PDA

View Full Version : How to motivate PCs to be "lawful"?



Talakeal
2012-07-01, 04:14 PM
This thread has gone was off topic and into personal territory I am not comfortable discussion on an RPG forum. Requesting a lock.

Gavinfoxx
2012-07-01, 04:40 PM
It sounds like they don't want realistic governments; the only government to follow would be a supernaturally competent fairy tale utopia.

Craft (Cheese)
2012-07-01, 04:45 PM
In and out of character they consider the Imperium to be tyrants and *#$@s and are only working for them because the GM said so.

This part right here sounds like the core of your problem: Give them a motivation they can actually get behind.


Other than that, I don't really see the problem here. If they want to rebel against the empire then, well, why not just let them?

aberratio ictus
2012-07-01, 05:34 PM
The obvious way would be to use NPCs to show your world is a little bit more complex than "there are guys in power, they MUST be evil!".

From what I can gather, you focus a little too much on the desperate, gritty realism and not enough on the fact that the Empire in fact does make things better, or at least tries to.

Maybe show them how life is in the frontier for the downtrodden masses, being abused and killed by whatever warlord, demon or cultist stumbles upon them.
Let them meet other agents of the Empire, leading a trail of freed slaves back to the Empire's heartland, undoubtedly into a life of hard work but also freedom.
Maybe a single mother of five in rags telling them how she prayed for (insert appropriate timeframe) for the Empire to come back will get them thinking.
Of course, try to make it not too cheesy.
Try to show them that the Empire's goal is not some ill-reasoned land grab, but to finally return to its duties to protect its lost people.

Of course, if your group is absolutely determined to hate any authority no matter what, none of this will work. In that case, you're better off going with Craft's suggestion. Trust me, you'll be sparing yourself a lot of frustration.

edit:

One other thing, if you're not dead set on the Empire itself being the motivation for the players - let them themselves be the authority. Let them acquire a small castle with a surrounding town for example, and try to get them interested in defending what they have or even expanding their holdings.
In this case, of course, the quest-givers aren't some kind of authority, but the castellan, the treasurer or any other advisor you can think of - an added bonus considering your player's distaste for authorities. After all, people only dislike authority as long as they're not themselves part of it.

Man on Fire
2012-07-01, 05:54 PM
Let them rebel. Seriously, let them. Make Empire hear about them stealing the artifact and send other bounty hunters after them. Let them fightthe Empire if they want to. They don't have to join other factions, let them make one on their own. Let them become Robin Hood and his merry men.

and then have people come and say they want to join them. People of all ages, classes and alignments who wants to join them in fight against the empire. Put the players in charge and in position of power. Make NPC who resent authority just like they do be under them, make them bust heads with each other. Simply, show players exactly how much "fun" being in charge is. That wil lteach them.

Craft (Cheese)
2012-07-01, 06:02 PM
Because they don't have any alternatives. If they want to defect and switch factions they can, but they don't like any of the other organizations either.

"I don't like any of the sides in this conflict. Let's create a new side and join that one!" is a perfectly valid answer.


If they don't have a benefactor I have no way of motivating them. They won't accept "quests" of their own volition, they will just run around attacking random stuff, making it impossible for me to design adventures, let alone balanced adventures or those that stick to CR and WBL. And eventually the PCs will turn on one another as they all have vastly different goals and alignments.

A benefactor isn't necessarily an authority figure: An easy way to make a quest giver is to just give them loot. "If you do X for me, I will do Y for you." Not doing X and doing Z instead is an option.

Furthermore work with your players to establish a character who comes to the table with their own goal, then work all the individual character goals together into a part of something bigger.


Of course the problem could also be that your players simply choose to attempt to derail anything resembling a plot that they see, and this is an Out of Character problem that should be dealt with OOC.

Grimsage Matt
2012-07-01, 06:16 PM
I have the perfect god for them.

Capone.

His commandments are...... Get wasted. Have a beer. BARFIGHT!!!! DRINKING CONTEST!!!

They'll love him. And is this a pbp? or a in person?

Kiero
2012-07-01, 06:19 PM
Because they don't have any alternatives. If they want to defect and switch factions they can, but they don't like any of the other organizations either.

The players resent ANY form of authority. On three occasions I have had good PCs attack a good GOD because the god either gave them a quest or told them not to desecrate holy ground.

If they don't have a benefactor I have no way of motivating them. They won't accept "quests" of their own volition, they will just run around attacking random stuff, making it impossible for me to design adventures, let alone balanced adventures or those that stick to CR and WBL. And eventually the PCs will turn on one another as they all have vastly different goals and alignments.

Sounds like you need to have a serious sit-down with the players about your divergent expectations.

This isn't something you can fix with plot in the game, this is the human beings playing the game talking to each other honestly about what they're trying to get out of it.

Frenth Alunril
2012-07-01, 06:59 PM
"I don't like any of the sides in this conflict. Let's create a new side and join that one!" is a perfectly valid answer.

"The Life of Brian" is what you need to watch, where they are in a coliseum, arguing over how bad the Romans are and how their faction is the best. I think later they talk about what the Romans have done for the people, trying to show Romans are worthless and they can only think of good things...

That's what you need. "That ogre shaman is trouble, mind you don't kill many of those ogres, though. They make bridge building easy, and we might never get done with this wall without them."

Tengu_temp
2012-07-01, 07:27 PM
Are you playing with rebellious teenagers who hate The Man and refuse to listen to any authority out of principle? I'm afraid your only choice is wait until they grow up a little and stop being such immature rebels without a cause.

By the way, are those the same players? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=177942)

Jukebox Hero
2012-07-01, 07:30 PM
Be chaotic. Seriously, lawful governments can be chaotic, especially in dark and desperate times. Corruption can lead to inexplicable events. Your players sound problematic, and if I pity your situation, for I'm in the same boat (although I don't have a problem player quite as bad as the one you mentioned in your other thread), but they don't have to work for an organization, make a plotline independent of the organizations.

PC's are whimsical, even if they aren't meant to be. The player wants their character to do all sorts of epic things (usually), and is willing to throw them in the face of almost whatever danger in order to earn Gold, Glory, and XP. Use this to your advantage. Throw something shiny in front of them. Make a powerful antagonist against the current form of government who shares their beliefs. The antagonist doesn't have to be evil, and can even be CG! If they work for the government, then they may be sent against this villain, and they'll (in their dislike for almost everything) will grow to find the fallacies in the antagonist's beliefs, which can be strangely like their own *hint hint.* This way, they'll mature both IC and OOC (hopefully).

kamikasei
2012-07-01, 07:33 PM
Sounds like you need to have a serious sit-down with the players about your divergent expectations.

This isn't something you can fix with plot in the game, this is the human beings playing the game talking to each other honestly about what they're trying to get out of it.
Pretty much.

It sounds like you made a setting with a lot of room for a lot of different approaches... with at least one basic assumption (the players are willing to work with one or another faction) that the rest of your group weren't on board with. You need to make sure you don't invest a lot of time and energy in a game premise before you verify that the players are actually interested in it... and if they say they are but all come up with characters who won't work at all, be willing to tell them, no, hang on, that character isn't going to work with the premise we discussed, a change is needed.

Vorr
2012-07-01, 07:56 PM
How does a DM make a "good guy" power structure in the game which the players will actively support while still keeping it realistic and essentially human rather than a fairy tale utopia?


You have a classic problem: you think one way and the players think another. This happens all the time.

First the DM forces the players to do something is always a bad idea. "Your characters MUST join the circus!" is just a bad idea. This only makes things easy for the DM who can 'program the players to act like puppets', but the average player hates being told ''You absolutely must join the guild or you can not play in my game!"

Second you have a great apocalyptic wild west border town setting(like Firefly, humm) all set in your mind. Now did you take a minute to even ask the players what kind of game they wanted? Did they all say ''gosh we really want to be government bounty hunter types." And even if they did the ''err, we don't care about the setting just make some stuff up as your the DM'', they might not have been ready for your radical ideas. You might want to take the time to talk to them now and ask ''Hey do you guys like being forced to be helpless government bounty hunters?"

Third, you might not have exposed them enough to the setting. If they are on the border, and have never seen the 'Great Good Empire', then how do they know it's even good? Are they to see it as good just as you said it was twice? You might need to immerse them in the setting much, much more then your doing now. Have the government do some good things, for example.

Fourth, I kinda see the red flag with your ''the empire is good, but has some bad shady people'' paragraph. Well, this Always sounds great to a DM. You have a 'good' place, but then sneak in 'evil' folks. Like you said you think it's realistic. But even if you only do the 'one in ten' people are not so good, it can easily be seen as the whole government is evil. And it's worse when 'oddly' only the powerful government officials that interact with the characters are 'evil', almost like the characters have been set up to only encounter the evil in the government.

Fifth and finally, you might just want to bribe the players. It's easy enough. The good government gives them healing credit at the good temples, or free equipment or such.

Honest Tiefling
2012-07-01, 07:59 PM
Figure out why they hate authority? In my experience, people with experiences with bad DMs often run screaming from NPCs, for fear that it is a DMPC that will kill them and gloat with his plot armor, an NPC who will join and take everything, or a DMPC who will take all of the plot, or some combination thereof. If it is another reason, they might be more amendable to uh...Not trying to kill and steal everything should you address it.

Grail
2012-07-01, 08:28 PM
Most players will tend to rebel against authority in the game to some level. Your players are just doing this to the nth degree. It doesn't mean that they're wrong, they obviously just prefer playing chaotic over lawful.

If you're players don't want to play lawful however, you cannot force them.

Granted, I tend to find that bad roleplayers tend to always play chaotic, but that's just me. It's easy to roleplay chaotic and justify any action "oh, I'm chaotic". Playing a lawful character who believes in something and follows it through is far more challenging - doesn't mean that chaotic can't be challenging, just that it is less so, and from 30 years of roleplaying, CG or CN are the alignments that I have seen the bad roleplayers pick all the time (or unprincipled when we used to play the Palladium system).

Anyway, enough of that little mini-rant.

Step aside from the GM seat. Let someone else take the reins. From a lot of the posts that you've been making recently, it seems you are getting frustrated with your group. this isn't what gaming is about. Ask someone else to run a game, even if it's just for a couple sessions, and see if they'll run something completely different to what you normally play, such as a Space Opera sci-fi or somesuch. It's a great way to get the juices flowing again.

Hiro Protagonest
2012-07-01, 08:37 PM
The players resent ANY form of authority. On three occasions I have had good PCs attack a good GOD because the god either gave them a quest or told them not to desecrate holy ground.

Wait a sec... this sounds familiar...

Aren't you the guy who had the players who attacked the temple in the middle of the desert because the goddess of the temple told them that they would receive shelter if they didn't attack?

I also now know why you refuse to get rid of that problem player... you refused to get rid of him before, too.

