mastering advice - party too reckless and cocky

[IlPazzo]

Hi guys
I don't have much experience as a DM and I'm having trouble with my current group
Basically, they have the tendency to attack enemies face-to-face even when they have the chance to observe them first. It's like they expect encounters to be balanced.
The thing is, they didn't use to play like this, so it's not a long time bad habit, they just picked it up.
This happened in the last two sessions.

Two sessions ago, they attacked and NPC that they knew was much too strong for them, but that made sense because they were mad angry at him and attempted an assassination plan - I had the NPC set them away with summons and walls, believing the summons would be enough to kill the attackers (so they could run away). That was not a problem.

Last session is when the real trouble happened. They had the chance to infiltrate a fortress-dungeon and spy on the enemy. As soon as they spotted an enemy, they faced him without a plan. This ruined the session completely, it was such a stupid plan that I was taken by surprise and ended up having the enemy flee for no apparent reason. The party then proceded exploring the dungeon like it was supposed to be easy. Had I sticked to what the dungeon was supposed to be, TPK would have happened.

It was definitely my mistake not to punish them, and I regret it. However, I come searching for advice.
The obvious punishment for this kind of behaviour is not nerfing the enemy and just let one or two of them die. But is there any other thing I can do in this kind of situations?

The party is a three-men composed of a glass cannon, a tank and an archer, all level 7 and not very optimized.
Rigth now they joined the army and are therefore expecting a quest pretty much on the line of "do this thing you have no backstory of", so I can have them face pretty much any kind of situation. Do you think a mission where they are commanded not to get spotted is enough, or should they meet a much stronger enemy once again?

[ketaro]

Teach them what it means to fear.

[Agita]

Before you start thinking about how to correct this, or any other, player behavior, I recommend you identify what exactly is the problem, and where it stems from.

Let's look at the second instance first, because the cause and effect here is pretty easy to see in isolation. After you were taken by surprise and had that enemy flee, the party ransacked the fortress like a dungeon, "like it was supposed to be easy". Naturally, because you made it easy, instead of murderous as you had planned. From the players' perspective, this is perfectly logical. They took action and met little or no resistance, so of course they continued onwards.

The weird break happens in them attacking the enemy thoughtlessly in the first place, as you tell it. You say you had no plan for them doing that, which tells me you expected it to be self-evident that this was a bad idea. Clearly, the players did not consider it self-evident, so there's a disconnect here.

You say they've only picked up the habit of attacking recklessly in the past two sessions or so. That indicates the trigger was this assassination attempt on the NPC, who responded with summons rather than fighting personally. This sounds to me like you made a relatively balanced encounter out of the theoretically out of depth NPC, unless the summons were themselves out of depth and they indeed responded by running away. In the former case, on the face of it, this is where you created a precedent. After acting cautiously most of the time, they learned that you, the GM, are still willing to present them with balanced challenges in dangerous situations. The encounter in the fortress would then have deepend that impression.

I have a few questions about the situation. Some of these may sound like rethoric questions I'm using to make a point, but I am interested in the answers. They're supposed to help us try and understand what the players are thinking, so that we can figure out where the disconnect probably lies and then what to do about it.
Was the encounter with the walls and summons balanced, or relatively so, as a combat encounter for the PCs to fight while the NPC got away?
If so, did the players seem to enjoy that encounter?
If not, did they seem frustrated about the NPC getting away, or about anything else?
In what ways did you communicate to the players that attracting attention in the enemy fortress was suicidal? Did you assume it was self-evident? In general, how do you communicate when an enemy is too much for the party to handle?
Regardless of the fortress as a whole, did you communicate the same in the specific instance of the players attacking an enemy, or ask if they were sure?
Is it possible the players figured they could subdue this particular enemy without raising a general alarm?
Have the players ever been in a similar situation before, and did they act differently?
Did you have a plan for what would happen if the players were spotted, if they behaved as you expected?
If so, why did you not apply it to the situation where they attacked someone in the fortress?
If not, why not?
How common is it for the players to face relatively balanced combat encounters versus situations where they have to avoid combat or flee?
How do you handle avoiding combat or fleeing, mechanically? Do you make an effort to make these situations into "encounters" in their own right?
How long have you been running sessions for this group?
Is this the group's usual playstyle, or a departure from the norm?
Before starting the game, did you talk to the players about the tone of the game, what behavior would be expected, and how you would handle dangerous situations and character death?
Is it possible that the players are communicating they would like to face more combat encounters they don't have to flee or avoid?

