Legendary Actions and More of Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories

[zinycor]

That's just your opinion and not an objective truth. Prove me wrong.

I don't have to, cause I agree with you, That's my opinion, not an objective truth.

[Quertus]

I want to add (5th?) my request for an explanation of "Toreador with a knife". I'm guessing "winrar all social, endemic combat ability?"

In a broader sense, I am saying that the game is most fun when everyone is at a similar level of optimization; I don't think this is that outrageous a claim; you can find hundreds of threads about this on the D&D boards, plenty of videos on youtube and podcasts on itunes about it, and the entire tier system is predicated upon it.

Strongly disagree. The game is most fun when you have "Thor and the sentient potted plant" - when the group is not so hung up on game balance, and can just have fun.

Yes, balance to the table. But, IME, tables with larger balance ranges have more fun than those with tighter balance ranges.

Highly optimized characters tend to hog the spotlight, and the players of more normal characters often feel bored, frustrated, or jealous. Likewise, many optimizers view weaker characters as dead weight holding them down, and when they fail they will often take out their anger by blaming the weaker characters. This isn't good, but people aren't perfect.

Being a **** can manifest in many ways. Spotlight hogging and blame-throwing are among them.

IMO the GM's job is try and manage conflict with the group,

I'll contend that that's everyone's job.

and part of that is talking to people when someone wants to bring in an outlier character. This can take the form of a highly optimized character in a more normal party or a more normal character joining a highly optimized party. But its not just about power; an orc in a group of dwarves, a necromancer in a group of paladins, or a barbarian in a group of rogues could be just as problematic.

Absolutely. Do note, though, that an "odd man out" can make a game.

And again, I don't say you should solve this by banning characters or pointing fingers, but merely by talking to people and making sure everyone understands and agrees about what they are getting into.

Although this makes it sound like you get that.

[MeimuHakurei]

Strongly disagree. The game is most fun when you have "Thor and the sentient potted plant" - when the group is not so hung up on game balance, and can just have fun.

Yes, balance to the table. But, IME, tables with larger balance ranges have more fun than those with tighter balance ranges.

Well, it depends on the game system how well this pans out - in FATE Core for instance you would have no problems letting both Thor and the potted plant contribute to the narrative since either of you can invoke aspects just fine. I won't say you can't have fun in a game like that, but I would claim that D&D is ill-suited to make the potted plant interesting to play.


Either way, I do agree that powergaming is a player thing, not a character thing - there are situations in which a powergamer sets out to be unbeatable and stronger than everyone else, and then at the table just isn't - which doesn't make the player less insufferable. But on the other hand, there's players who overshadow the rest of the party without meaning to.

[Satinavian]

I picked casters as 3.X melee classes don't really gain new abilities as they level up and they don't really get any utility abilities at all.

I could do the example with skills instead if you like:

There is a group with a ranger, a cleric, a wizard, and a bard. They decide to recruit a rogue.

The rogue is a "jack of all trades" build who puts a few points into every skill. He has a few points in survival and handle animal, but the odds of him actually succeeding when the ranger cannot are very small, he has a few points of heal and knowledge religion, but the odds of him succeeding when the cleric cannot is again small, same with his few points in diplomacy and bluff succeeding over the bard of his spell-craft and knowledge arcana succeeding over the wizard. But then when it comes to traditional rogue skills that the rest of the party doesn't have, well this guy only put a few points into them as well, so when the group comes up against a difficulty lock or trap, odds are they are just out of luck.

That is still just an artefact a the rule system which has no increased costs for higher skills and wonky assumptions for DCs.

I could as easily point to the 210k xp 2E 7/8/7 fighter/thief/mage that contributes more to most parties than a fighter 8, thief 10 or mage 9 of the same xp. And there are many systems where it really would be a bad idea to just push your primary skills to the maximum and ignore secondary ones.

In short, redundant skills are less useful than unique skills, and if you try and do everything you risk over-extending your reach and succeeding at nothing.

That depends on a lot of things, not least the actual system used.