Well I want you to get rid of him. IIRC, in the old thread you said that it's one problem player, a few willing to follow his lead, and one good, or something like that. I don't care if it's hard for you to find more, set up flyers at a game shop, see if any playgrounders live in your area, whatever, just don't continue to act like a battered wife.

JoshuaZ
2012-07-01, 08:57 PM
For example, one time I gave the players access to an artifact which could transport them to any point in time and space. The only player who had an idea for what to do with it was one who said, "I am going to lock myself in a time loop in my study for thousands of years, reliving the same day over and over again and not emerge until I am the most powerful wizard of all time,".

Is this the same player who has problems with bad minmaxing and throws a temper tantrum when his character gets killed?

Grail
2012-07-01, 09:06 PM
He is the source of MOST problems in the group, but by no means all of them. However, most of the other big problem players have left the group and he is all that remains, and, sorry to say, that despite all of the advice I have asked on the forums his behavior has gotten progressively worse over the years not better.

Also, despite the fact that he is the most vocal and dramatic, he isn't the only one who complains.

Step aside from the GM's chair.
Seriously, walk away from it for a while. Let someone else do it. Play the game. Revitalise.

Of course, it's also possible that the problems stem from your GM'ing style and aren't all the players fault. This will let you sit back and observe if the same issues crop up when someone else is behind the screen. If they don't, you know you've got issues that you need to work on youself.

Hiro Protagonest
2012-07-01, 09:10 PM
Step aside from the GM's chair.
Seriously, walk away from it for a while. Let someone else do it. Play the game. Revitalise.

Of course, it's also possible that the problems stem from your GM'ing style and aren't all the players fault. This will let you sit back and observe if the same issues crop up when someone else is behind the screen. If they don't, you know you've got issues that you need to work on youself.

Hm... didn't you say that some of the good players who came before left because they found groups that they thought were better? Try to find one of those and see if you can play in that.

Man on Fire
2012-07-01, 09:17 PM
Your group is sufferiong from serious case of THAT GUY, the only solution is to kick him out. Then see if the game improves.

Through I must admit, you really should step back, it's clear that gaming with those people does nothing but frustrates you.

Grail
2012-07-01, 10:06 PM
Then it sounds like you need to stop roleplaying altogether for a bit. Play some tabletop games. BSG, Zombies!!! and Talisman are 3 of my favourites for some good holiday time from roleplaying, but have enough of the roleplaying genre about them for people to feel comfortable.

Surely you could find a better group than what you are describing if you really, really need to roleplay and do nothing but.

Toofey
2012-07-01, 10:46 PM
The key to getting players to understand that lawful is about being consistent and believing that an ordered life is best, not necessarily about obeying the laws of where you are.

Also, stop using the local laws to screw lawful characters, a lot of DMs make lawful characters obey laws, and it ruins the play experience, and I'm not even trying to say I haven't made that mistake myself.

Mikeavelli
2012-07-02, 01:25 AM
I'm going to echo what a few other people around here have suggested... Give them what they want.

The PC's in my campaign decided, out of the blue, that the reasonable authority figures (A council of noblemen) in charge of the city-state they were adventuring out of were incompetant (because the PC's were solving all of their problems) - and decided to take control of the town.

So, it happened.

There was an NPC they were tremendously fond of who was created as sort of a glaringly obvious, "This person will betray you and it will be horrible and suck for you." And they decided they liked her a lot. So they became allies, and I couldn't find a reasonable point where they'd stop being useful tools to her, so they kept on taking missions from this obviously evil person. Unseelie fey princess, in case you're wondering.

The Empire in my world (Based off of Rome too, coincidentally), became a lawful good shining example of heroics with evil inserted here and there for realism. Similar to your experience, my PC's decided it was evil incarnate, and simply had to be killed.

Good-aligned NPC's came after the PC's as Bounty Hunters, Paladins started hunting them down (He's after you for Murdering X. Which you did!) - and the PC's staunchly declared they're simply Chaotic, rather than evil.

In short, I stopped trying to overtly impose my vision of the game on PC's, and simply had the world react to their antics, mixed in with a healthy amount of unreasonable success on their part. I.E. the NPC bounty hunters always happened to be just within the expected Challenge Rating for the party.

It was glorious, I'm still running that campaign world weekly, and have been for two years now.

Just admit your PC's are insane murderous hobos and give them the game they want. Every once in a while they'll latch on to something in game you don't expect them to, go with that.

Also, kick out that kid that just wants to build characters. Or at least get him interested in tactical combat, because that's usually interesting to munchkins.

kyoryu
2012-07-02, 01:28 AM
Here's a suggestion:

They're against the Empire. Fine. Let them kick the Empire out of an area.

And then show them what happens. Show them that while there may be corruption in the Empire, it is *far* better than the alternative.

Of course, this only works if the PCs aren't set up to be Super-Mega-Uber-Awesome, and are on a somewhat "mortal" scale. If they can effectively wipe out anything thrown at them, it's all kind of irrelevant.

NichG
2012-07-02, 05:09 AM
I'd say presenting organizations and asking the PCs to 'pick one and follow its rules' is not going to be so successful. That said, you could use the PCs' anti-establishment tendencies to get them to actually be motivated and organize. Present someone who is a total jerk of an authority figure who has armies at his fingertips and who is your intended badguy. Make the PCs really want to get rid of that person, but make it tricky without support. Then the PCs will either self-destruct going in anyways, or will seek out some kind of support.

That said, the goddess in the desert story suggests the self-destruct route...

Oracle_Hunter
2012-07-02, 09:18 AM
The players resent ANY form of authority. On three occasions I have had good PCs attack a good GOD because the god either gave them a quest or told them not to desecrate holy ground.
Why do you keep playing with these guys Talakeal? You know how they are :smallsigh:

You cannot change Players; you can only incentivize them. At least one of your regulars is a rabid anti-authority guy and D&D is not really set up to privilege organizations over individuals -- it is a game of Heroes, not Armies.

If you want them to choose a side, you need to offer the Players some sort of concrete power or benefit for doing so. Obviously your Players are not motivated by the milk of human kindness so I suggest toys.

Perhaps the Empire can give its champions sweet Angel Pets that fight for them. Perhaps the Ogres are willing to give them a Dark Blessing which gives lots of power but requires them to drink blood or something unsavory. If you want them to pick one side, make that "toy" more attractive to your Players. If you don't care, then choose things which are mutually attractive to your Players and see if they'll fight over which toys they'll get.

Don't sweat over making a "realistic" anything for these guys. They clearly don't care.

Grail
2012-07-02, 09:34 AM
Talakeal, run some PbP with your homebrew stuff and I'm sure you'll get plenty of takers. I'd offer to play, even considering that it would be 3.x

kyoryu
2012-07-02, 10:15 AM
I'd say presenting organizations and asking the PCs to 'pick one and follow its rules' is not going to be so successful. That said, you could use the PCs' anti-establishment tendencies to get them to actually be motivated and organize. Present someone who is a total jerk of an authority figure who has armies at his fingertips and who is your intended badguy. Make the PCs really want to get rid of that person, but make it tricky without support. Then the PCs will either self-destruct going in anyways, or will seek out some kind of support.

That said, the goddess in the desert story suggests the self-destruct route...

Another point is that even hierarchical, strongly ordered groups can recognize the usefulness of more individualistic folks, and often have ways of utilizing those folks in a way to take advantage of their strengths, rather than trying to crush them into submission. This may require a *small* amount of acceptance of authority on the part of the PCs, but may be acceptable.

Kiero
2012-07-02, 11:00 AM
I have yet to find a gaming group that I was comfortable in.

And by the sounds of it, your search continues. No gaming is better than bad gaming, this lot sound like a complete waste of your time and energy.

Strawberries
2012-07-02, 11:42 AM
I'm going to echo what a few other people around here have suggested... Give them what they want.
[...]
Just admit your PC's are insane murderous hobos and give them the game they want. Every once in a while they'll latch on to something in game you don't expect them to, go with that.

I'm going to second (third? Fourth?) this suggestion. It seems sensible and wise. Also


I have yet to find a gaming group that I was comfortable in. All of the groups I try and join seem to EITHER be the tabletop equivalent of DBZ, a constantly escalating series of ridiculous combats and displays of power with no thought towards consistency, character, or intelligent thought, OR they are a decent game but the GM gets bored /busy after two or three sessions and the game disappears.

May I suggest play by post, too? Sure, lots of games die on pbp, but with a little luck, and the right people, there are some amazing games to be found. :smallsmile:

Jay R
2012-07-02, 12:32 PM
You can modify the players to fit the campaign, or you can modify the campaign to fit the players.

Decide how hard it will be to change people; decide how hard it would be to re-write the campaign; and start writing.

Gavinfoxx
2012-07-02, 01:03 PM
Your players have very very very obviously told you the style of game they want. They want to play murderous psychotic violent hobos and to run roughshod over all sorts of authority, and they want complete freedom in anything and to not be pushed to join factions or anything like that. It sounds like they would be glad to play in an evil game where they are SUPPOSED to kill anything that is not them and take its stuff. You should consider maybe giving it to them?

Hiro Protagonest
2012-07-02, 01:07 PM
Your players have very very very obviously told you the style of game they want. They want to play murderous psychotic violent hobos and to run roughshod over all sorts of authority, and they want complete freedom in anything and to not be pushed to join factions or anything like that. It sounds like they would be glad to play in an evil game where they are SUPPOSED to kill anything that is not them and take its stuff. You should consider maybe giving it to them?

Except if he gives them a sandbox, they'll just mill around and complain.

Gavinfoxx
2012-07-02, 01:43 PM
Then dont do it like a sandbox. Give them rails, with the expectation that they will go off them and do something else.

Driderman
2012-07-02, 01:49 PM
Sounds to me like OP is falling into the "Listen to my goddamn story"-trap of DM'ing, in which a DM is so intent on telling a story to his players he doesn't realise it's not the story they want to play.

Tyndmyr
2012-07-02, 02:19 PM
Your players have very very very obviously told you the style of game they want. They want to play murderous psychotic violent hobos and to run roughshod over all sorts of authority, and they want complete freedom in anything and to not be pushed to join factions or anything like that. It sounds like they would be glad to play in an evil game where they are SUPPOSED to kill anything that is not them and take its stuff. You should consider maybe giving it to them?

Basically this. If you're ok running this sort of campaign, then literally, just tossing up authority figures and ruling structures will easily engage them(in the "we stab this" way), and it'll be an easy day.

If you really don't want to run this sort of campaign, consider not running a game for this group.

kyoryu
2012-07-02, 02:25 PM
Sounds to me like OP is falling into the "Listen to my goddamn story"-trap of DM'ing, in which a DM is so intent on telling a story to his players he doesn't realise it's not the story they want to play.

This so much.

Talk to them about what kind of game they want - not necessarily the details, but the theme. Propose a couple themes to them - "explorers fighting through the wilds", "Indiana Jones with a sword," "Freedom fighters vs. the Evil Empire", and see what they gravitate to.

