This has been an issue for my table before, but at our last session it came to a head and I'd like some opinions on how I can address this. Our last session had two particularly lop sided encounters that the party was intended, but not required, to out think rather than just straight up murder. Instead, some of the players, seeing that I had placed a token on the board representing a monster, decided that there would be no quarter no matter the cost.
After killing one character, and knocking out two more, I stepped in and reminded the party that their larger mission would fail if they were all felled by a comparatively minor monster. They protested, on character grounds, if they could not overcome this, then their larger mission would surely be doomed. Combat wore on and nothing improved for the players. I had had enough and informed them that if I TPK'd the party, we all would have done a lot of work for a very unsatisfying conclusion (to clarify: this was in no ways a climactic show down, it would be equivalent to Luke, Han, and Leia being crushed in the trash compactor.) The paladin's player relented, agreeing that not wishing to be torn limb from limb is not the height of cowardice.
Of the alleged players though, others dissented still. To paraphrase, they said that I should never include an encounter that cannot be won through sheer force. (In my defense, either of these encounters, if taken at full force were designed to be very hard, but not impossible; but back to back, as the party deigned to do, became nearly insurmountable. Additionally, the first, was meant to foreshadow the second. But I digress.) Moreover, they claimed that I knew the party was predisposed to act like a lawn mower and should only include meat for the grinder and not monsters that may have something to say.
I don't think it makes me a bad GM to be unwilling to completely kill the entire table at any time. But I was upset that the party believes that avoiding TPKs to be entirely my responsibility, that theirs is to kill and loot, and me to turn the meat grinder. Has anyone encountered similar player habits? Or have any advice on how to resolve this? I know I've been vague, I'd be happy to elaborate wherever needed.
Talk to your players before the start of the campaign and discuss this kind of stuff.
Do you (all) want to roleplay or not?
Do you want all encounters to be beatable by strength alone or not?
Do you want random encounters or not?
And the list goes on. Simply, discuss the kind of game you all want to play and find something you all would like to play. Even if you can't agree on everything, knowing what will came up will help a lot.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
They're a bunch of entitled turdblossoms.
There should ALWAYS be things too tough to fight. These are things that you should run away from. If there's no reason to run away, then combat is just an exercise in rolling dice with no risk involved, and near meaningless resource allocation.
Think of yourself as the fair and impartial judge of Darwinian fitness.
Better yet, when you're at a stopping point on this campaign, put them through actual 1e D&D and Keep on the Borderlands.
Roll stats randomly - 3d6 in order.
Have a caller, and a player whose job is to map and another player whose job it is to hold lights over them.
Describe approximate dimensions. Let them KNOW they're playing characters who can die at any instant.
The war stories of the 1e D&D era are about "Man, I cannot believe I kept that character with a high stat of 13 and two 7s alive through 3rd level! He retired and opened a bar. He'd seen 14 of his adventuring buddies killed..." :)
Difference in gaming styles? You want to give them potatoes to peel, dough to bake, and stew to turn, they just want to chop and slice meat and if you give them something other than meat they get confused and try to chop it anyways (it looks close enough to meat) and things get messy fast.
You can't force them to play differently, especially if that's they've been playing the entire time. If it looks like they can use their routine method they'll try it. Don't be subtle about, don't make it look like they can try something or they will. If they're accommodating they might try something different if it doesn't look like it's about to become a combat situation. After getting them used to different situations you can try mixing it up again, but given the choices of A and B even if B is way easier and more logical they'll choose A if that's what they've been doing and getting away with the entire time.
|
There are 3 types of games people play: the dungeon crawl, the RP game, and a mix of the two (which is what most people do). Sounds like your group is playing straight for the dungeon crawl. I'd try to encourage a bit more RP in the session if you can, maybe have a session or two in a town with mostly roleplaying. Just remember to have some dungeon crawl to even the mix in another session. Also, remind the characters, especially the Paladin in this case, that their job isn't to murder everything they see.
Failing that, if the party insist on the pure dungeon crawl, then maybe you should give them what they want, and try and find another group for some RP lovin'.