[IlPazzo]

First of, thank you very much for taking time in giving such extended help.

Was the encounter with the walls and summons balanced, or relatively so, as a combat encounter for the PCs to fight while the NPC got away?
If so, did the players seem to enjoy that encounter?
If not, did they seem frustrated about the NPC getting away, or about anything else?

It was not balanced at all, but they were in a favourable situation in terms of being able to flee. And they did enjoy the encounter, so much that what was supposed to be a side story is now gonna be a major part of the campaign.
(also, the NPC did not get away, It prevented the party from reaching him)

In what ways did you communicate to the players that attracting attention in the enemy fortress was suicidal? Did you assume it was self-evident? In general, how do you communicate when an enemy is too much for the party to handle?
Regardless of the fortress as a whole, did you communicate the same in the specific instance of the players attacking an enemy, or ask if they were sure?

This particular time, I did not communicate it in any way. But they had an extremely evident chance to study their enemy, something they used to do. I did expect them to take it.
In general, I tend to communicate this sort of things with either abundancy of enemies or by having them gather information about what the enemy is capable of well before facing him.

I'm gonna number the following ones for they are many.

1-Is it possible the players figured they could subdue this particular enemy without raising a general alarm?
2-Have the players ever been in a similar situation before, and did they act differently?
3-Did you have a plan for what would happen if the players were spotted, if they behaved as you expected?
4-If so, why did you not apply it to the situation where they attacked someone in the fortress?
5-If not, why not?

1-I wouldn't say so, but it's not impossible. Particularly, the glass cannon may think he can oneshot people.
2-Kind of, and yes. Two times in similar situations, but more in the open intead of inside a building, they holded their action until they were sure about the enemy numbers and apparent abilities
3-Yes, they could hide in many places or be captured and then get some form of help.
4 and 5- As I said, I take fault in not sticking with what I had planned. I kind of derped out, it was bad DMing. I am making sure that will not happen again, but that's on me. The point of this thread is "how do I let them know that behaviour is stupid", mostly.

6-How common is it for the players to face relatively balanced combat encounters versus situations where they have to avoid combat or flee?
7-How do you handle avoiding combat or fleeing, mechanically? Do you make an effort to make these situations into "encounters" in their own right?
8-How long have you been running sessions for this group?
9-Is this the group's usual playstyle, or a departure from the norm?
10-Before starting the game, did you talk to the players about the tone of the game, what behavior would be expected, and how you would handle dangerous situations and character death?
11-Is it possible that the players are communicating they would like to face more combat encounters they don't have to flee or avoid?

6-most fights are balanced. Occasionally, a fight might be too easy or too hard.
7-when they face someone too strong I always try to have a way out. Maybe they are in narrow corridors and one of them has some form of BFC, maybe the opponent is more interested in doing something else immediately, maybe they happen to be with a convient "red shirt" NPC and it gets caught before them, basically giving them an extra round to react.
8-only a couple of months, but I've been a player in the same group for over a year.
9-in the previous campaign, it was usually me, or another player now off the group, who prevented doing anything without a plan. With the common formation, it's mostly the previous DM who leads the group. His playstyle doesn't seem very consistent, but in sessions with more roleplaying involved everthing went well.
10-no. Do you think it's a good idea to be explicit about this?
11-I don't think so, there have been many balanced fights.





Also,

Teach them what it means to fear.

Yeah, pretty much.

[Agita]

From your answers, it sounds like you're basically doing fine. I'll confess I have a certain kneejerk assumption about situations like these, which you may have read between the lines of my questions. That doesn't seem to apply here. Getting caught off guard and getting your wires crossed is okay. It happens. It probably won't be the last time.

I don't think it's necessary to take drastic action quite yet. If the trend has only gone on for two sessions, and the first of those was a situation where they knew they were going in over their heads and explicitly chose to do so anyway for personal reasons (that's fine. That's great. It's roleplaying), then it's barely a trend yet. What you might want to do is make clear that this situation isn't a precedent and acting recklessly is usually a bad idea.