Driderman
2012-07-02, 02:34 PM
This so much.

Talk to them about what kind of game they want - not necessarily the details, but the theme. Propose a couple themes to them - "explorers fighting through the wilds", "Indiana Jones with a sword," "Freedom fighters vs. the Evil Empire", and see what they gravitate to.

To be fair, it also sounds like his players have the mental maturity of 10-year olds :smallbiggrin:

Man on Fire
2012-07-02, 03:43 PM
This so much.

Talk to them about what kind of game they want - not necessarily the details, but the theme. Propose a couple themes to them - "explorers fighting through the wilds", "Indiana Jones with a sword," "Freedom fighters vs. the Evil Empire", and see what they gravitate to.

We know what one of them wants - that is no story, no quests, no anything, just leveling and finishing his build.

Gavinfoxx
2012-07-02, 03:51 PM
The problem is if I do this I can't use CR, Encounters per Day, or WBL rules, and I can't have any sort of economic level to the game. The players literally rape, pillage, and plunder everyone they come across and decide that there is no need to say, slay a dragon and take a dragon's horde and buy stuff with it when they can just kill the merchants and take what they want in the first place.

Also, I have never had an evil game that didn't devolve into flat out PvP within a couple of sessions, or break down into a tantrum the first time they pissed off a "bigger fish" with their antics and actually had to face a challenging encounter instead of just beating up commoners and town guards.

It sounds like you need to separate them from having to interact in any way with any economy. Just say something like, "You can sacrifice wealth to dark gods to improve your gear. Go get wealth somehow." And don't make shopkeepers actually have magic items! They need to gain the trust of the shopkeeper in question, and then pay the shopkeeper, and then the shopkeeper will make the magic items. Maybe make all shopkeepers in the world one single paranoid Wizard where the shopkeepers are all simulacrums, and he doesn't actually care if they kill his clones or simulacrums and tear up the shop, cause it doesn't inconvenience him in any meaningful way? Cause the shop, and the wizard, will just be there the next day? And, after they send in the payment, a few days later, he opens up a portal and the magic items clatter out of it onto the ground?

You know. If they are going to treat this like a video game, give them video-game like responses!

Also:

http://www.housepetscomic.com/2011/09/26/one-pewter-soldier/

Strawberries
2012-07-02, 04:56 PM
The plot basically revolves down to travelling the world killing things.

So, them being "lawful" would not be a problem you should concern yourself with. They want to kill the merchant? Fine, have them confront town guards that are understandably pissed off. They make mincemeat of the town guards? Perfect, the city rulers will hire some bigger and meaner guy to take care of the problem. They kill the bigger and meaner guy, too, AND the rulers on top of that? Instant plot hook: there is a power vacuum, either you'll have anarchy and a civil war on your hands, or some external threat will try to profit from the situation and move in. Win-win situation for you either way: you get to have them killing things regardless.

Or, you know, if you don't have fun with that and you just end up frustrated (I know I would)...change players. It does seem like your DM-ing style and their playing style don't work together well.

kyoryu
2012-07-02, 05:27 PM
Also, I have never had an evil game that didn't devolve into flat out PvP within a couple of sessions, or break down into a tantrum the first time they pissed off a "bigger fish" with their antics and actually had to face a challenging encounter instead of just beating up commoners and town guards.

So they expect to be the biggest fish?

I don't even know what to say. Part of me wants to say "cool, give them a world populated by kobolds." But most of me says "don't DM for these guys."

Gavinfoxx
2012-07-02, 06:14 PM
You should bait them. Have a magic item shop with a bunch of magic items they want, and when they inevitably kill the shopkeeper, have a bird fly out of the shop or someone flee the shop or someone be watching from outside. Delay the actual looting by making it difficult and have stuff where they have to take extra time to loot it to get the best stuff.

Then, interrupt them.

"We've got you surrounded, murderers! Come out with your hands up!"

Then they are confronted by a full turnout of the militia, and if they go in, they are brought before a magistrate who orders them hung in morning.

If at any time they fight, don't pull your punches, but don't have the militia be individually powerful; have them set up and have lots of readied actions for crossbows and such and throw a bunch of alchemical items and so on.

If they kill the militia, have a fire start, and people run screaming for the hills, and people like, "Don't kill my baby!" and so on, and the males taking up arms against them. Then tell them they are all now evil due to butchering a town. Then, the next time they try to go to any town, people scream that they are "The butchers of Lakeshore!" and run screaming from them, and any time they get near a town, have the militia come out to slow them down while everyone else flees.

Gavinfoxx
2012-07-02, 06:35 PM
Switch to Toon. Seriously.

Grimsage Matt
2012-07-02, 06:43 PM
If you want, I'll PM you the Mattcorp detail stuff. They might like it.

Evil Megacorp for your fantesy games. They're in "Public and Monster Realtions". Meaning they'd be paid huge to just head out and kill things. And if they kill employees? 500 years added to they're stay in Mattcorps Afterlife for the Ineffective. You don't even need to say it. But, they could play it.

Kiero
2012-07-02, 06:58 PM
I have tried that or something very similar several times before. Once you get to the point where the militia surrounds them and has a chance to take them down I get told that I am "pulling *** you NPCS out of my *** to screw over the players because they were too clever to be confined by my railroad plot." Then the game breaks up in a bunch of shouting and name calling and the campaign ends.


Why do you play with these people? Seriously?

Belril Duskwalk
2012-07-02, 09:00 PM
I am increasingly thinking that your ideal option is to find another game or find a way to make some major improvements on your players.

However, I do have one idea you might not have considered. Make the authority the enemy. You can even use your current setting. Have the current emperor suddenly die, could be natural causes, not-so-natural causes, assassination, even leave it a mystery, take your pick. Have a new emperor come to power that rivals Palpatine in terms of lust for power and Nero in terms of wanton cruelty. The more benevolent functionaries of the various governments are executed, imprisoned or summarily fired. The few bad seeds in the government get big promotions and hire thugs to replace the soldiers and guards. Civilian life becomes much less decent and suddenly it is clear that the government really was doing some good, until it all went to heck.

Now they can rebel against authority the whole dang day, they might accidentally leave the world a better place when they do. You can use rebel forces as your quest-givers, leave who is in charge amorphous though. They get a quest to go destroy a command post, they get back two days later, the man who gave them the quest has been killed in combat, the new leader pays the agreed price anyway and offers another task. They do his job, by the time they're back THAT man has been executed for treason against the cause and replaced as well. If they instead join the (now corrupt) authorities you can likely use all your old quest lines virtually unchanged.

EDIT: Use Imperial Law to underscore what has been lost. When the guards try to arrest the PCs, and the PCs complain, make a point to note that 'this is the law of the NEW emperor'

Agrippa
2012-07-02, 09:22 PM
If you want, I'll PM you the Mattcorp detail stuff. They might like it.

Evil Megacorp for your fantesy games. They're in "Public and Monster Realtions". Meaning they'd be paid huge to just head out and kill things. And if they kill employees? 500 years added to they're stay in Mattcorps Afterlife for the Ineffective. You don't even need to say it. But, they could play it.

Would you mind PMing me about that too?

Silus
2012-07-02, 09:34 PM
Because they don't have any alternatives. If they want to defect and switch factions they can, but they don't like any of the other organizations either.

The players resent ANY form of authority. On three occasions I have had good PCs attack a good GOD because the god either gave them a quest or told them not to desecrate holy ground.

If they don't have a benefactor I have no way of motivating them. They won't accept "quests" of their own volition, they will just run around attacking random stuff, making it impossible for me to design adventures, let alone balanced adventures or those that stick to CR and WBL. And eventually the PCs will turn on one another as they all have vastly different goals and alignments.

Might take the game in a whole other direction, but why not show to the players the "real" side of the Imperium?

Example: Players catch some dissenters and turn them into the Imperium magistrate (Maybe a bounty or something). The magistrate thanks them and invites them to the "trial". Said trial is little more than reading the dissenters a paper that says "You are guilty of high treason", shackling them, forcing the lot of them into, say, a barn, then torching it.

Take it from "These are good guys" to "These are corrupt extremists flying under the flag of Lawful Good". I think after a graphic description of men, women and children burning alive for trumped up crimes they may or may not have committed, the PCs will choose a side.

Just my 2 cents on what I'd do if I found my PCs doing this sort of stuff.

Tip: If going this route, a slow buildup works well, especially if you have the NPCs responsible treat it like a casual chore. And give them a chance to stop the execution. Lawful does not always mean adhering to the laws of a nation or government, but can mean having a code of conduct.

Mikeavelli
2012-07-02, 10:51 PM
Then dont do it like a sandbox. Give them rails, with the expectation that they will go off them and do something else.

This is how I run all my games. It throws me off if everything goes according to plan.

It works really well too.

A good way to do this is to have various CR-appropriate stat blocks without any preconcieved notions of how they'll fit into the game. Build some NPC's (or go down through the Play-by-post games on this forum and steal some NPC's other people built for their games, of the appropriate level).

Also just flip through the Monstrous Manuals and tag all the CR-appropriate monsters out there.

When it's time for the PC's to enter combat, something CR-appropriate appears. That merchant caravan has high-level guards, Bounty Hunters are staying at the Inn in the Village, CR-appropriate monsters raid at coincidentally the exact right time, etc.




I get told that I am "pulling *** you NPCS out of my *** to screw over the players because they were too clever to be confined by my railroad plot." Then the game breaks up in a bunch of shouting and name calling and the campaign ends.



In my game, there was one guy who did this. He doesn't game with us anymore. Turns out the rest of the players were just as fed up with his actions as I was. The result is that games are much more pleasant for us.

If the whole group is like this, then why are you still gaming with them?

Also:



The plot basically revolves down to travelling the world killing things.

Congratulations! You've discovered what D&D is all about!

NichG
2012-07-02, 11:06 PM
So, what about a campaign where the PCs are the final authority? Something like:

A malevolent force took all the gods by surprise, killing them all at their points of origin in a single moment outside of time. Those gods who managed to perceive this coming had a split second to act, and so they entrusted their divinity to whomever they were looking at at the time, for they had no time to search. Those people are the PCs (and a couple other people perhaps)

That shard of divinity didn't come with the full power of the gods, but it came with those aspects of the gods that were important to the functioning of the world. At the start of game, that power is more or less 'subtle'. It has three effects:

- The PC can find out anything about their particular portfolio simply by being curious about it. This doesn't extend to more than one level of connections. So for example, the guy who got Forests could tell anything about any forest on the planet - what types of trees are in it, what creatures live within it, where its located, if its threatened, etc. At one connection, they could tell if someone was in a forest or not, or they could tell that there were people in the forest, but they couldn't say tell what those people had for breakfast (that would be two connections) or what their goals are.

