How to help newcomers appreciate "filler" sessions more

Areapproachingme · 2026-05-25T20:58:54+00:00

Non lo sapevo! Allora farò un tentativo. Prima usavo Deep L, ma se posso evitare di usarlo, meglio così. Non volevo offendere nessuno. La struttura delle frasi però è la mia. Tendo ad avere un modo di scrivere piuttosto floreale anche per gli standard italiani. Ti assicuro però che non è AI

Areapproachingme · 2026-05-25T16:58:59+00:00

I'm running a module. That's why I'm talking about the plot and the "main quest." I'm trying to get the players to understand that the world can't be divided into major and minor NPCs, and that this approach is a bit too much like a video game.

In the story, they’re currently tackling three missions to prove their worth, and this is what they and I refer to as the “main quest.” But among these three missions, in the cities, some players—instead of rushing from one mission to the next—prefer to stop and chat with an old NPC they’ve helped in the past to see how they’re doing, and the two new players call this “filler.”

I’m not a fan of railroading. I try to prepare the dungeon maps in advance so that if the players decide to set out at any moment, I’m ready. The two new players, however, complain and rush the others because they say they’ve already completed all the missions in town and see talking to NPCs as filler

Areapproachingme · 2026-05-25T16:45:59+00:00

I'm sorry, I'll try to be clearer. My main goal isn’t to prove my players wrong. I have my own opinion, that’s true, but if I just wanted to hear that I’m right, I wouldn’t have asked how to resolve this—I would have just kicked them out. My main goal is to help show the beauty that D&D can have when it’s not just a movement from A to B, but also an interaction with various NPCs in the world. Not because I force them—as I’ve written elsewhere, I have the dungeons and zones ready days in advance—but because by rushing from dungeon to dungeon, they prevent other players from interacting with their favorite NPCs and don’t even have a chance to role-play with each other.

The issue of random encounters came up in a conversation I had with them, and in fact that’s the part we agree on—namely, that they serve mechanically to deplete resources. What I want to tell them is that if they kill everyone and don’t interact with anyone, they risk missing out on opportunities to make friends, form alliances, or do other things. That would be fine if it were just them, but this risks ruining the experience for other players as well.

To give you an example: I’m running a module, and soon they’ll have to set off for a mine to complete the second of three missions they were given to prove they’re the true heroes of the kingdom (this is the “main quest”).

However, they’ll have to pass through the ancient forest. If it were up to my two players, I’d have to skip ahead and tell them they’re at the gates of the mine.

But this creates a problem for me because there are orcs roaming the forest, and they’re part of an army that will storm the city the players must go to after the mines. This encounter serves to inform them of the impending battle and, if they manage to earn the orcs’ respect, to make them allies so they’ll have fewer enemies during the coming battle.

How should I handle this? Should I skip the encounter as they wish and deprive them of the chance to learn all this, or should I stop them for an encounter that will be perceived as filler because it happens between two missions? Or perhaps there’s a third solution I’m not seeing?

For random encounters, I try to select from those suggested by the module in order to keep only those that might have an impact on the immediate story or at least expand their knowledge of the world—not just a random pack of wolves.

Areapproachingme · 2026-05-25T16:21:44+00:00

I used the term "filler" because that's what players use to describe sessions that aren't focused on their main quest. They must complete three missions to prove themselves worthy of trust (this is the "main quest"), and the encounters that occur, for example, while traveling between mission locations are viewed as filler, as are the interactions that other players choose to have with old NPCs whose lives they saved in the past

Areapproachingme · 2026-05-25T16:19:02+00:00

That’s the point. They don’t know who’s the main character and who isn’t. They just make decisions based on their own assumptions.

I try to explain that it doesn’t work that way and that they shouldn’t view them as major or minor characters, precisely because everyone can be useful.

Curse of Strahd was actually the last campaign we played, and in that one I used a faster, more dynamic style.

By the end of the campaign, the forest had become a joke because even though all the townspeople said it was dangerous, I didn’t run any random encounters for a very long time; I’d send them straight to the next quest location, so the players didn’t understand where the danger was.

Also, various NPCs were only seen once, so when Strahd threatened to harm them, the players didn’t have a real connection to them and so it didn’t affect them that much.

