My players are brand new to pen and paper games. They seem to get bogged down looking for every little hidden thing. Today we were playing through Debts to Pay. Halfway through the mining facility one of the players wanted to go back to every room and look for hidden compartments behind paintings. I hadn't even mentioned paintings aside from the holographic images in the main entrance described in the book.

At the same time, they seem to miss obvious things. Maybe they were tired of searching but by the time they got to the office they didn't even ask about anything under the table (though they tried moving the filing cabinets in the same room and looking behind them). So they missed the safe.

How do I, as a GM, guide them through what is important without making everything so obvious? I'm sure part of it is working on my descriptions, but this time I was going off of a published adventure and reading what was provided. Not saying I couldn't adjust it, but it wouldn't necessarily be my abilities at fault.

Request a Perception check and use that to explain why they get suspicious of the only thing plot relevant... as long as you forward the story it doesn't hurt to give them a little help since they're clearly reaching for the clawhammer from the sounds of it!

Definitely do not make them specify exactly how they search a room, that way lies madness* It sounds like you are training them to do exactly that, so I would un-train them as quickly as possible. Just use Perception, and perhaps add boost die for particularly creative suggestions...
"I look everywhere, even under the office chair seat cushion, maybe I'll find some loose credits." (rolls)
"Okay, you don't find any credits, but in checking the seat cushion you notice a safe under desk..."

I don't recall that part of the adventure, but if the safe is important for the group to find because it contains critical info to continue, then you have to make sure they find it. Relying on skill checks for that kind of thing just stalls the game.

Edit: this link is about hosting mystery-sleuth games, but it's really relevant for any search-type situation:

http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1118/roleplaying-games/three-clue-rule

-------------------
* There can be a time and place for that level of detail, but it should be special, where you've spent particular effort describing the details of the room because, say, the details form some kind of entry code or puzzle.

Definitely do not make them specify exactly how they search a room, that way lies madness* It sounds like you are training them to do exactly that, so I would un-train them as quickly as possible. Just use Perception, and perhaps add boost die for particularly creative suggestions...

"I look everywhere, even under the office chair seat cushion, maybe I'll find some loose credits." (rolls)

"Okay, you don't find any credits, but in checking the seat cushion you notice a safe under desk..."

I don't recall that part of the adventure, but if the safe is important for the group to find because it contains critical info to continue, then you have to make sure they find it. Relying on skill checks for that kind of thing just stalls the game.

Edit: this link is about hosting mystery-sleuth games, but it's really relevant for any search-type situation:

http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1118/roleplaying-games/three-clue-rule

-------------------

* There can be a time and place for that level of detail, but it should be special, where you've spent particular effort describing the details of the room because, say, the details form some kind of entry code or puzzle.

Well the safe could be found at that time, but there was around 2-3 other ways to find it later if they brought it up to NPCs at the mine. If you are not familiar with the adventure, they are tasked with going to the mine and picking up the regular payment owed to the owner, so asking NPCs they run into about the credits (which are in the safe) isn't out of the ordinary. The players did find out about it later, but were remiss (in a playful way) they missed it earlier (probably reinforcing their current mentality). So it was not crucial they discover the safe. Truth be told, they never really missed anything really critical.

With the adventure, there are several things the book specifies are only discovered if the players specifically mention they are looking at/investigating them. The safe isn't the only one, and none of them were super crucial, though they are all helpful.

I've seen that link before, and appreciate it. It is definitely a good read.

In general, it is just strange because they get super meticulous and detailed about exactly how they are doing some things. Really slows things down. I've asked for needed detail at times on things, and I think the players take that and misapply it to everything they do. I'm having trouble figuring out how to pinpoint it and focus it.

Another example, they took 10 minutes trying to come up with a strategy for moving room to room that minimizes risk of getting hurt by a trap. It involved sending one guy into the room first and keeping the others back (standing in specific positions/order) and everyone continually keeping their weapons drawn. I knew as the GM it was unnecessary for them to do this, but it added to the tension for them and I allowed it. At the same time, they didn't continue to describe it every time they entered a room, and it led to some wonky situations and assumptions on my part when they got to the miners near the end.

