Absolute Player Aversion to Perceived "Failure"

[innerdude]

A couple of sessions ago, I threw out a pretty tough combat encounter at my players. I knew it was going to be tough going in, so divvied out some extra resources beforehand (extra action points, hinted at some available magic items that could aid them).

And sure enough it was tough, but the group pulled through--wounded but victorious.

But I noticed this odd vibe coming from two of my players which I found puzzling. Namely, that no matter the actual outcome of the encounter for the group as a whole, the fact their characters were injured seemed to make them think they were being "punished" somehow (we're playing Savage Worlds, if that makes a difference to anyone), and was a source of annoyance to them.

The fact that these two characters didn't make it through the encounter completely unscathed was a failure, either on the part of the game, or on their part for not being able to "outsmart" the system.

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!"

And I'm thinking to myself, "Whaa? Really? You guys just defeated FIVE POWERFUL ENEMIES, and made a significant leap forward for 'scene framing' the next stages of the adventure. Yet somehow the fact that you're wounded, and have to deal with the consequences of being hurt in game is somehow unfair or unfun?"

I think on the surface this is a mild manifestation of gamism, or "power gaming"--something like, "If my character isn't at 100% effectiveness for combat ALWAYS, I'm simply not able to bring 'The Awesome' like I want to, which dampens my fun."

I guess having played some GURPS, and played with a fairly impartial D&D GM in the past who didn't pull punches in encounters, I suppose I'm somewhat baffled by this.

Now granted, Savage Worlds' natural healing mechanics are more gritty than D&D 3 or 4. Any wounds remaining after the first hour post-injury remain for five days of in-game time. After five days, the character makes a check with a penalty for the number of suffered wounds, so if a character doesn't succeed at the check immediately, the player is potentially running a "sub-optimal" character for potentially 2 weeks of "in game" time.

In my mind this is a feature, not a bug--accounting for "wounded" comrades becomes part of the challenge. If one of your key players is hurt, it's time for the rest of the group to step up to the plate and become more creative, strategic, and daring.

On a certain level, I sort of get the mindset--"I've structured a significant chunk of my free time to come play in this RPG, and I don't want to show up with the limited time I have with a 'gimped' character." But I find it surprising that a player could realistically believe in both the "social contract" sense and "verisimilitude" sense that a character consistently engaging in deadly combat is simply never going to be wounded.

So, I'm questioning--is this a realistic expectation for players? Is being "hurt" really a failure, or a punishment? How have you as GMs handled this expectation?

 

[RangerWickett]

Next session, without explaining what you're doing, just run the same scene again. If they ask what you're doing, say, "Clearly you want to get this perfect. So we'll keep playing the scene until you're content with it."

In my experience, the best players are the ones who love horrible things happening to them. Personally, I hate when I suck due to bad luck, but if I suck because a situation is stacked against me and I've got to try something clever to get out, that's delightful.

Unless I have a clever idea, and the dice turn against me. Weirdly, this is a time when simply failing is frustrating, but failing spectacularly is fun. I hate wasting my time in a game, so ideally most actions should provide some sort of story beat. "And then he missed" isn't narratively that interesting, but "And then he swung and got his sword stuck in the wall" is.

 

[billd91]

So, I'm questioning--is this a realistic expectation for players? Is being "hurt" really a failure, or a punishment? How have you as GMs handled this expectation?

It is not at all a realistic expectation. But some player psychologies tend to bend that way. Do they play video games/console games? If so, are they the types of players who will replay a scene again and again even if they succeed at it just so that they move on to the next scene with most of the character's health and other resources intact? They might not be seeing it as much as a failure as they are paranoid about facing the next scenes so badly mangled by the previous ones.

 

[delericho]

So, I'm questioning--is this a realistic expectation for players?

No, but I think it is an understandable one, at least somewhat. Nobody liked to lose.

Is being "hurt" really a failure, or a punishment?

No. As you say, a feature not a bug.

How have you as GMs handled this expectation?

Put them in similar situations more often. Get them used to the idea that they'll mostly succeed but that they'll almost never achieve 'perfection' (and, indeed, have them fail every so often). Plus, tell them to trust you (just be sure to deserve that trust!).

Oh, and finally: if it ever gets to a point where it becomes a problem, then it has come to the point where you should at least consider removing the players from the group. Doesn't sound like you're even close to that point yet, but you may get there.

