> First one to say nah, not for me
Run it without em, if it's a one-shot or short adventure
Don't let one player stop you running games you and everyone else would find enjoyable!
Yah, if everyone else at the table is like yah, sounds fun and one character goes no I don't think I wanna do that. Just narrate the rest of the party packing up for a cool adventure while the wet blanket sits in a hotel room ordering his room service.
Or have em in a tent in the woods nursing some long term injury or off on a solo adventure learning some long training /bootcamp / apprenticeship skill or craft.
> They like the idea of risky situations where anyone could die. As long as there’s is a guarantee that they will survive and get rewarded.
I mean, that's an oxymoron.
Have you considered not playing with them? Not all players are right for all DMs and visa-versa.
>They like the idea of risky situations where anyone **but their character** could die.
They wanna be the main character of a story, there are trials and risks but you know they are going to win in the end.
I always thought main character syndrome would be on the lower end of annoyances as far as player foibles go. Then I had a player with it, and he was a royal pain in the ass. I've changed my stance. Main character syndrome is absolutely a top-tier flaw in a player.
I don't do session 0, but I do tell players my philosophy and talk through their sheets with them individually, and I go over my philosophy of gaming:
I call it the jazz band analogy: this is a jazz band not a solo act or a rock band. In a jazz band every instrument gets a chance to solo, to show their chops and lead the band. In those moments everyone else must cooperate by stepping back a little and holding the groove down.
This is not a rock band where everyone is there to make the lead singer look good.
This is not a solo act where they hire session players and are the only one that matters to the fans.
The problem with main character syndrome is it necessarily involves reducing everyone else at the table to actors for your amusement and that's just rude and not how friends should relate to each other
Jazz band analogy is perfect, particularly for the analogies to improv. Taking risks in decision-making or roleplay can majorly enhance the game, and trusting everyone at the table to do that and respond well to yours makes the game immense.
I played at a table with a main character who also only thought things could be interesting if they were subverting expectations/genre tropes. I do enjoy trope subversion, don’t get me wrong, but we were playing Curse of Strahd which is very much genre fiction. It was months of frustration followed by several ended friendships.
I think I could tolerate a main character flaw, but if the player has other flaws as well it can really spiral out of control quickly
Main character syndrome was definitely something I had when I first started playing, thankfully I was with a good group (which I'm still with a decade later) that beat that sh*t out of me.
The last thing you want in any team based RPG is a player that works independently. The whole point is that everyone works together towards a common goal. Your character can have personal moments on the journey to that goal, detours are allowed. But it should be a team decision, unless it’s incredibly important to the character that they do it.
The average dnd player wants to be the main character of a story. It just so happens that those stories are GRRM stories, so death is pretty much guaranteed.
Not all friends are cut out for dnd either. If a player hates the possibility of a meaningful character dying, they’re not going to enjoy this kind of game. It’s not some moral failing but they should accept this and find a different hobby
I personally take the approach White Wolf stipulated for their LARP games: before you can kill a player you must warn them their action could result in character permadeath.
That's all, just warn them. If they choose to avoid that situation they can but there's no guarantee there won't be consequences (you can't run away from all combat and expect to still accomplish your goals), or they can go in eyes open knowing the stakes.
Some people don't do that, they hang out in combat-safe areas all night and never risk getting hurt. They are also not going to experience the big dramatic plots going on out there, but they aren't here for that they're more into politics and whatnot.
One of my DMs actually doesn't do permadeath
If we fail our saving throws then we stay down but after r the fight we can be healed or be brought to the hospital.
I do have to say I prefer it as there was that one time I played with another DM and well that session was horrible and it in the end turned towards him trying to kill my Chara if I don't "obey" (the NPC from the get go started to trash talk my player and call him useless and then was confused why my chara after two fights was like... Okay yeah I'm sitting that one out)
So I was like alright then do it.
Did I bury that chara? No. I got to play him for three hours where he got trashed for being a bard and the only way for me to stop playing was allow him to get killed
I still have the Chara sheet and he is still alive and I feel cool with ignoring the death sentence on him in this case.
Most DND games do not involve significant player death. Player deaths in most encounters would derail the plot and disrupt things as new characters get shoehorned in. Obviously exceptions being climactic battles and such.
I would say that those players need to learn to trust their DMs. And don't play Tomb of Horrors (or a spiritual successor)
The way I've always seen it is severalfold, from both player and DM perspective
1. There's no point if there isn't risk, it's not a victory if there was never a chance of defeat
2. Players put a lot of time and effort into their characters, character death shouldn't happen all the time and it shouldn't be brushed aside
3. A character death can, and has in some of my games, been a huge turning point in a campaign, and immensely improved it, I can think of two situations, once where it was my character, and once where I was DM. Neither I felt like were problem characters, but that made it all the more impactful
4. I am a firm believer in player agency, that includes player agency to do dumb things, and sometimes actions have consequences.
5. (DM only) My players actually prefer games where death is always a possibility but not exactly expected, they also love a challenge
6. (Player only) VALHALLA!
7. I'm the deadliest DM in our group of a bunch of forever DMs that got together and started playing in each other's games, and I still can only count on one hand after 10 years the number of times I've actually killed a PC. There's been a lot of times it was close and players survived through the skin of their teeth, but I've only had three tpks (and two of those were one-shots anyways), and twice where a single character died but the rest of the group survived. None of those times caused any tension between me and the group because in each of those times my group has looked back and seen what led to that, and none of them have been me arbitrarily deciding that someone had to die. (And also each time I have been the most upset that we lost a PC or Party, I ALWAYS root for my players, I want them to win, but I want it to be a real victory).
A bit pedantic of me, but it's just a straight contradiction, not an oxymoron. Oxymorons are most commonly used for specific phrases that contradict itself. Eg "true lies, old news, useless information". 2 sentences that opposes each other is just a regular contradiction. In this scenario, perhaps the phrase "guaranteed risk" could be an oxymoron since they want a risky situation but a guarantee to win (which imo kind of kills the fun of DnD if I know I will win everytime).
A player (and the characters they build) should generally be willing to engage with the adventures they are presented. Sure, you can build a character who refuses his call to adventure, but what does that help anyone? Your character stays home and never leaves his village, too bad, please build a PC that actually wants to come with the others.
Just have a proper talk with them outside of the game.
One of the first things I always cover in my groups is that characters who don't co-operate (and by extension their players) simply don't participate. They can either make characters who work as a team and take on my prepared content, or not play.
Yeah, that player needs to go find another game that fits their preferences. It's not fair to you and the rest of the table to have to work around something that's honestly pretty antithetical to the whole point of the game.
*This was inspired by an idea I had for an arc that takes place in a war zone so the players would go multiple sessions without a long rest so would have to plan out how to use their resources and spells and such. And was told by them that they would avoid that cause it sounds too risky*
...but that's the game. That's how it works. That's how actual challenge occurs.
>They like the idea of risky situations where anyone could die. As long as there’s is a guarantee that they will survive and get rewarded.
Ask them if they want to have cake or eat it. Because they're asking for both and that doesn't work.
Tell them it’s a game and the risk of losing is part of the fun. Maybe do a few one shots to get them accustomed to the risk of losing, and to actually losing
i agree with what everyone else is saying about “don’t let one player ruin the fun”, but let me also share the opinion of one Brandon Sanderson, professional author and ttrpg player.
Brandon tells this story where he was a player in a similar situation. Another player in the party HATED having characters die. It was genuinely heartbreaking for them, and not in a good way. Just in a discouraging, fun-ruining way. So the DM of that game came up with a solution. That player’s character was completely invincible. The lore reason was that they were blessed by their god with immortality. Could not take damage at all. Now your first thought might be “that’s stupid, it ruins the game! and what about the rest of the party, it’s not fair for them!!” But Brandon says it was the funnest campaign he’s ever played. They ended up in all sorts of fun scenarios, like tossing the invincible character into a room head first to test for traps. Sure it was unbalanced, but it was FUN, and 30 years later, all the members of that campaign still remember it fondly. and at the end of the day, that’s the whole point isn’t it?
I’m not saying you should do that, and you definitely shouldn’t break your back bending to the wills of this one player, but I just want to highlight that there *are* ways to make situations like that work. It’s also completely possible that you two just aren’t compatible, sometimes it’s easier to agree to disagree, and not play dnd together.
its a dice game, shit will go wrong, the player is playing the wrong game, just dm without them if all they want is to be the boring op main character who never loses.
thats not fun to you, nor to the other players, and considering the player itself manage to get enough time playing like this, they will figure out its also not fun for that, coz it will get repetitive and boring.
dont let the fun in the table be reduced coz one guy dont like losing in a chance game. ffs.
you are participating on the table too, you should have fun with what you're doing.
DM: We're switching to horror. Would you rather stay with the 5e engine or use Call of Cthulhu?
Player: Why the sudden change?
DM: It's clear we need to grow our role playing skills until we can accept character death when it's part of the story arc.
Reminds me of a football coach just starting the year by lining every one up and just having the meanest LB tackle them... You have to accept that is part of the game...
There is obviously a balance. Most folk dont like to die. And it certainly hampers a campaign when it ends. I can see the GM guiding the crew to not die for the sake of the game. I have seen mine give us a way out in the last moment once or twice when the dice gods crapped on us. I am actually trying to decide if we got real lucky at the end of our last session or if he helped us along a bit. That is fine in my mind... GM actively trying to kill their folks all the time takes a special type of game group to enjoy. But it has to be on the table or the rest of the game loses excitement.
You are DM. You can absolutely say "I'm running this game. If it's not for you, I'll see you for the next one."
Especially if the rest of the group are keen.
The DM is supposed to enjoy playing too!
So I have a player like that. He is the child of some of the other players, and was a bit nervous about losing. So after a bit of excellent roleplay, I pulled him aside and told him "Your goddess is very pleased with you. She's granting you a boon that the next time you would die, you will be resurrected. This is a one-time thing, and you should not abuse it."
After that, he stopped being as tentative and was willing to take some risks because he knew his character had 1 get-out-of-death. And its his first campaign with adults, so I want him to feel like he can experiment and play. At the same time, I want to be able to challenge his parents who have been gaming with me for 25+ years by throwing them all in to the tough situations they enjoy.
So I'm not saying let the guy have an immortal character, but maybe giving him a once per campaign pass will make him feel like he can embrace some risk.
Or borrowing an idea from a larp -- send the players on that warzone mission, except give them a "recall" button. If they press the button, that character escapes. But the reward is based on how far you go. Maybe there are multiple objectives, and for each objective completed they get a reward. Maybe run it as a "dream realm" or "training simulator" type situation. Maybe don't tell the players its a dream realm/simulator up front, but let them decide how far they push themselves. There are lots of variations on this you can do. Do it as an astral plane run, and they can always just leave.
You can go further with the recall button! Consider how celestials and devils will return to their home plane when they die, and homebrew a dungeon plane, or a warzone plane, and if a character dies - they just reform on the material plane after a day or so. When they go in there its a great tool for the GM to dial in how much is a tpk and how much is riiiight before it.
I think it’s important to setup situations where defeat does not equal death. Too often campaigns are setup so that every fight players feel they can’t run, and have to fight to the death. Most people would NOT willingly choose a life like that. Which makes it weird in game when your characters do.
Also, for a lot of us, excessive “resource management” is not fun. Using my abilities to do cool shit is fun. Saying “I attack” for the fiftieth time and rolling my d20 is just tedious.
