This seems to be the right forum for this kind of post, but let me know if it belongs somewhere else.

I want to ask the community for some advice about my current group of players.  I'm GM'ing a fantasy RPG (heavily homebrewed LotFP).  From the get-go, I announced to players that I wanted to run an old-school style campaign with plenty of death and consequences.  I'm not gunning for their blood, but I wanted there to be a real sense of risk.

Last session (probably our eighth or so), we had our first character death, and two of the players had a problem with that.  The one whose character died told me he had interpreted my description of old-school with lots of death as the same as he and his buddies used to play when he was in high school, with plenty of resurrection magic back at town and a DM who will fudge the party away from TPK.  In other words, no real death, or an absolutely minimal amount.

The other player complained that I was unfair.  Let me set the stage here.  The character died in an encounter that I stole from Tower of the Stargazer - specifically, the ghost that challenges the party to a chess game.  In my case, I replaced chess with Hive, because two of the players are well-acquainted with Hive and are at least as good as I am (chess would not have been fair).  In fact, this particular puzzle was there specifically for those two players.  

The character who died was controlled by another player who decided to sit down at the board before even inspecting the pieces to determine what game he was playing.  Then, as soon as I explained the rules, he made three moves before the experienced players had a chance to give advice.  Once that point was reached, there wasn't much I could do for him without fudging the hell out of it.  And earlier that session, I had interceded for the same player (against my better judgement) to warn him, as the GM, to not do something phenomenally stupid that would have killed him even earlier.

Now I've got two unhappy players, and two who don't have any problem with what happened, and would in fact be disappointed if I made the campaign too safe.  I don't have a lot of role-playing contacts, and all of these folks are friends, so I don't want to alienate anyone.  On top of all this, the guy whose character died has plenty of real-life stuff to worry about, like a wife with serious medical issues.

But the idea of running a medieval Disneyland leaves a bad taste in my mouth.  I thought that I was very specific about what I wanted to do with this setting.  I don't have any real desire to slaughter my players, but what I enjoy about this kind of approach is that I, the GM, has no idea what is going to happen.  I like the idea that I'm just a glorified propmaster, and the players are telling the story.  None of us really knows what's going to happen.  I want to have all kinds of crazy stories like the time one character saved the rest of them from an ogre with a penknife, or the time two of them were trampled to death by their own horse in the midst of a melee.

I am contemplating a kind of compromise that MIGHT give everyone what they want.  I was thinking that maybe there is a cult that can raise people from the dead, but a given person can only be raised three times.  After that, if you're really attached to your character, you probably want to send him into semi-retirement, or you might lose him for good.

Anyway, I'd appreciate any advice you guys have.  Is this campaign doomed?  Am I taking the right approach?  Should I be bending over backwards, or should I be laying down the line?  To be honest, I haven't GM'ed for years, so my skillset is still pretty rusty (and I probably wasn't any good back in the day, anyway).  So anyone's advice is welcome.

The first case is simply a whiny player. Don't give him a finger, because he WILL grab your entire arm. Say "well, THIS is the kind of game THIS campaign is and will be" in a friendly but firm manner.

The second one I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that Joe rolled up a character, Joe played a character, but then on that one particular night (or that particular hour or minute or whatnot), that character was played by Bob? If yes, why? Why did Bob get to play Joe's character? Now, if it was because Joe couldn't attend AND he's discussed it with Bob, then the PC death stands - however, Bob should be given a stern talking to both by you and Joe not to be a reckless dumb idiot when controlling other people's characters, because his reckless dumb idiocy causes real-life emotional distress to others. In fact, maybe people just shouldn't let Bob controll anyone's characters other than his own. If Bob was controlling Joe's character for some other reason, then we need more info on it, but something smells fishy.

Do not make introduce or change rules as a "compromise". It would be rewarding one player for his whining (and teaching him that the tactic works) and another for reckless dumb idiocy. The one thing that might be okay is letting Joe roll up a new PC that's the same level as the previous one (as opposed to whatever sterner consequence I imagine you might have), since its loss was really neither his fault nor bad luck of the dice.

Impulsive player died from impulsivity. Two veteran Hive players are there, but newb wants to try first; after learning the basics, newb moves impulsively without getting advice from those with more experience. Then whines when he dies — from known stakes and known veteran advice nearby.

Those are called consequences, cupcake!

Then third player chimes in that he expected high lethality Fantasy Fuckin' Vietnam! to have resurrections spilling forth from the nearest town store. How he got that idea, none but him knows (somehow behaviors from high school is forever on?). You explicitly said what you're offering and player still only heard what they wanted to hear.

You can't fight being deliberately tuned out. They are not listening to you. They are whining to get their way. Premier is right, put your foot down and drive that campaign like any parent in a car full of rambunctious kids.

