Help, my players are scared!

[SweeneyTodd]

Pardon the snipping, I'm going for something here.

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.
...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.

versus

...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.
...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.

Okay, so you want the game to have risk and conflict expressed through combat. That's important to you.

Your players are telling you in giant neon letters that that isn't what they want. The players are not interested in tactical challenges and risking their character's lives in combat. At all. Period.

It sounds like they're having fun -- they're invested in their characters and have subplots running. When they can use combat as a chance to have their characters look cool, they enjoy it. When it involves risking the characters they've invested so much in, they split, prepare as much as they can, then come back to crush it. This whole "we're going to die" thing isn't so much cowardice as it is saying "This is not something we are willing to risk our characters for."

I don't see how forcing them into combat is going to help things at all. They've made their preferences pretty darn clear; going against them is going to be like making them eat something you like, and they don't.

So here's my question: Is there a way you can get your needs met without stepping all over theirs? Could you enjoy a game where they have to deal with challenges in other ways?

Maybe focusing on other types of challenges or conflicts, where the things being risked aren't life and limb, but community and relationships. Or having a kind of "outwit the GM" where all that preparation and overkill itself is the challenge, and the fight itself is almost an afterthought.

One thing you might ask them is whether they'd be interested in playing a few sessions with their original PCs as movers and shakers in the background, and new PCs who risk life and ilmb in the foreground. Kind of a troupe-style game. (Maybe one PC has a fortress, and these characters are based out of there, and go forth to clear out orcs or whatnot.) You might even suggest that they help come up with the kinds of things these characters would do, you would create the opposition, and if their new characters "win", it reflects on the larger game world that the senior PCs move in.

If they're interested, it might be that they're risk averse in terms of losing their treasured original PCs. If they're not, it might be that they just don't find risky combat interesting. It doesn't let you know for certain, but it could help. (Obviously, the first thing you should do is just ask them what they're looking for out of the current game; sometimes people work better when discussing examples, though.)

 

[Argonel]

As a quick note, the intent in 3.0 and 3.5 is to reward characters for defeating challenges which doesn't necessarily mean killing or subduing the opposition. If they succesfully negotiate, or use tactics that will deafeat the challenges without fighting they should be rewarded. Simply avoiding the challenge or running away obviously should not be rewarded, unless it is an overwhelming battle where the options are limited to flee or die.

Your players sound very risk adverse, if they have clever solutions reward those. if they are simply running away maybe you should punish them through loss of status or even potential XP loss. After all the challenge defeated them and the XP that the NPC's would theoretically gain have to come from somewhere.

 

[Arbiter of Wyrms]

Martyrdom

These PCs need a cause worth dying for.
They need to die.
The players should hear (in the next campaign, with new PC) about the heroic self-sacrifice of the folks who gave their lives to keep the village/kingdom/world safe.

 

[Philip]

Your players sound very risk adverse, if they have clever solutions reward those. if they are simply running away maybe you should punish them through loss of status or even potential XP loss. After all the challenge defeated them and the XP that the NPC's would theoretically gain have to come from somewhere.

I just had a startling insight:

Over the last 9 years I have consistently offered the players non-combat options to solve most of their conflicts. Additonally, if they retreated and made a clever plan to catch the enemy entirely off guard, I would never adjust the enemy, which often resulted in a lop-sided combat.

I made sure the PCs got equal rewards (in terms of XP, treasure and fame) for choosing non-combat or easy combat options instead of straight-out challenging battles.

Of course, the non-combat or easy-combat options were less risky (if sometimes somewhat less fun) to the PCs than the straight-out combat option. By rewarding all equally I made it more attractive for them (in terms of risk versus reward) to choose the other options. In effect, I taught them (over the years) to avoid combat. Since the player's get increasingly attached to their character (and involved in the story) it would make sense for them to avoid combat more and more, knowing I would reward them for other solutions anyway.

If I wasn't bent of giving my player the broadest range of options available for resolving conflict, I would not have asked the board for help on this matter anyway, I would just 'force' my players to solve some conflicts by combat. But by rewarding alternatives I may have deprived myself of a part a like about the game: challenging combats.

 

[Ace]

I say let them get by without fighting. I woul get tired of the Hicks whine -- Game Over Man Game Over ! myself but if they would rather have non combat solutions let em have em

One thing though do have the NPC's act properly -- if the PC's retreat to rebuff and regroup so will the bad guys if they can -- they may also run away which is OK too

 

[sniffles]

I think it's great that you treated combat and non-combat options equally, but it does seem to have resulted in making your players reluctant to take obvious risks. This sounds like time for the carrot-and-stick method.

The carrot is showing them a great reward they can obtain, but to obtain it they must take an equally great risk. The stick is showing them that choosing not to take the risk will have consequences other than not getting the reward. If they choose to negotiate with the villain instead of fighting him, this gives the villain a foothold in someplace the PCs wouldn't want him to have any influence. If they decide to let the monster alone because they think it's too tough for them, the monster destroys a village or kills an NPC who's close to the characters. They might still choose to keep avoiding combat, but if they know their actions always have consequences in the world their PCs inhabit, they might have second thoughts about being so cautious.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Your players sound a lot like me. I enjoy combat, but if my character has Int 14 or higher and Wis over 10, he's not going to go rushing in like a damned fool (sometimes called a hero )! He's going to set up a situation where the enemy will die if they choose to fight back. Simple as that.