[Quertus]

Well, it depends on the game system how well this pans out - in FATE Core for instance you would have no problems letting both Thor and the potted plant contribute to the narrative since either of you can invoke aspects just fine. I won't say you can't have fun in a game like that, but I would claim that D&D is ill-suited to make the potted plant interesting to play.

I'm… not quite sure how a potted plant would "invoke aspects" - or, perhaps, how it would "realistically" do so. Can you explain what that would look like?

But my actual point… OK, I'm not actually sure what my point is, because my subconscious says that there's more to it than I'm consciously aware of. What I consciously intended my point to be, well, you've hit on part of it: those who can look past mechanical equality to narrative equality I find easier to communicate with, and more likely to produce a fun game.

But my sentient potted plant didn't have narrative equality, not really. Much like how, in a play, not everyone has equal spotlight time. The play would likely be much worse for the audience (and probably for the actors, too) if every character followed the Power Rangers rule of "balance". IMO, you get much better stories when you aren't forced to give every actor equal spotlight time. Similarly, you get much more fun games when you aren't forced to follow artificial constraints of maintaining mechanical or even narrative balance between party members. When every player is happy playing their role in the emergent story. That's when games are the most fun, IME.

[Great Dragon]

The play would likely be much worse for the audience (and probably for the actors, too) if every character followed the Power Rangers rule of "balance".[1]

IMO, you get much better stories when you aren't forced to give every actor equal spotlight time. Similarly, you get much more fun games when you aren't forced to follow artificial constraints of maintaining mechanical [2] or even narrative balance between party members[3]. When every player is happy playing their role in the emergent story.

[1] Sure - Some systems (various Superhero RPGs, a modified Battletech/Robotech, or Rifts, etc) are better to use for the Power Ranger “Balance” rules, and others are not a great choice: Like using something like D&D to do that, because shoe-horning every Class into some kind of Colored Suit where they all look (mostly) alike - will most likely not interest most players.

But - this depends more on the Players and their expectations from the Game.
If the entire Group bought into the “D&D-ized” Power Ranger theme, didn’t mind only being able to fight Mooks outside their Bots; and the Bots themselves either had unique abilities, or allowed the PC/s to “channel” their Class Abilities (and not just Spells) when Driving them - I’m sure the Group would have loads of fun.
Especially when combining to make the Mega-Bot to fight the Tarrasque.

[2] While I can (mostly) agree that it is not always required to maintain Mechanical balance, each Player does need at least some means to use the Mechanics to benefit their PC. Otherwise, you get the same effect as the Martial/Wizard Gap that a lot of people complain about.

[3] As for Narrative Spotlighting: I tend to actually find the opposite for most of my games.
Your statement (seems to) favors the Ideal Group, where each Player has most likely made their (current) Favorite PC and they share the Spotlight amongst themselves.

In a lot of my games - If I don’t focus the Spotlight on all the Members of the Group, those that are more outspoken will overshadow those that aren’t. (New/Shy Players) Which means there’s a good chance that these Players will not want to return to my table; because no one likes being ignored - especially in a situation where everyone is supposed to be involved. Even OoC involvement - can help here.

Now, I will acknowledge your point to an extent. The story does revolve around what the Player/s are doing, and the Spotlight might not shine on every Player during the session.
But, once the focus Player’s (immediate) goal is achieved, the Spotlight does move to the next person - even if I need to put it on someone that hasn’t done something for awhile.

[Earthwalker]

I'm… not quite sure how a potted plant would "invoke aspects" - or, perhaps, how it would "realistically" do so. Can you explain what that would look like?

[snip]

I have wanted to ask about this a few times.
What can a sentient potted plat do at all?

Was it a talking potted plant ?
Could it move by itself ?

You are right in saying that it might not get equal narrative share. If it is just a potted plant with all the powers that potted plants have but just happens to be intelligent and self aware then what is involved in playing that character ?

I think a sentient potted plant (unless it has more powers than just being self aware) is not a suitable FATE character.

