How can “mimic phobia” be cured or prevented?
$begingroup$
This has actually happened to me as a player, and a player I've DM'ed in a oneshot. In short, when we delve into a dungeon, whenever a DM describes an object in a weird way, we become very cautious to approach the said object. This is very true with objects that usually can be an animated object.
- "You see a dusty set of armor on the corner of the room." Animated armor
- "You see an iron chest on the side of the pedestal." Mimic
- "You see a pair of statues of winged beasts on each side of the stairs." Gargoyle
- less common, but "You see this corridor is decorated with at least 6-8 paintings of various theme." (was in Curse of Strahd)
The most common response will be "I shoot the [object] with my crossbow/fire bolt", or "I cast detect magic". Less common will be going into melee and smashing it. While this usually results in laughter when the objects are actually not a monster, this usually slows down the exploration.
I've tried:
- Only describing important objects.
- Describing that they found nothing special about these objects.
First solution usually exacerbates the problem by limiting my ability to describe how the room looks like, and simultaneously highlighting important objects. For example, you automatically try to search the wall for a hidden switch for a secret room or passage because I told you "there is part of the wall that is less dusty", or automatically start buffing and attacking the pair of gargoyle statues because now I describe them, and they must be important.
Second solution is related to first solution, because I can't say the found nothing special with these objects, if they are indeed holding important clues, and of course I don't want to give it away or hiding that they are important.
The problem is this kind of approach slows down the game, and restrict how I as a DM describe environment - can only describe important things, but I want to immerse them too with relevant details. This also gives them essentially free turn before the combat.
As a DM, how can I deal with their constant suspicions with random objects?
dnd-5e gm-techniques objects mimic
$endgroup$
|
show 7 more comments
$begingroup$
This has actually happened to me as a player, and a player I've DM'ed in a oneshot. In short, when we delve into a dungeon, whenever a DM describes an object in a weird way, we become very cautious to approach the said object. This is very true with objects that usually can be an animated object.
- "You see a dusty set of armor on the corner of the room." Animated armor
- "You see an iron chest on the side of the pedestal." Mimic
- "You see a pair of statues of winged beasts on each side of the stairs." Gargoyle
- less common, but "You see this corridor is decorated with at least 6-8 paintings of various theme." (was in Curse of Strahd)
The most common response will be "I shoot the [object] with my crossbow/fire bolt", or "I cast detect magic". Less common will be going into melee and smashing it. While this usually results in laughter when the objects are actually not a monster, this usually slows down the exploration.
I've tried:
- Only describing important objects.
- Describing that they found nothing special about these objects.
First solution usually exacerbates the problem by limiting my ability to describe how the room looks like, and simultaneously highlighting important objects. For example, you automatically try to search the wall for a hidden switch for a secret room or passage because I told you "there is part of the wall that is less dusty", or automatically start buffing and attacking the pair of gargoyle statues because now I describe them, and they must be important.
Second solution is related to first solution, because I can't say the found nothing special with these objects, if they are indeed holding important clues, and of course I don't want to give it away or hiding that they are important.
The problem is this kind of approach slows down the game, and restrict how I as a DM describe environment - can only describe important things, but I want to immerse them too with relevant details. This also gives them essentially free turn before the combat.
As a DM, how can I deal with their constant suspicions with random objects?
dnd-5e gm-techniques objects mimic
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
Related, possible duplicate: Curing trap phobia
$endgroup$
– Bloodcinder
9 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Since the related question is your own, can you clarify in what way the answers to the other question don't answer this question for you? Is there something fundamentally different about players being suspicious of traps versus random objects?
$endgroup$
– Bloodcinder
9 hours ago
6
$begingroup$
Not entirely sure how this is causing a problem with your game. Could you explain that a bit more?
$endgroup$
– PJRZ
9 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
You're asking about mimic phobia. You have previously asked about trap phobia and NPC phobia. The core issue seems to be a concern that your dungeon crawls are moving a crawl. Have your players complained about this or is it just your concern as the DM?
$endgroup$
– krb
5 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
Also related: rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/53980
$endgroup$
– thatgirldm
2 hours ago
|
show 7 more comments
$begingroup$
This has actually happened to me as a player, and a player I've DM'ed in a oneshot. In short, when we delve into a dungeon, whenever a DM describes an object in a weird way, we become very cautious to approach the said object. This is very true with objects that usually can be an animated object.
- "You see a dusty set of armor on the corner of the room." Animated armor
- "You see an iron chest on the side of the pedestal." Mimic
- "You see a pair of statues of winged beasts on each side of the stairs." Gargoyle
- less common, but "You see this corridor is decorated with at least 6-8 paintings of various theme." (was in Curse of Strahd)
The most common response will be "I shoot the [object] with my crossbow/fire bolt", or "I cast detect magic". Less common will be going into melee and smashing it. While this usually results in laughter when the objects are actually not a monster, this usually slows down the exploration.
I've tried:
- Only describing important objects.
- Describing that they found nothing special about these objects.
First solution usually exacerbates the problem by limiting my ability to describe how the room looks like, and simultaneously highlighting important objects. For example, you automatically try to search the wall for a hidden switch for a secret room or passage because I told you "there is part of the wall that is less dusty", or automatically start buffing and attacking the pair of gargoyle statues because now I describe them, and they must be important.
Second solution is related to first solution, because I can't say the found nothing special with these objects, if they are indeed holding important clues, and of course I don't want to give it away or hiding that they are important.
The problem is this kind of approach slows down the game, and restrict how I as a DM describe environment - can only describe important things, but I want to immerse them too with relevant details. This also gives them essentially free turn before the combat.
As a DM, how can I deal with their constant suspicions with random objects?
dnd-5e gm-techniques objects mimic
$endgroup$
This has actually happened to me as a player, and a player I've DM'ed in a oneshot. In short, when we delve into a dungeon, whenever a DM describes an object in a weird way, we become very cautious to approach the said object. This is very true with objects that usually can be an animated object.
- "You see a dusty set of armor on the corner of the room." Animated armor
- "You see an iron chest on the side of the pedestal." Mimic
- "You see a pair of statues of winged beasts on each side of the stairs." Gargoyle
- less common, but "You see this corridor is decorated with at least 6-8 paintings of various theme." (was in Curse of Strahd)
The most common response will be "I shoot the [object] with my crossbow/fire bolt", or "I cast detect magic". Less common will be going into melee and smashing it. While this usually results in laughter when the objects are actually not a monster, this usually slows down the exploration.
I've tried:
- Only describing important objects.
- Describing that they found nothing special about these objects.
First solution usually exacerbates the problem by limiting my ability to describe how the room looks like, and simultaneously highlighting important objects. For example, you automatically try to search the wall for a hidden switch for a secret room or passage because I told you "there is part of the wall that is less dusty", or automatically start buffing and attacking the pair of gargoyle statues because now I describe them, and they must be important.
Second solution is related to first solution, because I can't say the found nothing special with these objects, if they are indeed holding important clues, and of course I don't want to give it away or hiding that they are important.
The problem is this kind of approach slows down the game, and restrict how I as a DM describe environment - can only describe important things, but I want to immerse them too with relevant details. This also gives them essentially free turn before the combat.
As a DM, how can I deal with their constant suspicions with random objects?
dnd-5e gm-techniques objects mimic
dnd-5e gm-techniques objects mimic
edited 1 hour ago
KorvinStarmast
82.1k19256444
82.1k19256444
asked 9 hours ago
VylixVylix
13.7k255161
13.7k255161
2
$begingroup$
Related, possible duplicate: Curing trap phobia
$endgroup$
– Bloodcinder
9 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Since the related question is your own, can you clarify in what way the answers to the other question don't answer this question for you? Is there something fundamentally different about players being suspicious of traps versus random objects?
$endgroup$
– Bloodcinder
9 hours ago
6
$begingroup$
Not entirely sure how this is causing a problem with your game. Could you explain that a bit more?
$endgroup$
– PJRZ
9 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
You're asking about mimic phobia. You have previously asked about trap phobia and NPC phobia. The core issue seems to be a concern that your dungeon crawls are moving a crawl. Have your players complained about this or is it just your concern as the DM?
$endgroup$
– krb
5 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
Also related: rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/53980
$endgroup$
– thatgirldm
2 hours ago
|
show 7 more comments
2
$begingroup$
Related, possible duplicate: Curing trap phobia
$endgroup$
– Bloodcinder
9 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Since the related question is your own, can you clarify in what way the answers to the other question don't answer this question for you? Is there something fundamentally different about players being suspicious of traps versus random objects?
$endgroup$
– Bloodcinder
9 hours ago
6
$begingroup$
Not entirely sure how this is causing a problem with your game. Could you explain that a bit more?
$endgroup$
– PJRZ
9 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
You're asking about mimic phobia. You have previously asked about trap phobia and NPC phobia. The core issue seems to be a concern that your dungeon crawls are moving a crawl. Have your players complained about this or is it just your concern as the DM?
