Getting players to recognize their own agency

[icefractal]

Thinking about this again - is agency even what your players want? It seems like they actively disclaim agency - possibly because they don't want to make impactful choices which might be wrong and might put them permanently behind.

Specifically, this part:

If you struggle, which you sometimes will, and it can be the result of poor tactics, bad dice rolls, character builds which are weak against the particulars of the mission, or balancing mistakes on my part, you can usually pull through by taking on debts; usually in the form of potions or mercenaries, which will reduce your wealth.

If you feel you cannot possibly complete the mission without risking your characters life, it is permissible to turn back; but doing so should only be a last resort as you will fall drastically behind the wealth curve and may alienate your patrons or otherwise let opportunities slip away.

That's not just attrition, that's permanent consequences. Which could originate from just not being efficient/sharp enough, or even sufficiently unlucky - avoiding blatantly ****ing up isn't enough to keep you safe.

Also, they're unfortunately realistic consequences. We can laugh and cheerfully accept being sliced in half by an ogre, because it isn't real to us! Not only the ogre, but I've never faced someone seriously trying to kill me, and I doubt the majority of other RPG players have either. But being in debt, falling behind, alienating important people, missing opportunities? Those are problems most of us face, so real you can taste them - and they taste like ****.

Some people enjoy confronting their actual problems in a fictional context, but I just find it depressing. Infinite possible worlds, and I'm still facing the same issues? And fictional triumphs can feel pretty hollow when you know it means nothing to solving the same problems IRL.

If that's the category your players fall into, this isn't a wording problem - they're just fundamentally not going to enjoy facing permanent negative consequences, regardless of how fair it was.

[Duff]

I'll be brutally honest: I would regard the above section as a red flag if I got this from a DM.

I presume you're just trying to provide examples of weaknesses, which is okay. However, this section leaves the unintentional impression that you're going to be using your knowledge of the character sheets to go for the weakest aspect of each character in each encounter. When playing I'd come to regard that as BS in pretty short order because it obviates any character I build, since unless I optimise or consult a character-building guide to cover all my weaknesses, it makes no difference what character I bring or what skills I bring to the encounter; my weakest aspect will always be targeted. When I read this passage, as a player, I hear: "I, your DM, won't even bother pretending that the hobgoblins were waiting around for a bunch of random travellers. I'm going to be giving those hobgoblins a copy of your CS and lots of time for them to study it and work out the most optimal strategy to kill you, as well as a heads-up when you're coming round the bend."

Saintheart ain't wrong.

Can I suggest (Bold just hilighting my edits, not intended to go into your final version)

Likewise, I tend to play intelligent enemies smart, and they will tend to observe how your characters look and act use whatever methods are at their disposal to target your those weaknesses. If you have a low strength, expect to be tripped or grappled; if you have no ranged weapon, expect to be kited; if you have no armor, expect to take a lot of damage full Stop. New sentance with a starts with Also if you have low fortitude expect poison to be a problem, and if you have low resolve expect to fall prey to mind control or magic when it whenever itshows up and that once an intelligent foe has hit you with this sort of ability, they're going to work out that you're a soft target for this and then will keep hitting you

[Talakeal]

Saintheart ain't wrong.

Can I suggest (Bold just hilighting my edits, not intended to go into your final version)

Likewise, I tend to play intelligent enemies smart, and they will tend to observe how your characters look and act use whatever methods are at their disposal to target your those weaknesses. If you have a low strength, expect to be tripped or grappled; if you have no ranged weapon, expect to be kited; if you have no armor, expect to take a lot of damage full Stop. New sentance with a starts with Also if you have low fortitude expect poison to be a problem, and if you have low resolve expect to fall prey to mind control or magic when it whenever itshows up and that once an intelligent foe has hit you with this sort of ability, they're going to work out that you're a soft target for this and then will keep hitting you

Those are some pretty good edits; although at this point I have kind of given up any idea of talking to them at all as the majority of people I have talked to think that any attempt to address the issues will only make them worse.

Thinking about this again - is agency even what your players want? It seems like they actively disclaim agency - possibly because they don't want to make impactful choices which might be wrong and might put them permanently behind.

Specifically, this part:That's not just attrition, that's permanent consequences. Which could originate from just not being efficient/sharp enough, or even sufficiently unlucky - avoiding blatantly ****ing up isn't enough to keep you safe.

Also, they're unfortunately realistic consequences. We can laugh and cheerfully accept being sliced in half by an ogre, because it isn't real to us! Not only the ogre, but I've never faced someone seriously trying to kill me, and I doubt the majority of other RPG players have either. But being in debt, falling behind, alienating important people, missing opportunities? Those are problems most of us face, so real you can taste them - and they taste like ****.

Some people enjoy confronting their actual problems in a fictional context, but I just find it depressing. Infinite possible worlds, and I'm still facing the same issues? And fictional triumphs can feel pretty hollow when you know it means nothing to solving the same problems IRL.

If that's the category your players fall into, this isn't a wording problem - they're just fundamentally not going to enjoy facing permanent negative consequences, regardless of how fair it was.

Yeah, that's a good point.

It isn't so much, I think, that my game is too hard for them, its that they are a weird intersection of casual gamers and perfectionists; they don't really want to put effort into the game, but can't handle missing out on a single XP, GP, or objective.

If you want to run X and figure out the magic words that make people who don't want X to like it, we can't help you. This letter certainly won't stop complaints, because it reads to me as 'I am going to do the things that you complained about, and I feel strongly that that's how games should be, and you should like it'.

If you want to say 'this is what I'm willing to run, if that doesn't sound appealing then you should look for another GM' then this letter could be okay. Though in that case you'd actually have to say that last bit.

But if you're not willing to get a different group of players, and they're not willing to get a different GM, and you're not willing to run what they want, and what they want isn't going to be something you'd enjoy running, and you don't want there to be complaints, well: sorry, that's just not going to happen.

The thing is, its not really that they don't enjoy my games or my style; its just that, for whatever reason, they just don't know how to deal with failure and have a ton of misdirected anger which causes them to explode at someone or something every five sessions or so, and that is what I am trying to resolve here.

[Duff]

The thing is, its not really that they don't enjoy my games or my style; its just that, for whatever reason, they just don't know how to deal with failure and have a ton of misdirected anger which causes them to explode at someone or something every five sessions or so, and that is what I am trying to resolve here.

The best way to deal with failure is a "Growth Mindset". So how about awarding XP for failure?
You'd need to balance it so they don't want to fail for tactical reasons, but it could take the sting out. Maybe, critical failed rolls give a smallish bonus, the first time a PC goes down in combat in an adventure a moderate bonus and a large bonus for any player who can articulate what their character learned from a failed mission?

Another option would be some sort of "karma" mechanic where the failure now helps with success later. Again, you may need to be careful to avoid a situation where attempting an impossible task now seems like a good idea just to get the bonuses later when it matters

[Composer99]

The thing is, its not really that they don't enjoy my games or my style; its just that, for whatever reason, they just don't know how to deal with failure and have a ton of misdirected anger which causes them to explode at someone or something every five sessions or so, and that is what I am trying to resolve here.

