"Just Not Fun"

[Kesnit]

In talking to one of my players, I've come to the conclusion that what I (as the DM) consider fun is not what the players want.

The Party
S (my wife): Human Barbarian 2/Warlock 10
P: Elf Bard 12
B: Homebrew Cat Race Rogue/SORC/Daggerspell Mage (not sure on exact level breakdowns)
R: Human Factotium 12

I hate running encounters that the party steamrolls. I feel like if I am doing that, then I may as well just have them walk in a room, wave their arms, and get the treasure. I don't necessary feel like they have to come close to death, but I want to feel like they "earned" their victory - that there was some effort involved.

The players want to steamroll everything. If S gets close to death, she starts making threats to have me sleep on the couch. The one time B's character died, he threw a hissy fit. P doesn't say much, but I'd rather not kill her PC since I'd be the one to build her a new one. R is OK with challenge and PC death, but has had to miss the past several sessions due to assorted circumstances, and I don't know when he'll be back.

I've found that if monsters use anything except HP-damaging attacks, the players whine. (I can get away with STR-draining since they are all DEX based.) But crowd-control, debuffing, etc annoy the players. (They have no way to counter any of it.) SR (even level appropriate) gets some complaints, though not a lot.

Complicating matters is the fact that their builds are rather lopsided. S has an AC 5 higher than B and 6 higher than P, and she typically does 2X the damage as either of them. (If she rolls well and gets a full attack - not difficult with Pounce - she does up to 4X the damage of anyone else.) If I try to build to challenge S, I flatten B and P. If I build to the level of B and P, S runs over everything. (R once called me on the fact that I gave enemies max HP. I did that because otherwise, S one-shots everything. Even giving max HP, she can one-shot many on a full attack.)

They don't RP - both S and I have tried to get the others to RP, but all they want to do is murder-hobo. I added an encounter trap, but they just gave up and bypassed the room with d-door.

The conversation with S about the encounter trap is what led to S telling me the game "just isn't fun" for anyone. The players don't like being challenged, and I don't like watching encounters I spent time building be demolished in 2 rounds.

Help?

[Nifft]

I've found that if monsters use anything except HP-damaging attacks, the players whine. (I can get away with STR-draining since they are all DEX based.) But crowd-control, debuffing, etc annoy the players. (They have no way to counter any of it.) SR (even level appropriate) gets some complaints, though not a lot.

This tells me that you've fallen victim to player coercion.

You've lost the ability to act as referee for your group, since they all know they can badger you into changing the world to suit their whims.

My advice is to ask someone else to run for a while. If nobody wants to run, get a couple of new players (to change the group dynamic), and stop taking crap from your old players.

(Except your wife. Always take crap from your wife. But try not to show her preferential game treatment in front of others. Have a long private talk about this with her, and make sure she's on board with whatever you do. She's way more important than the game.)

[Red Fel]

The conversation with S about the encounter trap is what led to S telling me the game "just isn't fun" for anyone. The players don't like being challenged, and I don't like watching encounters I spent time building be demolished in 2 rounds.

Help?

Have you considered stepping down as DM? I don't mean permanently, but it sounds like both the DM and the players are dealing with some frustration, and sometimes the best way to deal with that is to step back for awhile. Let one of them run a game or two, and you play. This will accomplish three very valuable things. Vacation. A stressed DM is a problem, because consciously or not, you will end up venting your frustration in the game. A happy DM means happier players, and vice-versa. As I said, everyone taking a break from their usual roles means everyone taking a breather and cooling off. A player learns what it means to DM. The DM's job can be hard and thankless. If at least one player learns how it feels, you may find that, once you've retaken the DM chair, you have a sympathetic ear when you express your frustrations. And that helps you. A DM is reminded of what it means to play. It happens; sometimes you get so bogged down in rules and worldbuilding and mechanics and encounter design that you forget the fun that players can have - and the fun they prefer to have. Their expectations don't always line up with yours. Spend some time as a player every now and then, and remind yourself.
Now, once you've done that, taken a break and returned refreshed, there are a few more things you can do. Define expectations. Clearly, your players' expectations differ from yours. You expect to provide challenges, traps, and obstacles that they must overcome; they expect you to play to their strengths, and provide them with victories to enjoy. You, and they, need to sit down and find a middle ground. Once you have expectations in common, things will go more smoothly. Balance power. It sounds like S has some major mechanical advantages, or at least plays well. Balancing encounters can be hard when the players are on unequal footing. In future games, encourage the players to collaborate, and come up with concepts which fall into roughly the same power bracket, so that nobody gets particularly left out or punished when you start challenging the party. Reward creative thinking. The DDoor trick was clearly bothering you. It is, however, a creative and appropriate (if reckless) option when available to the party. Be more willing to embrace creative thinking, provided that the players don't turn things into crutches and trump cards. (Talk to them out of game when this kind of thing bothers you.) This is also a way to balance powers; a less powerful character played by a clever player can have unexpected ways to be useful. But you, as DM, have to be receptive to the idea.

[Geddy2112]

If nobody is having fun, then don't play. No game is better than a bad game. Also, it can be tricky having a spouse/partner in a game, particularly when they are on opposite sides of the DM screen. I would talk with your wife and make sure the game stays in game, and the out of game stays out of game. That is really something all players should follow, but it is even more important when there is a romantic relationship.

I second what others have said above as well.

[Vrakk]

I agree with the previous posts, stepping down for a bit seems the best option. Particularly if one of your players can run the game - it lets them know just how much work it can be. If no one will run it, take a break. The break should let your players miss the game and be more receptive to change.

Let them know how you feel. That it isn't fun for you and it stresses you out. I had to do the same thing once, I lost control of the group and it became like a job to run the game and deal with the players. I took a few weeks off and we re-started. Since optimization was the problem I was having (part of the group was crazy optimized and the other was not) and I was not experienced enough to run a game that was challenging for all of them - we re-started with core only. It sounds boring but it was the best games we had. Power levels were closer, rules disputes were almost non-existent, role-playing became a thing again. Nothing really balances out a fighter and a wizard but in our game we found that core only made it a little more equal.

