Help, my players are scared!

[Philip]

When was your last TPK? Does a PC die in every (or almost every) fight?

Never had a TPK with this group.

Does a PC die in every (or almost every) fight?

The same group has being playing the same campaign for 9 years straight now (we play about once a month) and we have had zero PC deaths. That's right, 0, nothing, nada, zilch!

As a side note: I always roll in the open and never fudge. I am amazed no PC ever died myself.

I believe that rolling openly creates trust and it makes the player's believe the DM won't pull any punches just to save them or his precious storyline. I am beginning to fear it worked a little too good!

 

[Warehouse23]

I hate to be the lone voice of pacifism here, but if your players don't want to fight, then you have better things to be doing as a DM than forcing combat down their throats. Gamers come to the table for many reasons. Some like to kill things and take their treasure. Some like to roleplay exotic characters in unusual worlds. As DM, it's your job to accomodate the story your players want to be part of.

If your players want non-combat encouters, you should develop wonderful role-playing or skill-based encounters for them. It sounds like your town festivals and merchant interactions are going very well, and that's what your players want. Try a mystery type adventure, or an investigation. Try a social infiltration adventure--anything that does not involve slaughtering X, where X is the monster you have set up to be mauled by your reluctant assassins.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that avoiding combat is boring. Much of the drama of say, LotR comes from the avoidance of combat (running from dark riders, sneaking through Sauron's domain, etc.). If your players want to avoid combats, make the avoidance intense.

* Have SOMETHING stalk them through the forests (if they're afraid of a monster they can see, imagine how afraid they'll be of a monster they can only sense by the rustling of bushes and the sound of snapping twigs).

* Have a snarling guard beast chained to a post, with just enough chain to reach the players (but not enough chain to reach the players if they trick it into winding a few times around the post, or around a nearby tree).

* Have the players put a sleeping potion in the ale being served at a guard house so they can sneak into the castle.

 

[Quickleaf]

Philip,

So you have a bunch of 9 year veteran gamers not wanting to fight. Do they prefer to resolve things peacefully? Why do they avoid fighting? Is it out of fear of injury/death, or is it out of a reasonable mindset? For example, do they wish to avoid conflict with the law? Do some of the PCs expose a pacifist philosophy? Are they opposed to violence expect as a last resort?

Why are the PCs so afraid of combat? Are they deliberately playing cowards? What kinds of enemies (and ECLs) are you throwing at them? Are you setting up encounters they can't win?

When they avoid a combat, is it done through clever role-playing? Or do they simple flee or say "I make a Diplomacy check"?

 

[Janx]

Some factors that might play into this fear:
how old are the players?
how long have they been RPGing?
what level are the PCs?
How well do they know the rules & stats of monsters?
What comments are they making about the opponents?
what CR/EL encounters are they running from?
Do they enjoy combat more/less than RPing?
Do they have too little magic items for their level (according to the RAW)?
Do they expect to wade through combat (is that their preference)?
Are they risk averse?
Can they identify easy fights?
Can they identify hard fights?
How do they react to fights they think will be easy?
How do they react to fights they think will be hard?

If you've got a 3rd level party and you throw a CR3 monster at them, and they're scared, then there are several factors. If they don't have any magic items, they may think they are underpowered. If they're bad at math, they may not realize that the odds are on their side. If they're risk averse, they may not like combats that are challenging, because the risk seems too high.

generally, reward those who take risks. Whether in combat or in social maneuvering in the campaign. It's OK if they find non-combat solutions to problem. However, don't coddle them. Make your encounters be the right level for the party (mooks are easy, and bad guys are high enough to be a challenge). If they flat-out run away from these, let their reputation suffer. If they negotiate their way out, then reward that. Don't put them in a pit with a bad guy, just so you can have a combat. Do make the bad guy hold something important so that the party has to fight them, to stop the bad guys. Failure to do so means the bad guy wins. For example, OrcBoy is leader of an evil crime gang in the city. He plans to kill the mayor, in retribution for the crackdown on crime. The party knows he is taking a certain route through the sewer to the mayors house. There's no time to get the city guard. If they do nothing, mayor dies. If they try to talk, OrcBoy fights them, then continues on to kill the mayor. Generally speaking, the only solution is to capture or kill OrcBoy, both of which require rolling initiative and doing "combat" (yes some clever spells might get you out of this, like Message to the Mayor, but that forestalls the inevitable).

Janx

 

[BiggusGeekus]

Try these:

http://barsoom.hyboria.net/Swash.html


Best
House Rule
Ever

 

[Celebrim]

I hate to be the lone voice of pacifism here...

I hate to get semi-political, but 'pacifism' has a very specific meaning and I hate it when the term is misused. It doesn't sound like from the description that any character in the group is motivated by spirituality or ideology. If it did, I would give a different sort of advice.

