PDA

View Full Version : Handling Chaotic Stupid PCs



LrdoftheRngs
2011-06-11, 07:32 PM
I've seen a thread like this before on handling a CS character as a PC, but this time it's from the point of view of the DM. Now, my problem is a bit complicated, as it is not only one character that is Chaotic Stupid, but 3 out of 4 party members. An example of Chaotic Stupid action (to understand why this is stupid, the party is, in theory, good):
For Various reasons, a PC was on trial for stealing from the town shop. Everything was going swimmingly for the PCs until the cleric (who was testifying) botched a will save against a Zone of Truth. When asked a question by the prosecutor, he attempted to cast suggestion on the jury instead of answering the question. However, when asked if he was making any effort to hide his casting it, he replied "no" and went ahead with it. Naturally, when the Guards saw a cleric casting a spell on the jurors, they attacked. One poisoned crossbow bolt, a failed fortitude save, and immobilization later, the cleric was going to be tried too. Here comes the really CS thing: The Sorcerer casts fireball in a room with about 50 civilians, killing all of them and 7 of the town guards, not to mention halving the hp of all party members.
This was so campaign-breaking that everyone asked if we could rewind to before the trial. We eventually did, but I have a feeling that these actions will happen again. A completely unrelated problem: 3 out of four PCs (the CS ones) have a genocidal hatred towards at least one race (Kobolds, goblins, and elves). What should I do about that (short of having them not run into any of these races)?

Solaris
2011-06-11, 07:44 PM
Talk to them about the problem?

BluesEclipse
2011-06-11, 07:45 PM
I'd play it out. They won't learn if their actions don't have consequences, after all.

Shpadoinkle
2011-06-11, 08:05 PM
This was so campaign-breaking that everyone asked if we could rewind to before the trial. We eventually did, but I have a feeling that these actions will happen again.

Of course they'll happen again, your players think they can do stupid **** and there won't be any negative consequences.

Re-rewind back to where the party just murdered a room full of innocent people, have the entire city guard on alert and looking to kill them. If it ends up as a TPK, well... your players brought it on themselves by being stupid.

You know, there's a reason the world isn't full of mass-murdering lunatics. That reason is that everybody wants them dead.

Archwizard
2011-06-11, 08:20 PM
Of course they'll happen again, your players think they can do stupid **** and there won't be any negative consequences.

Re-rewind back to where the party just murdered a room full of innocent people, have the entire city guard on alert and looking to kill them. If it ends up as a TPK, well... your players brought it on themselves by being stupid.

You know, there's a reason the world isn't full of mass-murdering lunatics. That reason is that everybody wants them dead.

I have to agree with this.

Sillycomic
2011-06-11, 08:27 PM
I think there are two obvious solutions to this problem.

1. Create a different world where there's not a plot and the Pc's can just go around being Chaotic stupid and getting themselves into trouble.

2. Talk with them about not having CS characters in your campaign.

The first one is pretty simple. 3 out of 4 of your players think that being chaotic stupid is fun in a game. As a GM, you can always cater your game to what they want in order for everyone to have fun.

You can have fun with this as well, personally as a GM I would enjoy creating armies of clerics, paladins and even outsider archons to go and hunt down idiots who decide to do stupid stuff in the world and think there are no consequences.

But, that's just me.

The second option involves you sitting down with your players and asking what they want out of a game... as well as what you want from it as well. You can tell them that you are creating a fun world with a pretty straight forward campaign and you just don't want to deal with PC's who shoot fireballs that kill dozens of innocent people. In your campaign, the PC's are the ones that are supposed to stop those kind of people, not BE those kind of people.

And then, ask them what they want out of a role playing experience. Maybe they just want more freedom with their characters or the chance to have the world revolve around their actions more.

Then as a GM, you can decide if you want to incorporate that into your world or if it's too hard. If so, good, if not well perhaps you should part ways. There's no need for players to be bored at a game any more than a GM who doesn't like creating a world just for the PC's to destroy.

dsmiles
2011-06-11, 09:11 PM
I think there are two obvious solutions to this problem.

