|
13 months ago ::
May 27, 2012 - 11:33AM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Dec 31, 2006
|
The only games I'm comfortable running are heroically themed. At first I let PCs be LG, NG, or Unaligned, but I've decided to nix that last one because I find it leads to characters becoming degrees of sociopathic, and not really fit in with the tone I'm going for. Any moral tone below good-aligned doesn't sit well with me.
To that end I find the PCs' antics to be grating at times. In a module they found the hideout of an evil weapons dealer is connected with a quaint, Pelor-loving inn. They then proceeded to disrupt the owners and volunteers in the inn, one even suggesting they knock several of them out so they could begin searching for the villain undisturbed.
That might seem petty but it's an example of a general attitude where characters seem to be played for poops and giggles with no regard for the NPCs they invariably inconvenience, and thus I don't find the PCs all that likeable. I imagine it'd be hard to read a novel in which you didn't like any of the "heroes"; in the same way it's hard for me to run a game where the protagonists are jerks. It might be fun to watch a show where the cast are stupid, yet strangely competent losers like Sealab 2021 or Archer, but to run a game for 'em? Not so much.
One solution I'm wary of is the punitive; i.e. in-game, passive-aggressive consequences. Even if they're realistic. If the guards keep coming to toss the PCs out of whatever establishment they're bothering, all it will really do is sidetrack the campaign from the main objective. Some suggested despair cards, or penalties put on the PCs when they displease you. Unless that's the only answer ya got, I'd prefer not to go down that road.
The players aren't the problem; all of them are nice, hygenic, etc. But personally their characters evoke contempt that leaves a bad taste in my mouth by session's end. What do you recommend?
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 27, 2012 - 11:57AM
#2
|
|
|
Talk to them, then listen to them.
Tell them your expectations, what kind of game you want to run, the tone you want (comedic vs serious), so on and so forth. Make your distaste for jerkass protagonists (I share this, by the by) clear.
Then ask them what they expect from a game, what kind of game they want you to run, the tone they want, and so forth.
Try to find a compromise that makes you all happy.
If this turns out to be impossible, part ways.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 27, 2012 - 1:01PM
#3
|
|
|
Salla's advice is spot on.
Some additional tips for after that conversation:
- Players who help create the world and the people in it are much more reluctant to wreck it in uninteresting ways.
- Players whose characters act like sociopaths during play are telling you they lack goal focus, ties to the other PCs, and a connection to the world.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 27, 2012 - 1:22PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Mar 10, 2011
|
+1 to everything Salla and Iserith said, especially on having a good talk out of game about what you all want from the game, setting expectations for behavior, game style, and table etiquette, and on giving the players a creative voice and investment in your shared game world.
The only thing I would add that the few times I've ever seen what I think of as "vandalism of the game world" occur, it was because the players were expressing some frustration at having no control or voice in the world in any positive way, and the only other way they could think of to contribute anything was through being destructive... a sort of indirect way of rebelling against the DM. It came up as a reaction to railroading, and to a DM who had a very specific vision for how his game world and story would go, and had very little room for PC interference in it.
If this fits your situation, it's even more reason to stop the game and start communicating with the players, maybe try a reboot of the game if the campaign is new enough.
Also, if you've been playing a while and it seems like the players are cutting up because things are getting stale, it might be a good time to stop things, and start a fresh campaign, try out a different setting or game, run a couple one-shot adventures with new characters, or give a new DM a try, just for a change of pace.
Edit to add: It occurs to me, too, that sometimes experienced players who do this, may have come from a dysfunctional group where they learned bad habits from a DM From Hell - who might have learned bad habits from one or more Players From Hell (and perhaps those Players From Hell were the very players you are dealing with now! It seems that sort of thing feeds back on itself, with each side getting more and more entrenched in a dysfunctional play style, sucking even otherwise cooperative players and DMs into behaving in ways they would otherwise never dream of.)
New DM Tips
Show
- Trying to solve out-of-game problems (like cheating, bad attitudes, or poor sportsmanship) with in-game solutions will almost always result in failure, and will probably make matters worse.
- Gun Safety Rule #5: Never point the gun at anything you don't intend to destroy. (Never introduce a character, PC, NPC, Villain, or fate of the world into even the possibility of a deadly combat or other dangerous situation, unless you are prepared to destroy it instantly and completely forever.)
- Know your group's character sheets, and check them over carefully. You don't want surprises, but, more importantly, they are a gold mine of ideas!
- "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." It's a problem if the players aren't having fun and it interferes with a DM's ability to run the game effectively; if it's not a problem, 'fixing' at best does little to help, and at worst causes problems that didn't exist before.
- "Hulk Smash" characters are a bad match for open-ended exploration in crowds of civilians; get them out of civilization where they can break things and kill monsters in peace.
