Party getting stuck, failing

[CRKrueger]

My NPCs are generally fully-fleshed, and I give their skills the same viewpoint as the PCs skills - if there's something the PC would know, I just tell them. As a result, the NPCs are consulted just like a party member. It's one of those things that makes the PCs more likely to say "let's see if we can find someone who actually knows X", because they know that person will probably be of use.

They know that whether the NPC is right or wrong is based on what the NPC knows, I'm not deliberately feeding them clues, nor trying to trick them. There's an advantage to not doing meta-thinking.

If there's something they obviously forgot that their PCs definitely wouldn't, I just remind them as the GM.

 

[soltakss]

In our old RQ2 game, we were investigating something and had run into dead ends, so the PCs retired for the night at a tavern. As the PCs started to fall asleep, two NPCs had a conversation below the open window that was going to give loads of clues, when one of the PCs angrily shouted "Can you just shut up, we are trying to get to sleep!"

 

[Skarg]

I know that players probably hate this, but how open should a GM or others be to PCs getting stuck on clues in an adventure, and/or generally being unable to successfully complete a mission?

I don't have a problem with this kind of gaming, since it brings a sense of realism to an adventure (not everything has a good or satisfying ending). And I tend to write adventures with the expectation that PCs may not make it all the way through. It's a tough sell, though, especially in a horror adventure. Ambiguity seems to be particularly disliked in that setting.

Any other insights on this? Should you always give the PCs "the clue" to move things along and make players happy, or is it ok for them to survive, but essentially fail?

I agree. In fact, I'd say that failure, defeat, and not figuring out clues etc N E E D to be something that can happen, and should happen based on the logic in the situation, player choices, and a bit of luck. That's what makes the game actually be about the game situation it pretends to be about.

Without the chance of failure, you're just playing a storytelling game with foregone results that the PCs will succeed, even if they're stupid, unlucky, unmotivated, do the wrong things, cursed by terrible luck, or aren't even really trying at all. Which to me is like some level of afterlife Purgatory torment brought to the living world by the confused fear and panic of some GMs and players, or ... er ... just people who want to do something other than the type of gaming I like.

Which wouldn't be as frequently annoying as it is, if it weren't for all the confusion so many people have about it. Too many people say they want a tough gritty serious challenging game about really dangerous situations etc, but in fact want/expect to just sit around with friends and be spoon-fed adventures where they will win, survive, prevail, "solve the adventure", "save the world", etc etc without any actual chance they get maimed, killed, cursed, fail, etc.

As for horror adventures, I'm slightly surprised that even for those, your players would want to be guaranteed to "make it all the way through" . . . it seems more like a genre where I'd expect even more chance for horrible death and failure.

 

[AsenRG]

Let them fail and the bad guy plot they were presumably trying to stop proceed, with attendant consequences. The possibility of this happening is a good reason to keep the stakes of such plots relatively modest - a town or kingdom might fall to evil or get wiped out, a war might break out, etc. but hopefully not something that will literally destroy the world or multiverse.

This is my solution as well. And it often drives the next session...

What I advise against is either handwaving the consequences of failure and letting the PCs win anyway (that reinforces bad habits and leads to lazy, passive play) or give in to whining that your adventure is too hard and reworking the adventure to make things easier for them. Even if they’re right and you did accidentally make an adventure that was too tough, only acknowledge that to yourself and correct course with the next adventure. Don’t tell the players you screwed up. If they learn that complaining is a successful strategy and they can get you to make adventures easier by doing so they will fall back on that rather than making an effort to up their game and Git Gud. Which will result in a boring, milquetoasty, low-stakes game.

Alas, from past experience in the last years, I need to agree. I used to disagree hard with this.
Nothing like whining players to change a Referee's mind!

Oh I'm totally good with that.

It's when they take hold of some side comment about gnolls harassing caravans while the grand high purple cheese mayor of city #3 of 6 on the whole continent was trying to hire them to find a cure for his daughter's magic illness as some "go kill all gnolls" quest and don't even tell the mayor, just reject to actual offered mission. Then they go the wrong way (didn't ask directions), slaughter a completely different tribe nowhere near a trade route, and can't even remember anything but "we can haz quest what turn in to som dude!". Not the city, not the guy, not even why someone wanted something. Then I let them hard fail.

I've taken to color coding & going over the top on job descriptions with npcs. It works a bit better than names. "Screamy purple guy" is fine. "Mayor of <points at map>" is fine. "Guy with sick kid we didn't want to help" is fine. "The cheese trade route being raided by gnolls quest" is even something I can work with. "That guy, you know that one, with the kill quest, somewhere..." isn't fine, especially when nobody asked them to kill anything.

OK, your players do need to up their game...and I can see why you'd find their failing funny, too!

I agree. In fact, I'd say that failure, defeat, and not figuring out clues etc N E E D to be something that can happen, and should happen based on the logic in the situation, player choices, and a bit of luck. That's what makes the game actually be about the game situation it pretends to be about.

Without the chance of failure, you're just playing a storytelling game with foregone results that the PCs will succeed, even if they're stupid, unlucky, unmotivated, do the wrong things, cursed by terrible luck, or aren't even really trying at all. Which to me is like some level of afterlife Purgatory torment brought to the living world by the confused fear and panic of some GMs and players, or ... er ... just people who want to do something other than the type of gaming I like.

