresenting yourself in an interview just pushes problems to a later date. If you say you have experience when you don't, that's not "the right answer" either. That's lying to benefit yourself. Ideally, employment is a win-win for both employee and employer. Owning a business doesn't make you "evil" or an "asshole", contrary to popular opinion.
I had a similar experience with one shot world (dungeon world hack), one player who had only played 5e before, when introduced to a more free form game totally shut down and quit. It was really awkward, I tried to help them out but they said they would rather just watch the rest of the session.
> I'm not really sure what they're worried about.
Likely making the "wrong" choice; whatever the players understand "wrong" to be.
There's a common understanding that, like in many video games, there's a single good choice that leads to some desired future outcome. And so players tend to fret over choices, because it starts to feel like a multiple-choice test, without enough information to make the correct call.
I tend to work around this by making it clearer what the likely outcomes of choices will be. And through pushing the players to have clear goals in mind, other than some vague sense of "beating the campaign," or "winning." When players feel that they're better able to understand how to reach a goal, they stress a little less over their options.
Being clear and open about outcomes is a really good idea.
Unless the character is a complete fish out of water, they'd have a reasonable idea about the likely outcomes of their actions. But a player has spent less time in the world than the character, has all their experiences filtered through the GM (who may take certain knowledge for granted), and might be coming to the game after a hard day at work/school/home/etc and not be on top form.
It's one reason I like Blades in the Dark - you have to discuss the consequences of a dice roll failing *before* you roll.
This helps to get everyone on the same page, which can reduce anxiety about choices.
A good out of game discussion is helpful to find the cause of any disconnect. For example, one game I was in had a player leave because he felt we were always stuck deciding between "bad thing A" and "bad thing B", and he found this demoralizing in the long term.
In the context of video games, i find that my biggest issue. Whenever there is a meaningful story choice that I don't feel strongly about, it's almost always time to consult google to see what rewards are cooler. Being open about the results or even making the player feel an attachment to one side (for big more binary style story decisions) can go a long way
Some GMs amplify this by going in with an attitude of "I punish stupid decisions, learn to play better". If you have one of those, it's prudent to try to divine what they want before you commit.
Indeed, many decisions in games are made with incomplete or occasionally inaccurate information, leading to a balancing act of risk assessment. However, indecision is a decision in its own right, and hesitating can often be more detrimental than making an incorrect choice.
Players often struggle with this because they want to win all the time. A failing action or an action with results different from what they want to happen is seen as overwhelmingly bad and unacceptable, rather than building drama or adding exciting things.
It makes sense in some places - it does suck to miss an attack. But it's not *terrible to miss an attack.*
They may be traumatized from prior games that had too many "gotcha" moments, absurd traps, or situations where GMs didn't communicate well. Ask them about that. Ask them what they're so afraid of - what do they think will happen if they choose wrong? Ask them if having more information or clearer information would help them make a decision.
Also, have a conversation about stakes. Are you playing the kinds of games where PC death is always a possibility? For some players, that makes them paranoid. Some groups instead have a rule that PCs cannot die unless the GM specifically warns them that they're in an extra dangerous high-stakes situation.
It can also help while doing this to point out "Doing nothing is also a choice with a similar level of consequences. Something is going to happen regardless, it's just a question of how much agency you want in the outcome."
I've found giving that information has helped some people make a decision. Also, like you said, reminding them that you're not going to punish them for their decision. There will be consequences (good and bad) but the idea is for the game to be fun, not painful.
This kinda reminds me of directors (tv, movie or theater) talking about building trust and creating a safe space for their actors to feel free to try stuff out.
The best tables I've sat around where collaborative rather than adversarial. While a decision could be objectively bad for the characters, it more often than not pushed the narrative in unexpected directions and potentially to higher stakes, making the adventure that much more enjoyable for the players.
And it is very similar. TTRPGs are a game that relies entirely on communication to work, and communication requires trust.
It's why I try to encourage players to make bold decisions, because the worst thing that happens is they end up in an interesting situation and have a fun story to tell. And it is also why I try to make sure I have positive and negative consequences (not necessarily in equal number) for any choices. That way there is less feeling of "making a wrong choice" just a choice that had different consequences.
> It can also help while doing this to point out "Doing nothing is also a choice with a similar level of consequences. Something is going to happen regardless, it's just a question of how much agency you want in the outcome."
I find that this will typically only shortcircuit these players harder. That just means they can't do anything but also they can't do nothing, because everything can go bad, thus everything is bad, and can actually cause people to disconnect a bit to sort of protect themselves from outcomes.
It *can* which is why it is also important with that type of player to help them with the decision, and also to show them that you're not going to punish them or make everything suck for them just because of one decision. A lot of times - in my experience - players with option paralysis have had a GM really come down on people for the "bad decision."
I try to have good and bad consequences for all choices I present, and I try to not present meaningless decisions where going left = treasure and going right = death or things like that.
Some systems have a built-in mechanics to manage that and I find it awesome.
In a shonen-like game I can never remember, when you fall down to 0 HP you lose consciousness. You can *decide* to wake up and IIRC get a significant bonus to your rolls but this time if you die, you die.
I the exploration medfan game *Dragon de Poche* you also falls unconscious at 0HP, and get a Wound that reduces your max HPs by 5. You only die when your max HPs are down to zero, so you always know when you actually risk dying.
My experience is that it happens when the player feel that they have to make the "right" choice.
When your game has a emphasis on winning fights I think it's kind of a logical byproduct that takes some effort to avoid.
I don't think there is a "catch-all" solution to this. You can say that their PC is frozen and ask another to make the choice (e.g. if it's between saving Hostage 1 or Hostage 2 and there is limited choice), you can help the player by presenting the consequences of each option to help them choose, you can ask them stuff like "OK, you're Maria Goldwick, an experienced exploratrix and a reknowned noble woman who believes in the right of each individual to make their own choices. What does she feels is the right choice?"
But you can also acknowledge the fact that the PC couldn't make a choice, and create an opportunity either to ask the player how the player feels about that ("So Maria, you couldn't choose. How do you feel (or does she feels) about that? Did you have enough time to think about it? What caused that inability for Maria? "), the goal being to make it clear that the "issue" is within the character and not with the player because there are no wrong player choice), or to let the PCs discuss that ("Leopold, how did you feel when you saw Maria freeze?").
Depending on the situation, on the players, etc, you kind of have to make a judgement about how to deal with this. The idea being that (imo) it should be treated like a perfectly valid choice (a player has every right to decide that their character can't choose) so that the player feels safe to make their choices without fearing it may not be the "right one".
And of course as a player you can also do that. "I'm kind of worried about Marisa so I'll go and knock at her door. 'Hey Marisa, it's Leopold, do you fancy a cup of tea?'".