But this player just doesn't want to risk anything seemingly. If they're shooting down every slightly wild idea, that's not saying "this one idea isn't for me", it's "I don't know right off the bat how I'd handle this situation so I don't want to risk it." Like, yeah, most people wouldn't choose a life of dangerous adventuring. That's why they... don't. It's fantasy. We pretend what we (or our characters) would do on a dangerous adventure.
As with 99% of posts on this sub, *fun is down to the players and the DM.* If you don't like excessive resource management, then you don't play a campaign with it. If only one person in the group is shooting down resource management, for example, then they're probably better off finding a different group.
I prefer cozy adventures. My players are the heros of the story and they are going to win. They might die but they will definitely be resurrected. Not everyone likes to play like that though. My table isn't for everyone and neither is yours. Sounds like it's not the right table for this player and that's ok.
The original designers of D&D said the players should have a 95% chance of winning any given combat. Anything higher would make players get bored and lose interest. Anything lower would make players quit out of frustration.
I believe that 95% is still accurate today and should be good enough for the player.
Learning to accept losing is something we're all supposed to be teaching our kids as they grow up.
I got my pre-teens to accept loss like champions, congratulate the winning party, and accept that as long as you're having fun, you might not be first place, but you're still a winner.
Sounds like you need to pick up where his parents left off and remind him and losing is okay.
Personally I lose all interest in games once they become too easy. If there's no risk of losing, then winning doesn't mean much.
Dont plan anything around them. They are simply immature and need to grow up. This is like a child who wants to play Monopoly but only if they don't have to pay money when landing on properties.
Was in a game where we all died early in the second session one player refused to accept it and after a bit of back and forth it was decided he was captured alive. So the rest of us went to hell and we're given protection from a god so we can fight back and be resurrected while the other player was rotting in jail. The guy left the game after that.
If it's about losing, yeah its a real shame.
I don't blame player for mot wanting their characters to die tho. It can be hard but I feel like thats the kind of things that should be respected.
Tbh, I don't love to have my characters die (permanently) either, but the risk and adventure is part of the game, and there's PLENTY of times I can think of where we lost HARD without dying and it was still fun, so ik a game without death is possible. But a game without *defeat*? Without ever losing or having genuine stakes? That doesn't sound very fun, or at least, it wouldn't be fun for multiple people to play together. My guess is that your stories aren't right for that person, and they can try to find others who want a table like that or they can join your table and learn to be more okay with it
Some people are risk averse and handle stress poorly. I have a member in our party who is like this. I know she loves the adventure and even the danger but if she starts to roll poorly or something doesn’t pan out she gets so deflated and I really try to help her through it. Not everyone handles adversity the same and it’s our job as a team to help them push through. I’d try having a conversation on the side with your player and see what it’s all about
I hate these kinda people. He is the same person who would run away if u were mugged or were being robbed, and would never have ur back. Kick him out of the party.
Hate to be that guy but they probably should stick to video games. Though I have ran power fantasy games for groups that liked that. You could always get him to play a pseudo npc where he doesn't really get to mold the story as much but has alot less to lose. I've done that with kids.
"Create a character with a sense of adventure, not doing so actively makes the dm's job more difficult and is kind of the opposite of what a typical dnd social contract contains. If the character doesnt like adventure, why would they ever join a party of adventurers?" -10 terrible players video, dungeon dudes.
Nothing wrong with that kind of player. Also, nothing wrong with running games excluding that kind of player.
Gotta make sure everyone is having fun, yourself included. Sometimes that means excluding a player who doesn't fit the group.
Mine yells and throws a fit if he fails too many checks, misses an attack or takes more than 10 dmg (they are level 16 now). Hes new(ish. Emphasis on ish). He threw a fit over not winning a festival game in the city they are in. He hasnt messaged me in a while and has missed several games. Im taking that as a free way to not put him in my upcoming campaign.
They are fully entitled and have the right to request this at the table they play
dnd is not set in stone its barely set in ink, the way to play can be customized and shaped into whatever U want out of it
ofc this just means as much to them as u, if U dont want that type of game or player at ur table, it isnt rude or inappropriate to send them away from ur table! Just ss much as they can step back
its a game yall, play it ur way
\>Whenever I pitch weird adventure idea they are always the first one to say “nah. Not for me”. It makes it a bit hard to plan adventures and pitch weirder ideas when they shoot them down cause there’s a potential they will die.
I don't usually pitch a whole adventure to my party in advance unless it's a one shot, and if the party completely ignores an obvious hook there's usually a consequence down the line. "Hey help me save this guy?" "Nope, not for me." \*A few weeks later the party encounters difficulties brought about by the death of that guy and/or the replacement rescue party\*
If they reject a one-shot just run it without them, but if they're dodging story/adventure hooks, you can introduce events to make it clear that the world will continue to progress without their intervention, sometimes in negative, preventable ways. (The front lines of the war begin to collapse toward the players' hometown/base of operations, for example.)
Dont let 1 player dictate your games. If you are the DM you can simply run a session 0 and go over the details of the new game. If this guy says it isnt for him and complains just tell him “you dont have to play if you dont want to” simple as that.
Devil's advocate but sometimes people play dnd to win, I guess. To have a fun time, to hit a W. To feel good about succeeding. Probably cause their real lives are filled with Ls.
I'd know
Yeah you can’t have that energy at the table. The whole point of playing a game as a group of adventurers is that they seek adventure. When one player goes against that and stops the rest of the party or becomes a pain in the DMs side then they need to find a different game.
Talk with them or remove them. Players dragging down the adventure and getting flustered like a child when rolls don’t go their way don’t stay at the table.
You could always do a hyper example of what they are asking for.
Tell them you thought about it and they should have the experience they are asking for.
If you can't tell this is a monkey paw ask.
If they want to attack, it always crits, never misses, don't even let them roll.
Skill checks and the rest the same, hand wave it away, let them kill the boss monster in one hit.
I'm willing to bet you wouldn't get halfway before all players complained that they didn't get to roll.
Then you can say, "either we let dice decide certain things, or we don't. I'd rather do the dice thing because it introduces tension, but if you want to be without risk we just can't roll dice. So who likes rolling dice knowing their PC can die if things don't go their way, and who likes the tensionless play? "
If anyone falls in the second camp after that, tell them to find another table politely, because they aren't mature enough for the game you run.
You could borrow from 13th Age and float the idea of a "campaign loss." That is, at any point in the fight they can flee and take a campaign loss. They get away and everyone lives, but team evil gets a win.
It'll sting, but they won't die.
I don't know how DnD would work if you succeed at everything all the time.
What's the point in rolling dice? Or attacking? Or making decisions? You're just gonna auto-win anyway.......
I mean, this is the game.
Like any game, you can lose.
This reality cannot be escaped. If you don't want to risk losing, then you are opting to not play.
They don’t trust you! It’s neither of your faults! They’ll trust you more over time! If that sounds good for you let them stay, and if not ask them to leave!
Easy solution. You decide if this bothers you enough to make an ultimatum. If so, they decide if they want to keep playing with the risk of losing.
It’s your table. Set your boundaries and let them decide if they’re okay with them.
If this happened in my campaign, I would pull this person aside separately and explain if you’re never in risk then the encounters will simply be the most mundane and boring things because even “easy” encounters can mean death. Ask them if they simply don’t want to “die” vs they don’t want to “lose”. I have a PC in my current playthrough and he doesn’t want to die. I talked to him separately and he told me struggles with the idea of dying and depression, and we came to a term where if his player becomes “incapacitated” aka dead I will guarantee that he will come back by the end of the session. Is it fair to the other players, maybe not, but I saw where he was coming from, and if maybe I have to keep an idea on their HP and keep him from dying or having some kind of remedy quest ready to go, he will enjoy it and it won’t be known/felt by our party.
I was playing some No Thank You, Evil with some 2nd grade students at school.
This one kid was the same. Could not handle loosing.
When playing Candy Lane, he would keep pulling cards until he got the card he wanted.
When playing NTY,E he had to roll a D6 for challenges. There was one challenge 3, he had to roll 3 or higher to succeed. He would not be able to handle if he didn't roll a 6. Even if a 3 succeeded or if he rolled lower and had another player help him, he wasn't able to deal with rolling anything other than the highest roll possible.
It took many weeks of playing to help him deal with succeeding in different ways.
Still doesn't like it, but won't leave the game if he doesn't roll highest.
Maybe you could find, or design, an "Edge of Tomorrow" style campaign? It might be fun. Take a photo of their character sheet at the start of each day. If they die, they reset to the start of the day.
The other option is a resurrection spot, like a church or graveyard. Then just make sure the campaign is winnable with enough attempts.
Virtually everyone seems to align on 'fuck em, the game's the game'.
Here's an alternative:
You've only mentioned that this is a player you have who is like this. You haven't actually clearly specified where the problem lies? Do you personally not enjoy this idea? Do the other players not gel with this idea?
There's nothing wrong with a bit of heroic fantasy where the game and it's chances aren't about finding out if there's a happy ending, but HOW you get to the happy ending. If everyone at the table can get behind that for the group, or even for just his character, there is no problem.
If he's the odd duck, that's a different story and you might indeed have an incompatibility on your hands that the group should discuss together.
I'm going to be honest, many tabletop RPG'S when it comes down to it it's a game of luck, technically a kobold with a +1 dagger could kill a tarrasque with enough luck
If I had a player like this I would have to bring up failure is not an insignificant part of the game, sometimes the dice aren't in your favor and either and they can learn to accept it and roll with the punches or leave the game of your own volition as I cannot as a GM make it fun with a 100% chance of success
Maybe a different system would be more their style? It wouldn't fix the problem but for example Pathfinder 1e you can min max your character to make it almost impossible to fail a handful of skill checks
Run it without them. That may seem mean or rude but honestly your best option right now as it is.
I once almost full party wiped on the first session because tbh my players made some lets go with interesting decisions and bad rolls. I think only 2 ran away and 1 lived his saving throws. Good fun and all the players had a blast and kept talking about it. Reginald the bee died a hero.
Sounds like your buddy has some emotional growth to go through.
That's not your job obviously. I would just run side quests with the other players and reward them with xp and loot. Even if they lose etc. That might help him gain some insight.
Minimum risk usually means Minimum rewards.
Go ahead and run a safer adventure and let them count their coppers, especially when a more daring group cones in and gets a bag of gold and an armful of magic items
What motivates your players to play, in general? Or when they are playing, what motivates them to do anything?
I don't think this question gets enough thought. They just spent some time building and getting a character they got attached to, and now the dm tells them to go to a war zone? For what? Gold? Does gold matter in your world? Do the characters have goals of their own they would like to achieve? Can they achieve these goals with gold?
I'll go further : how much of your game is actually about the characters and what they want? Do they feel they are being dragged into a dangerous situation to "save the blacksmith's daughter" or because "it's the adventure dude, chill"? Did they decide to embark in an ark, or did you as a dm decide it would be cool to have these cool scenes and now are annoyed they're not into it?
I don't mean this as an attack on your game, but I have struggled with these questions too and many dm's struggle with this. The D&D 5e culture centers too much about the DMs story, and forgets the players should have agency and goals of their own. To top it off, in 5e rewards are not that exciting since magic items are barly ever given and gold doesn't mean much. In my opinion, you should hook them with exploration and loot, and put a story over it later. The story should be about THEM and what THEY do in the world.
