Talking to my players

[Quertus]

The players devote no resources to reconnaissance (which is fine), but then accuse the GM of cheating and railroading when they are surprised, which is not.

Gotta circle back to this later - what is the opportunity cost here? This is probably gonna be better than what I intended to write about "one resource" stress.

I guess it's later.

Let's say that I - knowing everything I know - sit down at your table to play. Let's say we're a few sessions in, and I've gotten help with my character, and hopefully having gotten used to the game & group. We've just finished a mission, had our downtime, buffed our gear.

Now we check the boards for our next mission, and hear about a fey incursion into real space.

Remembering Sneezy, I decide I want to do some recon.

Let's say I'm playing… a high social skills Necromancer.

Can I attempt to…

• contact a sage about fey powers, weaknesses, desires, etiquette?
• "gather information"?
• search for witnesses who have survived (our individuals who have successfully negotiated with) the fey?
• summon the spirits of the dead to learn about them?
• "scry" on them via recon zombie birds?
• hire redshirts to get sneezed on (etc) first?
• animate redshirts to get sneezed on (etc) first?
• quest for the McGuffin to kill / ward against / give huge Diplomacy bonuses towards the fey?

But, if they are options, how many of these will reduce the final score, by costing money or unrecoverable spell slots (that get converted to money at the end)? How often does taking the time to do these result in the fey (or other foes in the past) having slaughtered the party's allies before our "slow and careful" method plays out?

How often could we interrogate witnesses, spot on the fey, quest for cold iron weapons and a mundane egg, meet the fey 2 months later, and come out *ahead* of where we would have been had we just charged in and won?

Is the group not Incentivized to rush in blind, and then complain to the GM when that turns out to be too hard?

You can't say "no scouting is fine" and then use it against the players and just say "oh well, if you would have scouted ahead". This is wrong on so many levels. Admit to yourself, that it's not "fine". But don't just "hope" your players will do your demand X, and then when they don't you jump up and say "GOTTHCA!" Really, just don't do that.

So, I actually agree with several of the things you said, but this one… seems worth investigating, and is related to the rest of my post. So I'll start here.

What if… you are allowed to choose any path, allowed to eat food of any spiciness, but it's on you to be able to handle your chosen course of action, to have milk and non and healing potions and whatever ready should you bite off more than you can chew?

Saying, "I don't know how much milk / Intel *you* need to enjoy this - figuring that out is on you".

Is there anything inconsistent in this line of thought?

[Satinavian]

The problem is it makes the game harder and more stressful for everyone involved, and when the players struggle, they always blame me for it.

Likewise, if the other players try talking to him, he just goes on the offensive and tells them that he is actually the victim; being the bigger man and biting his tongue about how they are ever so wasteful, and then here they are hypocritically acting like he is the one who is being selfish.Yes, it is annoying for you as well. It is still something only the players can really resolve. You should not step in unless it comes to outright bullying between the players. But in that case kick the bully.


What would you suggest using as a buffer between bad luck and death then?As i said, that must be negotiated. A solution for one group would not work for others and as you are getting new players, you don't know them anyway.

In the first group where this problem arose we had a player who said they were bored if PC death by chance and dice was not on a table and another player who would have preferred if PC death only can happen narratively on the players wish, while the rest of the players were inbetween. In the end, we decided that everyone gets 3 rerolls per session and one deus-ex-machina for the whole campaign. A compromise and it worked.

In another group we were entering an arc that was supposed to be more epic and dangerous than regular play and introduced that 3 times per session you can get a +3 bonus to a roll (even after the roll) or avoid 5 points of damage.

But again : Compromise, talk between mature players etc.

Alchemists already create free potions at intervals. The players still want to stockpile them though, and my players perceive any sort of rule that prevents stockpiling as literally being robbed.I would tell him that the alchemists powers are for producing buffs during adventure, not for earning money or accumulate power beyond what is normal during downtime and that he is free to play something else.
Games in the past, absolutely, although it becomes harder as time goes on as I no longer tend to play under GMs who are older and more experienced than myself.Just assume that your players are as open to learning and as respectful as you were in that particular campaign and think of them more like equals. That will make discussions way easier. So far nothng you said indicated that anyone sees you as some kind of experienced mentor figure, not even the newcomers.

Maybe this is just a misdirection, but it is always phrased as a "Just playing my character;" issue. Its not that the players don't want to engage, its just that they created a rational homebody who would never take incredible risks; adventures are nasty things that tend to make one late for dinner! And I am saying upfront that neither cautious homebodies OR reckless berserkers are appropriate PCs for my game.If the campaign you want to play and the campaign your players want to play, don't match, you won't get a fun game. Some of that can be blamed on communication issues. But as the same thing comes up repeatedly, you might consider having mutually exclusive desires. And this won't be solved by you telling them they should comform to your way.

Are you sure? Like, problems in game tend to arise when I am not proactive enough with information. I really think it sounds a lot more frustrating to keep rejecting characters than it would be to just set out some guidelines upfront.Yes, i am sure. If you only complain when the character is presented to you, you tell them that you trust them to make a character. Which is a token of respect. You also only have to talk about the problematic characters and their players, not the rest. And you will have the example character at hand which makes it easier to talk about it.


They try and pick the lock, and roll a 24, failing. Maybe they try and break down the door, and roll a 17, also failing. At this point they assume that I don't want them to go into the door and that I am railroading their tests to automatically fail, and that nothing they can do will get them through the door. So they give up on the idea of exploring the dungeon and go back to town.
So there are other solutions but none of them occur to your players. What do you expect them to do here ? They literally can't try any of the silutions that have not occurred to them.

It wasn't obvious to me. IMO, consumables are a resource like any other, and I don't see how "stingy" has anything to do with it. Now, my players tend to value consumables as exponentially more valuable than any other form of resource, so, for example, if they had an arrow of dragon slaying, they would ignore my advice and, rather than using the arrow to kill a dragon that was in their way, they would save the arrow (likely forever) and instead wade in and use a whole bunch of HP and spells to save that one arrow.Ressources that don't reprenish are more valuable than those that do. How much more is up for debate and depends on the situation. But you obviously feel different about it than your players and that won't ever change, no matter how many letters you write.
Out of curiosity, do you literally mean 100% chance of victory? Because I don't think that's reasonable. But assuming you are being hyperbolic, I don't see any problem with that. My players, on the other hand, want to play "combat as sport" against "balanced encounters", and so I typically give them exactly that; which comes out to (in D&D terms) ~4 equal CR encounters between rests each with an average of a 99.5% chance of PC victory, which I don't really consider railroading them into an uncertain battle.No, not literally 100%. But defeat chance should be negligable or I would need a surefire way to retreat without giving up anything of importance. I also might be lenient with those conditions if i were somehow particularly invested in the vicory to counter additional risk. But money and xp don't do that.
Also there is still a chance that i misjudge the danger of a fight or screw up my combat tactics so the actual victory chance would be even lower.


But yeah, it really seems like the takeaway for a lot of this is that my players just don't want to go on my adventures; but if that is the case they really need to be better at communicating what they want, because as is I am trying to tailor everything to the way they say they like it.
Well, yes.