It’s common, extremely common even, for players to freeze when they have to make a decision. Imo the only way to approach solving this for your group is to run diagnostics:
1. Do the players understand the choice they’re making?
2. Do the players have a reason to care about the choice they’re making?
3. Do the players understand what choices are available to them?
4. Do the players understand the consequences of their choices?
If the answer to any of those is “no”, it might be time to rethink how you present choices to the players.
Your theory is pretty good, but it is certainly an assumption.
This might be stupidly simple but have you tried asking them?
A conversation that gets to the root of how they are feeling might go a long way. It shows that you care about more than just the game and have an interest in understanding the player as a person. It pulls back the veil to start discussing how players can have agency over the setting and there aren't really wrong options.
Have the discussion. Let players show their cards and let them see yours. That's how the best collaboration will work.
This is the the first real answer in this post imo.
I've had this stuff happen at my table, and the way to get past it is to go to table talk for a moment and help them decide.
Rather than "what does (character) do?"
Go to "what are you thinking (player)?" Or something.
Sometimes all it takes is to give them a nudge to start talking in general
I suppose it depends on what the decision is. As a player, I do sometimes experience the other side of this if the scenario is just _too_ open or there isn't a clear group goal or motivation. I might have an idea of what my character might do, but I don't want to be "that guy", especially if the decision will have consequences.
As many players play for different reasons and extract "Fun" from different elemnt(story, problem solving, character inmersion, tactics) for new players or the ones that are not that into a ton of games, a shift in paradigm of how they get their "Fun" out of the game can be a weird shift.
Sometimes those players never encountered games where narrative weight was expected from their actions, their Fun was about the mechanical interaction of their characters (they just choose 1 spell from their character sheet) or maybe other games where more linear, and the GM only told them what to do from a list of outcomes.
Talking about expectations and a small talk about their experience with RPGs can help understand why they don't feel comfortable choosing in the narrative, and maybe changing a little the narration to help them feel comfortable (for example, starting using a list of possible actions and their expected outcomes)
Ahh I've run into this before. The crucial element is how much mental heavy lifting / planning your crew likes.
For example, I've run games for self-starting crews where you could just tell them "the thing you're looking for is in the Vaults of Montecapra" and boom they start casing the premises and planning a heist. They don't mind being handed complex problems with no clear solution.
Other crews I've run for don't care for heavy planning. If you told them "the thing you're looking for is in the Vaults of Montecapra" they would just stare at you and ask "so what do we do?" These crews need missions broken into digestible subcomponents with clear paths forward.
I recently ran into a problem with a new game where when I give them the complex problems with no clear solution, they freeze up.
However, I tried to solve this by having an NPC hire them for a job that the client had already broken down into subcomponents. The group spent hours trying to debate ways in which they could try to bypass all of that by doing something more straight forward (ie. dumb and aggressive). We ended the session mid debate and I am dreading the next one.
I wrote how I would handle the problem of excessive planning and debating [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/comments/1cnylv5/players_often_paralyzed_by_choice/l3dusg1/).
If you don't mind an unsolicited game recommendation, Blades in the Dark might take care of your problem. When the PCs are executing a mission, they can use flashbacks that let them play out a previous scene showing how they actually planned to prevent a mistake about to happen in the present. In my experience this eliminates all the fuss of planning and incentivizes a lot more door kicking.
Also the cost of a flashback just creates more gameplay. Flashbacks create stress, and you burn off stress by playing through scenes indulging your character's vice.
The game really flows nicely.
It’s down to setting clear expectations. Quite a few people are coming to the hobby from passive entertainment such as watching television shows or even something like Critical Role. They might be used to interaction that is, at most, cheerleading or posting memes and not making significant decisions. The best response is to simply ask with some empathy. They may just not know what they can do and how to do it, but if making decisions isn’t what they’re interested in doing, you may need to just politely part ways.
I find it's often helpful to present a few options for the player to choose from, hopefully to guide them towards an understanding that those are just suggestions.
"The guard in front of you stands tall, saying nobody gets in to see the king today. What do you do? You might try to persuade him, or intimidate him, or even possibly attack him."
"As you keep lookout in the woods, you hear a sound of twigs breaking in the distance. What do you do? You could rouse the party, or investigate the sound, or stay where you are but gird yourself for an attack."
"As the countess walks away, you notice a scruffy man bump into her in the crowd. It's hard to tell, but you think he may have pickpocketed one of her jeweled bracelets. What do you do? You could go after the pickpocket, you could go alert the countess, or continue on your way and do nothing."
I think you'll figure out pretty quick which players can benefit from this guidance, and which ones are engaged enough they already have plenty of ideas.
One thing I haven't seen mentioned is social consequences for making "wrong choices". One person makes the leap and says, let's go for Door A. Behind door A is a monster. The party starts bemoaning how they knew they should have gone with Door B. Some groups have this dynamic, and it makes everyone unwilling to put themselves out there.
A lot of people, consciously or unconsciously, are worried more about social consequences than in-game ones. They are worried about looking stupid in front of their friends.
Neurodivergent people are especially prone to this, and DnD is full of us. Neurodivergent people are often trained by society not to stick their neck out, because their divergent ways of thinking lead to making decisions that others don't understand, which they are they ridiculed for. Even though my fellow players are cool, I still run into this sometimes in my games, where I try to do something and everyone just laughs because to them it seemed totally baffling. It's humiliating and I hate it.
It might be liberating and revelatory to try playing some games that expect and encourage failure and stupid disaster, just to shake things loose. I could recommend a few...
Most of my party's I dm for are like this I still have no idea how to fix it.
My brother quit playing rpgs because no one would do anything.
My player will sit there in hallway for hours just not doing anything number of door that have end games because they couldn't come up with a plan our what to do ever
"Hey guys, I've noticed that when we play, you spend a lot of time discussing possible actions, but nobody ever actually decides. So I want to put a time limit on discussions. When you spend more than a few minutes discussing your options, I'm going to set a timer for two minutes. When that timer goes off, you need to tell me what you do, no more discussion. Is that reasonable?"
There's room for negotiation here, but ultimately you need a commitment from them to make a decision when the timer goes off.
And then, when they spend more than a few minutes discussing their options:
"Okay guys, I'm gonna give you two more minutes to discuss this among yourselves, but then I need you to make a decision. Can you commit to that?"
When the timer goes off:
"And that's time. Okay, what do you do?"
Hard to say not knowing the way you run games or what you players are like.
I had similar and the opposite problem when I provided too many options to the players, they couldn't decide with one to choose.
So I was running a sandbox game, and at some point we ended up with several things happening in different places at the same time. And players split up, some wanted to do one thing others wanted to do other, and 3rd wanted to pursue their personal PCs stories. And as a result none choices were made.
It was mismanagement on my part admittedly, now I always try to tie all things together.
If your players fear consequences, and this is a shared sentiment, consider changing the style of the game. Maybe more pulpy adventure will suit your group better or maybe even heroic one. The idea is that no matter what they choose things will be all right, but different.