I remember a section of the book describing what is expected of a character for the game.
Like one element was being proactive.

[Max_Killjoy]

I have wanted to ask about this a few times.
What can a sentient potted plat do at all?

Was it a talking potted plant ?
Could it move by itself ?

You are right in saying that it might not get equal narrative share. If it is just a potted plant with all the powers that potted plants have but just happens to be intelligent and self aware then what is involved in playing that character ?

I think a sentient potted plant (unless it has more powers than just being self aware) is not a suitable FATE character.

I remember a section of the book describing what is expected of a character for the game.
Like one element was being proactive.

I've had players bring PCs to games I've been in that made me think the same thing... and then consider if I was being unfair to the potted plant.

But yeah, I really don't think a potted plant is a viable character outside of some far niche campaigns.

[kyoryu]

That’s a stretch even in Fate.

Fate is fairly good at maintaining balance because it’s so direct - everyone has the same skill distribution, and the same stunts+refresh. But you still have to have a character that makes reasonable sense to be with the group.

[Koo Rehtorb]

IMO the GM's job is try and manage conflict with the group

Not only do I think this is wrong, I find it distasteful. I'll never understand this tendency of some people (usually people who play D&D), to believe that the GM is the "boss" of the group. The GM is not the group's babysitter, teacher, or therapist. The GM's job is to play the world.

[zinycor]

Not only do I think this is wrong, I find it distasteful. I'll never understand this tendency of some people (usually people who play D&D), to believe that the GM is the "boss" of the group. The GM is not the group's babysitter, teacher, or therapist. The GM's job is to play the world.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Great Dragon]

I only have one exception:
Teacher: The GM only makes sure the Player understands the game enough to create a PC to play. Anything beyond this is a gift.

But, yes - the GM should not need to babysit, nor be a therapist

[Talakeal]

Not only do I think this is wrong, I find it distasteful. I'll never understand this tendency of some people (usually people who play D&D), to believe that the GM is the "boss" of the group. The GM is not the group's babysitter, teacher, or therapist. The GM's job is to play the world.

In a perfect world I would agree with you; it would be really really nice if I could just play the world and forget about all the social stuff.

Unfortunately, rule books keep giving the DM more power and authority, and gaming culture puts more and more expectations on them to be the referee, social coordinator, and conflict mediator.

That is still just an artefact a the rule system which has no increased costs for higher skills and wonky assumptions for DCs.

I could as easily point to the 210k xp 2E 7/8/7 fighter/thief/mage that contributes more to most parties than a fighter 8, thief 10 or mage 9 of the same xp. And there are many systems where it really would be a bad idea to just push your primary skills to the maximum and ignore secondary ones.

That depends on a lot of things, not least the actual system used.

Yes, it is system dependent.

Again, I am not saying generalists or specialists are bad, merely that most systems have a sweet spot somewhere between the two and deviating too far from it can, depending on overall group composition, make for drastically weaker characters.

[Talakeal]

Strongly disagree. The game is most fun when you have "Thor and the sentient potted plant" - when the group is not so hung up on game balance, and can just have fun.

Yes, balance to the table. But, IME, tables with larger balance ranges have more fun than those with tighter balance ranges.

It is great to have a table where everyone is emotionally secure enough to be able to deal with discrepancies, but I wouldn't say its fun to actually have those discrepancies.

I am a bit of an outlier in that I actually enjoy most facets of the hobby, and imo, the game is best when everyone can potentially participate in every pillar of the game and meaningfully contribute so that team work is necessary for the best outcome. Playing a guy who can't use skills, or can't fight, or can't interact socially typically means less fun and less complexity for the game as a whole.

Which is not to say everyone needs to be participating all the time, don't get me wrong, sometimes its fine to let one person have a scene to themselves, and more than six or so players tends to crowd a scene, but as a general rule I much prefer times when everyone can participate, both intellectually and mechanically.

[Quertus]

I have wanted to ask about this a few times.
What can a sentient potted plat do at all?

Was it a talking potted plant ?
Could it move by itself ?

