Sometimes my players start to get their asses kicked to often. This last Monday for example, they got smashed to a man and were only saved by innocent bystanders who could see that the bad guys were out of spells.
It is a difficult situation because the fight that went bad was actually a side event. The party is actually hunting a vampire. They still don't know that all of this bad shit is because of a minor oni in the area.
As I start to plan for next weeks game, I find myself coming up with easy encounters -- ideas for seemingly difficult fights that the party can't help but win. I feel like they need it, for fun, and to build up their confidence... maybe just to smash down when they let them vampire ambush them in their sleep, but maybe not.
I know the game intends, Pathfinder and D&D 3.x, to have the party fight through a number of easy encounters before a winnable boss fight. I'm not talking about the grind.
Anyone else ever make an enemy seem really strong, just so the players can smash it down and have fun doing it?
Sure! Sometimes I do that. It's all in appearances, and it's good for the players to seriously kick ass from time to time, whether the enemies are actually powerful or not, whether the players know they are, or not.
Why do your players get their asses handed out to them so often, though? Is it just bad luck, or poor judgment on their parts?
They don't like to think and I run a bit of a thinking game. My villains are usually vulnerable so they hide and plan. The party never investigates, normally. There usual mo is to go into the area where the bad guy is, wait to get ambushed, then try to win.
They honestly have more fun when I run games where they can be on the attack against sedimtary enemies and then role play there feelings all day. I can only stomach so much of that but no one else will gm.
Quote from: Cranewings;411136I can only stomach so much of that but no one else will gm.
Did you actually discuss about this, in particular, with the players?
Quote from: Benoist;411146Did you actually discuss about this, in particular, with the players?
Oh yeah, they know. I even went so far as to help rebuild one guys palladium collection, but he won't do it. He keeps putting his turn off.
Sounds to me like this is the underlying issue. If you have players who are basically passive, don't really care whether they win or lose, and wait for the NPCs/monsters to get to them instead of the other way around, padding the dungeon won't really make it more entertaining to them, and certainly not to you. That's the point after all.
Have you tried to ... do nothing at all? That is, to wait until they actually do something?
See, they like winning combat. They also love play acting. I should probably go buy a forge game.
What they don't care to try is figuring out how to be proactive outside of combat.
Yes, I have tried doing nothing. They will litterally sit for hours, and finally derail into YouTube sharing.
Strange situation. They seem to be passive outside of combat, love combat itself, and also love to role play their characters between themselves. Have you tried to run them through pure dungeon crawling experiences, that is, with little to no backstory to the thing, very old school style? Piece together a dungeon that doesn't require much thinking/puzzling/choosing between zillions of options, and that might work wonders with these guys.
Well, CW, since we're both still members of the "FUCK YOU ASSHOLE! PEOPLE WILL USE WHATEVER DAMN AVATAR THEY WANT AND YOU'VE GOT SHIT TO SAY ABOUT IT, YOU POMPOUS MOTHERFUCKER!" club I'd love to help you out here but honestly, if your players refuse to do their homework in character and learn things to help them beat the enemy I don't know what to say other than kill a few and see if that wakes them up.
Another option, if you're not so bloodthirsty, would be to have a GM's hand come into the game in the form of a veteran NPC who has the same goal the players have but a lot more experience. Have him try to teach the newbies some common sense tactics and wisdom, sort of like Sean Connery's character tried to teach tom sawyer in the LoXG movie.
If you can do a decent sean connery voice while running him that ought to get their attention.
Quote from: Benoist;411154Strange situation. They seem to be passive outside of combat, love combat itself, and also love to role play their characters between themselves. Have you tried to run them through pure dungeon crawling experiences, that is, with little to no backstory to the thing, very old school style? Piece together a dungeon that doesn't require much thinking/puzzling/choosing between zillions of options, and that might work wonders with these guys.
The other thing that they like is have a complex environment. The characters are all Rokugani nobility, so there is always something in the game world to talk about.
Actually, the kind of game I would think they would like is supers. Lots of combat, bad guys that are really strong, but didn't earn that strength so aren't always smart and or secretive, lots to talk about, lots to RP, but for the most part, you hang out until there is a crisis and then go take care of it.
The problem I run into with this group running heroes is that they always end up taking a giant shit on the game. You can't tell a player what kind of character to make, because he will feel like his creativity is being stifled. So then half of them go make some piece of shit wolverine / punisher / dead pool asshole and the first time a bad guy uses super strength to rob a bank without hurting any bystanders, they cut his head off in front of news crews. This then causes the game to turn into just the sort of thing they hate, everyone on edge, plotting in the shadows, making complicated decisions because it got real.