With regards to it being your responsibility not to TPK, I'd remind them that you are simply a story teller and arbiter of the rules, if they choose to rush into an encounter without thinking it through, this kinda thing is going to happen.
Thank you, but something more concrete would be more helpful. With regards to roleplaying, the players are insistent that what I perceive as disruptive is in character. Concerning brute force, The whole table does not usually behavior like lawn mowers. Random, unexpected, or entirely telegraphed I feel the party has an obligation to respond to encounters.
And that's what I feel this comes down to. I feel that the party has an obligation to avoid failure. Some of the players apparently believe that to be solely my responsibility.
EDIT: Complicating this is that I don't want to kill everyone in the party. In the inciting incident I described, I felt I was in a corner and gave the party a free pass to keep the game going This, in turn, is why this has become such a quandary for me.
I'm surprised to see players acting that way. When I rolled a random table and sent a Shambling Mound at level 2 PCs, they tried to kill it instead of running away. They got away with luck, not with whining. Actually, I think you should make it clear that you won't let the players bully you if it ruins your fun in the process. Next time they try to tackle something not meant for them, crush one player just to show an example to the others. Try going for the one who cares the least for the RP.
Alternatively, kill the most avid RPer so he'll get mad at the others for being idiots.
The more allies you have on the table, the better control you have of it. That applies to both players and the DM.
Rule Zero. (i.e. have fun)
Random Encounter Tables.
Not every player or GM think that these things go together, but it does illustrate that by RAW not all encounters are not meant to be 'lawn mowered.' To further illustrate this we could look at the list of Skills....
|
|
Unfortunately, I think this is going to need a discussion with the group about the role of the DM in the game. If I were feeling particularly evil :) , I'd either give them a load of low level encounters, and the equivalent loot, stating that its the only way you can make sure they stay safe, or give them a high level Minotaur monk, focusing on tripping. Anyone who rushes in will provoke AoO and end up on their backsides. Rinse and repeat, until they get bored and leave. [Steps shortened or removed for simplicity]
I see two ways I would try to handle this.
1) Put your main game aside for a session or two and play some one shots where TPKs are going to happen if players try to meat grinder everything. Make a point in a one shot where it wont hurt your main game.
2) Bring in an NPC who ROFLstomps the party with non lethal. Have him teach them a lesson.
Alternatively, sounds like you need to take back your game. Discuss this with your group that you don't want to play a complicated version of descent - if they try to meet every challenge with force, they will fail their quest - and not necessarily because they get TPKed.
Also, maybe it's time to show them some of the other ways they can fail without TPKing the party.
I'm surprised about the fact that I wasn't the first to suggest what Trayce said now.
|
You know, have the Tarrasque show up.
Not attack everyone, just a rumor of him lurking about.
Suddenly, have a villager come running in with word of a sighting two towns over.
A wise woman comes up and says only a great Monster can slay this great Monster.
The town decides to find the legendary Beast Slayer and Lich Blackguard "Badman the Invincible". He comes, and demands a outrageous reward, and that the PCs collect a number of items to help him kill the Tarrasque.
What do they do? They have two horrible, and obviously powerful villians, but need one, to kill the other.
Do they expect to kill both by sheer force?
Both players and the game assumes that the PCs will "win" an encounter.
However where the game leaves the players is that the "win" is sometimes down to not going for the full frontal assault.
And I am afraid that is a lesson which is learned by TPK. My group found out the hard way. Now they plan a retreat as well as the assault.
Do you use a grid for the whole dungeon? I usually only whip out the grid and the tokens once it is completely clear that facepunching will ensue. As long as the players or my npcs don't really declare their first attack roll, the battlemat doesn't get put on the table.
On my table, a token does not merely represent an entity, it represents an entity that IS involved in a fight, since the sight of a token seems to trigger a nigh unstoppable urge to killkillsmashloot in the average RPGer ^^
The players might still have the option to run, but once the grid is out, that usually means that either the players decided to say "f**k diplomacy, I'ma kill that thing!" or the NPC/Monster has decided to kill/eat/loot/capture the PCs.