$endgroup$
– krb
5 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
Also related: rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/53980
$endgroup$
– thatgirldm
2 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
Related, possible duplicate: Curing trap phobia
$endgroup$
– Bloodcinder
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Related, possible duplicate: Curing trap phobia
$endgroup$
– Bloodcinder
9 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Since the related question is your own, can you clarify in what way the answers to the other question don't answer this question for you? Is there something fundamentally different about players being suspicious of traps versus random objects?
$endgroup$
– Bloodcinder
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Since the related question is your own, can you clarify in what way the answers to the other question don't answer this question for you? Is there something fundamentally different about players being suspicious of traps versus random objects?
$endgroup$
– Bloodcinder
9 hours ago
6
6
$begingroup$
Not entirely sure how this is causing a problem with your game. Could you explain that a bit more?
$endgroup$
– PJRZ
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Not entirely sure how this is causing a problem with your game. Could you explain that a bit more?
$endgroup$
– PJRZ
9 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
You're asking about mimic phobia. You have previously asked about trap phobia and NPC phobia. The core issue seems to be a concern that your dungeon crawls are moving a crawl. Have your players complained about this or is it just your concern as the DM?
$endgroup$
– krb
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
You're asking about mimic phobia. You have previously asked about trap phobia and NPC phobia. The core issue seems to be a concern that your dungeon crawls are moving a crawl. Have your players complained about this or is it just your concern as the DM?
$endgroup$
– krb
5 hours ago
3
3
$begingroup$
Also related: rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/53980
$endgroup$
– thatgirldm
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Also related: rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/53980
$endgroup$
– thatgirldm
2 hours ago
|
show 7 more comments
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Embrace the madness: that genie's out of the bottle
Mimics are an iconic monster/trap in D&D, and have been for about four decades. There are a variety of memes and jokes associated with them, including this one.
As a player or as a DM, don't be annoyed by player paranoia. Roll with it
...your arrows bounce off of the chest...
and proceed with the narration. Keep your own focus; that's a thing that you can do.
Actionable suggestion for a DM: don't use gratuitous mimics
As a DM, rarely use them, or never use them, if you find their existence in the game world to be a problem. You never have to have one in your game. They aren't a required monster in your game world.
- If you do use one, place it with care. Make its location and existence fit the scenario that you have created. Mimics survive because they surprise things and eat them.
You can't stop players from some meta gaming.
As the memes, and jokes, that your players have access to spread via word of mouth, reading the books, or at various internet sources, you'll only frustrate yourself if you try to control that. Save yourself the effort.
The same is true for lurker's above, animated armor, gargoyles, rugs of smothering, and various plants that come alive to eat the PCs.
Hey, look, I found a magic carpet! Let's go flying!
oops, rug of smothering
A note on Lore, meta gaming and mimics(and similar monsters/hazards):
As the DM, you control the spread of lore in your world. This kind of "general" versus "specialized" knowledge would include a sense of 'how well known is the existence of mimics' (if it is known at all) in this campaign world? @TimothyAWiseman points out that if your world is one in which the existence of mimics is well known, then testing for them is (1) not metagaming, and (2) is a valid in-character action by any adventurer and should not be seen as an obstacle to play.
$endgroup$
7
$begingroup$
"don't use gratuitous mimics" I've found that a single encounter done right can keep a player second-guessing for years!
$endgroup$
– Michael W.
8 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@MichaelW. Sounds like your placement worked just right.
$endgroup$
– KorvinStarmast
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
If your world is one in which the existence of mimics is well known, then testing for them is not metagaming.
$endgroup$
– TimothyAWiseman
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@TimothyAWiseman That's a good point, I'll pop that into that section.
$endgroup$
– KorvinStarmast
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Vylix If you want to be confrontational, that's fine. Or you can simply ask them "how do you know about that?" Engage in a conversation, OOC, and if you see a need perhaps call for a nature or arcana check (disadvantage, or reall high DC maybe?) if you feel one is warranted. Or not.
$endgroup$
– KorvinStarmast
7 hours ago
|
show 6 more comments
$begingroup$
Don't give the players anything to fear
Part of what causes mimic-phobia is the constant threat of things like animated armor, gargoyles, mimics, skeletons that animate from the floor, etc.
I had a player that was constantly afraid of anything statue related, which is when I realized that the only time I ever describe statues is when they will animate and attack the players. The way I got around this was simple. I didn't use gargoyles for a long time. Eventually, he forgot gargoyles were a threat or didn't think I'd use them again, with the same result: he wasn't afraid of statues anymore.
So for a while, don't use any monsters like this. There are plenty of other dungeon-crawling monsters to use, so the use of mimics, gargoyles, animated objects, ropers, etc. isn't necessary for every dungeon. Perhaps try a water-themed dungeon with sahuagin and myconids, or the lair of a large fire creature that has salamander and newt servants.
Then, if you want them to start fearing the environment again, you can bring back the mimics and gargoyles.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Doesn't using mimic/gargoyle after a while kinda trying to put the players in "gotcha" position?
$endgroup$
– Vylix
7 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
For sure. But that's only if you want them to start fearing the environment again (like they are in your question).
$endgroup$
– Blake Steel
6 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The common theme throughout these types of the questions is that the DM will generally only call out things that are important. So if the DM says, "there are statues flanking the stairs," that must be important. Your description should not be on just the things the players need to interact with, but with what their focus would be.
Describe how a rug is placed oddly in the room, that the cabinet sits with one door swinging in the wind, and the paint is flaking off the north wall. All of this has nothing to do with the story; it's just flavor.
"You open the door and see a rather chaotic room. Although the room is unlit, there is some light coming from the moon outside the only window not boarded up. The floor is mostly carpeted, except in the center where it looks worn away. There are upturned tables and chairs pushed to the walls, emphasizing the clearing in the center of the room. Sitting in the center of the room is a large, wooden table, very different design than all the other furniture in the room. The light from the moon almost seems to spotlight the table. It has no chairs near it, nor any objects upon its surface. What do you do?"
Turns out the table is completely normal and was brought in there on purpose by thieves. They placed it there to make it very suspicious so that adventures would waste time and spells. However all the thieves are hiding behind the tables pushed against the wall (less likely to be hit by Area of Effect spells), and a couple that hide behind the now open door. When a few adventures do finally enter, they slam the doors shut, and lock the doors separating the party.
Note how the description is keyed to the focus of the room. When the players enter the room, highlight what is obvious, and downplay the rest (mundane and threat alike). In my example, if you walked into a room with a single table, bathed in moonlight, with no furniture, not even the carpet within 10' of it, that is where the their perception will focus. I didn't NOT talk about the tables the thieves were hiding behind, but wouldn't be the perceived danger.
The key is to change up how you describe rooms. Drawing attention whatever is the focus of the room, and down play everything else.
"As you enter the ballroom, you are overwhelmed by the immense size. This grand room could fit the house you grew up in. Streamers litter the floor in a paper spiderweb. The chandeliers reflect the light from your torches across everything. The twinkling lights make it hard to focus. You can see a few dusty suits of armor to the south and north. There is a bar in the back where you can only imagine once held a buffet. Between the streamers, you can make out the tile floor a checkerboard of black and a light green; matching the drapes that cover the most of the walls. In the center you can make out what could be a dead body, partially covered by streamers."
Can you guess the threat?
It was the imps hanging in the chandeliers.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
I feel like I'm missing something here. If the players are always afraid and testing things to be things they aren't...how is this helping?It appears to just attempt to redirect what they test via misdirection.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@NautArch In my first line I point out that DMs tend to only detail what is important in a scene. If you add descriptions to the mundane, they will investigate those instead and see they are just mundane. At first they will be suspicious of everything. Eventually they will learn that just because something has a description, doesn't mean it's a monster or a trap.
$endgroup$
– MivaScott
7 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
I get that, but how is that stopping from looking at everything in the room. Descriptive aside, OP has said they check they anything described whether to call it out or to not call it out.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
It's not updating the "gotcha" factor. It's describing the room as it is seen, not as it it important. Use the same "focal point" descriptions for every room, not just ones that have threats. By saying, "You enter a room, there is a table, two chairs, and a chest", you are basically saying, "There is object a, b, and c in the room. Which would you like to interact with first?" Of course they are going to be wary of things, because that's all there is in the room to examine. If you give them more to look at, they have to really think about where to direct their attention.
$endgroup$
– MivaScott
4 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
I think this is missing an important element: include rooms that have no threat. The method currently described just makes players more paranoid because the threat is definitely there but now they can’t tell where at a glance. Their paranoia isn’t alleviated, it’s just made more anxious. By having rooms where there are no imps in the chandeliers and no thieves behind the furniture, players won’t expect every room to be a threat, and will begin to accept that sometimes a description is just a description. It also gives them opportunities to engage with rooms in non-lethal contexts.
$endgroup$
– SevenSidedDie♦
4 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
I try to add a mundane description to every scene.
If your "odd" descriptions are normal for your scenes, then they won't be suspicious.
You leave the forest, slightly the worse for wear, but alive. An old tree catches your eye; its bark vaguely resembles a wizened face.
The old tavern matches the description given to you by the beggar. Your eyes take a moment to adjust from the bright sunlight to the dim interior; the nearest table still has the remnants of the previous customer's meal.