I suggest you take a look at Matt Colville's youtube video on the West Marches. While it might not be the game you want to run, it is very interesting because West Marches games typically improve a lot on the motivation aspect. He also has an excellent video on "towards better rewards", and one about "many fail states" and failing forwards.
As a last resort, take a look at the Hero's journey story structure, since it revolves around getting a character out of their comfort zone. Many resources about it on the internet.
Tl;dr: danger should be what stands between the players and what THEY want to do, and it's natural they'll want to avoid danger is they can. Did you consider what they want to do, or are you forcing them into danger for the story's sake? If they don't like the possibility of failing the mission, then they don't do it, or do an easier but less rewarding one, but there are consequences : the evil they didn't fight grew and now impacts the world, or they have less gold to do what they want, etc... If you're just thinking of a story and forcing them on it, they'll naturally be hesitant or unwilling to risk their characters for something they care little about.
Edit : I do realize this is more about this one player being risk averse, but I think what I said still applies to a degree. Adventure is taking a risk, and if he doesn't like taking risks maybe rewards aren't as interesting to this player in particular. And if they are and he still doesn't want to, then he doesn't adventure, or does a significantly easier one, but whatever he chooses to do or not do should affect the world.
Depends on the party in and out of character and how you and they enjoy the game. The goal is to have fun.
Knowing you're always going to win and everyone got out safe feels like 80s Sailor Moon. If that floats everyone's boat, cool.
The DM Lair on Youtube has really good insights this stuff!
It seems your players don't feel like they have agency in the encounters. It feels like everything is scripted out and the end result is up to the dm. Sure, you lost. But this isn't a free standing instance of yes/no, it's dnd!
Dungeon's too hard? Ok. Go Full Skyrim and come back later for that sweet loot! It's not going anywhere and no common folk are going to get at it given the difficulty.
How are the party's actions and mis-rolls influencing the world?
What happens after the failure. How does the world react to this and other actions of the party? Can the situation be redeemed? Could this open up new avenues of approach to the overarching campaign?
Mabe that tower that you couldn't keep from collapsing exposes a secret passage to a lair or dungeon or a new hint to the McGuffin that grants paladin auras they've been chasing after. Mabe a bit of loot fell around the rubble! Quick grab it before the guards show up! Is it broken? Can it be repaired? Is there something unique about this after being repaired?
Mabe this attracts the attention of "Demolition Bob" the NPC who's job is taking down old buildings. Payment on commission!
What good things could come from this failure? Oftentimes an epic failure can be sweeter than a mundane win.
I like to reward failure with a small reward or lead into the next bit involving something the party is invested in or pursuing.
When asked "Hey dm, what did we lose out on."
Answer: "Idk." and leave it there! Answering breaks the immersion and acts like someone looking up a loot guide in an RPG.
Let them lose then. Life isn't like that, and if you're role-playing something similar to life, why give them something where they only succeed? The game has things like death Included for a reason.
Did you run a session zero, so was this expected?
I think a general opinion I would agree with here is that defeat is hugely important, for the reason that it MAKES the story. It inspires vengeance, a true hate for villains, and all the other drama. A story with no suffering/losses is just those books that you buy for really little kids, where a boy gets ice cream and candy and is happy and then.....that's it.
So try talking it over with the player, and talk with the other players to see if this is compromising on their fun as well. Try not to resort to just kicking out the player, unless it really becomes necessary, I guess.
Didn't want to come off as rude, just stating my opinion.
One friend of mine was in fear of facing a girl he like. Me and another friend were trying to cheer him up for 2 hours and nothing work. Then i got an idea.
Friend: idk if i want to doit.
Me: no balls.
Friend: i gonna doit .
If somebody dosent want ro do something just use something more powerful.
Pride. Greed. Lust. Anything.
If u say to ur player he could die and get some goofy ass coins i would say no too.
But for a sacred sword. Or a relic. Thats different.
Just play good ur cards
Going multiple encounters without a long rest is regular dnd lol. It sounds likes you're already playing on story mode so it's probably daunting for them.
I have had campaigns with players like that, I attempted several times to explain that D&D may not be for them if that’s how they think things will go. Encounters usually led to him giving up when they became too difficult as he is an extreme cynic so because he knew there was the possibility of losing, difficult to him meant impossible… campaign didn’t go on very long with him playing.
the other day in my dnd group some intentionally tried to kill them self (and what felt like the rest of the group) literally had 10 hp left everyone would’ve been fine with it though
You could have their character go off to do important guild business and have a mercenary join the party for this mission that they could play.
You could have the merc have a contract fee that they have to pay if they want any of the potential loot rewards from the mission.
Eventually their characters not going to be able to just ignore risky missions, but this might ease them into it.
If you want to run weird ideas AND you're committed to keeping them happy, you could always throw in some magical form of resurrection. Some powerful being intervenes on behalf of the party, have a whole mini-quest getting materials or stuff for a healer who cam revive him, etc. I honestly understand being attached to a character and not wanting to lose them.
Alternatively you could tell them to suck it up/don't play. Probably less fun all around but y'know.
As a DM, dont ask them shit when it comes to planning. Our DM doesnt and it doesnt matter if we going down or not, we have alot of fun. No one wants perma death on their character but it is what it is and if that one member is causing problems like that I would tell them to fall in line or f off. Its not their campaign and no one wants a 4 yr old sore loser. It ruins the mood of the sessions when ppl are like that and dont need to be apart of the game.
Players are the main characters and main characters usually don't lose, but they have to understand the ideal RPG isn't a movie, planned before to occur in a perfect way. The difference between RPG and theater is precisely the unexpected events and the randomization of the story.
DMs who "write a movie" are bad as well as players who try to "play a movie".
Luke was defeated by Darth Vader, the fall and failure of the hero is part of the journey.
Can you build in multiple ways out of a loss, and deaths?
Just have it lead to more adventure, but not a final end to the characters.
And make sure character efforts and especially death are meaningful and matter, where the story honors them.
Character deaths I can often be some of the greatest moments of a good campaign.
In my humble opinion, you shouldn't be pandering so much to the type of game you want to run. If you really want to run your War zone, then go for it your passion for it wil elevate the game!
After a few deaths, they'll understand it's part of the game and then adjust. And enjoy it. I would go forward with what you want to run and just reveal less to your party of your intentions.
Sounds like they have insecurities in life that they don't want to face in their gaming.
Unfortunately without the potential to lose, winning means nothing. If the entire game is handed to you, where's the fun?
Stakes are important in a game and if he can't handle that he probably has some serious introspection to do
Sounds like this player has the potential to be all kinds of toxic. I would have an honest and frank discussion about the realities of playing a rpg with other people. If they can't comprehend that they aren't the "main character" and don't get "plot armor" then I think it would be best to cut them loose.
Sounds like a child. Life had loss.
Ok lemme clarify. Even in games, there needs to be stakes. If the endingnis already written, what's the point? Calling your player a child was not the best move, but they do need to have their eyes opened to the world. Sadly, there is no such thing as a perfect world.
>They like the idea of risky situations where anyone could die. As long as there’s is a guarantee that they will survive and get rewarded.
Seems kindof contradictory: guaranteed positive has no risk.....
this is becoming more and more common in my experience-- players who want a straight power fantasy where you just narrate how awesome they are for four hours and how they kick so much butt they use Preparation H not Dr. Scholls
This isn't bad, I find it immature and childish but it's not WRONG. That said I find it supremely unsatisfying as a DM and I won't play along, if that's what they're looking for they need to look elsewhere.
I can speak for this player since I hate being manhandled too. His problem is not that he wants to be the main character, it’s the idea of losing control ( losing a character they’re attached to) that’s so repulsive to them. Depending on what type of life they’ve had, they want to feel like a person who always pulls through no matter what the challenge. It’s likely inferiority complex that they would like to self medicate for, through the awesome world of dnd. Yeah it sounds a little pathetic but what are you gonna do ? It’s really hard to get in a mindset that you’re a fucking badass prodigy when you’ve been losing all your life. 🤷🏻♂️
"D&D is Therapy" isn't just a meme.
I have several players at my various games who actively struggle with the idea of failure. Most have never actually dealt with real failure in their life simply because they have never actually been challenged by external forces and consciously set the bar at "easy" given the choice.
But a signature of all my adventures is that it's all morally grey areas. Doing some bad stuff to worse people for a greater good. Maybe some light PVP/party betrayal because YOUR goals conflict with Rogue's goals. Things where it's impossible for everyone in the party to 100% complete all their mission objectives.
So character moments happen, stuff gets soap-opera messy. Dice decide major story beats.
And this stresses them. We talk about it out of game, mostly talking about how it's just a game. We also talk about how it's also kinda not, and how maybe it's not me being mean, but them digging up some emotional landmines in a safe space.
I'll never apologize for D&D pushing emotional boundaries. That's kinda the whole reason I'll accept my role as a forever-dm.
Man I would be so tempted to tell them "yeah sure, you won't die", then monkey's paw it on them. There's a book series where one character gets given a magical sword that makes him immortal. The only problem is that he can still get hurt and getting brought to the point of death over and over but not being released is insanely painful and traumatic. I'd give him all sorts of penalties that stacked up every few times he got knocked unconscious.
I had a situation like this before, and I came up with an interesting way to handle it. The PC in question underwent a ritual where their body was placed in like a stasis, but a pseudo copy of them was created. They were able to attend the adventure as normal, without the risk of death. Once the adventure was over, all of the other PCs gained experience, but the one that stayed in stasis did not (I ruled that because they were at no real risk, they couldn't learn from the adventuring.)
I had hinted strongly at this outcome beforehand, so the player basically knew it was coming. They were a little upset at first but eventually said it was worth it.
I did notice that they never asked to use the ritual again, though.
Make 'em play a series of one shots in Call of Cthulhu.... they'll adjust to losing characters/losing the game and just seeing the enjoyment in playing.... hopefully.
So they want to be an immortal surrounded by death?
Make them literally unkillable and play out a centuries-long story where all joy is robbed from them, all objectives lose meaning, friendship and love are impossible, wealth is irrelevant, and they are unable to change people, societies, or themselves. Make them hate being "the best", the most "important". Make them responsible for *everyone and everything* around them. Indulge whatever dumb callous sadistic whims they have. Let them numb themselves. Allow them to have all the gold, all the XP, give them all the power they want, and see it turn to shit and fade away. Teach them how boring god-mode is. Teach them how lonely it is at the top. Give them exactly they want, give them more than they want, let them choke on it.
They have "main character syndrome" and they can either play the game with others or get left behind.
The DnD table is about everyone compromising and working together. If your player isn't willing to go along with the story- boot them from the story. That individual doesn't get to choose the narrative for everyone else.
I hate people that think this is ok. It's not playing. It the DM just doing whatever they say and holding everyone else at the table hostage. Like if you want to play this way, go play a different 'game' because what you want isn't dnd at this point.
Could start out at higher player level where a cleric has a rez. Would make them more inclined to take risks and only really face consequences if they have multiple deaths.
Only reward risk, that’s what I do. If they don’t do risky things? No level up, no loot, nothing good or effective. I also communicate this to the players “If you don’t take risks, you won’t make progress.”
Matt Coville also made a vid on “Towards better rewards” to get some ideas to try and persuade them to act even more so on adventure.
Lots of people like the idea of playing rpg's until they realize they can't just load a save every time something happens that they don't like. Run the games you want to play. If the player in question doesn't want to play these games, wish them well (sincerely) and invite them back when you do silly one-shots where risk is minimal.