On top of that, the players (or at least their characters) don't always know, how strong an opponent is.
If you want them to outthink/parlay with the opponent, straightout tell them or at least give them a knowledge roll to figure out, that the challenge is to much for them. Because as long as they think they CAN just slice&dice and be done with it, why should they try to outsmart it, if that isn't part of their character concept. If they still decide to start a fight and get their asses handed to them, it's their own fault. TPK away, if they are not willing to swallow their pride and run once in a while.
Because that is what pride does in real life. It gets you in trouble.
TL;DR:
Keep the tokens out of sight until the fight really starts and give your players a chance to figure out that an enemy is to strong to meatgrind, BEFORE they grind away.
In order for an unbeatable opponent to work, the players need the following:
(1) Enough information to let them know they can't win by force alone before it's too late.
(2) An escape route. If the enemy is faster than you and can get AoOs on you while you are fleeing, there's no point in trying to run.
(3) They need to act like sensible people and not like heroes. This is tricky; in fiction taking on an opponent who seems to be far too powerful and winning anyway is a common trope. Happens all the time in anime.
First off, like others said, talk to your players. Obviously retreat should be an option even if the encounter wasnt MEANT to be hard. Sometimes things go badly, or sometimes the dm misjudges an encounter. If pcs start going down and retreat isnt even on the table, there is a problem with the player's mindset and that needs to change.
That said, one thing I think you need to consider, is the whole 'out think' angle. Yes its awesome when players are clever and overcome impossible odds without taking it on directly. I love it when it happens (most of the time at least) and my players surprise me. But be very careful when you EXPECT your players to be clever. It is something alot of dms fall victim to and it can cause tension and frustration at the table.
Your players do not think like you. They are different people. They have different experiences, different education (most likely) different likes, dislikes, personalities. The solution you come up with to an open ended problem like "topple the evil overlord' is not what anyone else at your table would.
Also, you spend a whole lot more time thinking about your game and know more about it then your players ever will. Even the most dedicated player only things about the game at the table, maybe a little away from it, but for the most part, nothing like the hours on end a dm just spends thinking about their game and how things will play out. They also dont have all the information you do. There are details, that even if they could have been noticed in game at the table, your players have missed. There are details they dont know because they havent been revealed at all. All these things color your perceptions of the situation as a dm, no matter how hard you try to be objective when designing events and encounters. There is very little chance the players will always arrive at the same conclusion on the correct or best course of action even if it seems obvious to you as the dm.
If you expect some kind of solution to a problem that is not straight foward (sneak past, bluff past, bash through) there should be at least 3 separate in game ways a player could get a direct indication that this is a good idea. IE if the players probably ought to enlist the help of an npc who belongs to group Y to provide backup against monster hoard X. Then they should have 3 separate opportunities to learn about that npc and how they could help the players, and that the players SHOULD enlist their help.
Subtle clues are almost always missed, because what seems subtle to a dm, is usually nearly invisible to a player. This isnt anyone's fault, its just a reality of how these things work. Be aware of this and as a dm plan accordingly.
|
Well well the usual advice is here in spades I see. Please don't create encounters just to "teach" your players how to play. I think this is the worst advice yet it is so popular. There is nothing wrong with kick in the door or "meat grinder" style of play. The problem lies in incompatible playstyles.
There is always room for compromise however, and I suggest you have a discussion on this as a group. Be prepared to give a little but make sure you get some in return. In the end you may need to adjust playstyle as GM. You may need to step aside and play instead of GM. You may need to quit and find new players. Hopefully disbanding is not necessary but "teaching" your group to play your way, if they do not desire to, will only garner ill will.