To be kind of blunt, I don't think any open letter that you can pen will resolve this.

Neither you nor anyone else at the table ought to be obliged to put up with angry outbursts - frankly, if any of your players are "explod[ing] at someone or something every five sessions or so", it's past time to uninvite them until they stop. Anyone with a "ton of misdirected anger" should get that sorted out - away from the gaming table.

[Talakeal]

new... players....
your said "new players". as in, you get people who are not with your exhisting group to play with your group.

so, you actually can disband your old group and get only new players. In fact, you should do it even more.
you see, if you bring a new player into your toxic group, the poor guy will be trained to be a toxic player. toxicity is catching, like a disease. Your group is the carrier, and we are all hoping that it can be suppressed, but if it can't be suppressed, it should at least quarantined.
every time you bring a new unsuspecting player into your group, you are training a new toxic player.

get your new players in a new group where you can train them better. and let your old players to fester alone.

I get about one player a year, and about half of those either turn out to be crazy, druggies, or crazy druggies and have to be ejected from the group, or just flake out and never actually show up.

Furthermore, most of the new players are friends of existing players.

Trying to pull a whole new gaming group from whole cloth just ain't gonna happen. I might be able to eventually pull it off if I started running adventure league games at the hobby store and building up a huge list of contacts, but that is a ton of time and effort for something that might never pay off.

To Talakeal: I have a better question: Why send this? This is not the "why play with them" question, I'm just asking what do you hope to accomplish with this letter? Even if you communicate your play-style and expectations perfectly, what will that change? It will not make your players become more emotionally mature or kinder, nor will it change the type of game they enjoy. And I think that is much more of a problem than a misunderstanding about play-style.

I don't know.

I just really want them to accept that their dice rolls, build decisions, and tactical decisions have as much of an impact on the outcome of the game, both success and failures, than the whims of a capricious and sadistic all powerful GM.

I also want them to try and understand that there are not good or bad character builds, just those that synergize with the party and those that don't, and that you need to be able to live with the drawbacks that you give your character rather than throwing fits and accusing other people of cheating.

Oh, and by the way, with new players you should be more careful, because they don't realize things you take for granted. and yes, it is your responsibility to help your new players in their build - not by handing them pregens, but by giving some advice. actually, it is anyone's responsibility, but given your other players, you are the only one who could do it.

Is advice a good thing? Because Pex and Kesnit both seemed to be very strongly opposed to the idea.

In this case it sounds like:
1) You are using a very fine tuned difficulty that expends most of the PCs' resources before the PCs can recharge. This implies there is a very narrow margin for error about using resources. If they under/over estimate an encounter they might fail the mission due to lack of resources. However you are distancing yourself from their choice that lead to under/over estimating the encounter. That behavior implies you don't want to be blamed when the players under/over estimate the encounter. However you are the only source of information about the difficulty of the encounter. So your distancing sends the message that you will leave the players clueless about when they need to spend which resources.

2) Your open letter does come across as arrogant and controlling. It does sound like you are saying "The Mission will cost most of your resources. You better use the right ones at the right time or else fail the mission. I won't tell you when to use each ability. It will be your fault if you mess up and don't use ability A when it is time to use ability A." Now a lot of #2 is your tone when combined with the criticism from #1.

But that just isn't true. I have been playing this game, and similar RPGs, for almost thirty years now, and players failing a mission for lack of resources as all but unheard of. Maybe 1 in 50 sessions if that?

And I explicitly followed it up with advice about how to approach resource expenditure, which was soundly criticized and rejected.

It sounds like the session is still the same difficulty. That means there is some rubber banding effect. However the existence of some easy fights should still be having some positive impact.

Is "rubber-banding" going to be the new "gotcha?" An ill defined term that comes to be shorthand for anything I do the forum doesn't like?

In this case I take it that rubber-banding is being used to mean balancing an adventure as a whole for characters of the player's power level?

Because if so, guilty as charged, at the utmost insistence of my players.

I said the developer of HoD and the GM implementing the fine tuned difficulty also share some of the blame around the outcome of encounters. Trying to distance and absolve yourself of all blame while demanding the players accept all blame will not work. Don't play the toxic blame game. Instead why not recognize and mention the impact you have? If sincere, that can increase the credibility of your statements about their impact. Of course this works better the more reasonable the players are.

Ok, how are we defining blame?

I build the mission with a white room difficulty equating to ~80% resource expenditure. That is intentional. Variation from dice rolls, player builds, tactical decisions, and math errors can and will cause that to fluctuate over the course of the game, and sometimes it will even push it over 100%. That is intentional, and that is my "fault".

The thing is though, anytime it fluctuates above 80%, the players immediately start discounting their actions, builds, or dice rolls, and instead insist that it is all my fault because I messed up the math / am cheating / am tailoring encounters to screw them / am tricking them / am out to get them for some imagined slight / intentionally made an over CRed adventure, etc.

Or they blame one another, sometimes that happens as well.

[Squire Doodad]

Yeah, that's a good point.

It isn't so much, I think, that my game is too hard for them, its that they are a weird intersection of casual gamers and perfectionists; they don't really want to put effort into the game, but can't handle missing out on a single XP, GP, or objective.

I should emphasize that it's not that it's permanent consequences that reinforce difficulty that's the problem here. Rather, it is permanent consequences to try to keep up, as well as the fact that it is a painfully realistic and unenjoyable means of doing so. If you want to give the player a way to catch up to the rest, throw in a small dungeon for the party and give that particular player bonus EXP because it's that player's quest. "Avenging my uncle, who was slain by the Troll King" or something. Then again, a lot of DnD versions make it so you can miss a level or two and be in line with the rest of party.

Overall, long-standing debt is something lots of people don't want to think about in a game like DnD. Period. Debt should only be present if it's something that affects the party as a whole and, more importantly, to function as a plot hook.

In other words, the only debt that should be relevant to most fantasy DnD campaigns isn't actual financial debt, just a mechanism by which the party is brought to a certain quest.

[Talakeal]

I should emphasize that it's not that it's permanent consequences that reinforce difficulty that's the problem here. Rather, it is permanent consequences to try to keep up, as well as the fact that it is a painfully realistic and unenjoyable means of doing so. If you want to give the player a way to catch up to the rest, throw in a small dungeon for the party and give that particular player bonus EXP because it's that player's quest. "Avenging my uncle, who was slain by the Troll King" or something. Then again, a lot of DnD versions make it so you can miss a level or two and be in line with the rest of party.

Overall, long-standing debt is something lots of people don't want to think about in a game like DnD. Period. Debt should only be present if it's something that affects the party as a whole and, more importantly, to function as a plot hook.

In other words, the only debt that should be relevant to most fantasy DnD campaigns isn't actual financial debt, just a mechanism by which the party is brought to a certain quest.

If I am following, I think you may be misunderstanding what debt means in this context.

Basically, rather than counting coins, characters in Heart of Darkness have a wealth rating. At the end of each adventure you modify your wealth rating by the net result of your objectives (a catch all term for treasures and goals) minus your debts (a catch all term for expenses incurred during the adventure).