- The PC has a palpable aura of divinity, and non-divine characters less than their level simply cannot bring themselves to directly interfere with the PC's actions. Characters less than the PCs' level treat the PC's voice like a Suggestion spell, DC 10+Lv/2+Cha mod.

- The PC can go to the Divine Realm at will, and can leave with anyone else who is there or back to their previous location. The Divine Realm is currently a wreck but it provides an easy way to get the party together.

This divinity could improve, or not, as the campaign went on. It would still be possible to play in most of D&D's span of levels. You'd probably want humanity to generally be restricted to low levels (being able to be higher than 6th level, say, would be one of the features of the PCs' divinity). Other god-shards would also be viable opponents, and I could see power-hungry PCs wanting to collect up the gods' portfolios, so that'd motivate things.

So long as the party tended to face spirits, monsters, etc when it came down to busting heads the suggestion/sanctuary thing wouldn't be too problematic. And there'd be some weird stuff to play with for those who like coming up with strange uses of abilities (trying to get out extra information from the divinations, for example, or learning how to improve them).

This kind of campaign would satisfy PC desires for a power trip, would prevent 'authority' from being an issue. You could just as well have the PCs be responsible for things in the natural world, not because of authority but because they know via their divination powers that something bad will happen if they don't intervene - a good way to feed in plot hooks. They might also just decide 'screw the world, lets let things get bad' in which case you could do just that.

If I ran it, I'd probably go a bit over the top with people treating the PCs as authorities - a PC makes an offhand comment and spawns a weird religion in the village that the party hears about a month later, but with your players I might just play it straight and see how they respond.

Driderman
2012-07-03, 02:59 AM
This campaign is the most story-light game I have ever run, as it is mostly just a high combat game made to playtest the rules.

I told the players at creation that they had to make a roughly balanced party with motivation not to turn on one another, and be lawful/good enough that they would not turn on friendly NPCs.

The plot basically revolves down to travelling the world killing things.

Sorry mate, but this is one of the classic response of the "shut up and listen to my goddamn story" DM...
You need to sit down and talk to your players about what it is you want from roleplaying and what it is they want from roleplaying and if you can find a common ground somehow.
If not, you should probably pull the plug on DM'ing for them since right now you're just teaching them that eventually you'll cave to their demands.

Maybe try showing them this thread? :smallwink:

Driderman
2012-07-03, 07:36 AM
I'm sorry, I really don't follow, which part of what is a classic response?

I only said three sentances.

I said there wasn't really a story, I don't see how that could indicate the opposite unless you think I am lying / in denial.

Further, I don't see how asking them to make characters who can work together or not randomly kill friendly NPCs has anything to do with a story. I wouldn't allow evil characters or PVP in a completely story free 100% sandbox game for purely logistical reasons and a desire to listen to the players graphic descriptions of atrocities commited upon the innocent.

And I said there was almost no plot as it was mostly just wandering the world killing monsters. I really don't see how this is a story of any sort, let alone one which is being forced down the PCs throats. If it were I would imagine we would see a lot more encounter tables in DM guides in place of chapters about how to craft an adventure.

Whatever you call it, what you're selling obviously isn't what your players want to buy. If you ask me they sound like retarded manchildren (in fact I'm having very real flashbacks to when I "taught" roleplaying to 10-12 year old kids, except they weren't half as bad as your players sound to be) and you're better of just doing something else than waste your time on them, but since you've spent several threads acting the part of the DM-equivalent of a battered housewife while getting that exact advice, you obviously want some other solution.
That solution is: Realise that ALL of you have mayor issues when it comes to rp'ing together, identify said issues (the tantrum-player you've described before most likely being one of them), fix said issues and try to start over from scratch. Play something very different from what you're used to, let somebody else DM, try to shake things up a bit and everyone should get over their sense of entitlement. Its like its a whole gaming group of drama queens :smalltongue:

Tyndmyr
2012-07-03, 08:12 AM
The plot basically revolves down to travelling the world killing things.

So? What's wrong with that?

If they enjoy touring the world, meeting big things, and killing them...well, that's just dandy. If you don't enjoy this, and they don't enjoy the type of game you do, the obvious solution is not to play this game together.

I'd recommend trying out Paranoia. The zany approach to things and the complete lack of working together may appeal to them.

Grail
2012-07-03, 08:37 AM
It just seems that the more information you divulge, the more obvious that you and these players just aren't compatible. It happens. Someone has to compromise or you need to find another group.

Sometimes group dynamics become untenable and dysfunctional, this sounds like one of those groups.

So either;

Adapt your game to what they want.
Keep trying to force them to play a game they don't want and then complain when they rally against it.
Or, leave.

Stubbazubba
2012-07-03, 10:46 AM
Eject!

You're in a freefall, albeit a long, drawn-out one. You need to get right out of that group, or at the very least, get rid of the big problem player. Whatever it is, you're at the point where only OOC action will have any effect. No in-game shenanigans will work because these players are hyper-sensitive to any kind of incentivization or manipulation.

You are past the point where role-playing with these people is producing any output you want. Just tell them, "K, guys, I'm done. It's been real, but I'm just burned out. Call me if you want to get a pizza or something, but I'm just exhausted and I'm gonna take some time off." DM burnout totally happens, to pretty much every DM at one point or another. You can say it's just that, that you need some time off, then get conveniently too busy to return.

Join a group as a player, online if that's your only option. Your role-playing well is becoming poisoned, you need to thin out those bad experiences with a lot of good ones to restore your faith in players in general.

Driderman
2012-07-03, 11:24 AM
Eject!

You're in a freefall, albeit a long, drawn-out one. You need to get right out of that group, or at the very least, get rid of the big problem player. Whatever it is, you're at the point where only OOC action will have any effect. No in-game shenanigans will work because these players are hyper-sensitive to any kind of incentivization or manipulation.

You are past the point where role-playing with these people is producing any output you want. Just tell them, "K, guys, I'm done. It's been real, but I'm just burned out. Call me if you want to get a pizza or something, but I'm just exhausted and I'm gonna take some time off." DM burnout totally happens, to pretty much every DM at one point or another. You can say it's just that, that you need some time off, then get conveniently too busy to return.

Join a group as a player, online if that's your only option. Your role-playing well is becoming poisoned, you need to thin out those bad experiences with a lot of good ones to restore your faith in players in general.

All of this except, why lie to your friends? Tell it like it is, so they at least have the opportunity to change their ways if you should pick up a game with them in the future, or they join other gaming groups.

kyoryu
2012-07-03, 11:39 AM
I wouldn't allow evil characters or PVP in a completely story free 100% sandbox game for purely logistical reasons and a desire to listen to the players graphic descriptions of atrocities commited upon the innocent.

There's a difference between "evil" and "listening to atrocities." A well-played evil character isn't *obviously* evil at least 90% of the time.

But I've met players like yours. They use gaming as a way to act out their sociopathic urges. Which is, I guess, fine, if everyone's into it.

But you're not.

So stop running games for them. They'll probably call you nasty names and do other sorts of tactics. You're taking it too seriously, you're a big wimp, why do you have to ruin everyone's fun, why do you have to have everything your way (when it's really the opposite). They'll likely even promise to play by your rules, which will last for two sessions, max. Any of this sounding familiar?

Look, it's simple. You want different things from gaming than they do. And that's fine. What's not fine is that you're expected to take the most demanding role just to cater to their whims.

Autolykos
2012-07-03, 01:04 PM
I'd recommend trying out Paranoia. The zany approach to things and the complete lack of working together may appeal to them.That's the second best advice I've read in this thread (after "stop playing with them").

Also, I'd like to mention a few random points. They are probably not the cause of your problems, but they might still help you improve at DMing, which is always a good thing. So here they are:
- You call your empire "lawful good", but let about one in ten government officials repeatedly get away with being evil. This is far above the rate of bad apples to be expected in a truly good empire - they are lawful neutral at best. Just imagine someone playing a paladin, and one in ten of his actions are evil: You'd probably make him fall (and shift alignment while he's at it), and rightfully so.
- Players usually don't mind immoral NPCs that much (they might even like them), but they'll passionately hate hypocrites. Really, that's a surefire way to make them hate a NPC. And you composed the whole authority of them (if the nine good guys don't actively try to get the bad guy removed and still claim the empire is good and everything's fine, they're not much better).
- Blackjack's Guides To Bitter Gamemastering (http://free.of.pl/h/hiro/rpg/srun/srbjbitter.pdf) always make for a good read, in this case especially the chapter "Cannon Fodder".

Anarion
2012-07-03, 01:17 PM
I'd add to the chorus of "leave the game" as the best option.

Might I also suggest a little creative writing on your part? It seems like you enjoy imagining interesting worlds and setting up quests and kingdoms and gods within them. Then your players don't care and just like killing stuff. So, why not take your setting and come up with couple of your own characters and just write a story about them going through that world? It will give you a creative outlet and it might even end up being pretty good. Plus you can find plenty of people on this forum that would be happy to edit for you so you can improve your writing.

Driderman
2012-07-03, 02:17 PM
I wish they acted like children. When I learned D&D with actual children we all accepted the game and ran the adventure that was before us, and we all loved it, and those adventures were all on rails. Hell, sometimes the DM even ran prefab modules! It seems that back in my day gamers were just more respectful of their dungeon masters, maybe it had something to do with walking to the gaming session barefoot through the snow and uphill both ways... ok maybe not that last part.

I know what you mean, though. Somehow, somewhere down the line it became acceptable to try and negotiate the rules adjudications of the GM

The Glyphstone
2012-07-03, 02:25 PM
I wish they acted like children. When I learned D&D with actual children we all accepted the game and ran the adventure that was before us, and we all loved it, and those adventures were all on rails. Hell, sometimes the DM even ran prefab modules! It seems that back in my day gamers were just more respectful of their dungeon masters, maybe it had something to do with walking to the gaming session barefoot through the snow and uphill both ways... ok maybe not that last part.



The issue isn't that 'back in the day', it's that your gaming environment has been the RPG equivalent of an abusive relationship so long you're developing a Stockholm Syndrome-like tendency to justify and excuse their maltreatment of you. In sane, rational, normal D&D groups not composed of sociopathic man-children, stuff like prefab modules and respecting DMs and being okay with rails still happen.

Tyndmyr
2012-07-03, 02:34 PM
I wish they acted like children. When I learned D&D with actual children we all accepted the game and ran the adventure that was before us, and we all loved it, and those adventures were all on rails. Hell, sometimes the DM even ran prefab modules! It seems that back in my day gamers were just more respectful of their dungeon masters, maybe it had something to do with walking to the gaming session barefoot through the snow and uphill both ways... ok maybe not that last part.

Meh. It's the group. Honestly, even when most groups go off the rails, which does happen(and has happened even long in the past), they usually do so for pretty reasonable reasons, and it's not insane to improv for.