You make your way to the room you paid for. A banded chest sits in the corner; the metal straps seem oddly clean.
Just to state some examples.
It's important to note that this is in conjunction with not overusing hidden enemies. No amount of normalizing descriptions is going to abate suspicion if every other room has a mimic.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
This seems like the opposite of miva scott's answer. In this case, if you are highlighting what they should be looking at and when...doesn't that negate having that type of creature there in the first place?
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@NautArch Really, it's about a greater overall effort to be more descriptive. The point being that if you describe the scene adequately all the time (or at least often), then "a chest sits in the corner" won't be as weird or suspicious.
$endgroup$
– goodguy5
7 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Give them a simple way to detect creatures disguised as objects.
Give one of the characters a dagger that hums when drawn if mimics, gargoyles, animated objects or other creatures disguised as seemingly-innocuous objects are near and in plain sight. I name this weapon Stone-Like.
Most of the time, when they suspect such a thing, they'll draw the weapon and clear any suspicion:
"The roof is lined with grotesque statuary, which--"
"Gargoyles?! I draw Stone-Like."
"Nothing."
"Okay, lets move on."
But when it does work:
"Four suits of full plate stand upright in the corner."
"I draw Stone-Like."
"Hummm.... Initiative!"
$endgroup$
8
$begingroup$
My concern about this is that this mechanic basically bypasses wanting to use those monsters in the first place.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NautArch so do all of the "well then don't use mimics" answers... and this one works faster.
$endgroup$
– Ben Barden
4 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
@NautArch (and the 7 people who upvoted their comment) - At no point does the asker say they want to use mimics. Their problem is paranoid players frequently mistaking objects for mimics and de-railing the game. My solution directly fixes the stated problem by allowing players to quickly and freely dispel their paranoia.
$endgroup$
– Quadratic Wizard
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If you want a party who is not paranoid, in spite of being repeatedly attacked by mimics, the only way to get it is to metagame, in cooperation with the players.
Many of the answers here consist of variations on "don't use mimics" or "don't ambush your players with mimics. What if you want to be able to use mimics, but at the same time have your PCs not be paranoid about them all the time? Well, that's going to take some metagaming. After all, if you say you want your players to be surprised the twelfth time you hit them with a suit of animated armor, you're basically saying that you want the emotional and social payoff of consistently outsmarting your friends without actually having to put in the work to come up with anything novel. That's both mean and somewhat lazy.
On the other hand, maybe what you really want isn't to constantly count coup over your friends at the table, but instead just to have the experience of a moderately foolish party who is constantly getting surprised by mimics because it makes for an interesting tactical experience. That is the sort of thing you can talk out with the party, and potentially get them to agree to, especially if you're willing to promise that the mimic-style encounters will have some other benefit. Perhaps you lard a bit more treasure into them, or you make them a bit under-leveled or something. You'd essentially be giving all of your PCs the flaw "insufficiently paranoid about mimics", and then rewarding them when they RP it properly. That could actually be a pretty entertaining game, especially if everyone was okay with playing it up a bit for humor value.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "122"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f143735%2fhow-can-mimic-phobia-be-cured-or-prevented%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Embrace the madness: that genie's out of the bottle
Mimics are an iconic monster/trap in D&D, and have been for about four decades. There are a variety of memes and jokes associated with them, including this one.
As a player or as a DM, don't be annoyed by player paranoia. Roll with it
...your arrows bounce off of the chest...
and proceed with the narration. Keep your own focus; that's a thing that you can do.
Actionable suggestion for a DM: don't use gratuitous mimics
As a DM, rarely use them, or never use them, if you find their existence in the game world to be a problem. You never have to have one in your game. They aren't a required monster in your game world.
- If you do use one, place it with care. Make its location and existence fit the scenario that you have created. Mimics survive because they surprise things and eat them.
You can't stop players from some meta gaming.
As the memes, and jokes, that your players have access to spread via word of mouth, reading the books, or at various internet sources, you'll only frustrate yourself if you try to control that. Save yourself the effort.
The same is true for lurker's above, animated armor, gargoyles, rugs of smothering, and various plants that come alive to eat the PCs.
Hey, look, I found a magic carpet! Let's go flying!
oops, rug of smothering
A note on Lore, meta gaming and mimics(and similar monsters/hazards):
As the DM, you control the spread of lore in your world. This kind of "general" versus "specialized" knowledge would include a sense of 'how well known is the existence of mimics' (if it is known at all) in this campaign world? @TimothyAWiseman points out that if your world is one in which the existence of mimics is well known, then testing for them is (1) not metagaming, and (2) is a valid in-character action by any adventurer and should not be seen as an obstacle to play.
$endgroup$
7
$begingroup$
"don't use gratuitous mimics" I've found that a single encounter done right can keep a player second-guessing for years!
$endgroup$
– Michael W.
8 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@MichaelW. Sounds like your placement worked just right.
$endgroup$
– KorvinStarmast
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
If your world is one in which the existence of mimics is well known, then testing for them is not metagaming.
$endgroup$
– TimothyAWiseman
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@TimothyAWiseman That's a good point, I'll pop that into that section.
$endgroup$
– KorvinStarmast
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Vylix If you want to be confrontational, that's fine. Or you can simply ask them "how do you know about that?" Engage in a conversation, OOC, and if you see a need perhaps call for a nature or arcana check (disadvantage, or reall high DC maybe?) if you feel one is warranted. Or not.
$endgroup$
– KorvinStarmast
7 hours ago
|
show 6 more comments
$begingroup$
Embrace the madness: that genie's out of the bottle
Mimics are an iconic monster/trap in D&D, and have been for about four decades. There are a variety of memes and jokes associated with them, including this one.
As a player or as a DM, don't be annoyed by player paranoia. Roll with it
...your arrows bounce off of the chest...
and proceed with the narration. Keep your own focus; that's a thing that you can do.
Actionable suggestion for a DM: don't use gratuitous mimics
As a DM, rarely use them, or never use them, if you find their existence in the game world to be a problem. You never have to have one in your game. They aren't a required monster in your game world.
- If you do use one, place it with care. Make its location and existence fit the scenario that you have created. Mimics survive because they surprise things and eat them.
You can't stop players from some meta gaming.
As the memes, and jokes, that your players have access to spread via word of mouth, reading the books, or at various internet sources, you'll only frustrate yourself if you try to control that. Save yourself the effort.
The same is true for lurker's above, animated armor, gargoyles, rugs of smothering, and various plants that come alive to eat the PCs.
Hey, look, I found a magic carpet! Let's go flying!
oops, rug of smothering
A note on Lore, meta gaming and mimics(and similar monsters/hazards):
As the DM, you control the spread of lore in your world. This kind of "general" versus "specialized" knowledge would include a sense of 'how well known is the existence of mimics' (if it is known at all) in this campaign world? @TimothyAWiseman points out that if your world is one in which the existence of mimics is well known, then testing for them is (1) not metagaming, and (2) is a valid in-character action by any adventurer and should not be seen as an obstacle to play.
$endgroup$
7
$begingroup$
"don't use gratuitous mimics" I've found that a single encounter done right can keep a player second-guessing for years!
$endgroup$
– Michael W.
8 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@MichaelW. Sounds like your placement worked just right.
$endgroup$
– KorvinStarmast
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
If your world is one in which the existence of mimics is well known, then testing for them is not metagaming.
$endgroup$
– TimothyAWiseman
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@TimothyAWiseman That's a good point, I'll pop that into that section.
$endgroup$
– KorvinStarmast
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Vylix If you want to be confrontational, that's fine. Or you can simply ask them "how do you know about that?" Engage in a conversation, OOC, and if you see a need perhaps call for a nature or arcana check (disadvantage, or reall high DC maybe?) if you feel one is warranted. Or not.
$endgroup$
– KorvinStarmast
7 hours ago
|
show 6 more comments
$begingroup$
Embrace the madness: that genie's out of the bottle
Mimics are an iconic monster/trap in D&D, and have been for about four decades. There are a variety of memes and jokes associated with them, including this one.
As a player or as a DM, don't be annoyed by player paranoia. Roll with it
...your arrows bounce off of the chest...
and proceed with the narration. Keep your own focus; that's a thing that you can do.
Actionable suggestion for a DM: don't use gratuitous mimics
As a DM, rarely use them, or never use them, if you find their existence in the game world to be a problem. You never have to have one in your game. They aren't a required monster in your game world.
- If you do use one, place it with care. Make its location and existence fit the scenario that you have created. Mimics survive because they surprise things and eat them.
You can't stop players from some meta gaming.
As the memes, and jokes, that your players have access to spread via word of mouth, reading the books, or at various internet sources, you'll only frustrate yourself if you try to control that. Save yourself the effort.
The same is true for lurker's above, animated armor, gargoyles, rugs of smothering, and various plants that come alive to eat the PCs.