[Gabrosin]

I agree with the sentiment that stepping down for a while is the best option, but I know that sometimes you're the only one willing to DM. If this is one of those cases, you should take a few steps to get your game on the right track again.

First, talk with your wife about scaling down her power level for the good of the group. Specifically, get rid of pounce. From her character, from the rest of the party, and from any enemies they're going to face. While it's nothing compared to high level magic, it's one of the biggest culprits in unbalancing a melee fighter from the rest of an unoptimized group.

Second, adjust the tactics of the enemies your group is facing. Since S's character is smashing her way through everything she faces, she's going to gain quite a reputation for combat prowess. Intelligent enemies are going to try to take her out first. Throw swarms of enemies at her... they don't have to be strong enough to seriously harm her, just enough to impede her. Break up her charge lines. Let the real threats in the back have time to operate because she's busy wading through a throng of summoned dire rabbits. She can still make things go kersplat every round, but her actions will be tied up with non-threats.

Third, beef up the defenses of the opposition in more ways than HP. Forcing a melee specialist to fight through mirror images or navigate miss chances adds to the challenge they face (and the length of the encounter) without making it substantially more dangerous to the party. It might force them to cooperate to overcome such defenses before the bad guys go down.

Fourth, continue to provide encounters that have nothing to do with combat. Stack them up against obviously superior opposition, so that if they force the situation to go to combat, they have little excuse for being mad at you when they lose. Oh, so they took on Torm in a straight fight instead of navigating a social path through the encounter? Well, they wound up in extradimensional prison because they're idiots. It's not healthy for RP if every encounter is solved by violence.

Fifth, start suggesting as they pulp their way through encounters that the party is reaching the limits of what you can do to challenge them, and maybe it's time to start up a new campaign at a lower level. Find a place to bring the campaign to the end, let their characters walk away heroes, and then be more firm the next time through during character creation.

[Segev]

As ever, the best advice revolves around talking to people. In this case, I would simply ask them: What do you want to see? What is a fun encounter from their perspective? Ask them and be ready to ask more probing questions to discern their desires. Do your best not to ask leading questions; the temptation will be strong to get defensive and phrase your defenses in the form of aggressive questions. I know this because I do it too often. You do not want your questions to take the form of, "How do you expect..?" or "So you don't want challenge?" or the like. You want to determine what they DO want to see, what they think sounds like fun.

[Gabrosin]

As ever, the best advice revolves around talking to people. In this case, I would simply ask them: What do you want to see? What is a fun encounter from their perspective? Ask them and be ready to ask more probing questions to discern their desires. Do your best not to ask leading questions; the temptation will be strong to get defensive and phrase your defenses in the form of aggressive questions. I know this because I do it too often. You do not want your questions to take the form of, "How do you expect..?" or "So you don't want challenge?" or the like. You want to determine what they DO want to see, what they think sounds like fun.

And keep in mind that if what they describe doesn't sound like it's fun for you, then you need to tell them that, and be prepared to step down if they don't care. The game is a community experience. DMs need to "win" sometimes too, whether through posing a clever challenge, producing a surprise, or simply taking the party to their limits in a fight. The OOC threats and cajoling need to stop, though. Even if it means sleeping on the couch.

[Segev]

If the "sleeping on the couch" thing is more serious than joking, then it probably is best if you step down. Try not to make it "her fault," but you can't run a game if OOC punishments are in the making for you trying to run the game impartially.



(Not part of this thread, but now I have another example for the thread on tropes that apply only in one direction, gender-wise: You never see a guy threatening to make his wife/girlfriend sleep on the couch, and it's always taken as a serious threat when the wife/girlfriend threatens the guy that way.)

[Venger]

In talking to one of my players, I've come to the conclusion that what I (as the DM) consider fun is not what the players want.

The Party
S (my wife): Human Barbarian 2/Warlock 10
P: Elf Bard 12
B: Homebrew Cat Race Rogue/SORC/Daggerspell Mage (not sure on exact level breakdowns)
R: Human Factotium 12

I hate running encounters that the party steamrolls. I feel like if I am doing that, then I may as well just have them walk in a room, wave their arms, and get the treasure. I don't necessary feel like they have to come close to death, but I want to feel like they "earned" their victory - that there was some effort involved.

The players want to steamroll everything. If S gets close to death, she starts making threats to have me sleep on the couch. The one time B's character died, he threw a hissy fit. P doesn't say much, but I'd rather not kill her PC since I'd be the one to build her a new one. R is OK with challenge and PC death, but has had to miss the past several sessions due to assorted circumstances, and I don't know when he'll be back.

I've found that if monsters use anything except HP-damaging attacks, the players whine. (I can get away with STR-draining since they are all DEX based.) But crowd-control, debuffing, etc annoy the players. (They have no way to counter any of it.) SR (even level appropriate) gets some complaints, though not a lot.

Complicating matters is the fact that their builds are rather lopsided. S has an AC 5 higher than B and 6 higher than P, and she typically does 2X the damage as either of them. (If she rolls well and gets a full attack - not difficult with Pounce - she does up to 4X the damage of anyone else.) If I try to build to challenge S, I flatten B and P. If I build to the level of B and P, S runs over everything. (R once called me on the fact that I gave enemies max HP. I did that because otherwise, S one-shots everything. Even giving max HP, she can one-shot many on a full attack.)

They don't RP - both S and I have tried to get the others to RP, but all they want to do is murder-hobo. I added an encounter trap, but they just gave up and bypassed the room with d-door.

The conversation with S about the encounter trap is what led to S telling me the game "just isn't fun" for anyone. The players don't like being challenged, and I don't like watching encounters I spent time building be demolished in 2 rounds.

Help?

