Thanks to over-generous Bennies, the Adventure Deck, both Savage Worlds mechanics that allow the player to bypass challenges, and some absurdly unbalanced setting rules in Accursed (a savage worlds setting)
my players are used to walking handily through all challenges. In addition for this making prep/run difficult for me (what do I do with the rest of the session when they walk through anything I put in front of them), they seem unhappy as soon as I try to present a challenge (e.g., your high skill in Persuade doesn't allow you to get through any social situation as if you had mind control).

However, all the recent GM advice I've been reading (and my own recent experience), is that sessions are much more satisfying when players are challenged (getting things accomplished is hard won, villains effectively go after the player or things they care about).

Any suggestions on how I can accomplish the latter given the unfortunate precedent I've set would be appreciated!

(BTW, before you post stuff, I am a "Fan of the Players" - I"m happy to let them be awesome, make up stuff, also I'm not an "antagonist" in the sense that I really am out to get the players or don't want them to succeed)

Sounds like your players enjoy "I win" mode. I have no suggestions on how to do this with SW, it seems like an "I win" system by its very nature.  Going to another system might help.

Whatever you do...do not tell them why.  The "players appreciate hard won victories more" only works if they discover it themselves.  The "I win" games will begin to lose their luster and players will eventually figure out it's the challenge, danger, and real threat of failure that makes the game more exciting.

Or not...they like and can't except anything other than the easy win,in which case you flush and start over.

Good advice. If I were to run Savage Worlds again, I would do the following:

• carefully houserule anything that I as a GM won't be able to handle in terms of presenting challenges
• limit bennies to the recommendation in the book (2-3 additional per session)
• limit the use of the Adventure Deck to just a few key campaign moments

Quote from: PencilBoy99;818838(BTW, before you post stuff, I am a "Fan of the Players" - I"m happy to let them be awesome, make up stuff, also I'm not an "antagonist" in the sense that I really am out to get the players or don't want them to succeed)

Well, that's one thing you're doing wrong, straight away. Be a fan of the characters, instead.

And that doesn't mean that they should just get everything they want - how boring would that be? No, being a fan of the characters is inherently about putting them in "interesting" situations, and seeing what they do in response.

It sounds like your players just want to be told how much they've won, though. And that's not inherently a bad thing, if everyone is enjoying themselves - there's no need to break something that's working just for the hell of it.

I think this is a situation where you need to speak to the rest of the group and find out if everyone's happy, if they want more challenges, etc. Then, try it, and see. May be you need to change system, or GM, or whatever.

Of course, it could be that you're the outlier - if you want more challenge and they don't, you could be the one who is a bad fit for the group.

I am a fan of my players and that's why I challenge them and their PCs as hard and as fairly as I possibly can.

The GM isn't the antagonist vs. the players. Some NPCs are the antagonists of the PCs. Big difference.

Some of my NPCs are really nasty beings, all of my NPCs want to live and they want to accomplish their goals. When that comes into conflict with the PCs, then it's go time. Something's gotta give. Maybe the PCs triumph, maybe the NPCs triumph, or maybe a third option is found. Whatever happens, its MY JOB as the GM to play those NPCs to the hilt. MY JOB is to be true to the world and its inhabitants, and be fair to the players.

But if your players only want "I win" scenarios, then its time for new players.

Maybe this is why I like RPGers who play other games, like boardgame and card games. There is no "I win" in boardgames, even cooperative ones. Even a mellow game like Ticket to Ride or Dominion has winners and losers.

Perhaps too many RPG groups are plagued by bitches who couldn't handle losing at Candyland as toddlers.

I would suggest you just keep on progressively upping the stakes & challenges - and let the PCs win their victories - until the players are feeling challenged. Go from 'Pitch Black' to 'Chronicles of Riddick', as it were - the threats can get ridiculously OTT, because the PCs are equipped to handle them.

This only doesn't work if the players are apt to Turtle and avoid conflict. If they enjoy being Big Damn Heroes, make the most of it.

>> they seem unhappy as soon as I try to present a challenge (e.g., your high skill in Persuade doesn't allow you to get through any social situation as if you had mind control).<<

I had a SW GM who didn't let my maxed-out Persuade PC have any effect on the game. I found that really annoying. Instead, let it work - most of the time. Treat it like a superpower - you can always have the super-psi super-villain, or mindless enemy race (robots? zombies?), who are foreshadowed as being immune to Persuasion.

Ditch SW if you don't want cinematic action that favors the characters. In SW you should come up with moral dilemmas, interpersonal crisis (oh god they kidnapped Aunt Martha AGAIN!), and sprinkle lots of scenery to demonstrate events outside the characters. Example: you're running a modern game where a virus is killing everyone and causing havoc. The PCs can all easily roll to avoid infection. Instead, show them lot's of bodies piled up in sheets, red X's everywhere, plastic covered doors, empty streets filled with trash, EVS clad nation guard arresting and shooting, out of control fires, etc. Make them feel something despite their "invulnerability". Inspire them to be the heroes those numbers on the sheet represent.

Look at more "realistic" systems. Something with a touch more crunch might do it. Unisystem, BRP, or the like. These offer more granularity and tend to not be "super-heroic" out of the box.

Be prepared for some players to bow out. Someone who shows up to play "big damn heroes" in your SW game is not likely to enjoy playing "slightly improved yet still vulnerable normal people". Maybe try out a couple sessions in something less cinematic and see how they take to it?

I don't see the problem being Savage Worlds. Big Damn Heroes in SW can be greatly challenged, just like superheroes, high level D&D or Exalted PCs.

But trechriron is right. The challenges have to be less about rolling high numbers on the dice, and more about a grand plan of action they must imagine and put into motion.

Of course, if you want gritty SW isn't the right system.

Quote from: Spinachcat;818888Of course, if you want gritty SW isn't the right system.

QFT.

I ran SW for about a year, trying to make it gritty.  I banned Soak rolls.  Banned any healing aside from taking 10 minutes to using the Healing skill, and limited that to one attempt per patient.  Didn't give out any bennies during play (granted, this wasn't entirely in search of grit; I also tended to simply forget about giving them out).  Enforced Wound/Fatigue/Encumbrance penalties.  Enforced Incapacitation Table rolls whenever someone went down.  Tried to incorporate various Gritty Damage setting rules where you roll on the Incapacitation Table every time you take a Wound, but tended to forget to actually make those rolls.

None of it worked.  PCs were still nigh-invulnerable.  There were a lot of temporary injuries and a couple permanent injuries, but no real sense of "we could die!".  (While there were a few PC deaths, they were all coup de grâces, not caused by Wounds inflicted in combat.)  It's just not what the system is built for.

Yea, I don't need it to be gritty, but I would like it to be challenging. I'm not making it challenging either through RP or mechanically.