Absolute Player Aversion to Perceived "Failure"

[Greg K]

How have you as GMs handled this expectation?

Primarily, I have only seen this with players on forums. The closest I have seen this was at a convention with a LARP. There was a player that was known to cry and throw tantrums when her character was killed. She had been thrown out of tabletops and non-con LARPs for this behavior. We tried to ban her from the LARP, but the organizers told we had to let her in.
When tried to warn her that her character would most likely be killed if she continued with her course of action. She continued rather than listening and died. Sure enough the tears and tantrum came bringing the entire game of 40 players to a halt!
We got the LARP organizer, who apologized to us and banned her from further LARPs run by us.

While your players are not to her extreme, I would not have patience for players like them. Assuming they got through my initial screening, I will sit and talk with them the first time the behavior manifests. I will tell them that their expectations are not, in my opinion, realistic and are antithetical to the style of play for the games I run. If they continue with that attitude, I will remove them from the group. Life is too short.

 

[the Jester]

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?

Nope. Being hurt/wounded/depleted/gaining insanity points/etc. is part of the game. Players who get upset over it are probably playing the wrong type of game, IMHO- and as for handling it as a gm, the closest I've come is the whole "OH NO, MY CHARACTER DIED!!" throw a fit thing. I deal with it by setting the expectation that my game is a high-lethality one very early on.

 

[Janx]

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.

I think you read more into my post than was intended.

What you describe to me are exceptions to the standard. if the PCs come up with some super clever way to win the challenge without taking a lick of damage, then of course, they deserve it.

But it the party of fighters draws their swords and rushes into the fray to hack and slash at the monsters in the same way they always hack and slash at the monsters, it is unreasonable to expect to come out uninjured from a challenge whose very mechanics indicate that they will very likely get injured.

Since PCs earn XP and level up, I'm not going to keep using 1 HD monsters against them. So they can cherry pick the best hack and slash feats to their hearts content, odds are good they'll get hurt in the next encounter as well given the standard expectation of behavior.

If your players are coming up with exceptional plans that avoid damage every time, that's good for them, and mainly a factor of using a clever combat avoiding solution to a combat encounter. It's also completely outside of what I was speaking to.

 

[Derren]

This behavior sadly seems to be more and more common, not only in PnP but also video and other games.

Players expect instant gratification and to always win. Thats why the fail forward mechanic becomes more and more popular.

 

[Jhaelen]

... in the real world.

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

Definitely! I'm reminded of one of the players in our Dark Sun campaign. His pc was a member of a merchant house and completely risk-averse. Basically, he refused to leave his city home base: "What, go out there in the desert? With all those monsters and bandits, and what not? No thanks, I'm staying here."
Which is probably a perfectly reasonable reaction, except it's kind of a problem for a potential adventurer. In the end he decided to drop out of the group: "Well, frankly, I hate deserts. I don't think this Dark Sun setting will work for me."

 

[delericho]

Definitely! I'm reminded of one of the players in our Dark Sun campaign. His pc was a member of a merchant house and completely risk-averse. Basically, he refused to leave his city home base: "What, go out there in the desert? With all those monsters and bandits, and what not? No thanks, I'm staying here."

Heh.

Which is probably a perfectly reasonable reaction, except it's kind of a problem for a potential adventurer.

Indeed. I've fortunately never had to deal with it myself, but a friend of mine had a problem player who took the view that it was the DM's job to motivate his character to go on adventures. The DM could drop all sorts of adventure seeds all over the place, but he'd just ignore them.

My advice to him was to tell the player that it was his character, and it was down to him to find motivation. And if not, he should drop out the game, because he just wouldn't enjoy it.

So he kicked me out of the game. (Just kidding. )

 

[jasper]

Jhaelen...Definitely!..completely risk-averse. Basically, he refused to leave his city home base: ..
Oh the joys of DMing for Andy "Bench warmer" Adventurer. I have seriously consider writing about the 0 level bums PC who only want to sit on their tavern stools.

 

[mythago]

Is this new behavior from these two players, or have they always been powergamer types? If it's new, then something is up. Maybe they were having a bad day, or something about that encounter bugged them, or they're just beating themselves up because they genuinely feel like they made dumb mistakes.

If it's not new, then you probably just have a mismatch between the players and the gaming group/GM.

Instead of punishing them in-game or doing some kind of childish "ha ha, you will do it until you get it right, WHINERS", why not ask them what's up?

 

[3catcircus]

Next session, make sure you kill their characters off or have their lack of progress in a quest result in something "bad" happening in the campaign world. Teach them that they aren't the most important part of your campaign world; that there are things out there that are bigger and badder than them that want to eat them; that sometimes the BBEG's plans aren't foiled; that myths and legends only happen as a result of conflict.

 

[innerdude]

Thanks for the input, everyone. I appreciate the variety of perspectives.

To answer some questions, this has been a mild, though persistent problem for these two players for most of the campaign. It really is a "gamist" thing with them; one of them is somewhat of a power gamer, the other I think is sort of approaching the game from that "video game" sensibility ("I'm only doing this right if I complete the encounter with x hitpoints and y mana!").

It's not so overbearing that I'd want to lose either of them as players . . . but I'd be lying if I said it wasn't a distraction to me, and a little bit frustrating, simply because it takes me out of the more immersive aspects I'm aiming for in the campaign. How can I be enjoying the interaction between the characters and the political factions, NPCs, the world's physical environs, when I'm constantly listening to one or both of them griping about "I can't believe I'm going to have 2 wounds for this next encounter. Can't somebody just throw up a heal check on me?"