I now completely understand why you wanted to punish your group in that other thread. my sympathies. the crowd's advice so far is pretty solid: if you're not enjoying it, then you shouldn't do it. it's easy to forget sometimes, but it is a game, and is supposed to be fun

[icefractal]

It sounds like there are some issues with the group, preferences aside. But something as food for thought - challenge is often talked-up, in the RPG community, as the absolute primary goal to aim for, and IME that's not always true.

Challenge is one type of fun. There are lots of different types of fun in RPGs, and while for some people challenge is the greatest and most desirable, for others its a ways down the list.

Especially the "Tucker's Kobolds" style, incidentally. I used to go on the assumption that was what to shoot for. And I did, but often the players seemed to get less enjoyment out of it than they did from normal fights that weren't squeezing them every inch of the way. And on some reflection, I realized I felt the same way, as a player - it's a good spice to add from time to time, but too much gets stale.

So I second the advice of finding out what your players do want out of the game. If that turns out to be incompatible with what you want, you're under no obligation to run a game you don't like. But you'll probably get better results from finding a style that you can both enjoy (or playing with other people) than trying to "fix" them.

[Gabrosin]

You mentioned being upset at how your players would squash fights that you spent a lot of time preparing. I've often felt the same way as a DM. If your group is really there for the murderhoboing and not the RP, don't hesitate to throw a bunch of "boring" fights at them that don't require a lot of prep time. Stock monsters from the various MMs, rather than humanoids with class levels that you had to prep for hours to get right. They probably don't care what they're killing.

[Kesnit]

This tells me that you've fallen victim to player coercion.

You've lost the ability to act as referee for your group, since they all know they can badger you into changing the world to suit their whims.

A little harsher than I would have put it, but yes. I admit that part of it is my difficulty in gauging encounter difficulty. The party is FAR above WBL (complements of an NPC Artificer and wealth my wife gave out when she was running), so I can't just say "OK, they are this level, so send this many of this CR creature." They wiped the floor with CR-appropriate encounters from the Monster Manuals,* which is what led me to building my own enemies. Of course, now that I am custom building, encounters are built to counter the PCs, which ups the challenge, but I can never estimate what the actual challenge will be.

*Yes, I know the MM's are not very good at presenting accurate CR. But IV and V, which are what I use, tend to be better.


My advice is to ask someone else to run for a while. If nobody wants to run, get a couple of new players (to change the group dynamic), and stop taking crap from your old players.

As I said above, my wife used to run (and is the one who started the game). I took over because she decided she would rather play than run (and I was building encounters anyway). Finding new players can be a trick. We got B and R through a post at the local gaming store, but it took a while to find them. (P is my mother-in-law.)


Vacation. A stressed DM is a problem, because consciously or not, you will end up venting your frustration in the game. A happy DM means happier players, and vice-versa.

*humorless chuckle* Very much. I hadn't realized it until yesterday, but I dread running this game. Not because I dislike running - I run another game in a different system with a different group and love it. I just feel like I am banging my head when it comes to running encounters.


A player learns what it means to DM.

R is the only other player who would be willing to DM, and he can't show up to game much. (That's another thing that causes difficulty in making encounters. I build for 4 PCs and have to scale down.)


A DM is reminded of what it means to play. It happens; sometimes you get so bogged down in rules and worldbuilding and mechanics and encounter design that you forget the fun that players can have - and the fun they prefer to have. Their expectations don't always line up with yours. Spend some time as a player every now and then, and remind yourself.

I play in a 3.5 game with another group. (The same group I run Vampire: the Requiem for. The DM of that game and I alternate weeks.) The campaign we just ended in that game was hack-and-slash heavy, and PC death was, if not expected, than accepted. (One PC died in the first combat after he was introduced.) We're starting a new campaign tomorrow that is more RP-focused, but still with hack-and-slash, and the expectation that PCs will die.


Define expectations. Clearly, your players' expectations differ from yours. You expect to provide challenges, traps, and obstacles that they must overcome; they expect you to play to their strengths, and provide them with victories to enjoy. You, and they, need to sit down and find a middle ground. Once you have expectations in common, things will go more smoothly.

I hope. I'm just not sure what the balance point would be between "hey, I'm not going to TRY to kill you, but I'm not going to fight stupid and PCs can die" and "VICTORY! ALWAYS VICTORY!"

Just for comparison, the humanoid enemies I send are 1 of 3 builds. I use Barbarians as melee (and I use Pounce, which probably should come out). Ranged are Scout/Rangers. Casters are SORC/Warlock/Eldritch Theurge (without early entry tricks). Undead and Constructs are built using custom monster tables in the MM I (though I up the AB a bit to I can hit S's Clawlock.)


Balance power. It sounds like S has some major mechanical advantages, or at least plays well. Balancing encounters can be hard when the players are on unequal footing.

I admit, S's character is partially my fault since I built it. She wanted to play a Clawlock, but I did the build. She also picked her gear, which is why she has the high AC and damage.

She has mentioned switching to a Favored Soul, and we've tinkered with a build, but she wants to keep the high AC and damage. (I told her she won't reach the damage that she does with her Clawlock, which disappointed her.) I also told her that if she stays with the massive AC, I'll just have enemies bypass her (since there is no lockdown) and go after P and B, which she understands and admits is good tactics.


In future games, encourage the players to collaborate, and come up with concepts which fall into roughly the same power bracket, so that nobody gets particularly left out or punished when you start challenging the party.

The concepts aren't the issue. It's the fact that the players are of varying levels. I also built P's Bard, and did everything I could to give her as many options as possible. All she ever does is sing Inspire Courage (which is a very useful song!) and fire her bow. Her use of d-door during the trap encounter was, I think, the second time she has ever used one of her spells. (The game has been going for several months.)

B, I'm told, only ever plays Rogue/SORC combos. However, until I pointed out Daggerspell Mage and convinced him to try it, he only did even splits between the classes (so at LVL 12, he'd be a Rogue 6/SORC 6.) His spell selection isn't the best, though. He plays like a Rogue with casting ability (nothing wrong with that), but does not pick spells that go along with the concept. (Magic Missile is one of his favorites.)


