|
13 months ago ::
May 27, 2012 - 3:19PM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Dec 31, 2006
|
I'm surprised people haven't told you to quit and find a new group to DM for.
Ha. The response I was expecting would be one where I'm told to thicken my skin; if the PCs are being jerks, so what? They're having fun. Lighten up, dude. But "fun" isn't the end-all be-all for me; masturbation is "fun" too, but I don't want to see you do it, and I definitely don't want to facilitate it.
As PCs they're not all that terrible. Certainly nothing compared to Abe's players. This is an isolated incident, but one that stuck with me nonetheless. Most people were against the knock uncionscious idea, and he probably suggested it only half-seriously. Various horror stories have given me the idea that most players are antisocial dorks, and anyone that's just mediocre is a godsend by comparison. Plus there's the strange effect where a bunch of people collectively act dumber than they would individually. Four heads are worse than one, apparently.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 27, 2012 - 4:09PM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
Don't run adventures in cities, with nice NPCs.
Why? Seems like a normal place for a few nice NPCs to be.
I'm saying don't give them nice PCs to push around. If that means getting them out of civilization, do that. If it's a module, have whatever the threat is accelerate its timetable and wipe out the city. Then they get to avenge it. That's popular these days.
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.
Yes, that's the impression I got from your post. I'm sure they can play nice, they just don't see any reason to, and I can't blame them. At the same time, sending the good-guy guard after them is NOT the way to motivate them to be good. It's a tried and false method.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 27, 2012 - 7:46PM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Dec 31, 2006
|
I'm sure they can play nice, they just don't see any reason to, and I can't blame them.
That's what I'm not getting. Wouldn't playing nice be a normal character's default setting? Why would they need justification for (what I consider) standard behavior?
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 27, 2012 - 7:56PM
#14
|
|
|
That's what I'm not getting. Wouldn't playing nice be a normal character's default setting?
No, it's not. And that's a very common mistake that DMs make. This is why Session Zero is so important. You'll all want to be on the same page with regard to what you're playing, the tone and style, the party's role in the campaign or adventure, and the adventurer's roles in that party - before you start playing anything.
Why would they need justification for (what I consider) standard behavior?
The problem is you didn't all agree on the same "standard" during Session Zero.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 27, 2012 - 10:30PM
#15
|
|
|
I'm sure they can play nice, they just don't see any reason to, and I can't blame them.
That's what I'm not getting. Wouldn't playing nice be a normal character's default setting? Why would they need justification for (what I consider) standard behavior?
Unfortunately, no. Some players inherently default to playing ****es.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 28, 2012 - 3:34AM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Apr 19, 2009
|
Aye, I believe people largely act like that because they can't act like that in real life. Ever had that boss you wanted to punch ones lights out? Now you can! Frustrated people general peoples like of backbone? Now you can push them around and punish them for their liency and be the badarse hero/villian you always wanted!
Sadly, for the group I play with, they let go of a lot of common sense too. They run from what they are meant to fight, do dickish things to other members of the party and so fourth, so at least it sounds like they are being relatively reasonable about it all. Just if it really bothers you, have a chat to them as suggested, just remember that people mightn't nessiarily want to play as paladins and upkeepers of justice but if this is a one off incident and they are acting generally (generally being the key word, meaning a lot of improvisation) good, then it's still fine. Just speak to them at the end of the session as a debreifing or light dusting down to let them know how they stand but give them room to approch the situation how they desire and give appropate reactions. Like if they roughed people up, give them reason to avoid them, perhaps report a unconfortable air but if they uncover something serious in the process of doing so, they might be hailed as heros anyways by the general public (though perhaps not those directly affected)
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 28, 2012 - 4:11PM
#17
|
|
|
There are a few different ways to handle this type of group, a few of which have been outlined above. It seems highly probable that your players aren't currently motivated by/engaged in the current storyline and you need to change things up. Here's what has worked well for me in the past:
Ditch the module, take all of their gear and throw them in a great big killer dungeon (in a way that is plausible and story-driven of course) where their primary motivation is saving their own hides. This isn't an exercise in DM revenge; it's removing them from an environment where they can do things that you find objectionable and giving them an incredibly simple hook (survive/escape) that the vast majority of players will engage with. Every second FPS uses something similar. Within this environment you can start to work on rehabilitating them (introducing the odd NPC or other source of roleplaying opportunities and seeing how they react). Or if they're having a blast just killing stuff and you are too, then carry on as is.