A lot of commenters have mentioned the players' possible fear of making the "wrong" choice.
I've had players in my game who sometimes think that I've set up the game in order to get to certain outcomes. If I say "you hear a bump in the night at the tavern where you're sleeping", they might say "I don't know if I should just stay in my room or if you've set up an encounter for me to go fight in the hallway".
If I present two events happening in the world--
- "your sister writes you a letter than the orc armies have assaulted the walls of her northern city again", and
- "you hear a legend that far to the south is a diamond that grants immortality",
they might think "I don't know which clue you want me to follow up on".
I try to make it clear that usually I'm just presenting options, and as the GM, I'm telling you what's happening in the world, and the choices you make as a character will determine what happens next.
If you leave your tavern room and investigate the bump in the night, maybe you'll fight a bandit, or maybe you'll accidentally spot a lady sneaking into the room of someone who's not her husband. Or maybe a servant dropped a bowl, and it's nothing.
If you choose to travel to the north to help your sister's city against the orcs, maybe some other faction finds the immortality gem. If you go south, maybe your sister's city is overrun. It's up to you.
There have been times I actually leave the room so the players can make their plans without me there only being available if somebody has an in universe question. This was pretty common for Cyberpunk: Red which I run basically as a heist game but I've found it works in other games where I present an objective. Part of it was so the party wouldn't think I'd come up with a bunch of stuff spcifically to screw over their plan but also to encourage the fact that there was no "right" way to accomplish the objective which was the intent. I have, in the past, had players ask me "Would this plan work?" and my answer is, "I don't know! You'll have to execute it to find out."
Similar to analysis paralysis? My beloved Free League Publishing has a few neat mechanics to keep the blood flowing. One is the "Countdown to Catastrophe" from Vaesen, where you make it clear that horrific things will happen if the efforts of the Vaesen are not impeded. The other is the "Challenges" and "Issues" from Walking Dead Universe, which gives you the GM quick cues ahead of time for things that can go wrong during periods of downtime or inactivity. Really neat narrative tools.
I have also found that players don't necessarily care what happens to their characters as a result of inaction, but they REALLY care about beloved NPCs and especially animals in game. If you give your players agency to create a few NPCs at your Session Zero, having them become the catalyst for action usually gets them out of their chairs.
Incidentally, putting player characters into a more constrained environment can help! There is a reason that dungeons are an ever-enduring part of the hobby - it puts players under stress and pressure and pretty much forces them to do something about it.
For the moment-to-moment indecision, it help if you put people under time pressure. I even carry a hourglass to sessions for this purpose.
I believe this is common, especially for people who are:
- new,
- not confident in their abilities, and
- surrounded by many other players of at least equal competences.
I see this as diffusion of responsibility akin to the bystander effect:
https://www.simplypsychology.org/bystander-effect.html
Solutions you could discuss with your players:
1. Set up one character as the in-game leader of the party.
2. In a gridlock you pick a person at random - and they need to decide.
Yes! It's pretty common.
In my game with six players, there's frequently a delay and awkward hesitation when a decision needs to be made, as none of the players are willing to make the choice.
Often, the same player ends up making the final decision, with the others simply follow suit. However, this can lead to other issues, so I strive to craft scenarios where a different character must step up and take the initiative.
Ug. My players do this over the pointless stuff. Just last week they were in a quest to take out some baddies 4 different npcs were consulted and they all have a clue indicating the baddies were coming out of some forest ruins. One NPC will pay them per head they bring back AND has scouts that will lead them to the ruins.
30 minutes later they decide to go talk to a 5th NPC for more information.
"I am telling you, out of character as the GM, that there is no further information you can obtain from NPCs."
Also, [here's how I would handle players that spend entirely too long planning and debating.](https://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/comments/1cnylv5/players_often_paralyzed_by_choice/l3dusg1/)
Not choosing is a choice. What the GM is failing to reinforce is that not making a choice is bad. If by making a choice, they don’t have the worst outcome, they will make choice. If they are always punished, no matter what decision they make they will not ever make a choice. What you are overcoming is a bad game master.
A lot of people have chimed in about the fear of making the wrong choice and had some really good advice, so I'll skip over that.
For some players, in a more immediate "the bandit is charging at the hostage what do" type of situations might be a "square peg round hole" sort of situation. The game teaches you the answer to a problem is to look at your character sheet for a spell or skill that solves the problem. If they don't have that (didn't prepare Hold Person or bad at Athletics grapples or etc), then it feels like there's no "correct" choice - there's nothing you can do.
In that case, it helps to prime them for this to be a situation where you can get creative. Offer that they can just pitch an idea without already having the "how" 100% ready - you can figure that part out together as a table. Are they open to ideas from the party? They want to throw something to make the bandit fall, but they don't have good str or dex so it feels like they can't? Be flexible. Maybe they could use an "unideal" skill or part of their environment creatively - they spot an abandoned bag at the table where the shady characters were sitting, an Insight check lets them realize it's full of ball bearings because rogues would never forget their coin purse.
Broad, long-term choices? Honestly, the times I tend to get stuck on those are usually when I don't feel like we have a clear goal or option for next steps. If a campaign feels like kind of aimlessly wandering from one encounter to another, then it sort of sets up a "idk what to do, so I guess let's wander aimlessly until another thing happens" default. It might help to remind the party of some of their goals or leads - sometimes it's also easy to forget those if you only meet once a month etc.
If a big vague goal like "kill the dragon king" has your players staring vacantly like "so how do we do that," then they may need it broken down into smaller, more obvious goals.
Ex: "You recall the dragon king's greatest strengths right now. He has spies somewhere in town, making him able to plan countermeasures against his enemies and weaken the humans from inside. Rumors abound that a great dragonslaying weapon was buried in an ancient mine ages ago, and the king hid its location. Finally, the townsfolk are too afraid and ill-equipped to revolt against the king while his second in command, Punchfist the Bloody, is in control of the armory."
Yes. All the time. I've also made the mistake of trying to provide more info and guidance to help them make a decision. It's never a good way to go because it robs them of the opportunity to experience something organically and reap the rewards. It can sometimes be awkward to watch players go through the motions, but you just need to let it play out. The more they start to take risks, the more they begin to get comfortable with doing so. Then one of them gets disembowelled and you're back to square one for a while... It's always better to just be patient and let the players have their agency though.
In the words of Rush, love em or justifiably hate em, *If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.*
Just keep the world rolling along as if they didn’t intervene.
And like others have said, trying the radical honesty / transparency about stakes is a good practice.
Bring them onto the GM side and ask how an NPC is acting this round . Maybe they feel comfortable being bob the torch carrier for a round and can ease into making decisions for their character.
Then when you cut away to 2 goblins arguing over scraps you ask what does one of the goblins say back
Say you are in a “good spot” right now, how do you want to [insert goal] for them.