That is something people have told you a long time.

Also i remember that you didn't like to listen to complains of your players about how your game is too hard. Instead of making your game easier you got to great lengths to explain how it was not actually that hard.

[OldTrees1]

The tone I am going for is "I am going to play the game straight; I am not going to tailor encounters to you, fudge dice, or metagame NPC reactions in your favor or against it."

I remember you mentioning that before. This letter has a general tone of "This will be hard mode." despite your intention. However please note that it is a big improvement from the "I blame you." tone of the previous letter.

Some of the "This will be hard mode" tone is unavoidable since your honest description of certain aspects reveals those specific aspects are harder than normal (for example "Don't waste consumables" and "Spending a consumable is better than dying." imply consumables are necessary and resource management is tight.)

Please continue reading and responding to the more detailed analysis. I wanted to make sure you heard the tone improved but the current tone will be slightly different than intended.

I don't really know the new players well enough to ask them to come onto a social media site on my behalf. Bob doesn't like forums, and he specifically considers going onto them for game advice to be a form of gossiping about people behind their backs. Brian has an account here, and I am sure I could talk him into posting if people have any specific questions / topics they want him to address.

Although when I asked him, he said he is still leery after the reaction to a post him made over a decade ago on the old WoTC forums.

I wish the original was still up, but in short he said "I need to solo a red dragon to qualify for vassal of bahamut, but my DM's game is really hard because he plays the monsters smart, so how can I possibly win?" To which the forums response was "LOL, the character you posted is a gestalt character with 40 point buy, 4x WBL, numerous custom items, and a non-standard race. This is the easiest most Monty Haul campaign I have ever seen, I am sure your DM will provide a wheezing, half dead, dragon who rolls over at your feet and beg's for mercy! Quit wasting out time!" That's a paraphrase, but its not actually a comedic exaggeration, btw.

This forum is a bit better behaved, but the subject matter will be more prone to tension. I understand if they are leery.

[Cluedrew]

I am just going to repeat a point from my last post that I think was missed because I think it is important: Talakeal, what changes/problems are you willing to stop running the game over?

[Talakeal]

So there are other solutions but none of them occur to your players. What do you expect them to do here ? They literally can't try any of the solutions that have not occurred to them.

Did you miss the last part about how they assume that I am intentionally stonewalling them and therefore give up trying? Because that is the issue, not that they are simply out of ideas.

BUT... remember how in my previous post I said that I tend to overestimate people's intelligence?

In this case, there are 4-6 players, all of whom are adults with college degrees and / or jobs, over a century of gaming experience between them, and most of them claiming to be certified geniuses; and you are seriously telling me that not one of them can think of any alternate ways that one would even attempt to open a locked door? Especially when they or their allies include reality warping wizards and oracles who can literally pluck ideas from the ether?

I just don't buy it.

Resources that don't replenish are more valuable than those that do. How much more is up for debate and depends on the situation. But you obviously feel different about it than your players and that won't ever change.

Who said anything about resources not replenishing? Heck, earlier in this very post I am responding to Quertus telling me (I think) that a problem with my game is that it is too easy to convert one form of resource to another.

But again, why is it my fault that the players are too stubborn to play the game the way it was designed? Consumables are an intended part of the difficulty curve, and by refusing to use them the players are making the game harder on themselves. And again, its fine if they want to play on hard-mode, I do it all the time myself, but then bitching about how the game is too hard seems really hypocritical. Especially when they also explicitly tell me that they want objectively balanced encounters that are not tailored to their party.

Well, yes.

That is something people have told you a long time.

Also I remember that you didn't like to listen to complains of your players about how your game is too hard. Instead of making your game easier you got to great lengths to explain how it was not actually that hard.

Again, its really hard to answer questions that are never asked.

The players constantly come to me with specific issues, and I tweak the game to address those issues. But they still complain when things don't go their way. The forum, not the players, the forum, says its because they really think the game is too hard, but won't actually tell me that because it would make them look bad. The closest thing they have ever said was "You might be making a mistake using us for playtesting, because we are so much better than the average players, that the game might be too hard for people who aren't as good as us." or "You know, if we didn't have an X in our party, we probably wouldn't have survived that last adventure."

But the thing is, "too hard" doesn't mean anything. I see no indication of the player's struggling with the difficulty in any objective sense; I use level appropriate enemies, PCs don't die, they win 99+% of fights, they are 20-30% above the average WBL, they complete 95+% of all quests they attempt, they make it to maximum level, defeat their enemies, change the world, and become rich, famous, respected, and powerful. Like, I just don't see where this "too hard" is coming from, especially considering that the same players make the same complaints in every game they play regardless of the system or who is GMing.

So, engaging with the forums supposition that the game is too hard, WITHOUT talking to my players about it, is a very, very, daunting task.

[Talakeal]

I am just going to repeat a point from my last post that I think was missed because I think it is important: Talakeal, what changes/problems are you willing to stop running the game over?

I genuinely don't know.

I will say though, that I can't put up with this current "weird learned helplessness / stop hitting yourself" that the players have recently leaned into much longer.


And, if it needs clarification / restating; the players want total freedom with characters builds and tactics, but at the same time they want me to assume total responsibility for anything bad that happens to their characters, and they just can't have it both ways. Its like being fricking reverse Spider Man; "with no authority comes great blame".

[Silly Name]

Did you miss the last part about how they assume that I am intentionally stonewalling them and therefore give up trying? Because that is the issue, not that they are simply out of ideas.

BUT... remember how in my previous post I said that I tend to overestimate people's intelligence?

In this case, there are 4-6 players, all of whom are adults with college degrees and / or jobs, over a century of gaming experience between them, and most of them claiming to be certified geniuses; and you are seriously telling me that not one of them can think of any alternate ways that one would even attempt to open a locked door? Especially when they or their allies include reality warping wizards and oracles who can literally pluck ideas from the ether?

I just don't but it.

So, this is sort of a red flag to me. I assume most people are of average intelligence, and I agree your players, assuming average intelligence, are likely to be able to, in a vacuum, come up with many ways to get past the door - or rather, get inside the dungeon. But why do your players, while the game is running, give up so easily?

Either they have trouble thinking outside the box, and so see failing to open the door as a sign there's no way in - because the problem is framed as "a locked door stands before you", thus they ignore solutions that don't actively target the door -, or they have past experiences that make them assume that a locked door they can't open right away will stay locked. Their bias may not be reasonable, but they might be biased anyways and that influences their decisions.

I have two groups. One prefers linear, plot-heavy games where they do impact the world but overall happily go along the "rails". We came to this agreement together after I tried to run a more sandbox campaign and they didn't really like it, saying they prefer to have some direction from me as the GM.

Another group, while still liking my campaigns, is more inventive and loves to "mess" with things. They will often send my plans off the rails, and I love it. It's fun and helps me come up with things, creating a reactive world.

