|
I had a guy playing a barbarian who raged and then sprinted a good 100 feet away from the party, kicking a door down, rushing blindly into a room swinging away and then as he was the only one in the room, the monsters in the room converged on him and killed him (the party was still far down the hall), to which he raged in real life about what a poor DM that was to...
"Leeroy Jenkins!!.... It's not my fault!"
Anyway, my response to "I'm just roleplaying my character" is one of two answers:
1. "I'm just roleplaying the world."
2. "And who chose to make the character that way?"
A bit antagonistic, but it does help to drive home the point that we can both play responsibly, and we can both play irresponsibly. I'll be magnanimous and let the player decide which it will be.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16
|
For example, a party coordinating and working together against a monster, because not timing their hits led to it multiplying...and the one player not listening and just diving right in, ruining rounds of work?What about a party, doing a stealth infiltration into the den of a seriously superior enemy, with one single player who suddenly states "Bah, that's boring. WE ARE HERE, AND WE WILL KICK YOUR COLLECTIVE ASSES! JUST COME GET SOME!"
*stunned silence at the table*
GM: 'Umm... you didn't just yell that, did you?'
Player 'You bet I did! Those goons are no match for my character - at least he thinks so, so I'm just roleplaying!'
Structure goes on full alert, party enacts some crazy escape plan, barely getting out with the GM clearly pulling punches left and right (still blowing a crapton of resources)...
Discussing the situation in OOC later, player stated "Well, I wouldn't mind if GM took off the kiddy gloves once in a while... Yes, what my char did was dumb and should likely have killed us all, so what? That's just the way the character is... and I play my character the way I think is right; if he dies, I'll just make another"
Ah, same player took it poorly when he found out that, some nights later, my (CN'ish) rogue had decided to... remove the liability the character was to the group. Accused me of out-of-character metagaming.
I read that thought 'LEEEEEEEEEEEEEROY JENNNNNNNNNNNKINS'
|
|
If the Original Poster had problems with peoples' Barbarians running off ahead into dangerous situations, there are plenty of ways to deal with people who claim that they were roleplaying their character to be stupidly reckless: drop caltrops or marbles to slow them down. Point out the pit or mud hole they just ran through, due to taking a penalty on Perception for running. Have the wizard in your encounter cast Grease instead of Hold Person, or something similar. Instead of changing circumstances to save them, why not change circumstances to shame them? Instead of killing their stupid character and suggesting they put together someone with more common sense, you could give them a learning experience.
While some video gamers who play games with "One-man Army" main characters or "save & load" death would find PF's group dynamic and permadeath a big difference, it's more a case of the player's outlook than what they've played before that causes cluelessness in their actions. Why not suggest they play NetHack; it's based on 2nd Ed AD&D, it's got permadeath, and there'll be plenty of it until you learn to be cautious.
If they had it coming - especially if other players agree - offing them is justified, though remember to be kind and help them get back in the game. Mock the stupid character, not the player who RP'd him.
...Also, I've got an anecdote of my own: a 2nd-level Crazy Gnome Sorceror (Pyromaniac, Fire-elemental bloodline) got confused and thought he got the increase to landspeed right off the bat, making him move much faster than everyone else. Since the dungeon crawl I'd planned out was kind of trap-heavy, he ran into plenty and got poisoned. The rest of the group caught up to him, fighting a kobold sorceror (red dragon bloodline; similar to the Crazy Gnome's, actually) who was meant to thicken the plot a bit. Every single team-mate of his agreed to step back and let them duel, and when the stricken gnome died, I offered to let him play as the kobold who killed him. I levelled him down to par with the group and mentioned how the kobold would rather have his suckers go first (and how he finds anyone without scales unattractive. The group thought it was a good idea, solving every problem and increasing the overall cohesion.
As an interesting note: I have every player that is coming into a game of mine, whether it is newly starting, or they are adding into the group, fill out an online survey about their play-style, expectations, etc. It's a good idea, because it will let you know right away what the players are looking for, and whether or not your play-style will match with theirs. If anyone's interested I'd be happy to post a link to the surveys I use.Yes please. I would love to gaze at the survey.
I read that as dripping with sarcasm. If it wasn't, and you seriously want to look a the survey(one survey broken into two parts), let me know.
|
|
I read that as dripping with sarcasm. If it wasn't, and you seriously want to look a the survey(one survey broken into two parts), let me know.As an interesting note: I have every player that is coming into a game of mine, whether it is newly starting, or they are adding into the group, fill out an online survey about their play-style, expectations, etc. It's a good idea, because it will let you know right away what the players are looking for, and whether or not your play-style will match with theirs. If anyone's interested I'd be happy to post a link to the surveys I use.Yes please. I would love to gaze at the survey.
