Not me.
Have you explained that they are only alive because you have been cheating all the time, and that by all rights they would have been dead since level 3?
They really should carry, at the very least a sling each with some cold iron bullets. What they are doing is two steps dumber than most platform games.
Mind, I would not explain it in these terms.... but you need to get the message across, somehow.
So...they decide to both be the same, martial front-line class, and charge headlong into battle with no forethought, then get mad at you when the game isn't on easy-mode for them? If people want to play a game where all you do is front-line hack and slash, good for you, but it sounds like you don't so simply talk to them and tell them something to the effect of "adapt or die". Its a game world that in many aspects reflects a real world. Is everyone supposed to play fair and fight in a way that's to your advantage? Hey British if you could please put down the longbows and come out to our knights that'd be great.
They need to learn from losses and mistakes to make themselves better, not just pout when the battle didn't go exactly their way.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Try to give your players information on what they will be facing up front. Example: going in the sewers? They get rumors about carrying fire or backup weapons in case they find slimes. You can have the cohort or DMPC search for rumors to give them the idea.
Have them role play an encounter with another group of adventurers (friendly competition in the future maybe?) where they talk shop and compare notes, could be fun if the players go for it.
Have bad guys use the tactics you want them to learn; ranged weapons, using potions, etc. maybe have the DMPC buy the group options, since it's not something you think about until you use it (especially if you play a lot of computer RPGs, where consumables aren't necessary much of the time).
Perhaps the most important question to answer before anyone gives you too much detailed advice:
Do your players really like and identify with the characters they are playing?
Further, is there a real-world reason that you only have two players? More, in this particular case, might be exactly what you need.
I've run a world-for-one before, but it can sometimes require you to turn into storyteller and throw a lot of the mechnical systems of the game out the window. Which is can be a sacrifice worth making in the name of fun.
CaptainJandor wrote: Try to give your players information on what they will be facing up front. Example: going in the sewers? They get rumors about carrying fire or backup weapons in case they find slimes. You can have the cohort or DMPC search for rumors to give them the idea.
Have them role play an encounter with another group of adventurers (friendly competition in the future maybe?) where they talk shop and compare notes, could be fun if the players go for it.
Have bad guys use the tactics you want them to learn; ranged weapons, using potions, etc. maybe have the DMPC buy the group options, since it's not something you think about until you use it (especially if you play a lot of computer RPGs, where consumables aren't necessary much of the time).
I've been having the DMPC buy things like alchemical fire and such for the past couple of sessions since I knew the group would be facing crab swarms, but I'll try to be more chatty with various necks. Drop more rumors, hints, etc about what may be coming next. Good idea!
aboniks wrote: Perhaps the most important question to answer before anyone gives you advice:
Do your players really like and identify with the characters they are playing?
The dps Barb really loves his "smash everything" play style. The tank BArb was until 4 or so sessions ago playing a Sorceror to decent effect (his first time playing a spell caster), but after the fight with the Moon Beast and failing to get through its SR the entire fight (some truly awful rolls, simple bad luck) he decided that "spell casters are useless" and made the Barbarian.
Aside from recruiting more players (which I assume you would already have done if that were as simple a solution as it sounds) my suggestion would be to have them create backup characters to have on hand "just in case" the barbarians die. Have them level the backups to keep on a level with the barbs. Set up restrictions on the classes/races available for the backups that will fit in with the story arc you have in mind. Ideally, require that they multi-class their backups.
This serves two purposes: First, they get more comfortable with the idea of two dead barbarians on a funeral pyre. Second, it forces them to explore the available classes and watch those two characters get more powerful and cool each level. They have a chance to go over what they "could have done" to approach the problem they smashed, in a different way. Eventually you may find one of them retiring their muscle-head in favor of something more interesting.
I don't know your world, but there's a zillion and one ways to come up with a plot-driven justification for a backup that has to be able to do things other than smash.
Mentioning now that one of them was originally a sorcerer and they haven't been both Barbarians for 10 levels kind of changes the whole thing.
