Quote from: Emperor Norton;811520He'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.

What about this: http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=811440&postcount=30

I've had both types of players in my table--"kill 'em all, fightfightFIGHT" and "let's think this through and come up with a plan'.

Both ways can be lots of fun, although when I have both at the table at the same time, there can be plenty of friction, as some players get tired of "all the talking".

While certainly the GM can influence things, it mostly just depends on the players. While the general mood here is "punish the hyperaggressive" players, keep in mind the talky-players also could get punished.

Spend 20 minutes outside the door of the Thieve's Den discussing strategy? Gee, maybe one of those sneaky types noticed the half dozen heavily armed characters chatting.

Decide to take a long rest to get superoptimized right before what should be the big battle? Cool, that means the monsters have time for reinforcements (or, my favorite, time to notice most of their friends are hacked to death, and to pack up and run away).

Really, both styles of play have plenty of room for punishment in them.

That the OP is saying the Players are enjoying themselves has me thinking this is somewhat like the Pathfinder group I play in.

We've had loads of PC deaths and TPKs... seldom gotten anything near 5th level. Not exactly because we charge into combat every time... but combination of bad ideas and bad rolls... the GM's willingness to follow things to their inevitable conclusions/consequences... it's kind of led to a bit of an Abbot & Costello Meet the Wolfman feel. None of us seem to mind the deaths and it's all been generally lighthearted. Doing what seems likely for the PCs vs. what seems smart from a meta perspective.
The GM MIGHT be getting a bit frustrated, I'm not sure... I know he's got a fuckload of Pathfinder books that we haven't used because we're constantly hovering at lower lvls. The one time he did try to jumpstart us into a Legendary campaign didn't go over well and led to a restart a couple sessions in.
Lately he's been talking about running Rise of the Runelords but warned us we can't play in the manner we've been going with... which just leaves me thinking it's not something I want to play, not right now at least.

I like making plans and strategery... but I don't give a shit about getting to higher levels and mad powerz... and each death is a chance at trying on some new character, some new funny accent and persona.
The last group I was in had neverending campaigns where no PC ever died and all the missions were 'EPIC'... and fuck, that was dull!

It's sounding, to me, like the GM wants a 'serious' game/campaign... and the Players just want a beer & pretzels bit of gaming.

http://youtu.be/WMAG9GkWySg?list=PLk0Hd0vmvFM9gzEALe-4fI0FTAERXsCQh

Quote from: Wood Elf;811382Has anyone else really struggled with this? How did you solve it?

Find more mature role-players.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;811520He'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.

Fair enough; originally it sounded a bit more Leeroy Jenkins to me.

I have no objection to "Look, just tell me when you want me to smack something" characters.

How about saying

"This isn't fun for me" and having a reasonable, adult discussion with your players to reach an acceptable compromise.

....naaaah

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;811618Find more mature role-players.

While that play style might not be particularly sophisticated I wouldn't call it immature... it's just not what the OP/GM wants out of the game.

You just never know.  I've had a couple of young groups here.  First were great role players and devil-may-care combatants.   Last couple groups have been real thinkers. It seems to depend on the dominant personalities. They're all in the 17-22 age range.

Curiously enough, I've never had problems finding people who can bang two brain cells together, explore an environment, nibble at the edges of the prepared material, use everything on the character sheet including the lucky toad and jar of dead wasps, and generally force me to do some actual thinking.

Maybe it's something to do with actively recruiting players who aren't... lifestyle-choice gamers, for want of a better word. I'm not saying I don't want Gamer Scum at my table (I'd have to get up and leave for one thing), but I find groups wholly comprised of people who do more gaming than other stuff to be less interesting.

A thought though.

If the players are enjoying it despite or because they are dropping like flies...

Then you are doing something very very right as a DM that they are having that much fun even in a meatgrinder.

Quote from: Kiero;811463That assumes, of course, that the issue is that they just don't know any "better". They may not want to play a more cautious, considered style of game. In which case we have a fundamental disconnect in expectations.

Yeah, seriously.  Part and parcel of the riff that you and me and Blackie are pushing seems to be surprisingly difficult for some folks here to grasp: it's the mindset encompassed by Gaming Geek Fallacy #4.

Honestly, I don't give a rat's ass how many times you "explain" or "demonstrate" your gaming style: at this stage in my RPG career, I'm going to play the way I want to play, I'm going to seek out campaigns which cater to that style, and I'm going to ditch campaigns I discover don't.

Quote from: Ravenswing;811733Yeah, seriously.  Part and parcel of the riff that you and me and Blackie are pushing seems to be surprisingly difficult for some folks here to grasp: it's the mindset encompassed by Gaming Geek Fallacy #4.

Honestly, I don't give a rat's ass how many times you "explain" or "demonstrate" your gaming style: at this stage in my RPG career, I'm going to play the way I want to play, I'm going to seek out campaigns which cater to that style, and I'm going to ditch campaigns I discover don't.

I entirely get it from a player perspective, the other players don't like to role play / role play too much, they are all optimisers/none of them optimise but from a DM perspective its harder .

You are basically saying unless your PCs play like this I am going to take my ball and go home.
That is much more problematic that if you are a player dropping a group. If you as a DM can't use the range of tools you have to drive the play style in the direction you want it to go then I think you just have to suck it up. The world is hte world it won't change no matter what the PCs do but if playing it deadly stll means they play disposable heroes ...

Quote from: jibbajibba;811739I entirely get it from a player perspective, the other players don't like to role play / role play too much, they are all optimisers/none of them optimise but from a DM perspective its harder .

You are basically saying unless your PCs play like this I am going to take my ball and go home.

To be honest, while taking my ball and going home is my last choice, no gaming is better than running a play style I have no interest in. I'm upfront about my campaign and style of play when I recruit players and that is the style I'm going to run. While I certainly try to accommodate player interests with that style and campaign setting, if they don't like my style of game or the limitations in the setting, they need to find another game to play because I'm not changing it for them.

If they want to play in a campaign that tolerates lots of min-maxing or rewards charge in without thinking hack-n-slash or that leads them through a railroad or is played RAW (or whatever else my campaign isn't) but still choose my campaign to play in, that's just tough because I'm going to run the same style of campaign I have for the past 35+ years -- and I will not feel bad about it. Some probably think is makes me an asshole GM, but I think players who choose to play in a game when they know upfront it does not match what they want and expect the GM to change that game to match there desired style of play are just as big of assholes as the worst killer GM.

Quote from: Ravenswing;811733Yeah, seriously.  Part and parcel of the riff that you and me and Blackie are pushing seems to be surprisingly difficult for some folks here to grasp: it's the mindset encompassed by Gaming Geek Fallacy #4.

Honestly, I don't give a rat's ass how many times you "explain" or "demonstrate" your gaming style: at this stage in my RPG career, I'm going to play the way I want to play, I'm going to seek out campaigns which cater to that style, and I'm going to ditch campaigns I discover don't.

It goes both ways. The player can play how he wants, the DM can have players he wants. Ideally you get a match.