Quote from: jibbajibba;811456Trouble is if your dm style is, I only want to run games where all the PC's are clever and paranoid then you are doing as much of a rail road as saying you can't kill the princess because, plot.

Oh I agree.

To clarify my specific experience, the 1st level characters charged some goblins head on and traded blows (none of the PCs were Fighters). I didn't make the enemies any stronger or more clever than they were in the pre-written adventure, and I used the average damage values to keep things "softer".

After they nearly died, I didn't get all smug or anything. They decided on their own that they didn't want to face any antagonists in a straight up fight without attempting to stack things in their favor. From then on, they used guile, great social skills and stealth to make things easier on them.

Another example: they convinced the goblins that they'd share any treasure with them if they helped in overthrowing their cruel hobgoblin boss. They had a very easy time defeating the boss and now are allied with a band of goblins.

EDIT: 5e is deceptively lethal for 1st level characters...

How about instead of killing their characters, you have them captured instead and use that as an opportunity to humiliate them for their foolishness? If engaging in kill-a-thons do not bother them, then change the consequences to something that does bother them.

Otherwise, you will have to go through the kill-a-thons until the Players get bored with them and try something else.

It sure seems like the ease of character creation has lessened the player's investment in their characters.

Quote from: jeff37923;811477How about instead of killing their characters, you have them captured instead and use that as an opportunity to humiliate them for their foolishness?

That's a good idea.

I've had goons keep PCs alive because one of them had a noble background and they wanted ransom money.

What's the objection? How they are playing, or the disconnect of constant new characters?

Because another option is not to actually ever have characters die 'for reals,' instead they are 'out' and maybe get a long-running minor injury whenever they would normally die.

(Barring things like 'the dragon chews you up' or 'a 5 ton boulder squishes you')

Quote from: Will;811490What's the objection? How they are playing, or the disconnect of constant new characters?

Because another option is not to actually ever have characters die 'for reals,' instead they are 'out' and maybe get a long-running minor injury whenever they would normally die.

(Barring things like 'the dragon chews you up' or 'a 5 ton boulder squishes you')

Wouldn't that start getting into the territory where it's just straight up not fun for the player?

There seems to be a tension between making them care via problems they suffer and "fun." Or at least immediate fun.

Sounds like they have a...
Charge in and win - Awesome!
Charge in and lose - Oh well, once more into the breach and close the wall up with our PC dead!
...vibe going on.

Death has no consequences, or they accept death willingly as part of their playstyle.  Not much you can do about that, but you can try.

1. Tie them to the setting.  Death will never matter at all if their character has no life off the sheet.  Give them something in the setting they will miss if they no longer have the character to interface with it.  This approach can take a while though.

2. As suggested, bring in a ringer player or have someone else GM while you play and simply introduce them to another style.  Don't punish them for playing they way they do, just let them see someone playing differently.  They may decide to give it a try.

3. Just tell them what's going on, but just make sure you don't do a Steve Martin "Chatty Cathy Doll" rant.  Yeah, for people who spend their time on RPG boards, the whole "expectations" thing gets done to death, but for most people, they know what they know, and don't know what they don't know, so you're gonna look like you're coming out of the complete blue with this.  You will surprise them that you're not having fun.

Quote from: Soylent Green;811465The idea that the GM should indirectly seek to reform or re-educate the players strikes me as perhaps a little creepy.

For god's sake, relax.  He's not trying to brainwash the young.  

Why does everyone always assume the players know exactly how rewarding an in-depth, detailed, immersive campaign can be?  Not only is it possible but based on gaming culture of the last decade, more then likely that they don't "know better", which is just a hostile way of saying they've never experienced it.  

When someone hasn't experienced another way of doing things, Show not Tell is frequently the better option.

Quote from: Wood Elf;811382Don't get me wrong, they can be fun at times, but the relentless shoot-first charge in style just gets fucking boring for me. I'm the one gming and I started with the style that I was used to. Sneaky shit that required thought, analysis, and strategy. Mysteries and puzzles to figure out. Plenty of shit to whack with your sword or turn into a greasy spot with a fireball too. But damn it, I remember when you really wanted to bring along that ten foot pole to probe piles of rags, tap on floors and walls, and stick into the strange hole in the wall. Using a smoky candle or torch to search for secret doors and hidden rooms. Perhaps the smoke might get sucked through a tiny crack or get blown away from one, depending upon the air currents/pressure.

Quote from: jibbajibba;811413Over time game styles have changed.

Initially it was about what you would do if you were in that situation

Then came imagine what this PC would do in this situation

Then came how can I maximise the amount of damage I can do in this situation within the rules of the game

I think jibbajibba is right. I suspect your players are accustomed to using their brains, but in the context of character builds and combat efficiency.

If you want to challenge them with the older style of explore and experiment then I'd suggest running The Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan. The whole adventure is interacting with the environment, exploring, figuring shit out. Figurines with weird powers. Statues that do stuff when you move them a certain way. Mosaics that give clues. Underground rivers, gas leaks, and other environmental challenges. And it's all done in an extremely artful and imaginative way. It features some very cool combat encounters as well.

If they play through Tamoachan and still don't like that style of play, then it's unlikely they ever will. At that point, time to move on and see if there's a style of play that is mutually agreeable.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;811493Wouldn't that start getting into the territory where it's just straight up not fun for the player?