Its not that you actually need to take out a loan and pay it back over time or anything of the sort, and the game expects you to take on some debts, you would quickly run out of things to buy if you didnt.

[OldTrees1]

Is advice a good thing? Because Pex and Kesnit both seemed to be very strongly opposed to the idea.

Please don't misrepresent the advice you are given. There is a difference between someone saying "Don't give this specific text or anything with the same tone and attitude problems" vs "Don't give advice".

If someone told me "Don't swear" I would not claim that they told me "Don't speak".

But that just isn't true. I have been playing this game, and similar RPGs, for almost thirty years now, and players failing a mission for lack of resources as all but unheard of. Maybe 1 in 50 sessions if that?

And I explicitly followed it up with advice about how to approach resource expenditure, which was soundly criticized and rejected.

1) Are you wise enough to ask Kesnit? Are you humble enough to presume you are misunderstanding what they said?
2) Kesnit was talking about how your open letter reads. The fact that the reading is not true about your game says a lot about how the open letter is flawed.
3) Did you consider the criticism or did you misrepresent it as saying all advice is bad?

Is "rubber-banding" going to be the new "gotcha?" An ill defined term that comes to be shorthand for anything I do the forum doesn't like?

...

Because if so, guilty as charged, at the utmost insistence of my players.

No. Rubber banding is a well defined term that I consider to have a neutral connotation. Although yes I bent it to refer to the overall session instead of individual encounters.

Although it sounds like the players won't like some days being easier than other days as long as no day is worse than a level appropriate session? If true, then it was good that you listened to your players. I retract that suggestion.

Ok, how are we defining blame?

I build the mission with a white room difficulty equating to ~80% resource expenditure. That is intentional. Variation from dice rolls, player builds, tactical decisions, and math errors can and will cause that to fluctuate over the course of the game, and sometimes it will even push it over 100%. That is intentional, and that is my "fault".

The thing is though, anytime it fluctuates above 80%, the players immediately start discounting their actions, builds, or dice rolls, and instead insist that it is all my fault because I messed up the math / am cheating / am tailoring encounters to screw them / am tricking them / am out to get them for some imagined slight / intentionally made an over CRed adventure, etc.

Or they blame one another, sometimes that happens as well.

You designed the system. You chose the target difficulty. You know the players which matters when you calculate the difficulty of an encounter or the set of encounters for a session. You designed the PC character generation. You know the PCs. You have an idea of how much of a mistake will have how much of a consequence. You designed the system. You chose how tight the difficulty would be (that 80% with tiny hp for example). You chose how big the variation from dice rolls would be.

I expect you realize all of that. I expect you are willing to own all of that impact. However if your letter is just talking about blaming the players for their impact without you acknowledging the extent of your impact, it will not go over as well with reasonable players than if you did acknowledge the extent of your impact.

Of course you will remember that I qualified this subthread by saying I was concerned your players might not be reasonable enough.

[NichG]

Is "rubber-banding" going to be the new "gotcha?" An ill defined term that comes to be shorthand for anything I do the forum doesn't like?

In this case I take it that rubber-banding is being used to mean balancing an adventure as a whole for characters of the player's power level?

Because if so, guilty as charged, at the utmost insistence of my players.

I don't think its rubber-banding in this case, but there is a sort of anti-agency thing. You have a difficulty curve that a given party can get ahead of or fall behind on. If someone is falling behind, their supervisors shouldn't keep giving them harder and harder duties just based on how long they've been with the organization - that's one way you get dysfunctional organizations (related to the Peter Principle). If the players can't say e.g. 'okay, we're Lv9, but last time we went up against CR 9 foes it felt pretty shaky, lets just do a CR 5 mission this time', then that's a big hit against them being able to be responsible for their own success and failure.

[Squire Doodad]

If I am following, I think you may be misunderstanding what debt means in this context.

Basically, rather than counting coins, characters in Heart of Darkness have a wealth rating. At the end of each adventure you modify your wealth rating by the net result of your objectives (a catch all term for treasures and goals) minus your debts (a catch all term for expenses incurred during the adventure).

Its not that you actually need to take out a loan and pay it back over time or anything of the sort, and the game expects you to take on some debts, you would quickly run out of things to buy if you didnt.

Okay, that makes more sense. Personally I'd be against the word "debt" being used (maybe "expense" or something) but that's evidently not important right now.

Anyways, moving on to the next 53 predicaments and outstanding issues.

Wait, so if there aren't any coins, do players actually know they get any amount of loot from fights aside from magical items they find? Or is their monetary profit from an adventure summed up at the end and they don't know how much it'd be until then.

You designed the system. You chose the target difficulty. You know the players which matters when you calculate the difficulty of an encounter or the set of encounters for a session. You designed the PC character generation. You know the PCs. You have an idea of how much of a mistake will have how much of a consequence. You designed the system. You chose how tight the difficulty would be (that 80% with tiny hp for example). You chose how big the variation from dice rolls would be.

I expect you realize all of that. I expect you are willing to own all of that impact. However if your letter is just talking about blaming the players for their impact without you acknowledging the extent of your impact, it will not go over as well with reasonable players than if you did acknowledge the extent of your impact.

Of course you will remember that I qualified this subthread by saying I was concerned your players might not be reasonable enough.

Isn't CR meant to be "a party of a given level should be able to defeat this using no more than 50% of their resources" or something?

[icefractal]

Isn't CR meant to be "a party of a given level should be able to defeat this using no more than 50% of their resources" or something?

In 3.x, CR = ECL would be about 20% of the party's resources, on average.

Of course that's not an even fight. CR = [the party's CR], meaning usually ECL+4, would be theoretically an even fight, meaning it likely takes most of your resources if you even survive.

May be completely different in Heart of Darkness though.

[Squire Doodad]

In 3.x, CR = ECL would be about 20% of the party's resources, on average.

Of course that's not an even fight. CR = [the party's CR], meaning usually ECL+4, would be theoretically an even fight, meaning it likely takes most of your resources if you even survive.

May be completely different in Heart of Darkness though.

Given the use of the word "decimate" in military contexts, that must be one hell of a fight if you have a level-appropriate war.

[Saintheart]

Given the use of the word "decimate" in military contexts, that must be one hell of a fight if you have a level-appropriate war.

Playground, what's an appropriate EL for an encounter with a People's Republic of China? For context, my party is an optimised Wizard calling himself the United States, three Fighters named Australia, France, and England, and a Truenamer called New Zealand.

[Onos]

Yet another thread detailing your latest escapades! From the glance I've had, it seems like you're running the same game as ever - oh look, your players have said the same thing. Have you considered just trying to run a simple, on-rails game the way your players seem to want? It's becoming increasingly obvious that there's a huge mismatch between gaming styles at your table. No amount of tweaking the rules of Soulsborne will make it fun if the rest of the table wants Mario.

[Quertus]

Originally, I was going to limit my reply to just the items outside the spoilers, to drive the focus to those ideas. But I think that I might forget to circle back later, so I included several miscellaneous ideas in spoilers.