In general, it is just strange because they get super meticulous and detailed about exactly how they are doing some things. Really slows things down. I've asked for needed detail at times on things, and I think the players take that and misapply it to everything they do. I'm having trouble figuring out how to pinpoint it and focus it.

One thing you could do, as you notice them being “super meticulous” about how they are doing something like searching a room, is to cut them off and tell them to make Perception rolls, and the one with the best roll finds the safe first. Get narrative in how they found it while searching other areas, like how they had to move the desk before they could get to certain filing cabinets to move them, or something.

They should start to figure out that they can say they’re being “super meticulous” about searching a room but leave out the details and get on with the Perception roll.

Likewise, when they have been “super meticulous” about how they arrange themselves to prepare for combat while searching rooms, but you notice that they are no longer being so specific as they go from one room to another, is to stop them and ask them to state if they’re going to continue to use the same methods throughout. If so, that makes it a lot easier for you when you get to the end of the offices and to the location where they might encounter the miners.

Again, sooner or later they should start figuring out that the narrative is more important and when it is appropriate they can leave out the ten minute discussion of the details and instead just get on with the story.

Or maybe not. Each game is unique, and each gamer is unique. But you could at least try various things to help them get over their current OCD issues that are getting in the way of having a more fun game.

You are their friend. You are there to help them tell an awesome story and for everyone to have fun as part of that process. But they might need a bit of help to be able to trust you … at least, more than they have trusted GMs in the past, because in other games it is so often an adversarial “Us vs. Him” type of relationship.

Welp, if your Players are into being specific thats okay but you don't need to be as well. If a PC is looking behind every painting and they make a good Perception roll just say something to the effect of "You find nothing behind the painting but as you turn away you notice an odd discolouring on the rug under the desk, do you want to check it out?"

The fact that the PC is searching and their roll is the important part, how they choose to describe it is immaterial (well it is the point of this RPG but mechanically it's not that important), though I would add or even make the roll unnessary if they happen to choose the exact right place in their description.

That module has a time constraint element that you could use more often, the ol 'computer countdown until reactor meltdown' approach. As they say they want to search thoroughly you make the loud alarm sound and remind them the clock is ticking and they have yet to accomplish the mission.

Letting them discuss how to clear something tactically is fine, once they have cooked that up in the future just cut them off and ask if they are moving tactically through an area and no more needs to be said.

I don't really believe in making perception checks all the time. To me, searching doesn't mean make a perception check. I only make players roll if there is a potential success, a potential failure, and a risk involved with failing. If failing the check involves no risk, then there is no reason for them not to keep trying until they pass.

I'm just trying to find the right balance.

I only used the safe as an example because it was an instance of the group failing to find the important thing while at the same time being super detailed and meticulous.

The published adventure literally says, "they only find the safe if someone mentions searching under the table." But this is because asking the NPCs for the credits (like they are supposed to) leads them to the safe anyway. They just missed their chance to find it sooner and I feel that is reinforcing their bad habits.

Another example, they took 10 minutes trying to come up with a strategy for moving room to room that minimizes risk of getting hurt by a trap.

My nightmare. They don't need to spend 10 minutes to do this, all they need is a Leadership roll to determine if they can organize themselves to mitigate any threats. The specifics of how they place themselves doesn't really matter, it can be narrated later whether it worked or failed. If they come up with a good or entertaining solution, add a boost die to the Leadership roll.

I had an almost identical situation a while back. A friend and I GM, and a mutual friend is a player in both games. This player wants to do everything super-tactically, and as a co-player it drives me nuts because we can literally spend an hour approaching some villager's hut seeking our quarry, triangulating lines of sight and blah blah, and this player insists he's leading his horse across extremely tangled and broken terrain because he's afraid to lose his horse because last time we left them the GM had somebody steal them, and ... it just goes on and on. My friend is a good GM for lots of reasons, but they're both still playing in that antagonistic mode which seems to just feed on itself.

Anyway, when I had to GM for him (he joined the EotE group just as they made planetfall on Cholganna in the BtR module) I knew he was going to insist on a "by-the-military-book" advance through the jungle, wanting a detailed map of every blade of grass to maximize cover etc. If he had his way, it would take hours of gameplay to get from the landing zone to the wreck of the Separatist frigate. I let him get about 1/2 sentence into his proposal before interrupting.