Trust me I know I had an old school killer GM. Guy would slaughter you if you so much as went to an outhouse without a cleric holding your hand. As a player he was even worse. Guy was so paranoid he would avoid all adventure because it clearly was a trap. To him RPG is all about survival. We had a come to Jesus talk with him and our gaming group has adjusted and we are all the better for it. In fact he taught me how to not be such a roll over GM. Its not all sunny though, I had to walk from a group comprised of my best friends because they didn't take the game serious. I just got plain tired of lackluster play. They had no desire to step up the game. I hope this helps friend good luck.
Sounds to me like your players communicated loud and clear what they want from a game. You have two choices: provide what they want, or don't.
The game should be fun for DM and player alike, so you need to do some soul-searching. If you don't want to play the game they want to play, it's time for chess or something.
Players often will insist on pushing through a combat they have no business fighting because they want to "win." And they cannot see that circumventing combat may actually result in the better gain.
This is not without reason. The earliest RPGs often had a very obvious structure where you killed a monster, earned XP, and found its treasure. A lot of dungeon crawl RPG inspired video games incorporated this well. Often in the simplest games (surely with many exceptions to be found then and now, but broadly speaking), many cases the ONLY way to get XP and loot was to win fights.
Even though RPGs rapidly evolved out of this idea, incorporating various forms of story rewards, there is still ingrained in a lot of gamers the idea that they MUST fight everything they see, because that is the only way they will be rewarded.
The solution is to be sure the players are rewarded not just for winning fights, but for making good choices. If the players recognize that a monster they see is too hard for them right now, and they come up with a plan to escape and then regroup and figure out how to deal with the Big Bad, reward them XP for their escape and plan--after all, they "overcame" the encounter. Make it clear right then and there that they benefited from it. Give them story rewards where possible as well -- when the party escapes, they run into a prisoner who, upon freeing him, turns out to be a wealthy lord who can provide a beneficial alliance with them in the future.
And when you do as you did, tell them "guys, you're going to die if you go at it this way," also add, "this doesn't mean you lose the game. It's okay to do this, there's no punishment. There are other ways to deal with this, trust me."
Also, I want to echo Kolokotroni's excellent advice that if you want the players to go about something a certain way, drop ample and obvious clues related to this. It is a universal truth in my opinion that players will NEVER see what is obvious to you (and conversely, by some same infuriating internal logic, they also immediately figure out something you thought was supposed to be a challenge). So spell it out, even if you think you're hand-feeding them, you're really not.
(And as to the argument, "but if we lose this fight, then we aren't ready to deal with the big bad!" then the answer is clearly, "well obviously, you've just been shown you are not ready to deal with the big bad. Maybe it's time to take some time to look at your other options.")
So--in short, first thing, be sure players are rewarded for smart play any time. And be sure they are amply aware that there's more than one way to deal with a given encounter.
Second thing -- I want to remark again upon the idea that they wanted to press through the fight because they felt they had to deal with this in order to prove they could progress through the plot, and moreover, that they felt of sense of urgency that they must be able to progress through the plot as soon as possible.
Cultivating a reasonable sense of urgency without letting it get out of hand is one of the greatest challenges I've experienced as a GM and seen it challenge the other GMs I play with. If the players are imbued with a higher sense of urgency than the plot calls for, they will much more likely risk incredibly stupid things because they feel they have no time to seek other solutions.
Now, don't get me wrong--not telling you you "did it wrong." And in a way, you actually deserve congratulations. You've impressed upon them their need to deal with the plot so well that they do not want to stop and rest a moment until they've achieved their goal--that means you've done a good job storytelling to make them feel so motivated. No shame in that!
But there is a challenge inherent in the situation, because again, if they are TOO motivated, they do dumb things, like fight to a near TPK because they're certain there's no other way to deal with the situation. If you hear the players start to say, "But we've got to get the princess out of the castle NOW!" when your princess is actually in another castle and the players are about to face a huge monster when they're really not ready yet because they're so worried about the misplaced princess, it's time to back up and drop some strong--and again, ample--hints that really, no, they've got time, it's worth going back up that passageway and seeing what's there first.
It is still entirely the players' responsibility to take on appropriate challenges their PCs can handle, but as the storyteller and arbitrator of plot and mechanics, it is within your purview and even responsibility to make sure they are perceiving what's going on accurately, including how much time they really have.