Hey, look, I found a magic carpet! Let's go flying!
oops, rug of smothering
A note on Lore, meta gaming and mimics(and similar monsters/hazards):
As the DM, you control the spread of lore in your world. This kind of "general" versus "specialized" knowledge would include a sense of 'how well known is the existence of mimics' (if it is known at all) in this campaign world? @TimothyAWiseman points out that if your world is one in which the existence of mimics is well known, then testing for them is (1) not metagaming, and (2) is a valid in-character action by any adventurer and should not be seen as an obstacle to play.
$endgroup$
Embrace the madness: that genie's out of the bottle
Mimics are an iconic monster/trap in D&D, and have been for about four decades. There are a variety of memes and jokes associated with them, including this one.
As a player or as a DM, don't be annoyed by player paranoia. Roll with it
...your arrows bounce off of the chest...
and proceed with the narration. Keep your own focus; that's a thing that you can do.
Actionable suggestion for a DM: don't use gratuitous mimics
As a DM, rarely use them, or never use them, if you find their existence in the game world to be a problem. You never have to have one in your game. They aren't a required monster in your game world.
- If you do use one, place it with care. Make its location and existence fit the scenario that you have created. Mimics survive because they surprise things and eat them.
You can't stop players from some meta gaming.
As the memes, and jokes, that your players have access to spread via word of mouth, reading the books, or at various internet sources, you'll only frustrate yourself if you try to control that. Save yourself the effort.
The same is true for lurker's above, animated armor, gargoyles, rugs of smothering, and various plants that come alive to eat the PCs.
Hey, look, I found a magic carpet! Let's go flying!
oops, rug of smothering
A note on Lore, meta gaming and mimics(and similar monsters/hazards):
As the DM, you control the spread of lore in your world. This kind of "general" versus "specialized" knowledge would include a sense of 'how well known is the existence of mimics' (if it is known at all) in this campaign world? @TimothyAWiseman points out that if your world is one in which the existence of mimics is well known, then testing for them is (1) not metagaming, and (2) is a valid in-character action by any adventurer and should not be seen as an obstacle to play.
edited 1 hour ago
answered 8 hours ago
KorvinStarmastKorvinStarmast
82.1k19256444
82.1k19256444
7
$begingroup$
"don't use gratuitous mimics" I've found that a single encounter done right can keep a player second-guessing for years!
$endgroup$
– Michael W.
8 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@MichaelW. Sounds like your placement worked just right.
$endgroup$
– KorvinStarmast
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
If your world is one in which the existence of mimics is well known, then testing for them is not metagaming.
$endgroup$
– TimothyAWiseman
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@TimothyAWiseman That's a good point, I'll pop that into that section.
$endgroup$
– KorvinStarmast
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Vylix If you want to be confrontational, that's fine. Or you can simply ask them "how do you know about that?" Engage in a conversation, OOC, and if you see a need perhaps call for a nature or arcana check (disadvantage, or reall high DC maybe?) if you feel one is warranted. Or not.
$endgroup$
– KorvinStarmast
7 hours ago
|
show 6 more comments
7
$begingroup$
"don't use gratuitous mimics" I've found that a single encounter done right can keep a player second-guessing for years!
$endgroup$
– Michael W.
8 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@MichaelW. Sounds like your placement worked just right.
$endgroup$
– KorvinStarmast
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
If your world is one in which the existence of mimics is well known, then testing for them is not metagaming.
$endgroup$
– TimothyAWiseman
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@TimothyAWiseman That's a good point, I'll pop that into that section.
$endgroup$
– KorvinStarmast
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Vylix If you want to be confrontational, that's fine. Or you can simply ask them "how do you know about that?" Engage in a conversation, OOC, and if you see a need perhaps call for a nature or arcana check (disadvantage, or reall high DC maybe?) if you feel one is warranted. Or not.
$endgroup$
– KorvinStarmast
7 hours ago
7
7
$begingroup$
"don't use gratuitous mimics" I've found that a single encounter done right can keep a player second-guessing for years!
$endgroup$
– Michael W.
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
"don't use gratuitous mimics" I've found that a single encounter done right can keep a player second-guessing for years!
$endgroup$
– Michael W.
8 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
@MichaelW. Sounds like your placement worked just right.
$endgroup$
– KorvinStarmast
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@MichaelW. Sounds like your placement worked just right.
$endgroup$
– KorvinStarmast
7 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
If your world is one in which the existence of mimics is well known, then testing for them is not metagaming.
$endgroup$
– TimothyAWiseman
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
If your world is one in which the existence of mimics is well known, then testing for them is not metagaming.
$endgroup$
– TimothyAWiseman
7 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@TimothyAWiseman That's a good point, I'll pop that into that section.
$endgroup$
– KorvinStarmast
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@TimothyAWiseman That's a good point, I'll pop that into that section.
$endgroup$
– KorvinStarmast
7 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@Vylix If you want to be confrontational, that's fine. Or you can simply ask them "how do you know about that?" Engage in a conversation, OOC, and if you see a need perhaps call for a nature or arcana check (disadvantage, or reall high DC maybe?) if you feel one is warranted. Or not.
$endgroup$
– KorvinStarmast
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Vylix If you want to be confrontational, that's fine. Or you can simply ask them "how do you know about that?" Engage in a conversation, OOC, and if you see a need perhaps call for a nature or arcana check (disadvantage, or reall high DC maybe?) if you feel one is warranted. Or not.
$endgroup$
– KorvinStarmast
7 hours ago
|
show 6 more comments
$begingroup$
Don't give the players anything to fear
Part of what causes mimic-phobia is the constant threat of things like animated armor, gargoyles, mimics, skeletons that animate from the floor, etc.
I had a player that was constantly afraid of anything statue related, which is when I realized that the only time I ever describe statues is when they will animate and attack the players. The way I got around this was simple. I didn't use gargoyles for a long time. Eventually, he forgot gargoyles were a threat or didn't think I'd use them again, with the same result: he wasn't afraid of statues anymore.
So for a while, don't use any monsters like this. There are plenty of other dungeon-crawling monsters to use, so the use of mimics, gargoyles, animated objects, ropers, etc. isn't necessary for every dungeon. Perhaps try a water-themed dungeon with sahuagin and myconids, or the lair of a large fire creature that has salamander and newt servants.
Then, if you want them to start fearing the environment again, you can bring back the mimics and gargoyles.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Doesn't using mimic/gargoyle after a while kinda trying to put the players in "gotcha" position?
$endgroup$
– Vylix
7 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
For sure. But that's only if you want them to start fearing the environment again (like they are in your question).
$endgroup$
– Blake Steel
6 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Don't give the players anything to fear
Part of what causes mimic-phobia is the constant threat of things like animated armor, gargoyles, mimics, skeletons that animate from the floor, etc.
I had a player that was constantly afraid of anything statue related, which is when I realized that the only time I ever describe statues is when they will animate and attack the players. The way I got around this was simple. I didn't use gargoyles for a long time. Eventually, he forgot gargoyles were a threat or didn't think I'd use them again, with the same result: he wasn't afraid of statues anymore.
So for a while, don't use any monsters like this. There are plenty of other dungeon-crawling monsters to use, so the use of mimics, gargoyles, animated objects, ropers, etc. isn't necessary for every dungeon. Perhaps try a water-themed dungeon with sahuagin and myconids, or the lair of a large fire creature that has salamander and newt servants.
Then, if you want them to start fearing the environment again, you can bring back the mimics and gargoyles.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Doesn't using mimic/gargoyle after a while kinda trying to put the players in "gotcha" position?
$endgroup$
– Vylix
7 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
For sure. But that's only if you want them to start fearing the environment again (like they are in your question).
$endgroup$
– Blake Steel
6 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Don't give the players anything to fear
Part of what causes mimic-phobia is the constant threat of things like animated armor, gargoyles, mimics, skeletons that animate from the floor, etc.
I had a player that was constantly afraid of anything statue related, which is when I realized that the only time I ever describe statues is when they will animate and attack the players. The way I got around this was simple. I didn't use gargoyles for a long time. Eventually, he forgot gargoyles were a threat or didn't think I'd use them again, with the same result: he wasn't afraid of statues anymore.
So for a while, don't use any monsters like this. There are plenty of other dungeon-crawling monsters to use, so the use of mimics, gargoyles, animated objects, ropers, etc. isn't necessary for every dungeon. Perhaps try a water-themed dungeon with sahuagin and myconids, or the lair of a large fire creature that has salamander and newt servants.
Then, if you want them to start fearing the environment again, you can bring back the mimics and gargoyles.
$endgroup$
Don't give the players anything to fear
Part of what causes mimic-phobia is the constant threat of things like animated armor, gargoyles, mimics, skeletons that animate from the floor, etc.
I had a player that was constantly afraid of anything statue related, which is when I realized that the only time I ever describe statues is when they will animate and attack the players. The way I got around this was simple. I didn't use gargoyles for a long time. Eventually, he forgot gargoyles were a threat or didn't think I'd use them again, with the same result: he wasn't afraid of statues anymore.
So for a while, don't use any monsters like this. There are plenty of other dungeon-crawling monsters to use, so the use of mimics, gargoyles, animated objects, ropers, etc. isn't necessary for every dungeon. Perhaps try a water-themed dungeon with sahuagin and myconids, or the lair of a large fire creature that has salamander and newt servants.