Thanks for the advice. I am not, however, going to play a nerfed campaign, I am going to be running this one precisely fair and by the book. And I am certainly not going to run a sandbox.

My mistake last time was running an unconventional game with a bunch of house rules for new players, this one is going to be very back to basics.

Agency is probably not the right term, titles are hard.

TLDR, I am trying to get them to stop looking for other people (usually me but also one another) to blame for their challenges / failures, and instead accept that their own decisions and the luck of the dice have as big of an impact on the game, both mechanically and narratively, as the will of the DM, and the outcome of an event is an emergent property of the collective dice rolls, and the decisions made by all of the players at the table, including the DM.

I just need players to realize that if they choose to take on a weakness, it is in fact going to be a weakness, and if they choose to over-specialize, their versatility will suffer.

Its not that doing this is a problem, I love them to create the characters they want to play. The problem is that they create characters they only want to play some of the time and then take it out on me or their fellow players.

OK, here's what I just heard: "Agency" and "Challenge" are *both* red herrings; what you actually care about is maturity. You're trying to trick your players into magically being more mature than they have been, by telling them that they have agency.

Before I offer any suggestions on this path, please confirm the accuracy of this assessment.

Spoiler: trees, don't lose the forest

Show

Five and six are really important. Five was a constant point of frustration in the last game, Bob made a character with high offense and a two strength, and then declared that grappling was "cheating". Brian made a character who was a melee specialist, and then said he was justified in throwing a tantrum and threatening to leave the group every time they found a monster who couldn't be meleed because the frustration of being able to out-weigh all the joy of gaming. I really need to stress that they shouldn't build weaknesses into their characters that ruin their enjoyment of the game.

Also, the players all but beg me to give them CR appropriate encounters. Like, their first complaint after finishing a fight it "this wasn't balanced tightly enough." It may be detrimental to agency, but if I stop doing it I guarantee you will get a plethora of new horror stories over the next few years about it.

"Rubber-banding" is entirely a forum complaint that my players have never mentioned, and they reacted with horror at the idea when I told them I was going to stop doing it, its probably where a lot of this "I am in it to win, I am going to kill you and make you cry like a bitch" talk is coming from.

I am only referring to rubber banding the tactics, of making the monsters fight harder when the party is doing well vs holding the idiot ball when the party is doing poorly.

As for number two, I really don't know how to handle this. Having pre-written solutions AT ALL makes them retreat to the "read the GM's mind" excuse, and they have an open policy of ignoring boxed text. Likewise, they can turn any solution, even if its just scene dressing, into a puzzle, nobody is going to have the patience to idiot proof them all for me.

I have an idea. Two, actual. Feel free to use one or both. Create boxed text. Test it with us / your parents / a random 5-year-old (or several). Record the solutions that they were able to divine from the boxed text. Then

1) have one of your players read the boxed text aloud;

2) make all unlocked boxed text available online.

This gives your players the ability to focus on (and to remember, without taking notes) the important (and necessary) details.

1) You are using a very fine tuned difficulty that expends most of the PCs' resources before the PCs can recharge. This implies there is a very narrow margin for error about using resources. If they under/over estimate an encounter they might fail the mission due to lack of resources. However you are distancing yourself from their choice that lead to under/over estimating the encounter. That behavior implies you don't want to be blamed when the players under/over estimate the encounter. However you are the only source of information about the difficulty of the encounter. So your distancing sends the message that you will leave the players clueless about when they need to spend which resources.

This! This is wording I've been searching for!

Talakeal, if you replace every complaint by your players that your game is "too hard" with this, with a complaint that your game leaves little margin for error (or, the way your players might word it, that the players have to read your mind, and play the game your way, else they fail), what would your response be?

5) The hint about the reflection might have backfired when you said "This vampire has a reflection" instead of "This Lord has a reflection". To your players the former might have implied "Oh this is a homebrew vampire like Twilight" rather than "Hmm, is one of my assumptions wrong?".

6) How many of the "numerous hints" were self destructive like the reflection hint?

Changing small details like this can change how effectively ideas are communicated, including… word… producing negative communication. Calling it "self destructive" is good, but I want to emphasize that different phases have different values, and some of those values are negative. Much like how the original letter had negative value to produce its desired result, or saying that the Avatar of Hate could not be killed by violence made the players focus on nonviolent ways to kill it, etc.

Spoiler: more trees

Show

Does this adequately cover character gen choices for weaknesses than then frequently become relevant? Talakeal's go to examples here are the super tank that is ignored and the unarmored low dexterity glass cannon that is frequently attacked. There are 2 aspects to this, there are the NPC choices during combat and the Player choices during character generation.

Sorry, I'm too tired / dumb / something to understand your question / comment here. If it's still relevant, can you reword it for me?

7) Tell the players you will not take notes for them, they have to take their own notes (although some players do take mental notes). Tell them you have your own notes but they will not necessarily cover the same things. Then try to take notes for them anyways for when they forget and ask questions their characters already know. This is part of GMing. I ask my players questions about their characters. They ask me questions about what their characters know about the world. However it is important to establish that it is the players' job collectively to take sufficient notes.

That is also a good solution: building a culture of player self-sufficiency. In fact, it's probably the *best* answer *if* the goal is to increase the maturity of the group.

That said, what do you think of my "boxed text" idea (in the other spoiler)?

I did not say "Flexible character creation was a bug".

I said the developer of HoD and the GM implementing the fine tuned difficulty also share some of the blame around the outcome of encounters. Trying to distance and absolve yourself of all blame while demanding the players accept all blame will not work. Don't play the toxic blame game. Instead why not recognize and mention the impact you have? If sincere, that can increase the credibility of your statements about their impact. Of course this works better the more reasonable the players are.

If you try to tell them that, it will sounds like you are ignorant of how much impact you have exerted as the game developer and as a GM that wants fine tuned difficulty.

Additionally the tendency for them to blame you, and for you to blame them, is part of your group's attitude problem. You cannot fix them just like they can't fix you. You keep mentioning the control they have and the control the dice have. They respond by mentioning the control you have. Both of you exaggerate and ignore the other.

Indeed, if the goal is to increase the maturity of the group, being able to admit fault - and learn from it and do better! - could go a long way towards showing them the right path.

But… and this may be too advanced but… is there any groundwork that needs to be laid before "being the mature one" can be effective?

[Batcathat]

I doubt any letter – no matter how perfectly worded – is going to solve this situation.

That said, I am curious... what do they say when you make these arguments in person? Do they straight up not listen to them or do they offer an explanation for their point of view?

[Satinavian]

To this end, I wrote the following letter to them:

Ok, let's see how i as a player would understand this.

Your character is yours to build, but understand that in doing so you are making decisions which have consequences. Overly specializing means you excel in one area, but may be useless and bored when that area isnÂ’t relevant. Likewise, a character who foregoes defense for offense may find themselves incapacitated too often to make use of their strengths, while one who foregoes offense for more defense might simply be ignored in favor of softer targets and contributing little.

a) how you build is actually relevant (good thing)
b) but tanking will not be a viable strategy, don't build for it

Likewise, I tend to play enemies smart, and they will tend to use whatever methods are at their disposal to target your weaknesses. If you have a low strength, expect to be tripped or grappled; if you have no ranged weapon, expect to be kited; if you have no armor, expect to take a lot of damage, if you have low fortitude expect poison to be a problem, and if you have low resolve expect to fall prey to mind control or magic when it shows up.