1. Create a different world where there's not a plot and the Pc's can just go around being Chaotic stupid and getting themselves into trouble.

2. Talk with them about not having CS characters in your campaign.

The first one is pretty simple. 3 out of 4 of your players think that being chaotic stupid is fun in a game. As a GM, you can always cater your game to what they want in order for everyone to have fun.

You can have fun with this as well, personally as a GM I would enjoy creating armies of clerics, paladins and even outsider archons to go and hunt down idiots who decide to do stupid stuff in the world and think there are no consequences.

But, that's just me.

The second option involves you sitting down with your players and asking what they want out of a game... as well as what you want from it as well. You can tell them that you are creating a fun world with a pretty straight forward campaign and you just don't want to deal with PC's who shoot fireballs that kill dozens of innocent people. In your campaign, the PC's are the ones that are supposed to stop those kind of people, not BE those kind of people.

And then, ask them what they want out of a role playing experience. Maybe they just want more freedom with their characters or the chance to have the world revolve around their actions more.

Then as a GM, you can decide if you want to incorporate that into your world or if it's too hard. If so, good, if not well perhaps you should part ways. There's no need for players to be bored at a game any more than a GM who doesn't like creating a world just for the PC's to destroy.The first option isn't always viable. The DM is supposed to be having fun too. If it's not fun for him/her, it's a bad choice.

Sillycomic
2011-06-11, 09:23 PM
You had to quote all of that to give your opinion?

Ok then.

Well, that's why I offered a second option.

The first option is only there if that suits you... and the players as well. Some people love that kind of a game. I personally would enjoy it every once in a while. Sometimes it's fun to rattle the lion's cage and see what happens.

Aidan305
2011-06-11, 09:26 PM
Let it go on. Change the way you were planning for the campaign to run. Bring in consequences for their actions and wait for them to kill each other.

I'd go in to more detail, but it's early and I'm tired.

Mastikator
2011-06-11, 09:29 PM
In a desperate attempt to save the town from mighty evil doers, the major (or whatever) of the town makes a pact with an extra planar being to kill them.

It would look better if said extra planar being is an angel sent to open a can of righteous justice on the players. Especially if the angel is totally CR inappropriate, like a Solar or something.

dsmiles
2011-06-11, 09:40 PM
In a desperate attempt to save the town from mighty evil doers, the major (or whatever) of the town makes a pact with an extra planar being to kill them.

It would look better if said extra planar being is an angel sent to open a can of righteous justice on the players. Especially if the angel is totally CR inappropriate, like a Solar or something.
Rocks fall?

Mastikator
2011-06-11, 10:45 PM
It's an appropriate response.

Jay R
2011-06-12, 07:57 AM
There's an in-game problem, which is a symptom of a player problem.

I don't know the current version. 2E had a rule for forced alignment changes. The instant the Sorceror threw a fireball at innocents, those penalties should be applied, because the character is now Evil. When the Cleric tried jury-tampering, he became (at least) non-Good and non-Lawful.

Alignment actually exists. Somebody with an alignment of good can't fireball the room for the same reason that a mage can't use a sword, and somebody with a mace can't use it to slice bread.

So the in-game solution is for their actions to affect their alignment.

The real problem is that they don't understand that they are running characters that are simulations of people in an actual world with conditions and people and society that will affect them. You need to talk to them about the meaning of role-playing, because it might be impossible for you to run a game for them. (I wouldn't be able to.)

The crucial fact is that they are trying to play a different game than you are. Pick a game that you are all willing to play.

Shpadoinkle
2011-06-18, 07:27 AM
So, LrdoftheRngs, what did you do and how did it turn out?