With both groups, I have a tradition: after a session is over, I ask them what they thought of it, what they liked and disliked. I ask them to ask me questions and my opinion on some of their choices, feel free to ask "what would have happened if we did X instead of Y? Could things have gone differently?", and I always do my best to answer honestly, save for when the answer could spoil things, which is rare.

This helps create trust. When my players fail to get past some obstacle, they know they can later ask me "so, what was behind that wall? How could we have got past it?" and I'll answer. They may kick themselves over failing to do something, but they will never feel like I'm cheating them.

But again, why is it my fault that the players are too stubborn to play the game the way it was designed?

It's not your fault per se, but one of the things a GM should do is find a compromise between the rules-as-written, and the way their table plays.
Everyone wants and expects different things. There's no way that your system, even if overall liked by your table, hits all the buttons of your players and does nothing they dislike. If they don't like to engage with some part of the system, for whatever reason, it's time to go over it again and analyse what it does, why your players don't engage with it, and fix that part of the system as needed... or even throw it out.

Even if your players aren't actively complaining about a rule, their refusal to use consumables tells you things about their playstyle, and you need to address that. Don't expect them to play the game "as intended" - nobody does, everyone puts their little spins on it.

The players constantly come to me with specific issues, and I tweak the game to address those issues. But they still complain when things don't go their way. The forum, not the players, the forum, says its because they really think the game is too hard, but won't actually tell me that because it would make them look bad. The closest thing they have ever said was "You might be making a mistake using us for playtesting, because we are so much better than the average players, that the game might be too hard for people who aren't as good as us." or "You know, if we didn't have an X in our party, we probably wouldn't have survived that last adventure."

But the thing is, "too hard" doesn't mean anything. I see no indication of the player's struggling with the difficulty in any objective sense; I use level appropriate enemies, PCs don't die, they win 99+% of fights, they are 20-30% above the average WBL, they complete 95+% of all quests they attempt, they make it to maximum level, defeat their enemies, change the world, and become rich, famous, respected, and powerful. Like, I just don't see where this "too hard" is coming from, especially considering that the same players make the same complaints in every game they play regardless of the system or who is GMing.

So, engaging with the forums supposition that the game is too hard, WITHOUT talking to my players about it, is a very, very, daunting task.

Honestly? From your description of your players, the main problem is relational and personal. System and style have little to do with it: you are in a toxic environment, with toxic people. That's the thing that needs addressing, not the power curve or the WBL or anything else in-game. It's not a game problem, not even a table problem: it's a people problem.

[The Glyphstone]

Briefly skimming over the thread, it looks like we're just hitting the same argumentative points again for the third time. So all I feel I have to offer now is this - you don't need to be talking "to" your players, and especially not talking "at" your players with a lecturing letter of how to git gud at your game. You need to be talking "with" your players. Use this long hiatus, and their apparent hunger to resume play, as the one-time opportunity it is to clear some air. Have a dialogue, in a more comfortable setting than you at the head of the DM table, and try as hard as you can to see if there is any way to resolve the longer-standing issues, the apparent grudges. And let them go first. Listen to their problems when you give them a chance to air them, and - this is very important - acknowledge their feelings and show resolve towards them. To use one specific example, if they bring up the Sneeze Ogre or the Avatar - do not turn defensive and explain how it was a good encounter they botched, or any sort of back and forth - just accept that they didn't enjoy it and note why. Show that you are willing to treat this as a 'reset' button, so to speak, and that you intend to make an effort to go better.

Then, once you have done that and assuming they're cooperative, do the same for yourself. Air your own problems and issues, as politely as you can in general terms. Don't mention people's specific bad habits by name, or drag out specific incidents in turn, but in general terms of things that make you not have fun and not enjoy running the game. Do your best to see if they will acknowledge your issues in turn and reciprocate the olive branch that you extended. If these people are actually your friends, however weird your relationship is, this approach might be able to smooth over problems. If they're just abusers who delight in having you as a doormat to kick around and tell you the lies you need to hear to prevent losing that doormat access, they won't. There's only one way to really know.

Do I think this will work? Probably not. Will this even happen? I'm skeptical. But it's the only thing I can think of to try and cut out the root of the canker before it gets a chance to spread again.

[meandean]

Honestly? From your description of your players, the main problem is relational and personal. System and style have little to do with it: you are in a toxic environment, with toxic people. That's the thing that needs addressing, not the power curve or the WBL or anything else in-game. It's not a game problem, not even a table problem: it's a people problem.

Yeah, agreed. This may be personal and/or off-topic, but I'll ask anyway: Does this happen to you elsewhere?? Do you go to your workplace and find that everyone is constantly screaming and throwing objects? Or does it happen, not when there's actually something meaningful at stake for people to be angry about, but only when you're playing make-believe games?

Again, I don't mean to be nosy or nasty... but I'm trying to a) understand how things even got to this point, and b) let you know (as you probably already do) that this isn't a commonplace experience for most people. You say you usually also encounter similar things playing online... I've had some bad groups, but it's usually "the players aren't into the game" rather than "the players go out of their way to tear each other apart on a deeply personal level." Anyway, I think unacceptable disruptions of this sort have to be confronted and resolved at the moment they happen. Writing them a letter about it now is like if the cat jumps on the table and your response is, not to spray it with the water bottle right then, but to skip a meal three months later. Naturally that's not going to change its behavior, or even register at all as being a consequence of what happened before.

[Quertus]

What I meant was for you to give three examples on bravery that would be from your games. Mainly to see what level is expected. Because there is the "charge the dragon to buy the others few seconds to think of a plan" bravery, there is the "the odds of us four beating the 4086 orcs are minimal, but if we don't, nobody else will" bravery, there is the "you stood up for us, so we'll stand with you to the bitter end"...

...and some of these are not bravery. There is also loyalty, responsibility and self-sacrifice involved. Do you want to see that in your games? Or just "grit your teeth and pull through anything, even if it kills us"?

So, what exactly are we talking about here? I'm still not sure, based on your response.

As for Bilbo, what you described is not mainly bravery. It's persistence, having no other realistic option, and certain type of cowardice (I'll stick with the dwarves because otherwise I'll have to go home alone/be branded a coward). His bravest moments include him standing up to Thorin with the stone, fighting the spiders while having a big advantage... I'd have to reread the book to find out if there were more, but he's not really brave. He's fairly stubborn.

Also, Bilbo is a book character. Which means, he has to slog through whatever the author deems necessary - because the only risk you run there is the reader shutting the book going "Oh, that poor hobbit, can't take more about him plodding along and having these numerous setbacks". Can't say that for the players of an interactive RPG - especially if the game is not presented as one.

I think Talakeal would be best served by realizing that "bravery"can be taken many ways, won't be taken the desired way by Bizarro World, and to never say it to that group ever again - certainly not with any expectation things getting better.

But, yes, you're absolutely right - there are a lot of possible meanings. And it *would* be interesting to know exactly what Talakeal means.

Generally not. That's a good point.

If you want to create a table culture, create - and live - that table culture. Dress for the job you want, not the job you have, as they say.

Again, that's an (imo unintended) anomaly of 3E. What did you do with all the scrolls and potions you found in treasure hordes in older editions?