It may be scry-buff-teleport. It may be setting ambushes. It may be dividing and conquering. It may even be diplomacy.

But one way or another, he's going to be in control of the situation if at all possible.

The key thing in this situation is to throw enemies at your PCs who are way beyond their average party level. If the players are sensible about engaging the enemy as a credible threat, then by gum the enemy should be a credible threat.

On those blessed occasions when I can get a group of like-minded tactical players about me, we've taken down opponents 8 or 9 CRs higher than the average party level, sometimes without PC death.

I say let them get by without fighting. I woul get tired of the Hicks whine -- Game Over Man Game Over ! myself but if they would rather have non combat solutions let em have em

Hudson. Not Hicks.

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

If they can resolve the story points (i.e., meet the goals they set) without combat, then that should be okay. If avoiding combat means avoiding resolution, though, let them get hit with the results of inaction. Let the nation fall if you must.


RC

 

[S'mon]

Personally I usually give less XP for eg defeating the orc patrol by bypassing it than for attacking and killing the orcs; those bypassed orcs are still alive and a threat to someone else. I agree you should adjust how you give XP; maybe give 50% for the non-combat solution, on average. Sometimes a full reward may be justified, but usually it sounds like either the enemy survives (still a threat) or the PCs retreat & get allies (who should share the XP). So, again, I say use postive reinforcement - encourage the violent bloodthirstiness you want by rewarding it!
You might also look at rules tweaks to lessen player fear of death - eg I use Fate Points to let PCs be 'left for dead' at -10hp, rather than dead dead.

 

[Quickleaf]

Philip, I think you've stated your case very clearly. In any other situation I would probably say, "Great! They're more interested in role-playing!" However, you've pointed out that your players are meta-gaming. While it's great they value their PC's lives, they are using their out-of-game experience and knowledge to choose their battles. This may be appropriate for 12th level characters. After all, old heroes know all about choosing their battles and conserving energy.

But what are they conserving energy for?

If you are looking for the drama and tension of a balanced combat (which I think you are), there are a couple routes you can go:

1. A hated rival: While murderers spring to mind, they tend to be overdone. Instead, pick an NPC who has a realistic motive. This NPC should be very cunning, and seek to avoid combat as much as possible. They should have access to information networks, blackmail secrets, minions, sway over the voting process, be connected with several high-ranking members of society, etc. Essentially, a mastermind. Then the mastermind has to do something which really affronts the PCs' sensibilities. And I mean really bad. Lashing one of the PC's raped relatives for the crime of "inspiring lustful thoughts in our city's men" is the sort of wickedness you'll need to use. Pick some issue that the PCs have strong beliefs about, or a value they have -- that's what the NPC attacks.
For example, the relative of someone the priest PC ordered executed could be a great enemy driven by vengeance. Distraught over the death of her father, the NPC joins the PC's clergy (unbeknownst to them), only to discover the PC was responsible. She nearly kills the PC in his sleep one night, but thinks better of it, wanting to make him suffer like she did, so she decides to target his loved ones. She starts leading a double life, half at the church and half digging up all the PC's dirt and learning about the best target. After all, she doesn't feel good about killing someone who is innocent, so she'll find someone with a sullied past or a history of speaking out against the church. She might even seek training from the warrior PC's church, or the warrior PC himself.

2. The fight comes to them: Assassins, political revolution, a palace coup all can bring the fight to the PC's front door. Even if they're not directly involved, one of their allies is. What if their ally is getting overwhelmed? Or better yet, what if their ally begins mercilessly killing peasants or responds with disproportionate force? Say, by leading a counterstrike to burn the farmer's crops or trample the blacksmith's children?

3. New enemies: Create an enemy the players know nothing about. There are lots of good monsters in the creature catalogue, and you can always use non-core character classes. Change all the names for good measure. Provide a bit of misinformation on the difficult knowledge checks to learn about the enemy. Better yet, the enemy deliberately spreads misinformation about itself. Or what if the enemy is faked? Like a band of 40 thieves who created a myth of a manticore by firing strange barb-like arrows, creating a horn that sounds like a roar, and having a few dress up in a dire lion skin. The PCs arrive ready for one encounter, only to be ambushed by 40 1st-level rogues who've set pit traps for them.

4. The totally wicked set-up: So, your players will want to kill you after this one, but at least you know the risk. During a visit to a city/culture with a gladiator arena, the fighter PC is invited to participate in a simple match. Whoever surrenders first loses, and killing is strictly prohibited. In addition, the overseer has the right to call off a match if it starts to get bloody. In fact, each combatant gets a weapon of their choice from a locker so that it's a fair fight. It's the perfect opportunity to run a short 3 rounds one-on-one combat. Your fighter PC will feel safe and be rearing to go. The other PCs can place bets and act as trainers for the PC, perhaps meeting their contact covertly during the battle.
................However, behind the scenes one of the PC's enemies has poisoned the blade the warrior PC will use with a lethal poison. During the fight, the PCs attack kills their combatant. There is a huge uproar! Their dying opponent only whispers a name (the enemy PC), and asks the PC to care for his beloved wife. The warrior PC is hauled off the the dungeon. The other gladiator was a favorite of the guardsmen, who decide to sick a dire tiger on the warrior PC while he is imprisoned (before the ruler arrives to question him). The other PCs may be implicated if their activities can't be accounted for prior to the fight.