It could not move by itself. I… don't remember about communication - whether it could talk, was telepathic, or whether some party member had powers that allowed it to communicate. But it was able to communicate with the party somehow.

You are right in saying that it might not get equal narrative share. If it is just a potted plant with all the powers that potted plants have but just happens to be intelligent and self aware then what is involved in playing that character ?

I think a sentient potted plant (unless it has more powers than just being self aware) is not a suitable FATE character.

I remember a section of the book describing what is expected of a character for the game.
Like one element was being proactive.

I've had players bring PCs to games I've been in that made me think the same thing... and then consider if I was being unfair to the potted plant.

But yeah, I really don't think a potted plant is a viable character outside of some far niche campaigns.

The campaign was… fairly unsuited to a potted plant. And also unsuited to Thor. And that was what made it fun.

[1] Sure - Some systems (various Superhero RPGs, a modified Battletech/Robotech, or Rifts, etc) are better to use for the Power Ranger “Balance” rules, and others are not a great choice: Like using something like D&D to do that, because shoe-horning every Class into some kind of Colored Suit where they all look (mostly) alike - will most likely not interest most players.

But - this depends more on the Players and their expectations from the Game.
If the entire Group bought into the “D&D-ized” Power Ranger theme, didn’t mind only being able to fight Mooks outside their Bots; and the Bots themselves either had unique abilities, or allowed the PC/s to “channel” their Class Abilities (and not just Spells) when Driving them - I’m sure the Group would have loads of fun.
Especially when combining to make the Mega-Bot to fight the Tarrasque.

[2] While I can (mostly) agree that it is not always required to maintain Mechanical balance, each Player does need at least some means to use the Mechanics to benefit their PC. Otherwise, you get the same effect as the Martial/Wizard Gap that a lot of people complain about.

[3] As for Narrative Spotlighting: I tend to actually find the opposite for most of my games.
Your statement (seems to) favors the Ideal Group, where each Player has most likely made their (current) Favorite PC and they share the Spotlight amongst themselves.

In a lot of my games - If I don’t focus the Spotlight on all the Members of the Group, those that are more outspoken will overshadow those that aren’t. (New/Shy Players) Which means there’s a good chance that these Players will not want to return to my table; because no one likes being ignored - especially in a situation where everyone is supposed to be involved. Even OoC involvement - can help here.

Now, I will acknowledge your point to an extent. The story does revolve around what the Player/s are doing, and the Spotlight might not shine on every Player during the session.
But, once the focus Player’s (immediate) goal is achieved, the Spotlight does move to the next person - even if I need to put it on someone that hasn’t done something for awhile.

There's so many directions to try to bridge the gap, but let me start here: "If I don’t focus the Spotlight on all the Members of the Group, those that are more outspoken will overshadow those that aren’t. (New/Shy Players)". Everyone should help to make that happen. But not everyone *wants* an equal share of the spotlight. And most every story, like most every play, is better when the spotlight isn't shared evenly. IME, the game is best when everyone fully realizes that.

The "Martial/Wizard Gap" is not inherently a problem. What's a problem is expecting balance, or expecting to achieve a certain contribution, and finding that that expectation is unrealistic. If everyone walks into Romeo and Juliet knowing that "guard #3" will not have the same effect as Mercutio, everyone can play their roles, and enjoy doing so. I walked in with eyes wide open when playing my sentient potted plant. Equally importantly, the entire party walked in with eyes wide open regarding both my sentient potted plant, and Thor. Everyone knew (roughly) what to expect, and everyone enjoyed watching it play out, in both expected and unexpected ways.

And that's my point. When guard #3 expects equal spotlight time to Romeo, the play won't be near as good as if they know to accept inequality. And, yes, that's true even in emergent stories. Recognizing your role - or getting others to help you recognize it - is an important component in optimizing fun. Not stepping on other people's toes, being able to make room for everyone's part in the story - no matter the size of that part.