Potions? Hoarded them for when they were needed (they (almost) never were), and used them as "bad GM detection bait".

Scrolls? Learned the spells from them, of course - that's why my character was out adventuring, after all!

Wands? (In general,) hoard them until we can find out how many charges they have, then hoard (at least) the *last* charge until we can recharge them.

Its not so much that they don't like buying consumables, its that they don't like using the one's they have, and imo there is nothing optimal about having possessions that do nothing but sit in a vault collecting dust.

Ah. I've been trying to solve the wrong problem.

This sounds easy to address: run "war games" in your system - specifically, build a sample party, and have your group run them, both with using potions and without, and *measure* the resources afterwards.

Take advantage of this "having a single score" to let your players actively *see* which strategies are optimal. Fighting 3 fire elementals and an earth elemental - is it better to use no potions, to start the fight by popping a Fire Resistance (or Haste?) potion, or to have a "drinking problem" buff routine?

Could you elaborate here?

I am not quite sure what you are saying. My groups generally don't belong to guilds, but generally do contain an alchemist who gets to make potions for free over time.

No need to elaborate, then - they've got it covered.

I was just trying to move potions into a different "score" track, that's all.

Whereas your players used them for… "final fight? Easy mode!".

The problem is, people in my friend circle don't like to ever admit weakness or fault; they don't say "I am struggling," they say "This is unfair! I am being cheated / screwed over!"

Oh, good, you've identified a core problem. Now, how do you fix that? Don't waste effort (and social cred) fighting symptoms, address the actual core problems.

The obvious answer is "get better friends". Can you find a better answer?

EDIT: this is actually a huge issue with playing with *humans* If you open a restaurant, and give them the Agency to mix toppings that don't (normally) go well on particular foods, and they pick such a combination, most people will remember, "I didn't like it", not "I messed up". So, to be fair, this is in no way *unique* to your players, nor is it an easy problem to solve. It's baked in to standard human failings.

[Time Troll]

What if… you are allowed to choose any path, allowed to eat food of any spiciness, but it's on you to be able to handle your chosen course of action, to have milk and non and healing potions and whatever ready should you bite off more than you can chew?

Saying, "I don't know how much milk / Intel *you* need to enjoy this - figuring that out is on you".

Is there anything inconsistent in this line of thought?

No? Maybe not? I'm not sure?

I too am a "your character should do things like scout ahead and discover information. To just blindly stumble around is a bad idea."

My point is more on the reaction. Sure many players that don't scout ahead will blunder into an obvious trap head over heels. And in my game this often as character death. And most of the players that do this will whine and complain when this happens....or worse.

The point is more how the GM reacts to it. My reaction is: I don't care. The players made a choice and the game D20 rolls on. The players are given maybe a minute to have a knee jerk whine and rant......but then will be required to drop it forevermore. Any player that does not do so will be cast out of the game. And any player that starts the conspiracy of accusing the Gm of railroading or cheating or such will be gone too.

But then take the other game. Same set up, except when the player whines and rants the GM lets them do so for the whole game and forever. So all the type the GM and other players have to have the game disrupted by the whine of the one player. And it's only about ten times worse when the GM mixes it up with the player to really ruin the game. When each start to say things about each other and let insults fly and worse.

And in the end, if the players refuse to scout and the end result is a "unhappy game" AND the GM knowing this full well REFUSES to change anything they do: then it is all on them. Once you know that surprises will disrupt the game, you need to think hard about IF you even want to use them. If you keep up with the same thing that causes the problem, and don't want to change anything: you are the problem.

If you as a Gm do an action, and the players will be disruptive: you have to own that action. As a hard core GM, if you are disruptive...you are gone from the game. But if your a GM that refuses to do that, you need to find some other action to take. And if you refuse to do anything "against" the player, then it is YOU that must change. And the obvious thing is to have no more "surprise, you should have scouted ahead" stuff.

Did you miss the last part about how they assume that I am intentionally stonewalling them and therefore give up trying? Because that is the issue, not that they are simply out of ideas.

Really, this is Common GM Mistake #11. The GM makes a task "hard"...to them. But to others, it looks and feels IMPOSSIBLE. I know this well: I'm a master at it. A typical new player in my game is beyond confused when they can't just d20 past everything.

BUT... remember how in my previous post I said that I tend to overestimate people's intelligence?

Well, don't do this.

In this case, there are 4-6 players, all of whom are adults with college degrees and / or jobs, over a century of gaming experience between them, and most of them claiming to be certified geniuses; and you are seriously telling me that not one of them can think of any alternate ways that one would even attempt to open a locked door? Especially when they or their allies include reality warping wizards and oracles who can literally pluck ideas from the ether?

I just don't buy it.

Most people are not quite geniuses. And Out of the Box Thinking, Problem Solving, Macgyvering and being Creative are NOT even uncommon skills. Even more so when you add in role playing and Thinking Out Side the Rules.

I run an Old School type game, no matter the rule system. It's not just "roll higher then 13 to find the secret door....zzzzz". It's more "take actions in character to find the secret door. Light a candle and move along the wall looking for slight air flow, dump out some water and see where it flows, tap things to see if they are hollow or solid, look for scrapes on stone, and so on." You can build up a nice +10 bonus to a roll with just a little effort. But this does NOT come easy or natural to most people. Ask a random person how to find a secret door and they will just look at you with a blank stare. Even someone with 20 years of game experience might only be able to think of "um..roll a D20?"

For new players to my game, they need a bit of hand holding and to be taught this Old Style of game play. But they won't just spontaneously think of things on their own.

But again, why is it my fault that the players are too stubborn to play the game the way it was designed?

Except it is YOUR personal made game. Is there some reason you won't change anything?

[Pex]

This letter is better written than the previous one, less fire & brimstone, more matter of factual. It's a kick in the pants letter, which is NOT a bad thing. It's a letter your players need to read and comprehend.

[Pauly]

I just want to take a completely different tack.

There is a world of difference between “talking to your players” and “talking with your players”.
One implies the DM dictating rules for the players to follow. The other implies negotiation and give and take from all parties.

From what I read of Talakeal’s issues with his player group, a lot of it seems to be based on not having shared assumptions. There is a possibility that the players are putting on their best “yes boss, of course boss” face and promptly forgetting everything Talakeal says.

I think getting into the minutiae and fine detail isn’t the best way forward. I think keeping broad brushstrokes and intentions is more important. Whenever I’m trying to get a team to follow my vision I’ve always found focussing on the why and how gets better results than focussing on the what and when.

Just to use a recently discussed example about players not scouting. Talakeal hasn’t been able to explain why his players don’t scout. Some possible e planations.
- They find the scouting minigame boring.
- There are many situations in which scouting has no practical benefit, and overall is slowing down the game (both in real time and in-game where there are ticking clocks)
- they don’t want to split the party.
- non scouting characters have dead time while they wait for the scouts to do their thing.
- the players assume their characters will do basic scouting/observation checks, the same way it can be assumed they on their pants on in the morning, unless they specifically state they are rushing ahead full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes.
One partial solution may be to offer the players the assumption that they are doing basic scouting/observation, but they will get bonuses if they state they are scouting. Just because the players find scouting tedious doesn’t mean the characters are deliberately neglecting it.
Unless you know why the players aren’t scouting you will never find a suitable incentive to get them to scout. Remember that to change somebody else’s behaviour, first you have to change your own.