137beth
2011-06-18, 07:32 AM
As a compromise, you could rewind, but warn them that the next time they kill 50 civilians, you won't be so forgiving. Either they'll stop being CS, or they will all die eventually.

dsmiles
2011-06-18, 07:54 AM
As a compromise, you could rewind, but warn them that the next time they kill 50 civilians, you won't be so forgiving. Either they'll stop being CS, or they will all die immediately.
There...that's better.

Traab
2011-06-18, 08:13 AM
The first option you can try is explaining to them that chaotic doesnt mean stupid. A chaotic person isnt going to shoot himself in the face at random just because. What those players did was the campaign equivalent of shooting themselves in the face.

The other option is to get very good at ad libbing and play a heavy sandbox campaign that lets them wander around, doing whatever silly thing pops in their heads, then roll with it. If you think about it, that could actually be fun for you too. Dont concentrate too much on a storyline, concentrate on ways to make them continue going despite whatever moronic thing they do this time. For example, they wiped out the courthouse and everyone in it but themselves right? When a rescue party shows up, your players are the only ones there to say what happened. Let them sweet talk their way out of another fight and make their escape.

LrdoftheRngs
2011-06-18, 11:32 AM
Thanks for all the advice! I haven't been able to answer anything because of random irl nonsense, but it did turn out ok. I sat them down and had a serious talk with them that Chaotic doesn't mean going around and breaking the law at every turn, but that it means just not caring about the law. I also established that the next time they do something like that, they will all die from the simultaneous firing of every crossbow the town guard has. I also told them that the fireball spell (and magic in general) is a privilege, not a right, and one that can be taken away if they abuse it too much.

cattoy
2011-06-18, 06:55 PM
I think nearly all of our problems are solved by never having them.

We tend to pre-screen potential players by gaming with them at local conventions. Most problem players are going to show symptoms that can be detected in a standard gaming session or two.

bloodtide
2011-06-20, 03:07 PM
You have fallen into the common low level game trap. Character's are very powerful and can cause a lot of trouble.

1.Putting the character on trial. I guess that sounded like a good idea. But think about it...the character is a heroic adventurer, not just a 'normal citizen'. And is it really fun for an adventurer to sit and role-play a trial? For a massive fighter or full of spells mage to sit back and discuss the finer points of city law? You could just play a lawyer RPG if you wanted to do a courtroom drama.

Not that the character should get away with the crime, of course, but this is where the more 'adventurous' plot comes in. Have the character do some type of trial by combat, or solve a puzzle. The city might even just 'geas' the character to do a quest....''and if you do the quest, your innocent''.

2.The character could cast spells. Look at this from a 21st century point of view. Do they allow people armed with guns or knives, or mood altering drugs into a court room? Could someone walk in with a tank of 'laughing gas' and spray the jury? Then why would a fantasy court?

It's easy to do mundane magic blocks. Tying the persons hands, removing their holy symbol, removing their components and so forth. And if can always go the full magic route of the courtroom is in an anti-magic field(or the jury is or the witness box, or such).

And you can even make it fun and adventurous: "The High Hall of Justice is covered in a special ward. Should you cast a spell inside it, it will summon a demon to attack you. It's an old ward from the days of the Demon Kingdom, and we can't control it...but we do use it."



In a general sense ultra-high magic is great to get Chaotic Stupid player characters to behave. If they try to steal something, it's automatically teleported back onto the shelf. Or animates and attacks them. Or the displayed items in the shop are all illusions. Or the displayed items are fakes. And so on and so on.

TurtleKing
2011-06-20, 10:56 PM
I just thought of a good one is to put an Exposive Rune type trap on the item. When you buy the item the shopkeeper casts some spell or performs a certain ritual to remove/disable the trap. If the merchandise leaves the shop with the trap still on then it triggers setting it off.