This is not being mean. This is you owning up to your responsibility to manage your game. Meanwhile those two are not owning up to their responsibility to pay attention to your foundational guidelines. If you stand down here to bad behavior you will never have a happy table again.

PS: Running for just two has been some of my best gaming ever. You are potentially not losing anything, but gaining a wonderful opportunity. That said, bring everyone's expectations on the same page, have the adult chat, expect adult responses afterwards. If they fail that, maybe your table is not for them and they are welcome to enjoy other activities with you.

Quote from: Premier;888517The second one I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that Joe rolled up a character, Joe played a character, but then on that one particular night (or that particular hour or minute or whatnot), that character was played by Bob?

No, "Bob" had nothing to do with what happened to "Joe."  He just had an opinion about it.  I'm still not sure why he thought it was unfair after so many reckless decisions by the other player.  His argument is weak: player A sat down at the board, and because he lost the board game, he died after a single difficult saving throw roll (at -4).  My point is that player A shouldn't have sat down before looking AT THE TABLE HE WAS SITTING AT, and shouldn't have impulsively made three moves without anyone's advice.  I've pointed this out, and he's admitted I "have a point," but I haven't heard him change his opinion.  It's rather aggravating.

Quote from: Premier;888517The one thing that might be okay is letting Joe roll up a new PC that's the same level as the previous one (as opposed to whatever sterner consequence I imagine you might have)

That's exactly what I had in mind, but the player doesn't want to have to come up with a new character after investing so much in the one who died.  Who was only second level.  He did have some good story lines going, so I was actually disappointed that he did what he did.

Quote from: Premier;888517Do not make introduce or change rules as a "compromise". It would be rewarding one player for his whining (and teaching him that the tactic works) and another for reckless dumb idiocy.

I'd be more inclined to take a hard line if we weren't friends, or if I had a larger pool of players than I have.  Of course, I'm starting to get a bit pessimistic about the salvageability of the situation, and am thinking about an exit strategy that bruises the fewest egos.  But if I can find a way to make things work, I'd like to.

Quote from: Opaopajr;888524PS: Running for just two has been some of my best gaming ever. You are potentially not losing anything, but gaining a wonderful opportunity. That said, bring everyone's expectations on the same page, have the adult chat, expect adult responses afterwards. If they fail that, maybe your table is not for them and they are welcome to enjoy other activities with you.

That's good input; I assumed there was no point with less than three.

Quote from: Edgewise;888508The one whose character died told me he had interpreted my description of old-school with lots of death as the same as he and his buddies used to play when he was in high school, with plenty of resurrection magic back at town and a DM who will fudge the party away from TPK.  In other words, no real death, or an absolutely minimal amount.

Tell him he interpreted incorrectly and next time to try English.  Lots of death means...lots...of...death.  One down.

Quote from: Edgewise;888508The other player complained that I was unfair.

That's nearly always bullshit, but let's see.  

Quote from: Edgewise;888508Let me set the stage here.  The character died in an encounter that I stole from Tower of the Stargazer - specifically, the ghost that challenges the party to a chess game.  In my case, I replaced chess with Hive, because two of the players are well-acquainted with Hive and are at least as good as I am (chess would not have been fair).  In fact, this particular puzzle was there specifically for those two players.  

The character who died was controlled by another player who decided to sit down at the board before even inspecting the pieces to determine what game he was playing.  Then, as soon as I explained the rules, he made three moves before the experienced players had a chance to give advice.  Once that point was reached, there wasn't much I could do for him without fudging the hell out of it.  And earlier that session, I had interceded for the same player (against my better judgement) to warn him, as the GM, to not do something phenomenally stupid that would have killed him even earlier.

Yep.  Complete bullshit.  He sat down and started doing stupid shit not caring for the consequences, until he found out that there were actual consequences.  Life is hard.  It's even harder when you're acting like a fucking dumbass.

Quote from: Edgewise;888508Now I've got two unhappy players

Fuck 'em.

Quote from: Edgewise;888508two who don't have any problem with what happened, and would in fact be disappointed if I made the campaign too safe.

There's your answer right there.

Quote from: Edgewise;888508I don't have a lot of role-playing contacts, and all of these folks are friends, so I don't want to alienate anyone.  On top of all this, the guy whose character died has plenty of real-life stuff to worry about, like a wife with serious medical issues.

First of all, if the guys value your friendship so little that they care more about their characters, then...they're not the friends you think they are.  The second guy, if he's really so affected by real life that he can't NOT play as a fucking dumbass, then maybe you need boardgame night and he should come to that instead.  Once I put a campaign on hold for a while and we played Necromunda for a few months because one guy was going through a divorce and just needed to kill shit.  We still had fun.

Quote from: Edgewise;888508I am contemplating a kind of compromise that MIGHT give everyone what they want.  I was thinking that maybe there is a cult that can raise people from the dead, but a given person can only be raised three times.  After that, if you're really attached to your character, you probably want to send him into semi-retirement, or you might lose him for good.