Reward creative thinking. The DDoor trick was clearly bothering you. It is, however, a creative and appropriate (if reckless) option when available to the party. Be more willing to embrace creative thinking, provided that the players don't turn things into crutches and trump cards.

The d-door bothers me mostly because, from comments the players made at the time, it will be a crutch. "Who needs to think when we can bypass anything?" As I said in the other thread, I'd take out traps (since they are pointless and I wasn't going to use them anyway), but B insists on looking for them. I guess my option is let him search, but never find what isn't there. But that doesn't seem very fair, either... *shrug*


I agree with the previous posts, stepping down for a bit seems the best option. Particularly if one of your players can run the game - it lets them know just how much work it can be. If no one will run it, take a break. The break should let your players miss the game and be more receptive to change.

S brought up the idea of switching to World's Largest Dungeon (which we have the 3rd ed adaptation of). I like the idea, but am not sure how the others will feel about it. P won't care, I suspect, so long as I keep her supplied with new PCs when her old one dies. R probably won't care, as he has gone through 3 or 4 PCs in the current game. (Like me, he has "ooo... Look at the shiny." Also called new-class-itis.) B is the one I suspect will object.


First, talk with your wife about scaling down her power level for the good of the group. Specifically, get rid of pounce. From her character, from the rest of the party, and from any enemies they're going to face. While it's nothing compared to high level magic, it's one of the biggest culprits in unbalancing a melee fighter from the rest of an unoptimized group.

She'd probably go for that, especially if I took it away from the Barbarian NPCs. (I only have it on the NPCs because she has it.)


Second, adjust the tactics of the enemies your group is facing. Since S's character is smashing her way through everything she faces, she's going to gain quite a reputation for combat prowess. Intelligent enemies are going to try to take her out first. Throw swarms of enemies at her... they don't have to be strong enough to seriously harm her, just enough to impede her. Break up her charge lines. Let the real threats in the back have time to operate because she's busy wading through a throng of summoned dire rabbits. She can still make things go kersplat every round, but her actions will be tied up with non-threats.

Not a bad idea. (Summoned dire rabbits... :smallbiggrin:)


Third, beef up the defenses of the opposition in more ways than HP. Forcing a melee specialist to fight through mirror images or navigate miss chances adds to the challenge they face (and the length of the encounter) without making it substantially more dangerous to the party. It might force them to cooperate to overcome such defenses before the bad guys go down.

*nod*


If the "sleeping on the couch" thing is more serious than joking, then it probably is best if you step down. Try not to make it "her fault," but you can't run a game if OOC punishments are in the making for you trying to run the game impartially.

It was a joke. My answer every time she says it is "the couch is comfortable."


It sounds like there are some issues with the group, preferences aside. But something as food for thought - challenge is often talked-up, in the RPG community, as the absolute primary goal to aim for, and IME that's not always true.

Challenge is one type of fun. There are lots of different types of fun in RPGs, and while for some people challenge is the greatest and most desirable, for others its a ways down the list.

Especially the "Tucker's Kobolds" style, incidentally. I used to go on the assumption that was what to shoot for. And I did, but often the players seemed to get less enjoyment out of it than they did from normal fights that weren't squeezing them every inch of the way. And on some reflection, I realized I felt the same way, as a player - it's a good spice to add from time to time, but too much gets stale.

I am far from the level of running Tucker's Kobolds. :smallsmile: My typical builds are above, and are far from optimized. (SORC spell selection is a little BFC, a little debuff, mostly damage. However, the saves are low enough that the PCs make them most of the time.)


You mentioned being upset at how your players would squash fights that you spent a lot of time preparing. I've often felt the same way as a DM. If your group is really there for the murderhoboing and not the RP, don't hesitate to throw a bunch of "boring" fights at them that don't require a lot of prep time. Stock monsters from the various MMs, rather than humanoids with class levels that you had to prep for hours to get right. They probably don't care what they're killing.

Even just pulling out of the MMs takes time, since I have to dig through and find monsters that would work. Granted, it's a one-time thing ("OK, so these will be the undead for the next level."), but it still takes time and bookkeeping. Also, because of the WBL issue, it's hard to gauge what level monsters to pull. (CR 9-10 monsters can't hit anyone consistently, and do almost no damage when they do hit.)

[Psyren]

There's a lot of daylight between "the PCs steamroll every encounter" and "In one encounter, Player B outright dies while Player S comes close." Remember, the average encounter the PCs face should only be consuming 25% of their resources - if all your fights are doing more than that, then your players may have a valid complaint. I think it's possible to retune your encounter design to better aim for that golden mean, where encounters are sufficiently challenging for you to have fun, and still equally fun for them.

While it's geared more towards PF, I highly recommend reading The GM's Guide to Creating Challenging Encounters (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nx-o8VAjhUwh3nnfzDQT-JA5eFLnN_BZJiBitGjBMDg/edit) if you haven't already done so.

In addition, if the PCs are lopsided you should be using lopsided challenges as well, i.e. monsters that are tailored to the defenses of one but not the other. For example, I assume S is pouncing with eldritch glaive - that's subject to SR, so a monster with CR-appropriate AC/attack but higher-than-normal SR would be strong against S while still being vulnerable to B and P's attacks.

[Gabrosin]

Even just pulling out of the MMs takes time, since I have to dig through and find monsters that would work. Granted, it's a one-time thing ("OK, so these will be the undead for the next level."), but it still takes time and bookkeeping. Also, because of the WBL issue, it's hard to gauge what level monsters to pull. (CR 9-10 monsters can't hit anyone consistently, and do almost no damage when they do hit.)

There are plenty of ways to address WBL imbalance, some more palatable than others.

First off, you can simply treat your party as higher than their level, which is accurate, and will keep them fighting appropriate encounters immediately.