Then, if you want them to start fearing the environment again, you can bring back the mimics and gargoyles.
edited 7 hours ago
NathanS
26.8k9125279
26.8k9125279
answered 8 hours ago
Blake SteelBlake Steel
3,5431744
3,5431744
$begingroup$
Doesn't using mimic/gargoyle after a while kinda trying to put the players in "gotcha" position?
$endgroup$
– Vylix
7 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
For sure. But that's only if you want them to start fearing the environment again (like they are in your question).
$endgroup$
– Blake Steel
6 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Doesn't using mimic/gargoyle after a while kinda trying to put the players in "gotcha" position?
$endgroup$
– Vylix
7 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
For sure. But that's only if you want them to start fearing the environment again (like they are in your question).
$endgroup$
– Blake Steel
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Doesn't using mimic/gargoyle after a while kinda trying to put the players in "gotcha" position?
$endgroup$
– Vylix
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Doesn't using mimic/gargoyle after a while kinda trying to put the players in "gotcha" position?
$endgroup$
– Vylix
7 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
For sure. But that's only if you want them to start fearing the environment again (like they are in your question).
$endgroup$
– Blake Steel
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
For sure. But that's only if you want them to start fearing the environment again (like they are in your question).
$endgroup$
– Blake Steel
6 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The common theme throughout these types of the questions is that the DM will generally only call out things that are important. So if the DM says, "there are statues flanking the stairs," that must be important. Your description should not be on just the things the players need to interact with, but with what their focus would be.
Describe how a rug is placed oddly in the room, that the cabinet sits with one door swinging in the wind, and the paint is flaking off the north wall. All of this has nothing to do with the story; it's just flavor.
"You open the door and see a rather chaotic room. Although the room is unlit, there is some light coming from the moon outside the only window not boarded up. The floor is mostly carpeted, except in the center where it looks worn away. There are upturned tables and chairs pushed to the walls, emphasizing the clearing in the center of the room. Sitting in the center of the room is a large, wooden table, very different design than all the other furniture in the room. The light from the moon almost seems to spotlight the table. It has no chairs near it, nor any objects upon its surface. What do you do?"
Turns out the table is completely normal and was brought in there on purpose by thieves. They placed it there to make it very suspicious so that adventures would waste time and spells. However all the thieves are hiding behind the tables pushed against the wall (less likely to be hit by Area of Effect spells), and a couple that hide behind the now open door. When a few adventures do finally enter, they slam the doors shut, and lock the doors separating the party.
Note how the description is keyed to the focus of the room. When the players enter the room, highlight what is obvious, and downplay the rest (mundane and threat alike). In my example, if you walked into a room with a single table, bathed in moonlight, with no furniture, not even the carpet within 10' of it, that is where the their perception will focus. I didn't NOT talk about the tables the thieves were hiding behind, but wouldn't be the perceived danger.
The key is to change up how you describe rooms. Drawing attention whatever is the focus of the room, and down play everything else.
"As you enter the ballroom, you are overwhelmed by the immense size. This grand room could fit the house you grew up in. Streamers litter the floor in a paper spiderweb. The chandeliers reflect the light from your torches across everything. The twinkling lights make it hard to focus. You can see a few dusty suits of armor to the south and north. There is a bar in the back where you can only imagine once held a buffet. Between the streamers, you can make out the tile floor a checkerboard of black and a light green; matching the drapes that cover the most of the walls. In the center you can make out what could be a dead body, partially covered by streamers."
Can you guess the threat?
It was the imps hanging in the chandeliers.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
I feel like I'm missing something here. If the players are always afraid and testing things to be things they aren't...how is this helping?It appears to just attempt to redirect what they test via misdirection.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@NautArch In my first line I point out that DMs tend to only detail what is important in a scene. If you add descriptions to the mundane, they will investigate those instead and see they are just mundane. At first they will be suspicious of everything. Eventually they will learn that just because something has a description, doesn't mean it's a monster or a trap.
$endgroup$
– MivaScott
7 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
I get that, but how is that stopping from looking at everything in the room. Descriptive aside, OP has said they check they anything described whether to call it out or to not call it out.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
It's not updating the "gotcha" factor. It's describing the room as it is seen, not as it it important. Use the same "focal point" descriptions for every room, not just ones that have threats. By saying, "You enter a room, there is a table, two chairs, and a chest", you are basically saying, "There is object a, b, and c in the room. Which would you like to interact with first?" Of course they are going to be wary of things, because that's all there is in the room to examine. If you give them more to look at, they have to really think about where to direct their attention.
$endgroup$
– MivaScott
4 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
I think this is missing an important element: include rooms that have no threat. The method currently described just makes players more paranoid because the threat is definitely there but now they can’t tell where at a glance. Their paranoia isn’t alleviated, it’s just made more anxious. By having rooms where there are no imps in the chandeliers and no thieves behind the furniture, players won’t expect every room to be a threat, and will begin to accept that sometimes a description is just a description. It also gives them opportunities to engage with rooms in non-lethal contexts.
$endgroup$
– SevenSidedDie♦
4 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
The common theme throughout these types of the questions is that the DM will generally only call out things that are important. So if the DM says, "there are statues flanking the stairs," that must be important. Your description should not be on just the things the players need to interact with, but with what their focus would be.
Describe how a rug is placed oddly in the room, that the cabinet sits with one door swinging in the wind, and the paint is flaking off the north wall. All of this has nothing to do with the story; it's just flavor.
"You open the door and see a rather chaotic room. Although the room is unlit, there is some light coming from the moon outside the only window not boarded up. The floor is mostly carpeted, except in the center where it looks worn away. There are upturned tables and chairs pushed to the walls, emphasizing the clearing in the center of the room. Sitting in the center of the room is a large, wooden table, very different design than all the other furniture in the room. The light from the moon almost seems to spotlight the table. It has no chairs near it, nor any objects upon its surface. What do you do?"
Turns out the table is completely normal and was brought in there on purpose by thieves. They placed it there to make it very suspicious so that adventures would waste time and spells. However all the thieves are hiding behind the tables pushed against the wall (less likely to be hit by Area of Effect spells), and a couple that hide behind the now open door. When a few adventures do finally enter, they slam the doors shut, and lock the doors separating the party.
Note how the description is keyed to the focus of the room. When the players enter the room, highlight what is obvious, and downplay the rest (mundane and threat alike). In my example, if you walked into a room with a single table, bathed in moonlight, with no furniture, not even the carpet within 10' of it, that is where the their perception will focus. I didn't NOT talk about the tables the thieves were hiding behind, but wouldn't be the perceived danger.
The key is to change up how you describe rooms. Drawing attention whatever is the focus of the room, and down play everything else.
"As you enter the ballroom, you are overwhelmed by the immense size. This grand room could fit the house you grew up in. Streamers litter the floor in a paper spiderweb. The chandeliers reflect the light from your torches across everything. The twinkling lights make it hard to focus. You can see a few dusty suits of armor to the south and north. There is a bar in the back where you can only imagine once held a buffet. Between the streamers, you can make out the tile floor a checkerboard of black and a light green; matching the drapes that cover the most of the walls. In the center you can make out what could be a dead body, partially covered by streamers."
Can you guess the threat?
It was the imps hanging in the chandeliers.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
I feel like I'm missing something here. If the players are always afraid and testing things to be things they aren't...how is this helping?It appears to just attempt to redirect what they test via misdirection.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@NautArch In my first line I point out that DMs tend to only detail what is important in a scene. If you add descriptions to the mundane, they will investigate those instead and see they are just mundane. At first they will be suspicious of everything. Eventually they will learn that just because something has a description, doesn't mean it's a monster or a trap.
$endgroup$
– MivaScott
7 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
I get that, but how is that stopping from looking at everything in the room. Descriptive aside, OP has said they check they anything described whether to call it out or to not call it out.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
It's not updating the "gotcha" factor. It's describing the room as it is seen, not as it it important. Use the same "focal point" descriptions for every room, not just ones that have threats. By saying, "You enter a room, there is a table, two chairs, and a chest", you are basically saying, "There is object a, b, and c in the room. Which would you like to interact with first?" Of course they are going to be wary of things, because that's all there is in the room to examine. If you give them more to look at, they have to really think about where to direct their attention.
$endgroup$
– MivaScott
4 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
I think this is missing an important element: include rooms that have no threat. The method currently described just makes players more paranoid because the threat is definitely there but now they can’t tell where at a glance. Their paranoia isn’t alleviated, it’s just made more anxious. By having rooms where there are no imps in the chandeliers and no thieves behind the furniture, players won’t expect every room to be a threat, and will begin to accept that sometimes a description is just a description. It also gives them opportunities to engage with rooms in non-lethal contexts.
$endgroup$
– SevenSidedDie♦
4 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
The common theme throughout these types of the questions is that the DM will generally only call out things that are important. So if the DM says, "there are statues flanking the stairs," that must be important. Your description should not be on just the things the players need to interact with, but with what their focus would be.