And I speak from the experience of entirely having dealt with a bad case of this. I had players skip two weeks' worth of adventure -- i.e., what I had written up to -- because suddenly they decided they wanted to get to the root of the issue they were dealing with and drop into an area I wasn't ready to send them yet. (They also did me the kindness of b$&**ing they had no downtime to do anything after the fact, even though I made it actually quite clear what they were about to do and that they had time to do stuff they wanted and needed to do before carrying on with the story. Grr. But I digress.) It is hard and sometimes our ability to adapt can't keep up with what the players decide to do. And those players in that circumstance did in fact charge into an area head on that was clearly meant not to be charged head on, not at that time and not having gained any significant resources yet, and someone got killed for it--although to their credit they got the idea that retreat would be a good idea quite quickly after that, and took things at a more reasonable pace from then on. But I also learned I was going to have to be careful about how I timed things and built up suspense so that would not be a constant issue, because it would end up being an area of frustration for both me and them.
In short, the second thing is watch how you set up a sense of urgency and make sure that the players do not enslave themselves to it.
The final thing is an issue of entitlement--the idea that the PCs MUST be able to tackle head on every challenge, and that the GM is beholden to making everything a cakewalk for them.
I had a GM who was very clear with us at the start of his campaign, "I use random monster tables and stick to them. If you're 1st level and I roll a monster meant to fight 10th level party, I will throw it at you. I will leave it to you to figure out how to deal with it, and I will never punish you for running, and if you do it cleverly, I'll even reward you." DESPITE THAT, one of the players in our campaign decided to antagonize an obviously huge and powerful black dragon that we otherwise had been successfully escaping from, and when he was yelled at by a number of us, he sulkily retorted, "But I didn't think he'd throw at us something we couldn't handle." Even though the GM had clearly said the obvious (the player and GM were also longtime friends and gaming companions and he really should have known based on lengthy experience).
But players can get themselves into a weird mindset--it's there, I must be able to stick a sword in it and leave with my life intact, because it would NEVER be there otherwise. Even if the GM has extremely good story reasons for putting a high CR creature there which have nothing to do with fighting it right now.
Now, there's a tricky balance here, of course. The players should not expect the game to be a cakewalk. But the GM should also not design ridiculously potential TPK fight after another out of a sense of power and control (not saying the OP is, just saying it can go to that extreme). Ultimately, the goal should always be a good story, and the PCs should feel challenged--and thus feel heroic when they overcome those challenges.
There's no easy advice to give here unfortunately except to be absolutely clear that not all encounters presented are meant to be deal with in a brute force manner and again--that retreat and circumventions are options are viable and even sometimes rewarding. But that likewise, be clear you will not tone down serious threats in the name of being "nice." The players can accept this premise or they can leave.
In short--don't coddle players but make good story driven encounters and communicate clearly that actions have consequences and that not all monsters were intended to be slain.
Alternately, talk to your players about what kind of games they want to see. If all they want is easy arena combat, give it to them--but that's all they get. But if they want a game according to your rules, then they need to be willing to accept the lumps along with the creamy bits.
Thanks everybody, I'll address particular comments later when I'm not writing from my phone but in the interests of fairness I want to offer (as best I can represent it) the player's perspective. Since it seems most of the comments have generally found my GMing to be in the right, I don't want to get the counter point .
Player's perspective:
I established my character to the GM, and have demonstrated that he uses relatively little latitude in deciding his course of action. The GM chose to include a monster that he expected my character would fight to the death, regardless of the odds of winning. A noble death being one of my character's motivations. The party expended considerable resources. Later, when confronted out of character about the recklessness, I conceded to the party that if thy restrained me I would have stopped. The party expended considerable resources and won the fight. Afterward, rather than go back to our base, we found what we believed to be a safe house to stop and rest. Instead, the GM had placed another high powered enemy inside. He informed us we should run, we didn't believe it was fair for the GM to stack the game against the party.
