|
I've been GMing with the same group for a few years now. At first, they had a healthy fear of the things that went on behind the GM screen, they treated my high-ranking NPCs with respect, and they genuinely cared about the storyline. Lately, when their characters die, the king gets angry that they didn't deliver on their promise, or their cohort gets kidnapped, they blame me.
I don't really know what the problem is, seeing as I haven't made any major changes to my GMing style. Is it possible that I was too permissive of my players to start out, or are they simply getting bored?
They blame you for what exactly?
Could be a number of things.
As characters get more powerful, they begin to realize that the high level NPCs might not be as awesome as they thought.
Perhaps there was an encounter in the past in which they lost respect for the high ranking NPCs.
Maybe things have changed in the party makeup.
Either way, this is a good chance for you to talk to your players and find out what they want to do and how it can be fun for all of you.
|
|
For example, when fighting a dragon, one player (at ninth level) was down to 10 hp; he should have known to flee or at least take defensive action, but he did not even step out of the dragon's reach. I don't track exact character hp, and I didn't realize that when the dragon struck again, the player would die--so he did.
Sorry if I was unclear.
The point is, really, my players take for granted that I am going to not kill their characters, even if it is completely unreasonable to expect this. I don't know why things have changed, and I'm hoping to make the game as fun for everyone as it used to be.
It is kind of hard to tell without knowing more.
My gut reaction is that they are less interested in engaging the story and more interested in killing things and taking their stuff.
Regardless, my advice is to talk to your players. Express your concerns and find out what your players want out of the game. Then work with them to see if you can find common ground so everyone can enjoy the game.
I agree with Courtfool. You need to ask why, and have them give you detailed answers.
…he should have known to flee or at least take defensive action, but he did not even step out of the dragon's reach.
That is an assumption on your part. One that obviously proved wrong.
There could be many reasons why he did not run or take defensive action. Perhaps he felt his character would view such actions as cowardly and would rather die then back down. Perhaps the player is not 'invested' in the character and is happy to roll up a new one from scratch.
You said yourself they take for granted that you will not kill them. Again, talk to your players. Get their perspective then work toward building on common enjoyment.
If they think you will not kill them then they probably think you could have done so in the past and stayed your hand. You may have to get rid of the safety net, whether it is really there or not.
edit:replaced "they" with "think"
I noticed a similar attitude to my group's prior DM, which partially led to putting his game on hiatus and drafting me to start mine. I think the big reason was a development of an adversarial relationship between dm and players, as well as a perceived disrespectful vibe from the dm that the players started reciprocating. He was fed up with some bad memory and math skills, and the socializing to gaming ratio, as well as the levels of disrespectful rebel that was part of most of the characters personalities. That attitude combined with his attempts to increase player involvement by upping the danger of encounters led the players to see the bad stuff as personal attacks instead of dramatic challenges.
For example, when fighting a dragon, one player (at ninth level) was down to 10 hp; he should have known to flee or at least take defensive action, but he did not even step out of the dragon's reach. I don't track exact character hp, and I didn't realize that when the dragon struck again, the player would die--so he did.
Sorry if I was unclear.
So, they're blaming you for making the encounter too hard? Or not giving the PC options besides fighting a deadly dragon? Were they prepared to fight a dragon?
If anything, they should be happy they died to a dragon. Death by vargouille is a much worse way to go. . .
I noticed a similar attitude to my group's prior DM, which partially led to putting his game on hiatus and drafting me to start mine. I think the big reason was a development of an adversarial relationship between dm and players, as well as a perceived disrespectful vibe from the dm that the players started reciprocating. He was fed up with some bad memory and math skills, and the socializing to gaming ratio, as well as the levels of disrespectful rebel that was part of most of the characters personalities. That attitude combined with his attempts to increase player involvement by upping the danger of encounters led the players to see the bad stuff as personal attacks instead of dramatic challenges.
I think that has less to do with the actual game than the gamers themselves. Nothing the GM can do can improve the game if he has a bad relationship with the players.
If they think you will not kill them then they probably they you could have done so in the past and stayed your hand. You may have to get rid of the safety net, whether it is really there or not.
Yeah, don't be afraid to off a PC every once in a while. Especially when they know they're going against something that's very deadly.
If they think you will not kill them then they probably they you could have done so in the past and stayed your hand. You may have to get rid of the safety net, whether it is really there or not.** spoiler omitted **
My players had the random encounter chart with:
They got smart and ran away.