Now, sure, you can tell a story of a group of equals. Or rough equals. But that's… rather rare, rather niche. And not a rut that's necessarily healthy - or, at least, optimal - to get stuck in.

[Quertus]

It is great to have a table where everyone is emotionally secure enough to be able to deal with discrepancies, but I wouldn't say its fun to actually have those discrepancies.

I am a bit of an outlier in that I actually enjoy most facets of the hobby, and imo, the game is best when everyone can potentially participate in every pillar of the game and meaningfully contribute so that team work is necessary for the best outcome. Playing a guy who can't use skills, or can't fight, or can't interact socially typically means less fun and less complexity for the game as a whole.

Which is not to say everyone needs to be participating all the time, don't get me wrong, sometimes its fine to let one person have a scene to themselves, and more than six or so players tends to crowd a scene, but as a general rule I much prefer times when everyone can participate, both intellectually and mechanically.

Oh, I fully agree - in the general case - that the game is best when everyone can participate most of the time.

But some players, like actors who struggle to memorize so many lines, don't actually like the pressure of playing characters "forced" to participate all the time. My BDH party was a rate exception of a party where everyone shined pretty much all the time (unless it was social, in which case they all failed spectacularly together).

But, uh, yeah, the game is healthier when the players are healthier. That may well be what my subconscious was trying to tell me.

And it's really rare when a dozen or more people can actually share FaceTime successfully. There are, as you say, scenes where one person really should dominate.

-----

Now, onto specifics.

"imo, the game is best when everyone can potentially participate in every pillar of the game and meaningfully contribute so that team work is necessary for the best outcome. "

This will take a lot of dissecting.

Actually, I'll come back later. My phone is acting wonky, and I don't want to lose the post.

-----

"Playing a guy who can't use skills, or can't fight, or can't interact socially typically means less fun and less complexity for the game as a whole."

IME, combat is usually the one time you can expect everyone to participate. Even in ShadowRun (my classic highly solo'd system), in combat, where the Street Samurai dominates, everyone gets to roll some dice. But elsewhere? A dozen Hobos saying "me, too" really detracts from Reed Richard. And kinda Captain Hobos him when, as they would be in 5e, they're a better source of information than the textbook genius.

So, no, IME, I find the game much more fun when there's actually serious resource allocation issues, when not everyone can trivially sub in for anyone else. Then teamwork, and making a plan to utilize the resources you have, is actually a fun game.

[MeimuHakurei]

@Quertus: Spotlight sharing is probably not about equal time in the spotlight, but equal chance to stand in the spotlight for all players. You're right however that it doesn't require statistical/narrative power to have the spotlight - it's just that it's naturally easier for a character to be central the more ways they have to interact with the world.

As for the Martial/Caster gap, it's right that spellcasters being vastly more powerful/flexible than warriors is in itself not a problem - it becomes one because D&D expects the two to be on equal footing. It's also a problem for those who want fantastic characters who happen to be martially inclined - it's much easier for a spellcaster to be low-key and unhelpful on the other side (as you yourself can easily demonstrate).

The thing with having a class that cannot interact with any one of the pillars of gameplay (generally exploration/social in D&D) means that there's a chance that the entire party is unable to interact with that pillar. So it forces adventures to either abbreviate and handwave the exploration/social components of the adventure or cut them out entirely, as otherwise a group is incapable of progressing should none of them have access to relevant abilities to complete the challenge.

The above extends to the hobo situation you described by either forcing the group of hobo players to sit out an hour or more while Reed Richard doing an investigation encounter or to simplify his investigation to a single die roll. If the hobos had a small amount of things to contribute, you could have a group encounter on investigation where Reed is MVP and the Hobos actively get to assist in helping him succeed. Even if I'm not in the spotlight and don't need to be, I still want to be able to support the efforts of the one who is.

[Quertus]

@Quertus: Spotlight sharing is probably not about equal time in the spotlight, but equal chance to stand in the spotlight for all players. You're right however that it doesn't require statistical/narrative power to have the spotlight - it's just that it's naturally easier for a character to be central the more ways they have to interact with the world.