Playing enemies smart sounds good. Enemies always targettng weaknesses sounds bad. That reeks of metagaming. If you had written "target weaknesses they know or learn about" that would support the "playing smart" part, but as it is, it sounds as if you play it like a boardgame with enemies as your playing pieces.

I will be using a wide array of enemy types and locations; this means that there shouldnÂ’t be one offense or defense that will be the key too everything. Some characters will be better in some sessions than others, but it will all more or less balance out in the end.

superflous. That is something every GM always tries to do anyway. Maybe you mention it because of past trouble.

The most effective form of power gaming is synergizing your abilities with those of your comrades and working together as a team.

That means : You are expected to create characters together and build for synergies.

This game is going to be fair, but ruthless. There are no house rules in place to protect your characters, and if you make a mistake or bite off more than you can chew, I will not step in to save you.

No PC is saved via deus ex machina. But there are no other safety nets either and it might very well be a meatgrinder.

I know itÂ’s frustrating to lose, and if something bad happens to your character I know most peopleÂ’s first instinct is to find something or someone to blame and then lash out at it, but understand that when you do that you are going to put everyone else on edge, which will make the next instance that much more severe.

Yeah, it is a meatgrinder. Don't get attached for you will be sorry.

A note for newer players; Brian, Bob, and I have been gaming together for decades, and we all have long memories. If one of us starts bitching about something that happened long ago, please regard it as the ramblings of a grumpy old man rather than a legitimate piece of gaming advice.

It is a long running group with established dynamics i have to adept to.

I will not put in problems that require one specific solution. If your first idea doesnÂ’t work, please donÂ’t become frustrated. Instead, try a different approach; do not assume you are in a no win situation or a puzzle which requires a very specific answer.

No puzzles.

Challenge and Rewards:
Most missions will be calibrated against the standard party following the difficulty guidelines in the book.

There will occasionally be a high risk / high reward or low risk / low reward mission when it makes sense, but these are rare.

Completing a mission successfully rewards five wealth. There will also be up to five optional objectives which can further increase wealth.

Basic mechanical stuff. Whether thist works depends on how well medium risk/medium reward scenarios go as those will be the mast majority. But nothing particular noteworthy about, in most groups most challanges are appropriate.

The average mission will deplete most of your resources; i.e. vitality, mana, destiny, and charged artifacts or abilities. What you have left over can be used to help accomplish optional objectives or saved for activities during the recovery phase such as crafting or gambling.

If the average mission is intended to deplete most of our ressources, then the average mission and a bit bad luck is a failed mission. You will have many of those. Also, if you can use leftover ressources for downtime hat means, ressources you actually spend on mission make you permanently weaker. The system encourages you to be real stingy while at the same time makes it really hard to win consistently. This will be a very hard and difficult game.

If you struggle, which you sometimes will, and it can be the result of poor tactics, bad dice rolls, character builds which are weak against the particulars of the mission, or balancing mistakes on my part, you can usually pull through by taking on debts; usually in the form of potions or mercenaries, which will reduce your wealth.

So there is some kind of safety, but using it makes you permanently weaker. But potions and mercenaries sound as if you have to buy/hire them before you actually know you need them. So the safety is not actually in place unless you pay the cost. Sounds like a death spiral on campaign level.

If you feel you cannot possibly complete the mission without risking your characters life, it is permissible to turn back; but doing so should only be a last resort as you will fall drastically behind the wealth curve and may alienate your patrons or otherwise let opportunities slip away.

Retreating or shying away from missions that seem too hard is strongly discouraged and comes with penalties beyond just not getting the reward. That one would bother me greatly.

The ideal Heart of Darkness character is brave, yet cunning. The objective of the game is to use your resources wisely, making the maximum impact for as little expenditure as possible, so that your resources will carry you as far as you can, completing the mission, all optional objectives, and having some left over for the recovery phase.

I want you to play like in a roguelike video game. That is the dynamic i aim for. You need to be above average in tactics to succeed and the majority of missions is stuff is so difficult that a nomal adventurer that is not super reckless might ant to pass.

Note on Challenge:

These are my statistics for past playtests:

Players complete 93% of missions they attempt.

The average mission is worth seven wealth after bonus objectives and debts.

Player characters expend, on average, 80% of their resources in a given mission.

That is nice information, but not really helpful for a new player until they know how long missions last, how heavily the other players optimize or how competent they are.

But, when upon reading the draft, my most level headed and trusted player summed it up as "I am hardcore, and I play to win! You will all die, and when you do don't come crying to me like a bitch!" which is not exactly what I was going for.

And suggestions for how I can better convey what I am trying to say?

Seems like your trusted player basically got it.

If something offered me a campaign like that, i would probably give it a pass. Seems too hardcore. Especcially the whole last part basically screams "I have had players before complaining that my game is too hard. Now i am looking for players that want this kind of challenge".


--------------------------------------

On an unrelated note, if all your new players are introduced by your two oldtime players and they are all either cracy or drug addicts, have you ever considered that there might be a realation ? Maybe it is less that your region has only bad players and more that the circles of your friends are not good for recruiting ?
Also, if you have problems with oldtimers poisoning the well, it is very bad to rely on those oldtimers to do your recruitment for you. Every new player will know them better than you and trust them more than you and will have heard their stories about your game.

[OldTrees1]

Spoiler: more trees

Show

Sorry, I'm too tired / dumb / something to understand your question / comment here. If it's still relevant, can you reword it for me?



That is also a good solution: building a culture of player self-sufficiency. In fact, it's probably the *best* answer *if* the goal is to increase the maturity of the group.

That said, what do you think of my "boxed text" idea (in the other spoiler)?

Talakeal also wanted players to be more mature about the consequences of their character generation choices. You, Quertus, made some suggested changes. I did not see anything in those changes for this specific concern. Then Talakeal rejected your changes. So it does not seem to be a relevant question anymore.


I believe your suggestions about transparency (the box text being the latest addition) are good choices for this group.

[Pauly]

I am about to start a new campaign using my own system (link in sig!).

As many of you know, I have had a long history of disastrous gaming groups.

One thing I am trying to impress upon my players is that they have agency, and that their own decisions matter. It seems like they expect the DM to railroad them, and to dictate every turn of the game, to ignore both player agency and the dice. I want them to succeed by their own merits, and to acknowledge that not everything that happens is the DM's fault. In short, I am trying to convey the following:


1: I run a fair table, I do not fudge dice.
2: I do not put them in railroads of situations with only one correct solution.
3: Their character is theirs to control, but their actions have consequences.
4: I am trying to run a plausible world that is dangerous and where most NPCs are competent.
5: They can build their character however they like, but this has repercussions, both their strengths and their weaknesses will matter.
6: Teamwork and party synergy is the strongest form of power-gaming.
7: I am going to use a variety of enemies that are not tailored to defeat any one PC or the group as a whole.
8: NPCs will be of appropriate challenges, and are going to be played with tactics according to their intelligence.