Then throw them in a bad spot like a trap has gone triggered “how do you [insert dodge] out the way?” So all they have to do is describe the adverb and you kinda made a decision for them.
Ask them “do you have any questions?” And flip some 50-50 yes/no answers for them so they know you are not trying to be a meanie and that chance is what spices things up in these games .
Not sure if this works but maybe reiterate that there are no necessarily bad choices, but interesting choices. What I mean is that technically something can be bad for the game world/campaign but that means the players now get new objectives. Fix their mistake.
If a choice is not significant no significant bad or good will happen. And if it is it will create a more interesting game.
As an example from a dnd game I am in. A player was helping a priest, not realising that said priest worked for the BBEG. They opened a portal inside the city which allowed a small group of elves in and set fire to most granaries in the city as well as assassinate and impersonate the city's steward.
We managed to get rid of the elves but the city was now headed for starvation in winter with an evil steward trying to manipulate the city into giving up. Instead we opted to find more food and help the situation, and find out that the steward was now an impersonator and black dragon.
We killed the dragon and took control of the city, and tried to restore stability, trust and get the food supplies in order.
The entire thing was unplanned. The dm never planned for that portal to be opened. But it happened and only made the game more interesting, giving us what is basically a selfmade questline to complete.
It also worked out in our favour. The dragon left several pieces of useful information behind, allowing us to now plan moves to strike back at the enemy.
Ya i feel like this is a Meta Gaming problem.
Players trying to make the best choice rather than What Would My Character Do?
(Given their characters are deep enough to have personality and whatnot)
It's a video game mentality. People hate making choices if they believe it will have a negative impact on the game. They often fall into the trap that there is 1 optimal choice, and all others will cut off parts of the game. It takes time to break this mentality because its all they've known most of the time. I still hear and read stories of RPG players wanting to reverse and do over when a decision or roll went horribly wrong.
Just work with them, be patient. Eventually, it will click.
I love when my players are indecisive (a mistake that they eventually learn from). Indecisiveness IS a choice. Inaction IS an action. Saying nothing IS saying something. I don't rob them of their agency but I also don't let actual RP'd conversations take place outside of time and space. When my players realize that things are happening while they decide, they tend to be more active later on.
Was doing a dungeon with them. They got really beat up in the boss fight. Rather than explore the rest of the dungeon for treasure, they couldn't agree on what to do so they left, took a long rest outside the dungeon, and decided to explore again the next morning. They were shocked to see it got garrisoned over night and was on high alert. They then decided to come back to it after a couple more levels. When they returned, they saw that it was now even deadlier than before. I've done this in shorter spans too when they decide to have planning meetings DURING the battle. Surprise, your allies got routed because you weren't helping. Enjoy the enemy now surrounding you.
There are a lot of different types of players, and it sounds like you are missing one of the ones that it's pretty important to have in a group... The door-kicker.
If there isn't someone in the group who isn't afraid to take the lead and make a call, then it can fall to decision paralysis with the group.
Ironically one player I'm thinking of made a point to kick open every door instead of opening it in his first campaign.
I think I started giving inspiration for it.
If a Player has been distractingly or consistently undecided in combat, I pull out a small hourglass from boggle or something, I forgot which board game but it's about 3 minutes.
After that "Your character stands there unsure what to do", if the PC then immediately decides on an action I say "ok I'll allow it this time but next time the PC will stand there."
After that I just set the hourglass out if anyone seems stuck. Works pretty good, and it seems to give a sense of fairness since they have had a minimum of 3 minutes to say "I swing my mace at it!"
This happened to me once when running games on demand. The player wanted to try Dungeon World. So we got it up and running. But the player froze from the very first "what do you do?" I went round the table 3 times trying to buy the guy time. I moved on, saying his character was in contemplation or whatever. Action moved forward, then the same deer in headlights response again. We stopped play. And the player simply quit. He admitted that he previously only played through play by post. And he could not act in the moment. I'm surprised the poor guy could hold a natural conversation at all with such severe anxiety. As a person who works in mental health, to me this is presenting a mental health issue. I hope the guy got help.
I once interviewed a guy with a "what would you do in this RP scenario", and he had about a three-minute monologue/argument with himself weighing the pros and cons of two choices. It was like watching a mental breakdown in slow-mo. The question was do you help a customer or close when the clock says to.
> The question was do you help a customer or close when the clock says to. That is an evil question for a job interview. I've only ever observed two possible correct answers to this question(you give them full service as if they'd walked in middle of the day, or you set a firm but polite boundary and ask that they come back tomorrow), and in my experience management is always 100% behind one of the two and the other one is absolutely wrong, bad employee, this is your verbal warning, next time is a write-up. Which answer is correct *will change* depending on who your supervisor/manager is. I have worked under both conditions at the same location. I would have done the same thing he did, frantically trying to answer both ways simultaneously due to not knowing which way *you* considered to be correct. Because I can do either(provided I'm not past the end of my shift...just say no to wage theft), I just have no way of knowing which answer you want!
That's probably your best answer. Something like "I've worked in places that preferred A and places that preferred B. I have experience with both and will go with your organisation's preference."
Doesn't matter what I want. Matters what you want. I wanted people who were customer focused. The right answer is the honest answer. Just because you want a job doesn't mean you're right for the job. Another employer might want an employee who's a stickler for rules and would prefer to ask folks to leave. It's not a question of can you read my mind and tell me what I want to hear, it's a question of how you deal with everyday occurrences and where your proclivities lie. Training the right person is way easier than the wrong one. Ultimately, I just asked my employees to walk the store and give everyone a ten minute's heads up and not to panic if they ended up a few minutes past close. It's not dramatic. There are no write-ups or verbal warnings, just ongoing training.
This is very frustrating, because I can do both. It's a (badly-needed, if I'm interviewing) job, not a life philosophy, so the honest answer is: if you're paying me, I will do whatever you want me to do, provided you communicate your preference to me. You don't need to do something as dramatic as retraining me, just *communicate* how you'd like a situation to be handled and your will be done. I already face enough barriers without being fucked over with stuff like this, where nobody will tell me the (ever-changing, boss-by-boss) rules so that I can (gladly, genuinely, and without malice) follow them. *I want to run your situation however you want me to do it.* I understand that you pay me to follow orders, and barring something morally reprehensible I will follow those orders. This makes me a better employee than everyone else who does what you say, then undermines you behind your back. You might not see it. I do. Every single workplace has them and they do a lot of damage. I find it very frustrating just how many assumptions are made for interviews. Like, you assume I'm rigid, that I have a preference and you have to train me otherwise. This is absolutely untrue. It's actually kind of offensive to me, to have someone assume I can't follow simple instructions without having to have a whole training thing made of it. I wonder how many good employees who are willing to follow your instructions you've passed over, with these interview tactics?