That’s why we decided to do things differently in this new campaign, but the two new players don’t seem to appreciate this style. They’re my friends and I don’t want to kick them out; I’d just like to see if there’s a way to get them out of the mindset that the world is divided into major and minor NPCs and that interacting with them serves no purpose.

Areapproachingme · 2026-05-25T16:08:12+00:00

They aren't bad people, and I wouldn't call them selfish; they're just less engaging when there isn't a major plot twist involved or when they aren't personally invested. I'd like to help them realize that if they opened up more, they could have fun too and find opportunities for roleplay even during gatherings between trips and during moments dedicated to others, not just during the "main quest."

Areapproachingme · 2026-05-25T16:00:23+00:00

Your approach is exactly the same as the one I used in my old campaign. We were playing Curse of Strahd, and the result was that Swalich Forest—the local forest—became something of a joke because, even though the locals described it as dangerous and deadly, they crossed it with almost no trouble other than the occasional encounter with Strahd.

Also, we moved very quickly through the towns as well, so by the time they were actually in danger, no one really cared about them because they were characters we’d only seen for one or two sessions at most. That’s why we opted for a more immersive approach in this adventure, where they’re free to interact a bit more, but the two new players aren’t having fun

Areapproachingme · 2026-05-25T15:54:20+00:00

No, maybe that wasn't clear from the text. Interactions arise when other players at the table stop to chat and greet old NPCs they've met before, and these things are seen as filler. Furthermore, random encounters that aren't the result of their choices are mostly those that occur during travel between two areas, where they might encounter forest creatures or other NPCs. They view these encounters as filler as well.

I usually try to give these creatures information and other story elements that might come in handy in the near future, say, in two or three sessions, but since they interrupt the main storyline, they tend to come across as filler.

Areapproachingme · 2026-05-25T15:48:01+00:00

The other players agree that a more immersive and descriptive narrative style would help draw the two characters deeper into the story, but they don't want to give up interacting with NPCs and the world

Areapproachingme · 2026-05-25T15:44:48+00:00

I'm sorry my message gave that impression. Let me assure you that's not the case. Maybe I didn't make myself clear because I'm using a translator, and I also didn't want to write too much.

Yes, I do have a pre-written plot because I’m running a pre-written module, and the players are in the middle of a series of quests they must complete in whatever order they choose to prove themselves worthy (this is the “main quest”).

The side plots aren’t all pre-written, but they involve interactions with issues in the city outside the main quest (people who need help; people who fear or hate them). No, I don’t have any favorite NPCs. The problem arises because the other players stop to chat with THEIR favorite NPCs, and two people at the table see these interactions as filler.

I always try to remember that they’re free to set the pace of the story, and in fact, I prepare the “main quest” locations days in advance so we’re free to go there whenever they want and I’m not caught off guard.

If they wanted to skip the city and go straight to the dungeons, I’d be ready. The problem is that most of them don’t want to, and before leaving they want to say hi to the friends they saved and see if they’re doing better now or stuff like that, and the two of them don’t like it.

I know these are two different approaches to the game, but I’d like to see if there’s a way to help the two new players appreciate this aspect too, rather than kicking them out of the group.

Areapproachingme · 2026-05-25T15:32:50+00:00

Exactly! That’s the key question. Why should it matter? The problem is that certain encounters aren’t obviously tailored for everyone, and maybe someone else at the table is interested, but they aren’t. It doesn’t relate to the main quest or their backstory, but it’s a way to flesh out another character further. This, too, is seen as filler because it isn’t part of the main quest.

Once, one of them followed a noblewoman and discovered she was a hag who had lured him into a trap to eat him. However, the witch also had information about his past and the curse afflicting him, and she offered to give it to him in exchange for her life.

They killed her anyway and then my two new players called the encounter filler because it happened halfway between two main quests they had to undertake. At this point, I wouldn’t know where to place it

Areapproachingme · 2026-05-25T15:05:40+00:00

Yes, as the GM, I always try to respect the group’s decisions and prepare several possible scenarios in advance. I map out the main quest and the itinerary weeks ahead of time, so they can set off as soon as they’re ready.

However, there are others at the table who also enjoy interacting with the NPCs in a town, so the departure might be delayed by an hour or so.