In response to the OP: No, I actually tend to do the opposite. If I want to give my group a cheap thrill I will do it on the "dungeon filler" or rolled encounters. If the group would find ogres, for examples, they instead encounter a big swarm of well-armed goblins and get to wallow in the blood of their enemies. This is fun. When fate plays funny tricks, I might even land lucky shots or the wizard's player might lob their fireball in a spot that catches a friend.
Important keyed encounters (to use a dusty term), I tend to make more challenging than the RAW prescribe. I think I've been burned by far too many "Necromancer Overlords" with d4 hitpoints going down in a round over the years. I tend to play my smart bad guys tough and well prepared, and my players know it by now. With my group, the players always seem to be more satisfied with a battle barely won over a battle with a high body count.
In response to your group dynamic: This might be the bigger issue. You deserve credit for wearing the viking hat for longer than most. Many of us have been there.
It sounds like your style and the style of your players is clashing a bit. I don't think that has to end in disaster. I would look for opportunities to sync them. (What system are we talking about by the way?) Without knowing more I'll just pop out the idea that maybe slapping some kind of Drive/Motivation system onto your game would gel with your group.
Bishop, thanks for the reply.
Honestly, I tend to play most of my encounters as pretty well prepared. Most of the time they are fighting other humans or monsters that live outside. Neither group is unprepared for battle, certainly not human Samurai.
We are playing Pathfinder, 4-5th level characters, in a bastardized Rokugan. So what do you mean drive / motivation system?
Quote from: Benoist;411154Strange situation. They seem to be passive outside of combat, love combat itself, and also love to role play their characters between themselves.
Have you tried a Professional Wrestling/Boxing game?
Sounds like what your players would like.
Maybe have them inherit a ring in your game and have a go at running it.
=
Quote from: Cranewings;411198We are playing Pathfinder, 4-5th level characters, in a bastardized Rokugan. So what do you mean drive / motivation system?
Well, supposing you have an RP-heavy group in d20 system there are many variations you can go on, as long as it doesn't throw encounters wildly off balance. The key for you being to sync their desire to RP as a collective and you getting them to kick some ass.
1) Cooperative feats. I can't think of anything published offhand, but when I've been stuck in a situation like yours I've offered combat-related to the characters that were really buddy-buddy. In general, they had to be X number of spaces from each other or could offer their benefit to another Y number of spaces.
2) Motivation. Depending on how you want to work this, you can ask your players to translate their character's motivations and "background." The gimmick here is to turn their roleplaying into balanced game effects. You could rule that everyone gets +1 to a save and +1 a skill for a background or an exp deficit. Bill might take you up on that, and do a writeup to explain why his samurai has a +1 fort and +1 Gather Information (he was a drunk, by the way, sorry). The only rule being that everyone gets the same benefit.
3) Passion. You could award in-game benefits to players for RP. I've always found this muddy.
Quote from: winkingbishop;411209Well, supposing you have an RP-heavy group in d20 system there are many variations you can go on, as long as it doesn't throw encounters wildly off balance. The key for you being to sync their desire to RP as a collective and you getting them to kick some ass.
1) Cooperative feats. I can't think of anything published offhand, but when I've been stuck in a situation like yours I've offered combat-related to the characters that were really buddy-buddy. In general, they had to be X number of spaces from each other or could offer their benefit to another Y number of spaces.
2) Motivation. Depending on how you want to work this, you can ask your players to translate their character's motivations and "background." The gimmick here is to turn their roleplaying into balanced game effects. You could rule that everyone gets +1 to a save and +1 a skill for a background or an exp deficit. Bill might take you up on that, and do a writeup to explain why his samurai has a +1 fort and +1 Gather Information (he was a drunk, by the way, sorry). The only rule being that everyone gets the same benefit.
3) Passion. You could award in-game benefits to players for RP. I've always found this muddy.
Those are all good ideas, an honestly, I use all of them already. They actually love fighting and are good at role play. The problem is more in how they go about interacting with the game world...
Give you an idea, here are a couple of scenarios and how they would go about it.
Scenario -- They must approach a house with a front and back door and arrest the man inside.
Execution -- Walk strait up to the front door. No one goes around back.
Scenario -- Assassin has killed two people in a castle. Stop him.
Execution -- Pretend to be wealthy dignitaries of the same group. Get a room at the castle. Go to sleep with little or no protection. Hope to win the fight.
Scenario -- Stop two nobles from fighting with each other.
