Absolute Player Aversion to Perceived "Failure"

[Janx]

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.

I would disagree.

I should think the point is to show them that winning an encounter, but getting wounded is OK.

To that end, showing them that facing the NEXT encounter while wounded and how they work with that IS the point of the game.

D&D is partly about resource management. Hit points, # of spells, potions left, even arrows is in fact resource management.

 

[Vinicius_Zoio]

Perhaps I'm late to chime in, but here we go nonetheless...

None of you are "wrong" or having "badwrongfun", but the player's expectations for the game and the GM's are at odds. Default Savage Worlds is probably not the best system for those players...

The thing is - these players will not find the game to be fun if they have their characters "handicapped" for too long - and in the case of Savage Worlds, we're talking literal handicaps, not just the "I'm not in the best shape possible for my character". If the player expects to be playing heroes in a heroic setting, this is very easy to understand - if your character must now behave "unheroicly" for two weeks to have good chances of survival, being stuck with penalties and vulnerabilities might not feel like the best thing in the world.

But of course, in the GM's case, this "realism" is exactly what he likes about the system. If those wounds were unimportant or easily ignored, the game would be less fun and immersive to him.

---

Tough conundrum folks. For the GM, it would be a bore to constantly hear the indirect whine of such players. If the wound system is such a problem for those players, it would be fairer of them to simply leave the group or explain to the GM that they don't like such mechanics.

Depending on the situation, changing the game system (or creating house rules) could help both parties. It may be difficult to reconcile a more "heroic/cinematice playstyle" with a more "simulationist/realistic playstyle" though, and in this case, maybe looking for another gaming group would be best.

Since more often than not players at a gaming table are all friends, I suggest that the group talks about the issue. The GM can explain that their comments are making him or her feel unconfortable with the game. The GM should then ask why they are making such comments - and this may be difficult because some people often do not know how to express why they're feeling a certain way and may further shun attempts to understand themselves if it seems they're offending a friend with their actions.

Depending on the gaming group, talking about the issue may have different obstacles to achieve a solution that appeals to everyone.

Assuming the group wants and prefer to stick together, I think that in the "worst case scenario", the GM could rotate position with another player. In that way, they can play the "realistic immersive game" with the current GM and play another more "heroic cinematic game" with another GM. No one gets exactly what they want, but at least there is something for everyone at the table...

My 2 cents, of course. ;P

 

[mythago]

innerdude, if you aren't ready to just reschedule your game night without telling these guys, then probably you should sit down and tell them what you're telling us: that it seems their expectations and what they enjoy in the game aren't matching up with how you GM the game, and it's frustrating for all of you. Be specific without suggesting that they're jerks. Maybe they don't realize how their grousing sounds. Maybe this is how they're used to playing (a la Video Game Guy) and they don't understand that success doesn't depend on perfection - after all, there are GMs who run their games as a punishment drill. Maybe they're frustrated with aspects of the game that you enjoy but they don't particularly, such as the political intrigue.

 

[Mark CMG]

You could acquiesce to their wishes and go easier on the players with the aversion to failure but explain to the group that those who are not averse will receive greater rewards. Laying it out like that might make the squeamish players step up their game.