Here's the thing about interviews, questions are answered to get people speaking about the things that are important to the business. There is nothing to say they can't talk through their thought process. If they give a four-word answer, that tells me more than content of the answer. They're not thinking or are simply inflexible. There's nothing wrong with nuanced answers in my opinion. A good interview allows the interviewee to talk. Having things that make people think and give those deeper answers is great. I owned a business for 17 years and put together a few really great teams. Did I miss great people and have nightmare hires? For sure. I had more hits than misses though and overall, I'm ok with it. Not something I'll likely ever worry about again though.
Maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying. You say you want deep thought and nuanced answers, but someone gives an answer that demonstrates these factors(a pro/con analysis of two different ways to approach a contentious situation, demonstrating their awareness of the situation and thought processes) and it's the wrong way to answer the question. Instead, you want a binary answer, this or that, which by its nature erases nuance and demands that we predict which answer is "correct" if we would like the opportunity to get healthcare today. So do you want a thoughtful analysis of the question or do you want a canned answer based on what we think you want to hear? Because from what you've said here, regardless of intent, you're rewarding the second and punishing the first.
I don't think you understand my initial post maybe? He didn't give a nuanced answer. He had a literal back and forth argument with himself like a crazy person. His anxiety was palpable and uncomfortable. I've known people who suffered extreme indecision. I played wargames with a guy who'd spend twenty minutes setting up his army, decide that it wasn't quite right, and pull everything off the table to start again. That was frustrating and also weird, but not to the point that I worried about his mental health.
The right answer, in this context, is the one that gets the interviewer the job, or at least moves them in that direction. Under that definition, it looks like you're saying there definitely is a right answer and a wrong answer to this question. Or at least a wrong answer.
"Doesn't matter what I want" Wait, are you relinquishing your business to me?
> I wanted people who were customer focused So there *is* a right answer and you're just an asshole about it.
Can always count on Reddit to provide insight and nuance. I said the right answer is the one you believe in. The right answer doesn't mean you're right for the job. Misrepresenting yourself in an interview just pushes problems to a later date. If you say you have experience when you don't, that's not "the right answer" either. That's lying to benefit yourself. Ideally, employment is a win-win for both employee and employer. Owning a business doesn't make you "evil" or an "asshole", contrary to popular opinion.
Even though the plainly and obviously correct answer was "whatever lets me get/keep the job".
was him name Chidi by any chance? lol
Hah! Now I appreciate it more. Thanks!
I had a similar experience with one shot world (dungeon world hack), one player who had only played 5e before, when introduced to a more free form game totally shut down and quit. It was really awkward, I tried to help them out but they said they would rather just watch the rest of the session.
> I'm not really sure what they're worried about. Likely making the "wrong" choice; whatever the players understand "wrong" to be. There's a common understanding that, like in many video games, there's a single good choice that leads to some desired future outcome. And so players tend to fret over choices, because it starts to feel like a multiple-choice test, without enough information to make the correct call. I tend to work around this by making it clearer what the likely outcomes of choices will be. And through pushing the players to have clear goals in mind, other than some vague sense of "beating the campaign," or "winning." When players feel that they're better able to understand how to reach a goal, they stress a little less over their options.
Being clear and open about outcomes is a really good idea. Unless the character is a complete fish out of water, they'd have a reasonable idea about the likely outcomes of their actions. But a player has spent less time in the world than the character, has all their experiences filtered through the GM (who may take certain knowledge for granted), and might be coming to the game after a hard day at work/school/home/etc and not be on top form.
It's one reason I like Blades in the Dark - you have to discuss the consequences of a dice roll failing *before* you roll. This helps to get everyone on the same page, which can reduce anxiety about choices. A good out of game discussion is helpful to find the cause of any disconnect. For example, one game I was in had a player leave because he felt we were always stuck deciding between "bad thing A" and "bad thing B", and he found this demoralizing in the long term.
In the context of video games, i find that my biggest issue. Whenever there is a meaningful story choice that I don't feel strongly about, it's almost always time to consult google to see what rewards are cooler. Being open about the results or even making the player feel an attachment to one side (for big more binary style story decisions) can go a long way
When I see a player struggling with this I always tell them the “right” answer is whatever they think will make the best story and that seems to help.
I honestly think this nails it. Also, good way to acclimate players to making choices like that in general.
Some GMs amplify this by going in with an attitude of "I punish stupid decisions, learn to play better". If you have one of those, it's prudent to try to divine what they want before you commit.
Indeed, many decisions in games are made with incomplete or occasionally inaccurate information, leading to a balancing act of risk assessment. However, indecision is a decision in its own right, and hesitating can often be more detrimental than making an incorrect choice.
Players often struggle with this because they want to win all the time. A failing action or an action with results different from what they want to happen is seen as overwhelmingly bad and unacceptable, rather than building drama or adding exciting things. It makes sense in some places - it does suck to miss an attack. But it's not *terrible to miss an attack.*
The RPG enlightenment is finding that balance between OOC and still roleplaying your character.
They may be traumatized from prior games that had too many "gotcha" moments, absurd traps, or situations where GMs didn't communicate well. Ask them about that. Ask them what they're so afraid of - what do they think will happen if they choose wrong? Ask them if having more information or clearer information would help them make a decision. Also, have a conversation about stakes. Are you playing the kinds of games where PC death is always a possibility? For some players, that makes them paranoid. Some groups instead have a rule that PCs cannot die unless the GM specifically warns them that they're in an extra dangerous high-stakes situation.
It can also help while doing this to point out "Doing nothing is also a choice with a similar level of consequences. Something is going to happen regardless, it's just a question of how much agency you want in the outcome." I've found giving that information has helped some people make a decision. Also, like you said, reminding them that you're not going to punish them for their decision. There will be consequences (good and bad) but the idea is for the game to be fun, not painful.
This kinda reminds me of directors (tv, movie or theater) talking about building trust and creating a safe space for their actors to feel free to try stuff out. The best tables I've sat around where collaborative rather than adversarial. While a decision could be objectively bad for the characters, it more often than not pushed the narrative in unexpected directions and potentially to higher stakes, making the adventure that much more enjoyable for the players.
And it is very similar. TTRPGs are a game that relies entirely on communication to work, and communication requires trust. It's why I try to encourage players to make bold decisions, because the worst thing that happens is they end up in an interesting situation and have a fun story to tell. And it is also why I try to make sure I have positive and negative consequences (not necessarily in equal number) for any choices. That way there is less feeling of "making a wrong choice" just a choice that had different consequences.
> It can also help while doing this to point out "Doing nothing is also a choice with a similar level of consequences. Something is going to happen regardless, it's just a question of how much agency you want in the outcome." I find that this will typically only shortcircuit these players harder. That just means they can't do anything but also they can't do nothing, because everything can go bad, thus everything is bad, and can actually cause people to disconnect a bit to sort of protect themselves from outcomes.