Describe how a rug is placed oddly in the room, that the cabinet sits with one door swinging in the wind, and the paint is flaking off the north wall. All of this has nothing to do with the story; it's just flavor.
"You open the door and see a rather chaotic room. Although the room is unlit, there is some light coming from the moon outside the only window not boarded up. The floor is mostly carpeted, except in the center where it looks worn away. There are upturned tables and chairs pushed to the walls, emphasizing the clearing in the center of the room. Sitting in the center of the room is a large, wooden table, very different design than all the other furniture in the room. The light from the moon almost seems to spotlight the table. It has no chairs near it, nor any objects upon its surface. What do you do?"
Turns out the table is completely normal and was brought in there on purpose by thieves. They placed it there to make it very suspicious so that adventures would waste time and spells. However all the thieves are hiding behind the tables pushed against the wall (less likely to be hit by Area of Effect spells), and a couple that hide behind the now open door. When a few adventures do finally enter, they slam the doors shut, and lock the doors separating the party.
Note how the description is keyed to the focus of the room. When the players enter the room, highlight what is obvious, and downplay the rest (mundane and threat alike). In my example, if you walked into a room with a single table, bathed in moonlight, with no furniture, not even the carpet within 10' of it, that is where the their perception will focus. I didn't NOT talk about the tables the thieves were hiding behind, but wouldn't be the perceived danger.
The key is to change up how you describe rooms. Drawing attention whatever is the focus of the room, and down play everything else.
"As you enter the ballroom, you are overwhelmed by the immense size. This grand room could fit the house you grew up in. Streamers litter the floor in a paper spiderweb. The chandeliers reflect the light from your torches across everything. The twinkling lights make it hard to focus. You can see a few dusty suits of armor to the south and north. There is a bar in the back where you can only imagine once held a buffet. Between the streamers, you can make out the tile floor a checkerboard of black and a light green; matching the drapes that cover the most of the walls. In the center you can make out what could be a dead body, partially covered by streamers."
Can you guess the threat?
It was the imps hanging in the chandeliers.
$endgroup$
The common theme throughout these types of the questions is that the DM will generally only call out things that are important. So if the DM says, "there are statues flanking the stairs," that must be important. Your description should not be on just the things the players need to interact with, but with what their focus would be.
Describe how a rug is placed oddly in the room, that the cabinet sits with one door swinging in the wind, and the paint is flaking off the north wall. All of this has nothing to do with the story; it's just flavor.
"You open the door and see a rather chaotic room. Although the room is unlit, there is some light coming from the moon outside the only window not boarded up. The floor is mostly carpeted, except in the center where it looks worn away. There are upturned tables and chairs pushed to the walls, emphasizing the clearing in the center of the room. Sitting in the center of the room is a large, wooden table, very different design than all the other furniture in the room. The light from the moon almost seems to spotlight the table. It has no chairs near it, nor any objects upon its surface. What do you do?"
Turns out the table is completely normal and was brought in there on purpose by thieves. They placed it there to make it very suspicious so that adventures would waste time and spells. However all the thieves are hiding behind the tables pushed against the wall (less likely to be hit by Area of Effect spells), and a couple that hide behind the now open door. When a few adventures do finally enter, they slam the doors shut, and lock the doors separating the party.
Note how the description is keyed to the focus of the room. When the players enter the room, highlight what is obvious, and downplay the rest (mundane and threat alike). In my example, if you walked into a room with a single table, bathed in moonlight, with no furniture, not even the carpet within 10' of it, that is where the their perception will focus. I didn't NOT talk about the tables the thieves were hiding behind, but wouldn't be the perceived danger.
The key is to change up how you describe rooms. Drawing attention whatever is the focus of the room, and down play everything else.
"As you enter the ballroom, you are overwhelmed by the immense size. This grand room could fit the house you grew up in. Streamers litter the floor in a paper spiderweb. The chandeliers reflect the light from your torches across everything. The twinkling lights make it hard to focus. You can see a few dusty suits of armor to the south and north. There is a bar in the back where you can only imagine once held a buffet. Between the streamers, you can make out the tile floor a checkerboard of black and a light green; matching the drapes that cover the most of the walls. In the center you can make out what could be a dead body, partially covered by streamers."
Can you guess the threat?
It was the imps hanging in the chandeliers.
edited 7 hours ago
answered 8 hours ago
MivaScottMivaScott
6,42611346
6,42611346
1
$begingroup$
I feel like I'm missing something here. If the players are always afraid and testing things to be things they aren't...how is this helping?It appears to just attempt to redirect what they test via misdirection.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@NautArch In my first line I point out that DMs tend to only detail what is important in a scene. If you add descriptions to the mundane, they will investigate those instead and see they are just mundane. At first they will be suspicious of everything. Eventually they will learn that just because something has a description, doesn't mean it's a monster or a trap.
$endgroup$
– MivaScott
7 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
I get that, but how is that stopping from looking at everything in the room. Descriptive aside, OP has said they check they anything described whether to call it out or to not call it out.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
It's not updating the "gotcha" factor. It's describing the room as it is seen, not as it it important. Use the same "focal point" descriptions for every room, not just ones that have threats. By saying, "You enter a room, there is a table, two chairs, and a chest", you are basically saying, "There is object a, b, and c in the room. Which would you like to interact with first?" Of course they are going to be wary of things, because that's all there is in the room to examine. If you give them more to look at, they have to really think about where to direct their attention.
$endgroup$
– MivaScott
4 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
I think this is missing an important element: include rooms that have no threat. The method currently described just makes players more paranoid because the threat is definitely there but now they can’t tell where at a glance. Their paranoia isn’t alleviated, it’s just made more anxious. By having rooms where there are no imps in the chandeliers and no thieves behind the furniture, players won’t expect every room to be a threat, and will begin to accept that sometimes a description is just a description. It also gives them opportunities to engage with rooms in non-lethal contexts.
$endgroup$
– SevenSidedDie♦
4 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
1
$begingroup$
I feel like I'm missing something here. If the players are always afraid and testing things to be things they aren't...how is this helping?It appears to just attempt to redirect what they test via misdirection.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@NautArch In my first line I point out that DMs tend to only detail what is important in a scene. If you add descriptions to the mundane, they will investigate those instead and see they are just mundane. At first they will be suspicious of everything. Eventually they will learn that just because something has a description, doesn't mean it's a monster or a trap.
$endgroup$
– MivaScott
7 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
I get that, but how is that stopping from looking at everything in the room. Descriptive aside, OP has said they check they anything described whether to call it out or to not call it out.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
It's not updating the "gotcha" factor. It's describing the room as it is seen, not as it it important. Use the same "focal point" descriptions for every room, not just ones that have threats. By saying, "You enter a room, there is a table, two chairs, and a chest", you are basically saying, "There is object a, b, and c in the room. Which would you like to interact with first?" Of course they are going to be wary of things, because that's all there is in the room to examine. If you give them more to look at, they have to really think about where to direct their attention.
$endgroup$
– MivaScott
4 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
I think this is missing an important element: include rooms that have no threat. The method currently described just makes players more paranoid because the threat is definitely there but now they can’t tell where at a glance. Their paranoia isn’t alleviated, it’s just made more anxious. By having rooms where there are no imps in the chandeliers and no thieves behind the furniture, players won’t expect every room to be a threat, and will begin to accept that sometimes a description is just a description. It also gives them opportunities to engage with rooms in non-lethal contexts.
$endgroup$
– SevenSidedDie♦
4 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
I feel like I'm missing something here. If the players are always afraid and testing things to be things they aren't...how is this helping?It appears to just attempt to redirect what they test via misdirection.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
I feel like I'm missing something here. If the players are always afraid and testing things to be things they aren't...how is this helping?It appears to just attempt to redirect what they test via misdirection.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
@NautArch In my first line I point out that DMs tend to only detail what is important in a scene. If you add descriptions to the mundane, they will investigate those instead and see they are just mundane. At first they will be suspicious of everything. Eventually they will learn that just because something has a description, doesn't mean it's a monster or a trap.
$endgroup$
– MivaScott
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NautArch In my first line I point out that DMs tend to only detail what is important in a scene. If you add descriptions to the mundane, they will investigate those instead and see they are just mundane. At first they will be suspicious of everything. Eventually they will learn that just because something has a description, doesn't mean it's a monster or a trap.
$endgroup$
– MivaScott
7 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
I get that, but how is that stopping from looking at everything in the room. Descriptive aside, OP has said they check they anything described whether to call it out or to not call it out.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
I get that, but how is that stopping from looking at everything in the room. Descriptive aside, OP has said they check they anything described whether to call it out or to not call it out.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
4
4
$begingroup$
It's not updating the "gotcha" factor. It's describing the room as it is seen, not as it it important. Use the same "focal point" descriptions for every room, not just ones that have threats. By saying, "You enter a room, there is a table, two chairs, and a chest", you are basically saying, "There is object a, b, and c in the room. Which would you like to interact with first?" Of course they are going to be wary of things, because that's all there is in the room to examine. If you give them more to look at, they have to really think about where to direct their attention.