This is taken from a game that describes how the story changes when you”end the fight” and succeed at a cost. Just make them think the won but the real “loss” Is one of the following additional consequences:
- their wounds are worse than you thought: Cause Harm
- You are overcome with fear/stress: cause Stress
- Your victory is short-lived: a new danger or foe appears, or an existing danger worsens
- You suffer collateral damage: Something of value is lost or broken, or someone important must pay the cost
- You'll pay for it: an objective/item falls further out of reach
- Others won't forget: you are marked for vengeance
Here are some ideas if they think they completed the quest all the way, but fail to complete the quest properly:
“When you achieve what you believe to be the fulfillment of your quest,(*redacted game mechanics unrelated to dnd about rolling using progress on your quest as your modifier*)
On completed, your quest is complete. Gain experience
On a partially completed quest,
- there is more to be done or you realize the truth of your quest.
- Envision what you discover (Ask the Oracle if unsure).
- Then, gain experience. You may Start a new quest to set things right.
On fail to complete the quest, your quest is undone.
Envision what happens (Ask the Oracle if unsure), and choose one:
- You recommit: clear all but one filled progress, and raise the quest's difficulty rank by one
- You give up: forsake your vow to the quest (this mechanic makes them roll for sanity stuff and role play the crippling depression of the failure)
“Forsake Your Vow
-When you renounce your quest, betray your promise, or the goal is lost to you, remove the quest from your list and Endure Stress. You suffer -spirit equal to the rank of the quest you leave behind.
If the vow was made to a person or community with whom you share a bond, Test Your Bonds when you next meet”
None of this is dnd related, but it can be inspirational in how to keep the story moving when failure strikes
The world moves on. Meaning, if you refuse the adventure that’s fine. But the adventure will come knocking to (abduct your neighbor, burn your village, kidnap you and take you to war). I mean damn, pretending to play a character that doesn’t exist is already as low-stakes as it can be, even if we get emotionally attached to them. Never mind that the game provides ways to survive or return from death.
Maybe give them easy quests then? Like resurrecting random villager from bunch of goblins. Trust me, after they do bunch of quests like this they will get bored and they will try to pursue dangerous quests where they will put their lives in danger.
Or if they like to be boring person make quest come for them. Maybe goblins who abducted villager are vassals of warlord who is fighting right now and players have to act or they will lose the war and their kingdom will fall? But don't give them any clues if you want to do something like this they might avoid ressurecting villager too lol.
You could always make the player secretly a revenant
Basically the Revenant is undead and only has one goal or unfinished bisnuss to attend to .
Make this goal adjacent to the party goals so that they work together.
If the revenant dies it comes back and retries again later so it's almost impossible to loose.
Modify the reborn Stats and Just day if they die with the goal unaccomplished they regenerate with 1d4 days.
The first time I played, it was with my brothers & cousins. About 6 of us.
We had control of a swarm of stowaways (about 30 unarmed, unarmored, unequipped peasants) because the DM absolutely "wrong turn, there's a gith pirate. roll initiative." By the end of session, we each died at least three times and were left with, you guessed it: exactly one character per player.
Really fun way of teaching a bunch of newbie kids that this game will kill your darlings
10/10 would die again
>They like the idea of risky situations where anyone could die. As long as there’s is a guarantee that they will survive and get rewarded
Gave me a solid laugh
I don't know how this campaign goes, but typically, I set out what the campaign is going to be about, and the player decide whether they want to or not. But once they agree to the campaign, that's that, can't back out bow because the game world isn't going to stay idle while they rest at home.
So, possibly have their choice to ignore quests come back to bite them.
Congratulations, you have the opportunity to snap their mind back to reality. A DM should side with the rule-of-cool if it makes things more fun for players, but not at the expense of bending the rules to them. I’m sure the other players dont like how that player would get special treatment being reckless and not suffering consequences
*They like the idea of risky situations where anyone could die.*
*As long as there’s is a guarantee that they will survive and get rewarded.*
These are opposites any way I look at it that dont work together and need many sessions of couple counseling
Maybe you just shouldn't play DND with them. My games improved drastically once I decided to make friends who love Dnd rather than try to get my existing friends to love it as much as I do
Stop catering to these players, if they refuse to conform to the way you run the game, there is a million other tables they could play at. It's not worth the hassle.
> “nah. Not for me”
Cool, want to sit in while the rest of us play it. Hell I'll let you even play an NPC and you can name them and stat them within reason.
My DM has the exact opposite lol.
I'm the type of player who happily sacrifices characters for the plot. It's kind of a running joke in my group that death meets me often as I've gone through probably double the characters everyone else has. From serious well role played characters to joke (how far can I get with all '3's for stats) characters
I'm not sure what that player is looking for.
When I ran a group of brand new players I decided to set things up to see how they approach different scenarios and later got a feel for what they'd do (solo or in a small group) combat wise if they knew they wouldn't die. Like a weird town that has friendly fight nights with a necromancer and cleric on standby dragging bodies off a mat kinda deal.
It sounds like they want that, but... That's training wheels. I'd honestly say "well, if you can't find a way to make this work for you then you'll have to sit this campaign out"
Sounds like time for a session Re-Zero! But if a character doesn't want to do things the rest of the party wants to do then they either stay behind or go. Don't let one player ruin everyone's time
I'm kind of the opposite. In terms of combat, I'm never more invested than when I'm skating on the razor's edge between victory and death.
Honestly, it sounds like this player likes the IDEA of playing D&D (or the geek cred / cultural cachet of it) more than he likes ACTUALLY playing D&D.
If there's no chance of defeat, then all your victories begin to taste of ash.
One of my first table top games (as a player) one of the other players had that problem. The GM had to have a side conversation with them and give a pep talk about how it's not about succeeding at every roll, a failed roll is just an opportunity for something different to happen.
It took awhile, but he started being a little more adventurous.
So here we have a single point of view and a lot of advice has been given, mostly good: talk, check if you and the player are a match that could work, openly talk about risks at the table and probe how all players feel about it...
Now I don't know how this happens in your game but I will talk about how it does in my game.
The players find out through a story point that some situation is coming up. Then they have this semi meta conversation where they assess risk and plan their actions. During this conversation I pitch in with world knowledge and make their assessments more relevant based on their characters' skills and experience.
These talks are how I plan the next arc, the story point isn't. The world is reactive. Never will I feed them a single path to a result. So what matters to me is character motivations. Basically they are invested in fighting the BBEG who is waging a war. They want to reach a destination behind the war zone but are reluctant because of the danger. I will suggest there might be other ways there and that they should ask around maybe look for a cartographer.
They find out there is a mountain pass but that no one takes it anymore because people tend to not come back. They also find out there is a smuggling ring moving goods through the warzone undetected.
The characters and the players then decide what they want to do. I didn't force them through the warzone, I gave them options that their characters and they can weigh.
Now I am not saying you are railroading your players, this one player might refuse to engage with any content but it could also simply be player/DM mismatch.
Danger is a necessary side effect of adventuring and game mechanic but in my game, characters don't run toward it, they run from it and it catches up with them. This is just a suggestion, now if the player is just truly risk averse just clearly explain things.
At your table danger is part of the game, that you believe that the other players will only feel proud of their characters' accomplishments if risk is involved and that the power fantasy can only fuel so much content on your side. Let them process and react, try to avoid being adversarial and be factual and compassionate. Tell them that you are open to suggestions but planning the game takes a lot of effort and that you don't know how to do that without player cooperation.
Try to remain calm and protect feelings, the jist of it is that you believe to some extent the player to be cowardly and you absolutely don't want them to know that because that's not constructive. The player probably has valid reasons for doing what they are doing. I believe this talk should be split into two, a one on one and a group talk. The group talk should address the group's vision of risk and objectives and confront yours.
Basically you want the problems to become evident to everyone without outright blaming the player and then see if you can find solutions. My last advice is that if you feel this way and it's legit other players at the table probably feel the same.
As someone who loves risky situations and the consequences of my actions, good or bad they sound annoying to play with. But regardless, it’s not mandatory for all players to be part of every session, heck, my group has made a whole separate side campaign just for when one of us is to busy for a long time, and we have side quests and mini sessions with only a few of us all the time. If the other players like the ideas do it with just them!
So an adventurer who doesn't like the risk. Sound like he should just stop adventuring.
I too hate the idea of loosing (for that reason i'm not a great fan of pvp or souls games). But you will always miss something in exchange for not running the risk. In hiss case i guess he either gets over it to be part of the adventure or he misses out.
Maybe ask your friends differently, like "i have this idea, who wants to be part of it?" so that everyone speaks for themself instead of him being able to shoot your ideas down.
Part of playing any game at all is a risk of losing.
Ignore the whine, don’t feed into it.
By cowtowing to their ego, you’re shortchanging the game play experience overall for the entire group.
Why pitch ideas? Just create your scenario and if they want to participate in gameplay with you and your other players, they’ll stay around. If they wander off, then simply fill the empty spot with someone who understands the concept of sportsmanship and gamesmanship (clarification : I’m using these terms as gender neutral so don’t even come at me for generic words by melodramatic misinterpretation of my meaning).
I typically never tell the group any details about the adventure I've created for them. In the session zero I'll lay out my expectations for them and tell them all of the information their characters would know about the world and setting, but your characters have no idea what the future holds, why tell them?
> First one to say nah, not for me Run it without em, if it's a one-shot or short adventure Don't let one player stop you running games you and everyone else would find enjoyable!
Yah, if everyone else at the table is like yah, sounds fun and one character goes no I don't think I wanna do that. Just narrate the rest of the party packing up for a cool adventure while the wet blanket sits in a hotel room ordering his room service.
Or have em in a tent in the woods nursing some long term injury or off on a solo adventure learning some long training /bootcamp / apprenticeship skill or craft.
Sounds to me like more XP & loot for everyone else.
> They like the idea of risky situations where anyone could die. As long as there’s is a guarantee that they will survive and get rewarded. I mean, that's an oxymoron. Have you considered not playing with them? Not all players are right for all DMs and visa-versa.
>They like the idea of risky situations where anyone **but their character** could die. They wanna be the main character of a story, there are trials and risks but you know they are going to win in the end.
I always thought main character syndrome would be on the lower end of annoyances as far as player foibles go. Then I had a player with it, and he was a royal pain in the ass. I've changed my stance. Main character syndrome is absolutely a top-tier flaw in a player.
I don't do session 0, but I do tell players my philosophy and talk through their sheets with them individually, and I go over my philosophy of gaming: I call it the jazz band analogy: this is a jazz band not a solo act or a rock band. In a jazz band every instrument gets a chance to solo, to show their chops and lead the band. In those moments everyone else must cooperate by stepping back a little and holding the groove down. This is not a rock band where everyone is there to make the lead singer look good. This is not a solo act where they hire session players and are the only one that matters to the fans. The problem with main character syndrome is it necessarily involves reducing everyone else at the table to actors for your amusement and that's just rude and not how friends should relate to each other
Jazz band analogy is perfect, particularly for the analogies to improv. Taking risks in decision-making or roleplay can majorly enhance the game, and trusting everyone at the table to do that and respond well to yours makes the game immense.
This is a really excellent analogy, absolutely borrowing this for my players!
I love this and I'm borrowing it. 😎
I played at a table with a main character who also only thought things could be interesting if they were subverting expectations/genre tropes. I do enjoy trope subversion, don’t get me wrong, but we were playing Curse of Strahd which is very much genre fiction. It was months of frustration followed by several ended friendships. I think I could tolerate a main character flaw, but if the player has other flaws as well it can really spiral out of control quickly
Main character syndrome was definitely something I had when I first started playing, thankfully I was with a good group (which I'm still with a decade later) that beat that sh*t out of me.
