I've discovered over the last few years, after DMing with both new players and experienced players, that I actually prefer DMing for noobs. They don't know the rules yet, but they are more willing to try methods other than combat. They run away from really hard encounters and regroup rather than fight to the death. They bargain with people rather than fight them. They let the villains finish their speeches.
The group of experienced players I've had over the past few years is a lot different. They're nice people, and generally good at role-playing, and they know all the rules. But they always try to kill any creature they can detect as evil, they are less likely to be creative in their approaches, and worst of all they seem to think they're entitled to win every time. When they lose a battle, they get disappointed, and even when they've been warned by numerous NPCs (and even their own Sense Motive checks) that the villain is much more powerful than them, they try to kill him anyway. I've been trying to give them some challenges that aren't just hack-and-slash challenges, because frankly those bore me if they're the only thing we do, but they still treat every challenge as if they can--and should--be able to beat it to a pulp, and if they can't they get really disappointed.
How can I get my experienced players to act more like the new players? I've asked them some questions and it seems they acted like the newbies when they first started playing. How can I get that attitude back?
Maybe try something like the Dresden Files RPG, where the *mechanics* encourage creative approaches. (I haven't even used the books yet -- but as a fan of Jim Butcher's series, I enjoyed reading them.) Then once they've mastered that system, bring them back to Pathfinder with a habit of looking for ways to make a character's actions be driven by his background and personality.
Whenever I have a party that feels overly entitled I run them through a horror setting (Ravenloft usually, but have had fun with planar adventures similar to Planescape). High body counts, party achievement is getting your character to last more than a couple of levels. Had one guy who lost 7 characters in one campaign. Just rolled badly on some critical saves/madness/fear checks (he was also dumping his wisdom for some reason, you would think he would learn).
If that isn't an option, keep in mind your campaign is a living world. Just because that guy is evil doesn't mean he isn't under legal/leige protections. A King could be upset that your party is murdering people in his kingdom, justice and application of violence against wrongdoers is his concern. Also the evil guy could be blood or friends with more powerful characters who aren't evil, but still are bound to do something about their friends death.
A good talk. My group has done it too a few years back. We all want it, and need to talk about if from time to time.
Sounds to me like your players are pretty hardcore gamists and you want something a bit more simulationist.
Here's the rub: The gamist with a dash of narrativist implied contract is the dominant strain by far for most gamers. If you want something other than that, you need to actually communicate with them explicitly. Otherwise the assumptions go this way
we encountered it
GM put it there
It must be level appropriate,
therefore we should kill itAll the warnings you give them are interpreted by their minds as just being narrative fluff, like the extras in Conan-esque books sometimes drop.
Oh gods.
This reminds me of a campaign I ran that never got off the ground, because entitlement. I was setting the scene, and introducing the BBEG at level 3 or 4. The BBEG was like a CR20 vampire lord, and the narrative pretty CLEARLY showed that this guy was bad news. They fought some level-appropriate vampire spawns and servants, who even in the fight, feared their master more than the PCs that were killing them. And the last standing guy killed himself rather than be taken captive, because "nothing you could do could even begin to rival the horrors he would visit upon me!".
So, the vampire lord comes along, sees what the players did, and decided in his hubris to make them the messengers of his arrival, after they cleaned up the mess they left. So, the idiots attack him. They don't have silver weapons, so they start chucking silver coins at him. And when he is understandably pissed at this outrage tears them down and throws their paralyzed arses down the side of his peak to crash into the river and barely get to safety, one player starts b%**+ing "HOW WERE WE SUPPOSED TO KILL HIM? YOU CAN'T SEND SOMETHING THAT POWERFUL AGAINST A LV3 PARTY!".
True story.
I find I have an inverted version of this issue. During a tough fight, especially as it's coming to it's conclusion, my players are constantly trying to find creative "solutions" to the problem, often when the enemy is only several hit points away from death. I'm all for creativity and noncombat solutions, but it always seems silly to waste an action on a risky tactic that may do nothing but extend the combat longer, risking PC death (something I actively avoid without nerfing enemies, keeping the encounters challenging without risking a TPK, it's a fine line to walk).
I inadvertently came up with a bit of a solution to the OP's problem, but it only works in a certain type of encounter.
Basically, I'm running a hack and slash game set in Golarion. The entire point of the game is to run from 1-20 so that I and my group can get more used to aspects of play at every level of power. They're currently in Andoran and have rescued numerous (approaching 100) local's from kobold and drow slavers, becoming heroes to the local populace (even the evil tiefling, lets me have some fun with Andoran egalitarianism).