I'd suggest ditching alignment altogether as well. It's not useful as a tool to try and make your players play nice and it's just one more thing for them to rebel against.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 28, 2012 - 5:33PM
#18
|
Date Joined:
Jan 19, 2010
|
So the problem boils down to the Players wanting to play anti-heroes, and you just can't handle that? Honestly, if as a DM you can't help accomodate this very common playstyle... I don't know what to tell you. Talking with the Players sounds like a nice idea, but ultimately it's not going to change theirs or your preferred playstyle. Either they have to change how they play, and thus have less fun, or you have to change how you DM, and thus have less fun.
As well, D&D is all about fun. It's a game. And ultimately, in this, I feel you're taking it too seriously.
http://i1003.photobucket.com/albums/af156/Tom_Shambles92/DrSeuss.jpg
http://www.last.fm/user/Pogo92
Endorsed by the C.C.A.A. Booty Patrol.
"If all the classes can compete on equal footing in a combat situation then it becomes less about "Which is the best" and more about "Which conveys the character I want to play"." - Areleth
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 28, 2012 - 6:06PM
#19
|
Date Joined:
Dec 31, 2006
|
So the problem boils down to the Players wanting to play anti-heroes, and you just can't handle that? Honestly, if as a DM you can't help accomodate this very common playstyle... I don't know what to tell you. Talking with the Players sounds like a nice idea, but ultimately it's not going to change theirs or your preferred playstyle. Either they have to change how they play, and thus have less fun, or you have to change how you DM, and thus have less fun. As well, D&D is all about fun. It's a game. And ultimately, in this, I feel you're taking it too seriously.
It's more "won't" than "can't". It's not difficult to run games for sociopathic PCs; in my experience they are far easier to amuse. But in every case I question what the point would be. Seems it'd be much easier to load up Skyrim, turn the difficulty down, and punch out every civilian there is. The grahpics are superior, at any rate.
As to the "it's a game and games should be fun" thing, that won't cut ice. To paraphrase CS Lewis, there is a difference between making mud pies in a slum and a holiday at sea. To see examples of the former, check my link of Ab3's games.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 28, 2012 - 6:13PM
#20
|
Date Joined:
Aug 28, 2011
|
To be blunt, ToeShambles, i disagree with your post.
If nothing else, talking to them is worth a shot, even if it doesn't bring about the desired change in the end. For all we know, the players' actions aren't because of thier preferred playstyle but because they are bored, feel railroaded, or are experimenting to see what the DM is willing to put up with. It doesn't have to be thier playstyle.
And your post describes DMs like vending machines that are supposed to dispense whatever style the players want with no regard for how the DM feels about the game. I personally am willing to work with darker and less-herioc characters but cannot stand evil characters that blackmail everyone they see or try to mess with other party members. But there are plenty of evil only campaigns that work great and everyone still has fun (granted, those are far less common than ones that fall flat though). If this DM is only comfortable with good characters than that is what he DMs. As you said, D&D is about fun, and if the DM is not having fun than something has to change.
A compromise that is slightly less fun for both sides while still being fun is better than the players having fun while the DM is miserable.
To Mangoman72: I agree with what others have suggested. Speak with the party, find out what is what and where it can go, and if worse comes to worse, find a party that likes being good.
Hope this helps
He said to me: "It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To him who is thirsty I will give to drink without cost from the spring of the water of life. -Revelation 21:6
|
|
|