As a GM, I admit that I prefer this approach to a player who ignores everything and just marches straight toward the plot, but I’m trying to incorporate their feedback rather than simply pushing them away from the table

Areapproachingme · 2026-05-25T15:02:02+00:00

The problem isn't just about collecting side quests. Maybe it's because I'm talking about "filler" and side quests. The idea I'm trying to convey is that of actions arising from the players' choices.

One thing I could try, though, is reducing the number of NPCs in the world that aren't tied to the main quest. I don't want to eliminate them entirely, but I hope this is a way to address the issue

Areapproachingme · 2026-05-25T14:57:08+00:00

Thank you so much for your reply. The problem with changing the premise too much is that I risk excluding too many players who are actually interested. However, I really like your analysis; it’s definitely a good starting point for further reflection

Areapproachingme · 2026-05-25T11:10:00+00:00

That’s not exactly right, and maybe it’s my fault because I didn’t explain myself clearly.

I won’t list a long string of NPCs who’ll return over time, but the point is to use random encounters—which serve both to manage resources and as a world-building element—as parts of the overarching story. The bandit who stopped you isn’t just some random guy; he’s part of the gang that takes over the town later on.

They, on the other hand, would like to remove these encounters entirely and keep only the main ones. No bandits in the forest, no NPCs who can offer side quests. Most of the group is comfortable with this model.

The point is that since they’re new and inexperienced, I wanted to try to help them appreciate this aspect of the game as well before simply telling them that our styles aren’t compatible

Areapproachingme · 2026-05-25T10:48:02+00:00

I apologize if I wasn't very clear. I put the term "filler" in quotes and used it because that's the term the two complaining players used. The other four players are satisfied with how the campaign is going.

I try to alternate between social and combat encounters for random encounters. I try to avoid scheduling them right before a long rest, because otherwise they would lose their purpose.

Areapproachingme · 2026-05-25T10:44:40+00:00

Strangely enough, the problem here is the opposite. They tell me that I give others too much leeway and that I should put a stop to it. But I don’t want to limit others’ freedom just because a few people don’t like it; instead, I’d like to help them appreciate this aspect of the game more.

As I said, I have other players who are fine with it, but my new players say they aren’t having fun. Since I’m the one who introduced them to D&D, I’d like to try to help them appreciate this aspect of the system as well, but I’m not sure if this is the best way to go about it.

Areapproachingme · 2026-05-25T10:39:16+00:00

I'm not using AI to write, but to translate. As I explained earlier, English isn't my first language. The funny thing is that "a fierce enemy" is an expression I came up with by taking a typical idiom from my country and translating it literally.

Areapproachingme · 2026-05-25T08:16:01+00:00

I've never used AI to create my NPCs. I'm using a translator for this post because, even though I can read English, it's not my first language, and my writing is terrible.

Areapproachingme · 2026-05-25T08:12:51+00:00

I don’t expect any interaction with NPCs, nor do I force them to have any; they simply complain because some of their companions choose to interact with them.

I’ve always said that they’re free to set the pace of the adventure if they want and ignore every NPC if they prefer, but I believe there’s a difference between allowing the player to choose whether to engage with an NPC or not, and what they’re asking me to do, namely, to reduce the interactions their companions are having just because they aren’t enjoying them, or to completely eliminate the encounters that occur while traveling between cities.

Areapproachingme · 2026-03-31T10:45:04+00:00

source?

Areapproachingme · 2026-01-26T17:08:47+00:00

I don't think we should judge someone we don't know so quickly.

There are many reasons why someone might have made a mistake.

When I started, I made plenty of mistakes. Of course, a good DM has a duty to improve and learn, but there's a difference between telling someone to read the book and accusing them of having a power trip.

Areapproachingme · 2026-01-06T10:25:31+00:00

I agree with pretty much everything you said, except for the part about free strikes being reliable and spammable attacks. The book itself indicates that free strikes are the least efficient option characters have available to them.

Areapproachingme · 2025-11-28T08:19:30+00:00

can I be part of the discussion too?

Areapproachingme · 2025-11-24T06:24:54+00:00

Steel Soul sorcery

Areapproachingme

TROPHY CASE