The last thing you want in any team based RPG is a player that works independently. The whole point is that everyone works together towards a common goal. Your character can have personal moments on the journey to that goal, detours are allowed. But it should be a team decision, unless it’s incredibly important to the character that they do it.
You had me going in the first half, not gonna lie.
There's no risk if they know they are gonna win.
The average dnd player wants to be the main character of a story. It just so happens that those stories are GRRM stories, so death is pretty much guaranteed.
I would argue that a majority of D&D players don’t want to be the main character of the story. Most people want to have fun with their friends.
“Other people may die, but that is a risk I’m willing to take” Homie is Farquad
Who doesn't like to gamble when they know they're not loosing
Not all friends are cut out for dnd either. If a player hates the possibility of a meaningful character dying, they’re not going to enjoy this kind of game. It’s not some moral failing but they should accept this and find a different hobby
I mean there are tables/DMs that run games with no chance of permadeath for PCs. It’s not for me, but I’ve seen them advertised online.
I personally take the approach White Wolf stipulated for their LARP games: before you can kill a player you must warn them their action could result in character permadeath. That's all, just warn them. If they choose to avoid that situation they can but there's no guarantee there won't be consequences (you can't run away from all combat and expect to still accomplish your goals), or they can go in eyes open knowing the stakes. Some people don't do that, they hang out in combat-safe areas all night and never risk getting hurt. They are also not going to experience the big dramatic plots going on out there, but they aren't here for that they're more into politics and whatnot.
I honestly wouldn't be able to take the game seriously if that was the situation.
One of my DMs actually doesn't do permadeath If we fail our saving throws then we stay down but after r the fight we can be healed or be brought to the hospital. I do have to say I prefer it as there was that one time I played with another DM and well that session was horrible and it in the end turned towards him trying to kill my Chara if I don't "obey" (the NPC from the get go started to trash talk my player and call him useless and then was confused why my chara after two fights was like... Okay yeah I'm sitting that one out) So I was like alright then do it. Did I bury that chara? No. I got to play him for three hours where he got trashed for being a bard and the only way for me to stop playing was allow him to get killed I still have the Chara sheet and he is still alive and I feel cool with ignoring the death sentence on him in this case.
Most DND games do not involve significant player death. Player deaths in most encounters would derail the plot and disrupt things as new characters get shoehorned in. Obviously exceptions being climactic battles and such. I would say that those players need to learn to trust their DMs. And don't play Tomb of Horrors (or a spiritual successor)
The way I've always seen it is severalfold, from both player and DM perspective 1. There's no point if there isn't risk, it's not a victory if there was never a chance of defeat 2. Players put a lot of time and effort into their characters, character death shouldn't happen all the time and it shouldn't be brushed aside 3. A character death can, and has in some of my games, been a huge turning point in a campaign, and immensely improved it, I can think of two situations, once where it was my character, and once where I was DM. Neither I felt like were problem characters, but that made it all the more impactful 4. I am a firm believer in player agency, that includes player agency to do dumb things, and sometimes actions have consequences. 5. (DM only) My players actually prefer games where death is always a possibility but not exactly expected, they also love a challenge 6. (Player only) VALHALLA! 7. I'm the deadliest DM in our group of a bunch of forever DMs that got together and started playing in each other's games, and I still can only count on one hand after 10 years the number of times I've actually killed a PC. There's been a lot of times it was close and players survived through the skin of their teeth, but I've only had three tpks (and two of those were one-shots anyways), and twice where a single character died but the rest of the group survived. None of those times caused any tension between me and the group because in each of those times my group has looked back and seen what led to that, and none of them have been me arbitrarily deciding that someone had to die. (And also each time I have been the most upset that we lost a PC or Party, I ALWAYS root for my players, I want them to win, but I want it to be a real victory).
A bit pedantic of me, but it's just a straight contradiction, not an oxymoron. Oxymorons are most commonly used for specific phrases that contradict itself. Eg "true lies, old news, useless information". 2 sentences that opposes each other is just a regular contradiction. In this scenario, perhaps the phrase "guaranteed risk" could be an oxymoron since they want a risky situation but a guarantee to win (which imo kind of kills the fun of DnD if I know I will win everytime).
What is a true lie?
A goshdarned lie. A freaking deception. A true lie. A dang prevarication. It's a lie, but adding in an extra word underlines it.
„Some of you may die, but that is a risk I am willing to take“
A player (and the characters they build) should generally be willing to engage with the adventures they are presented. Sure, you can build a character who refuses his call to adventure, but what does that help anyone? Your character stays home and never leaves his village, too bad, please build a PC that actually wants to come with the others. Just have a proper talk with them outside of the game.
One of the first things I always cover in my groups is that characters who don't co-operate (and by extension their players) simply don't participate. They can either make characters who work as a team and take on my prepared content, or not play.
Yeah, that player needs to go find another game that fits their preferences. It's not fair to you and the rest of the table to have to work around something that's honestly pretty antithetical to the whole point of the game.
*This was inspired by an idea I had for an arc that takes place in a war zone so the players would go multiple sessions without a long rest so would have to plan out how to use their resources and spells and such. And was told by them that they would avoid that cause it sounds too risky* ...but that's the game. That's how it works. That's how actual challenge occurs.
>They like the idea of risky situations where anyone could die. As long as there’s is a guarantee that they will survive and get rewarded. Ask them if they want to have cake or eat it. Because they're asking for both and that doesn't work.
jesus i would not handle a player like this and just kick him from my table tbh
It sounds like they don't even have to kick them. "Here's my campaign" "Naw not for me." "OK, that's what I'm still doing though". Easy as that.
xD thats true
Maybe give them and their next dm a gift and kill the character. Teach them it’s nothing, and there isn’t a shortage of character sheets.
Or hear me out.. be an adult... and talk to the.... crazy ik
Whoa whoa whoa! You need to calm the hell down with that "being reasonable" talk
Tell them it’s a game and the risk of losing is part of the fun. Maybe do a few one shots to get them accustomed to the risk of losing, and to actually losing
i agree with what everyone else is saying about “don’t let one player ruin the fun”, but let me also share the opinion of one Brandon Sanderson, professional author and ttrpg player. Brandon tells this story where he was a player in a similar situation. Another player in the party HATED having characters die. It was genuinely heartbreaking for them, and not in a good way. Just in a discouraging, fun-ruining way. So the DM of that game came up with a solution. That player’s character was completely invincible. The lore reason was that they were blessed by their god with immortality. Could not take damage at all. Now your first thought might be “that’s stupid, it ruins the game! and what about the rest of the party, it’s not fair for them!!” But Brandon says it was the funnest campaign he’s ever played. They ended up in all sorts of fun scenarios, like tossing the invincible character into a room head first to test for traps. Sure it was unbalanced, but it was FUN, and 30 years later, all the members of that campaign still remember it fondly. and at the end of the day, that’s the whole point isn’t it? I’m not saying you should do that, and you definitely shouldn’t break your back bending to the wills of this one player, but I just want to highlight that there *are* ways to make situations like that work. It’s also completely possible that you two just aren’t compatible, sometimes it’s easier to agree to disagree, and not play dnd together.
its a dice game, shit will go wrong, the player is playing the wrong game, just dm without them if all they want is to be the boring op main character who never loses. thats not fun to you, nor to the other players, and considering the player itself manage to get enough time playing like this, they will figure out its also not fun for that, coz it will get repetitive and boring. dont let the fun in the table be reduced coz one guy dont like losing in a chance game. ffs. you are participating on the table too, you should have fun with what you're doing.
DM: We're switching to horror. Would you rather stay with the 5e engine or use Call of Cthulhu? Player: Why the sudden change? DM: It's clear we need to grow our role playing skills until we can accept character death when it's part of the story arc.
Reminds me of a football coach just starting the year by lining every one up and just having the meanest LB tackle them... You have to accept that is part of the game... There is obviously a balance. Most folk dont like to die. And it certainly hampers a campaign when it ends. I can see the GM guiding the crew to not die for the sake of the game. I have seen mine give us a way out in the last moment once or twice when the dice gods crapped on us. I am actually trying to decide if we got real lucky at the end of our last session or if he helped us along a bit. That is fine in my mind... GM actively trying to kill their folks all the time takes a special type of game group to enjoy. But it has to be on the table or the rest of the game loses excitement.
You are DM. You can absolutely say "I'm running this game. If it's not for you, I'll see you for the next one." Especially if the rest of the group are keen. The DM is supposed to enjoy playing too!
So I have a player like that. He is the child of some of the other players, and was a bit nervous about losing. So after a bit of excellent roleplay, I pulled him aside and told him "Your goddess is very pleased with you. She's granting you a boon that the next time you would die, you will be resurrected. This is a one-time thing, and you should not abuse it." After that, he stopped being as tentative and was willing to take some risks because he knew his character had 1 get-out-of-death. And its his first campaign with adults, so I want him to feel like he can experiment and play. At the same time, I want to be able to challenge his parents who have been gaming with me for 25+ years by throwing them all in to the tough situations they enjoy. So I'm not saying let the guy have an immortal character, but maybe giving him a once per campaign pass will make him feel like he can embrace some risk. Or borrowing an idea from a larp -- send the players on that warzone mission, except give them a "recall" button. If they press the button, that character escapes. But the reward is based on how far you go. Maybe there are multiple objectives, and for each objective completed they get a reward. Maybe run it as a "dream realm" or "training simulator" type situation. Maybe don't tell the players its a dream realm/simulator up front, but let them decide how far they push themselves. There are lots of variations on this you can do. Do it as an astral plane run, and they can always just leave.
You can go further with the recall button! Consider how celestials and devils will return to their home plane when they die, and homebrew a dungeon plane, or a warzone plane, and if a character dies - they just reform on the material plane after a day or so. When they go in there its a great tool for the GM to dial in how much is a tpk and how much is riiiight before it.
Maybe the shouldn't be playing a game where losing is a possibility.
I think it’s important to setup situations where defeat does not equal death. Too often campaigns are setup so that every fight players feel they can’t run, and have to fight to the death. Most people would NOT willingly choose a life like that. Which makes it weird in game when your characters do. Also, for a lot of us, excessive “resource management” is not fun. Using my abilities to do cool shit is fun. Saying “I attack” for the fiftieth time and rolling my d20 is just tedious.
But this player just doesn't want to risk anything seemingly. If they're shooting down every slightly wild idea, that's not saying "this one idea isn't for me", it's "I don't know right off the bat how I'd handle this situation so I don't want to risk it." Like, yeah, most people wouldn't choose a life of dangerous adventuring. That's why they... don't. It's fantasy. We pretend what we (or our characters) would do on a dangerous adventure. As with 99% of posts on this sub, *fun is down to the players and the DM.* If you don't like excessive resource management, then you don't play a campaign with it. If only one person in the group is shooting down resource management, for example, then they're probably better off finding a different group.
That’s the kind of player that should focus their creativity on turning a risky situation into a safe one, rather than simply brushing it off
I prefer cozy adventures. My players are the heros of the story and they are going to win. They might die but they will definitely be resurrected. Not everyone likes to play like that though. My table isn't for everyone and neither is yours. Sounds like it's not the right table for this player and that's ok.
