Player so afraid PC will die that she's not having fun

[Psychic Warrior]

I use those and have had two PC deaths since then. One was Macbeth's PC on Friday evening. *sigh* I _thought_ the death & dying rules would be easier, but in both cases it has led to a PC dropping to just below 0 and failing two saves in a row. *bang* Dead PC that if I were using the standard rules would have had a few rounds of potential left.

I am hanging onto them though because I know when we get a little higher it will be possible to go from decent HP to more than -10 in a hit. Still, it has been a little sad in both cases.

I just read up on them and I thought they might make a good addition to my game. But yeah - 2 bad saves and you're dead whereas unless the person is taken pass -10 there is a chance to save them (I have had several instances where PCs are hovering at -9 before the cleric can slap that CLW on them - usually at great personal risk to the cleric!). I'm going to bring it up with my group anyways though.

So ForceUser - any more clarification on your situation here?

 

[ThirdWizard]

Fixing first impressions is difficult. Even though the TPK was so long ago, that's what's going to stick in their heads. I usually start off easy against new people then slowly work into my normal style. Maybe you could try to "start over" so to speak. Lots of people have advised that you make things easy on them for a while, and I agree with this, but I want to stipulate that you slowly work things up back to normal and be very careful not to make any quick jumps in power.

Don't make things too easy on them, to the point where combat is boring, but maybe 2 CR under them. And utilize tactics more than power to make them work for their win. That way they arn't in too much danger of dying but at the same time arn't automatically winning. Low end enemies, like goblins, can swarm and grapple the fighter for example, hampering him but not endangering him too much.

 

[Hjorimir]

I use those and have had two PC deaths since then. One was Macbeth's PC on Friday evening. *sigh* I _thought_ the death & dying rules would be easier, but in both cases it has led to a PC dropping to just below 0 and failing two saves in a row. *bang* Dead PC that if I were using the standard rules would have had a few rounds of potential left.

I am hanging onto them though because I know when we get a little higher it will be possible to go from decent HP to more than -10 in a hit. Still, it has been a little sad in both cases.

So far this rule has saved like four character deaths in my campaign. Admittedly, I run a pretty tough game, which is one of the reasons I opted to use it (the other being that it is more difficult to raise dead in my campaign).

I like that the rule favors the warriors who, in my own observations, more often than not are the poor guys who are dying as they hold the front line while their invisible, flying, wizard allies nuke with impunity from afar. But even for the wizard, it gives them a chance at survival where they had none before.

 

[kenobi65]

I want to play a HERO, be the star of the show, and win in the end. Granted, really dumb moves should end messily, and sometimes characters should die, especially if they're actively sacrificing themselves, but I consider random character death to be bad.

I agree with this. I don't think character death should be impossible, but I also don't like to see PCs dying due simply to poor dice rolls. If a PC is going to die while I'm DMing, it's going to be either (a) during a climactic, heroic combat, or (b) if the player has his character do something really stupid. And, in case (b), there'll almost always be a warning sign...

I've also used Zog's idea of "Get Out of Dead Free" cards in my campaigns. In most cases, they've been favors of powerful beings, awarded to the PCs in thanks for services rendered, as it were. I think it makes the players feel a little more secure, as it helps them feel that one bad decision (or bad die-roll) won't necessarily be fatal.

 

[Vanye]

Not only stop the anti-player humor, but start saying stuff like, "Awww, man. I rolled a critical. Geeez. I hope I roll minimum damage..."

Depending on the tone of voice (real or perceived) that could be heard as condescending.

 

[Rel]

I have used a 'token' system when starting a new game with players relatively new to the game that has worked well.

Tokens are earned by doing something out of the ordinary, such as great roleplaying for a situation, take a risk, doing something heroic - whatever you deem appropiate.

A player can use a token to offset some bad luck or a bad decision. The expendure of a token changes the die roll or the outcome to the minimum required for success for that occasion for new players, or enables a re-roll for more experienced players.

This is exactly what I was going to suggest. I am a rat-bastard DM and my players know it. I play my dumb baddies dumb and my smart baddies smart and I roll in the open. I set up tough encounters and I know that my players are collectively smart enough to win their way through because I've seen them do it time and again.

When they perform heroically then I happily toss them a "chip" (we use poker chips for our "tokens") and tell them that what they did was cool and added to the game.

And what if they don't win? They spend a "chip" and get to re-roll. And if they still fail then sometimes they die. But that's part of the fun too. Some pretty interesting stuff has happened to some of them while they were dead...

 

[DragonLancer]

Posted by CyberZombie
Not taking pot shots at you (as your style obviously works for your other group) but lots of people (including me, and I think your current group) consider a TPK to be a sign of a bad and un-fun game. I want to play a HERO, be the star of the show, and win in the end. Granted, really dumb moves should end messily, and sometimes characters should die, especially if they're actively sacrificing themselves, but I consider random character death to be bad.

and

Nellisir
Given that I don't know the circumstances of the TPK, I agree with this. A campaign shouldn't be a story the PCs happen to be in -- it should be a story about the PCs.

and

Kenobi65
I agree with this. I don't think character death should be impossible, but I also don't like to see PCs dying due simply to poor dice rolls. If a PC is going to die while I'm DMing, it's going to be either (a) during a climactic, heroic combat, or (b) if the player has his character do something really stupid. And, in case (b), there'll almost always be a warning sign...

The only bad thing about a TPK is that the party probably did something really stupid. Characters are the heroes of the game but theres no way in Hell that you should make the game a breeze just for their benefit. The game, dungeons, monsters, are meant to be a challenege not a walk in the park.
Sometimes random death does happen, bad luck with traps or a crappy dice roll. Don't waste that, live with it.

