PC and monster weaknesses are very easy to look up and apply, but finding out what the actual people at the table will fall for is a lot harder, so what have you noticed your players always get pulled in by?
My players are incredibly vulnerable to single small foes. If they peek in a room and see one creature that's mechanically small or tiny, they have absolute confidence that they can quickly finish up the encounter and call it a day. It never works. It's always an overlevelled single boss that stomps them from the word go and kills a PC before they flee or kill it at the last possible second.
I also discovered over the past few sessions that one of my players has a thing for blockages. Every time I mention a door or passage has been blocked by rubble he starts looking for ways to dig through it, ignoring all other descriptions in pursuit of removing the obstacle. I haven't found a particular way to take advantage of it yet, but there are a few rooms coming up that make it more clear why some places get blocked off...
Let me shit on my old groups a little. My current group has been good so far.
One of them wouldn't read. Like they got a clue that was a short paragraph of text and she just said "yeah I'm not reading all that." It was like five short sentences.
I don't know if there's a name for the trope I'm about to describe. I've been thinking about it a lot since it happened. Working title is "don't cast fire spells on the fire elemental"
Modern day secret occult game. The players were looking for another group of mages. They learned the other group was warded against magic generally, and also teleportation/scrying specifically on top of that.
The players decide to try to teleport to the other group anyway. I say ok but like I said it's going to be difficult. They spend some time figuring out their dice pools and bonuses, and make the roll. I make the opposed check in the open. It was close, but they failed.
The next week, for Player reasons, they decide to try again. Same song and dance of spending resources, figuring out their dice pool, and rolling. I tell them it's the same odds as before. They say ok. I roll. They players come up short again.
The one I liked least gets frustrated. "how are we supposed to find these guys?? What are we supposed to do??"
I ask if they want a hint. They say sure.
I say "You could try calling them on the phone"
"...oh"
"You could also ask their friend, the NPC whose apartment you're in, if she knows where they are."
"...oh."
It was weirdly frustrating. They were told this one specific path was what the opposition had fortified themselves against, so that was the thing they wanted to attack.
Another time the players wanted to get into an exclusive club. The bouncer said no, they're not on the list they can't come in. The players were like "what if I ask him really nice?"
I'm like my dudes his whole job is telling people no. At least that time one of the players decides to steal a car and crash it into the building to make a distraction. The others were just like "wow this bouncer is insurmountable"
Is the problem me? Maybe it's me.
Yes, I think it's kind of waving a red flag to a bull metaphor. If you present the enemies' wards, possibly to the exclusion of - or more emphasised than - other characteristics, then the players may read that as the 'target' for that scenario.
I'm familiar with the issue, I call it Skyrim Syndrome after a player who took a while to get that NPCs wouldn't just forget she ever existed if she crouched behind a barrel. I think it's a result of people having very gamified experiences with rpgs, and expecting the same limits on simulation as a videogame. Things that aren't mentioned in detail are just flat background, or things that are mentioned in detail are the "interactable object" of the scene, the only thing they "see" to do something with.
It is somewhat on the GM to be aware of those players, giving extra hints, suggesting courses of action and telling them when their character would think something is a bad plan, but it's actually solved by the players themselves grasping the endless possibilities of TTRPGs.
I've never sat on the other side of the GM screem but am interested in the replies to this thread all the same :)
If you know any of your own it's always worth sharing - other people might find them useful.
I know I'm a sucker for traps. I can't quite explain how I always know they're there - I think it's related to GM's poker faces and the extra things they do or don't say and do when they're trying to conceal them - but I immediately start looking for a way to set them off, and often play impulsive characters just so I can "carelessly" trigger them. When I'm playing smarter characters I'll try to bait other PCs into triggering them.
Weirdly, not that bothered about including them as a GM. Sometimes I like to include them as an extra complication in a fight, but a lot of the time I just don't find them an interesting way to "trick" players. I sometimes wonder if I do it as a player as much for the GM's enjoyment as my own.Yeah I reflected a bit, I guess it's hard to understand which are my player preferences that I've built into my PC, and what I reveal beyond that. So for example, I find it frustrating when co-players refuse to take the plot bait, and overintelectualise their decisions to play 'against' the GM. So the characters I play tend to be, similar to how you mentioned, naive or impulsive so I can make the rash decisions to keep the plot moving.
I'm also aware of talking too much or holding the spotlight too long or too often. If I have a 'big' moment I'll often just stay low key and give minimal input for a good while/the rest of the session so others can take focus. I wouldn't mind if my GMs recognised this and played to it (challenge it), like it could force both me and my character into scenarios where I would instinctively back off. If they played around it (accommodate it), they could set my character up with an in-world mystery to mull over in the background which explains why I'm taking a back seat.