The GM should have included a safer encounter, or none at all in the apparent safe house in order to keep the party safe. He asked us to act out of character in order to keep his game going. When confronted with either an unfair game, or a TPK, we required GM fiat to survive.
Of the alleged players though, others dissented still. To paraphrase, they said that I should never include an encounter that cannot be won through sheer force. (In my defense, either of these encounters, if taken at full force were designed to be very hard, but not impossible; but back to back, as the party deigned to do, became nearly insurmountable. Additionally, the first, was meant to foreshadow the second. But I digress.) Moreover, they claimed that I knew the party was predisposed to act like a lawn mower and should only include meat for the grinder and not monsters that may have something to say.I don't think it makes me a bad GM to be unwilling to completely kill the entire table at any time. But I was upset that the party believes that avoiding TPKs to be entirely my responsibility, that theirs is...
Could you discuss the encounters? Why were they hard? Was it too high CR?
Was it hard but easy if they had a weakness (like Fire creatures hurt badly by cold or Trolls need fire/Acid to kill)?And no I agree, you aren't a bad GM to be unwilling to have a TPK.
@Deathquaker: I think that if I remember correctly, you got loot from gaining treasure, and killing the monsters was much more secondary! So getting around the monsters was just as useful as killing them!
Your players need to be flexible, and I hate to use the phrase, to "think outside the box." Sure some character's motivations may be to charge head long into a hopeless battle, but surely not all in the party. If there is no mortal threat to the character then what fun is it? There is supposed to be attachment developed to the character, motivation for the Players to keep the PC alive.
You should sent them links to this. KennyRogers
|
Wolfgang Baur did a series of articles about adventures and the different types of encounters you should put your pc's through for 3.5. the 9th encounter type of ten was:
9) One Bigger Fish: To keep the blood flowing, you should have one overwhelming encounter that the party can't handle without serious risk of a total party kill. This could turn into a roleplaying bit of Diplomacy, a chase, or a stealth challenge, depending on how the party handles it -- but they should see that not every encounter in every adventure should be fought.
That said I am known notoriously for my encounters the players feel are "too difficult" because they took the idea that "its there so we should be able to kill it" approach.
Thanks everybody, I'll address particular comments later when I'm not writing from my phone but in the interests of fairness I want to offer (as best I can represent it) the player's perspective. Since it seems most of the comments have generally found my GMing to be in the right, I don't want to get the counter point .
Player's perspective:
I established my character to the GM, and have demonstrated that he uses relatively little latitude in deciding his course of action. The GM chose to include a monster that he expected my character would fight to the death, regardless of the odds of winning. A noble death being one of my character's motivations. The party expended considerable resources. Later, when confronted out of character about the recklessness, I conceded to the party that if thy restrained me I would have stopped. The party expended considerable resources and won the fight. Afterward, rather than go back to our base, we found what we believed to be a safe house to stop and rest. Instead, the GM had placed another high powered enemy inside. He informed us we should run, we didn't believe it was fair for the GM to stack the game against the party.
The GM should have included a safer encounter, or none at all in the apparent safe house in order to keep the party safe. He asked us to act out of character in order to keep his game going. When confronted with either an unfair game, or a TPK, we required GM fiat to survive.
Personally I disagree completely with this player perspective. If you want a noble death, go for it, but you dont then get to complain when that noble death leads to your death... Its not unfair for things to be hard as long as the dm actually leaves an avenue for escape and makes it clear you are overmatched. Sometimes you have to run. If your characters cant handle that they are really one dimensional or rather foolish.
Honestly you should have just killed them to break them of the mindset that all fights should be winable and 'safe'. There should be no 'safe' unless the players MAKE it safe by their own enginuity and action.
1) Put your main game aside for a session or two and play some one shots where TPKs are going to happen if players try to meat grinder everything. Make a point in a one shot where it wont hurt your main game.
Have them play Call of Cthullu?
Of the alleged players though, others dissented still. To paraphrase, they said that I should never include an encounter that cannot be won through sheer force.
Show your players this