$endgroup$
– MivaScott
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
It's not updating the "gotcha" factor. It's describing the room as it is seen, not as it it important. Use the same "focal point" descriptions for every room, not just ones that have threats. By saying, "You enter a room, there is a table, two chairs, and a chest", you are basically saying, "There is object a, b, and c in the room. Which would you like to interact with first?" Of course they are going to be wary of things, because that's all there is in the room to examine. If you give them more to look at, they have to really think about where to direct their attention.
$endgroup$
– MivaScott
4 hours ago
3
3
$begingroup$
I think this is missing an important element: include rooms that have no threat. The method currently described just makes players more paranoid because the threat is definitely there but now they can’t tell where at a glance. Their paranoia isn’t alleviated, it’s just made more anxious. By having rooms where there are no imps in the chandeliers and no thieves behind the furniture, players won’t expect every room to be a threat, and will begin to accept that sometimes a description is just a description. It also gives them opportunities to engage with rooms in non-lethal contexts.
$endgroup$
– SevenSidedDie♦
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
I think this is missing an important element: include rooms that have no threat. The method currently described just makes players more paranoid because the threat is definitely there but now they can’t tell where at a glance. Their paranoia isn’t alleviated, it’s just made more anxious. By having rooms where there are no imps in the chandeliers and no thieves behind the furniture, players won’t expect every room to be a threat, and will begin to accept that sometimes a description is just a description. It also gives them opportunities to engage with rooms in non-lethal contexts.
$endgroup$
– SevenSidedDie♦
4 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
I try to add a mundane description to every scene.
If your "odd" descriptions are normal for your scenes, then they won't be suspicious.
You leave the forest, slightly the worse for wear, but alive. An old tree catches your eye; its bark vaguely resembles a wizened face.
The old tavern matches the description given to you by the beggar. Your eyes take a moment to adjust from the bright sunlight to the dim interior; the nearest table still has the remnants of the previous customer's meal.
You make your way to the room you paid for. A banded chest sits in the corner; the metal straps seem oddly clean.
Just to state some examples.
It's important to note that this is in conjunction with not overusing hidden enemies. No amount of normalizing descriptions is going to abate suspicion if every other room has a mimic.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
This seems like the opposite of miva scott's answer. In this case, if you are highlighting what they should be looking at and when...doesn't that negate having that type of creature there in the first place?
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@NautArch Really, it's about a greater overall effort to be more descriptive. The point being that if you describe the scene adequately all the time (or at least often), then "a chest sits in the corner" won't be as weird or suspicious.
$endgroup$
– goodguy5
7 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I try to add a mundane description to every scene.
If your "odd" descriptions are normal for your scenes, then they won't be suspicious.
You leave the forest, slightly the worse for wear, but alive. An old tree catches your eye; its bark vaguely resembles a wizened face.
The old tavern matches the description given to you by the beggar. Your eyes take a moment to adjust from the bright sunlight to the dim interior; the nearest table still has the remnants of the previous customer's meal.
You make your way to the room you paid for. A banded chest sits in the corner; the metal straps seem oddly clean.
Just to state some examples.
It's important to note that this is in conjunction with not overusing hidden enemies. No amount of normalizing descriptions is going to abate suspicion if every other room has a mimic.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
This seems like the opposite of miva scott's answer. In this case, if you are highlighting what they should be looking at and when...doesn't that negate having that type of creature there in the first place?
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@NautArch Really, it's about a greater overall effort to be more descriptive. The point being that if you describe the scene adequately all the time (or at least often), then "a chest sits in the corner" won't be as weird or suspicious.
$endgroup$
– goodguy5
7 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I try to add a mundane description to every scene.
If your "odd" descriptions are normal for your scenes, then they won't be suspicious.
You leave the forest, slightly the worse for wear, but alive. An old tree catches your eye; its bark vaguely resembles a wizened face.
The old tavern matches the description given to you by the beggar. Your eyes take a moment to adjust from the bright sunlight to the dim interior; the nearest table still has the remnants of the previous customer's meal.
You make your way to the room you paid for. A banded chest sits in the corner; the metal straps seem oddly clean.
Just to state some examples.
It's important to note that this is in conjunction with not overusing hidden enemies. No amount of normalizing descriptions is going to abate suspicion if every other room has a mimic.
$endgroup$
I try to add a mundane description to every scene.
If your "odd" descriptions are normal for your scenes, then they won't be suspicious.
You leave the forest, slightly the worse for wear, but alive. An old tree catches your eye; its bark vaguely resembles a wizened face.
The old tavern matches the description given to you by the beggar. Your eyes take a moment to adjust from the bright sunlight to the dim interior; the nearest table still has the remnants of the previous customer's meal.
You make your way to the room you paid for. A banded chest sits in the corner; the metal straps seem oddly clean.
Just to state some examples.
It's important to note that this is in conjunction with not overusing hidden enemies. No amount of normalizing descriptions is going to abate suspicion if every other room has a mimic.
edited 4 hours ago
SevenSidedDie♦
209k31669949
209k31669949
answered 7 hours ago
goodguy5goodguy5
9,33023476
9,33023476
$begingroup$
This seems like the opposite of miva scott's answer. In this case, if you are highlighting what they should be looking at and when...doesn't that negate having that type of creature there in the first place?
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@NautArch Really, it's about a greater overall effort to be more descriptive. The point being that if you describe the scene adequately all the time (or at least often), then "a chest sits in the corner" won't be as weird or suspicious.
$endgroup$
– goodguy5
7 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This seems like the opposite of miva scott's answer. In this case, if you are highlighting what they should be looking at and when...doesn't that negate having that type of creature there in the first place?
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@NautArch Really, it's about a greater overall effort to be more descriptive. The point being that if you describe the scene adequately all the time (or at least often), then "a chest sits in the corner" won't be as weird or suspicious.
$endgroup$
– goodguy5
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
This seems like the opposite of miva scott's answer. In this case, if you are highlighting what they should be looking at and when...doesn't that negate having that type of creature there in the first place?
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
This seems like the opposite of miva scott's answer. In this case, if you are highlighting what they should be looking at and when...doesn't that negate having that type of creature there in the first place?
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@NautArch Really, it's about a greater overall effort to be more descriptive. The point being that if you describe the scene adequately all the time (or at least often), then "a chest sits in the corner" won't be as weird or suspicious.
$endgroup$
– goodguy5
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NautArch Really, it's about a greater overall effort to be more descriptive. The point being that if you describe the scene adequately all the time (or at least often), then "a chest sits in the corner" won't be as weird or suspicious.
$endgroup$
– goodguy5
7 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Give them a simple way to detect creatures disguised as objects.
Give one of the characters a dagger that hums when drawn if mimics, gargoyles, animated objects or other creatures disguised as seemingly-innocuous objects are near and in plain sight. I name this weapon Stone-Like.
Most of the time, when they suspect such a thing, they'll draw the weapon and clear any suspicion:
"The roof is lined with grotesque statuary, which--"
"Gargoyles?! I draw Stone-Like."
"Nothing."
"Okay, lets move on."
But when it does work:
"Four suits of full plate stand upright in the corner."
"I draw Stone-Like."
"Hummm.... Initiative!"
$endgroup$
8
$begingroup$
My concern about this is that this mechanic basically bypasses wanting to use those monsters in the first place.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NautArch so do all of the "well then don't use mimics" answers... and this one works faster.
$endgroup$
– Ben Barden
4 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
@NautArch (and the 7 people who upvoted their comment) - At no point does the asker say they want to use mimics. Their problem is paranoid players frequently mistaking objects for mimics and de-railing the game. My solution directly fixes the stated problem by allowing players to quickly and freely dispel their paranoia.
$endgroup$
– Quadratic Wizard
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Give them a simple way to detect creatures disguised as objects.
Give one of the characters a dagger that hums when drawn if mimics, gargoyles, animated objects or other creatures disguised as seemingly-innocuous objects are near and in plain sight. I name this weapon Stone-Like.
Most of the time, when they suspect such a thing, they'll draw the weapon and clear any suspicion:
"The roof is lined with grotesque statuary, which--"
"Gargoyles?! I draw Stone-Like."
"Nothing."
"Okay, lets move on."
But when it does work:
"Four suits of full plate stand upright in the corner."
"I draw Stone-Like."
"Hummm.... Initiative!"
$endgroup$
8
$begingroup$
My concern about this is that this mechanic basically bypasses wanting to use those monsters in the first place.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NautArch so do all of the "well then don't use mimics" answers... and this one works faster.
$endgroup$
– Ben Barden
4 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
@NautArch (and the 7 people who upvoted their comment) - At no point does the asker say they want to use mimics. Their problem is paranoid players frequently mistaking objects for mimics and de-railing the game. My solution directly fixes the stated problem by allowing players to quickly and freely dispel their paranoia.
$endgroup$
– Quadratic Wizard
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Give them a simple way to detect creatures disguised as objects.
Give one of the characters a dagger that hums when drawn if mimics, gargoyles, animated objects or other creatures disguised as seemingly-innocuous objects are near and in plain sight. I name this weapon Stone-Like.