Second, you can and should scale down the treasure being given out by future encounters until they're back where they belong. If they're metagaming and complaining OOC about how such and such a monster was "supposed" to have 10k in treasure on it, you can beef up the amount of non-treasure monsters or come up with plausible reasons why the treasure was gone.

Third, you can identify the biggest culprits (like whatever is letting them all Dimension Door everywhere) and take them out. Either by OOC agreement or by a catastrophic event in game. Yes, players absolutely hate when their stuff gets busted, but in an extreme case it'll prove necessary.

Fourth, you can give them something to apply their wealth to that won't increase their combat power. A good example is a stronghold. Make them lords of a keep somewhere and drain their gold away to maintain it... repairs to the walls they broke on the way in, support to the surrounding peasants, pay for the local militia, and so on. If this doesn't appeal to them, offer some sort of carrot to keep them interested. If they don't maintain the keep, the local peasants will turn on them, start a populist revolt. They get attacked, and their soldiers slaughter the peasants. Now they're villains to the nation, and have to earn back their reputation, etc. etc.

[Gabrosin]

There's a lot of daylight between "the PCs steamroll every encounter" and "In one encounter, Player B outright dies while Player S comes close." Remember, the average encounter the PCs face should only be consuming 25% of their resources - if all your fights are doing more than that, then your players may have a valid complaint. I think it's possible to retune your encounter design to better aim for that golden mean, where encounters are sufficiently challenging for you to have fun, and still equally fun for them.

While it's geared more towards PF, I highly recommend reading The GM's Guide to Creating Challenging Encounters (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nx-o8VAjhUwh3nnfzDQT-JA5eFLnN_BZJiBitGjBMDg/edit) if you haven't already done so.

In addition, if the PCs are lopsided you should be using lopsided challenges as well, i.e. monsters that are tailored to the defenses of one but not the other. For example, I assume S is pouncing with eldritch glaive - both are subject to SR, so a monster with higher than normal SR would be strong against S while still being vulnerable to B and P.

This is good advice. I tend to make my encounters stronger than the 25% rule, because my group tends to have only 1-2 fights a day (or one RP day would take two RT months). But I try to alternate them so that each PC gets to be the star of a particular fight. Sometimes this backfires (e.g. the dread necromancer who could command/rebuke undead avoided winding up in the undead-filled trap and got her partner killed), but for the most part it works out.

[Kesnit]

There's a lot of daylight between "the PCs steamroll every encounter" and "In one encounter, Player B outright dies while Player S comes close." Remember, the average encounter the PCs face should only be consuming 25% of their resources - if all your fights are doing more than that, then your players may have a valid complaint.

To their credit, I do run brutal encounters, largely because I have yet to find the sweet spot. The last encounter I ran last session had high AB/low damage monsters, and that went well, I think. I originally thought low AC (as in, the PCs need to roll a 3 to hit) would work, but neither B nor P have the damage potential to take the enemies out when they hit.

The idea about "summoned dire rabbits" is also a good one. The party isn't really in danger, but they don't know that.


In addition, if the PCs are lopsided you should be using lopsided challenges as well, i.e. monsters that are tailored to the defenses of one but not the other. For example, I assume S is pouncing with eldritch glaive - that's subject to SR, so a monster with CR-appropriate AC/attack but higher-than-normal SR would be strong against S while still being vulnerable to B and P's attacks.

She uses Eldritch Claws, actually. But yes, SR applies. I've used SR monsters before, and it did help. She still has massive damage from unarmed attack, Beast Claws, and a Necklace of Natural Attacks (with damage enhancements and a weapon crystal), but losing the 6d6 EB does cut her damage.


First off, you can simply treat your party as higher than their level, which is accurate, and will keep them fighting appropriate encounters immediately.

That's what I've been doing. However, their HP aren't keeping up with their AB and AC. So they can hit and do damage, but can't take it.


Second, you can and should scale down the treasure being given out by future encounters until they're back where they belong. If they're metagaming and complaining OOC about how such and such a monster was "supposed" to have 10k in treasure on it, you can beef up the amount of non-treasure monsters or come up with plausible reasons why the treasure was gone.

I've also been doing this. However, they won't follow my plot hooks unless they are paid, and paid well. (I finally came up with a long-term quest arc and sent them to the first quest-giving NPC. I gave them the quest, and was then ask how much they were getting paid. When I gave them a low number, B started negotiating to get more gold.) And yes, I am asked after every encounter what treasure there is. (At one point, they found a chest with 2 gems total value, 516 gp. When B rolled poorly on his Appraise, I told the party the value was 450. The answer was "Each?" "No, total.")

Also, there is the Artificer. It takes time to get gear from him, but if they want it, they will have him make it. Granted, the Artificer is an NPC and I can always say he has a very long queue (which I have done).


Fourth, you can give them something to apply their wealth to that won't increase their combat power.

I already know this won't work. The party plays up murder-hobo completely.

[Draco_Lord]

About the castle thing. Are they so Murder Hobo that they wouldn't want an awesome base? Rather then wall repairs, give them upgrades. Make an awesome doom fortress to party in. Which is what my players want when they go full murder hobo on me.

[Gabrosin]

That's what I've been doing. However, their HP aren't keeping up with their AB and AC. So they can hit and do damage, but can't take it.

Well, why bother with HP when you're wearing Plot Armor because the DM won't kill off your characters?

You have a nuclear option here: find a way to kill the strongest one. Loot the corpse. Let that character be raised (after a brief quest if necessary), but at one level down. Make the death something incredibly heroic if need be, and deal with the consequences.

Once you've established that the story can and will result in a character dying, they might put more thought into their defenses and less into their awesome damage dealing power.

[Segev]

Remember the classic DM trick for a party that has glaring weaknesses and overpowering strengths, and which complains when you build to exploit the former: the mirror party.

Pit them against doppelgangers. Whether you literally use a Mirror of Opposition to make evil clones of them, or you simply take their builds and build an identical party (mechanically) with different personality and goals, if you're up front about how this is their own party they're playing against, they might be more open to recognizing their own glaring weaknesses.