As for the Martial/Caster gap, it's right that spellcasters being vastly more powerful/flexible than warriors is in itself not a problem - it becomes one because D&D expects the two to be on equal footing. It's also a problem for those who want fantastic characters who happen to be martially inclined - it's much easier for a spellcaster to be low-key and unhelpful on the other side (as you yourself can easily demonstrate).

Lots of "yep".

The thing with having a class that cannot interact with any one of the pillars of gameplay (generally exploration/social in D&D) means that there's a chance that the entire party is unable to interact with that pillar.

Well, let's slow down a bit. We'll keep the pillar abstraction, but recognize that it is just that - an abstraction.

How much a character had built-in buttons to push to interact with a given abstraction is a spectrum, not a yes/no modal toggle. Further, as I've detailed elsewhere (and may try to find), built-in buttons are not the only way to interface with a given pillar. McGuffins are perhaps the most commonly discussed external power source, but far from the only one.

As I've said before, if the party has literally 0 ability to interact with a pillar, that represents a complete and utter failure of everyone involved - GM, module writer, world-building, system writer, etc.

But, yes, sometimes, the party doesn't have any built-in buttons to push. And that's when the game gets interesting!

My BDH party? Unless it's innuendo, none of them should be allowed anywhere near the "social pillar". They generally struggle to convince the people that they're saving that they are the lesser of two evils (while gleefully wading through their opponents like they were human). And that's part of what makes that party fun - they struggle with things that anyone else would breeze through without even noticing.

So it forces adventures to either abbreviate and handwave the exploration/social components of the adventure or cut them out entirely, as otherwise a group is incapable of progressing should none of them have access to relevant abilities to complete the challenge.

No, IME, it forces them to get creative. To interact with the world, the NPCs, anything that they can to gain some advantage. To… basically play (my understanding of) Fate, and stack advantages / aspects / whatever, until they've given themselves enough advantage to complete the challenge. Or to redefine the challenge into something that they *can* handle ("well, we can't find him, but maybe we can make him come to us", for example).

Parties with these weaknesses are the best.

The above extends to the hobo situation you described by either forcing the group of hobo players to sit out an hour or more while Reed Richard doing an investigation encounter or to simplify his investigation to a single die roll.

Actually, I was saying that Reed should sit out, and let the mass army Hobos solve the problems that he, conceptually, should be best at.

If the hobos had a small amount of things to contribute, you could have a group encounter on investigation where Reed is MVP and the Hobos actively get to assist in helping him succeed. Even if I'm not in the spotlight and don't need to be, I still want to be able to support the efforts of the one who is.

That's more the model I prefer.

[kyoryu]

No, IME, it forces them to get creative. To interact with the world, the NPCs, anything that they can to gain some advantage. To… basically play (my understanding of) Fate, and stack advantages / aspects / whatever, until they've given themselves enough advantage to complete the challenge. Or to redefine the challenge into something that they *can* handle ("well, we can't find him, but maybe we can make him come to us", for example).

Yeah, a lot of it comes down to "we can't take this problem head-on. So how do we change the situation so we can take it on?"

Which is a more interesting dynamic, I agree.

[King of Nowhere]

Yes, balance to the table. But, IME, tables with larger balance ranges have more fun than those with tighter balance ranges.

Just a minor nitpick here, but I think the causality here is inverted:
larger balance range is not inherently good, and it's probably slightly bad.

but sane, mature player trust each other to not fight for the spotlight, or try to outshine each other, or be jealous. so they can afford to have less regard for balance.
in contrast, tables with bad, immature players will be strict on balance because they are afraid of being outperformed by someone else.

so I suggest that "more fun" and "less focus on strict balance" are not directly related, but they are both consequences of "sane and mature players".