No you misunderstand, this is the type of game I am running and I am fine with it. I told them I wanted a fast paced combat heavy game so I could test the mechanical system in a short period of time. I even offered to do a game where they were gladiators in an arena with almost no story to get in the way of the combat, but they said they wanted a story but didn't give any feedback on it, then complained they didn't like the story I gave them.

What people say they want and what they actually want are frequently different.

In this case, it appears they want to roam the countryside, killing the hell out of anything that appears to be an organization or power structure, and for the story to be pretty much about how they stab these people. This is somewhat different from the gladiator game, true...but it's even more different from the organization-centric game you're running. It's something actively chaotic in nature, which neither of your options really were.

Hence the suggestion of paranoia. It does chaotic games very well.

Gavinfoxx
2012-07-03, 02:51 PM
Have you considered separating the gold economy from the magic item economy to solve your wbl problems?

http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Dungeonomicon_%28DnD_Other%29/Economicon

Gavinfoxx
2012-07-03, 03:01 PM
Uh, with the Wish economy, just say, "You can have however much gold, platinum, swank clothes, gems, arts, slaves, pet t-rexes, or other nonmagical goods up to 25,000 gp a piece as you can carry, as well as however many magic items up to 15,000 gp each you want. However, you can't actually get any magic items worth more than 15,000 gp with any of that stuff, for that, you need stuff that is actually rare, like souls, or raw chaos or stuff like that."

kyoryu
2012-07-03, 03:18 PM
Like I said in my OP, the problem isn't so much evil as chaotic. They can't work together with anyone, even one another. They always want to turn on their allies, fellow PCs, employers, and merchants who supply them, if they are evil it just gives them an excuse. I have one player (guess which one) who described the alignments as follows:

Good: Does what is best for himself, but takes the good will of others and the support of the community into account when deciding what is best for him. Tries to justify it if going out of his way to screw over an ally for his own benefit.
Neutral: Does whatever is best for himself. Does not care about others thoughts or feelings and will betray or kill allies if it has a material reward.
Evil: Actively enjoys hurting and killing others. Will only refrain from doing so while there is immediate material gain for doing so, sometimes not even then.

Yeah, I'd call all of those evil, with the only difference being how good they are at hiding their inner evil. Heck, "doing things that aren't in your own best interests" is practically the definition of Good!

If this player is seriously the way you describe him, then he's got major, major psychological issues.

And if that's true, it's nearly impossible to have any kind of social relationship beyond the most superficial with him, as people like that are literally incapable of the kind of empathy that successful relationships are built on.

In short, DTMFA.

Gavinfoxx
2012-07-03, 03:25 PM
With those things...

you should take those definitions he gave you, and then write up what your definitions of good neutral and evil and law and chaos are for your game, and then hand them back to him...

"We will be using these definitions of the nine alignments for this game. If at any time your pattern of actions in game fits these definitions, you will be shunted to the appropriate alignment. Don't feel obligated to, just because it says evil on your character sheet, be absurd and stupid in my campaign. These alignments are meant to be descriptions of how the universe percieves how your character is actually acting at that moment, not to arbitrarily cause your character to kick puppies. By signing this paper, you agree to the terms and conditions of the alignment system, and agree to not argue if and when your alignment is changed to reflect your in character actions, for the purpose of playing in my game. You must sign this agreement if you wish to play in my game."

Fatebreaker
2012-07-03, 03:27 PM
Tal, nothing will improve until the quality of people around you improve.

When the people around you do improve, here are a few ways to motivate your players:

Who?
Top-Down: This is basically what you're already doing. Someone who has the power or authority to tell the PCs what to do. I don't recommend this motivation by itself, because players may feel like they have no say in what they do. It goes very well when combined with other motivations, though.


Peer-Level: Someone roughly on par with the PCs makes an excellent quest-giver. A fellow adventurer offers up a map or a quest hook, or asks for a favor, or needs rescuing, or cuts them a deal, or something. This is a great source of motivation because, done properly, the understanding is that both parties stand to gain, neither is really in charge, and neither has the power to screw over the other without consequences.


Bottom-Up: Someone below the PCs asks them for help. A peasant begging a team of adventurers to save his village, for example. This can be great, because it makes the PCs feel strong and important. Beware, however, of when they realize that they can just kill the rampaging orcs and the helpless villagers and loot all of them.


Outsider: Someone acts against the PCs, intentionally or unintentionally, directly or indirectly, and some manner of retribution is called for. An outsider can be stronger, equal to, or weaker than the party, but the important difference here is that the outsider is not aligned with the party. The Linear Guild are a "peer" motivation in their first encounter, and later become an "Outsider", while Xykon has always been an "Outsider" motivation.

How?
Bribery: The PCs want a thing. The DM places the thing behind challenges. Adventure ensues.


Make It Personal: Someone laughed at/stabbed/stole from the PCs. Revenge!


Fame & Glory! (Or, Ale & Whores!): The players want a lifestyle currently unavailable to them. Adventuring supports or obtains that lifestyle. Note that this is not Bribery; Bribery involves specific, measurable goals, such as obtaining a magic sword, learning a powerful ritual, or journeying to a fabled land. Fame & Glory! is for intangible rewards, such as titles and adoration, while Ale & Whores! is for less-permanent but still material rewards. Once you drink your ale, of course, you need another ale, and pretty soon the barkeep is asking impolite questions and then it's off to the dungeon-raiding again to pay off your bar tab.


Make It REALLY Personal: Romance, friendship, and other silly things you can't kill people with goes here.


Unwanted Consequences: The moon will fall and crush the city in three days. Stop the moon. Oh, you don't want to? You do realize that you can't escape the blast in three days, right?

So maybe you have a fellow adventurer ("Peer") who grew up one of the players ("Make it REALLY Personal") asks for help in fighting a dragon who has taken over the dwarven treasure vaults at Blueridge Pass ("Bribery"), and anyone who slays it will be renowned throughout the dwarven kingdoms ("Fame & Glory!"). The players can say no, because the quest-giver isn't their boss, and if they say yes, it makes the whole quest their choice, not yours. And there's three separate types of hooks for folks -- players who want to help a friend, players who want shiny stuff, and players who want renown all have a reason to go. And players who are happy to just stab whatever pops up in front of them? They can kill the quest giver, then go kill the dragon anyway!

That's just a start. There are plenty of other ways to motivate folks, but these can get you going for now. Of course, none of this helps until you get new players.


Firstly, looting the dead is considered bad form and is a big contributor to the violent hobos stereotype of PCs.

Bad form? Son, looting from the dead is the most noble tradition we have. Every time you pry a +1 longsword from a kobold chieftain's scaly claws, you are honoring each and every adventurer who came before you. You are showing respect towards a worthy adversary. You are offering up thanks to the dice gods for surviving one more day. You are, in fact, participating in the best of all possible forms.

And if people don't want to be looted, they shouldn't up and die when you kill them, now should they?

Autolykos
2012-07-03, 03:28 PM
Using that definition I would think all organizations of more than a few people are neutral.Yup, if you play realistic, it's pretty rare to actually find a Good organization (even finding Good individuals is hard enough). But what actually kills their rating is that they don't even try to stay good, by letting the crooked individuals in their organization get away with evil things. Whether you accept incompetence to weed out the bad guys as an excuse depends on the model of ethics you follow (responsibility vs. conviction - let's not get into *that* discussion). At any rate, just doing more good than evil on average should not be enough. Most neutral people do that, and probably even some evil ones.

Gavinfoxx
2012-07-03, 03:30 PM
Uh, the Wish Economy is supposed to use magic item attunement rules as well...

Synovia
2012-07-03, 03:54 PM
Because they don't have any alternatives. If they want to defect and switch factions they can, but they don't like any of the other organizations either.

The players resent ANY form of authority. On three occasions I have had good PCs attack a good GOD because the god either gave them a quest or told them not to desecrate holy ground.

If they don't have a benefactor I have no way of motivating them. They won't accept "quests" of their own volition, they will just run around attacking random stuff, making it impossible for me to design adventures, let alone balanced adventures or those that stick to CR and WBL. And eventually the PCs will turn on one another as they all have vastly different goals and alignments.

"because the government is the least sucky of the organizations" is a perfectly valid reason, and a much better one than "the DM told us so".

That being said, if your characters are just attacking everything, there should be consequences for that. Attacking a god is not something that should be CR balanced. They should get facerolled.

Synovia
2012-07-03, 04:02 PM
Maybe it is, but if so I must have terrible luck.

I have had close to two dozen PCs at my table over the years, and while some of them where actively bitter, angry, and confrontational all the time, most are just milquetoast players who go along with the other PCs and simply don't get invested in the game, remaining bored and indifferent the whole time.

Players of both types seem to get angry and frustrated when their characters fail at something or get hurt / killed, or when I say "no," the only difference being the angry players will throw a temper tantrum and disrupt the whole game, while the quieter players will just leave and not come back.

I have had very few players who actually cared about the game and weren't angry / complaining all the time. Those few players are very valuable because I can actually work with them to create the story, but that makes all the other players even angrier because I am "playing favorites".



Don't take this the wrong way, but if this is true, its you who are the problem, and you need to take a step back and figure out why. It could be that you're inconsistent (which often pisses players off..why does it work for him and not for me?), just not immersing players well, or just not doing a good job.

Gavinfoxx
2012-07-03, 04:05 PM
Don't take this the wrong way, but if this is true, its you who are the problem, and you need to take a step back and figure out why. It could be that you're inconsistent (which often pisses players off..why does it work for him and not for me?), just not immersing players well, or just not doing a good job.

Is it necessarily his problem, though? Yes, he is one of the few things in common with all those people, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he is the cause of the issue.

Zarrgon
2012-07-03, 04:07 PM
No you misunderstand, this is the type of game I am running and I am fine with it. I told them I wanted a fast paced combat heavy game so I could test the mechanical system in a short period of time. I even offered to do a game where they were gladiators in an arena with almost no story to get in the way of the combat, but they said they wanted a story but didn't give any feedback on it, then complained they didn't like the story I gave them.


It's very typical for players to say "I don't care about the story'', then suddenly care about the story as soon as the game starts. And this is one of the tricks about being a good DM: you can change the story. And this is often a 'take one for the team type of thing'. Sure you, the DM are just dying to tell your great 'fall of Rome' story, but if the players don't care just dump it.

I'm always a big fan of tricking and/or forcing players to work together. The whole 'talk to them' is a waste of time. Simple things like: give each character a magic item only they can use, but when combined can do more(with your powers combined I am Captain D&D). This can quickly make them work together. The same trick works for npc's too. Give the npc something unique and cool(to the players), that way the players want to keep them around. For example, Osho makes powerful potions that have a kick or Zoga has a wish genie that she can use to grant you a wish once a day. You can even go the combat route: The Dark Monster can only be hurt by two opposing elemental energy's that hit it at the same time.