You probably should have encouraged being something other than a Barbarian and that bad luck/tactics doesn't mean the class sucks. Since that's hindsight, I'd say you're going to need NPCs to help fix the problem as well.
aboniks wrote: Perhaps the most important question to answer before anyone gives you too much detailed advice:
Do your players really like and identify with the characters they are playing?
Further, is there a real-world reason that you only have two players? More, in this particular case, might be exactly what you need.
I've run a world-for-one before, but it can sometimes require you to turn into storyteller and throw a lot of the mechnical systems of the game out the window. Which is can be a sacrifice worth making in the name of fun.
Sorry, didn't see the rest of your response. We've only got the three of us due to living in an area devoid of other gamers, and we've been friends for a while. We tried to introduce another player to the group but ended up asking him to leave after multiple sessions of telling him to put his cell phone/cartoon sound board away, cleaning up after his meals like a small child, etc. Mind you, this guy was in his mid-20's.
MattR1986 wrote: Mentioning now that one of them was originally a sorcerer and they haven't been both Barbarians for 10 levels kind of changes the whole thing.
You probably should have encouraged being something other than a Barbarian and that bad luck/tactics doesn't mean the class sucks. Since that's hindsight, I'd say you're going to need NPCs to help fix the problem as well.
I did try to explain that bad rolls happen and he shouldn't give up on the Sorcerer, but the player was, quite frankly, butthurt and wanted to play a character like he did in his high school campaign. I went along with this to keep the campaign going, but I know I should have held to my guns.
YellowMage wrote: We've only got the three of us due to living in an area devoid of other gamers, and we've been friends for a while. We tried to introduce another player to the group but ended up asking him to leave after multiple sessions of telling him to put his cell phone/cartoon sound board away, cleaning up after his meals like a small child, etc. Mind you, this guy was in his mid-20's. I can relate. I live in a town of two thousand people who remain convinced that cow-tipping and cruising the parking lot of Sonic with full gunracks is a hell of a way to spend Saturday night.
My gaming group is 14 hours away and I have to play over Skype. :)
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
He probably saw his buddy doing well and thought "I'll do that too" without realizing how limiting it would be.
It would be like having a military where all people had were RPGs (AT4s usually). You need diversity and different things to be overall effective. I guess I'd encourage multi-classing or just making more NPCs or keep trying to recruiting more people.
They seem to be suffering from "action RPG syndrome". By that, I mean they assume NPCs (characters and monsters alike) being played out by a GM are going to react the same way to their tactics as computer AIs. In other words, that one person can just sit and "tank" while another player deals massive amounts of damage, and not have to worry about a monster just ignoring the obviously non-threatening shieldwall and take down the attacker.
If you give them some DMPC support (maybe an alchemist and a wizard), it's their fault if they're frustrated because it seems like they're trying the same tactic again and again and getting angry when it doesn't always work, but bored when it always does.
That's my impression from your posts, anyhow.
MattR1986 wrote: So...they decide to both be the same, martial front-line class, and charge headlong into battle with no forethought, then get mad at you when the game isn't on easy-mode for them? If people want to play a game where all you do is front-line hack and slash, good for you, but it sounds like you don't so simply talk to them and tell them something to the effect of "adapt or die". Its a game world that in many aspects reflects a real world. Is everyone supposed to play fair and fight in a way that's to your advantage? Hey British if you could please put down the longbows and come out to our knights that'd be great.
They need to learn from losses and mistakes to make themselves better, not just pout when the battle didn't go exactly their way.
Funny how all of these advice threads always degerate into a group of folks advising the GM to tell his players that they are "playing it WRONG!!!1!one!!"
Step one: talk with your players about what they want from the game. If both players chose martials... perhaps they want a melee focused game. Is that not allowed? Should you kill off their characters over and over until they learn to play "correctly"? (If any of you answered "Yes" to the above questions, turn in your GM screen. You're a terrible GM). If your players are looking for a toe-to-toe slugfest, why would you not accomodate them? If that kind of campaign doesn't appeal to you as a GM, let your players know. Maybe you guys just aren't a good fit as a gaming group.