Be willing to kill, here, but don't force it. If they easily trounce their NPC-counterparts, just be sure to highlight the weaknesses they exploited.

If you want to be ominous about it, have it be a ploy by some upcoming or ongoing foe who they can catch observing the fight, looking for their weaknesses. Make it painfully obvious this intelligent foe is planning to exploit the weaknesses he finds in their next encounter, so they might be encouraged to try shoring them up.


edit: And whether they do or not, have the bad guy, next time he shows up, gloat about how he knows "all your weaknesses," and then run an encounter explicitly designed to exploit any and all weaknesses the party exhibited or exploited in the doppelganger fight. If the PCs have shored them up, great! If not...well, maybe they'll determine they should after this fight that blatantly pointed them out and showed how they can be exploited by intelligent enemies.

By broadcasting that it's coming and giving in-game lampshades as to exactly why specifically their weaknesses are being exploited, you've probably defanged their ire at you for doing so. They knew it was coming, and there's obvious reason why it'd be happening. And, if they've prepared...let them stomp it as hard as their preparation would let them. They were clever and took your advice to heart; do not punish them for it by changing the rules.

[Kesnit]

About the castle thing. Are they so Murder Hobo that they wouldn't want an awesome base?

Yes, yes they are. Or rather, B is. A castle doesn't make him more powerful, which, in his mind, is the point of the game. (B is the one who has gotten the most from the Artificer. He has 2 +5 equivalent daggers, plus assorted other items.)


Well, why bother with HP when you're wearing Plot Armor because the DM won't kill off your characters?

I'm not sure any of them are thinking of it that way, but you do have a point.


Once you've established that the story can and will result in a character dying, they might put more thought into their defenses and less into their awesome damage dealing power.

Hmmm... Something to think about.

[Psyren]

Well, why bother with HP when you're wearing Plot Armor because the DM won't kill off your characters?

You have a nuclear option here: find a way to kill the strongest one. Loot the corpse. Let that character be raised (after a brief quest if necessary), but at one level down. Make the death something incredibly heroic if need be, and deal with the consequences.

Once you've established that the story can and will result in a character dying, they might put more thought into their defenses and less into their awesome damage dealing power.

"The strongest one" appears to be his spouse, so this may lead to additional problems :smallbiggrin:

But even putting that aspect of it aside, this is very tough to pull off mechanically. Resisting/tanking/stymieing the strongest PC without killing the others is one thing - tailor your defenses to their strengths (and only their strengths) such that everyone can get shots in, or better yet use multiple foes with varying defenses such that the PCs being blocked by one can switch targets to another.

But engineering a scenario where only the strongest PC gets killed is much harder to pull off without fiat. Logically, if it could kill the strongest one, it would be especially threatening to the others, and likely to just swat them like flies on the way to its primary target (or conversely, be forced to contrivedly ignore them despite doing so being illogical.)


To their credit, I do run brutal encounters, largely because I have yet to find the sweet spot.

This sounds to me like your players' concerns may have some basis after all. So the obvious solution is to tone things down, and if you want to make it satisfying for you, make up the difference in other areas; e.g. instead of a handful of monsters that hit really hard, use a larger group of monsters that are individually weak. That way, as the players take down their numbers, the fight gets progressively easier, plus there's less opportunity for the monsters to group up effectively, they're more susceptible to control and AoE etc.



She uses Eldritch Claws, actually. But yes, SR applies. I've used SR monsters before, and it did help. She still has massive damage from unarmed attack, Beast Claws, and a Necklace of Natural Attacks (with damage enhancements and a weapon crystal), but losing the 6d6 EB does cut her damage.

Beast Claws should be far weaker than Eldritch Claws unless she's nightmarishly strong.

[Kesnit]

This sounds to me like your players' concerns may have some basis after all. So the obvious solution is to tone things down, and if you want to make it satisfying for you, make up the difference in other areas; e.g. instead of a handful of monsters that hit really hard, use a larger group of monsters that are individually weak.

By "brutal," I mean "the monsters actually hit and do damage to the party." Weak monsters don't do anything. They can't hit (low AB), and if they do hit, they do next to no damage. About the only thing that has kept the party from almost dying (and still made me feel like I was actually doing something) was custom built monsters with high enough AB to actually hit, but doing either 3d6+6 (melee) or 1d6+2 (ranged) damage.


Beast Claws should be far weaker than Eldritch Claws unless she's nightmarishly strong.

Her damage is 2d10+6d6+1d6+1d4+2d6+6.

2d10: IUS+Superior Unarmed Strike+Beast Claws
6d6: Eldritch Blast
2d6: Witchlight Reservoir
1d6: Acid damage on Necklace of Natural Attack
1d4: Sonic damage on Necklace of Natural Attack
6: STR mod (+1), +1 from Necklace, +4 from Bard Song

[marphod]

Yes, yes they are. Or rather, B is. A castle doesn't make him more powerful, which, in his mind, is the point of the game. (B is the one who has gotten the most from the Artificer. He has 2 +5 equivalent daggers, plus assorted other items.)

This may sound a little harsh, but I think it is the best advice I can give at the moment. I had a long post devised in my mind of ways to help, but in the end, it is rather simple:

Kill the Artificer. Perma-death, not comic-book death. Bonus points if you can make it the PCs responsibility, if not their fault.

The Artificer is breaking their WBL; ignoring where he's getting all the magic items to cannibalize to make them their stuff, DnD does not support having your party's personal Magic Item Factory. Too many things break. Start fixing the game by removing the most-obvious symptom.