Most of the time, when they suspect such a thing, they'll draw the weapon and clear any suspicion:
"The roof is lined with grotesque statuary, which--"
"Gargoyles?! I draw Stone-Like."
"Nothing."
"Okay, lets move on."
But when it does work:
"Four suits of full plate stand upright in the corner."
"I draw Stone-Like."
"Hummm.... Initiative!"
$endgroup$
Give them a simple way to detect creatures disguised as objects.
Give one of the characters a dagger that hums when drawn if mimics, gargoyles, animated objects or other creatures disguised as seemingly-innocuous objects are near and in plain sight. I name this weapon Stone-Like.
Most of the time, when they suspect such a thing, they'll draw the weapon and clear any suspicion:
"The roof is lined with grotesque statuary, which--"
"Gargoyles?! I draw Stone-Like."
"Nothing."
"Okay, lets move on."
But when it does work:
"Four suits of full plate stand upright in the corner."
"I draw Stone-Like."
"Hummm.... Initiative!"
answered 8 hours ago
Quadratic WizardQuadratic Wizard
30k398162
30k398162
8
$begingroup$
My concern about this is that this mechanic basically bypasses wanting to use those monsters in the first place.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NautArch so do all of the "well then don't use mimics" answers... and this one works faster.
$endgroup$
– Ben Barden
4 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
@NautArch (and the 7 people who upvoted their comment) - At no point does the asker say they want to use mimics. Their problem is paranoid players frequently mistaking objects for mimics and de-railing the game. My solution directly fixes the stated problem by allowing players to quickly and freely dispel their paranoia.
$endgroup$
– Quadratic Wizard
3 hours ago
add a comment |
8
$begingroup$
My concern about this is that this mechanic basically bypasses wanting to use those monsters in the first place.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NautArch so do all of the "well then don't use mimics" answers... and this one works faster.
$endgroup$
– Ben Barden
4 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
@NautArch (and the 7 people who upvoted their comment) - At no point does the asker say they want to use mimics. Their problem is paranoid players frequently mistaking objects for mimics and de-railing the game. My solution directly fixes the stated problem by allowing players to quickly and freely dispel their paranoia.
$endgroup$
– Quadratic Wizard
3 hours ago
8
8
$begingroup$
My concern about this is that this mechanic basically bypasses wanting to use those monsters in the first place.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
My concern about this is that this mechanic basically bypasses wanting to use those monsters in the first place.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NautArch so do all of the "well then don't use mimics" answers... and this one works faster.
$endgroup$
– Ben Barden
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NautArch so do all of the "well then don't use mimics" answers... and this one works faster.
$endgroup$
– Ben Barden
4 hours ago
3
3
$begingroup$
@NautArch (and the 7 people who upvoted their comment) - At no point does the asker say they want to use mimics. Their problem is paranoid players frequently mistaking objects for mimics and de-railing the game. My solution directly fixes the stated problem by allowing players to quickly and freely dispel their paranoia.
$endgroup$
– Quadratic Wizard
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NautArch (and the 7 people who upvoted their comment) - At no point does the asker say they want to use mimics. Their problem is paranoid players frequently mistaking objects for mimics and de-railing the game. My solution directly fixes the stated problem by allowing players to quickly and freely dispel their paranoia.
$endgroup$
– Quadratic Wizard
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If you want a party who is not paranoid, in spite of being repeatedly attacked by mimics, the only way to get it is to metagame, in cooperation with the players.
Many of the answers here consist of variations on "don't use mimics" or "don't ambush your players with mimics. What if you want to be able to use mimics, but at the same time have your PCs not be paranoid about them all the time? Well, that's going to take some metagaming. After all, if you say you want your players to be surprised the twelfth time you hit them with a suit of animated armor, you're basically saying that you want the emotional and social payoff of consistently outsmarting your friends without actually having to put in the work to come up with anything novel. That's both mean and somewhat lazy.
On the other hand, maybe what you really want isn't to constantly count coup over your friends at the table, but instead just to have the experience of a moderately foolish party who is constantly getting surprised by mimics because it makes for an interesting tactical experience. That is the sort of thing you can talk out with the party, and potentially get them to agree to, especially if you're willing to promise that the mimic-style encounters will have some other benefit. Perhaps you lard a bit more treasure into them, or you make them a bit under-leveled or something. You'd essentially be giving all of your PCs the flaw "insufficiently paranoid about mimics", and then rewarding them when they RP it properly. That could actually be a pretty entertaining game, especially if everyone was okay with playing it up a bit for humor value.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If you want a party who is not paranoid, in spite of being repeatedly attacked by mimics, the only way to get it is to metagame, in cooperation with the players.
Many of the answers here consist of variations on "don't use mimics" or "don't ambush your players with mimics. What if you want to be able to use mimics, but at the same time have your PCs not be paranoid about them all the time? Well, that's going to take some metagaming. After all, if you say you want your players to be surprised the twelfth time you hit them with a suit of animated armor, you're basically saying that you want the emotional and social payoff of consistently outsmarting your friends without actually having to put in the work to come up with anything novel. That's both mean and somewhat lazy.
On the other hand, maybe what you really want isn't to constantly count coup over your friends at the table, but instead just to have the experience of a moderately foolish party who is constantly getting surprised by mimics because it makes for an interesting tactical experience. That is the sort of thing you can talk out with the party, and potentially get them to agree to, especially if you're willing to promise that the mimic-style encounters will have some other benefit. Perhaps you lard a bit more treasure into them, or you make them a bit under-leveled or something. You'd essentially be giving all of your PCs the flaw "insufficiently paranoid about mimics", and then rewarding them when they RP it properly. That could actually be a pretty entertaining game, especially if everyone was okay with playing it up a bit for humor value.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If you want a party who is not paranoid, in spite of being repeatedly attacked by mimics, the only way to get it is to metagame, in cooperation with the players.
Many of the answers here consist of variations on "don't use mimics" or "don't ambush your players with mimics. What if you want to be able to use mimics, but at the same time have your PCs not be paranoid about them all the time? Well, that's going to take some metagaming. After all, if you say you want your players to be surprised the twelfth time you hit them with a suit of animated armor, you're basically saying that you want the emotional and social payoff of consistently outsmarting your friends without actually having to put in the work to come up with anything novel. That's both mean and somewhat lazy.
On the other hand, maybe what you really want isn't to constantly count coup over your friends at the table, but instead just to have the experience of a moderately foolish party who is constantly getting surprised by mimics because it makes for an interesting tactical experience. That is the sort of thing you can talk out with the party, and potentially get them to agree to, especially if you're willing to promise that the mimic-style encounters will have some other benefit. Perhaps you lard a bit more treasure into them, or you make them a bit under-leveled or something. You'd essentially be giving all of your PCs the flaw "insufficiently paranoid about mimics", and then rewarding them when they RP it properly. That could actually be a pretty entertaining game, especially if everyone was okay with playing it up a bit for humor value.
$endgroup$
If you want a party who is not paranoid, in spite of being repeatedly attacked by mimics, the only way to get it is to metagame, in cooperation with the players.
Many of the answers here consist of variations on "don't use mimics" or "don't ambush your players with mimics. What if you want to be able to use mimics, but at the same time have your PCs not be paranoid about them all the time? Well, that's going to take some metagaming. After all, if you say you want your players to be surprised the twelfth time you hit them with a suit of animated armor, you're basically saying that you want the emotional and social payoff of consistently outsmarting your friends without actually having to put in the work to come up with anything novel. That's both mean and somewhat lazy.
On the other hand, maybe what you really want isn't to constantly count coup over your friends at the table, but instead just to have the experience of a moderately foolish party who is constantly getting surprised by mimics because it makes for an interesting tactical experience. That is the sort of thing you can talk out with the party, and potentially get them to agree to, especially if you're willing to promise that the mimic-style encounters will have some other benefit. Perhaps you lard a bit more treasure into them, or you make them a bit under-leveled or something. You'd essentially be giving all of your PCs the flaw "insufficiently paranoid about mimics", and then rewarding them when they RP it properly. That could actually be a pretty entertaining game, especially if everyone was okay with playing it up a bit for humor value.
edited 1 hour ago
V2Blast
25.4k486156
25.4k486156
answered 4 hours ago
Ben BardenBen Barden
11.4k12865
11.4k12865
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Role-playing Games Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f143735%2fhow-can-mimic-phobia-be-cured-or-prevented%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
$begingroup$
Related, possible duplicate: Curing trap phobia
$endgroup$
– Bloodcinder
9 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Since the related question is your own, can you clarify in what way the answers to the other question don't answer this question for you? Is there something fundamentally different about players being suspicious of traps versus random objects?
$endgroup$
– Bloodcinder
9 hours ago
6
$begingroup$
Not entirely sure how this is causing a problem with your game. Could you explain that a bit more?
$endgroup$
– PJRZ
9 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
You're asking about mimic phobia. You have previously asked about trap phobia and NPC phobia. The core issue seems to be a concern that your dungeon crawls are moving a crawl. Have your players complained about this or is it just your concern as the DM?
$endgroup$
– krb
5 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
Also related: rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/53980
$endgroup$
– thatgirldm
2 hours ago