[Sigreid]

I'd send an email to the players and say something like "I know we have some issues in our games that lead to frustration sometimes and before we start the next campaign I'd like us to get together for lunch or something; and for everyone to bring up what gets to them in game and see if we can get to a more fun setup for everyone, including me." And then have just that talk and see if everyone can bend a little when they see the other sides.

[Talakeal]

So, this was going to be a specific response to someone, but I can no longer find the original post I was going to quote.


Anyway, I think a lot of problems in my game arise from the PCs wanting me to play NPCs really dumb, but I don't do that because it hurts my verisimilitude.

To use some examples:

My players consider terrain to be cheating as it "always favors the monsters" and want all fights to be in an empty field.

When I ran 3E, I would have my dragons use their spells to buff themselves. I was told that spellcasting is actually there to *weaken* dragons, to have them shoot out magic missiles and fireballs periodically to give the party a break from the dragon's much deadlier physical attacks, and that I was doing it wrong.

One of my players told me that "tanking was impossible" in my game because his strategy of investing near 100% of his wealth and build points into defenses and then putting up a fire shield, and walking towards the monsters while they burn to death rushing him and hoping to score that nat 20 they need to actually hit him.

I just want to take a completely different tack.

There is a world of difference between “talking to your players” and “talking with your players”.
One implies the DM dictating rules for the players to follow. The other implies negotiation and give and take from all parties.

From what I read of Talakeal’s issues with his player group, a lot of it seems to be based on not having shared assumptions. There is a possibility that the players are putting on their best “yes boss, of course boss” face and promptly forgetting everything Talakeal says.

I think getting into the minutiae and fine detail isn’t the best way forward. I think keeping broad brushstrokes and intentions is more important. Whenever I’m trying to get a team to follow my vision I’ve always found focusing on the why and how gets better results than focusing on the what and when.

Just to use a recently discussed example about players not scouting. Talakeal hasn’t been able to explain why his players don’t scout. Some possible explanations.
- They find the scouting minigame boring.
- There are many situations in which scouting has no practical benefit, and overall is slowing down the game (both in real time and in-game where there are ticking clocks)
- they don’t want to split the party.
- non scouting characters have dead time while they wait for the scouts to do their thing.
- the players assume their characters will do basic scouting/observation checks, the same way it can be assumed they on their pants on in the morning, unless they specifically state they are rushing ahead full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes.
One partial solution may be to offer the players the assumption that they are doing basic scouting/observation, but they will get bonuses if they state they are scouting. Just because the players find scouting tedious doesn’t mean the characters are deliberately neglecting it.
Unless you know why the players aren’t scouting you will never find a suitable incentive to get them to scout. Remember that to change somebody else’s behavior, first you have to change your own.

Please be aware, I don't really care about scouting or not; time and resources spent gathering information are not necessarily better than any other method. The problem is that any time the players are surprised, they can accuse me of pulling something out of my butt in order to railroad them.

Heck, they might even be doing this intentionally, even if subconsciously so, refusing to scout because it gives them any easy excuse to blame me for failure.


In my previous group the party's monk (we lacked a dedicated rogue) had excellent stealth skills, but the player couldn't handle the stress of making decisions (even very simple ones like continuing on or turning back to report her findings) on her own, and would literally break down into tears quite frequently.

Likewise, the wizard player rarely ever cast divination spells. He used to say this was because I would give overly cryptic answers that were more stressful than ignorance, and I actually agreed with him and stopped doing that. However, he still doesn't cast divinations, he only changed his rationale for not doing so to "I came here to play an RPG, not 20 questions". I suspect his real reason is that he doesn't like spending spell slots on things without numerical effects, and is very much in the Xykon camp of "Knowledge isn't power, power is power!"

[Devils_Advocate]

Maybe this is just a misdirection, but it is always phrased as a "Just playing my character;" issue. Its not that the players don't want to engage, its just that they created a rational homebody who would never take incredible risks; adventures are nasty things that tend to make one late for dinner! And I am saying upfront that neither cautious homebodies OR reckless berserkers are appropriate PCs for my game.

I generally feel like when a GM says "Your character's behavior is inappropriate" and a player essentially responds with "Not only that, but I decided to have my character consistently behave in this particular inappropriate fashion", the GM should reply along the lines of "Well, that's not acceptable either, which I'd have thought was obvious".

The PCs (nominally) want to go explore the dungeon.

You nominally want the PCs to go explore the dungeon. And yet you try one thing -- having the players figure something out -- and then, when it doesn't work, give up. You apparently don't say "Um, gang, there are still lots of things that you could try. You don't even have to go through the door to get in; you could go around it several ways. Or maybe you could get that guard to let you in."

If your players won't attempt something that you want them to do because they don't know how to do it, you could just, you know, tell them how to do it. Or, like, at least give some hints. Similarly, if the PCs run away from somewhere you want them to be because the players think that it's way more dangerous than it actually is, you could reassure them that it's not actually all that dangerous.

Anyway, I think a lot of problems in my game arise from the PCs wanting me to play NPCs really dumb, but I don't do that because it hurts my verisimilitude.

Why not have them fight things that are supposed to be dumb? Like, do a monster-hunting campaign. Send waves of mindless skeletons at them. Whatever.

Not everyone plays RPGs in order to engage in clever problem-solving. If that's something that your group doesn't do, for whatever reason, then don't make plans that fall apart if clever problem-solving is not engaged in by said group. Because if you do, then those plans are gonna fall apart.

It has been said that the definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results. I get the impression that you keep trying to run a game to your and your players' agreed-upon specifications, and keep winding up unhappy about how that goes. Maybe it's time to accept that y'all do not actually like the sort of game that you want, and try something different. Maybe stop doing stuff that players complain about, even if it's what they say they want. Or try running a significantly different sort of game, like Wushu or Paranoia or Mouse Guard or whatever. Try stuff other than what you want, if only to get some perspective.

I frankly suspect that you aren't approaching the task of running a fun game with the same sort of thoughtful pragmatism with which you want your players to play their characters. Encouraging you to break out of your rut is in turn me being hypocritical, but never mind that; do as I say, not as I do.

[Talakeal]

Why not have them fight things that are supposed to be dumb? Like, do a monster-hunting campaign. Send waves of mindless skeletons at them. Whatever.

First, because that limits me to a very small sub set of scenarios I can run, which would get pretty boring fast. Especially when a lot of the "dumb" monsters are things like undead and vermin which players specifically ask not to fight frequently because of IRL phobias.

Second, that means I also have to play the PCs allies as dumb to for the PCs to feel like heroes. For example, if the mindless zombies just shamble around in a field all day and occasionally slowly shamble towards their prey, the local farmers are just going to go out and shoot them from a hundred paces away, and the fact that they haven't done this, and are instead paying a (to them) fortune in gold coins to hire "heroes" to come handle their problems, says some pretty not nice things about their intelligence.