Never compromise to crybabies.  You want to run a specific type of campaign and you have two players who are right there with you.  Go with it.  The first guy is being a total crybaby, flush his ass if you need to.  
 

Quote from: Edgewise;888508Is this campaign doomed?

Only if you sacrifice the campaign for the crybabies.  

Quote from: Edgewise;888508Am I taking the right approach?

Yes.  

Quote from: Edgewise;888508Should I be bending over backwards, or should I be laying down the line?

Is this a trick question?  Laying down the law.

Quote from: Edgewise;888528That's good input; I assumed there was no point with less than three.

Just like larger tables changes the dynamics of what is possible, so do smaller tables. But in case it is not apparent where to go from that easy comment, let me offer more detailed advice:

• Hirelings and Henchmen and Followers are your friends here. They allow a smaller table to temporarily punch above their numbers. Do assure them that a) you have no interest in GMPC Mary Sues, b) these NPC are not their very own enslaved cannon fodder.

• Splitting up is still useful, and in some ways easier now due to the easier potential to take one or another aside for more fleshed out secret activity. Less players sitting at the table bored; usually one person can entertain themselves without revolt or goofy collusion for a minute or two.

• Explore and Social missions start to really shine here. With the party's Leroy Jenkins likely not present, a lot of finesse missions can now flourish. Keep the stakes a touch lower, like make them a small part of a larger scheme, and the duo will likely surprise you.

• Lack of numbers makes risk higher and changes approaches to encounters. In some duos this ends up skirting combat more, ambushes and kiting tactics, and trying out parley. It is a very refreshing shift for many tables used to combat grinds.

Quote from: Edgewise;888526No, "Bob" had nothing to do with what happened to "Joe."  He just had an opinion about it.  I'm still not sure why he thought it was unfair after so many reckless decisions by the other player.  His argument is weak: player A sat down at the board, and because he lost the board game, he died after a single difficult saving throw roll (at -4).  My point is that player A shouldn't have sat down before looking AT THE TABLE HE WAS SITTING AT, and shouldn't have impulsively made three moves without anyone's advice.  I've pointed this out, and he's admitted I "have a point," but I haven't heard him change his opinion.  It's rather aggravating.

Ah, okay, I got you. Bob is a fucking whiner even after it was established to everyone involved that his "argument" doesn't have a leg to stand on. If Joe lost his own character due to his own reckless stupidity but didn't take it too hard, good on him.

QuoteThat's exactly what I had in mind, but the player doesn't want to have to come up with a new character after investing so much in the one who died.  Who was only second level.  He did have some good story lines going, so I was actually disappointed that he did what he did.

Playing just for the second level characters who died after 8 sessions with some good storylines going. I didn't complain when I've lost my 11th level PC during the last session of the campaign just because another PC shot a raygun at a nuke and forevermore robbed me of playing out the storyline of the morally troubled pragmatic champion of a dark god, so this guy should shut up.

QuoteI'd be more inclined to take a hard line if we weren't friends, or if I had a larger pool of players than I have.  Of course, I'm starting to get a bit pessimistic about the salvageability of the situation, and am thinking about an exit strategy that bruises the fewest egos.  But if I can find a way to make things work, I'd like to.

If they're your friends AND halfway decent roleplayers, they'll understand and respect you for running the campaign in a fair and firm manner.

Oh, and as the mantra goes, there are no in-game solutions to out-of-game problems. And the problems here centre around the personalities and whininess of your players, which is an out-of-game problem. If you want to address the situation in a way other than ignoring it or shutting everything down, what you have to do is have an OOC conversation about the matter.

No mercy for the weak or the stupid.

Also, the best EVER gaming I've done is one player, one ref.

Also, as far as "player needs," they need to grow the fuck up.

Quote from: Opaopajr;888533But in case it is not apparent where to go from that easy comment, let me offer more detailed advice:

Thanks - this is all good advice.  I wonder if it would be worth using some of Kevin Crawford's rules for Scarlet Heroes (such as the Fray Die and hit die damage).

Quote from: CRKrueger;888530The second guy, if he's really so affected by real life that he can't NOT play as a fucking dumbass, then maybe you need boardgame night and he should come to that instead.  Once I put a campaign on hold for a while and we played Necromunda for a few months because one guy was going through a divorce and just needed to kill shit.  We still had fun.

Not a bad idea.  Maybe I should just do something else with this guy.

Quote from: CRKrueger;888530Is this a trick question?  Laying down the law.

Honestly, it's nice to hear this stuff after I've been getting all this criticisms from the guy who said I was unfair.  He's been GMing his own group for a number of years, and he can get pretty prescriptive with his endless suggestions.  It's harder to completely blow him off when he has a lot more hands-on experience, but for such an experienced guy, he hasn't been constructive in this situation.  So thanks.