Absolutely interested. Other people's developed RPG tools are always welcome. It's easy enough to ignore after seeing it, if it's something we don't like.
Absolutely interested. Other people's developed RPG tools are always welcome. It's easy enough to ignore after seeing it, if it's something we don't like.
Ditto. No sarcasm intended.
Funny, my biggest problem as a GM is dealing with players who play it much too safe. Usually, they are terrified of taking risks and therefore miss half the adventure.
Just want to note that there is a flipside to this.
That said, I do note to my players that their actions have consequences. If they are going to do something extremely risky I do make sure they are aware of that. Usually when something really bad does happen to a character a player accepts it was a possible result of their action, so I don't really have to argue a lot here. I guess what I want to say is there are reasonable players out there and players being unreasonable isn't the system's fault.
I do think mechanics have made surviving at low levels easier, but I do not think that is a bad thing at all. I think your character should have a decent chance of surviving, or as a player you fail to get invested, indeed, in their continued survival. I know if I just kept dying all the time even when trying to be careful as possible (let's say I'm playing a low level character in AD&D in the Tomb of Horrors or something), I'd stop caring about what would happen to my characters at all and then take dumber risks because I'd figure it wouldn't matter anyway.
|
|
Funny, my biggest problem as a GM is dealing with players who play it much too safe. Usually, they are terrified of taking risks and therefore miss half the adventure.
Just want to note that there is a flipside to this.
That said, I do note to my players that their actions have consequences. If they are going to do something extremely risky I do make sure they are aware of that. Usually when something really bad does happen to a character a player accepts it was a possible result of their action, so I don't really have to argue a lot here. I guess what I want to say is there are reasonable players out there and players being unreasonable isn't the system's fault.
I do think mechanics have made surviving at low levels easier, but I do not think that is a bad thing at all. I think your character should have a decent chance of surviving, or as a player you fail to get invested, indeed, in their continued survival. I know if I just kept dying all the time even when trying to be careful as possible (let's say I'm playing a low level character in AD&D in the Tomb of Horrors or something), I'd stop caring about what would happen to my characters at all and then take dumber risks because I'd figure it wouldn't matter anyway.
100% agree. Survival should be through care, not luck, and not nothing.
In my games I usually have things happening whether or not the PCs decide to act. As a result, timorous dithering can be just as hazardous as foolish charging. You can safely timorously dither at home, in a non-adventuresome capacity, just like 99% of the population. But that's no fun. You can't dither in the field, especially in the middle of combat.
Yep, honestly I want to see that too.I read that as dripping with sarcasm. If it wasn't, and you seriously want to look a the survey(one survey broken into two parts), let me know.As an interesting note: I have every player that is coming into a game of mine, whether it is newly starting, or they are adding into the group, fill out an online survey about their play-style, expectations, etc. It's a good idea, because it will let you know right away what the players are looking for, and whether or not your play-style will match with theirs. If anyone's interested I'd be happy to post a link to the surveys I use.Yes please. I would love to gaze at the survey.
Okay here it is.
Firstly, I believe that any thread that starts out claiming something is a "new trend" is starting on shaky ground, at best. Scratch that, no thread that starts that way can be taken seriously. Lately there's been a lot of this, but the fact is that there is ZERO new under the sun when it comes to RPG play styles. Your notion that this is new has to do with your own bias against it, and towards your own personal preferences, likely set solidly back in whatever style most constituted your "Good Old Days."
For my part, I was dealing with players that demanded a softball approach back in the 'eighties. They literally accused me of intentionally trying to kill their characters every time danger reared its head.
Likewise, I have a player in my current group, who has been playing as long as I have (1981), who similarly accuses me of the same thing, for the same reasons. God forbid her character should die in our upcoming campaign, because she will cut off my gonads.
In the same group, I have a player who has, since the early 'nineties, done every stupid thing imaginable with his character, in an attempt to actually goad me into killing him so he can, in that way, prove that I am the opposite sort of GM from the one who thinks I am out to get her - one that is not harsh enough. In short, this player has ALWAYS thought what you think now: that GMs go too easy on players. Try that on for size. Doesn't quite fit your notion of how things always were before, does it?
That's because none of this is new.
I will happily concede that as far as the rulebooks go, a more softball approach was more overtly recommended beginning with 3rd Edition. However, the notion that the players' fun should be maximized has always been at the forefront of these games, and hints and advice on how to go easy on occasion have appeared in the rulebooks of virtually every edition. Certainly there have always been players who demanded their characters never die, and certainly I, and many other GMs have found themselves forced into that position, for one reason or another, all through the history of gaming.