To this end, I wrote the following letter to them:

The letter is too long detailed and gets into the weeds. I’d stick with just the bullet points.

Here is how I would word it.
My promises as a DM to the players.
1) I promise the dice will be called as they fall, whether that be good or bad.
2) I promise that each situation will have multiple paths to success. I also promise that if the group find a successful path that I had not previously considered I will honor their success.
3) I promise that the choices made by your characters will influence the world. Future options may be broadened or narrowed depending in the actions your character takes now.
4) I promise that the NPCs will act in a logical and reasonable manner considering the world they live in. The world they live in is more dangerous than ours and they have survived in it so far.
5) I promise that the campaign has already been written and will not be altered for the benefit or detriment of the character you design.
6) I promise that the challenges are designed so that no one character will be able to achieve the optimal outcome. I promise that teamwork will be rewarded.
7) I promise that the combat encounters have already been written. The enemies in each encounter have been chosen to provide a variety of challenges. I promise you will not have to grind the same encounter over and over again. I promise that no one character type will have an advantage or disadvantage over the campaign, but they may be advantaged or disadvantaged in particular encounters.
8) I promise that the enemies will :
- a) take actions based on their intelligence.
- b) take actions based solely on what it is reasonable for those enemies to know based on prior interactions with the party and. what they can see.
- c) not take actions based on information that I as a DM know, but the enemies could not know.
- d) not be equipped specifically to deal with the party, unless they have prior intelligence on the party. I also promise that if the party do attract the attention of an enemy capable of sending targeted assassins I will give the party multiple hints before such an encounter occurs.

I just really want them to accept that their dice rolls, build decisions, and tactical decisions have as much of an impact on the outcome of the game, both success and failures, than the whims of a capricious and sadistic all powerful GM.

I also want them to try and understand that there are not good or bad character builds, just those that synergize with the party and those that don't, and that you need to be able to live with the drawbacks that you give your character rather than throwing fits and accusing other people of cheating.

Then add
My request for the players
1) Please be active. Your choices will affect the outcome of the campaign. Positive active roleplaying will give you more opportunities for success than passive wait-and-see roleplaying.
2) There are no “good”or “bad” character types. However there are good and bad parties. When designing your characters please consider how well your party will work together.
3) Please remember that any drawbacks you give your character will affect the party, not just your character.
4) Try to work together as a party. This will improve your chances of finding the best solutions to a situation. This may mean your character has to step into or step out if the spotlight at different times.

[Cluedrew]

I don't know.

I just really want them to accept that their dice rolls, build decisions, and tactical decisions have as much of an impact on the outcome of the game, both success and failures, than the whims of a capricious and sadistic all powerful GM.

I also want them to try and understand that there are not good or bad character builds, just those that synergize with the party and those that don't, and that you need to be able to live with the drawbacks that you give your character rather than throwing fits and accusing other people of cheating.

You want emotional maturity from your players. There is nothing you can write in a letter that will cause that. No one improves at anything they don't want to improve on.

[False God]

You want emotional maturity from your players. There is nothing you can write in a letter that will cause that. No one improves at anything they don't want to improve on.

Especially themselves.

[Jakinbandw]

Why do you want to run a game that you know your players won't enjoy?

What do you want out of GMing? For me I want to see Heroes battle evil and win, permanently changing the world. I want to see them come across difficult moral choices and solve them, possibly by finding a 3rd option.

For me that means combat difficulty is secondary. I have one player who loves having his PC take permanent damage and wounds, and now only has one arm. My other player just wants a goal to work toward and doesn't want things to change midway through. That does limit my options, but there is still a lot of room to mess around with.

You keep bringing up difficulty. Why? Why is it important for you that the tactical portion of the game is difficult. Again, what do you want out of gming?

What do your players want?

Is there any overlap, or are your desires mutually exclusive?

[King of Nowhere]

Is advice a good thing? Because Pex and Kesnit both seemed to be very strongly opposed to the idea.

there is a vast gulf between an old, seasoned player, who may take build advice as an insult to his skill and competence, and a new recruit in over his head with character options, who generally appreciates some inputs.

also, you'd be generally better off in telling them how to achieve their build objectives than in trying to shoehorn them into some option. so if the squishy wizard asks you how to get more magical power, telling them of an option they missed is generally well received. telling them they should focus on their defences instead... well, depends on how paternalizing you sound and how mature is the player

[Quertus]

That's fair. TBH, while I don't think the letter comes off as bad or tyrannical, if it was the ad for a group I'd probably pass. Because it sounds (maybe accurately, maybe not) like a game where I'd have to be 100% "on" and maintaining sharp mental focus for the entire time. And that's no longer what I'm looking for in a TTRPG.

That is another possible interpretation.

Talakeal, if this is what your players actually mean when they complain that your game is too hard, how would you resolve this issue?

If you want to run X and figure out the magic words that make people who don't want X to like it, we can't help you.

*Mostly* true. And, for Bizarro World, arguably doubly true.

Of all the problems to try tackle, though, that is definitely about the last we should even consider fixing.

This letter certainly won't stop complaints, because it reads to me as 'I am going to do the things that you complained about, and I feel strongly that that's how games should be, and you should like it'.

If you want to say 'this is what I'm willing to run, if that doesn't sound appealing then you should look for another GM' then this letter could be okay. Though in that case you'd actually have to say that last bit.

But if you're not willing to get a different group of players, and they're not willing to get a different GM, and you're not willing to run what they want, and what they want isn't going to be something you'd enjoy running, and you don't want there to be complaints, well: sorry, that's just not going to happen.

Point.

Perhaps, rather than, "how can i make my players enjoy what they hate", Talakeal should open a new thread, "how can I learn to love the games that my players want me to run". That only involved changing one person, and the one we have access to, to boot! Likely a much more productive thread.

Those are some pretty good edits; although at this point I have kind of given up any idea of talking to them at all as the majority of people I have talked to think that any attempt to address the issues will only make them worse.

You should probably QUOTE which messages you misinterpreted this way, so that we can help you improve the other end of your communication skills, too. Communication being one of the big issues at your table, and one that this thread is about.

Speaking of (and I really should QUOTE you), you said you had a player comment that an encounter wasn't Talakeal-style razor-edge balanced.

You took this to mean that your players *want* everything to be a balanced encounter. And that may well be the case.

However, the way you wrote it, I could also interpret it as them teasing you, and actually wanting less "Talakeal balanced" encounters. Or not caring one way or the other.

If that player is still around, I encourage you to explicitly ask them.

Further, I encourage you to explicitly ask all of your players if they're actually onboard with "the world scales with you; encounters will always be balanced" or not.

Yeah, that's a good point.

It isn't so much, I think, that my game is too hard for them, its that they are a weird intersection of casual gamers and perfectionists; they don't really want to put effort into the game, but can't handle missing out on a single XP, GP, or objective.