- Success is not necessarily the same thing as killing an opponent. Failure is not necessarily the same thing as dying.
- Failure is always an option. And it's a fine option, too, as long as failure is interesting, entertaining, and fun!
"Broken or not, unbalanced or not, if something seems to be preventing the game from being enjoyable, something has to give: either that thing, or other aspects of the game, or your idea of what's enjoyable." - Centauri
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 27, 2012 - 1:41PM
#5
|
|
|
Did you have them write a background on their characters? Where they to your liking? Have you used any materials from their background as plothooks/NPCs/trouble? Why are they adventuring? When you know this you know how to lure them to the point you want them at.
Also, a lot of leeway usually means a lot of problems. How much do you plan ahead? Maybe if you make things clearer for the PCs regarding where to go, you will have less problems with their play. Example: if you don't want them beating up the patrons in the inn, give them a clear bad guy to go after. He pushes the women around or is overly noisy and agressive. That way, they get to beat someone up and you get the satisfaction of them going after the bad guys.
Remember, when you're on the other side it is often not so easy to make distinctions about good and bad guys. If you tell them 'the bartender has an eyepatch' purely for scenery and they link it to a bit of info they found earlier about the bad guy it may not be entirely their fault when they go after the man. Doesn't mean there won't be repercussions of course. Also, repercussions work better when you know what makes them tick, hence my earlier question about why they are adventuring.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 27, 2012 - 1:42PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Jul 14, 2008
|
Also, if they want to be Batman, let them be the Dark Knight. Let me explain.
Batman is a jerk, no question about it. He's an entitled, rich, powerful guy who thinks he knows what is good for the rest of us and is thus allowed to enforce his sense of justice on the world and ignore the laws of the society he seeks to protect. He uses violence and intimidation to get what he wants, and lacks manners (seriously, would you be friends with someone who ran away mid-conversation every time you looked away?). But he's still a good guy, and might even be Good aligned. Possibly even Lawful Good.
If the players want to be that, first make the NPCs real. Make the NPCs have meaning to the players so when they act like jerks there is some emotional response. Second, treat their PCs like GCPD treats the Dark Knight: like a hero they might not want to punish, but have to because he breaks the law.
One-half of the tabletop gaming news podcast Going LastCo-author on AoA 2-3 and 4-1.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 27, 2012 - 2:18PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
Don't run adventures in cities, with nice NPCs. Run them in the wilderness where the PCs, even as bad as they are, are the nicest most innocent people out there. They can meet with traders and there are some towns, so the PCs can resupply, but no one trusts them, everyone has bodyguards, most creatures' aggressions are held in check by a desire not to draw attention to themselves. The PCs should follow suit.
But, yeah, also talk to them and also have them help form the world and their goals in it.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 27, 2012 - 2:34PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
May 19, 2011
|
I'm surprised people haven't told you to quit and find a new group to DM for.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 27, 2012 - 2:35PM
#9
|
|
|
I'm surprised people haven't told you to quit and find a new group to DM for.
That is an option, yes, but it shouldn't be the first one taken. At least an attempt at communication should be made.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 27, 2012 - 3:03PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Dec 31, 2006
|
I should've mentioned it's a module, which they all agreed to play before it began, so it'd be strange if they resented railroading or their inability to bring their personal backgrounds and such into it, since railroading is what modules essentially do. When you know this you know how to lure them to the point you want them at.
Wouldn't manipulating the PCs, successfully or no, just make you resent them more? It sounds like the kind of tactic one would take with a child. Left to their own desires they are base and misbehaved, so they need be tricked into what you want. Even if that worked, wouldn't you still have the same problem where, on a fundamental level, you don't like who the PCs are?
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />
Make the NPCs have meaning to the players so when they act like jerks there is some emotional response
I agree that NPCs with personal relations to the PCs is a plus, but do you think it's necessary? Normal people don't treat strangers like dirt (unless they were significantly higher level, then they might. Certainly wouldn't want to play with those people). Eventually there'd have to be some NPC that's new to 'em.
Remember, when you're on the other side it is often not so easy to make distinctions about good and bad guys.
Sure, but isn't that kinda the point in urban encounters? Usual dungeon-delving behavior won't cut it in civilized society. Bad guys won't always be crazy cultists and other neon signs reading: "Insert sword here". I wouldn't think the motto "look before you leap" in regards to lethality and justice would be that hard a concept.
Don't run adventures in cities, with nice NPCs.
Why? Seems like a normal place for a few nice NPCs to be.
Maybe I'm unfair in presenting my PCs, but the impression I'm getting from the last three posts is that they're very simple people who can't operate well in D&D when there are others with whom they ought to play nice.
|
|
|