Basically they got one Leadership roll to travel through the jungle in an organized fashion to minimize any chaos, plus put to rest any Fear effects; one Survival roll to avoid dangerous situations or learn important things about the flora and fauna on the way; and one Perception roll to deal with any other things that might be out there. Each roll had to be by a different PC. That short cut a lot of things but made the narrative and resulting action far more interesting and important.

Success but Despair on Survival? You find a quick way down to the wreck...but unfortunately you didn't notice that other creatures use that path...

Success but a couple Threats on Leadership? Everybody takes a bit of Strain keeping formation, but you get a boost die for that ambush...

...etc

So far when I find the players starting to get fussy about the details I try to shortcut it with a very few die rolls.

That module has a time constraint element that you could use more often, the ol 'computer countdown until reactor meltdown' approach. As they say they want to search thoroughly you make the loud alarm sound and remind them the clock is ticking and they have yet to accomplish the mission.

Letting them discuss how to clear something tactically is fine, once they have cooked that up in the future just cut them off and ask if they are moving tactically through an area and no more needs to be said.

They didn't explain it every time, which is what led to the problem. They did it once at the beginning. As the GM, I knew it wouldn't matter as they moved throughout the mine complex because the combat encounters were not set up to surprise/trap them until they go into the mine and come out via the mine cars (so their tactical entry is useless). So I glossed over it and let them do it. It just led to an extremely minor but awkward situation later.

The point is not the tactical whatever. The point I am trying to make is I want to push my players away from over-analyzing every little detail they can think of, however I ended up letting an odd situation arise because I wasn't asking for that detail and the players assumed it was still there because I let them do it earlier. Meanwhile I assumed it wasn't because they didn't mention it.

The odd situation was literally whether or not their weapon was already drawn for a combat. So minor and inconsequential, but it is reinforcing the "super detailed explain everything to the GM" mentality I am trying to get away from. The awkward part was I realized the previous social encounter with the miners would have played out differently if I realized they were still following their tactical formation whatever.

So I'm trying to get my players away from over analyzing, but then this happens and I'm like why didn't you tell me you were doing this? So I'm trying to find the balance to help guide my players to what is important to focus on and what we can skip over bealcause it doesn't matter (without railroading and ruining their game)

I appreciate the help.

It took us around 7-8 hours to run Debts to Pay. That feels way too long. Combat is another story. I think we can cut our time in combat in half, if not more. They currently, collectively as a group, discuss every single action and use of advantage. Each turn takes probably 3 times as long as it should (based on my experience with other groups as I play with two other groups). I let them know today that we need to cut back on that and let players play their characters. Combat is supposed to be fast paced. They don't really have time to sit down and discuss the merits of shooting X over Z or whether or not to give a boost die to A who is going to go next or give the boost die to B because he can go next and do this instead.

Another example, they took 10 minutes trying to come up with a strategy for moving room to room that minimizes risk of getting hurt by a trap.

My nightmare. They don't need to spend 10 minutes to do this, all they need is a Leadership roll to determine if they can organize themselves to mitigate any threats. The specifics of how they place themselves doesn't really matter, it can be narrated later whether it worked or failed. If they come up with a good or entertaining solution, add a boost die to the Leadership roll.

I had an almost identical situation a while back. A friend and I GM, and a mutual friend is a player in both games. This player wants to do everything super-tactically, and as a co-player it drives me nuts because we can literally spend an hour approaching some villager's hut seeking our quarry, triangulating lines of sight and blah blah, and this player insists he's leading his horse across extremely tangled and broken terrain because he's afraid to lose his horse because last time we left them the GM had somebody steal them, and ... it just goes on and on. My friend is a good GM for lots of reasons, but they're both still playing in that antagonistic mode which seems to just feed on itself.

Anyway, when I had to GM for him (he joined the EotE group just as they made planetfall on Cholganna in the BtR module) I knew he was going to insist on a "by-the-military-book" advance through the jungle, wanting a detailed map of every blade of grass to maximize cover etc. If he had his way, it would take hours of gameplay to get from the landing zone to the wreck of the Separatist frigate. I let him get about 1/2 sentence into his proposal before interrupting.