Though i'd also recognize the secondary correlation "less focus on strict balance" --> "more freedom at character generation" --> "more fun"

[Quertus]

Just a minor nitpick here, but I think the causality here is inverted:
larger balance range is not inherently good, and it's probably slightly bad.

but sane, mature player trust each other to not fight for the spotlight, or try to outshine each other, or be jealous. so they can afford to have less regard for balance.
in contrast, tables with bad, immature players will be strict on balance because they are afraid of being outperformed by someone else.

so I suggest that "more fun" and "less focus on strict balance" are not directly related, but they are both consequences of "sane and mature players".

Though i'd also recognize the secondary correlation "less focus on strict balance" --> "more freedom at character generation" --> "more fun"

I… … I think that there is every possibility that you are 100% correct.

[zinycor]

so I suggest that "more fun" and "less focus on strict balance" are not directly related, but they are both consequences of "sane and mature players".

I agree with this 100%.

[RedWarlock]

Yeh, umm, no.

Not everybody enjoys the game the same way. I play to relax, not to beat my head against the wall. Just because SOME people enjoy being the potted plant, doesn't mean EVERYBODY loves being the potted plant, or being in the same team as the potted plant. Some folks LIKE making an equal contribution, and seek to do so, and become frustrated when they can't.

Also, some of us are STUCK with mediocre players. Not good, not bad, not "immature", but not these bastions of sanity and perfect cohabitation you seem to find. They're good people, overall; friends, years-long buddies, but maybe they have a tinge of aggression or 'imperfect' playstyle that comes up in-game, maybe even only subconsciously. But they're what's available.

[SleepyShadow]

Yeh, umm, no.

Not everybody enjoys the game the same way. I play to relax, not to beat my head against the wall. Just because SOME people enjoy being the potted plant, doesn't mean EVERYBODY loves being the potted plant, or being in the same team as the potted plant. Some folks LIKE making an equal contribution, and seek to do so, and become frustrated when they can't.

Also, some of us are STUCK with mediocre players. Not good, not bad, not "immature", but not these bastions of sanity and perfect cohabitation you seem to find. They're good people, overall; friends, years-long buddies, but maybe they have a tinge of aggression or 'imperfect' playstyle that comes up in-game, maybe even only subconsciously. But they're what's available.

I completely understand. Sometimes one of the available people throws his character into a poison lake for another spin on the reincarnation wheel

[Kardwill]

The curse was not something that was a daily problem.

Basically, anytime he was in a stressful situation, there was a chance that a nearby mirror would shatter and an evil reflection would attack.

It only happened once every couple of sessions, and while it added a fairly major complication when it happened during an encounter, it wasn't something that would have been constantly on his mind.

I'd argue that "My own reflection can jump out of a mirror at any moment and murder me" is something that would stick in my mind. Especially every time I saw my reflexion in a mirror/a window/a pool of water. Just like a terminal heart disease is something that will directly "affect you" just once, but you will still probably try to remember your appointment with the heart surgeon before it happens.

In that kind of situation, a soft retcon would be reasonable. "Let's assume the curse doesn't strike during this adventure, and next time, we'll play your mini-quest as a flashback to see if you actually got rid of it. Deal?"

[kyoryu]

I'd argue that "My own reflection can jump out of a mirror at any moment and murder me" is something that would stick in my mind. Especially every time I saw my reflexion in a mirror/a window/a pool of water. Just like a terminal heart disease is something that will directly "affect you" just once, but you will still probably try to remember your appointment with the heart surgeon before it happens.

I think this is actually a good analogy for how Talakeal’s players feel about the game as a whole. It seems that monsters pull out random-seeming abilities frequently with no warning or foreshadowing or clue, and that the results of doing so are fairly frequently lethal. Whether it’s new abilities, legendary actions, or novel sets of immunities, these abilities seem to lead to player loss a large amount of the time, and based on what I’ve read, don’t seem to be communicated well. Not communicated well ends up, from the player POV to be “random feeling” and leads to caution.

[Segev]

Talkeal, this may be a radical suggestion, but maybe you should run a 5e D&D game, using a printed adventure. Tales From the Yawning Portal has the Sunless Citadel, which is a good 1-3 level adventure to introduce things. My players are also enjoying Tomb of Annihilation (a full campaign from 1-11). But the Death Curse in that one might be too much for your players.