I think that has less to do with the actual game than the gamers themselves. Nothing the GM can do can improve the game if he has a bad relationship with the players.
Most gaming problems are bad relationship or bad communication problems. That is why I always suggest talking. It is in everyone's interest to work together.
|
It is important to set expectations about your DM style. In my games i make certain that the players know how I will handle things. It is important to reinforce this when circumstances change.
For example I will be light on my players until 5th level. I will play opponents as kinda unorganized and lacking in tactical insight.
When they hit 5th I let the players know that they will now be facing some smarter enemies who will take advantage when they can. Not every enemy will be so wise but many will.
Once they hit 10th the gloves are mostly off. Most enemies are clever and tactical they will attack when the players are weak or distracted if they can.
If a certain game or adventure will require a difference in my DM style I will let the players know. Some DMs do not like to give such hints but I find that doing so greatly increases everyone's enjoyment of the game.
This also highlight why if a DM is going to pull a punch, it is very important that the players do not know you pulled a punch. They will come to expect it in the future.
For example, when fighting a dragon, one player (at ninth level) was down to 10 hp; he should have known to flee or at least take defensive action, but he did not even step out of the dragon's reach. I don't track exact character hp, and I didn't realize that when the dragon struck again, the player would die--so he did.
Sorry if I was unclear.
The guy is either 1) a moron 2) lost interest in the game 3) in some way intoxicated.
It is not your job to cuddle them or to pattycake them. Im sure there were escape routes available to them. Im sure they didnt HAVE to fight the dragon. They got loot colored googles on and it overruled their brains.
Ive been in groups where PCs lost all fear/respect and played the game like they had nothing to lose. Like they were friggin Tombstone or something. Lip floppin to every NPC Lord at any chance like they were immune to everything. Thats not roleplaying. Thats dumbass. And the only reward from being a dumbass should be pain and suffering to further humility.
Besides, its good to have a PC death now and then. It reminds the PCs of their mortality. And Im not talking about die here and raise dead there. Im talking about gone pecan write up a new character or make it so hard to be brought back that they wished they just wrote up a new character.
If they think you will not kill them then they probably they you could have done so in the past and stayed your hand. You may have to get rid of the safety net, whether it is really there or not.** spoiler omitted **
Yeah - I killed one PC in Kingmaker in much the same way. The paladin charged in and I even decided to target the horse first, but he still didn't get the hint.
I've had similar experiences with 3rd level PCs (without a cleric) against zombies. It's almost trivial to run away at any point given how slow they are and yet I've had a TPK* against them. The real kicker was that my players were *surprised* when I told them that the zombies continued to consume their unconscious bodies after they dropped. They honestly believed that the zombies would just walk away after knocking them unconscious and that they could be healed back later.
*Two party members were elsewhere at the time.
As others have said, talk to them as a group (or one-on-one if that's more your/their style). Anything you get on this board will be supposition. Your players are the only ones who know why they do the things they do. Good luck!
I love the assumption that anyone who does not play like you is either A. Stupid or B. A Jerkwad.
|
|
Sometimes players can still be really stupid. I had one game where I had warned them for weeks (real time) that the enemies they now faced were deadly (instakill spells), smart, and were defending in their own personal lairs. I warned the players to be extra careful and use scouting.
So they see some mook guards and charge in to kill them. Their high level cleric boss steps out and drops Destruction on the rogue. Next round he retreats using word of recall. I have never seen them so frantic in their lives as they tried to hunt this guy down before he could rest and get his high level spells again.
Despite all my warnings and guidance it still took a death to get them to grips with the situation. On the plus side no one was pissed off because I could legitimately point to the weeks of warnings.
The most important thing you can do is talk to your players. It has been said before, but it can't be said enough. They need to believe you are GMing with their good time in mind, and you need them to trust you. It isn't uncommon for players to get frazzled when things don't go their way, but there is a difference between being understanding and being a doormat. Always be the first. Never be the second.
An example from my own gaming history:
I am the GM, and one player is playing a fighter. The party is at the tail end of one of their first encounters, and all that is left standing is some kind of electrically-charged cactus with spiked tentacles (look, it made sense in context).
Party composition is Monk x 2, Fighter, Sorc, Favored Soul, Cleric, Warlock, Ranger, Duskblade, and Wizard/Rogue. Lots of variety in ranged/melee, physical/magical, damage/utility. All fourth level.
Party has already defeated a handful of humanoid raiders, the last of whom becomes this lightning-cactus monster. They now outnumber their foe 10-to-one.