Execution -- Talk to the first one you meet. Listen to his side. Go back to court and repeat it in front of king and country, slandering the other noble while asking for support for the other.
Scenario -- Without hurting anyone, powerful villain has broken out of jail twice to rob banks.
Execution -- Murder him in front of news crews so he can't do it again.
Quote from: Greentongue;411205Have you tried a Professional Wrestling/Boxing game?
Sounds like what your players would like.
Maybe have them inherit a ring in your game and have a go at running it.
=
That... is fucking genius. I might.
It is a very good idea. :)
Quote from: Cranewings;411218That... is fucking genius. I might.
Here's a RPG based on wrestling, called "Rasslin'!"
http://www.hexgames.com/qags/component/virtuemart/details/10/10/all-products/colin-thomas-presents-rasslin%27-pdf
Quote from: Cranewings;411217Those are all good ideas, an honestly, I use all of them already. They actually love fighting and are good at role play. The problem is more in how they go about interacting with the game world...
Give you an idea, here are a couple of scenarios and how they would go about it.
Scenario -- They must approach a house with a front and back door and arrest the man inside.
Execution -- Walk strait up to the front door. No one goes around back.
Scenario -- Assassin has killed two people in a castle. Stop him.
Execution -- Pretend to be wealthy dignitaries of the same group. Get a room at the castle. Go to sleep with little or no protection. Hope to win the fight.
I see. Your players seem to have discovered the James Bond Method.
Quote from: Cranewings;411217Those are all good ideas, an honestly, I use all of them already. They actually love fighting and are good at role play. The problem is more in how they go about interacting with the game world...
Oh ho, I see what you mean now. Tis a slippery slope you walk. Do you just make the fights easier since they aren't "thinkers?" Could you instead gently punish them (keep the fights at the difficulty you planned) in the hopes of "training" them to do better? I can't speak for you or your group, I don't know how much chemistry you have, but I can tell what
I think I would do in a similar situation.
Keep a mix of encounters in every session. Sure, let the players kick open the door and bum rush the slack-jawed bad guys like they want. But I would certainly have my more brutal, thought-intensive encounters. If they bleed, they bleed. These fights would have been easier if the players had used some sort of a plan.
Then, during the session debriefing I would mention this. Depending, again, on your "chemistry" either to the whole group or just to a couple of guys you think were close to forming a plan, got their ass especially kicked, or tend to be group leaders.
Maybe it will stick, maybe it won't. I believe there is a silver lining to most gaming situations and groups, you play to have fun and all that happy horse shit. But you're the one running the game so you shouldn't be miserable trying to fit their playing style.
Quote from: Soylent Green;411261I see. Your players seem to have discovered the James Bond Method.
That is pretty funny, and pretty true.
Quote from: winkingbishop;411271Oh ho, I see what you mean now. Tis a slippery slope you walk. Do you just make the fights easier since they aren't "thinkers?" Could you instead gently punish them (keep the fights at the difficulty you planned) in the hopes of "training" them to do better? I can't speak for you or your group, I don't know how much chemistry you have, but I can tell what I think I would do in a similar situation.
Keep a mix of encounters in every session. Sure, let the players kick open the door and bum rush the slack-jawed bad guys like they want. But I would certainly have my more brutal, thought-intensive encounters. If they bleed, they bleed. These fights would have been easier if the players had used some sort of a plan.
Then, during the session debriefing I would mention this. Depending, again, on your "chemistry" either to the whole group or just to a couple of guys you think were close to forming a plan, got their ass especially kicked, or tend to be group leaders.
Maybe it will stick, maybe it won't. I believe there is a silver lining to most gaming situations and groups, you play to have fun and all that happy horse shit. But you're the one running the game so you shouldn't be miserable trying to fit their playing style.
I hear ya. In a lot of ways I think they want a realistic, immersion game. They don't respect it if they think I changed something. If I ever have a cut scene, like the ship they are passengers on being sunk or something, I've had them directly ask me if it was organic or planned. They want random, organic, preplanned material characters in a randomly sorted world, they just seem to hope that magically it will bend around their will.
It's hard to read the situation over the net, so please be aware that I'm going to make a heap of assumptions.
You say your players love combat but I doubt they're very tactically minded even in combat. So I also doubt that they're very trainable.
That said, if you've been playing with kid gloves, you may have trained them yourself that the best way to deal with a problem is to just blunder into it, since everything always turns out okay in the end. I doubt this, given your "angry players" thread, but it's a possibility. If so, I'd suggest finding a way to make PC death more palatable (IMO, you could start by using a system with quick & easy chargen), and then letting them bash around until they figure things out.