The basic test of whether or not someone is a pacifist is to ask them, if when they are attacked they would desire that their attacker be arrested. If the answer is 'Yes', then they are not a true pacifist. The reason is quite simple. If you believe that violence is always wrong, then it must also be always wrong for everyone. If it is always wrong for everyone, then you can't possibly desire that your attacker be arrested because, your attacker would likely resist arrest and in asking someone else to arrest your attacker you are desiring that someone else commit violence (to subdue your attacker) on your behalf. A true pacifist cannot desire that violence be committed on his behalf. If you aren't going to defend yourself, then you can't desire that anyone else defend you either.

Now, there is a such a thing as 'diplomatic pacifism' or 'functional pacifism'. This is when a person forgoes violence not because he believes it is wrong, but because he feels that a public commitment or vow of non-violence is the only way to protect the office that he holds from becoming mired in conflict and then unable to fulfill the necessary humanitarian mission it fulfills. This is the sort of pacifism which is commonly held by priests, doctors, social workers, diplomats and so forth. These sorts of people can feel that other people should defend them even though they cannot defend themselves, but not that they don't believe that it is _wrong_ for them to defend themselves - only that it is impractical for them to do so. Note further that in extremis, when it is clear that a wrong is being perpetrated and they and they only have the power to intervene, that all the above groups will generally use violence as a last resort. So, this is not exactly 'pacifism' either as you can't very well be a pacifist and then say violence is ok under the vague standard of 'as a last resort'.

Any way, that out in the way, I basically agree with your post.

"..but if your players don't want to fight, then you have better things to be doing as a DM than forcing combat down their throats. Gamers come to the table for many reasons. Some like to kill things and take their treasure. Some like to roleplay exotic characters in unusual worlds. As DM, it's your job to accomodate the story your players want to be part of. "

Absolutely. There is absolutely nothing wrong with going several sessions without combat. I've done that on several occassions. As long as everyone is having fun, what's the problem?

Granted, non-combat encounters can be more difficult to create than combat encounters, but if your players are mature then its your responcibility to start developing more mature skills as a DM.

"Don't make the mistake of thinking that avoiding combat is boring. Much of the drama of say, LotR comes from the avoidance of combat (running from dark riders, sneaking through Sauron's domain, etc.). If your players want to avoid combats, make the avoidance intense."

It's worth noting that although JRRT was no pacifist (he was an officer in WWI), that he felt of his works that the combat sequences were the most boring parts to write and the least interesting overall to read. If you pay close attention to the LotR, you'll note that unlike many of his immmitators, JRRT spends virtually no time on combat sequences. Note that JRRT always has his heroes banter with villians, and spends alot more time on the banter/confrontation than on the action and combat. Indeed, even for battle sequences Tolkein spends far more time developing the suspence in the run up to the battle than he actually does on the battle itself. He might spend 3-4 chapters developing the stage for the battle, and only 3-4 pages on the whole of the battle itself. And generally, even within the battle he's far more interested in the dialogue between characters than the slaughter that those characters actually do.

 

[Philip]

Thanks guys, for all the advice! I will try to respond below:

I hate to be the lone voice of pacifism here, but if your players don't want to fight, then you have better things to be doing as a DM than forcing combat down their throats. Gamers come to the table for many reasons. Some like to kill things and take their treasure. Some like to roleplay exotic characters in unusual worlds. As DM, it's your job to accomodate the story your players want to be part of.

They do want to fight, but only when it's:
A. Essential to their character's goals
B. The odds are so to their advantage that there's no real chance of losing.

It's just when getting to the higher levels they get more and more options to fight only when they meet both A and B. Wind Walk, Plane Shift, Teleport, Invisibility, long range blast spells, extensive buffing etc.

It sounds like your player's are adopting a mature approach to combat. Combat is dangerous. Hense, it should be avoided except when it is absolutely necessary, and even then preferably you should only fight when the odds are rigged in your favor.

True, but I also believe this is a game, which has strong roots in using combat as a conflict resolution mechanism. When you play RISK it might be preferable to toss and let that decide the winner instead of actually getting your armies to clash.

Overall, I think it sounds like your problem stems from not having enough of a 'mission' structure to your game. Heroic PC's are generally motivated by the same sorts of things that motivate police officers or soldiers. Soldiers or police officers do not desire to get into combat. In combat, they can be killed. If there is a way to avoid the combat, they will. But there are things that soldiers and police officers love more than they love life. If the mission calls for a solider or police officer to put themselves into harms way and get into combat, then for the sake of the mission that is what happens. It's not a desire for violence. It's a desire to see a mission accomplished. It's a desire to see that the bad guys don't win, that thier ideas don't carry the day, and that the way of life they desire for thier community is protected.

Most characters have clear goals and missions. Maybe the problem is, as the campaign is progressing, the stakes are increasing as well. First it's just bandits menacing the local town, now they are on missions critical to the entire nation.

One of the comments I got from the players earlier was that they always felt they were on a tight schedule, or had no choice but to act or else people or ideas their to them would suffer. In response I 'relaxed' the time-table of some missions. But now they just use the extra time to flee at the first sight of trouble and return super-prepared, turning a challenging encounter into a walkover. Smart, yes, fun, no.