SleepyShadow
2011-06-20, 11:45 PM
A big stick and a sound wallop can also fix the problem :smallbiggrin:

LrdoftheRngs
2011-06-21, 08:12 PM
Well, the PCs did it again, but in a less chaotic and more stupid way. They were in a chariot race over an ice bridge, and the Sorcerer, with much urging from the party, thought it would be a good idea to fireball the ice bridge. In his temporary fit of insanity, he aimed the fireball too close, and it melted the part of the bridge bridge that they were on. They all went plummeting to their deaths 300 feet below them. From their responses, it seems like me finally giving them consequences for stupid actions kind of snapped them into reality (As many were saying, I should have done that much earlier), and they have become better at roleplaying because of it. This was their first ever D&D game of any edition, so it was kind of expected that they would get themselves killed eventually. Once again, thanks for all of your advice.

Pisha
2011-06-21, 10:21 PM
1.Putting the character on trial. I guess that sounded like a good idea. But think about it...the character is a heroic adventurer, not just a 'normal citizen'. And is it really fun for an adventurer to sit and role-play a trial? For a massive fighter or full of spells mage to sit back and discuss the finer points of city law? You could just play a lawyer RPG if you wanted to do a courtroom drama.


Um. *Raises hand* Me? I would like this. I mean, I love adventure and high fantasy and sword-and-sorcery and all that, but given the chance for a random courtroom drama, I'm on it like a kitten on catnip.

Just sayin'.




You know, there's a reason the world isn't full of mass-murdering lunatics. That reason is that everybody wants them dead.


Yeah, pretty much. I had to explain to another player once in an online Vampire game that, while I had no problem with his character being evil, if he continued attacking and violently murdering random passersby in public, my character was going to do his level best to hunt him down and kill him. Not to tell him how to play his character, just... so he wouldn't be surprised when Action A led to Consequence B. He looked at my stats, looked at his stats, grinned, and had his character go on a murder rampage. A week later, the character was dead. *shrugs* Actions have consequences.

Notreallyhere77
2011-06-22, 12:33 PM
Well, the PCs did it again, but in a less chaotic and more stupid way. They were in a chariot race over an ice bridge, and the Sorcerer, with much urging from the party, thought it would be a good idea to fireball the ice bridge. In his temporary fit of insanity, he aimed the fireball too close, and it melted the part of the bridge bridge that they were on. They all went plummeting to their deaths 300 feet below them. From their responses, it seems like me finally giving them consequences for stupid actions kind of snapped them into reality (As many were saying, I should have done that much earlier), and they have become better at roleplaying because of it. This was their first ever D&D game of any edition, so it was kind of expected that they would get themselves killed eventually. Once again, thanks for all of your advice.

Well, you did the right thing, and, frankly, I'm glad they all took it so well. It's sad, but sometimes you just have to let things run their course, and drop the Hammer of Verisimilitude.

Quietus
2011-06-23, 11:38 AM
Um. *Raises hand* Me? I would like this. I mean, I love adventure and high fantasy and sword-and-sorcery and all that, but given the chance for a random courtroom drama, I'm on it like a kitten on catnip.

Just sayin'.

I'm with you on this one. As a player, I love seeing actual consequences to the actions of myself and my party, something to go "If you're going to act like violent wandering hobos, we're going to treat you as such". As a DM, really, I just like to put things into my games that aren't "Go to this place, clear the baddies, loot everything". If they're being crazy and murderous, a trial would be very neat. If not, I have things like peer-pressure level politics (You're working for this group, but they don't like that group, and they have to act in a certain way to stay on good terms with this other group..) to keep things interesting.

Muz
2011-06-23, 03:44 PM
Well, the PCs did it again, but in a less chaotic and more stupid way. They were in a chariot race over an ice bridge, and the Sorcerer, with much urging from the party, thought it would be a good idea to fireball the ice bridge. In his temporary fit of insanity, he aimed the fireball too close, and it melted the part of the bridge bridge that they were on. They all went plummeting to their deaths 300 feet below them.

Out of curiosity, how did the sorcerer manage to aim the fireball too close? (Or, rather, how did he manage to do so and not realize he was about to blast away the part of the bridge they were on?) I like when this sort of thing happens, but it never (sadly) seems to happen in my games because everyone is always so darned meticulous and careful.