There is a term for it, which I can't remember, where you have a character in fiction do something obvious and pretend like none of the experts had ever thought of it before, and it makes the audience feel really smart. Like the scene in Top Gun where he slows down his plane to get the guy tailing him to overshoot him is treated like a brilliant plan, rather than what is, irl, a fairly basic tactic. Its really hard to pull that over and over again, especially without running into the Elminster problem (the PCs resent a powerful NPC hiring to do something they could do them self with a negligible amount of effort).

You nominally want the PCs to go explore the dungeon. And yet you try one thing -- having the players figure something out -- and then, when it doesn't work, give up. You apparently don't say "Um, gang, there are still lots of things that you could try. You don't even have to go through the door to get in; you could go around it several ways. Or maybe you could get that guard to let you in."

If your players won't attempt something that you want them to do because they don't know how to do it, you could just, you know, tell them how to do it. Or, like, at least give some hints. Similarly, if the PCs run away from somewhere you want them to be because the players think that it's way more dangerous than it actually is, you could reassure them that it's not actually all that dangerous.

Generally this is what happens.

The problem is, normally the players get very bitter and they (rightly or wrongly) consider this to be talking down to them and telling them what to do.
Also, this skirts really close to railroading, which is something I have to try super hard to avoid because my players accuse me of it even when I am not.

Also, do note that the problem is not usually that the players can't actually think of a solution, its that for some reason they assume that all NPCs share my point of view, and that if an NPC went to the trouble of trying to keep the players out, then I as a GM must not want them to go in there.

So, we get into a weird situation where the players get stuck because they assume I am railroading, and the only solution to get them unstuck is to start railroading them.


So, three stories that illustrate this point:

Spoiler: Story 1

Show

One time, the players found some griffons and wanted to ride them. Now, I will let the SRD say what is required to ride a griffon:

"Although intelligent, a griffon requires training before it can bear a rider in combat. To be trained, a griffon must have a friendly attitude toward the trainer (this can be achieved through a successful Diplomacy check). Training a friendly griffon requires six weeks of work and a DC 25 Handle Animal check. Riding a griffon requires an exotic saddle. A griffon can fight while carrying a rider, but the rider cannot also attack unless he or she succeeds on a Ride check."

Now, the players didn't have six weeks, an exotic saddle, or the handle animal or ride skills. But when I told them this, the players assumed that I was just railroading them and coming up with excuses to shoot down their brilliant idea because it would break my campaign.

Spoiler: Spoiler 2

Show

Recently, as I mentioned in my other thread, one of the players has been bitching about how I "love to kill PCs and then get mad at the players for dying" despite the fact that there were zero PC fatalities in my previous game.

There were, however, several times when the PCs abandoned an adventure they could have easily finished because they were scared of death, and I gave them some version of the "reassure them its not all that dangerous" speech. Eventually, I just said "HP represents morale rather than meat, if you are out of HP you automatically fall back and regroup" to try and encourage them to go on, but this didn't change their behavior, all it did was, instead of giving up, they would literally lie down in combat and let the monsters beat on them for a "free teleport back to town".

The only thing I can figure out is that me not wanting them to abandon the adventure (accomplished by just lying down and letting the monsters beat on them) was warped in her mind into "killing them and then getting mad at them for dying".

Spoiler: Story 3

Show

My very first time ever DMing, when I was about eight, was a game of Heroquest for my dad. Now, Heroquest is a dungeon crawling boardgame that is basically "baby's first Dungeons and Dragons". Now, this game only has like five or six PC actions, one of which is "search". My dad kept getting stuck because the dungeon we were in had a lot of secret doors, and he kept forgetting to search for them. When he got stuck, I kept having to remind him to search, and eventually he quit the game because "This game is dumb because I am not making my own decisions, you are just telling me what to do, and you might as well be playing with yourself."

And so, to this day, I have always been a little overly cautious about telling the players what to do when they get stuck.

Not everyone plays RPGs in order to engage in clever problem-solving. If that's something that your group doesn't do, for whatever reason, then don't make plans that fall apart if clever problem-solving is not engaged in by said group. Because if you do, then those plans are gonna fall apart.

That's part of the problem, I don't consider the obstacles I put before them to be particularly clever. Most of them are just "this one thing doesn't work" when an average person off the street could name half a dozen approaches to the problem.

Also, my players, sometimes, DO come up with really clever strategies.

It has been said that the definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results. I get the impression that you keep trying to run a game to your and your players' agreed-upon specifications, and keep winding up unhappy about how that goes. Maybe it's time to accept that y'all do not actually like the sort of game that you want, and try something different. Maybe stop doing stuff that players complain about, even if it's what they say they want. Or try running a significantly different sort of game, like Wushu or Paranoia or Mouse Guard or whatever. Try stuff other than what you want, if only to get some perspective.

Its not that we are unhappy with the game. I know I sound like a battered wife here, but most of the time we really do enjoy the games. Its just that, once every five or six sessions, one player has a really bad time with something, and makes a really unpleasant scene for everyone involved.

If I stopped doing everything they complain about, well, there wouldn't be anything left as at one point or another they have complained about everything; as I said in my previous thread, when players fail they look for something to blame, whether its rational or not, the "light cavalry are cheap" problem.

And getting players to try new games is like pulling teeth; I have been wanting to play The One Ring, Aces and Eights, Skies of Glass, Delta Green, and Exalted for years, but there is never any interest. Likewise, starting a new group, especially for something that isn't D&D or Pathfinder, is all but impossible, generally you can find one or two players who are interested, but never enough for a full group.

I frankly suspect that you aren't approaching the task of running a fun game with the same sort of thoughtful pragmatism with which you want your players to play their characters. Encouraging you to break out of your rut is in turn me being hypocritical, but never mind that; do as I say, not as I do.

Honestly, persistence is exactly what I want to see from my characters, thoughtful or otherwise.

[Squire Doodad]

Yeah, the whole "hardcore" bit was really just to illustrate the possible difference between what you run and what your players want - generally I'd lean more towards your style, but I've had plenty of tables who just want to go slaughter a goblin tribe or whatever and not think.(I believe your previous thread had someone say their table spent a fight looking for a "bendy tree to turn into a catapult" and something about juggling axes? So it may not even be difficulty but lack of nonsense)

At a glance, if a group has multiple people who are actively looking for overly silly or cartoony solutions to things, it might be a good idea to let that happen (in moderation), and maybe run a more light-hearted campaign. Let creative solutions to things that sound plausible slide for the most part, even if they're not a bullseye on what you were trying to get them to do.

Some people don't like grim and gritty environments, some people do enjoy being able to play with the world like it's Looney Tunes.
There are systems meant for this, but also just running a less serious campaign can have the desired effect.

First, because that limits me to a very small sub set of scenarios I can run, which would get pretty boring fast. Especially when a lot of the "dumb" monsters are things like undead and vermin which players specifically ask not to fight frequently because of IRL phobias.