So you have a bunch of 9 year veteran gamers not wanting to fight. Do they prefer to resolve things peacefully? Why do they avoid fighting? Is it out of fear of injury/death, or is it out of a reasonable mindset? For example, do they wish to avoid conflict with the law? Do some of the PCs expose a pacifist philosophy? Are they opposed to violence expect as a last resort?

Why are the PCs so afraid of combat? Are they deliberately playing cowards? What kinds of enemies (and ECLs) are you throwing at them? Are you setting up encounters they can't win?

They have no preference for pacifism. One of the PCs is cleric of the ruling god in a theocracy, and now he reached 12th level his word practically is the law in most situations
:he has been known to judge and execute suspected criminals on the spot. One other is a fighter out to make a name for himself as a great warrior. War and Battle is even in the portfolio of the cleric's god. The PCs are not scared, the players are.

I like to set up a mix of encounters, some easy, some hard. I like key encounters to be challenging: so that if the PCs don't make good use of their abilities they will lose.

Try these:

http://barsoom.hyboria.net/Swash.html

I am using these happily in another campaign, but this campaign is way too serious for these cards.

 

[Philip]

Some factors that might play into this fear:
how old are the players?

Late twenties, early thirties.

how long have they been RPGing?

I introduced two of them to RPing 10 years ago. The other two have been playing since they were 14.

what level are the PCs?

Currently 12th.

How well do they know the rules & stats of monsters?

The players with the most experience are VERY knowledgeable about the rules and stats of monster, one other player has decent knowledge, while the last player doesn't care much about rules.

What comments are they making about the opponents?

OOC: These are much to powerful for us. We're all going to die. We can never beat them. We should flee now. We can never hit them, etc.

what CR/EL encounters are they running from?

Avoiding would be a better description. All kinds of encounters, unless specifically prepared and reasonably sure they are going to win.

Do they enjoy combat more/less than RPing?

About equally, for what I gather.

Do they have too little magic items for their level (according to the RAW)?

Back during 2nd edition, too little. When we converted to 3rd edition, roughly according to the RAW (although their stats are higher, something like 32-36 point buy)

Do they expect to wade through combat (is that their preference)?
Are they risk averse?

Yes and yes. Certainly for so-called 'adventurers' and 'heroes'.

Can they identify easy fights?
Can they identify hard fights?

Nope. With all the variables available, invisible opponents, illusions, not knowing when the next fight is coming, character levels or templates that can be added to standard monsters, I guess its quite hard for the players to know a hard fight from an easy one unless they get into it.

How do they react to fights they think will be easy?
How do they react to fights they think will be hard?

If they are sure they will win, they might act arrogant, use risky maneuvers and suboptimal tactics just to 'show off'. If they think the fight will be hard they will only engage when absolutely neccessary and not without being optimally prepared. They think most fight are hard, though, when experience should have taught them they most fights they do fight are actually won quite easily.

If you've got a 3rd level party and you throw a CR3 monster at them, and they're scared, then there are several factors. If they don't have any magic items, they may think they are underpowered. If they're bad at math, they may not realize that the odds are on their side. If they're risk averse, they may not like combats that are challenging, because the risk seems too high.

Most are quite good at math, and if they only look at it statistically, they would see they have a fair chance of winning. But emotion throws a wrench in the calculations.

As an added note, they did tell me that switching to 3rd edition made combat scarier than before.

 

[radferth]

As the campaign progressed my players have become ever more anxious about conflict and their PCs try to avoid combat whenever possible. It is now not uncommon to play one or two sessions without any combat at all. When they do enter combat, its often amidst screams of "we can never win, we are all going to die!".

As a DM I like having a tense combat now and then. And when we do have a combat the players always say they enjoyed it. But still they are getting ever more scared. By now I feel that I have to force the PCs into combat to get them to fight anything. What am I to do?

1) Force them into combat.

2) Say "BWAHAHAHAHA" when players whine about dying.

3) If they leave to come back later when they are buffed, let the opposition buff, too.

 

[Digital Archon]

Thanks guys, for all the advice! I will try to respond below:
They do want to fight, but only when it's:
A. Essential to their character's goals
B. The odds are so to their advantage that there's no real chance of losing.

So they're not suicidal bloodthirsty sociopathic murderers out to slaughter everything that looks at them funny. D&D is generally more than a wargame, and the fact that your players are exercising the option to not fight everything in sight is a Good Thing, not something to be deplored as stupid and boring.

Personally, i find it quite amusing that you're complaining that the players are willing to explore other options, when there are many others who have the opposite complaint.

Anyway, the problem we seem to have here is that you want fights, and the players don't. Forcing them into fights because you want to have fights isn't particularly healthy for the relationship at the table between you and the players. It's a different form of railroading: "Too bad. I'm the GM, and i demand fights."
Remember, you're only one person at the table, not the only person at the table.