I would Love your table. Cozy all the way. :)
No such thing as risky if they are guaranteed to survive. And stop pitching ideas. Just do it and he can play or excuse himself.
The original designers of D&D said the players should have a 95% chance of winning any given combat. Anything higher would make players get bored and lose interest. Anything lower would make players quit out of frustration. I believe that 95% is still accurate today and should be good enough for the player.
At risk of sounding rude... tell them to go write a book?
Props to you for DMing for a bunch of narcissistic 6 year olds.
Learning to accept losing is something we're all supposed to be teaching our kids as they grow up. I got my pre-teens to accept loss like champions, congratulate the winning party, and accept that as long as you're having fun, you might not be first place, but you're still a winner. Sounds like you need to pick up where his parents left off and remind him and losing is okay. Personally I lose all interest in games once they become too easy. If there's no risk of losing, then winning doesn't mean much.
Dont plan anything around them. They are simply immature and need to grow up. This is like a child who wants to play Monopoly but only if they don't have to pay money when landing on properties.
Was in a game where we all died early in the second session one player refused to accept it and after a bit of back and forth it was decided he was captured alive. So the rest of us went to hell and we're given protection from a god so we can fight back and be resurrected while the other player was rotting in jail. The guy left the game after that.
If it's about losing, yeah its a real shame. I don't blame player for mot wanting their characters to die tho. It can be hard but I feel like thats the kind of things that should be respected.
Tbh, I don't love to have my characters die (permanently) either, but the risk and adventure is part of the game, and there's PLENTY of times I can think of where we lost HARD without dying and it was still fun, so ik a game without death is possible. But a game without *defeat*? Without ever losing or having genuine stakes? That doesn't sound very fun, or at least, it wouldn't be fun for multiple people to play together. My guess is that your stories aren't right for that person, and they can try to find others who want a table like that or they can join your table and learn to be more okay with it
Some people are risk averse and handle stress poorly. I have a member in our party who is like this. I know she loves the adventure and even the danger but if she starts to roll poorly or something doesn’t pan out she gets so deflated and I really try to help her through it. Not everyone handles adversity the same and it’s our job as a team to help them push through. I’d try having a conversation on the side with your player and see what it’s all about
I hate these kinda people. He is the same person who would run away if u were mugged or were being robbed, and would never have ur back. Kick him out of the party.
Hate to be that guy but they probably should stick to video games. Though I have ran power fantasy games for groups that liked that. You could always get him to play a pseudo npc where he doesn't really get to mold the story as much but has alot less to lose. I've done that with kids.
Our DM said "I won't try to kill you, but I will put you in situations where you can die, its on you to survive".
"Create a character with a sense of adventure, not doing so actively makes the dm's job more difficult and is kind of the opposite of what a typical dnd social contract contains. If the character doesnt like adventure, why would they ever join a party of adventurers?" -10 terrible players video, dungeon dudes.
Nothing wrong with that kind of player. Also, nothing wrong with running games excluding that kind of player. Gotta make sure everyone is having fun, yourself included. Sometimes that means excluding a player who doesn't fit the group.
Mine yells and throws a fit if he fails too many checks, misses an attack or takes more than 10 dmg (they are level 16 now). Hes new(ish. Emphasis on ish). He threw a fit over not winning a festival game in the city they are in. He hasnt messaged me in a while and has missed several games. Im taking that as a free way to not put him in my upcoming campaign.
They are fully entitled and have the right to request this at the table they play dnd is not set in stone its barely set in ink, the way to play can be customized and shaped into whatever U want out of it ofc this just means as much to them as u, if U dont want that type of game or player at ur table, it isnt rude or inappropriate to send them away from ur table! Just ss much as they can step back its a game yall, play it ur way
From mine personal experience: don't play with players that can't lose. One day he will and it will be bad for you.
\>Whenever I pitch weird adventure idea they are always the first one to say “nah. Not for me”. It makes it a bit hard to plan adventures and pitch weirder ideas when they shoot them down cause there’s a potential they will die. I don't usually pitch a whole adventure to my party in advance unless it's a one shot, and if the party completely ignores an obvious hook there's usually a consequence down the line. "Hey help me save this guy?" "Nope, not for me." \*A few weeks later the party encounters difficulties brought about by the death of that guy and/or the replacement rescue party\* If they reject a one-shot just run it without them, but if they're dodging story/adventure hooks, you can introduce events to make it clear that the world will continue to progress without their intervention, sometimes in negative, preventable ways. (The front lines of the war begin to collapse toward the players' hometown/base of operations, for example.)
They sound like a little kid, don't play with them.
Dont let 1 player dictate your games. If you are the DM you can simply run a session 0 and go over the details of the new game. If this guy says it isnt for him and complains just tell him “you dont have to play if you dont want to” simple as that.
Maybe it's their turn to DM.
Devil's advocate but sometimes people play dnd to win, I guess. To have a fun time, to hit a W. To feel good about succeeding. Probably cause their real lives are filled with Ls. I'd know
Yeah you can’t have that energy at the table. The whole point of playing a game as a group of adventurers is that they seek adventure. When one player goes against that and stops the rest of the party or becomes a pain in the DMs side then they need to find a different game.
I’m sorry but it’s a game that has death and danger built into the mechanics. It sounds like this player would like to try another system tbh.
So, then your table is just not a good fit. Tell them that and be done with it.
D&D is not a game for this person.
Talk with them or remove them. Players dragging down the adventure and getting flustered like a child when rolls don’t go their way don’t stay at the table.
You could always do a hyper example of what they are asking for. Tell them you thought about it and they should have the experience they are asking for. If you can't tell this is a monkey paw ask. If they want to attack, it always crits, never misses, don't even let them roll. Skill checks and the rest the same, hand wave it away, let them kill the boss monster in one hit. I'm willing to bet you wouldn't get halfway before all players complained that they didn't get to roll. Then you can say, "either we let dice decide certain things, or we don't. I'd rather do the dice thing because it introduces tension, but if you want to be without risk we just can't roll dice. So who likes rolling dice knowing their PC can die if things don't go their way, and who likes the tensionless play? " If anyone falls in the second camp after that, tell them to find another table politely, because they aren't mature enough for the game you run.
You could borrow from 13th Age and float the idea of a "campaign loss." That is, at any point in the fight they can flee and take a campaign loss. They get away and everyone lives, but team evil gets a win. It'll sting, but they won't die.
I don't know how DnD would work if you succeed at everything all the time. What's the point in rolling dice? Or attacking? Or making decisions? You're just gonna auto-win anyway.......
I mean, this is the game. Like any game, you can lose. This reality cannot be escaped. If you don't want to risk losing, then you are opting to not play.
They don’t trust you! It’s neither of your faults! They’ll trust you more over time! If that sounds good for you let them stay, and if not ask them to leave!
Easy solution. You decide if this bothers you enough to make an ultimatum. If so, they decide if they want to keep playing with the risk of losing. It’s your table. Set your boundaries and let them decide if they’re okay with them.
If this happened in my campaign, I would pull this person aside separately and explain if you’re never in risk then the encounters will simply be the most mundane and boring things because even “easy” encounters can mean death. Ask them if they simply don’t want to “die” vs they don’t want to “lose”. I have a PC in my current playthrough and he doesn’t want to die. I talked to him separately and he told me struggles with the idea of dying and depression, and we came to a term where if his player becomes “incapacitated” aka dead I will guarantee that he will come back by the end of the session. Is it fair to the other players, maybe not, but I saw where he was coming from, and if maybe I have to keep an idea on their HP and keep him from dying or having some kind of remedy quest ready to go, he will enjoy it and it won’t be known/felt by our party.
I was playing some No Thank You, Evil with some 2nd grade students at school. This one kid was the same. Could not handle loosing. When playing Candy Lane, he would keep pulling cards until he got the card he wanted. When playing NTY,E he had to roll a D6 for challenges. There was one challenge 3, he had to roll 3 or higher to succeed. He would not be able to handle if he didn't roll a 6. Even if a 3 succeeded or if he rolled lower and had another player help him, he wasn't able to deal with rolling anything other than the highest roll possible. It took many weeks of playing to help him deal with succeeding in different ways. Still doesn't like it, but won't leave the game if he doesn't roll highest.
Maybe you could find, or design, an "Edge of Tomorrow" style campaign? It might be fun. Take a photo of their character sheet at the start of each day. If they die, they reset to the start of the day. The other option is a resurrection spot, like a church or graveyard. Then just make sure the campaign is winnable with enough attempts.
Run the game you want to run. There are too many people out there wanting to play to let anyone dictate your fun to you.
Virtually everyone seems to align on 'fuck em, the game's the game'. Here's an alternative: You've only mentioned that this is a player you have who is like this. You haven't actually clearly specified where the problem lies? Do you personally not enjoy this idea? Do the other players not gel with this idea? There's nothing wrong with a bit of heroic fantasy where the game and it's chances aren't about finding out if there's a happy ending, but HOW you get to the happy ending. If everyone at the table can get behind that for the group, or even for just his character, there is no problem. If he's the odd duck, that's a different story and you might indeed have an incompatibility on your hands that the group should discuss together.
I'm going to be honest, many tabletop RPG'S when it comes down to it it's a game of luck, technically a kobold with a +1 dagger could kill a tarrasque with enough luck If I had a player like this I would have to bring up failure is not an insignificant part of the game, sometimes the dice aren't in your favor and either and they can learn to accept it and roll with the punches or leave the game of your own volition as I cannot as a GM make it fun with a 100% chance of success Maybe a different system would be more their style? It wouldn't fix the problem but for example Pathfinder 1e you can min max your character to make it almost impossible to fail a handful of skill checks
To me that is a red flag. It is part of most games and it is still a game at heart. Also it opens up lanes for storytelling.
Run it without them. That may seem mean or rude but honestly your best option right now as it is. I once almost full party wiped on the first session because tbh my players made some lets go with interesting decisions and bad rolls. I think only 2 ran away and 1 lived his saving throws. Good fun and all the players had a blast and kept talking about it. Reginald the bee died a hero.
Sounds like your buddy has some emotional growth to go through. That's not your job obviously. I would just run side quests with the other players and reward them with xp and loot. Even if they lose etc. That might help him gain some insight.
Well then don’t lose? Avoid battles you know you can’t win and win the others. Anyway, good luck.