Second, that means I also have to play the PCs allies as dumb to for the PCs to feel like heroes. For example, if the mindless zombies just shamble around in a field all day and occasionally slowly shamble towards their prey, the local farmers are just going to go out and shoot them from a hundred paces away, and the fact that they haven't done this, and are instead paying a (to them) fortune in gold coins to hire "heroes" to come handle their problems, says some pretty not nice things about their intelligence.

Maybe zombies scare the wits out of farmers, who they can beat in a few rounds if they get close. Or perhaps shooting all of them takes a lot of time, or a farmer isn't a good shot and would probably have the zombie within arms reach before they land enough hits, and so on. Remember, players live and die. NPC characters, much like real life people, only live once, and they have families to feed, widows they'd leave, and other things they hold dear.
Thus, they'd rather hire adventurers to clear out a particularly big infestation than risk their own heads. A handful of zombies disconnected from a necromancer's horde? They round up a few locals to take them down. A host of two score spread across their land, with half a dozen CR3 undead on top of it? You have to bring in the professionals.

They might even see hiring adventurers for twice the cost of ammo needed to do it themselves as a discount relative to the cost of a Raise Dead spell.

[Talakeal]

Maybe zombies scare the wits out of farmers, who they can beat in a few rounds if they get close. Or perhaps shooting all of them takes a lot of time, or a farmer isn't a good shot and would probably have the zombie within arms reach before they land enough hits, and so on. Remember, players live and die. NPC characters, much like real life people, only live once, and they have families to feed, widows they'd leave, and other things they hold dear.
Thus, they'd rather hire adventurers to clear out a particularly big infestation than risk their own heads. A handful of zombies disconnected from a necromancer's horde? They round up a few locals to take them down. A host of two score spread across their land, with half a dozen CR3 undead on top of it? You have to bring in the professionals.

They might even see hiring adventurers for twice the cost of ammo needed to do it themselves as a discount relative to the cost of a Raise Dead spell.

Keep in mind though, the zombies in this scenario are literally brainless. Simply standing behind a fence or on a roof will keep you safe. Heck, I remember one guy who was able to kill a large group of zombies by just digging a pit and standing on the far side of it, then getting their attention and waiting for them to fall in.

The PCs want enemies who are dumb enough for plans which an average person would think up to render them helpless.

Edit: That’s kind of an insufficient response, I will elaborate later.

[icefractal]

In this case, there are 4-6 players, all of whom are adults with college degrees and / or jobs, over a century of gaming experience between them, and most of them claiming to be certified geniuses; and you are seriously telling me that not one of them can think of any alternate ways that one would even attempt to open a locked door?

I didn't know that, and I think it may explain some of their behavior.

Situation: Player claims to be a genius (and believes it), but isn't really (or at least, not in the field of TTRPGs). They come up with a plan, like "stand on the other side of a pit so the enemies fall in", and assume that it will work, because after all - they're a genius. Therefore their plans are always excellent, QED.
Result: It doesn't work, and in a way that reveals it wasn't particularly cunning.

Options:
A) Admit (even to themselves) that maybe they aren't a genius, and/or that being a genius in one field doesn't make you an expert in everything. Unacceptable
B) Justify it as a mental mis-step. Somewhat acceptable, but if this happens too often it stops being credible, and it doesn't give them a target for their anger.
C) Assert that it was a genius plan, it was just foiled by the evil Talakeal using cheating and railroading to prevent it from working.

Offering advice doesn't help, because if they take advice from you (who has never even claimed to be a genius), and it works, and their plan didn't ... maybe they aren't smarter than you? Unacceptable

I mean, I don't know your players, maybe they really are "certified geniuses". All I can say is that every time I've encountered someone claiming that, it spoke more to their ego than to their intelligence.

[Talakeal]

So to clarify my previous post:

So, the mindless enemies thing wasn't actually from my game; I don't really use truly mindless enemies as the concept doesn't really make a whole lot of sense to me. Still, I have seen other people get into arguments over whether mindless enemies will do basic things like avoiding traps, choosing targets, avoiding AoOs, or flanking that I don't think it would help my game.


The sort of issues I get into my game is that, until they get to high levels, players aren't that much stronger than commoners, and certainly don't have the numbers or resources of an entire town. Yet they want to be established as heroes. In my mind, they are going to need to either be especially brave or especially clever to do this, the problem is that they (usually) aren't; they expect a very basic strategy to render their enemies totally impotent, but if they enemies were that incompetent, surely the townsfolk (or whoever else hired the heroes) could have taken care of the problem on their own; it doesn't take a genius to think of, for example, waiting in a tree with a gun to kill a marauding wolf without putting yourself at risk.

snip.

I think you might be reading to much into. Its not that they go around bragging about their genius (although I have gamed with those sort of people in the past) its just that most of us are rather intelligent and know each other well, and at some point over the years we have gotten into a conversation about our experiences with gifted programs or special education in the past.

Still, yeah, I am very much aware of how people can be a genius in some areas and a total idiot in others.

[Satinavian]

The sort of issues I get into my game is that, until they get to high levels, players aren't that much stronger than commoners, and certainly don't have the numbers or resources of an entire town. Yet they want to be established as heroes. In my mind, they are going to need to either be especially brave or especially clever to do this, the problem is that they (usually) aren't; they expect a very basic strategy to render their enemies totally impotent, but if they enemies were that incompetent, surely the townsfolk (or whoever else hired the heroes) could have taken care of the problem on their own; it doesn't take a genius to think of, for example, waiting in a tree with a gun to kill a marauding wolf without putting yourself at risk.

If your games has the player characters not much more powerfull than the commoners, how do you ever expect them to achieve much more than commoners ?

"Be more clever than commoners" is not a solution. Players would likely be average people with average part of cleverness which is exactly how you also play the commoners.

There is a reason so many games give PCs a lot of mechanical power. It is fundamentally needed to grow beyond average.

[Talakeal]

If your games has the player characters not much more powerfull than the commoners, how do you ever expect them to achieve much more than commoners ?

"Be more clever than commoners" is not a solution. Players would likely be average people with average part of cleverness which is exactly how you also play the commoners.

There is a reason so many games give PCs a lot of mechanical power. It is fundamentally needed to grow beyond average.

Typically by taking risks.

[Batcathat]

Typically by taking risks.

Playing a game where you have to take risks with what seems like extremely risk-averse players seems like a poor combintation.

[Talakeal]

Playing a game where you have to take risks with what seems like extremely risk-averse players seems like a poor combintation.

Indeed it is. Thus the paradox.

Players want to be treated like heroes, but don’t want to be either clever or brave enough to warrant that title, and also don’t want to simply start at higher level.

[Satinavian]

Risk taking only helps you getting into fights not winning them.

If you are not more powerful than a typical commoner and not way smarter than a typical commoner you would not win more than a typical commoner would. Which means that all the enemies you can reliably beat are those that the commoners could handle as well if they were inclined to give it a try.


Just forget the "brave and clever" thing. It won't ever happen. Making at a requirement for success will only lead to bitterness at the table. The players will be bitter because they can't get anywhere they want, you will be bitter because all the climatic battles you prepare never unfold that way.