That's yet a third possibility.

So, if you look at every instance of them saying "this is too hard" that way, what would your strategy to resolve this issue be?

And what plans do you have to distinguish between the 4 possible interpretations of "too hard" suggested in this thread thus far (the 4th being "none of the above")?

The thing is, its not really that they don't enjoy my games or my style; its just that, for whatever reason, they just don't know how to deal with failure and have a ton of misdirected anger which causes them to explode at someone or something every five sessions or so, and that is what I am trying to resolve here.

So… you want your players to be more mature?

Why do you expect that a letter from you will be able to make that happen?

Why did you expect that a letter from you, focusing on challenges, would affect that change?

Talakeal also wanted players to be more mature about the consequences of their character generation choices. You, Quertus, made some suggested changes. I did not see anything in those changes for this specific concern. Then Talakeal rejected your changes. So it does not seem to be a relevant question anymore.

Ah, thanks. When I wrote my first post, I was taking Talakeal at his word that the topic was "Agency", without actually thinking about it, like I should have. Makes sense that *much* of what I wrote would not be relevant to "Maturity".

I believe your suggestions about transparency (the box text being the latest addition) are good choices for this group.

My brain is clearly still on vacation. What other things have I said that fall under "transparency"?

Here is how I would word it.
My promises as a DM to the players.

Just wanted to say that, not only was that an excellent post, but this bit really captures the necessary tone.

Kudos!

[OldTrees1]

My brain is clearly still on vacation. What other things have I said that fall under "transparency"?

Previously you had various suggestions about showing the players the monster stats, or hand them a copy of the adventure after the fact, etc.

[Talakeal]

I have longer responses for Quertus and Old Trees, but I don’t have time to type out or edit them right now, stay tuned.

I will say that, as for the vampire, its not that there was any misunderstanding going on. The players spotted the clue, mentioned it, and then never a ted upon it, and when I later asked them why, they told me that they forgot and it should have been my job to remind them.

I don't think its rubber-banding in this case, but there is a sort of anti-agency thing. You have a difficulty curve that a given party can get ahead of or fall behind on. If someone is falling behind, their supervisors shouldn't keep giving them harder and harder duties just based on how long they've been with the organization - that's one way you get dysfunctional organizations (related to the Peter Principle). If the players can't say e.g. 'okay, we're Lv9, but last time we went up against CR 9 foes it felt pretty shaky, lets just do a CR 5 mission this time', then that's a big hit against them being able to be responsible for their own success and failure.

It doesn’t follow my understanding of rubber-banding either, although I guess I can see where the idea is coming from, that if you have a bunch of easy encounters you will likely follow them up with a harder encounter later and vice versa to maintain the average.

Yes, players do have the opportunity to take on high risk high reward missions and vice versa, although I generally wouldn’t recommend doing it too often.

In 3.x, CR = ECL would be about 20% of the party's resources, on average.

Of course that's not an even fight. CR = [the party's CR], meaning usually ECL+4, would be theoretically an even fight, meaning it likely takes most of your resources if you even survive.

May be completely different in Heart of Darkness though.

Yes. I pretty much learned difficulty from the guidelines in 3E D&D where an average adventuring day would have 4-6 encounters and use up about 80% of party resources, and it has been serving me well for twenty years.

Yet another thread detailing your latest escapades! From the glance I've had, it seems like you're running the same game as ever - oh look, your players have said the same thing. Have you considered just trying to run a simple, on-rails game the way your players seem to want? It's becoming increasingly obvious that there's a huge mismatch between gaming styles at your table. No amount of tweaking the rules of Soulsborne will make it fun if the rest of the table wants Mario.

Not quite, no.

I haven't started a new game yet, and I am trying to address the issues and feedback I got in the last game to make surewe don’t have a repeat.

This is absolutely going to be a simple on the rails game.

I doubt any letter – no matter how perfectly worded – is going to solve this situation.

That said, I am curious... what do they say when you make these arguments in person? Do they straight up not listen to them or do they offer an explanation for their point of view?

Normally they tell a grossly distorted story about something I said or did in the past that makes me look like a hypocrite and then laugh.

Ok, let's see how i as a player would understand this.


a) how you build is actually relevant (good thing)
b) but tanking will not be a viable strategy, don't build for it
Playing enemies smart sounds good. Enemies always targettng weaknesses sounds bad. That reeks of metagaming. If you had written "target weaknesses they know or learn about" that would support the "playing smart" part, but as it is, it sounds as if you play it like a boardgame with enemies as your playing pieces.
superflous. That is something every GM always tries to do anyway. Maybe you mention it because of past trouble.
That means : You are expected to create characters together and build for synergies.
No PC is saved via deus ex machina. But there are no other safety nets either and it might very well be a meatgrinder.
Yeah, it is a meatgrinder. Don't get attached for you will be sorry.
It is a long running group with established dynamics i have to adept to.
No puzzles.
Basic mechanical stuff. Whether thist works depends on how well medium risk/medium reward scenarios go as those will be the mast majority. But nothing particular noteworthy about, in most groups most challanges are appropriate.
If the average mission is intended to deplete most of our ressources, then the average mission and a bit bad luck is a failed mission. You will have many of those. Also, if you can use leftover ressources for downtime hat means, ressources you actually spend on mission make you permanently weaker. The system encourages you to be real stingy while at the same time makes it really hard to win consistently. This will be a very hard and difficult game.
So there is some kind of safety, but using it makes you permanently weaker. But potions and mercenaries sound as if you have to buy/hire them before you actually know you need them. So the safety is not actually in place unless you pay the cost. Sounds like a death spiral on campaign level.
Retreating or shying away from missions that seem too hard is strongly discouraged and comes with penalties beyond just not getting the reward. That one would bother me greatly.
I want you to play like in a roguelike video game. That is the dynamic i aim for. You need to be above average in tactics to succeed and the majority of missions is stuff is so difficult that a nomal adventurer that is not super reckless might ant to pass.

That is nice information, but not really helpful for a new player until they know how long missions last, how heavily the other players optimize or how competent they are.

Seems like your trusted player basically got it.

If something offered me a campaign like that, i would probably give it a pass. Seems too hardcore. Especcially the whole last part basically screams "I have had players before complaining that my game is too hard. Now i am looking for players that want this kind of challenge".


--------------------------------------

On an unrelated note, if all your new players are introduced by your two oldtime players and they are all either cracy or drug addicts, have you ever considered that there might be a realation ? Maybe it is less that your region has only bad players and more that the circles of your friends are not good for recruiting ?
Also, if you have problems with oldtimers poisoning the well, it is very bad to rely on those oldtimers to do your recruitment for you. Every new player will know them better than you and trust them more than you and will have heard their stories about your game.

You mostly got what I was going for, which is weird because you still took away that my goal was to kill characters.

Its not a meat grinder, I don’t expect any character deaths and will be amazed if there are more than one or two. The only reason I am putting in that death is a possibility is that in the last game we were playing with a no PC death house rule and it caused no end of trouble, and I want to make it clear that I am not going to go down that road again.

