[3.5] How much should I coddle my players?

[Arros Winhadren]

So of course as a new DM I have to remember that the players are going to do whatever I don't want them to do. That's ok with me, but what about when it's bad for the players? Here's my example:


My party of 6 level 3 PCs decided to split up. Bad idea, since I'd made the encounters to suit that many adventurers. So of course when the cleric went alone to the guard station, he got torn a new one by the two brainwashed level 4 warriors I had there and the player had to roll up a new character. I simply hadn't expected that the party would split up, and so the encounters were fairly brutal until the players decided it would be a good idea to travel in a pack.

So how much should I let the PC's bad decisions (not stupid ones, just unfortunate decisions) affect them? If it would have dire consequences according to what I planned out in my session, should I tone down the difficulty to give them a chance, or do they have to just deal with it?

[Telonius]

I know I hate this answer when I get it, but it depends.

What style of campaign are you aiming for, and what do your players want? If everybody wants something that's gritty and dangerous, and you're good with bringing in new characters, let them die. But if the players are more interested in exploring the motivations of the characters than running a war strategy game, you might want to ease off a bit.

The best way of finding this out is to talk to your players about it. Ask them if they like the difficulty level, and don't take offense if the answer isn't what you want to hear. Remember, not everybody's looking for the same thing in a gaming session. It's your job as DM to try to balance out everybody's enjoyment (including your own). Best of luck!

[lord_khaine]

well, nothing teaches like experience, if you keep it up you will soon have a hardbitten group of players who dont make any blatant mistakes.

[valadil]

Not only does it depend on the type of game (simulation vs story) but it also depends on what the group is used to. I'm the harshest GM in one of my groups and the most lenient in another. I don't change my style, it's just relative to the other GMs.

I give my players a safety net against crap luck. I tone down enemies if I made them too powerful, because that's my mistake and not theirs. I also won't punish them for stumbling down a path I hadn't considered. But I will let their own stupidity be the death of them. In the case of a party that splits up, feel free to teach them a lesson.

[Darth Stabber]

A little coddling is fine, Like maybe have the cleric fight 1 warrior instead, my personal rule of thumb is if I don't lose any more of what little faith I have left in humanity when one of my players makes a decision, then it was probably not stupid enough to punish, adjusting on the fly is a major part of gming, but splitting up is nearly always suicidal unless it is letting the rogue/ ranger do some recon

[Eclipse]

As has been said before, it really depends on your players and the style of game you're all looking to run or play.

However, my thinking is that it's wise to give them a way to retreat in case they do get in over their heads, but if they decide to stick it out and fight, then their character can head on over to the afterlife.

I also tell my players ahead of time that they may come across foes they can't handle if they wander too far off the beaten track, and they should prepare for the possibility that retreating is the better option than fighting.

[Zeful]

You shouldn't coddle the PCs. If they make a stupid move (attacking a Duke or something) punish the characters logically effected. Every action has a logical consiquence. Enforce it.

In your case you had expected the party to stay together (logical assumption on your part), it's not really your fault they were unprepared for the difficulty in splitting up. If you feel you'r being to hard on the PCs then by all means pull back a little. But I don't feel it's smart to coddle the PCs.

[Rei_Jin]

Well for me it depends on WHY you're coddling them.

If its because of their own stupidity, give them the benefit of the doubt by making leading statements to try and get them to change their action. Sometimes this works, other times it doesn't. Then, continue with the action as planned. If there's a way out of it, again, make leading statements.

They'll learn to listen to what you say.

Another option is to ask them to make dice rolls, such as a Wisdom check, to see if their intended action is one that their character is dumb enough to take.

If its because the dice are hating them, then occassionally call stop and give them a re-roll. There are some combats that you should be able to beat easily, but then everyone rolls terribly and it becomes a TPK. Don't let this happen, it ruins a game. Instead, re-rolls can be offered. I've found that this helps build trust between a DM and his players tremendously.

[Shpadoinkle]

There's an old rule of adventuring. Every adventurer should be required, by law, no matter whether laws exist in his part of existance or not, to have it tattoed on his forehead, both backwards and forwards, so not only does he see it every time he looks in a mirror, but his companions see it every time they ook at him, or each other. It goes like this:

NEVER
SPLIT
UP.

If you really need to know WHY, then try asking the cleric's player.

[Prometheus]

If its because of their own stupidity, give them the benefit of the doubt by making leading statements to try and get them to change their action. Sometimes this works, other times it doesn't. Then, continue with the action as planned. If there's a way out of it, again, make leading statements.
They'll learn to listen to what you say.

I completely agree. It isn't fun to have an encounter more challenging that the PCs are able to handle if by the time they learn that it is too late. It doesn't really matter if the PCs made it harder for themselves beforehand by splitting up. People who are bad at solo RPGs play the game in easy mode so they get hints or lower expectations but they are still challenged.