You're running in a homebrew system of your own design, if I remember correctly. Perhaps that system is more unforgiving than they'd like. In my experience, 5e is extremely forgiving, and it's actually somewhat hard for a fight in Sunless Citadel to be instantly lethal.

I suggest taking a break and trying to run that, and see if that works any better. Run the module or dungeon as written. Yes, do take initiative in having the monsters behave in character; the kobolds and goblins specifically are intelligent monsters with plans and goals of their own. But don't invent new things, and unless the PCs provoke multiple fights at once, they should be pretty okay.

Now, my players like to try to negotiate with things, so they may be having an easier time with some of the monsters than those who pick fights, but they've rarely been seriously at risk. Like I said, 5e seems pretty forgiving so far.

I recommend this as a way to rebuild trust with your players, to let yourself see whether there's a balance problem in your system you need to address (by having a point of comparison), and to make it so you can, at least, point to the module to tell them that you didn't make anything up. When you discuss their tactics and choices with them, you can point out what alternatives there were, and that you didn't railroad them. By offloading the design portion to a module, you make it so that you have an "objective third party."

If they curbstomp things, great! They'll probably love it. And you can make note of that. If they get TPK'd anyway, you can examine why. And if they come close but pull through regularly, you can look at the balance of the system and see why that is.

Good luck!

[Talakeal]

I think this is actually a good analogy for how Talakeal’s players feel about the game as a whole. It seems that monsters pull out random-seeming abilities frequently with no warning or foreshadowing or clue, and that the results of doing so are fairly frequently lethal. Whether it’s new abilities, legendary actions, or novel sets of immunities, these abilities seem to lead to player loss a large amount of the time, and based on what I’ve read, don’t seem to be communicated well. Not communicated well ends up, from the player POV to be “random feeling” and leads to caution.

Is this not normal?

I personally have (almost) never played under a DM in any system that didnt make heavy use of homebrew monsters and / or templates, and most modules I have read have atleast one unique monster with some sort of gimmick.

Even if sticking clearly to published monsters, D&D has so many with so many crazy abilities that unless the DM actually lets the players have an open set of monster manuals during the game they will still be caught of guard frequuently as even the biggest nerd cant memorize them all.

In this particular case the monster was just a bog standard ghost with no special abilities or customization whatsoever.

[zinycor]

I think this is actually a good analogy for how Talakeal’s players feel about the game as a whole. It seems that monsters pull out random-seeming abilities frequently with no warning or foreshadowing or clue, and that the results of doing so are fairly frequently lethal. Whether it’s new abilities, legendary actions, or novel sets of immunities, these abilities seem to lead to player loss a large amount of the time, and based on what I’ve read, don’t seem to be communicated well. Not communicated well ends up, from the player POV to be “random feeling” and leads to caution.

Sounds about right.

[Kardwill]

Is this not normal?

I personally have (almost) never played under a DM in any system that didnt make heavy use of homebrew monsters and / or templates, and most modules I have read have atleast one unique monster with some sort of gimmick.

The thing is, your group really dislikes those gimmicks. And they might have a reason to : Puzzle monsters may be fun to figure out, but it's very difficult to make an informed choice about what is at stake (what is the risk, do we have any reason to go against that thing, how can we avoid it, etc...) if you're going against an unknown value.
And roleplaying is all about making informed choice.

So maybe run them against pretty known monsters for a time? An orc warlord and its goons are less funky than magical beasties, but it can be pretty satisfying if you "build up" his ingame reputation enough and have the players anticipate the fight.
And if they go against things they don't know, drop enough hints so that they have a pretty clear idea of the danger it poses and the kind of fight they're heading into, or what kind of "out" they have if the thing tears them apart.

Give them more information, even if you have to drop them OOC. Your players don't trust you enough for you to rely on the usual "trust me, it'll be awesome" social contract that most GMs use. Do not use "gotcha" monsters or events, unless you telegraphed them miles ahead.