 

[Ahnehnois]

If the players are averse to adversity (or risk, or failure), the way to deal with it, like most aversions, is to expose them to some. Gradually, monitoring what they can take.

 

[Janx]

Along with the other's advice and observation that this quirk is their fault, not yours, consider:

Now that the group has one, but is injured, what happens next?

If your game pacing is such that this kind of thing happens a lot AND they often don't get to decide to rest (letting the bad guy destroy the world because the party rested for a few days is NOT a Choice), then you may be further conditioning these players to resent getting wounded.

I do not think that means you have to let them heal after every encounter.

But it does mean monitoring the pacing between sessions or adventures to allow some time to pass (and heal) before escalating the next set of problems.

Otherwise, a campaign set at the 24 pacing for a party of Jack Bauers can reinforce the feeling these players have.

 

[tomBitonti]

A question though ... do the wounded players still have opportunities to contribute to the scenes?

Examples come to mind where they could still contribute, as well as examples where they might not.

Also, are the players used to scenes with predefined balance between the players and opponents? For example, in 3E and 4E, encounters follow a more or less fixed formula, with players rather unable to handle encounters at the defined difficulty unless they are healed and have their full resources. The GM is of course able to adjust the difficulty, but, using standard encounter design, they wouldn't. Players might back off or pick different encounters, but then again standard design doesn't give them that much control.

Within such a framework, players will tend to the behavior you are noting. Not wholly their fault to fall into the behavior.

I'm thinking -- A key is to show that they have more control over the encounters and how they set the stage for the encounters, as well as showing that they have a lot to do (and still be effective) while being wounded.

Thx!

TomB

 

[LostSoul]

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 guess you'd need a system that allowed for such tinkering as part of its reward system. I'm not sure how - maybe it would be a good idea to tie it to the adventures, but that may be a big mistake. Maybe - more choices can be made if the PCs take on more risk, though the value of the choices they can make are the same. In WotC D&D that would be GP and magic shops, with more cash for more dangerous dungeons, but with a cap on the max value of any one item you can purchase at any one time.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Whiny players are nothing new. A victory isn't good enough, it has to be a flawless victory. Making the shot at the buzzer isn't good enough it has to be a swish. I really don't get why people who cannot comprehend the possibility of losing play games to begin with. A game without challenge or possibility of losing is a snoozefest.

 

[tomBitonti]

Whiny players are nothing new. A victory isn't good enough, it has to be a flawless victory. Making the shot at the buzzer isn't good enough it has to be a swish. I really don't get why people who cannot comprehend the possibility of losing play games to begin with. A game without challenge or possibility of losing is a snoozefest.

A part of that may relate to a player perception of encounters as repeatable and optimizable. That is, where eEncounters are expected to share elements to a degree that techniques can be discovered, practiced, then implemented to achieve repeatable overwhelming success.

Think of an MMO raid encounter, which is practiced many many times (for a new fight at the edge of player's abilities, what is called progression). The expectation is to learn the encounter, develop and practice a strategy, then execute that strategy to a sufficient level of skill to overcome the encounter.

This would be like taking a test over and over again until getting an A on it. Some encounters have hard modes, and those can be overcome for an A+, for those inclined to put in the effort.

In this mode, encounters are not so much story telling elements, but practicable challenges. Players do not acquire meaningful state between encounters, except to gradually increase in gear. Before each new encounter, there is a full reset of player state. Max health and full ability recharge.

That contrasts strongly with a player who acquires state through a story, with significant changes in ability occurring as a result of story events: One player gaining a limp because of a critical to their leg, but also gaining a stalwart helper because of the aid they provided earlier, while sojourning under a darkened sky because they failed to prevent a fell ritual in the last session.

A change is necessary for players to shift modes. Some care is necessary from the GM, as optimized tactical play is de-emphasized in favor of true-to-character decisions. Then, the GM must not create encounters that rely on tactical mastery. (And need to shy away from the notion that "winning" the encounter is the goal. Discovering what happens based on the mix of player abilities and motivations and on the presented story elements is the goal.

As an example, throwing players into a diplomacy based encounter where the players play true to their abilities. A character with a low charisma or wisdom should be expected to completely "lose" the encounter. A character who has hatred for elves would expect to show this when negotiating with them, with a result probably quite different than optimal. A character with a low wisdom who has stated that they are afraid of undead might be expected to run away from a zombie, possibly leaving their wounded teammate behind (nom nom nom), even though they would otherwise be able to defeat the zombie.

Thx!

TomB