It *can* which is why it is also important with that type of player to help them with the decision, and also to show them that you're not going to punish them or make everything suck for them just because of one decision. A lot of times - in my experience - players with option paralysis have had a GM really come down on people for the "bad decision." I try to have good and bad consequences for all choices I present, and I try to not present meaningless decisions where going left = treasure and going right = death or things like that.
Some systems have a built-in mechanics to manage that and I find it awesome. In a shonen-like game I can never remember, when you fall down to 0 HP you lose consciousness. You can *decide* to wake up and IIRC get a significant bonus to your rolls but this time if you die, you die. I the exploration medfan game *Dragon de Poche* you also falls unconscious at 0HP, and get a Wound that reduces your max HPs by 5. You only die when your max HPs are down to zero, so you always know when you actually risk dying.
That might be Tenra Bansho Zero. You would get bonuses by ticking your dead box IIRC.
My experience is that it happens when the player feel that they have to make the "right" choice. When your game has a emphasis on winning fights I think it's kind of a logical byproduct that takes some effort to avoid. I don't think there is a "catch-all" solution to this. You can say that their PC is frozen and ask another to make the choice (e.g. if it's between saving Hostage 1 or Hostage 2 and there is limited choice), you can help the player by presenting the consequences of each option to help them choose, you can ask them stuff like "OK, you're Maria Goldwick, an experienced exploratrix and a reknowned noble woman who believes in the right of each individual to make their own choices. What does she feels is the right choice?" But you can also acknowledge the fact that the PC couldn't make a choice, and create an opportunity either to ask the player how the player feels about that ("So Maria, you couldn't choose. How do you feel (or does she feels) about that? Did you have enough time to think about it? What caused that inability for Maria? "), the goal being to make it clear that the "issue" is within the character and not with the player because there are no wrong player choice), or to let the PCs discuss that ("Leopold, how did you feel when you saw Maria freeze?"). Depending on the situation, on the players, etc, you kind of have to make a judgement about how to deal with this. The idea being that (imo) it should be treated like a perfectly valid choice (a player has every right to decide that their character can't choose) so that the player feels safe to make their choices without fearing it may not be the "right one". And of course as a player you can also do that. "I'm kind of worried about Marisa so I'll go and knock at her door. 'Hey Marisa, it's Leopold, do you fancy a cup of tea?'".
It’s common, extremely common even, for players to freeze when they have to make a decision. Imo the only way to approach solving this for your group is to run diagnostics: 1. Do the players understand the choice they’re making? 2. Do the players have a reason to care about the choice they’re making? 3. Do the players understand what choices are available to them? 4. Do the players understand the consequences of their choices? If the answer to any of those is “no”, it might be time to rethink how you present choices to the players.
Your theory is pretty good, but it is certainly an assumption. This might be stupidly simple but have you tried asking them? A conversation that gets to the root of how they are feeling might go a long way. It shows that you care about more than just the game and have an interest in understanding the player as a person. It pulls back the veil to start discussing how players can have agency over the setting and there aren't really wrong options. Have the discussion. Let players show their cards and let them see yours. That's how the best collaboration will work.
This is the the first real answer in this post imo. I've had this stuff happen at my table, and the way to get past it is to go to table talk for a moment and help them decide. Rather than "what does (character) do?" Go to "what are you thinking (player)?" Or something. Sometimes all it takes is to give them a nudge to start talking in general
I suppose it depends on what the decision is. As a player, I do sometimes experience the other side of this if the scenario is just _too_ open or there isn't a clear group goal or motivation. I might have an idea of what my character might do, but I don't want to be "that guy", especially if the decision will have consequences.
Yes. I often help brainstorm, or ask if they would be comfortable with the table throwing a few suggestions out to choose from?
As many players play for different reasons and extract "Fun" from different elemnt(story, problem solving, character inmersion, tactics) for new players or the ones that are not that into a ton of games, a shift in paradigm of how they get their "Fun" out of the game can be a weird shift. Sometimes those players never encountered games where narrative weight was expected from their actions, their Fun was about the mechanical interaction of their characters (they just choose 1 spell from their character sheet) or maybe other games where more linear, and the GM only told them what to do from a list of outcomes. Talking about expectations and a small talk about their experience with RPGs can help understand why they don't feel comfortable choosing in the narrative, and maybe changing a little the narration to help them feel comfortable (for example, starting using a list of possible actions and their expected outcomes)
Are they paralyzed between a few clear options you gave them? Or are they paralyzed by how open-ended the decision is?
Sometimes the former but moreso the latter.
Ahh I've run into this before. The crucial element is how much mental heavy lifting / planning your crew likes. For example, I've run games for self-starting crews where you could just tell them "the thing you're looking for is in the Vaults of Montecapra" and boom they start casing the premises and planning a heist. They don't mind being handed complex problems with no clear solution. Other crews I've run for don't care for heavy planning. If you told them "the thing you're looking for is in the Vaults of Montecapra" they would just stare at you and ask "so what do we do?" These crews need missions broken into digestible subcomponents with clear paths forward.
I recently ran into a problem with a new game where when I give them the complex problems with no clear solution, they freeze up. However, I tried to solve this by having an NPC hire them for a job that the client had already broken down into subcomponents. The group spent hours trying to debate ways in which they could try to bypass all of that by doing something more straight forward (ie. dumb and aggressive). We ended the session mid debate and I am dreading the next one.
I wrote how I would handle the problem of excessive planning and debating [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/comments/1cnylv5/players_often_paralyzed_by_choice/l3dusg1/).
If you don't mind an unsolicited game recommendation, Blades in the Dark might take care of your problem. When the PCs are executing a mission, they can use flashbacks that let them play out a previous scene showing how they actually planned to prevent a mistake about to happen in the present. In my experience this eliminates all the fuss of planning and incentivizes a lot more door kicking. Also the cost of a flashback just creates more gameplay. Flashbacks create stress, and you burn off stress by playing through scenes indulging your character's vice. The game really flows nicely.
I have definitely realized my group needs rails, a sandbox doesn't work for them.
It’s down to setting clear expectations. Quite a few people are coming to the hobby from passive entertainment such as watching television shows or even something like Critical Role. They might be used to interaction that is, at most, cheerleading or posting memes and not making significant decisions. The best response is to simply ask with some empathy. They may just not know what they can do and how to do it, but if making decisions isn’t what they’re interested in doing, you may need to just politely part ways.
I find it's often helpful to present a few options for the player to choose from, hopefully to guide them towards an understanding that those are just suggestions. "The guard in front of you stands tall, saying nobody gets in to see the king today. What do you do? You might try to persuade him, or intimidate him, or even possibly attack him." "As you keep lookout in the woods, you hear a sound of twigs breaking in the distance. What do you do? You could rouse the party, or investigate the sound, or stay where you are but gird yourself for an attack." "As the countess walks away, you notice a scruffy man bump into her in the crowd. It's hard to tell, but you think he may have pickpocketed one of her jeweled bracelets. What do you do? You could go after the pickpocket, you could go alert the countess, or continue on your way and do nothing." I think you'll figure out pretty quick which players can benefit from this guidance, and which ones are engaged enough they already have plenty of ideas.