Oracle_Hunter
2012-07-03, 04:08 PM
Is it necessarily his problem, though? Yes, he is one of the few things in common with all those people, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he is the cause of the issue.
Unless he has a major Selection Bias for crappy Players, the "best Player" a DM has at his table over the years should not be one that can be described as "milquetoast players who go along with the other PCs and simply don't get invested in the game, remaining bored and indifferent the whole time."

If your Players are problematic, both the DM and Player may be at fault.
If your Players are bored, only the DM can be blamed.

The Glyphstone
2012-07-03, 04:23 PM
Unless he has a major Selection Bias for crappy Players, the "best Player" a DM has at his table over the years should not be one that can be described as "milquetoast players who go along with the other PCs and simply don't get invested in the game, remaining bored and indifferent the whole time."

If your Players are problematic, both the DM and Player may be at fault.
If your Players are bored, only the DM can be blamed.

You have read the sort of thing his other PCs do, right? In this situation, the players who are at least indifferent to the game are better than the ones who are actively attempting to ruin it.

From what he's said,it sounds like he's 'kept' the same group of problem players for all those years, and the 'good' ones come and go as additions to the group. Probably leaving because of the toxic environment.

Gavinfoxx
2012-07-03, 04:32 PM
From what he's said,it sounds like he's 'kept' the same group of problem players for all those years, and the 'good' ones come and go as additions to the group. Probably leaving because of the toxic environment.

Yea, I think that may be what happened.

Remember, even if you have ONLY ONE good player, that's better than 1 good player plus three toxic players.

Oracle_Hunter
2012-07-03, 04:43 PM
You have read the sort of thing his other PCs do, right? In this situation, the players who are at least indifferent to the game are better than the ones who are actively attempting to ruin it.

From what he's said,it sounds like he's 'kept' the same group of problem players for all those years, and the 'good' ones come and go as additions to the group. Probably leaving because of the toxic environment.
No, I read it. I also read many of Talakael's previous "Problem Player" threads.

If you have bored Players, it is your fault that they are that way. It is within your power to (1) Ask them why they are bored and (2) Alter your game or your table to suit them. If they are bored because the Problem Players at the table are wrecking the game, it is within the DM's power to kick them from the game.

You can blame the Problem Players for having the emotional maturity of a two year old, but it must be the responsibility of the DM to maintain a good game at their table.

Oracle_Hunter
2012-07-03, 05:05 PM
I actually agree with you. That is why most of my problem player threads boil down to me asking for suggestions on how to motivate players without actively pissing them off.
You need to retain better Players, for one.

For your current crop, you need to appeal to their desires. IMHO, that means offering them toys to choose a side, or just let them run rampant as freelancers.

It is easier to appeal to someone's vices than their virtues -- particularly when the virtues of your current Players are hard to find :smalltongue:

Gavinfoxx
2012-07-03, 05:33 PM
Sorry, I meant I had seperated magic and mundane wealth, not that I had been using the rules from the article you linked (although I have read it and other works by the author in the past and been inspired by a lot of their ideas).

Skimming over the link I don't see anything about magic item attunement however, and I am curious about how it works; do you have more information?

I have been toying with a magic item attunement system, but I can't figure out a way to do it that doesn't feel overly gamey and reduce magic items to a second type of feat and a part of the character rather than an actual external treasure people covet and quest for.



Found it

http://dungeons.wikia.com/wiki/Book_of_Gears_%283.5e_Sourcebook%29/Magic_Items

Also, Talakeal, I made a thread that might be relevant for your group/issues:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=248362

Bit Fiend
2012-07-03, 08:10 PM
Talakeal, I just have to ask one thing, and I mean it with all due respect:

Is this for real or are you just a big fan of gaming-horror stories? Your description of your players is so ridiculously over the top horrific it's really hard to believe this is based on true stories. Also it's glaringly obvious you and your players have vastly different approches to and expectations of the game and yet you continue to play with them. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't want you to stop making new threads like this one if it were fake. We're all into fantasy here and this implies the willingness to accept that some of the best stories are fake. (I would of course wish you best luck in ending this misery if it were real.) But seriously, those guys put the dudes from The Binder of Shame (http://albruno3.blogspot.de/p/binder-of-shame.html) to, well, shame.

Synovia
2012-07-03, 09:25 PM
You have read the sort of thing his other PCs do, right? In this situation, the players who are at least indifferent to the game are better than the ones who are actively attempting to ruin it.

From what he's said,it sounds like he's 'kept' the same group of problem players for all those years, and the 'good' ones come and go as additions to the group. Probably leaving because of the toxic environment.

If the players are actively trying to ruin the game, its usually because they're bored, or aren't having fun. (atleast, IMO).

From the OPs post, it sounds like hes trying to run a game thats completely counter to what they want. THats not good DMing.

Gavinfoxx
2012-07-03, 09:31 PM
It's not bad DMing though... because all his players are completely insane. It really, really isn't too much to try to be reasonable and act within the basic boundaries of the game and expect the players to sit down to actually play the game as it is presented...

..the problem is, I don't think Talakeal has ever had a sane player for more than a session; they all realize that all of his players are nutjobs and wisely leave.

Synovia
2012-07-03, 11:25 PM
Whats more likely? All his players are insane, or hes just not doing a very good job keeping them engaged.

He keeps saying that the majority of players he gets are bored and uninterested.

Everyone has a little bit of kid in them, and there isn't a kid out there who won't get destructive if he gets bored enough.

He starts kicking players, and I really think hes going to end up with an entirely new group, and exactly the same problems.

They're poor players because hes entirely too afraid to say "no, I'm not picking on you. You did something stupid and your character died" or "you attacked the High Level Quest Giver and he stabbed you in the face and then used your body to beat the rest of the party to death"

His players know there's no consequences, and no stakes, so they're bored, and pushing the limits.

Gavinfoxx
2012-07-03, 11:41 PM
Do they put something in the water where you live, Talakeal??

Are you sure YOU haven't succumbed to it in your own way??

You are making lots of irrational choices of your own.

Grail
2012-07-03, 11:42 PM
And also, you mention bored and descructive kids; tell me if you think this is normal: One of my players, when we used to play at my parents house in our late teens, would pull out a pocket knife and start carving up my mothers furniture (in plain view of everyone) during the game. When asked to stop he would just say "this is your punishment for inviting me over and then not keeping me properly entertained" and then continue.

This equals /thread

Seriously.... this happens and you think that it's a problem in game that you should be correcting? Leave the group. Stop complaining on internet forums and do something constructive.

LEAVE.

Stubbazubba
2012-07-04, 12:11 AM
Yeah, someone kept referring to you as a beaten wife, and now I fully agree. Stop what you're doing and get out. Any thought that this is a salvageable situation is completely and utterly wrong, shove it out of your head with everything you have. Take freaking control. Get out. Now.

Driderman
2012-07-04, 03:39 AM
Yeah, someone kept referring to you as a beaten wife, and now I fully agree. Stop what you're doing and get out. Any thought that this is a salvageable situation is completely and utterly wrong, shove it out of your head with everything you have. Take freaking control. Get out. Now.

I'm starting to suspect our "battered DM" here thrives on the attention, though...

HeadlessMermaid
2012-07-04, 04:12 AM
Talakeal, in all honesty, I think you are behaving masochistically. It may be technically consensual, but it's neither safe nor sane.

I can understand peer pressure, and how, despite everything, you don't want to quit playing with these people - they aren't strangers, they are your social circle. It's human and perfectly understandable. What's less understandable is why you keep, not only tolerating their behavior, but provoking it.

You've made it clear that when these people play, they explicitly resent authority in any shape or form, they explicitly hate Lawful, they explicitly don't trust Good. And you've made it abundantly clear that when they don't like something, they don't discuss it like civilized human beings - they bully you, personally. And yet you keep DMing campaigns where they have to side with the LG entity of absolute authority - in this case, the Empire. Did you really expect them to go along with it? How else would it end?

You could have made up an equally loose storyline (just enough to support the "kill the monsters" play-testing scenario), where the Empire is the oppressive enemy and the mission is to cause chaos. Instead, you are banging your head on the exact same wall that was there yesterday, and the day before that, and god knows how many years before that.

It sounds as if you want them to behave like that, and treat you like that.


The way I see it, there are exactly two cases here:

Either you are wildly exaggerating to the point of inventing stuff, and withholding crucial information that would invalidate any conclusion that has been reached so far, and the situation isn't nearly as bad as you're presenting it...

...Or this isn't about RPGs anymore. This is where you consider seeking professional help. Either way, best of luck.

TuggyNE
2012-07-04, 05:12 AM
I think this might be a good time to link to the Five Geek Social Fallacies (http://www.plausiblydeniable.com/opinion/gsf.html), just in case.

Talakeal, all of this sounds pretty horrific, and I can't really see a good reason for you to continue playing with them. (I'm not sure I can see a good reason to continue hanging out with them either, but that's more subjective.)

Synovia
2012-07-04, 07:41 AM
I have LITERALLY had people attack a high level NPC out of the blue and then throw a fit and leave the game forever when the NPC fought back (or in the case of one god, simply ignored the attack because it couldn't hurt him) on multiple occasions.

And also, you mention bored and descructive kids; tell me if you think this is normal: One of my players, when we used to play at my parents house in our late teens, would pull out a pocket knife and start carving up my mothers furniture (in plain view of everyone) during the game. When asked to stop he would just say "this is your punishment for inviting me over and then not keeping me properly entertained" and then continue.

Why did you not throw this kid out, and call the cops?

This **** keeps happening to you because you keep putting up with it.

Teron
2012-07-04, 07:50 AM
I can't tell, are you implying I remain in the group because I enjoy the abuse hurled at me or that I am posting on the forum because I want sympathy rather than actual help?

Either way I suppose you are tachnically correct, as I do prefer negative attention to silence, but I really would much rather have productive gaming sessions and forum discussions where we can improve the future rather than dwelling on the mistakes of the past.
...and here's the heart of the issue. If you're willing to put up with the "negative attention" you're getting from your players, there is nothing the Playground can do to help you and, frankly, you've been wasting everyone's time.

Reaver225
2012-07-04, 08:43 AM
Regarding the group:
Please, for the love of everything sane, talk to the each of the four players individually and ask them 1: "Do you like how the campaign is going, and if not, what's wrong and what would you prefer" and 2: "Are you ok with all the other members of the group?"

If you've got a consensus of 3-1 that one player is being a problem, the please, please, separate that player. He as far as I can see is a bad influence. If you really can't drop him (I understand that situation) do separate one on one sessions with him where he is the bad guy opposing the main group. You'll get PVP information out of that, too.

Regarding the actual game: (at least one of) your players will target and kill: 1: individuals with more power than them. 2: organisations with more power than them. 3: Individuals or organisations with less power than them that have loot or don't have loot.

You want them to work for the empire, which they hate, because they don't like people telling them what to do.