Tanking is perfectly valid, but you need to give the enemies a reason to attack you. You cant just make a big brick who stands there and expects enemies to come to you, in MMO terms you need to have some way to build threat be that through damage, charisma, lockdown potential, or mobility.

Yes, it is fully possible to have a death spiral. It is also fully possible to have the opposite, a runaway monty haul game where the PCs can simply through money at any challenge to make it go away. In twenty years of gaming, I have managed to thread the needle and not run into either, which is one of the reasons why I am hesitant to drastically alter my games difficulty as some forumites suggest.

And yes, bad luck can push resource expenditure to the point where mission failure is likely or prudent, and I want the PCs to recognize that it is possible due to bad luck without there being someone to blame. Thst being said, the odds are pretty small, less than 5% if previous games have been any indication.

Its not that you will be asked to go on missions only reckless adventurers would ever take, its that adventuring is by its nature a dangerous profession and risk averse people would not take it up. Likewise though, successful adventurers can’t be reckless, they need to act with a bit or tactical and strategic prudence to survive.

Why do you want to run a game that you know your players won't enjoy?

What do you want out of GMing? For me I want to see Heroes battle evil and win, permanently changing the world. I want to see them come across difficult moral choices and solve them, possibly by finding a 3rd option.

For me that means combat difficulty is secondary. I have one player who loves having his PC take permanent damage and wounds, and now only has one arm. My other player just wants a goal to work toward and doesn't want things to change midway through. That does limit my options, but there is still a lot of room to mess around with.

You keep bringing up difficulty. Why? Why is it important for you that the tactical portion of the game is difficult. Again, what do you want out of gming?

What do your players want?

Is there any overlap, or are your desires mutually exclusive?

It is mostly over-lap. The difficulty thing is not a frequent complaint from my players, but people on the forum keep telling me that when my players complain what they are really saying is that the game is too hard.

Normally any given player throws a tantrum about every five sessions, but in a five player group that means an average of one a session, occasionally coinciding to make a true **** storm.

Now, this doesn’t seem too unusual to me, based on my experience playing Monopoly with my brother, Golf with my Dad, cards with my sister in law, Warhammer with guys at the game store, or Warcraft with randos online; people get frustrated when they are losing and look for something to blame and lash out at. But I am told that it is not normal for gaming groups and that I have a problem.

The exact nature of the fit varies, both by person and time, it might be dramatic with shouting and swearing and throwing models, or it might be more subtle with accusations of cheating or favoritism and lots of sarcasm.

Typically the things that trigger it fall into a few categories, although tensions are always higher when the group is struggling than when they are breezing through.

1: Players tend to build their characters around one big thing. When it is prudent to spend money on something that doesn't directly correlate to a bonus to their one thing, they get bitter. When their one thing doesn’t work, they get mad.

2: When a players actions have unintended consequences. Usually this is because they don’t think things through, but often its because they weren’t paying attention, forgot or misunderstood something, failed to do any reconnaissance , or are surprised by something. Some of these fall under miscommunications and “gotchas”, but not the majority.

[Composer99]

Normally any given player throws a tantrum about every five sessions, but in a five player group that means an average of one a session, occasionally coinciding to make a true **** storm.

Now, this doesn’t seem too unusual to me, based on my experience playing Monopoly with my brother, Golf with my Dad, cards with my sister in law, Warhammer with guys at the game store, or Warcraft with randos online; people get frustrated when they are losing and look for something to blame and lash out at. But I am told that it is not normal for gaming groups and that I have a problem.

The exact nature of the fit varies, both by person and time, it might be dramatic with shouting and swearing and throwing models, or it might be more subtle with accusations of cheating or favoritism and lots of sarcasm.

So, I mean, yes, it's normal for people to get grumpy when things go bad in a game, especially a competitive one. If I'm on a 10-game losing streak in Hearthstone I can get crusty. It's among several reasons why I stopped playing. Although, in fairness, some swearing and the odd thrown pen when I'm sitting by myself bothering no real person is pretty harmless.

What is not normal is someone taking out a "ton of misdirected anger" on folks at the gaming table. Yes, sure, people have stuff going on in their lives that can make them angry, but it's on them to find ways to cope with it that don't involve getting your gaming table mixed up in it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Normally any given player throws a tantrum about every five sessions, but in a five player group that means an average of one a session, occasionally coinciding to make a true **** storm.

Now, this doesn’t seem too unusual to me, based on my experience playing Monopoly with my brother, Golf with my Dad, cards with my sister in law, Warhammer with guys at the game store, or Warcraft with randos online; people get frustrated when they are losing and look for something to blame and lash out at. But I am told that it is not normal for gaming groups and that I have a problem.

I want to stress upfront that I do not consider myself a paragon of DMs. That said...

I have run ~20 groups over the last 6 years ranging from one-shots to year+ campaigns with a variety of people, mostly strangers, with a range of experience from grognards to players brand new to fantasy, let alone RPGs, let alone TTRPGs.

I have yet to have anything that I could even with the faintest plausibility describe as a "tantrum". I would consider "someone throwing a tantrum" to be immediate grounds to either
1) boot the player permanently (if the rest of the group agreed).
2) end the campaign then and there and refuse to play with any of those players again (if the rest of the group thought it was normal).

If they were friends, they'd not be so after throwing a tantrum about a TTRPG. I refuse to hang out with people like that. If they're family, well, they're family, but I won't play any more games with them of any kind until they've grown up[1].

I've had a couple people drop from campaigns for non-IRL concerns, but those were amicable style differences. I've had people question my decisions/rulings, but done in an amicable manner with the full understanding that the outcome was being sought in the best interests of the group on all sides. I've had to leave one group because their style was incompatible with mine. That's it. And I've played with some seriously competitive people. And lots and lots of teenagers and pre-teens (ranging from age 7 through 18)--I'd say the median age of my players was ~15.

And I'd say that goes for any game--if you're throwing a tantrum when you lose, I don't want to have anything to do with you. And even worse, TTRPGs aren't supposed to be about winning or losing.

[1] my age-based cut-off here is 4-5 max. Before that, throwing a tantrum means immediate consequences. After that? I will not play or run games with you involved until you've shown you've changed.

[Grod_The_Giant]

The more I think about this, the more I start to think that the problem isn't that the game is challenging, it's that it's challenging the wrong people.

Builds, tactics, consequences, resource management, problem solving--that's all stuff that challenges the player. It means that you, as a person, have to stop and think about what you're doing. And for a lot of us it's the best thing about tabletop RPGs.

But not, it sounds like, for your players. For whatever reason, they don't want to find themselves in situations where there's a wrong choice. They want to roll dice and use their special abilities; they want to enjoy the worlds you come up with; and they don't want to have to worry about anything while they do.

That can be frustrating. Normally I'd say run a very linear adventure, but given that they also seem to have emotional issues and a phobia of "railroading," I'm not sure entirely what you can do. But the more you talk about planning ahead and facing consequences, the more miserable they're going to be.

Tl;dr: You want the players to put more brainpower into the game then they're willing to devote to a game.