[Satyr]

The setting's versimilitude is always more important than the wellbeing of any character. If you find yourself in a sitiuation, were a plausible continuity of events is severely hindered by the character's stupidity or inability to adapt to the gaming world, there is no reason to be nothing but consequent with the characters.

[Tengu_temp]

The setting's versimilitude is always more important than the wellbeing of any character.

This is a purely simulationist approach that many people disagree with - I'd rather save a character than have him die because of bad luck or a single tactical error. Characters deserve to die only when they do something really stupid.

More drastic example - the PCs become prisoners of an evil, corrupt empire they're fighting. Versimilitude dictates that the female characters, and probably some of the male characters as well, should be raped, and there's a high possibility someone will become the subject of permanently crippling torture. I hope I don't need to explain why neither of these is a good idea in most groups.

[PinkysBrain]

I'd say don't coddle them in the actual battle, just drop some "subtle" hints.

Assuming the guards were not immediately aggressive you could have given the cleric a hint that they were up to no good and powerful (ie. fresh blood pools, they look like veterans from the last war, potentially after a spot/wisdom check). Otherwise make something up which conveniently put them off guard for a moment, changing of the guards or lighting a sigarette or whatever, which would let the cleric spot them first (and then see the fresh blood pools etc).

[Kesnit]

well, nothing teaches like experience, if you keep it up you will soon have a hardbitten group of players who dont make any blatant mistakes.

"If you make something idiot proof, someone will build a better idiot." I am not saying the OP's players are idiots. Just never underestimate people.

[Satyr]

This is a purely simulationist approach that many people disagree with - I'd rather save a character than have him die because of bad luck or a single tactical error. Characters deserve to die only when they do something really stupid.

Despite of my deep and cordial despise for Edward's pet theory, I certainly mentioned the setting's integrity, not the system's. This also includes that the rules may and perhaps should be bended when the rules conflict with the setting.

Besides, you are contradicting yourself - when you fight an Evil Empire which is known for its torturous practices, getting caught most certainly counts as something really stupid.

[Kesnit]

Besides, you are contradicting yourself - when you fight an Evil Empire which is known for its torturous practices, getting caught most certainly counts as something really stupid.

Maybe. Say you send the sneaky Rogue and Ranger (both with Move Silently and Hide maxed out) to infiltrate the Keep and scout the defenses. But in an attempt to slip past a guard, the Rogue rolls a 1 on her MS.

Bad luck, sure. But I don't see how this would be considered "something really stupid."

Something really stupid would be sending the full plate wearing Fighter in with the Rogue.

[Bryn]

Whatever the players want. There's no rule about this. Some people like lethal games, some people don't. Ask them want they want and play it that way.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Coddle? Never. Educate? Certainly.

I've GMed for a bunch of newbies before. It seemed like every other scene, I was saying something like "Are you sure you want to do that?", and the even more ominous "So you're telling me you want your character to <insert particularly messy way to die>, is this correct?"

A few of them got the idea that "Are you sure you want to do that" means "You're about to do something really, REALLY stupid that is probably going to get you killed" and the latter statement to translate to "Is this your FINAL action answer?"

On the few times they didn't listen, they found out why I... requested clarification. Fortunately, they were smart enough to RUN.

[Raum]

So how much should I let the PC's bad decisions (not stupid ones, just unfortunate decisions) affect them? If it would have dire consequences according to what I planned out in my session, should I tone down the difficulty to give them a chance, or do they have to just deal with it?

I recommend allowing a chance to correct poor decisions. That doesn't mean you tone down opposition though. Instead, describe the opposition in such a way that the disparity in power is obvious. Then allow them to run. Doing so helps avoid situations where player ignorance (as opposed to character stupidity) causes the death. After all, player ignorance is the GM's fault. He's the one describing the world.

That said, when the situation is caused by poor character choices in spite of knowledge - let the chips fall.

[Mercenary Pen]

If PC's run into an encounter at significantly lower strength than they should have been at, then that becomes a situation where a story-dependent solution is demanded.

Does your story require a take-no-prisoners approach?

Is it reasonable for the guards to be taking prisoners, either for their own amusement or for the benefit of their superiors?

Is this a golden opportunity to change things slightly and drop a plot hook, either as an extra to what you already had, or earlier than you had previously intended?

In this situation, it may not be so much a case of coddling your players as much as deciding on different ways to advance the overall story. If the story is going to drive everything, it needs to do so even over your desire to punish tactically-daft actions. If the story is a secondary concern, forget I said ANYTHING whatsoever.

[Yakk]

By building encounters tailored to the group, you are coddling them.

The real, practical way of dealing with many problem is bring as much force as you can, and don't restrict yourself to your party of bosum companions.

Similarly, the a 'real simulated' world wouldn't tend to have encounters cut up into party-defeatable chunks. A party incapable of defeating every goblin at once in open combat should find approaching a goblin camp to be nearly suicidal.

So if you are in favor of creating genre effects, either accept coddling or don't.

I like using the rule of cool often: make the story more interesting, rather than aiming at being a world simulator.