In your original post:
How does a DM make a "good guy" power structure in the game which the players will actively support while still keeping it realistic and essentially human rather than a fairy tale utopia?
This is impossible with the conditions of keeping them happy, as it appears (at least one of your) players cannot actually comprehend what the heck "good" is, and don't support it in any case.

If you want your players to support your Empire, you'll have to do so by giving them a reason to: if not idealistic reasons, then for safety. Assuming they are self-sufficient with food and water, have bounty hunters, ever increasingly angry monsters and even armies come after them in definitely over-CR'd encounters because they are doing horrible things.
The Empire gives them support to stop the attacks, because your Lawful Good empire doesn't like seeing it's helpers be killed off. But let it be known the support will be withdrawn if they do too many evil things as laid out by the empire.

At that point, they will either support your empire, or not support it and be killed off, and possibly ragequit. I suspect the latter. However I have a suspicion you will not be doing this.

What you need to make known being evil (screwing over your allies, killing bystanders for their goods, etc) will have consequences that build up faster than they level. However, it appears you are unable to do that even in real life as demonstrated with the kid with his penknife. You will be unable to deal with your group as you are now and will remain in this state unless you actually take charge and stop being walked over all the time.

Autolykos
2012-07-04, 08:47 AM
This equals /thread

Seriously.... this happens and you think that it's a problem in game that you should be correcting? Leave the group. Stop complaining on internet forums and do something constructive.

LEAVE.I can only second this. I can assure you nobody would be able to pull a stunt like this on me twice, because he'd never enter my house again. ever. And unless he seriously apologizes and pays for the repairs, I won't even know that person anymore.
If you're willing to put up with stuff like that, there's nothing more we can do or say to help you. You have some serious problems and should see professional help about them. Learning some martial arts could also help you get confident enough that you won't let people treat you as their doormat anymore.

Strawberries
2012-07-04, 09:02 AM
I have LITERALLY had people attack a high level NPC out of the blue and then throw a fit and leave the game forever when the NPC fought back (or in the case of one god, simply ignored the attack because it couldn't hurt him) on multiple occasions.

And also, you mention bored and descructive kids; tell me if you think this is normal: One of my players, when we used to play at my parents house in our late teens, would pull out a pocket knife and start carving up my mothers furniture (in plain view of everyone) during the game. When asked to stop he would just say "this is your punishment for inviting me over and then not keeping me properly entertained" and then continue.

At the cost of sounding like a broken record... why the hell didn't you kick that guy out of your house THEN AND THERE?? Seriously, from what you're implying, you've kept up with this guy for years...there's something seriously wrong with that.

Look, I get being afraid to not find other players, I really do. Where I'm from, I had no possibility of playing a face-to-face game, because literally there was no gamer around for kilometers.... but I still wouldn't have put up with someone like that, not even if they paid me. Play-by-post, or play-by-chat can be highly satisfying too...and considering your horror stories, certainly WAY better than anything you are experiencing face-to-face now.

Really, trust me, give it a try. It seems your real-life games are nothing but a big pointless exercise in frustration. Quit.

Drascin
2012-07-04, 09:16 AM
At the cost of sounding like a broken record... why the hell didn't you kick that guy out of your house THEN AND THERE?? Seriously, from what you're implying, you've kept up with this guy for years...there's something seriously wrong with that.

Look, I get being afraid to not find other players, I really do. Where I'm from, I had no possibility of playing a face-to-face game, because literally there was no gamer around for kilometers.... but I still wouldn't have put up with someone like that, not even if they paid me. Play-by-post, or play-by-chat can be highly satisfying too...and considering your horror stories, certainly WAY better than anything you are experiencing face-to-face now.

Really, trust me, give it a try. It seems your real-life games are nothing but a big pointless exercise in frustration. Quit.

Pretty much this.

Seriously, dude. This is not healthy. This is not good. This can't be having a good effect on your self-esteem and you ability to enjoy gaming. You have allowed these bunch of bastards to put yourself into an abuse loop, and you're not going to get out of it unless you outright grab a hammer and break it. In this case, the hammer is very simple, but also, I understand, probably hard: Get the **** out of there. These people are not your friends. They are, psychologically speaking, taking advantage of you, using you to feel better about themselves. This is textbook psychological abuse.

Yes, you may not find other people to play with for a while. But believe me - no gaming is much better than bad gaming. And it's not like you'd have to go completely without anyway - look into IRC and PbP to kill the cravings in the meantime. You have a bunch of games in this very site!

Don't let these people keep hurting you for their own jollies. Break it off. It'll suck at first, but you'll end up feeling much better :smallsmile:.

Reaver225
2012-07-04, 09:24 AM
Also, if you are feeling physically threatened by what your players may do if you stop GMing, consider a restraining order.

Being entirely serious here. Players who pull knives are something I'd be wary of.

kyoryu
2012-07-04, 11:37 AM
And, as I said, it is mostly just the one player, and the only thing he ever wants to do is "power up" by fighting enemies much weaker than himself, robbing friendly NPCs blind, and locking himself away from the campaign for several years of training hoping I will give him a ton of down time XP and not advance the villains a like amount.

So, here's what I think.

DTMFA. Yeah, I've said that.

Look, as a DM, you have a responsibility to the group. You also have a responsibility to yourself.

I'm going to explain what happens when you have a cancerous player in your group. These types of players seem to have some psychological need, and it's *not the game*. It's dominating the group. (I believe these are also the people that lead to "killer DM" horror stories, but I digress).

1) Because they're willing to shout everyone else down and disrupt them, the game runs their way.
2) The mature, healthy people in your group refuse to deal with this, and leave.
3) The less healthy people in your group stay, and fall into this way of playing (or at least go along with it)
4) Any other crazies that happen to join your game love it and stay.

You now have an entirely anti-social group, because of *one* problem player. You've created a situation that self-selects for problem players, and reinforces any tendencies people have towards that play style.

You've even observed #2 and #3 in the form of "milque-toast" players. Maybe they just don't see the point in getting into a shouting match with a sociopath? Maybe they realize that when dealing with someone that disturbed, that there's no successful strategy for dealing with them? Maybe they're prior victims of that type of emotional abuse (and yes, it is abuse), and have learned to shut their mouths or it gets worse?

Stubbazubba
2012-07-04, 01:59 PM
{{Scrubbed}}

dps
2012-07-04, 03:56 PM
I can only second this. I can assure you nobody would be able to pull a stunt like this on me twice, because he'd never enter my house again. ever. And unless he seriously apologizes and pays for the repairs, I won't even know that person anymore.


When I was a teenager, if any of my "friends" had pulled a stunt like that, the decision would have been out of my hands anyway. If Talakeal's parents were willing to put up with things like that in their home, maybe he gets his willingness to put up with bad behaviour from them.

Yukitsu
2012-07-04, 04:11 PM
Speaking of, anyone else worried about the fact that Lanky hasn't been seen around in a while?

On a less concerned note, yeah, definitely not a good group to be around, go find some other people to associate with before someone decides D&D should go from game to sport. Might be thinking "there isn't anyone else to game with" but you'd definitely be pretty far off that mark.

Fatebreaker
2012-07-04, 05:44 PM
Tal, I've heard you say you can't find new (or good) players. You are never going to find (good) new players while hanging out players who have, by your own admission, serious mental issues and/or drug habits. As others have pointed out, your current circle of players is self-selecting in favor of bad players.

Anyone who you would want to play with, but is willing to be selective in their company, will not choose to play with you or your group.

If you are wondering why people are less than sympathetic, it's probably because the more they learn, the more they realize that your actions are, whether actively or passively, encouraging the behavior you claim to not want. Your friend with the knife? Yeah, when you did not immediately bounce his ass out of the house, you told everyone that taking sharp objects to your property was an action without penalty.

I'm going to let you in on a secret. If you are socially awkward, and you continue to hang out with socially awkward people, you will not become less socially awkward. If you want to make new friends, and learn social skills along the way, the secret is to get out there and interact with people.

Join a group. Pick an interest (or choose a new one), and do a google search for "[city] + + [group]" and attend something. Talk to folks. Ask questions. Get involved. And if it goes poorly? Don't show up, pick a new group, and [I]try again. You will, I hope, learn what works for you and what does not, and over time, improve. Someday, you'll have new friends and you'll be much happier. But that day will never come if you stay with folks who are bad for you and allow them to mistreat you.

The Glyphstone
2012-07-04, 06:34 PM
And beyond that, we'd probably be getting into the realm of giving medical advice (psychology is technically medicine), or close enough to it.

Hiro Protagonest
2012-07-04, 08:12 PM
Alright, it does appear that all your players are either
A) bad (and I don't mean "doesn't take showers often enough and eats all the snacks", I mean bad)
or
B) okay, but either you're not good enough to keep them interested, the bad players scared them off, or both
and that all the B players (although I think you mentioned there's one good player, but that was in another thread a while ago) have left.

Stop playing. Take a few months off. Then call some of the old type Bs and ask if they'd be willing to try again, except this time none of the old problem players are around.

Or just stop playing.

Vorr
2012-07-04, 08:16 PM
I fully agree something about my GM style doesn't engage my players, and I have trouble finding the line between standing up to them and "provoking" them when they do something stupid and randomly anti-social. This is what I need advice for.


You might just want to try the 'Up the Fantasy' trick. This is simply where you make your world so fantastic that the players can't disrupt anything.

Take your ''killing the shop keeper'' example from the last page, you could:

1)Make the shopkeeper a dragon, ghost, golem or any other creature that would be hard for the character to just 'kill'.

2)Make the shop just four empty walls and an illusion of a shopkeeper. You see only illusions of products, set your money on the floor and have it teleported away to be replaced by what you bought.

3)Make the shopkepper immortal. A fun way to do this is with clones. Say the kill Don the shopkeeper, then Don VII shows up to take over the shop.

And make things interesting for the players, such as having a Black Pudding suspended in a bubble of force on the ceiling and tied to the shop keepers life force..should he die, the pudding will fall. And even old fashioned bombs work here too.

Kadzar
2012-07-04, 08:25 PM
Man people, this is some unusual flaming I have been getting in this thread.

I am socially awkward and have trouble making new friends, and I am generally pretty forgiving. As a result I don't like to break off friendships over minor problems because I fear I will not be able to break off the friendship.But your problem player has made it abundantly clear that he is not your friend anymore and he is not going to change his mind about this fact. There is no friendship to be lost here. Also, he is terrible in every way and literally has no understanding of goodness.

Siosilvar
2012-07-04, 08:41 PM
Man people, this is some unusual flaming I have been getting in this thread.

I am socially awkward and have trouble making new friends, and I am generally pretty forgiving. As a result I don't like to break off friendships over minor problems because I fear I will not be able to break off the friendship. This does not mean I am provoking behavior, am masochistic, have a toxic personality, or whatever else you are throwing at me.