Basically they got one Leadership roll to travel through the jungle in an organized fashion to minimize any chaos, plus put to rest any Fear effects; one Survival roll to avoid dangerous situations or learn important things about the flora and fauna on the way; and one Perception roll to deal with any other things that might be out there. Each roll had to be by a different PC. That short cut a lot of things but made the narrative and resulting action far more interesting and important.

Success but Despair on Survival? You find a quick way down to the wreck...but unfortunately you didn't notice that other creatures use that path...

Success but a couple Threats on Leadership? Everybody takes a bit of Strain keeping formation, but you get a boost die for that ambush...

...etc

So far when I find the players starting to get fussy about the details I try to shortcut it with a very few die rolls.

I've never thought about die rolls working like that. Opens up new possibilities. I'm definitely going to utilize leadership checks like that.

Combat is another story. I think we can cut our time in combat in half, if not more. They currently, collectively as a group, discuss every single action and use of advantage. Each turn takes probably 3 times as long as it should (based on my experience with other groups as I play with two other groups).

I've had to nip that in the bud too. Some players are averse to having anything at all happen to their PCs and then they really agonize when there are too many choices. When my players were new to the game I'd freely give tactical advice if they couldn't decide within a minute or so, e.g.: "You've got 4 advantages, you're down on strain so spend 2 there and spend the other 2 to give a boost die to so-and-so..." They know I'm not a GM who's "out to get them", so that usually worked to speed things up. Once the players knew the game, and spent too much time agonizing, I'd just say "you've got 20 seconds to decide", but so far I only had to say that once. The more experienced players decide things pretty quickly and help the others.

As an aside, that's one of the things I really like about this game...everybody is invested in everybody else's roll. Experienced players ask each other for boosts, or upgrades, or for setbacks to be applied to their opponents...lots of fun that way, and the new people catch on pretty quickly.

Combat is another story. I think we can cut our time in combat in half, if not more. They currently, collectively as a group, discuss every single action and use of advantage. Each turn takes probably 3 times as long as it should (based on my experience with other groups as I play with two other groups).

I've had to nip that in the bud too. Some players are averse to having anything at all happen to their PCs and then they really agonize when there are too many choices. When my players were new to the game I'd freely give tactical advice if they couldn't decide within a minute or so, e.g.: "You've got 4 advantages, you're down on strain so spend 2 there and spend the other 2 to give a boost die to so-and-so..." They know I'm not a GM who's "out to get them", so that usually worked to speed things up. Once the players knew the game, and spent too much time agonizing, I'd just say "you've got 20 seconds to decide", but so far I only had to say that once. The more experienced players decide things pretty quickly and help the others.

As an aside, that's one of the things I really like about this game...everybody is invested in everybody else's roll. Experienced players ask each other for boosts, or upgrades, or for setbacks to be applied to their opponents...lots of fun that way, and the new people catch on pretty quickly.

I don't really believe in making perception checks all the time. To me, searching doesn't mean make a perception check. I only make players roll if there is a potential success, a potential failure, and a risk involved with failing. If failing the check involves no risk, then there is no reason for them not to keep trying until they pass.

Right. My point wasn’t a find/not-find situation predicated on a roll, it’s a matter of using the roll to help you determine the narrative of who finds it first and how fast — and is that fast enough?

Sorry if I didn’t make that clear. But it sounds like you’re getting good advice here from others, so I’ll bow out.

Another thing that's overlooked often is that a Skill Check can cover as much or as little ground as the GM wants it to.

A single Perception check could mean "We spend 5 minutes to look behind the sofa to see if a datapad has fallen behind it" to "We spend two hours searching the entire complex for any clues."

A Negotiation check could cover "I want to see if this Neimoidian junk dealer has a CRM-114 Discriminator Device for sale for less than 1000 credits" up to "I spend a couple of days combing through the market district in search of the best deal on a Discriminator".

A Streetwise check could mean "I ask the Weequay thug on this street corner if he's seen Blurgo the Hutt lately and if he knows where Blurgo gets his spice from" to "I spend a week infiltrating the underworld scene and making friends with gangsters to look for any leads on the spice trade in this sector."

When my PCs start to get incredibly specific in their checks, especially when doing research or looking for information, I sometimes remind them it's possible to do a more general check and the narrate the results in a specific way.