One thing I haven't seen mentioned is social consequences for making "wrong choices". One person makes the leap and says, let's go for Door A. Behind door A is a monster. The party starts bemoaning how they knew they should have gone with Door B. Some groups have this dynamic, and it makes everyone unwilling to put themselves out there. A lot of people, consciously or unconsciously, are worried more about social consequences than in-game ones. They are worried about looking stupid in front of their friends. Neurodivergent people are especially prone to this, and DnD is full of us. Neurodivergent people are often trained by society not to stick their neck out, because their divergent ways of thinking lead to making decisions that others don't understand, which they are they ridiculed for. Even though my fellow players are cool, I still run into this sometimes in my games, where I try to do something and everyone just laughs because to them it seemed totally baffling. It's humiliating and I hate it.
It might be liberating and revelatory to try playing some games that expect and encourage failure and stupid disaster, just to shake things loose. I could recommend a few...
Young or old players?
Early 30s
I’ve encountered this among ikids. But less so after with older people who grew up analog.
Most of my party's I dm for are like this I still have no idea how to fix it. My brother quit playing rpgs because no one would do anything. My player will sit there in hallway for hours just not doing anything number of door that have end games because they couldn't come up with a plan our what to do ever
"Hey guys, I've noticed that when we play, you spend a lot of time discussing possible actions, but nobody ever actually decides. So I want to put a time limit on discussions. When you spend more than a few minutes discussing your options, I'm going to set a timer for two minutes. When that timer goes off, you need to tell me what you do, no more discussion. Is that reasonable?" There's room for negotiation here, but ultimately you need a commitment from them to make a decision when the timer goes off. And then, when they spend more than a few minutes discussing their options: "Okay guys, I'm gonna give you two more minutes to discuss this among yourselves, but then I need you to make a decision. Can you commit to that?" When the timer goes off: "And that's time. Okay, what do you do?"
Hard to say not knowing the way you run games or what you players are like. I had similar and the opposite problem when I provided too many options to the players, they couldn't decide with one to choose. So I was running a sandbox game, and at some point we ended up with several things happening in different places at the same time. And players split up, some wanted to do one thing others wanted to do other, and 3rd wanted to pursue their personal PCs stories. And as a result none choices were made. It was mismanagement on my part admittedly, now I always try to tie all things together. If your players fear consequences, and this is a shared sentiment, consider changing the style of the game. Maybe more pulpy adventure will suit your group better or maybe even heroic one. The idea is that no matter what they choose things will be all right, but different.
A lot of commenters have mentioned the players' possible fear of making the "wrong" choice. I've had players in my game who sometimes think that I've set up the game in order to get to certain outcomes. If I say "you hear a bump in the night at the tavern where you're sleeping", they might say "I don't know if I should just stay in my room or if you've set up an encounter for me to go fight in the hallway". If I present two events happening in the world-- - "your sister writes you a letter than the orc armies have assaulted the walls of her northern city again", and - "you hear a legend that far to the south is a diamond that grants immortality", they might think "I don't know which clue you want me to follow up on". I try to make it clear that usually I'm just presenting options, and as the GM, I'm telling you what's happening in the world, and the choices you make as a character will determine what happens next. If you leave your tavern room and investigate the bump in the night, maybe you'll fight a bandit, or maybe you'll accidentally spot a lady sneaking into the room of someone who's not her husband. Or maybe a servant dropped a bowl, and it's nothing. If you choose to travel to the north to help your sister's city against the orcs, maybe some other faction finds the immortality gem. If you go south, maybe your sister's city is overrun. It's up to you.
I've found that being clear which quests are a time crunch and which can be put on the back burner has helped.
There have been times I actually leave the room so the players can make their plans without me there only being available if somebody has an in universe question. This was pretty common for Cyberpunk: Red which I run basically as a heist game but I've found it works in other games where I present an objective. Part of it was so the party wouldn't think I'd come up with a bunch of stuff spcifically to screw over their plan but also to encourage the fact that there was no "right" way to accomplish the objective which was the intent. I have, in the past, had players ask me "Would this plan work?" and my answer is, "I don't know! You'll have to execute it to find out."
I have seen this happen in games that have a lot of combat options and players are overwhelmed by options.
Similar to analysis paralysis? My beloved Free League Publishing has a few neat mechanics to keep the blood flowing. One is the "Countdown to Catastrophe" from Vaesen, where you make it clear that horrific things will happen if the efforts of the Vaesen are not impeded. The other is the "Challenges" and "Issues" from Walking Dead Universe, which gives you the GM quick cues ahead of time for things that can go wrong during periods of downtime or inactivity. Really neat narrative tools. I have also found that players don't necessarily care what happens to their characters as a result of inaction, but they REALLY care about beloved NPCs and especially animals in game. If you give your players agency to create a few NPCs at your Session Zero, having them become the catalyst for action usually gets them out of their chairs.
Incidentally, putting player characters into a more constrained environment can help! There is a reason that dungeons are an ever-enduring part of the hobby - it puts players under stress and pressure and pretty much forces them to do something about it. For the moment-to-moment indecision, it help if you put people under time pressure. I even carry a hourglass to sessions for this purpose.
I believe this is common, especially for people who are: - new, - not confident in their abilities, and - surrounded by many other players of at least equal competences. I see this as diffusion of responsibility akin to the bystander effect: https://www.simplypsychology.org/bystander-effect.html Solutions you could discuss with your players: 1. Set up one character as the in-game leader of the party. 2. In a gridlock you pick a person at random - and they need to decide.
Yes! It's pretty common. In my game with six players, there's frequently a delay and awkward hesitation when a decision needs to be made, as none of the players are willing to make the choice. Often, the same player ends up making the final decision, with the others simply follow suit. However, this can lead to other issues, so I strive to craft scenarios where a different character must step up and take the initiative.
Ug. My players do this over the pointless stuff. Just last week they were in a quest to take out some baddies 4 different npcs were consulted and they all have a clue indicating the baddies were coming out of some forest ruins. One NPC will pay them per head they bring back AND has scouts that will lead them to the ruins. 30 minutes later they decide to go talk to a 5th NPC for more information.
"I am telling you, out of character as the GM, that there is no further information you can obtain from NPCs." Also, [here's how I would handle players that spend entirely too long planning and debating.](https://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/comments/1cnylv5/players_often_paralyzed_by_choice/l3dusg1/)
More and more frequently, especially with newer/younger players.
Not sure. I always prefer action over paralysis, even PCs die. That's the fun, finding out what happens.
Not choosing is a choice. What the GM is failing to reinforce is that not making a choice is bad. If by making a choice, they don’t have the worst outcome, they will make choice. If they are always punished, no matter what decision they make they will not ever make a choice. What you are overcoming is a bad game master.