Which wouldn't be as frequently annoying as it is, if it weren't for all the confusion so many people have about it. Too many people say they want a tough gritty serious challenging game about really dangerous situations etc, but in fact want/expect to just sit around with friends and be spoon-fed adventures where they will win, survive, prevail, "solve the adventure", "save the world", etc etc without any actual chance they get maimed, killed, cursed, fail, etc.

As for horror adventures, I'm slightly surprised that even for those, your players would want to be guaranteed to "make it all the way through" . . . it seems more like a genre where I'd expect even more chance for horrible death and failure.

...unsurprisingly, I agree with Skarg !

 

[AsenRG]

In our old RQ2 game, we were investigating something and had run into dead ends, so the PCs retired for the night at a tavern. As the PCs started to fall asleep, two NPCs had a conversation below the open window that was going to give loads of clues, when one of the PCs angrily shouted "Can you just shut up, we are trying to get to sleep!"

...it is in situations like these that you need to give them a Drama point for intentionally screwing up their characters!

(Way too often, however, it doesn't arise naturally, and then a Drama point isn't useful. Actually, it can be detrimental, IMO&E).

 

[Yeti Spaghetti]

As for horror adventures, I'm slightly surprised that even for those, your players would want to be guaranteed to "make it all the way through" . . . it seems more like a genre where I'd expect even more chance for horrible death and failure.

Yeah, again, Chill/Cryptworld tend to play more as monster mashing games than more "serious" horror, even if the intention is not always for that kind of play. The monster-of-the-week format lends itself easily to everyone, GM and players, thinking they will always make it through and defeat the creature.

I guess I just have to get more comfortable with failure as a option as a GM. I'm certainly writing the idea of failure into this current adventure I'm working on, as I have with others, but actually playing them that way is the tricky part.

 

[Zebraman]

Another issue with failure when it involves player death is the balance between the frustration of a PC death meaning a player has to stop playing, even for the session and ensuring there isn't a revolving door of new characters such that death has now consequence.

I have had plenty of experience of player failure and how to make that narratively satisfying and accepted by the players including a PCs death. But I've never really nailed making player death not be frustrating from a "not playing" point of view. The closest I've come is having the player take on the role of an allied NPC mook for the session. But perhaps that's enough.

 

[Skarg]

Another issue with failure when it involves player death is the balance between the frustration of a PC death meaning a player has to stop playing, even for the session and ensuring there isn't a revolving door of new characters such that death has now consequence.

I have had plenty of experience of player failure and how to make that narratively satisfying and accepted by the players including a PCs death. But I've never really nailed making player death not be frustrating from a "not playing" point of view. The closest I've come is having the player take on the role of an allied NPC mook for the session. But perhaps that's enough.

I think that tends to be best way to handle it, and see it as a positive thing that that can happen, and that it has that logical consequence.

Depending on the game and the players, having players play some adversary (or other non-party NPC, or a new PC who is not with the party) characters for a while can be a fun diversion too.

For some games and players, it works just fine to have such players just leave and do something else until it makes sense for them to come back. I think the absence of some players can actually sometimes be a feature, because it can be fun/interesting when different players have different views on what happens because their PCs were in different places at different times (and/or were dead/unconscious/etc...).

I tend to look at players who get "frustrated" by "having to stop playing [a PC in the party]" when their PC _dies_ (or even when they're too injured to continue adventuring, or in prison, etc) as a maturity/emotional/learning type of personal issue for the player, rather than something a GM should look at as a problem with their campaign. (Quite the opposite: I see GMs who feel like they need to cater to such player issues by warping the game situation to teleport in new replacement PCs, or never kill/maim PCs, or whatever, as a game-breaking problem itself.)

 

[Fritz]

Yeah, again, Chill/Cryptworld tend to play more as monster mashing games than more "serious" horror, even if the intention is not always for that kind of play. The monster-of-the-week format lends itself easily to everyone, GM and players, thinking they will always make it through and defeat the creature.

I guess I just have to get more comfortable with failure as a option as a GM. I'm certainly writing the idea of failure into this current adventure I'm working on, as I have with others, but actually playing them that way is the tricky part.

Failure is still an option and should be a fun part of any adventure/mystery. Players still have to interpret the clues and making a correct deduction is not guaranteed. I believe fail states shouldn't be up to random chance but a consequence of player choice. Otherwise, it becomes a bit like making players roll to detect if a door is locked before the lock can be picked. I generally leave skill rolls for gleaning more detailed information from the necessary clue/scene.

Oh, Chill is it! Used to see the ads in Dragon magazine all the time. I bought the entire 2nd edition line in the 90's. Had big plans but other things came up and now those books are sitting in storage. I'm looking forward to seeing your products.

 

[Yeti Spaghetti]

Oh, Chill is it! Used to see the ads in Dragon magazine all the time. I bought the entire 2nd edition line in the 90's. Had big plans but other things came up and now those books are sitting in storage. I'm looking forward to seeing your products.

I've been putting out Chill compatible modules since October of last year. Here's the link to my DTRPG page:

DriveThruRPG

www.drivethrurpg.com

 

[Rob Necronomicon]

When I'm GMing I pretty much let the players generally do their own thing. So they can try anything, or any way they want to complete their objectives. However, I've since refined my process a bit after finding that players were finding it hard to proceed from time to time. So now, if I find the players struggling, and flapping about I'll try to throw them a bone in a game-logical way. I prefer to keep the game moving.

I don't mind them failing as that can lead to more adventures or they can just try again. To be honest, I'm probably a bit too soft on players for an old-school GM.