[Talakeal]

Risk taking only helps you getting into fights not winning them.

If you are not more powerful than a typical commoner and not way smarter than a typical commoner you would not win more than a typical commoner would. Which means that all the enemies you can reliably beat are those that the commoners could handle as well if they were inclined to give it a try.

I could quibble about numbers and degrees, but in essence, yes. Being a low level adventurer is very dangerous, if it weren't everyone would do it and the idea of being a hero wouldn't be special.

Just forget the "brave and clever" thing. It won't ever happen. Making at a requirement for success will only lead to bitterness at the table. The players will be bitter because they can't get anywhere they want, you will be bitter because all the climatic battles you prepare never unfold that way.

But it does happen. It happens all the bloody time.

Virtually every game I have ever played in has revolved around that premise. Occasionally you get a cowardly homebody PC or a reckless jackass who endangers the party, but that is definitely a minority. It just so happened to be a big problem in my last campaign because the party included 2 of each, which is an anomaly I don't think I have ever seen before or likely will ever see again.


Its not like this is some weird requirement I invented whole cloth or an artifact of my gaming style or rule-set. If I were to run a totally generic by the book game of D&D using only pre-written modules, you would find the exact same issue; starting characters are not significantly more powerful than commoners, the PCs are expected to take risks, and the odds of surviving to mid-level where you are a bit more durable are not especially great.

[Satinavian]

I still don't think requiring players to earn their special "Hero"-rating through bravery, not character abilities is too hard for most groups. For that to work you would need players that are on board with meatgrinder gameplay and don't care about all the times the risks taken prove to be too much. But generally those are not the kind of players who are invested in their characters and want those to become heroes.

It just so happened to be a big problem in my last campaign because the party included 2 of each, which is an anomaly I don't think I have ever seen before or likely will ever see again.

You know, i think that is actually the first time you explicitely said that.
Before, you always complained about your players being too cautious and being too reckless in the next scene. And no one could imagie what your table looked like.

But if you have both cautious and reckless players at the same table and sometimes one or the other gets their way, we can way better understand why and how hthings are as they are.

But... you are starting a new table with mostly new players (aside from 2). Do you have any idea how those are inclined ?

Anyway, stop talking about "your players" as a coherent group when you actually are only talking about a subset of them. That makes it easier to understand what is actually going on.

[NichG]

I could quibble about numbers and degrees, but in essence, yes. Being a low level adventurer is very dangerous, if it weren't everyone would do it and the idea of being a hero wouldn't be special.

But it does happen. It happens all the bloody time.

Virtually every game I have ever played in has revolved around that premise. Occasionally you get a cowardly homebody PC or a reckless jackass who endangers the party, but that is definitely a minority. It just so happened to be a big problem in my last campaign because the party included 2 of each, which is an anomaly I don't think I have ever seen before or likely will ever see again.

Its not like this is some weird requirement I invented whole cloth or an artifact of my gaming style or rule-set. If I were to run a totally generic by the book game of D&D using only pre-written modules, you would find the exact same issue; starting characters are not significantly more powerful than commoners, the PCs are expected to take risks, and the odds of surviving to mid-level where you are a bit more durable are not especially great.

On the contrary, if 'starting characters are not significantly more powerful than commoners' and 'the odds of surviving to mid-level where you are a bit more durable are not especially great' then that directly motivates NOT taking risks. Taking risks is the opposite of the natural response to those factors.

In 1ed D&D, the designers might have expected players to rush forward and get killed by a single thrown spear by a kobold, or by touching poisonous moss, or by bees, or any number of things like that. But the characteristic playstyle that emerged as a response is all of the things that are the opposite of being brave: getting hirelings as soon as possible and having them act as a troop screen while the PCs sit behind the screen and pick stuff off with slings, avoiding fights entirely if possible and trying to take advantage of 'gold for xp' to jump over the first levels on a single character while using other characters in a stable as throwaways, using a 10ft pole to constantly search for traps, etc.

[Talakeal]

I still don't think requiring players to earn their special "Hero"-rating through bravery, not character abilities is too hard for most groups. For that to work you would need players that are on board with meatgrinder gameplay and don't care about all the times the risks taken prove to be too much. But generally those are not the kind of players who are invested in their characters and want those to become heroes.

I probably shouldn't have mentioned PC death in my last post.

To clarify, I am not interested in meat grinder games either, and I am more talking about the in character perception of danger rather than an actual likelihood of PC death.

For the low level character, battling an owl-bear or a band of orcs is a terrifying life or death conflict, for the players its just another CR appropriate encounter with a minuscule chance of player death.

You know, i think that is actually the first time you explicitely said that.
Before, you always complained about your players being too cautious and being too reckless in the next scene. And no one could imagie what your table looked like.

But if you have both cautious and reckless players at the same table and sometimes one or the other gets their way, we can way better understand why and how hthings are as they are.

But... you are starting a new table with mostly new players (aside from 2). Do you have any idea how those are inclined ?

Anyway, stop talking about "your players" as a coherent group when you actually are only talking about a subset of them. That makes it easier to understand what is actually going on.

I doubt its the first time, but its not really relevant, as most of the time the group as a whole went along with the cautious characters; if there is already any question about whether or not the party will continue, two of the five members turning around and going home means that the remaining three accompany them or face almost certain defeat.

But no, only one of the players is getting replaced right now, not 3/5.

For the record, I had five PCs in my last group:

Annabul; who was reckless to the point of disruption and frequently got the other players in trouble. He was a new player and will not be returning.
Liam; who was pretty middle of the road and generally went along with the group, although he had conflicts with Lucia. Portrayed by a new player who will be returning.
Liquade; who was very cautious and eager to return home after every encounter. Portrayed by a new player who will be returning.
Lina; slightly cautious but mostly just arrogant, would assume her plans couldn't fail, and when they did she would get mad at me OOC, pout, and want to go home. Old player who will be returning.
Lucia; slightly on the reckless side, although generally went along with the party. The player has, in the past, often been the overly cautious guy and was overcompensating a bit here. Old player who will be returning.

On the contrary, if 'starting characters are not significantly more powerful than commoners' and 'the odds of surviving to mid-level where you are a bit more durable are not especially great' then that directly motivates NOT taking risks. Taking risks is the opposite of the natural response to those factors.

In 1ed D&D, the designers might have expected players to rush forward and get killed by a single thrown spear by a kobold, or by touching poisonous moss, or by bees, or any number of things like that. But the characteristic playstyle that emerged as a response is all of the things that are the opposite of being brave: getting hirelings as soon as possible and having them act as a troop screen while the PCs sit behind the screen and pick stuff off with slings, avoiding fights entirely if possible and trying to take advantage of 'gold for xp' to jump over the first levels on a single character while using other characters in a stable as throwaways, using a 10ft pole to constantly search for traps, etc.

Right; but they are still going on the adventure.

This is exactly the sort of behavior I would encourage (although the above examples might be a bit overboard); brave enough to explore the dungeon, but smart enough to minimize your risks while doing so.