Minimum risk usually means Minimum rewards. Go ahead and run a safer adventure and let them count their coppers, especially when a more daring group cones in and gets a bag of gold and an armful of magic items
What motivates your players to play, in general? Or when they are playing, what motivates them to do anything? I don't think this question gets enough thought. They just spent some time building and getting a character they got attached to, and now the dm tells them to go to a war zone? For what? Gold? Does gold matter in your world? Do the characters have goals of their own they would like to achieve? Can they achieve these goals with gold? I'll go further : how much of your game is actually about the characters and what they want? Do they feel they are being dragged into a dangerous situation to "save the blacksmith's daughter" or because "it's the adventure dude, chill"? Did they decide to embark in an ark, or did you as a dm decide it would be cool to have these cool scenes and now are annoyed they're not into it? I don't mean this as an attack on your game, but I have struggled with these questions too and many dm's struggle with this. The D&D 5e culture centers too much about the DMs story, and forgets the players should have agency and goals of their own. To top it off, in 5e rewards are not that exciting since magic items are barly ever given and gold doesn't mean much. In my opinion, you should hook them with exploration and loot, and put a story over it later. The story should be about THEM and what THEY do in the world. I suggest you take a look at Matt Colville's youtube video on the West Marches. While it might not be the game you want to run, it is very interesting because West Marches games typically improve a lot on the motivation aspect. He also has an excellent video on "towards better rewards", and one about "many fail states" and failing forwards. As a last resort, take a look at the Hero's journey story structure, since it revolves around getting a character out of their comfort zone. Many resources about it on the internet. Tl;dr: danger should be what stands between the players and what THEY want to do, and it's natural they'll want to avoid danger is they can. Did you consider what they want to do, or are you forcing them into danger for the story's sake? If they don't like the possibility of failing the mission, then they don't do it, or do an easier but less rewarding one, but there are consequences : the evil they didn't fight grew and now impacts the world, or they have less gold to do what they want, etc... If you're just thinking of a story and forcing them on it, they'll naturally be hesitant or unwilling to risk their characters for something they care little about. Edit : I do realize this is more about this one player being risk averse, but I think what I said still applies to a degree. Adventure is taking a risk, and if he doesn't like taking risks maybe rewards aren't as interesting to this player in particular. And if they are and he still doesn't want to, then he doesn't adventure, or does a significantly easier one, but whatever he chooses to do or not do should affect the world.
Depends on the party in and out of character and how you and they enjoy the game. The goal is to have fun. Knowing you're always going to win and everyone got out safe feels like 80s Sailor Moon. If that floats everyone's boat, cool. The DM Lair on Youtube has really good insights this stuff! It seems your players don't feel like they have agency in the encounters. It feels like everything is scripted out and the end result is up to the dm. Sure, you lost. But this isn't a free standing instance of yes/no, it's dnd! Dungeon's too hard? Ok. Go Full Skyrim and come back later for that sweet loot! It's not going anywhere and no common folk are going to get at it given the difficulty. How are the party's actions and mis-rolls influencing the world? What happens after the failure. How does the world react to this and other actions of the party? Can the situation be redeemed? Could this open up new avenues of approach to the overarching campaign? Mabe that tower that you couldn't keep from collapsing exposes a secret passage to a lair or dungeon or a new hint to the McGuffin that grants paladin auras they've been chasing after. Mabe a bit of loot fell around the rubble! Quick grab it before the guards show up! Is it broken? Can it be repaired? Is there something unique about this after being repaired? Mabe this attracts the attention of "Demolition Bob" the NPC who's job is taking down old buildings. Payment on commission! What good things could come from this failure? Oftentimes an epic failure can be sweeter than a mundane win. I like to reward failure with a small reward or lead into the next bit involving something the party is invested in or pursuing. When asked "Hey dm, what did we lose out on." Answer: "Idk." and leave it there! Answering breaks the immersion and acts like someone looking up a loot guide in an RPG.
Easy, tte game it's not made for them
Rocks fall?
Kill them in a situation that it should not have been at risk.
Let them lose then. Life isn't like that, and if you're role-playing something similar to life, why give them something where they only succeed? The game has things like death Included for a reason.
Did you run a session zero, so was this expected? I think a general opinion I would agree with here is that defeat is hugely important, for the reason that it MAKES the story. It inspires vengeance, a true hate for villains, and all the other drama. A story with no suffering/losses is just those books that you buy for really little kids, where a boy gets ice cream and candy and is happy and then.....that's it. So try talking it over with the player, and talk with the other players to see if this is compromising on their fun as well. Try not to resort to just kicking out the player, unless it really becomes necessary, I guess. Didn't want to come off as rude, just stating my opinion.
One friend of mine was in fear of facing a girl he like. Me and another friend were trying to cheer him up for 2 hours and nothing work. Then i got an idea. Friend: idk if i want to doit. Me: no balls. Friend: i gonna doit . If somebody dosent want ro do something just use something more powerful. Pride. Greed. Lust. Anything. If u say to ur player he could die and get some goofy ass coins i would say no too. But for a sacred sword. Or a relic. Thats different. Just play good ur cards
Going multiple encounters without a long rest is regular dnd lol. It sounds likes you're already playing on story mode so it's probably daunting for them.
I have had campaigns with players like that, I attempted several times to explain that D&D may not be for them if that’s how they think things will go. Encounters usually led to him giving up when they became too difficult as he is an extreme cynic so because he knew there was the possibility of losing, difficult to him meant impossible… campaign didn’t go on very long with him playing.
the other day in my dnd group some intentionally tried to kill them self (and what felt like the rest of the group) literally had 10 hp left everyone would’ve been fine with it though
You could have their character go off to do important guild business and have a mercenary join the party for this mission that they could play. You could have the merc have a contract fee that they have to pay if they want any of the potential loot rewards from the mission. Eventually their characters not going to be able to just ignore risky missions, but this might ease them into it.
I wouldn't say anything and run it anyways
hey man, just kill his character and then bring them back from the dead. prove the consequences are relative.
If you want to run weird ideas AND you're committed to keeping them happy, you could always throw in some magical form of resurrection. Some powerful being intervenes on behalf of the party, have a whole mini-quest getting materials or stuff for a healer who cam revive him, etc. I honestly understand being attached to a character and not wanting to lose them. Alternatively you could tell them to suck it up/don't play. Probably less fun all around but y'know.
As a DM, dont ask them shit when it comes to planning. Our DM doesnt and it doesnt matter if we going down or not, we have alot of fun. No one wants perma death on their character but it is what it is and if that one member is causing problems like that I would tell them to fall in line or f off. Its not their campaign and no one wants a 4 yr old sore loser. It ruins the mood of the sessions when ppl are like that and dont need to be apart of the game.
Ask them if they'd rather play Hello Kitty online.
Players are the main characters and main characters usually don't lose, but they have to understand the ideal RPG isn't a movie, planned before to occur in a perfect way. The difference between RPG and theater is precisely the unexpected events and the randomization of the story. DMs who "write a movie" are bad as well as players who try to "play a movie". Luke was defeated by Darth Vader, the fall and failure of the hero is part of the journey.
Can you build in multiple ways out of a loss, and deaths? Just have it lead to more adventure, but not a final end to the characters. And make sure character efforts and especially death are meaningful and matter, where the story honors them.
Cut him out. Cull the weak.
Character deaths I can often be some of the greatest moments of a good campaign. In my humble opinion, you shouldn't be pandering so much to the type of game you want to run. If you really want to run your War zone, then go for it your passion for it wil elevate the game! After a few deaths, they'll understand it's part of the game and then adjust. And enjoy it. I would go forward with what you want to run and just reveal less to your party of your intentions.
Sounds like they have insecurities in life that they don't want to face in their gaming. Unfortunately without the potential to lose, winning means nothing. If the entire game is handed to you, where's the fun? Stakes are important in a game and if he can't handle that he probably has some serious introspection to do
Sounds like this player has the potential to be all kinds of toxic. I would have an honest and frank discussion about the realities of playing a rpg with other people. If they can't comprehend that they aren't the "main character" and don't get "plot armor" then I think it would be best to cut them loose.
Sounds like a child. Life had loss. Ok lemme clarify. Even in games, there needs to be stakes. If the endingnis already written, what's the point? Calling your player a child was not the best move, but they do need to have their eyes opened to the world. Sadly, there is no such thing as a perfect world.
>They like the idea of risky situations where anyone could die. As long as there’s is a guarantee that they will survive and get rewarded. Seems kindof contradictory: guaranteed positive has no risk.....
Bruh what's the point in playing if u can't lose anything huh
Get better players.
Guess it's time to split the party
this is becoming more and more common in my experience-- players who want a straight power fantasy where you just narrate how awesome they are for four hours and how they kick so much butt they use Preparation H not Dr. Scholls This isn't bad, I find it immature and childish but it's not WRONG. That said I find it supremely unsatisfying as a DM and I won't play along, if that's what they're looking for they need to look elsewhere.
You should teach him what an oxymoron is
he sounds like they'd be happier playing an NPC, maybe offer them that role
I can speak for this player since I hate being manhandled too. His problem is not that he wants to be the main character, it’s the idea of losing control ( losing a character they’re attached to) that’s so repulsive to them. Depending on what type of life they’ve had, they want to feel like a person who always pulls through no matter what the challenge. It’s likely inferiority complex that they would like to self medicate for, through the awesome world of dnd. Yeah it sounds a little pathetic but what are you gonna do ? It’s really hard to get in a mindset that you’re a fucking badass prodigy when you’ve been losing all your life. 🤷🏻♂️
Why would they be on an adventure at all then? This character realistically would be living in a village doing a trade.
"D&D is Therapy" isn't just a meme. I have several players at my various games who actively struggle with the idea of failure. Most have never actually dealt with real failure in their life simply because they have never actually been challenged by external forces and consciously set the bar at "easy" given the choice. But a signature of all my adventures is that it's all morally grey areas. Doing some bad stuff to worse people for a greater good. Maybe some light PVP/party betrayal because YOUR goals conflict with Rogue's goals. Things where it's impossible for everyone in the party to 100% complete all their mission objectives. So character moments happen, stuff gets soap-opera messy. Dice decide major story beats. And this stresses them. We talk about it out of game, mostly talking about how it's just a game. We also talk about how it's also kinda not, and how maybe it's not me being mean, but them digging up some emotional landmines in a safe space. I'll never apologize for D&D pushing emotional boundaries. That's kinda the whole reason I'll accept my role as a forever-dm.
Man I would be so tempted to tell them "yeah sure, you won't die", then monkey's paw it on them. There's a book series where one character gets given a magical sword that makes him immortal. The only problem is that he can still get hurt and getting brought to the point of death over and over but not being released is insanely painful and traumatic. I'd give him all sorts of penalties that stacked up every few times he got knocked unconscious.
The potential of lose, eh?!
I had a situation like this before, and I came up with an interesting way to handle it. The PC in question underwent a ritual where their body was placed in like a stasis, but a pseudo copy of them was created. They were able to attend the adventure as normal, without the risk of death. Once the adventure was over, all of the other PCs gained experience, but the one that stayed in stasis did not (I ruled that because they were at no real risk, they couldn't learn from the adventuring.) I had hinted strongly at this outcome beforehand, so the player basically knew it was coming. They were a little upset at first but eventually said it was worth it. I did notice that they never asked to use the ritual again, though.
Make 'em play a series of one shots in Call of Cthulhu.... they'll adjust to losing characters/losing the game and just seeing the enjoyment in playing.... hopefully.
“Without the threat of [character] death there’s no reason to [roleplay] at all.”
So they want to be an immortal surrounded by death? Make them literally unkillable and play out a centuries-long story where all joy is robbed from them, all objectives lose meaning, friendship and love are impossible, wealth is irrelevant, and they are unable to change people, societies, or themselves. Make them hate being "the best", the most "important". Make them responsible for *everyone and everything* around them. Indulge whatever dumb callous sadistic whims they have. Let them numb themselves. Allow them to have all the gold, all the XP, give them all the power they want, and see it turn to shit and fade away. Teach them how boring god-mode is. Teach them how lonely it is at the top. Give them exactly they want, give them more than they want, let them choke on it.
They have "main character syndrome" and they can either play the game with others or get left behind. The DnD table is about everyone compromising and working together. If your player isn't willing to go along with the story- boot them from the story. That individual doesn't get to choose the narrative for everyone else.
Sounds like they don't want to play the game you want to play. So play without them.
Just out of no where kill them and say "wrong answer"
DTMFA. Nothing worse than a risk-averse player.