If it turns out that they DO want more from the game, then talk to them about what they want and are missing. Perhaps they will be open to your suggestions. Afterwards, maybe you could put them with a set of NPCs that behave using the tactics the players would like to use (but don't know how).
Honestly, if you (the OP) were coming on here complaining that you had had a long discussion with your players about the gaming style and you disagreed with their requests, that would be one thing. But to come on here before you've even talked to your group about the problem seems to be an inefficient method of seeking resolution.
Thanks for the help, everyone.
Eirikrautha wrote: MattR1986 wrote: So...they decide to both be the same, martial front-line class, and charge headlong into battle with no forethought, then get mad at you when the game isn't on easy-mode for them? If people want to play a game where all you do is front-line hack and slash, good for you, but it sounds like you don't so simply talk to them and tell them something to the effect of "adapt or die". Its a game world that in many aspects reflects a real world. Is everyone supposed to play fair and fight in a way that's to your advantage? Hey British if you could please put down the longbows and come out to our knights that'd be great.
They need to learn from losses and mistakes to make themselves better, not just pout when the battle didn't go exactly their way.
Funny how all of these advice threads always degerate into a group of folks advising the GM to tell his players that they are "playing it WRONG!!!1!one!!"
Step one: talk with your players about what they want from the game. If both players chose martials... perhaps they want a melee focused game. Is that not allowed? Should you kill off their characters over and over until they learn to play "correctly"? (If any of you answered "Yes" to the above questions, turn in your GM screen. You're a terrible GM). If your players are looking for a toe-to-toe slugfest, why would you not accomodate them? If that kind of campaign doesn't appeal to you as a GM, let your players know. Maybe you guys just aren't a good fit as a gaming group.
If it turns out that they DO want more from the game, then talk to them about what they want and are missing. Perhaps they will be open to your suggestions. Afterwards, maybe you could put them with a set of NPCs that behave using the tactics the players would like to use (but don't know how).
Honestly, if you (the OP) were coming on here complaining that you had had a long discussion with your players about the gaming style and you disagreed with their requests, that would be one thing. But to... Looks like someone didn't notice this. If he was satisfied with the game he wouldn't have posted here.
MattR1986 wrote: Eirikrautha wrote: MattR1986 wrote: So...they decide to both be the same, martial front-line class, and charge headlong into battle with no forethought, then get mad at you when the game isn't on easy-mode for them? If people want to play a game where all you do is front-line hack and slash, good for you, but it sounds like you don't so simply talk to them and tell them something to the effect of "adapt or die". Its a game world that in many aspects reflects a real world. Is everyone supposed to play fair and fight in a way that's to your advantage? Hey British if you could please put down the longbows and come out to our knights that'd be great.
They need to learn from losses and mistakes to make themselves better, not just pout when the battle didn't go exactly their way.
Funny how all of these advice threads always degerate into a group of folks advising the GM to tell his players that they are "playing it WRONG!!!1!one!!"
Step one: talk with your players about what they want from the game. If both players chose martials... perhaps they want a melee focused game. Is that not allowed? Should you kill off their characters over and over until they learn to play "correctly"? (If any of you answered "Yes" to the above questions, turn in your GM screen. You're a terrible GM). If your players are looking for a toe-to-toe slugfest, why would you not accomodate them? If that kind of campaign doesn't appeal to you as a GM, let your players know. Maybe you guys just aren't a good fit as a gaming group.
If it turns out that they DO want more from the game, then talk to them about what they want and are missing. Perhaps they will be open to your suggestions. Afterwards, maybe you could put them with a set of NPCs that behave using the tactics the players would like to use (but don't know how).
Honestly, if you (the OP) were coming on here complaining that you had had a long discussion with your players about the gaming style and you disagreed with their requests, ... I noticed you said it (which is why I quoted that part, as I thought it was good advice up until you said to force them to change). My response was to the OP (I even have that in there somewhere), and it definitely reflects better than 50% of the responses on this thread. And you are telling him to force the players to play his style...
|