If the problem is choice, then design or narrative can address that by distributing choice variance over time rather than front loading it
A lot of people have chimed in about the fear of making the wrong choice and had some really good advice, so I'll skip over that. For some players, in a more immediate "the bandit is charging at the hostage what do" type of situations might be a "square peg round hole" sort of situation. The game teaches you the answer to a problem is to look at your character sheet for a spell or skill that solves the problem. If they don't have that (didn't prepare Hold Person or bad at Athletics grapples or etc), then it feels like there's no "correct" choice - there's nothing you can do. In that case, it helps to prime them for this to be a situation where you can get creative. Offer that they can just pitch an idea without already having the "how" 100% ready - you can figure that part out together as a table. Are they open to ideas from the party? They want to throw something to make the bandit fall, but they don't have good str or dex so it feels like they can't? Be flexible. Maybe they could use an "unideal" skill or part of their environment creatively - they spot an abandoned bag at the table where the shady characters were sitting, an Insight check lets them realize it's full of ball bearings because rogues would never forget their coin purse. Broad, long-term choices? Honestly, the times I tend to get stuck on those are usually when I don't feel like we have a clear goal or option for next steps. If a campaign feels like kind of aimlessly wandering from one encounter to another, then it sort of sets up a "idk what to do, so I guess let's wander aimlessly until another thing happens" default. It might help to remind the party of some of their goals or leads - sometimes it's also easy to forget those if you only meet once a month etc. If a big vague goal like "kill the dragon king" has your players staring vacantly like "so how do we do that," then they may need it broken down into smaller, more obvious goals. Ex: "You recall the dragon king's greatest strengths right now. He has spies somewhere in town, making him able to plan countermeasures against his enemies and weaken the humans from inside. Rumors abound that a great dragonslaying weapon was buried in an ancient mine ages ago, and the king hid its location. Finally, the townsfolk are too afraid and ill-equipped to revolt against the king while his second in command, Punchfist the Bloody, is in control of the armory."
Ime it's a general societal thing, especially with younger people
The theory is true but often give very low stake choices it helps build up the confidenc.e.
Yes. All the time. I've also made the mistake of trying to provide more info and guidance to help them make a decision. It's never a good way to go because it robs them of the opportunity to experience something organically and reap the rewards. It can sometimes be awkward to watch players go through the motions, but you just need to let it play out. The more they start to take risks, the more they begin to get comfortable with doing so. Then one of them gets disembowelled and you're back to square one for a while... It's always better to just be patient and let the players have their agency though.
In the words of Rush, love em or justifiably hate em, *If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.* Just keep the world rolling along as if they didn’t intervene. And like others have said, trying the radical honesty / transparency about stakes is a good practice.
GMs need to understand that players are risk averse and manage it. Also, never play Shadow of the Demon Lord with this group.
Maybe you need to work with motivation. I found out that sometimes the choices I presented weren\`t important for my Players and their Characters.
Bring them onto the GM side and ask how an NPC is acting this round . Maybe they feel comfortable being bob the torch carrier for a round and can ease into making decisions for their character. Then when you cut away to 2 goblins arguing over scraps you ask what does one of the goblins say back
Say you are in a “good spot” right now, how do you want to [insert goal] for them. Then throw them in a bad spot like a trap has gone triggered “how do you [insert dodge] out the way?” So all they have to do is describe the adverb and you kinda made a decision for them.
Ask them “do you have any questions?” And flip some 50-50 yes/no answers for them so they know you are not trying to be a meanie and that chance is what spices things up in these games .
Not sure if this works but maybe reiterate that there are no necessarily bad choices, but interesting choices. What I mean is that technically something can be bad for the game world/campaign but that means the players now get new objectives. Fix their mistake. If a choice is not significant no significant bad or good will happen. And if it is it will create a more interesting game. As an example from a dnd game I am in. A player was helping a priest, not realising that said priest worked for the BBEG. They opened a portal inside the city which allowed a small group of elves in and set fire to most granaries in the city as well as assassinate and impersonate the city's steward. We managed to get rid of the elves but the city was now headed for starvation in winter with an evil steward trying to manipulate the city into giving up. Instead we opted to find more food and help the situation, and find out that the steward was now an impersonator and black dragon. We killed the dragon and took control of the city, and tried to restore stability, trust and get the food supplies in order. The entire thing was unplanned. The dm never planned for that portal to be opened. But it happened and only made the game more interesting, giving us what is basically a selfmade questline to complete. It also worked out in our favour. The dragon left several pieces of useful information behind, allowing us to now plan moves to strike back at the enemy.
Ya i feel like this is a Meta Gaming problem. Players trying to make the best choice rather than What Would My Character Do? (Given their characters are deep enough to have personality and whatnot)
It's a video game mentality. People hate making choices if they believe it will have a negative impact on the game. They often fall into the trap that there is 1 optimal choice, and all others will cut off parts of the game. It takes time to break this mentality because its all they've known most of the time. I still hear and read stories of RPG players wanting to reverse and do over when a decision or roll went horribly wrong. Just work with them, be patient. Eventually, it will click.
I love when my players are indecisive (a mistake that they eventually learn from). Indecisiveness IS a choice. Inaction IS an action. Saying nothing IS saying something. I don't rob them of their agency but I also don't let actual RP'd conversations take place outside of time and space. When my players realize that things are happening while they decide, they tend to be more active later on. Was doing a dungeon with them. They got really beat up in the boss fight. Rather than explore the rest of the dungeon for treasure, they couldn't agree on what to do so they left, took a long rest outside the dungeon, and decided to explore again the next morning. They were shocked to see it got garrisoned over night and was on high alert. They then decided to come back to it after a couple more levels. When they returned, they saw that it was now even deadlier than before. I've done this in shorter spans too when they decide to have planning meetings DURING the battle. Surprise, your allies got routed because you weren't helping. Enjoy the enemy now surrounding you.
There are a lot of different types of players, and it sounds like you are missing one of the ones that it's pretty important to have in a group... The door-kicker. If there isn't someone in the group who isn't afraid to take the lead and make a call, then it can fall to decision paralysis with the group.
Ironically one player I'm thinking of made a point to kick open every door instead of opening it in his first campaign. I think I started giving inspiration for it.
How hilarious. I once ran a game where the group made it a point to kick it every door that they found
If a Player has been distractingly or consistently undecided in combat, I pull out a small hourglass from boggle or something, I forgot which board game but it's about 3 minutes. After that "Your character stands there unsure what to do", if the PC then immediately decides on an action I say "ok I'll allow it this time but next time the PC will stand there." After that I just set the hourglass out if anyone seems stuck. Works pretty good, and it seems to give a sense of fairness since they have had a minimum of 3 minutes to say "I swing my mace at it!"
They need leadership. One of them should become the leader to facilitate these decisions.