Well since everyone else beat me to playing the bad cop, I'll try to play the good cop.

Quote from: Edgewise;888508From the get-go, I announced to players that I wanted to run an old-school style campaign with plenty of death and consequences.  I'm not gunning for their blood, but I wanted there to be a real sense of risk.

Last session (probably our eighth or so), we had our first character death, and two of the players had a problem with that.  The one whose character died told me he had interpreted my description of old-school with lots of death as the same as he and his buddies used to play when he was in high school, with plenty of resurrection magic back at town and a DM who will fudge the party away from TPK.

So a failure to communicate. OK. That happens. Old-school is an ambiguous term. A lot of folks from what I'd call middle school think they are actually old school.

QuoteThe other player complained that I was unfair...
The character who died was controlled by another player who decided to sit down at the board before even inspecting the pieces to determine what game he was playing.  Then, as soon as I explained the rules, he made three moves before the experienced players had a chance to give advice.  Once that point was reached, there wasn't much I could do for him without fudging the hell out of it.  And earlier that session, I had interceded for the same player (against my better judgement) to warn him, as the GM, to not do something phenomenally stupid that would have killed him even earlier.

A player who doesn't understand the difference between "fair" and "give him what he wants." OK. That happens on the internet rather more often than it probably should.

QuoteBut the idea of running a medieval Disneyland leaves a bad taste in my mouth.  I thought that I was very specific about what I wanted to do with this setting.

You did think that, but it appears there still was a failure to communicate.

QuoteI don't have any real desire to slaughter my players, but what I enjoy about this kind of approach is that I, the GM, has no idea what is going to happen.  I like the idea that I'm just a glorified propmaster, and the players are telling the story.  None of us really knows what's going to happen.  I want to have all kinds of crazy stories like the time one character saved the rest of them from an ogre with a penknife, or the time two of them were trampled to death by their own horse in the midst of a melee.

This, especially the "trampled to death by their own horse" part should be part of your pitch for what you want to run. You should also add in, "and then those two players had to create brand new characters."

QuoteAnyway, I'd appreciate any advice you guys have.  Is this campaign doomed?  Am I taking the right approach?  Should I be bending over backwards, or should I be laying down the line?

Some of this you need to figure out for you and your group. You need to do a few things.

First, explain again to the players what kind of campaign you want to run. Be sure to make it clear that unheroic death without resurrection is a possibility whether that death is due to a succession of bad die rolls or to poor player choices or to a combination of the two. Make sure they understand that death without resurrection is likely, especially if players don't plan and choose extremely risky or hare-brained actions for their PCs.

Second ask your players if they are OK with a game like that. Keep track of who is and who isn't.

If all the players are OK, then play on. If it would make the affected players happier to keep their first characters, you might allow them to resurrect these characters as a onetime nice guy do over based on an initial miscommunication of expectations. But make it clear this is one time only.

If some of the players are not OK with the style of play you want, then you need to ask yourself if you are willing to change to a style that would accommodate all of the players - if there even is such a play style. And if you aren't OK then for Ghu's sake don't try to change. An unenthusiastic GM is a recipe for bad gaming.

If there is no good compromise play style, then you need to get the players who don't like your style to take a hike and play with the ones who do like your style. It sounds like two of your players are good with your preferred style. Try playing with just them.

Quote from: Bren;888581So a failure to communicate. OK. That happens. Old-school is an ambiguous term. A lot of folks from what I'd call middle school think they are actually old school.

Yeah, I think that if I have made any mistakes, it is probably in getting across exactly what I had in mind.

Quote from: Bren;888581This, especially the "trampled to death by their own horse" part should be part of your pitch for what you want to run. You should also add in, "and then those two players had to create brand new characters."

Sure, although in fairness that's really an edge case.  Unless we're talking about werehorses.  Which are everywhere.

Quote from: Edgewise;888587Sure, although in fairness that's really an edge case.  Unless we're talking about werehorses.  Which are everywhere.

While the specific example is probably an edge case, the ability to derive amusement from a series of calamitous events driven by poor PC choices and/or bad die rolls that leads to PC death is a part of what I think of as an old school style. So in that sense, the example is emblematic of the tone and feel of old school.

If players really, really don't want that or can't deal with that then they should be playing a different style.

Quote from: Edgewise;888508The character who died was controlled by another player who decided to sit down at the board before even inspecting the pieces to determine what game he was playing.  Then, as soon as I explained the rules, he made three moves before the experienced players had a chance to give advice.  Once that point was reached, there wasn't much I could do for him without fudging the hell out of it.  And earlier that session, I had interceded for the same player (against my better judgement) to warn him, as the GM, to not do something phenomenally stupid that would have killed him even earlier.

It sucks when there are games within games, instead of just sticking with the basics like role-playing.