Firstly, I believe that any thread that starts out claiming something is a "new trend" is starting on shaky ground, at best. Scratch that, no thread that starts that way can be taken seriously. Lately there's been a lot of this, but the fact is that there is ZERO new under the sun when it comes to RPG play styles. Your notion that this is new has to do with your own bias against it, and towards your own personal preferences, likely set solidly back in whatever style most constituted your "Good Old Days."
I love it when someone comes along and makes an absolute statement like this in complete contradiction of everyone who has come before him. As though he or she is an Absolute Authority on the subject. It happens in every single thread.
Anyway, there are a number of posts previous to yours that happen to disagree with you. I think it would be a lot better stated (and more polite in general) to specify that you cannot take threads like this seriously.
Granted, I'm not an absolute authority on this like you are, since I have only been playing since 1986. However, while there have always been players that demand the so-called softball approach, the numbers are considerably greater now than I experienced in the late 80's and early 90's.
Perhaps it's a function of 3.5 and Pathfinder, or it's the way the generations are changing, or something else entirely. I don't care about the reason but I do know that it's a lot harder for me to find players who don't complain to me about how unfair I'm being by putting them into a situation where they can, *gasp* die.
And I've quite enjoyed the other posts in agreement and contradiction so for me, at least, this has been a thread I've been taking quite seriously.
|
I learned my lesson the first game session I played with my father (GM) and my older brother back in 79.He was a Paladin and I was a ranger,we we playing T-1 the Village of Hommlet and we decided it was great fun for the brave adventurers (us) to just run around and rob and steal from everyone in tow.Well, needless to say we were both killed as the local militia tried to arrest us and we tried to fight our way to freedom. Killed my first DnD gaming experience.
|
Some insightful stuff about differences in editions
This is how I deal with that issue. I have my players make a couple different character concepts they want to explore. Stat them out fully at first level. Whenever the character they decide on initially levels, I have them level the other characters, and I'll make sure they have some level appropriate gear to boot. This way, if a character dies, they have a few options already on line to replace their loss.
It eases the transition and allows them to have a few different characters to play. Heck, sometimes they just want to take a break from their main character and play something different. This also allows their characters to have some built in "down time" so if they want to make a few magic items, or build a stronghold or whatever, they have the time to do so, in character, without having to miss out on adventuring fun.
It works for my games, and I'd suggest it for people who still want to play "let the dice fall where they may" but not have to take time out to make new characters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some insightful stuff about differences in editionsThis is how I deal with that issue. I have my players make a couple different character concepts they want to explore. Stat them out fully at first level. Whenever the character they decide on initially levels, I have them level the other characters, and I'll make sure they have some level appropriate gear to boot. This way, if a character dies, they have a few options already on line to replace their loss.
It eases the transition and allows them to have a few different characters to play. Heck, sometimes they just want to take a break from their main character and play something different. This also allows their characters to have some built in "down time" so if they want to make a few magic items, or build a stronghold or whatever, they have the time to do so, in character, without having to miss out on adventuring fun.
It works for my games, and I'd suggest it for people who still want to play "let the dice fall where they may" but not have to take time out to make new characters.
That is a quality idea. Consider it stolen.
Firstly, I believe that any thread that starts out claiming something is a "new trend" is starting on shaky ground, at best. Scratch that, no thread that starts that way can be taken seriously. Lately there's been a lot of this, but the fact is that there is ZERO new under the sun when it comes to RPG play styles. Your notion that this is new has to do with your own bias against it, and towards your own personal preferences, likely set solidly back in whatever style most constituted your "Good Old Days."
For my part, I was dealing with players that demanded a softball approach back in the 'eighties. They literally accused me of intentionally trying to kill their characters every time danger reared its head.
Likewise, I have a player in my current group, who has been playing as long as I have (1981), who similarly accuses me of the same thing, for the same reasons. God forbid her character should die in our upcoming campaign, because she will cut off my gonads.
In the same group, I have a player who has, since the early 'nineties, done every stupid thing imaginable with his character, in an attempt to actually goad me into killing him so he can, in that way, prove that I am the opposite sort of GM from the one who thinks I am out to get her - one that is not harsh enough. In short, this player has ALWAYS thought what you think now: that GMs go too easy on players. Try that on for size. Doesn't quite fit your notion of how things always were before, does it?
That's because none of this is new.