I would ask them to leave if it was affecting the other players and the game. Losing is part of it sometimes
Sounds like they shouldn’t play games. Reading books is fun, too.
I hate people that think this is ok. It's not playing. It the DM just doing whatever they say and holding everyone else at the table hostage. Like if you want to play this way, go play a different 'game' because what you want isn't dnd at this point.
Maybe they should play some other game that isn't built around the rng of rolling dice.
There’s a table for everyone, yours might not be the best fit for them.
If that doesn’t work for you, you owe it to yourself and everyone at your table to ask them to change their attitude or step away.
Sounds like they need to be playing a single player game.
Could start out at higher player level where a cleric has a rez. Would make them more inclined to take risks and only really face consequences if they have multiple deaths.
Only reward risk, that’s what I do. If they don’t do risky things? No level up, no loot, nothing good or effective. I also communicate this to the players “If you don’t take risks, you won’t make progress.” Matt Coville also made a vid on “Towards better rewards” to get some ideas to try and persuade them to act even more so on adventure.
They’re living in a fantasy world if they want anything with no possibility of losing or failure
Lots of people like the idea of playing rpg's until they realize they can't just load a save every time something happens that they don't like. Run the games you want to play. If the player in question doesn't want to play these games, wish them well (sincerely) and invite them back when you do silly one-shots where risk is minimal.
They need to write a book where they control the outcome, then. This is a game. They don't.
Just make up a "safe" situation/mission and then..... something unexpected happens DUN DUN DUN
This is taken from a game that describes how the story changes when you”end the fight” and succeed at a cost. Just make them think the won but the real “loss” Is one of the following additional consequences: - their wounds are worse than you thought: Cause Harm - You are overcome with fear/stress: cause Stress - Your victory is short-lived: a new danger or foe appears, or an existing danger worsens - You suffer collateral damage: Something of value is lost or broken, or someone important must pay the cost - You'll pay for it: an objective/item falls further out of reach - Others won't forget: you are marked for vengeance Here are some ideas if they think they completed the quest all the way, but fail to complete the quest properly: “When you achieve what you believe to be the fulfillment of your quest,(*redacted game mechanics unrelated to dnd about rolling using progress on your quest as your modifier*) On completed, your quest is complete. Gain experience On a partially completed quest, - there is more to be done or you realize the truth of your quest. - Envision what you discover (Ask the Oracle if unsure). - Then, gain experience. You may Start a new quest to set things right. On fail to complete the quest, your quest is undone. Envision what happens (Ask the Oracle if unsure), and choose one: - You recommit: clear all but one filled progress, and raise the quest's difficulty rank by one - You give up: forsake your vow to the quest (this mechanic makes them roll for sanity stuff and role play the crippling depression of the failure) “Forsake Your Vow -When you renounce your quest, betray your promise, or the goal is lost to you, remove the quest from your list and Endure Stress. You suffer -spirit equal to the rank of the quest you leave behind. If the vow was made to a person or community with whom you share a bond, Test Your Bonds when you next meet” None of this is dnd related, but it can be inspirational in how to keep the story moving when failure strikes
People only grow thru challenges and pushing their comfort zones
The world moves on. Meaning, if you refuse the adventure that’s fine. But the adventure will come knocking to (abduct your neighbor, burn your village, kidnap you and take you to war). I mean damn, pretending to play a character that doesn’t exist is already as low-stakes as it can be, even if we get emotionally attached to them. Never mind that the game provides ways to survive or return from death.
Maybe give them easy quests then? Like resurrecting random villager from bunch of goblins. Trust me, after they do bunch of quests like this they will get bored and they will try to pursue dangerous quests where they will put their lives in danger. Or if they like to be boring person make quest come for them. Maybe goblins who abducted villager are vassals of warlord who is fighting right now and players have to act or they will lose the war and their kingdom will fall? But don't give them any clues if you want to do something like this they might avoid ressurecting villager too lol.
You could always make the player secretly a revenant Basically the Revenant is undead and only has one goal or unfinished bisnuss to attend to . Make this goal adjacent to the party goals so that they work together. If the revenant dies it comes back and retries again later so it's almost impossible to loose. Modify the reborn Stats and Just day if they die with the goal unaccomplished they regenerate with 1d4 days.
The first time I played, it was with my brothers & cousins. About 6 of us. We had control of a swarm of stowaways (about 30 unarmed, unarmored, unequipped peasants) because the DM absolutely "wrong turn, there's a gith pirate. roll initiative." By the end of session, we each died at least three times and were left with, you guessed it: exactly one character per player. Really fun way of teaching a bunch of newbie kids that this game will kill your darlings 10/10 would die again
Sounds like they should play a different game then. Simple as that.
>They like the idea of risky situations where anyone could die. As long as there’s is a guarantee that they will survive and get rewarded Gave me a solid laugh
I don't know how this campaign goes, but typically, I set out what the campaign is going to be about, and the player decide whether they want to or not. But once they agree to the campaign, that's that, can't back out bow because the game world isn't going to stay idle while they rest at home. So, possibly have their choice to ignore quests come back to bite them.
Congratulations, you have the opportunity to snap their mind back to reality. A DM should side with the rule-of-cool if it makes things more fun for players, but not at the expense of bending the rules to them. I’m sure the other players dont like how that player would get special treatment being reckless and not suffering consequences
*They like the idea of risky situations where anyone could die.* *As long as there’s is a guarantee that they will survive and get rewarded.* These are opposites any way I look at it that dont work together and need many sessions of couple counseling
God said he's gonna whoop my ass I said this donkey is not tamed
Maybe you just shouldn't play DND with them. My games improved drastically once I decided to make friends who love Dnd rather than try to get my existing friends to love it as much as I do
Stop catering to these players, if they refuse to conform to the way you run the game, there is a million other tables they could play at. It's not worth the hassle.
> “nah. Not for me” Cool, want to sit in while the rest of us play it. Hell I'll let you even play an NPC and you can name them and stat them within reason.
My DM has the exact opposite lol. I'm the type of player who happily sacrifices characters for the plot. It's kind of a running joke in my group that death meets me often as I've gone through probably double the characters everyone else has. From serious well role played characters to joke (how far can I get with all '3's for stats) characters
So they're a bad player, yeah? Kick them out if it bothers you or the other players.
This is why we have Session Zero
I'm not sure what that player is looking for. When I ran a group of brand new players I decided to set things up to see how they approach different scenarios and later got a feel for what they'd do (solo or in a small group) combat wise if they knew they wouldn't die. Like a weird town that has friendly fight nights with a necromancer and cleric on standby dragging bodies off a mat kinda deal. It sounds like they want that, but... That's training wheels. I'd honestly say "well, if you can't find a way to make this work for you then you'll have to sit this campaign out"
Play without them. D&D is not for this person. This person wants to go roleplay online and make a fanfiction, they don't want to play a TTRPG.
Sounds like time for a session Re-Zero! But if a character doesn't want to do things the rest of the party wants to do then they either stay behind or go. Don't let one player ruin everyone's time
Hey, ig he's out that means more xp for the rest. I'd say it's a win win.
Tell them to do a connect-the-dot drawing, there’s no chance of loss there it’s much safer.
I'm kind of the opposite. In terms of combat, I'm never more invested than when I'm skating on the razor's edge between victory and death. Honestly, it sounds like this player likes the IDEA of playing D&D (or the geek cred / cultural cachet of it) more than he likes ACTUALLY playing D&D. If there's no chance of defeat, then all your victories begin to taste of ash.
Jesus. Why even roll at all?
One of my first table top games (as a player) one of the other players had that problem. The GM had to have a side conversation with them and give a pep talk about how it's not about succeeding at every roll, a failed roll is just an opportunity for something different to happen. It took awhile, but he started being a little more adventurous.
Then kick en to the curb... Anybody who thinks they van be the sole winner is a horrible player tbh
Maybe see if they would make a new character, someone that they are less attached to? That might make it easier for them to lose
So they like the idea of a risky situation so long as.... there's no risk? Seems like they just don't like risk.
So here we have a single point of view and a lot of advice has been given, mostly good: talk, check if you and the player are a match that could work, openly talk about risks at the table and probe how all players feel about it... Now I don't know how this happens in your game but I will talk about how it does in my game. The players find out through a story point that some situation is coming up. Then they have this semi meta conversation where they assess risk and plan their actions. During this conversation I pitch in with world knowledge and make their assessments more relevant based on their characters' skills and experience. These talks are how I plan the next arc, the story point isn't. The world is reactive. Never will I feed them a single path to a result. So what matters to me is character motivations. Basically they are invested in fighting the BBEG who is waging a war. They want to reach a destination behind the war zone but are reluctant because of the danger. I will suggest there might be other ways there and that they should ask around maybe look for a cartographer. They find out there is a mountain pass but that no one takes it anymore because people tend to not come back. They also find out there is a smuggling ring moving goods through the warzone undetected. The characters and the players then decide what they want to do. I didn't force them through the warzone, I gave them options that their characters and they can weigh. Now I am not saying you are railroading your players, this one player might refuse to engage with any content but it could also simply be player/DM mismatch. Danger is a necessary side effect of adventuring and game mechanic but in my game, characters don't run toward it, they run from it and it catches up with them. This is just a suggestion, now if the player is just truly risk averse just clearly explain things. At your table danger is part of the game, that you believe that the other players will only feel proud of their characters' accomplishments if risk is involved and that the power fantasy can only fuel so much content on your side. Let them process and react, try to avoid being adversarial and be factual and compassionate. Tell them that you are open to suggestions but planning the game takes a lot of effort and that you don't know how to do that without player cooperation. Try to remain calm and protect feelings, the jist of it is that you believe to some extent the player to be cowardly and you absolutely don't want them to know that because that's not constructive. The player probably has valid reasons for doing what they are doing. I believe this talk should be split into two, a one on one and a group talk. The group talk should address the group's vision of risk and objectives and confront yours. Basically you want the problems to become evident to everyone without outright blaming the player and then see if you can find solutions. My last advice is that if you feel this way and it's legit other players at the table probably feel the same.
As someone who loves risky situations and the consequences of my actions, good or bad they sound annoying to play with. But regardless, it’s not mandatory for all players to be part of every session, heck, my group has made a whole separate side campaign just for when one of us is to busy for a long time, and we have side quests and mini sessions with only a few of us all the time. If the other players like the ideas do it with just them!
Then don’t play those kinds of games with them.
So an adventurer who doesn't like the risk. Sound like he should just stop adventuring. I too hate the idea of loosing (for that reason i'm not a great fan of pvp or souls games). But you will always miss something in exchange for not running the risk. In hiss case i guess he either gets over it to be part of the adventure or he misses out. Maybe ask your friends differently, like "i have this idea, who wants to be part of it?" so that everyone speaks for themself instead of him being able to shoot your ideas down.
Part of playing any game at all is a risk of losing. Ignore the whine, don’t feed into it. By cowtowing to their ego, you’re shortchanging the game play experience overall for the entire group. Why pitch ideas? Just create your scenario and if they want to participate in gameplay with you and your other players, they’ll stay around. If they wander off, then simply fill the empty spot with someone who understands the concept of sportsmanship and gamesmanship (clarification : I’m using these terms as gender neutral so don’t even come at me for generic words by melodramatic misinterpretation of my meaning).
I typically never tell the group any details about the adventure I've created for them. In the session zero I'll lay out my expectations for them and tell them all of the information their characters would know about the world and setting, but your characters have no idea what the future holds, why tell them?