How I would go about that is starting a little softer. Just bring it up, verbally, in the game. For example, maybe the characters hear rumors of their exploits in that enemy fortress and about how much of a screw-up on the defenders' side it is considered. They learn that it is absolutely not standard, and that ordinarily one should expect much stronger defenses. Maybe whoever you decide was responsible for it got dishonorably discharged, punished, reassigned etc., you might even work that into the plot somehow. Maybe this quest you have an excuse to send the characters on is a mission to do something at a similar fortress (probably not exactly alike - that would be a little lazy, and suspicious), since the characters have clearly already done fine once, and they have an opportunity to see how it's supposed to work.

So long as you do something like that, making sure that this isolated incident doesn't teach them it's safe to be reckless, I think you should be fine just carrying on as you have until now. Don't let up, but don't go out of your way to put on the pressure just to teach them a lesson. That rarely ends well.

If you feel adventurous, you could try taking this somewhere and thinking about weaknesses in enemy defenses or situations where it might be advantageous to act boldly (if not stupidly). Assume there's an in-world reason the defenders reacted like they did, and figure it out. If the players can learn or guess where enemy defenses are weak, subject to a quick smash and grab, or can be bluffed, and manage to get away with it in the face of superior force, I predict they'll feel great about it. Like they cheated. And if you planned for it, even just as a side note in your preparations, it doesn't break your game.

The fundamental element behind all of this, I think, is the logical consistency of your game. You justifiably want to preserve logical consistency by noting that superior enemies remain superior enemies, and that attacking without a plan is the kind of thing that gets combatants killed. That logical consistency has been damaged, but I don't think it's broken yet. If you can take the reins and make it so that the inconsistency retroactively wasn't inconsistent after all, you can salvage the situation and even make it work for you.

(What if all of this fancy rubbish doesn't work after all? In that case, my honest opinion would be it's probably time to communicate out of character about how you made a mistake, and make sure everyone is on the same page about what the game is like and should be like. I shy away from trying to solve what is probably a meta-game problem within the game.)

This last thing is somewhat tangential to the rest of the topic, and more general:

10-no. Do you think it's a good idea to be explicit about this?

Yes. Absolutely. This also applies to any sort of in-game information management for adventures. Subtlety is the enemy of understanding. If there's something you need the players to understand, be explicit about it. This (probably?) isn't the case here, which is why I'm putting this apart from the rest of the post, but it sucks to find out several sessions in that you and the players fundamentally disagree on, say, how important a plausible degree of caution is, and more importantly should be. This is, incidentally, my first assumption in cases like this.
Inside the game, for all I know you already do this so this is essentially unsolicited advice, but if there's information you need the players to know, don't be subtle. Club them over the head with it if you have to. Don't leave it to chance. Even if something is obvious to you, that doesn't necessarily mean it's obvious to the players. It's perfectly okay to decide a given piece of information is optional and the PCs can miss it, but if them not knowing would break the adventure, they have to know. If you have a murder mystery planned, then the players need to know there's a body, where they can start looking, and why they should should care who done it. Just putting a grieving widow in a scene runs the risk of the players not thinking to ask her what's wrong. In terms of letting the players know when they're in over their heads, or giving them the opportunity to know, it sounds like you already practice this, so that's fine.

[nijineko]

One one paw, the player has the right to choose what their character does... including die a stupid pointless death. It is not the DM's job to take away that choice, even if they go out in a blaze of idiocy.

On the other paw, the players may need to be negotiated with out of character. if they WANT to play hack'n'slash'n'mont-haul, and you don't, you have some discussion to do.

Talk first (OOC) get everyone's expectations on the table. Let them know that you want to play smart villains and cunning adversaries - walk in unprepared and next time you want to drop the boom. Find out what they want, and then work out something that will keep everyone happy some of the time.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

Course you could grind them up, with a steadily increasing CR, until they're out of all juice.
BBEG then knocks them out, throws them in the dungeon, guarded by an Int 6 jailer.
Repeat loop with Int 8 jailer.
Work release "program", etc.
Repeat with Int +2.

Sooner or later they'll negotiate, discovering the Cha part of their character sheet.
Town has a damping field on Divine spells, no violence, only LE trickery.

[nijineko]

Course you could grind them up, with a steadily increasing CR, until they're out of all juice.
BBEG then knocks them out, throws them in the dungeon, guarded by an Int 6 jailer.
Repeat loop with Int 8 jailer.
Work release "program", etc.
Repeat with Int +2.

Sooner or later they'll negotiate, discovering the Cha part of their character sheet.
Town has a damping field on Divine spells, no violence, only LE trickery.

"An intelligent guard... didn't see that one coming."  --Preed