Too Much Effort to Make New Characters?

[payn]

I've suggested rules lite systems in the past. The problem is a mix of interests in the group: some prefer tactical depth, others are there for the story and friendship. All of these guys are friends IRL, so it's hard to tell them to just "split the group."
The other issue is that the players who are interested in story don't want to abandon campaigns/rules systems just because it's not working for them. And they also don't want to learn new systems they could enjoy more.


Agreed. But it is playing against the type for the style of game we are playing (which they also chose to play after knowing those expectations).
So how does a GM running an Adventure Path allow a group to always "fail forward?" When a system like D&D or Pathfinder is based on combat and character injury but characters can't die?
If I let the characters live to face another day while there are story implications for defeat, can we still follow the story of the Adventure Path?

When I ran PF1, I used hero points. They were really save the character points as we used them. You got 1 per level and can bank up to 3. Occasionally, I'd award some for clever play. This helped with the swingy getting ganked by surprise and not even getting to act deaths that nobody likes. When you are low on hero points, you try be more careful. It works well because I can take the gloves off as GM and the players have a little armor against the math, but not complete.

This isn't going to help for a group that wants no death due to mechanical inconvenience, but maybe this system can work as a compromise?

 

[Blue]

Agreed. But it is playing against the type for the style of game we are playing (which they also chose to play after knowing those expectations).
So how does a GM running an Adventure Path allow a group to always "fail forward?" When a system like D&D or Pathfinder is based on combat and character injury but characters can't die?
If I let the characters live to face another day while there are story implications for defeat, can we still follow the story of the Adventure Path?

I agree that this sounds like a mismatch between what the players agreed to in picking D&D and an adventure path, assuming they aren't newer players who might not understand.

That said, none of this needs to be a fail forward. There are other options rather that just redo. Have a campaign setback in exchange for what would be the character death.

You now are mentioning story implication for defeat, was this a defeat as well? From your description players were only upset about character death. Is this not actually about just a character death but also a defeat which is why they want to redo it? Or a TPK? If so then redoing it is a different situation and one where the player responses could be taken in a much different light.

 

[Blue]

...
So get the player back in action as soon as is prudent.
...

I'm sorry Emirikol, you're not living up to your name. Those solutions are solid, sensible, and fun -- and not in the least chaotic. I'm so disappointed.

 

[Retreater]

My first thought would be to move to a different system where char-gen is quick and simple. My second thought would be to ask myself why I wasn't using such a system in the first place.

Char-gen is pretty straightforward in Basic and even (pre-UA) 1e D&D, ditto with some other old-school systems.

That said, if this issue arises where you're already using a system with simple char-gen you might want to rethink your player base.

They don't want to play those games. I've asked.
Those systems are usually more lethal (which is a strike against the players who want a deep story experience) and don't have the tactical depth of more modern systems (which is a strike against the players who want that style of play).

If you're playing Pathfinder what your players are saying is "the amount of time I sunk into making this character is far too much for what I got out of it." How long did they last? Is this "dead after 2 sessions" or "I'd be less irritated if I'd at least made it to 3rd level?"

They made it halfway to 3rd level. But I think they consider the investment in the story and character development as a part of character creation - so that is all lost as well. So I do understand that part of it. Another part of the frustration is how quickly the TPK happened in that specific encounter - a matter of a few rounds.

When I ran PF1, I used hero points. They were really save the character points as we used them. You got 1 per level and can bank up to 3. Occasionally, I'd award some for clever play. This helped with the swingy getting ganked by surprise and not even getting to act deaths that nobody likes. When you are low on hero points, you try be more careful. It works well because I can take the gloves off as GM and the players have a little armor against the math, but not complete.

In PF2 I am awarding them a Hero Point every hour to every player - which is pretty darned generous.

 

[Lanefan]

They don't want to play those games. I've asked.
Those systems are usually more lethal (which is a strike against the players who want a deep story experience) and don't have the tactical depth of more modern systems (which is a strike against the players who want that style of play).

They made it halfway to 3rd level. But I think they consider the investment in the story and character development as a part of character creation - so that is all lost as well. So I do understand that part of it. Another part of the frustration is how quickly the TPK happened in that specific encounter - a matter of a few rounds.

In PF2 I am awarding them a Hero Point every hour to every player - which is pretty darned generous.

Between all these factors I think, unfortunately, that as long as you keep this player mix you're hosed.

Maybe see if someone else in the crew is willing to drop the puck on a campaign?

 

[payn]

In PF2 I am awarding them a Hero Point every hour to every player - which is pretty darned generous.

That is a lot. How do they use them? Do they know they can be banked to save their character?

 

[Blue]

Another part of the frustration is how quickly the TPK happened in that specific encounter - a matter of a few rounds.

I really wish you had called out "this was a TPK" that the players were complaining about.

Going back and rereading I can see how it fits that, but it's also really easy to read that some players have lost their characters and want to redo a session, not that everyone had.

With a TPK the investment isn't in just a new character, but getting them into the campaign as a whole. I can understand a group of players saying "let's just restart from right before that point instead of wasting everything we've done up to this point."

Again, it's not my preferred play-style, but a TPK is generally a rare occurrence that has massive derailment potential, and players wanting a shot to redo it so they don't lose everything is something I can see some players wanting.

 

[heks]

This comes across as if you are ignoring what is written in order to make your point. The player are obviously interested in playing if they feel it is punishment to lose a session's worth of progress. So you "find a group that actually wanted to play" you have to know is false.

So it feels like you are trying to assign them motives that they are written not to have just so you can judge them. And that doesn't read well.

to be clear- it's not about judging them, it's about being incompatible (although you are absolutely correct in that it comes across that way and i should have phrased it less antagonistically and, rather, made it clear that the game they want to play and the game i want to play are simply not the same thing.)

 

[Jd Smith1]

to be clear- it's not about judging them, it's about being incompatible (although you are absolutely correct in that it comes across that way and i should have phrased it less antagonistically and, rather, made it clear that the game they want to play and the game i want to play are simply not the same thing.)

Of course it's about judging them. Its pretty clear their commitment level is incompatible to the GM's.

Managing expectations is perhaps the most important task of a GM. What we have here is a group that needs to seek out other venues.

 

[Jer]

They made it halfway to 3rd level. But I think they consider the investment in the story and character development as a part of character creation - so that is all lost as well. So I do understand that part of it. Another part of the frustration is how quickly the TPK happened in that specific encounter - a matter of a few rounds.

OH! It's a TPK not just one player! That makes so much more sense.

Yes a TPK on an AP at 3rd level would have me also saying "um, can we like pretend we didn't have a tpk here? Maybe take us all prisoner and let us try to break out or something instead?"

TPKs are always annoying, but they're especially annoying when you are just getting a feel for a character and a party. When everyone has to start from scratch it's just kind of depressing.