I haven't posted in any of your threads before. But I've read most of them, and based on my reading, these are not minor problems. Get out of this situation, take a break from gaming, then try to find a new group. Do not invite any of your current players to the new group. Your group has been grating on each other for at least two years now, six if I'm reading correctly, and I honestly don't understand why you keep coming back. It's not healthy.

Your situation is analogous to the cliche of the girl who keeps going back to her abusive boyfriend time after time. You need to leave. Don't look back.

Synovia
2012-07-05, 09:34 AM
I am socially awkward and have trouble making new friends, and I am generally pretty forgiving. As a result I don't like to break off friendships over minor problems because I fear I will not be able to break off the friendship. This does not mean I am provoking behavior, am masochistic, have a toxic personality, or whatever else you are throwing at me.


Yes, it does.

When people treat you like crap, and you let them do it, you're telling them that their behavior is fine by you. You're incentivising their bad behavior.

You're no different from the battered woman who goes back to her husband and appologizes for making him angry enough to hit her. The first time he hits her, hes the problem. Anytime after that, her going back is the problem.

tensai_oni
2012-07-05, 10:35 AM
I agree that you need to stop playing with these people. Find another group - someone suggested google search for roleplaying groups in your location. Do that. Or try to play online instead. But do not play with these people. Their behaviour is not good for your game OR for you.



You're no different from the battered woman who goes back to her husband and appologizes for making him angry enough to hit her. The first time he hits her, hes the problem. Anytime after that, her going back is the problem.

But this is a very, VERY bad comparison, and a disgusting simplification of an actual, wide-spread real life problem. And I do not want to go on an off-topic tangent so I'll leave it at that.

Synovia
2012-07-05, 10:40 AM
But this is a very, VERY bad comparison, and a disgusting simplification of an actual, wide-spread real life problem. And I do not want to go on an off-topic tangent so I'll leave it at that.

Either say nothing at all, or explain yourself. The "This is what I think and I get the last word" is childish behavior.


Its exactly the same thing: He's in an abusive situation, and he keeps going back to the abusive situation. The problem isn't his players; the problem is that he keeps going back.

Its exactly like a battered woman: you don't fix that situation by fixing the abuser, you fix that situation by LEAVING. And until the abused is willing to realise that their not leaving is a huge part of the problem, and change that about themselves, the issue is going to continue.

His players are what they are at this point. He can't fix them.

Reaver225
2012-07-05, 10:52 AM
Talakeal, just to rub this in further: I counted 20+ people in this thread alone telling you to bug out before I stopped counting.

If just one or two people are telling you "your player is unconditionally treating you like a piece of garbage only fit for GMing and telling them 'you get +1 level!' and complaining about every other thing" then you might ignore them or write them off as flaming or being wrong.

But 20+ people all at once including mods? That's not deliberate flaming. That's a general consensus that there's a problem issue here.

Is the player someone you absolutely cannot remove from your group? -Brother, parent, someone who pays your rent? If it is, then that's about the only absolute imperative for not getting out of it. Someone who doesn't see you as a friend isn't going to support you in anything unless they want something out of you and then will likely manipulate you to do what they want anyway.

Very seriously. Consider if it's worth keeping this person around, for both him and you.

Tyndmyr
2012-07-05, 10:53 AM
I have LITERALLY had people attack a high level NPC out of the blue and then throw a fit and leave the game forever when the NPC fought back (or in the case of one god, simply ignored the attack because it couldn't hurt him) on multiple occasions.

See, this is shorn of context, but I could see both of these being surrounded by complaints of railroading. It all depends on the scenario.


And also, you mention bored and descructive kids; tell me if you think this is normal: One of my players, when we used to play at my parents house in our late teens, would pull out a pocket knife and start carving up my mothers furniture (in plain view of everyone) during the game. When asked to stop he would just say "this is your punishment for inviting me over and then not keeping me properly entertained" and then continue.

No, this is not normal. Someone damaging my property while playing at my house(or anyone's house, really), would be quickly told that such actions were wildly inappropriate. If he did not immediately stop, he'd be most certainly kicked out and not invited back. Hell, we might well do that right off. That's way outside the bounds of accepted gaming behavior.

Tal, have you ever tried just closing the rulebook, sitting down with your players, and beating them?

Synovia
2012-07-05, 05:50 PM
Masochistic means finding pleasure or gratification in pain or humiliation. Being willing to put up with something is no way the same thing as finding pleasure or gratification in that thing. That would be like claiming someone who is dieting to lose weight enjoys starving themselves, someone who works a job they hate because they have a family to feed enjoys the drudgery, or someone who get a vaccination to prevent disease gets off on being poked with needles.

Fear of change does not equal a love the present. There are many people with self destructive habits who would love to change, they just lack the strength or courage..

You'd do well to read what you're quoting.

I at no point even mentioned masochism.

Synovia
2012-07-05, 05:55 PM
I am not offended by people telling me I am being a fool for not kicking him already, they are just stating the obvious. The people who said that I am provoking the behavior, either actively because I am a masochist / attention seeker or simply by being a terrible DM and then diagnosing me with mental illnesses based solely on half a dozen forum threads are the ones who are hurting my feelings..

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it might be a duck.

Again, this is simple conditioned response. If someone acts like a jerk, and you acceed to their demands to avoid confrontation, you are conditioning them to act like a jerk. You are rewarding their behaviour.

One of the definitions of the word provoke is as such: to give rise to, induce, or bring about.

It fits.

VanBuren
2012-07-05, 06:42 PM
Either say nothing at all, or explain yourself. The "This is what I think and I get the last word" is childish behavior.


Its exactly the same thing: He's in an abusive situation, and he keeps going back to the abusive situation. The problem isn't his players; the problem is that he keeps going back.

Its exactly like a battered woman: you don't fix that situation by fixing the abuser, you fix that situation by LEAVING. And until the abused is willing to realise that their not leaving is a huge part of the problem, and change that about themselves, the issue is going to continue.

His players are what they are at this point. He can't fix them.

Well.... it's dangerous territory, comparing it to actual domestic abuse. I'm not going to weigh in on whether the situations are equivalent, but I'd hazard that even if they are it's usually a comparison you're better off not making.

Jornophelanthas
2012-07-06, 06:27 AM
This thread has gone was off topic and into personal territory I am not comfortable discussion on an RPG forum. Requesting a lock.

I am new to this thread, but I believe things have gone a bit too far. The OP has removed all of his posts (which I've only read from other people quoting him).

Synovia
2012-07-06, 07:38 AM
Well.... it's dangerous territory, comparing it to actual domestic abuse. I'm not going to weigh in on whether the situations are equivalent, but I'd hazard that even if they are it's usually a comparison you're better off not making.

Is the quest to be PC so strong that people can't have reasoned discussion anymore?

Tyndmyr
2012-07-06, 08:13 AM
Comparisons are unnecessary.

Long story short, Tal's got a problem with his group. He's wanting to continue conflict avoidance, and find a way to dodge the core issues for a bit.

Thing is, the basic situation is terrible, and there really is no quick fix. The basic conflict needs to be confronted in a polite fashion. It might not be a lot of fun, but it IS quite a relief once you're done with it, and I certainly hope he does this.

Synovia
2012-07-06, 08:23 AM
Comparisons are unnecessary.



Comparisons are useful, and provide a framework that is easier to understand, and more commonly observed.


Everyone knows someone in an abusive (although not necessarily physically) relationship. Not everyone knows someone in a crappy D&D group.

Tyndmyr
2012-07-06, 08:46 AM
Comparisons are useful, and provide a framework that is easier to understand, and more commonly observed.


Everyone knows someone in an abusive (although not necessarily physically) relationship. Not everyone knows someone in a crappy D&D group.

Arguing by analogy is like a leaky knife.

kamikasei
2012-07-06, 08:52 AM
Comparing the OP's behaviour to that of an abused woman who convinces herself she can't leave her partner is one thing. Saying that in both cases the victim is the one at fault is another thing, and despicable.

(And arguing that it's illegitimate to say some comparisons are bad and inflammatory and shouldn't be made, on the Internet - home of Godwin's Law - is more entertaining than anything else.)

Synovia
2012-07-06, 08:57 AM
Comparing the OP's behaviour to that of an abused woman who convinces herself she can't leave her partner is one thing. Saying that in both cases the victim is the one at fault is another thing, and despicable.)

Awesome strawman dude.

Saying that the victim is at fault, and that the victim's actions have made it possible to reoccur are completely different things. I used different words because those words don't mean the same thing. The english language is very diverse, and it would be wise to remember that rewording what someone has said can often lead to a completely contradictory meaning.

kamikasei
2012-07-06, 09:06 AM
Saying that the victim is at fault, and that the victim's actions have made it possible to reoccur are completely different things.
No. Saying that the victim's actions are the problem is saying the victim is at fault. You're victim-blaming, and you should stop.

Yukitsu
2012-07-06, 10:56 AM
It's part true unfortunately. As it stands, there is absolutely nothing that will change or can change the offender. The only one who can actually move to promote positive change in either situation is the victim, and unless they realize that the offender won't change, they will be stuck in that situation. Blame the system at any rate, but currently, it's more than a little true until something about the system changes.

Oracle_Hunter
2012-07-06, 11:22 AM
No. Saying that the victim's actions are the problem is saying the victim is at fault. You're victim-blaming, and you should stop.
While I dislike how much Synovia is harping on it, it is... striking that Talakael has had exactly the same problem with abusive Players for 20 years despite having had different Players in his group.

I mean, any house can have its basement flooded, but if a house's basement floods consistently for 20 years straight you might want to check its foundation.

Autolykos
2012-07-06, 12:18 PM
You're victim-blaming, and you should stop.He's offering the only sane way to end this problem. You can't change other (unwilling) people, you can only change yourself. With help, if necessary.
The question is not "Who's guilty?" it's "What can he do?".

kamikasei
2012-07-06, 12:29 PM
He's offering the only sane way to end this problem. You can't change other (unwilling) people, you can only change yourself. With help, if necessary.
The question is not "Who's guilty?" it's "What can he do?".
And if he'd said that, instead of what he'd said, my objection to what he said would be moot.

NichG
2012-07-06, 04:25 PM
It takes self-confidence to make a change in one's own life. Using severity shock to motivate change can work in some cases, but it could undermine the person's self-confidence. The problem with "victim blaming" is that its counterproductive, its not going to help someone change, because its encourages the line of thought "I'm wrong, if only I did something different, etc, etc" rather than "I'm right to be upset with this situation, they're in the wrong, I should change this." Basically, don't cut someone down and then expect it to help them stand up for themselves.

VanBuren
2012-07-06, 08:06 PM
Is the quest to be PC so strong that people can't have reasoned discussion anymore?

Oh look, it's the "Political Correctness Accusation Slaad".

Now, if we can look past the victim-blaming, it seems that your hand has been forced now that one of your other players can't handle Nightmare!Player.

So... any idea what you're going to do?