 

[John Morrow]

I have directly addressed this issue with them on more than one occasion, explaining how I am a "simulationist" gamer and that's how I run my game, by letting the dice fall where they may and accepting the consequences as a new story twist. But I have been told that some players still feel I'm out to get them.

The "simulationist" solution is to make the PCs the most powerful characters in the situation. Use old adventure video games as your model. Forget the idea of encounters being a fair challenge. Make most of the opponents that the PCs run up against substantially inferior except for the "boss" character. Give them "hero points" for that encounter, just in case. But all of the other encounters should resemble the stormtroopers in Star Wars -- opponents so much weaker than the main characters that they are there simply to be knocked down.

As for your player's fear of death, most rational people are risk averse. That's natural and normal. Your player is emotionally attached to her character and doesn't want to take risks because she wouldn't take risks like that.

One other thing you might want to trie is a combination of a destiny and "script immunity". Have an in-game entity of power tell them that they are destined to survive that will act like a guardian angel.

I have tried to explain that in my view, adventuring brings great risks sometimes, but also great rewards, and that adventurers tend to be daring folk willing to take risks.

The problem is that you made things too real for her. She's either feeling in character anxiety herself or feeling anxiety for her character. Either way, you've stirred emotions that are probably too strong for your player.

And as a DM, it's painful to watch. And somehow I have led them to this by simply letting the dice fall where they may.

I suspect that's not all you've done. I presume you also balance encounters to create risks and a certain sense of danger for the characters. Your selection of risks also plays a huge role in how the players perceive danger.

How can I encourage them to act decisively? How can I assure them that their characters aren't going to implode on contact with adventure? How can I challenge them without frightening them? How can I stay true to my DMing style without further alienating my players? Has anyone else had a similar DMing experience?

So long as you allow there to be a wrong decision and so long as their characters sometimes do implode on contact with the adventure their fears are warranted. The way to stay true to your GMing style can be found in selecting the threat level that they encounter. Make the opposition easier than you'd want it to be as a player and see if they still have fun.

 

[dvvega]

What I'm posting here is not a "I'm better than you" thing. In fact I made many of the mistakes I see you making when I started DMing more than 20 years ago. However I'm also blunt and like to "get the information out".

The first thing that hit me from your post is that you tried to FORCE them into a play style. That is a bad thing in my books, especially with a new group and new players. Part of the fun of any game is learning what play style the group works with. That was mistake number 1.

Number 2 was the TPK. It does not really matter if you "let the dice fall", they're new players, with an incomplete understanding of rules and certain situations. How many AOOs did they draw from the monsters for example? And how many did the monsters draw? I've got a suspicion that the party made tactical errors by the bucket load, and your monsters were pretty "safe".

Number 3 is the constant reference to "the old group". It is a new group, they are not the old one.

No matter how much you sit them down and talk to them now, you've laid some shaky foundations for them. They're going to be skeptical of things until you can undo some of the damage. My suggestion would be to "clean the slate" openly with them and suggest that you guide them through the rules piece by piece.

What does this mean? Well ... I'm assuming they know how to create a character, however do they know how to use skills? Feats? Set up simple encounters like ...

"You have a locked door before you. You must get through. You are unsure of what is beyond."
This could lead them to bash the door down, pick the lock, or what have you. It introduces skill checks, taking 10, taking 20 and so forth. They may listen and so forth.

A simple combat with a few examples of lots of things like AOO, standard, move, immediate, swift actions and so forth.

Essentially hold their hands through the system to regain their confidence again.

D

 

[Herpes Cineplex]

I agree with this. I don't think character death should be impossible, but I also don't like to see PCs dying due simply to poor dice rolls. If a PC is going to die while I'm DMing, it's going to be either (a) during a climactic, heroic combat, or (b) if the player has his character do something really stupid.

Yes. And personally, I like it better when the penalty is FAILURE, which is in many ways worse than merely dying and leads to a much more interesting game.

As a player and as a GM, PC death seems boring and counterproductive. It means that for however long it takes to make a new character and re-insert it into the game, the player whose character died isn't playing with the rest of us. It means that all the character development and backstory that the player put into that PC is now mostly a waste of time. And that, in turn, encourages most of our players to stop making detailed and interesting characters. After a while, character death stops becoming a useful and fun penalty: it just removes interesting things from the game and players get jaded with it.

But so far, failure has always worked for us. You know, where losing the big fight means that terrible things happen to the PCs and to the world around them: death would be a mercy, because death would mean they didn't have to make any tough decisions after their loss and wouldn't have to live with the consequences of their failure. After a big failure, the complications pile up on the PCs, giving them lots to talk about in-character and even more motivations to set new goals for themselves. And the joy of finally winning a victory after a series of crushing failures is huge, far in excess of the charge you'd get out of finally surviving a big fight after dying in all the big fights before it.

Of course, it helps that we don't play a lot of combat-heavy games, and that our gaming group isn't made up of the kind of people who hear "character death is rare" and immediately say "Cool! I have Plot Immunity! I mouth off to the gods and then go swimming in a volcano just before lunch!"

Once the sources of random character death are minimized and the players are on board with the idea of the characters believing that death is likely even though outside the game it's acknowledged that it probably won't happen, you can really invest in the PCs. Since I don't think you can have dramatic tension without a little emotional investment in the characters, I've always been confused by the people who say that the game needs the constant threat of PC death to maintain that sense of tension: if the PC can die at any moment, there's less reason to invest anything in them, especially if you've already buried a dozen PCs.

--
killing them is too easy and too kind: making them live with defeat is much crueler and more devious
ryan