Absolute Player Aversion to Perceived "Failure"

[Janx]

My first thoughts are that, if the players are "build" focused and into system mastery, and they expected balanced encounters, then results like those they experienced - not trouncing the encounter - are seen as losing. They got an average grade in class; they want straight As.

If that's the case, I'd present them with a situation where they can choose their own level of challenge. Three dungeons (or adventure locations), one easy, one average, one hard. Then they can play around with their resources and tinker until they are trouncing the hard adventure locations. At which point you can scale up the difficulty.

I'm thinking that with players like these, they would choose the easy dungeon, and wait level up before taking medium dungeon, and so on.

Few sane people voluntarily take on challenges that they KNOW they are barely capable of surviving.

Instead, they tackle things they THINK they can handle, with some difficulty. Nobody climbs a mountain they can't handle and are pretty sure they'll die if they try. Even the beaches of Normandy were won by men who had reasonable confidence that the landing force would win the day, even if some individuals wouldn't make it. Nobody would have gotten off the landing craft had failure been obvious.

So in life, and in fiction, people face greater adversity not by choice, but by mistake, accident or surprise. It is then that people rise to the occasion. The heroic successes being where the person uses the limited resources they have to creatively come to success.

I don't think my view on "why some adventures are hard" negates the idea that some players want to take the easy path. The world is predominantly populated by folks who do what they're good at and avoid what they're bad at.

So if these players play like members of the Dungeon Cleaners Local 447 union, then they're going to balk at entering a level 6 dungeon area when they're only rated for a level 5 dungeon. they don't work on jobs above their pay grade.

 

[LostSoul]

I'm thinking that with players like these, they would choose the easy dungeon, and wait level up before taking medium dungeon, and so on.

Maybe, but then the problem's solved, right? If they want the easy game, they pick the easy game. They've got nothing to complain about. As DM, you can use the medium dungeon as the next adventure, and the hard one after that. Your prep time hasn't increased, just shifted to front-loaded.

 

[Janx]

Maybe, but then the problem's solved, right? If they want the easy game, they pick the easy game. They've got nothing to complain about. As DM, you can use the medium dungeon as the next adventure, and the hard one after that. Your prep time hasn't increased, just shifted to front-loaded.

Except for 2 factors:

1) that might not be the kind of game the GM wants to run

2) these players aren't the majority of the party, and thus may not be in a position to get to pick the Easy dungeon.

I suspect catering to the minority's preferences may be more distasteful than fixing these 2 players*

*Fix might mean changing the player's attitude or changing who sits in the player's chairs.

 

[LostSoul]

Except for 2 factors:

1) that might not be the kind of game the GM wants to run

2) these players aren't the majority of the party, and thus may not be in a position to get to pick the Easy dungeon.

I suspect catering to the minority's preferences may be more distasteful than fixing these 2 players*

*Fix might mean changing the player's attitude or changing who sits in the player's chairs.

That's true. To me, in the situation you describe (not necessarily the original poster's situation), it sounds like the people involved don't want to play the same game. If that's the situation, then I think the group should fold. They have fundamentally incompatible desires.

 

[Janx]

That's true. To me, in the situation you describe (not necessarily the original poster's situation), it sounds like the people involved don't want to play the same game. If that's the situation, then I think the group should fold. They have fundamentally incompatible desires.

agreed. Though I don't think the group needs to fold. it just needs to eject 2 players who aren't into the same game style.

At the simplest, these 2 people don't get that the party SHOULD be wounded by the end of a the final boss fight.

There is no coming out with a flawless victory against the toughest enemy the party should have seen thus far.

And if it did happen, expect the GM to adjust the difficulty dial to prevent it from happening again.

the whole point of a challenge is that it is difficult. A party that takes no damage during that "challenge" was not challenged.

 

[delericho]

Few sane people voluntarily take on challenges that they KNOW they are barely capable of surviving.

... in the real world.

When all I'm risking is the life of a purely imaginary character, that equation changes somewhat. YMMV, of course.

 

[Blackbrrd]

...
After the session both of them were saying things like, "Man, I totally should have taken THIS edge instead of THAT edge," or, "What am I doing wrong? This shouldn't be happening, I must need different gear," and "You guys (i.e. the rest of the party) totally wasted those spells in that situation. I was the one that needed it more!"

...
​

This is the approach of somebody that likes to win games, not just participate. There is to me nothing wrong with approaching the game from this angle, although it can be disruptive if they stop "acting" their characters.

Talking tactics after finishing a session is something we often do after board games and occationally do after (or before) playing role playing games.

Personally, I do like "winning" when playing board games and such, but I also like to role-play my character instead of just doing what's optimal in a given situation. I do think some players need a bit of help to find what the goal of the character is. If you manage that, you might get the players to appreciate taking out 5 BBEGs, because I think their characters would be happy.

 

[Janx]

... in the real world.

When all I'm risking is the life of a purely imaginary character, that equation changes somewhat. YMMV, of course.

yes and no. In real life, we assume you are vested in your character and your continued living.

In games like Elder Scrolls, dying is a nuisance, but otherwise there's very little consequence as you can reload.

In games like Minecraft, dying can mean risking losing work you put in and resources you mined, even though the same save file is there to back you up.

In D&D, while it may vary by DM, dying is a setback or fairly permanent.

I don't think the OP has a case of the player's not caring about their PC. They're vested. Otherwise they wouldn't be complaining about getting hurt or not doing as well as they'd like.

It seems to be these guys are risk averse. The very sign that the principal I speak of is in effect.

 

[jasper]

Do not change anything just for these players. Just tell some times the dice will be against them. They whining because they were wounded. I could see if they were dead but wounded????

 

[ExploderWizard]

At the simplest, these 2 people don't get that the party SHOULD be wounded by the end of a the final boss fight.

There is no coming out with a flawless victory against the toughest enemy the party should have seen thus far.

And if it did happen, expect the GM to adjust the difficulty dial to prevent it from happening again.

the whole point of a challenge is that it is difficult. A party that takes no damage during that "challenge" was not challenged.

This kind of BS sticks in my craw.

Its the other end of the flawless victory spectrum and just as wrong IMHO. To my thinking there should not be any pre-determined amount of damage or hardship endured in order for something to be a challenge. Perhaps the challenge is to figure a way to get something done without getting ground into hamburger.

If the players come up with something clever that allows them to win and minimize the pain of doing so then I applaud them for playing well, not punish them by hurting them more next time. As a DM you have to ask yourself; do you want to reward your players for clever thinking and keeping their mind in the game or punish them for it?

If you decide on the latter option before long your players will catch on and realize that creative thinking doesn't pay and stop doing it. Next thing you know you are starting a thread asking oh what am I to do? I have a bunch of players who do nothing but charge in and fight in every situation. THEY WILL BE DOING WHAT YOU HAVE TRAINED THEM TO DO.