I will happily concede that as far as the rulebooks go, a more softball approach was more overtly recommended beginning with 3rd Edition. However, the notion that the players' fun should be maximized has always been at the forefront of these games, and hints and advice on how to go easy on occasion have appeared in the rulebooks of virtually every edition. Certainly there have always been players who demanded their characters never die, and certainly I, and many other GMs have found themselves forced into that...
I'm really not interested in competing for most serious thread on the intrawebz, nor was I trying to state that I'm a trend setter and that I discovered something "new", I was interested in discussing how others have approached this topic. So if you don't take the thread seriously, that's cool; there are a ton of other threads you may enjoy.
The concept of playing with nerf gloves is new to me from about three years ago. That means in my own experience, it has become increasingly more the prevalent play style from what I have read, heard, and experienced in my own life. So to me that means it's a relatively new concept. If that means I am behind the times and not with the cool crowd, I guess I will have to get over it.
I've played the game since 88. I started with 1st edition, played the red box, did the entire 2nd and 3rd editions from start to close, and was involved heavily in 4th ed up until a few months ago. My times spent with first ed in middle and high school, second ed at the end of high school and through my deployments in the army overseas and at home, and third ed I had groups that realized death was a part of things and the only grief I took is when I had to find ways to challenge the power gamers who didn't like to be challenged. I didn't start hearing how players shouldn't die and that only Bad DMs (TM) allow players to die until 2008 or so, with 4th ed.
Does that give me enough street cred?
This subject comes up a lot so I will say this-->I tell the group up front that they are allowed to do what they want, but be prepared to accept the consequences. At that point if they join the group it is up to them.
If these people are already your friends then talk to them before the game starts, and try to reach a compromise.
If you are a player, and you want to die if the dice call for it, then inform the GM you don't want to be spared.
I think death should be a real possibility, otherwise the game is not fun. If I know what will happen it defeats the point of rolling the dice, IMHO.
|
Why he is not dead ? :) , the party have forgive him a lot.Our party has a rogue in it, a rouge who has to mess with crap.
First day- he sets the school we were at on fire
Second day- Wakes up an army of skeletons that kidnap us, then casts darkness and gets the heck out of there while we get captured (We now call him puddles for that)
Third day- Tries to light the ship where everyone else is held captive on fire, AND tries to steal a treasure map (and succeeds) from the skeleton captain's quarters, makes a shoddy copy and bluffs that it was the original copy all along. That also surprisingly workedHe then didn't do anything else stupid for quite a while until...
Just last session, the group splits up over an argument of what way to go. I go to the left with the half orc and the water "goddess" (powerful outsider with an overinflated sense of self) the rest go up.
the group with the rogue end up in a empty room with only a throne in it.
The rogue sits on the throne...
-_-
We now have a saying. "If you see Braccus running away, it's a good idea to run too because he probably just did something he shouldn't have"
Because we kinda need him to pick locks.
"But I'm roleplaying my character"
"Cool, I'm roleplaying the NPCs and monsters."
Invoke the magic words:
"Are you sure you want to do that?"
I've had one player find a dead ...er, escort, in a lake, skin her, and use her skin as a fishing net.
The rest of the party killed him.
As for things like
"The king comes up on the podium to address the city and --"
"I SHOOT THE KING WITH MY CROSSBOW!"
"Err, why?"
"BECAUSE LOL!"
Then the player dies to two hundred Royal Guards.
If something is going to kill the players if they engage it, they should be warned ahead of time.
My games are semi-lethal- I'm not going to go out of my way to kill the players (no NPC parties built to counter them in every way), but I let the dice fall where they will and build my scenarios based on logic, not game balance or CRs(Generally this ends up favoring the party, but not always).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know, every time I see a thread like this I shudder to think what could have been. I could've been a player like that. *Shudder*
What bugs me is not "I'm roleplaying what my character would do". I do the same thing, I do the actions my character would think of doing.
No, what bugs me is that most players who say that are playing lemmings. Their characters are mentally-chalenged. Full blown morons. Some village somewhere is missing it's village idiot because he decided to go adventuring. Gods above, these characters have no business doing anything heroic. Or vilainous. If legends are sung about them it will be on how stupid and useless they were. Why would you WANT to play that? Just WHY?
I could've been like them. What saved me was that, at some point, I decided that I would make each of my characters a legend in the making. A great hero or villain who would be remembered for all time. A chosen one destined to (enter epic goal suitable to campaing world here).
So I never have a score of less than 10. Even when I want to make a story on a really frail or really dumb character becoming a hero, his score will never be less than 9. I will do things that look stupid but only after making sure I can survive.