Anyway, as they recently brought about 25 people back from the local dungeon, the townsfolk noticed them, and word went around town, culminating in an impromptu festival in their honor. They entire point of this was a set piece encounter in town square with the mayor presenting them with the key to the city (an elaborate skeleton key enchanted with a daily use of knock). During the presentation, they noticed some shadowy figures in the alleys at the opposite side of town square. These were members of a team sent by the Cult of the Elder Gods they've been battling. Just as they were about to act, a strange circular metallic object appeared in the sky, a representative of the Technic League (yes, on a flying saucer, cuz it's the type of game I can get away with stuff like that) coming to reclaim several artifacts they had recovered from a crashed vessel in Numeria. He dropped down in the middle of the crowd, and we all rolled initiative. At this point, I noticed something interesting. The players all seemed much more concerned with getting the townsfolk clear of danger than actually preventing injury to themselves.
This long story leads me to an idea. If I need a villain to get his monologue off, set things up so that, while he's doing so, they can creatively set things up to their advantage, or rush in. Giving them people to clear from the line of fire, or a secondary objective, or even some well placed cover for the rogue to slip behind and move into strike position while the villain talks. I have a pretty tough fight set up against a Drider Antipaladin in a few sessions, and I plan on incorporating this idea into that encounter.
I also would like to reiterate the above comment about maybe trying a different system for a while. Dresden Files encourages creative solutions to problems, as pointed out, but I would also recommend Shadowrun or World of Darkness, as well.
Shadowrun has a lot of combat, yes, but also has many rules for more creative solutions, and the combat tends to be deadly enough that entire sessions of planning leading up to one encounter are fairly common. World of Darkness tends to be much more roleplay focused, which should help to get people away from the hack and slash tendencies and start to put more thought into how their character would react, other than just drawing weapons and rolling initiative. I have to say, my favorite sessions of both games have been ones where no combat happened at all, either because it was avoided, or it was being extensively planned and frantically prepared for.
Im currently running CoT. I've also been warning the players that yes, thier characters WILL possibly die, please get used to this idea. One player has threatened to create a bard that sings childrens nursery rhymes (in roleplay no less) if her cleric dies. Oh well.
Regarding experienced versus non, I find true gaming newbies just as hard because of the handholding. I have two females in my group that prior to gaming with me have NEVER touched any kind of RPG, Wargame, or anything else even remotely game geek oriented. One of them got upset when the (fast healing) mephits got up from being 'dead' and started attacking them.
- Gauss
You CAN teach old human dogs new tricks. Its just... Trickier. Life lessons in a GAME need to be reinforced.
I respectfully submit that the perceived division between new players and veterans in this case is a coincidence. Though older players can become set in certain ways, I have always found that players who try methods other than combat as noobs, continue to be resourceful into their veteran years. Likewise, I have known a thousand-and-one noobs whose expectations were they would be hacking, slashing, slashing, hacking, and bloodying up every thing in their way, from dawn to dusk, including the innkeeper, his daughter, and their dog Spock. Some of them turned out to be thoughtful players in later years, others just kept right on doing it.
All of my current players are veterans and are a nice balance of styles.
My theory is that you just happen to have come upon a group of old players who like to kill things, and another group of noobs who like to be creative. The Great Generalization you perceive, like all generalizations (which are inherently wrong by definition and potentially disastrous) is just that: a perception.
Also, Yoda - even Goblin Yoda - might question the wisdom in generalizing.
|
I find I have an inverted version of this issue. During a tough fight, especially as it's coming to it's conclusion, my players are constantly trying to find creative "solutions" to the problem, often when the enemy is only several hit points away from death. I'm all for creativity and noncombat solutions, but it always seems silly to waste an action on a risky tactic that may do nothing but extend the combat longer, risking PC death (something I actively avoid without nerfing enemies, keeping the encounters challenging without risking a TPK, it's a fine line to walk).
As someone who is sometimes guilty of this same thing, I have to ask if the players can tell that the combat is winding down at that point. There is a certain panic that sets in when you've thrown everything you have at your opponent, and they're still standing, apparently unslowed. Since what you've been doing 'obviously' isn't working, you start trying anything you can think of.
So as a GM, you might think about the feedback you're giving in combat. You don't want to give away too much, of course, but you also don't want to discourage players who are already on the right track from progressing that one little bit farther.
Just put in scenarios that are difficult to bypass without non-combat. Set it up so someone looks bad, but is really innocent and pure.
When they murder the kings daughter, or the head of the church, it's going to become apparent pretty quick that asking questions and delving is pretty important.
Then when they least expect it, BAM, succubus.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Three words for you : Call of Cthulhu.