Monster was dealing about 1d8+4 points of damage a round (plus 1d6 electrical on rounds when the lightning it was calling struck it. I made sure to draw narrative attention to these rounds). All of this damage is being done with tentacle whips, which have a 5' reach.
I get to the fighter's turn in the initiative order. He says "I charge it". He attacks, hits, deals damage.
Monster goes next. Hits the fighter, because he's closest and he just deal it damage. Rolls 1d8+4 + 1d6, for a total of 15 damage.
Player playing the fighter tosses his character sheet aside and says "Well, it just f-ing killed me".
::Stunned silence::
Me: Do you mean you're down, or-
Fighter: NO. I mean I'm f-ing DEAD.
Cleric: How many hit points did you have?
Fighter: 1.
::Stunned silence::
Cleric: Why didn't you say anything?
Me: And why did you charge?
Fighter: Because I'm a fighter, and I didn't have any other options.
::Fighter stands up from the table, makes a disgusted noise, goes to bed early, and is never invited back to that game::
Cleric, watching him go: Um, I guess he would rather have died than hung back a turn for a heal.
The point is, in that moment, as far as my player was concerned, he had been forced into making a suicidal decision. He blamed me for putting him in the situation. His tunnel-vision made it impossible for him to think about alternate ways of handling the challenge he was facing. And it sucked, for both of us, because he went away feeling angry and personally attacked, and I was left wondering what kind of a headjob my friend was turning into.
But the lesson here is that, if he had talked to me about feeing 'penned in' by his class choice, I would have happily worked with him to give him a better sense of flexibility. Usually, players try to express what they want via game mechanics, when what they really want is to feel awesome. You just need to be clear that there is nothing you can't or won't fix for your players, but you need to understand what they are having a problem with. And *they* need to understand that you will not be taking responsibilities for their choices, good, bad, or indifferent. All you can do is judicate fairly, and leave the choices and consequences up to them.
|
An example from my own gaming history:** spoiler omitted **...
It seems you may have gotten a different result had you used the player's current HP and/or taking of damage in your narrative.
A player who attacks with only one HP left deserves a depiction along the lines of '...with his last ounce of strength...' or something similar.
Sometimes players can still be really stupid. I had one game where I had warned them for weeks (real time) that the enemies they now faced were deadly (instakill spells), smart, and were defending in their own personal lairs. I warned the players to be extra careful and use scouting.
So they see some mook guards and charge in to kill them. Their high level cleric boss steps out and drops Destruction on the rogue. Next round he retreats using word of recall. I have never seen them so frantic in their lives as they tried to hunt this guy down before he could rest and get his high level spells again.
Despite all my warnings and guidance it still took a death to get them to grips with the situation. On the plus side no one was pissed off because I could legitimately point to the weeks of warnings.
That is a real hit and run. Thanks for the idea.
|
|
That is a real hit and run. Thanks for the idea.Sometimes players can still be really stupid.
So they see some mook guards and charge in to kill them. Their high level cleric boss steps out and drops Destruction on the rogue. Next round he retreats using word of recall. I have never seen them so frantic in their lives as they tried to hunt this guy down before he could rest and get his high level spells again.
Well that is the short form of the fight. His room was guarded with a forbiddance and only the hasted dwarven fighter was able to make the save to get in the room with the cleric after he retreated. The dwarf dropped a full attack on him (3.0 haste) and took half his hit points so the guy had no other choice but to run.
They were on a mission to kill this guy too. They ran into a vampire and smoked him in 2 rounds because they found him right by his coffin, they burned scrolls, potions, and wands like they were going out of style so they could keep chasing this guy before he rested.
When they finally found him he died like a chump because the dwarf kept saving (he had taken all the save boosting feats). "Magic is what happens to other people."
Malebranche,
I have had this exact difficulty now and again. It has taken me some time, but I believe I have figured out the problem and how to fix it.
I would start by saying everyone is right about the player/GM relationship, and that is absolutely important in a basic way, but there's more to it than that.
Players can stop feeling threatened by monsters, lose interest in the characters, etc, but what causes this unfortunate circumstance? I believe it is directly related to player frustration and vagueness.
Here is how these things can happen: It can be so easy to forget, as a GM, that players do not have your mind's eye version of what's going on, and their only clues are the things you tell them and the minis and stuff you put on the board. What you have to remember is that EVEN WHEN you describe things in detail, with pre-written descriptions and everything, the picture in your players' heads will STILL be completely different from the way you imagine things! This happens because of the different way everyone's imagination works, and the different images everyone's been previously been exposed to in movies, videogames, etc.