If I insult or attack someone heavilly guarded or much more powerful, I'll be smiling because we're about to take him down and the group has a plan.
If I charge into enemy territory getting the attention of a dozen enemies, I will either continue running forward with the enemies behind me so the rest of the party can pass trough without trouble, or I'll double back leading the enemy into our ambush.
If my character would not be good in a stealth mission, I'll simply wait while the rogue does his thing.
If I'm rogue, I'll still be smart enough to know that messing with possibly cursed items before the wizard has taken a look at them is stupid. And that going off without backup in running distance is suicide, I'm not a frontliner. And that blatantly stealing in the nose of the authorities is unprofessional. And that kleptomaniac in a medieval world would hang before he hit puberty.
If I'm a caster I'll know either by learning or by instinct, what my abilities actually do. If you play a caster know EXACTLY what your spells can do.
And most importantly, if another character starts acting like a suicidal idiot because he's 'roleplaying his character' he will be stopped. Repeat offenders will be killed. My character doesn't care for spies from the enemy putting a spanner on the partys effort. And he refuses to work with idiots. We're not going to close the worldwound while carrying a millstone, are we?
I've been here before, with players doing ridiculous things in the name of "ROLEPLAYING!" and then expecting consequences that range from negligible to easily managable.
In my experience, one really good and highly lethal campaign knocks some sense into most players. Near TPK* after Near TPK* is a strong teacher.
Example: I ran one homebrew campaign that was mildly inspired by Metroid Prime 2: Echoes - insofar as that the very atmosphere was dangerous. I was very up front about how potentially lethal this campaign was going to be. They didn't believe me. So, the first encounter they get is vs a templated T-rex. Brazen in their "I'm-a-PC-and-therefore-invulnerable" mindset, they took on what was an overwhelming encounter and, thanks to a terribly timed natural 1 on my part, vanquished the beast as it fell to the ground laughing (Tasha's Hideous Laughter).
A short while later though, 3 out 4 party members died when they left the safety of a town to venture into a swamp known to harbor trolls, ogres, and even a hydra. TPK vs some trolls. Later... TPK vs the hydra. Later still... eeked-it-out-by-the-skin-of-their-teeth almost TPK vs an ogre mage and some ogres.
My players really matured after that campaign. There was loads in that homebrew that didn't work, and in my opinion it was the worst campaign I've ever run, but the guys still reminence fondly about it (especially the ogre mage fight!) and they listen to me more when I ask things like, "Are you sure you want to do that?" or "Friendly Tip from your DM: You guys need to go into this next part with a plan. Seriously. I'm serious. Make. A. Plan."
*can also read as: Merciless TPK
I’m no old schooler. I did play some in the mid-nineties, but I was a fifth grader then. I can tell you, I definitely would have been upset if my character died. I would not have thrown a tantrum, but there would have been some whining involved.
Call it entitlement or weak or whatever if you want, but now that I’m all grown up I still generally don’t like my characters dying. I usually get the sad face. I do enjoy character death and its threat as part of the game, just more in theory than practice. If I had to choose between no threat of death and something like some here are describing (death/TPK every other level or even other session or so), I’ll take no deaths please.
For me it is easy to roleplay fear of death. Even if my meta self knows it won’t happen, I can still get into the tension and thrill of the story. But a game where the deck is stacked so high against me there is no room for error, to me that means no room for fun.
Talking to older gamers, many tend to allow very little allowance for the learning curve and sometimes it just gets way out of hand with the paranoia and the precautions. It is funny that in my experience the more an old schooler insists on game lethality, the more they do everything to mitigate actually dying. At a certain point it just gets really boring going over every precaution, contingency, strategy and tactic. Then get lectured to about how stupid you are for say... having a barbarian rage like a crazed savage.
I do see the other side of it though. I’ve encountered the new gamer that roleplays every character as if they have zero survival instinct. Their main enjoyment from games seems to be dominating others, even other PCs. When someone calls their bluff or beats them at their own game, they act like all bullies and get really emo or really aggressive irl. Unless they are extreme about it, I don’t let it bother me though. It does seem a bit hypocritical to expect your players to keep a stiff upperlip and not complain about their PC dying, then fail to do so yourself over them calling you a bad or mean GM.
Good luck to you. My only advice really, is be careful about going too far in teaching your players that the game is dangerous. It is easy to push people to the other extreme. Then you’ll be back here complaining about how these young punks just don’t care about roleplaying or story, just optimal strategy and tactics with an accent thrown in.
PS. Bonus points if you blame that attitude on video games too :P