Make it personal. Have the BBEG kidnap him out from under the PCs noses. Do this via minions they could have stopped if they weren't so low on HP/considered defenses and offenses other than pure damage/hadn't bypassed that trap which had a macguffin as part of it/hadn't killed the ambiguously aligned messenger/hadn't charged their employer so much they could no longer afford defenses/whatever. Make sure the BBEG is in a position to gloat, to publicly shame, and draw the PCs attention. Make sure there is NO profit in it -- the BBEG has no money, no treasure beyond what they carry on them for tools. Maybe the cover is as a religion with a lot of charity works -- really the BBEG is doing a mass sacrifice by getting the followers to starve themselves to death, and really gives all the money acquired to a series of legitimate orphanages/poor houses/etc. Make the PCs pick between profit, revenge, and their appearance/reputation as competent.

----

Your Mother In Law is one of your players? Whoa.

I have to assume you have a better relationship with your m-i-l than I do (it is hard not to; mine is convinced her kid married the wrong person, that I'm going to hell, and I'm probably dragging her kid with me), but I salute you none-the-less.

----


Where in the world are you? I know finding other players/games can be hard, but your difficulty in finding players seems unfortunately extreme.

[Psyren]

Beast Claws and Eldritch Claws shouldn't stack, you only get one set of claws per pair of limbs. In addition, IUS + SUS won't apply to Beast Claws.
The Reservoir's damage only applies to one attack per activation, and can only be activated 1/round (swift action) so it should not be adding to her damage on every swing.


By "brutal," I mean "the monsters actually hit and do damage to the party." Weak monsters don't do anything. They can't hit (low AB), and if they do hit, they do next to no damage. About the only thing that has kept the party from almost dying (and still made me feel like I was actually doing something) was custom built monsters with high enough AB to actually hit, but doing either 3d6+6 (melee) or 1d6+2 (ranged) damage.

Your game seems to be a study in extremes :smalltongue:

You can have monsters hit and do damage without being brutal. Unless your players have extraordinarily low HP they should be able to take a few hits without people getting pushed to the brink. They're not playing the most powerful classes in the game but they don't appear to be playing low-op either.


This may sound a little harsh, but I think it is the best advice I can give at the moment. I had a long post devised in my mind of ways to help, but in the end, it is rather simple:

Kill the Artificer. Perma-death, not comic-book death. Bonus points if you can make it the PCs responsibility, if not their fault.

The Artificer is breaking their WBL; ignoring where he's getting all the magic items to cannibalize to make them their stuff, DnD does not support having your party's personal Magic Item Factory. Too many things break. Start fixing the game by removing the most-obvious symptom.

I'm inclined to agree with this as well, especially since it looks like your players (or at least one of them) is using him to pump up their offense as much as possible while neglecting their defense.

[Kesnit]

This may sound a little harsh, but I think it is the best advice I can give at the moment. I had a long post devised in my mind of ways to help, but in the end, it is rather simple:

Kill the Artificer. Perma-death, not comic-book death.

That is the plan now. Sadly, the damage is done WRT party gear. (What makes it worse is that the Artificer was my PC, before I realized that there wasn't enough downtime to craft and retired him.)


The Artificer is breaking their WBL; ignoring where he's getting all the magic items to cannibalize to make them their stuff,

My wife's fault, when she was running. She gave me magical stuff that was too large to transport, but could be sucked for magical reserves. He has about 65,000 more "crafting gold" - after all the stuff he's made.


Your Mother In Law is one of your players? Whoa.

I have to assume you have a better relationship with your m-i-l than I do (it is hard not to; mine is convinced her kid married the wrong person, that I'm going to hell, and I'm probably dragging her kid with me), but I salute you none-the-less.

Due to my lack of employment, my wife and I live with her parents. Yes, I have a good relationship with them. My MiL games with us, and my FiL and I do Civil War Reenacting together.


Where in the world are you? I know finding other players/games can be hard, but your difficulty in finding players seems unfortunately extreme.

Would you believe outside DC? Crazy, I know, but finding groups is a pain. The local gaming store has become a hub of MtG and board games, while RPG players have moved to people's houses. We've posted for 2 different games at the local gaming store. One (Changling: the Lost) we never got an answer on (in over a year). This one we got 2.

[Gabrosin]

"The strongest one" appears to be his spouse, so this may lead to additional problems :smallbiggrin:

But even putting that aspect of it aside, this is very tough to pull off mechanically. Resisting/tanking/stymieing the strongest PC without killing the others is one thing - tailor your defenses to their strengths (and only their strengths) such that everyone can get shots in, or better yet use multiple foes with varying defenses such that the PCs being blocked by one can switch targets to another.

But engineering a scenario where only the strongest PC gets killed is much harder to pull off without fiat. Logically, if it could kill the strongest one, it would be especially threatening to the others, and likely to just swat them like flies on the way to its primary target (or conversely, be forced to contrivedly ignore them despite doing so being illogical.)

This assumes that the DM can't come up with a good storyline reason to split the party briefly.

The city is under siege. The party has been hired/bribed/motivated/whatever into protecting the royal family in their castle. They're fending off some reasonable threats. A bloody guard stumbles in. The main gates of the city are under assault, they're about to break. They need the strongest fighter to come defend them... the rest have to stay and keep fighting or the royals die. The guard says it's a huge Ogre. A worthy foe. The barbarian DDoors out there.

Did the guard say ogre? Turns out it was a titan. One of a few things happens. The barbarian bravely fights and dies. The barbarian gets her party out there, the royals die. The barbarian flees, the city falls. Two of these three things aren't palatable to a good-aligned character, most likely. If your party doesn't care? Find a better personal motivation. The city has been deemed personally important by the deity of the barbarian, or something. Use your best non-forced hook, see how they respond.

If the player steadfastly refuses to go out heroically, well, you'll have to move on to another plan. But getting the character into a risky situation while sparing the others isn't all that hard.

Also, yeah, the artificer was a huge problem here.

[P.F.]

One of the things I tell my players, right out of the gate, whenever I agree to DM, is "I will break your toys." D&D uses gear as part of the increase of the power levls, but I dislike the attitude that WBL is synonymous with character level. I generally aim for my players to move from undertreasured to overtreasured and back repeatedly over the arc of a story.