The only solution: be explicit! You CANNOT ALWAYS rely on the players figuring things out, knowing what's going on, or even having a clear picture of the scene (like a dragon about to disembowel you!).
Let me give an example:
DARKSHROUD was the most incredible game I've ever run. We had an amazing players/GM relationship, there was fantastic story, roleplay, combat, character creation...that game changed all our lives, despite never being finished.
What happened? Well, there were a number of personal blah things that led to the cessation of the game, but there was one incident in particular that lives in infamy among my players: The Conch Shell Encounter.
See, the players were underwater, deep in an oceanic trench where a sea dragon's hoard was ripe for the taking. As they explored, they cam upon several monsters, and in seeking the entrance to the hoard, came upon a gigantic conch shell with a "weirding globe" (a campaign-specific item that shed an aura of anti-magic) hanging in front. Clearly the residence of a monster.
Now, I clearly mentioned the Weirding Globe and its anti-magic aura multiple times, as I had planned out this encounter with a crablike monster who had all these abilities that wouldn't be cancelled out by the antimagic, making the players play creatively without access to their usual magic tricks. It was somewhat to my surprise that the players were unfazed by the mentioning of the globe. I should have taken that as a warning sign, but I was foolish and did not.
Anyways, the players popped on some Freedom of Movement and buff spells, much to my amusement, and slipped inside to be greeted by the horrible crab monster!
They roll initiative, and I go, "make sure not to use your bonus from your gloves of dexterity!"
Dead silence. The player stare at me, then holler, "WHAT!?"
Turns out, after much arguing, that they hadn't understood that the weirding globe's anti magic aura would fill the giant conch shell; they thought it was hanging too far away, or that the aura would be blocked by the shell, or something. They'd had NO IDEA that they would be so screwed in this fight.
Even though they survived, they failed to get the hoard later, also due to some bad decisions, shaken as they were by the annoyance of that fight. This led to one thing and another, with the players losing interest and just getting more annoyed at ME, the GM, for what they perceived as my screwup in not describing something crucial.
To this day, any time something comes up that they feel wasn't fully explained from the start, everyone says "Oh, that's a total conch shell."
Now, this was something that comes up all the time, due to the basic problem of players not being able to see into the GM's head; the solution is always to say things explicitly, or make the consequences of an action super obvious. It is so very vital to everyone's enjoyment of the game that the players feel their choices matter. Little is more important than making the difference between choices clear!
So, with what little you've told us, Malebranche, i would advise the following:
--call for knowledge checks when a player declares an action to tell them what the King might think of such a choice, and other sociopolitical consequences
--a fantastic tool that my players and I have adopted from 4.0 (ick, i know, but this is good!): telling them when a monster is bloodied, and the players telling each other when they are bloodied.--if you didn't know, "bloodied" means half HP. We use no game mechanics related to being bloodied, it's merely a descriptive tool which is extraordinarily useful in avoiding player frustration. If it took 100 damage to bloody a dragon, that's very different than when it took 25 damage to bloody it!
--call for Perception checks and then say, "the dragon turns toward you, jaws dripping, ready to rip and devour you!" or equivalent for another monster ;)
--describe in great detail, and watch your player's faces. If they aren't getting what's going on, say it again, explicitly.
Hope this helps,
Moox
I hate to say but Moox is actually wrong T_T. I was one of the PCs in the darkshroud game and the Conch shell problem was actually this:
it was a 3 PC game - There was a big conch shell in the middle of the board and our DM had said, "Yes there is an opening leading inside it." The other 2 PCs weren't paying attention or didn't remember so when a lackey we should have killed ran inside the conch shell and set off an alarm spell [because we didn't want to alert the stupid powerful sea dragon], they raged at our GM saying, "well you can't see an opening in the shell on the board so it doesn't exist zomgbbq rage rage rage rage rage."
The moral of the story is what Moox was getting at though: he knew the shell opening was there, he thought the PCs knew, but they were being dumb.
All the other PCs I play with in every game give me a lot of s$+~ for running away from fights. If I were you, I would make perfectly clear that an NPC cast rez spell is out of the question until level X [that the PCs will still have to pay for] and that if your PC dies, you arn't rolling a new one. Its harsh but suddenly players will stop acting like f-tards all the time.