There seems to be a tension between making them care via problems they suffer and "fun." Or at least immediate fun.

Maybe, it's worth asking.

But the description of the players is that they like to charge in and go balls-out.

In my experience that tends to mean people who like a 'rousing crazy adventure' mode of play, who also don't tend to care about risks and thrill of maybe dying.

My suggestion is a compromise between what the players seem to want (rambling crazy adventure) and what the GM might want (I THINK it's the lack of continuity of characters).

Now, if the GM actually wants the players to be more cautious and not play that way, regardless of death, then this wouldn't work.

Quote from: CRKrueger;811496For god's sake, relax.  He's not trying to brainwash the young.  

Why does everyone always assume the players know exactly how rewarding an in-depth, detailed, immersive campaign can be?  Not only is it possible but based on gaming culture of the last decade, more then likely that they don't "know better", which is just a hostile way of saying they've never experienced it.  

When someone hasn't experienced another way of doing things, Show not Tell is frequently the better option.

The first line somewhat contradicts the rest.

But as you said, I vote #2, talk it out. It's possible they know very well, but don't care or don't want to play that way.

Some people might want a very shallow 'blowing off steam after a week of work/school' kind of game.

Over the years, literally hundreds of pages of posts on this site have been created in heated bitter argument because one side believes what the other side claims to experience literally can't happen or does not exist.

It's not about what's "better", it's about what's "possible".  In a city campaign once in D&D, the players were having issues with unraveling what was going on, interacting with contacts, etc...  I asked a Shadowrun player to come in, even though he didn't really like D&D as a system.  He treated the city campaign like a city campaign in SR without technology.  You could literally see the lightbulbs go on in the other players' heads.  I teach for a living, I know the look well.   They dove in and loved it.

It wasn't a case of "well we know how to do an in-depth city campaign, we just prefer not to do that" or "we prefer not to subvert the trope of the dungeon by investigating contacts, etc" they were smart people, their brains just weren't going there, they were in "D&D Mode".  Once they found out experientially that they didn't have to be, the whole thing broke open.

Would talking it out with people who don't live, eat and breathe RPGs and RPG theory have done it?  Maybe.  But in a lot of cases, particularly when what they are doing, like RPGs, is really a mental state, experiential learning is  the way to go.

Now if they said "You know, I don't like this." then I could conclude that having actually experienced different modes of play, they are now choosing what they actually want, not the only thing they know.

I had the opposite experience as the OP.  When I DM'd my son (12 at the time) and his friends for the first time, they were some of the most creative players I had DM'd in a long while.  They didn't have any preconcieved notions as to what their PCs could or couldn't do.

Krueger:
Lucid, compellingly presented points.

(And because I know you love it: 'It sounds so strange coming from you!')

But more seriously, yeah, you've convinced me, at least.

Sacrosanct:
I think the thing about gaming groups is that they are wildly diverse and form in all sorts of random, unexamined ways. Experiences end up differing wildly, and Krueger makes a good point that most people aren't theory wonks who have examined what they are doing in detail.

Quote from: CRKrueger;811496Sounds like they have a...
Charge in and win - Awesome!
Charge in and lose - Oh well, once more into the breach and close the wall up with our PC dead!
...vibe going on.

Death has no consequences, or they accept death willingly as part of their playstyle.  Not much you can do about that, but you can try.

1. Tie them to the setting.  Death will never matter at all if their character has no life off the sheet.  Give them something in the setting they will miss if they no longer have the character to interface with it.  This approach can take a while though.

2. As suggested, bring in a ringer player or have someone else GM while you play and simply introduce them to another style.  Don't punish them for playing they way they do, just let them see someone playing differently.  They may decide to give it a try.

3. Just tell them what's going on, but just make sure you don't do a Steve Martin "Chatty Cathy Doll" rant.  Yeah, for people who spend their time on RPG boards, the whole "expectations" thing gets done to death, but for most people, they know what they know, and don't know what they don't know, so you're gonna look like you're coming out of the complete blue with this.  You will surprise them that you're not having fun.

For god's sake, relax.  He's not trying to brainwash the young.  

Why does everyone always assume the players know exactly how rewarding an in-depth, detailed, immersive campaign can be?  Not only is it possible but based on gaming culture of the last decade, more then likely that they don't "know better", which is just a hostile way of saying they've never experienced it.  

When someone hasn't experienced another way of doing things, Show not Tell is frequently the better option.

Yup all this stuff

Quote from: Old Geezer;811444And if he charges the 9 headed hydra and it rips him to bits, will you be okay with that?

If so, go for it.

He's a bit slow, not braindead.

He isn't likely to think of a plan involving stealth, trickery, leading enemies into ambushes, etc. But you don't have to do that to understand keeping your head down and retreating against a clearly superior foe.

Let someone else in the party come up with the plans. He isn't a leader anyway, he's brute force, and not that bright, and he knows that much.

Granted, if the party uses a plan that works once, he might start suggesting that plan in all future situations, whether it fits the situation or not. I find that that is actually one of the marks of someone who isn't exactly a creative mind. They see something work, and just try to apply that to everything.

Luckily, he isn't alone, or he probably wouldn't last very long.