You may also be dealing with people who don't like to think strategically, but who do enjoy tactics. You'll have to sort that out yourself. If so, then the answer of course is to revert to the "string of EL-balanced encounters" model that basically seems to dominate modern D&D scenario writing. Do not offer anything which will distract the players. Simply give them scenarios that require them to do A then B then C in a straight line, with a fight at each stage. It sounds like these guys are very predictable, so you don't have to worry about them getting creative and skipping an encounter.
But, if they're crap at actually managing a fight as well as being strategically hopeless, this isn't the way to go. Instead I'd look to a game that uses a simple one-dimensional attritional model of combat, but with "perks" that add some flash and narrative color. Old-school D&D can be run this way by using a very abstract approach to positioning (you basically just need to know if enemies are in missile or melee range, and whether PCs are in the front or second rank). The color comes from spells, magic items, and monster special abilities. FTA! might also do the trick (based on a partial reading), because it's got stunts. Heroquest (also based on partial reading) could also be an option. From there, you just make sure the players have enough information to be able to tell if they're winning or losing. Depending on how pathetic they are, you might have to tell them the enemies' remaining hit points during the fight. Hopefully not, but the basic idea is to make things sufficiently transparent that they'll be able to decide for themselves whether to continue fighting or to run away. And if they do run away, give the opponents at most one free strike before disengaging.
It is the weirdest thing, they use to be better years ago. They have gotten WORSE! It is so strange and I can only think to blame the other game that they do.
But yeah, good advice. I'm still thinking about what I can do differently. I like the string of encounters idea, but I know that most of them would be bored.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;411375But, if they're crap at actually managing a fight as well as being strategically hopeless, this isn't the way to go. Instead I'd look to a game that uses a simple one-dimensional attritional model of combat, but with "perks" that add some flash and narrative color. Old-school D&D can be run this way by using a very abstract approach to positioning (you basically just need to know if enemies are in missile or melee range, and whether PCs are in the front or second rank). The color comes from spells, magic items, and monster special abilities. FTA! might also do the trick (based on a partial reading), because it's got stunts. Heroquest (also based on partial reading) could also be an option. From there, you just make sure the players have enough information to be able to tell if they're winning or losing. Depending on how pathetic they are, you might have to tell them the enemies' remaining hit points during the fight. Hopefully not, but the basic idea is to make things sufficiently transparent that they'll be able to decide for themselves whether to continue fighting or to run away. And if they do run away, give the opponents at most one free strike before disengaging.
That's basically what I had in mind when suggesting straightforward dungeon crawling earlier in the thread. *nod*
Why would they be bored?
I'm thinking maybe it's because they know in advance what must happen--that they have to do A, then B, then C.
But you don't have to tell them that. You just set things up so that they'll do A, and having done A, the most obvious/direct thing to do is B. Or I should say, it's obvious to you, knowing them, that they'll do B after they do A. You may have to avoid offering sidetracks, which sounds like what might have happened in the incident that triggered this thread.
Traveling is a good scenario set up for this since it makes it natural for there to be a fixed progression of encounters, with or without telling the players in advance what to expect. (Probably they'll know about some things, and not about others.)
Another might be to take the action to the players immediately, which sort of reverses the pattern you've described. Instead of having them blundering into situations and getting ambushed, you can just ambush them right from the start. E.g., they've just arrived at some castle, and right when they're being welcomed, there's an attack by a rival lord or a monster. (A little like the story of the Argonauts & Phineas & the harpies.)
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;411470Why would they be bored?
I'm thinking maybe it's because they know in advance what must happen--that they have to do A, then B, then C.
But you don't have to tell them that. You just set things up so that they'll do A, and having done A, the most obvious/direct thing to do is B. Or I should say, it's obvious to you, knowing them, that they'll do B after they do A. You may have to avoid offering sidetracks, which sounds like what might have happened in the incident that triggered this thread.
Traveling is a good scenario set up for this since it makes it natural for there to be a fixed progression of encounters, with or without telling the players in advance what to expect. (Probably they'll know about some things, and not about others.)
Another might be to take the action to the players immediately, which sort of reverses the pattern you've described. Instead of having them blundering into situations and getting ambushed, you can just ambush them right from the start. E.g., they've just arrived at some castle, and right when they're being welcomed, there's an attack by a rival lord or a monster. (A little like the story of the Argonauts & Phineas & the harpies.)
I'll mull it over. Thanks for the help man.