"I will break your toys." This makes room for archetypal genre tropes like "The Armory" just before a big battle (great place to end a session). The players are less hesitant to use the things they find. Their item slots aren't all filled, and there's no guarantee that they'll get to sell a charged item if they don't use it. They don't always have "something better" already. They are hesitant to "cook down" magic items into large omnibus items.

"I will break your toys." Disjoin the party. Twice. That should clear out enough of the junk to allow them space to think about what they want. Your Artificer can immediately start in on mitigating the damage, crafting replacement items, although they will probably be less useful than the ones they had. If they level up and get a fair amount of gold (but still less than they started with) the increase in power immediately following the drop might help lessen the sting a little bit. But this still may not be the best option for your party.

[Lorddenorstrus]

One of the things I tell my players, right out of the gate, whenever I agree to DM, is "I will break your toys." Snip.

If you specifically tell players you're going to repeatedly **** with their loot.. all you really do is push them towards classes with so much inherent power the items aren't really needed to go ape **** on your encounters. Or towards things you simply can't easily take off them like Grafts.

@OP Try to be more careful in fights i guess. I try to imagine myself from the players point of view and frankly the players WANT to feel powerful. How you manage to get them feeling happy on top of making an encounter decently challenging is the hard middle to achieve. One of my recent fights every player but 1 (He's an ass im not going there..) felt pretty pleased about finally killing a crazy insane grafting mad scientist. I designed the grafted creatures in ways that between Knowledge checks or being plain obvious they'd figure out who was better suited to do what in the encounter and everyone sorted out and did their thing. It wasn't easy and the fight was constantly changing as the scientist dude kept interfering with spells or invented items he'd made but everyone felt "useful" with their characters they all had a job to do and they did it. I will say though these guys are ok with death (It's just a slap on the hand after a cleric resses you really) but I can understand some players despise the concept of death if they're aware they cannot be brought back.

[Crake]

One of the things I tell my players, right out of the gate, whenever I agree to DM, is "I will break your toys." D&D uses gear as part of the increase of the power levls, but I dislike the attitude that WBL is synonymous with character level. I generally aim for my players to move from undertreasured to overtreasured and back repeatedly over the arc of a story.

"I will break your toys." This makes room for archetypal genre tropes like "The Armory" just before a big battle (great place to end a session). The players are less hesitant to use the things they find. Their item slots aren't all filled, and there's no guarantee that they'll get to sell a charged item if they don't use it. They don't always have "something better" already. They are hesitant to "cook down" magic items into large omnibus items.

"I will break your toys." Disjoin the party. Twice. That should clear out enough of the junk to allow them space to think about what they want. Your Artificer can immediately start in on mitigating the damage, crafting replacement items, although they will probably be less useful than the ones they had. If they level up and get a fair amount of gold (but still less than they started with) the increase in power immediately following the drop might help lessen the sting a little bit. But this still may not be the best option for your party.

While I don't support such an extreme, I do support the idea of player items not being sacrasanct, and I have in the past pitted players against caryatid columns who sundered people's weapons, Delvers who slimed away people's armor and weapons, a Living Disjunction who completely wiped a player's gear once, and hell, even things like a player who got a ghostly visage near the start of the game, I took that away via a cleric (ok, ur-priest) using their rebuke to command it and take it for themselves.

[Psyren]

...They need the strongest fighter to come defend them...

Exactly, see what I mean? Contrived. They're in dire straits like that yet they only want the one strongest individual to come instead of the entire squad. It makes no sense.


The barbarian DDoors out there.

Did the guard say ogre? Turns out it was a titan.

Why the heck wouldn't she just DDoor back?

[Gabrosin]

Exactly, see what I mean? Contrived. They're in dire straits like that yet they only want the one strongest individual to come instead of the entire squad. It makes no sense.



Why the heck wouldn't she just DDoor back?

Did you read the rest? If they all go, they leave others to die. And you don't say they have to send their strongest fighter. You let them decide what to do. You just pose the scenario in a way to make the ideal choice clear. They need to be in two places at once to avoid failure, and one of the challenges is tailor-made to inspire the barbarian to tackle it.

She DDoors back? Fine, that's her choice. But now your city gates have fallen and the army of orcs or goblins or whatever comes pouring in. If you can't find stakes which motivate your party not to let that happen, if their characters truly care about nothing besides their loot and XP, then your story hasn't engaged your group strongly enough and maybe your campaign is beyond saving.

I would be inclined to agree with you that getting the strongest party member dead is going to be contrived, but in this case, it's a frontline melee fighter. This isn't going to require your monsters to sprint past the tank and the rogue to try to kill the super-defended wizard at all costs, or anything like that. An overly large, over-CRed monster with lots of HP and SR has a good chance to do it.

[Yahzi]

Help?
Most DMs don't get the players they deserve. However, you can still have fun. Just change your idea of steam-rolled. Instead of worrying about how much HP damage, focus on how much RP damage they take.

Example: create an NPC they like (make him sympathetic and helpful and constantly praising the PCs). Then make another NPC they like. Then... have those two NPCs fall out over something that isn't either one's fault, but is nonethless unforgivable and essentially unsolvable. Now they are sending agents or even leading armies against each other, and the PCs have to figure out how to keep the peace.

Once you set that up, you won't even care if your PCs can slaughter an entire encounter in 1 round, because killing those mooks will only upset their friend. Be warned, however: you will have to become quite flexible at interpreting the rules, because D&D does not do non-lethal very well.

The trick to getting players to enjoy challenges is ownership. Never build a player a character. Never suggest a way for a player to make his character better (unless he/she asks for specific help, as in "How do I learn to cast more spells?" Even then present options and let them choose one). Never provide a solution to any problem that the game-world presents. Start small, with little things the players can't fail at (hunt down a goblin mugger, carry a message through rabid house-cat infested woods). Then put bigger problems out there, on the horizon, and let them choose which ones they want to tackle.