First-time GM hitting depression

[LoneMage210]

So I'm interested in GMing a game but... amoung my many groups, I can't seem to get any idea off the ground...

Here's a list of failed ideas to prove a point...


An Adeptus Evangelion game using the Infamy rules from Black Crusade where I plan to kill off everyone during the Human Instrumentaly Project
A Star Wars Saga Edition game featuring a focus on the Galatic Empire and a chance to change the Original Triology
A Pokemon Tabletop Game that has the trainers take the role of members of any of the major Criminal groups (Rocket, Aqua, Magma, Galatic, Plasma)
A Black Crusade game with some form of focus as I build around


I don't know what to do to get a game going as a GM... just sure I want to let the PCs be the bad guy but... it feels like not many people want to be the bad guy and I want to run a first game with that chance. Now what?

[Tanuki Tales]

Going to ask a very important question here:

"Why did all those games fail?"

What makes you feel like the sessions could be empirically defined as "failures"?

[LoneMage210]

The measurement of failure? I pitch the ideas and no one wants to take the idea at face value, so no one bites my pitch and thus feels like nothing stuck to the wall...

When I asked someone else why my ideas don't work... it's basically simple "Not many people want to be evil" and these ideas have a common concept: A chance to explore being evil...

Thus it feels like I'm falling into privation...

[Marlowe]

just sure I want to let the PCs be the bad guy but... it feels like not many people want to be the bad guy and I want to run a first game with that chance. Now what?

This is a bit of a red flag. Having a DM enforcing "Bad Guy" status on your player is a major turn-off. I've had DMs (the same one) try it twice.

It's one thing playing a morally ambiguous/conflicted character, and that would be entirely appropriate for both Eva and the Empire, but to start off with making the players "Bad Guys" takes away too much player control and choice.

Also, why put the players through the ordeal that Evangelion is just to give them a worse ending (at least, according to some interpretation) than what actually happened? Who would want to commit time and commitment to a game knowing that failure is the only option?

[LoneMage210]

So in short, forcing the status of "the Bad Guys" out of the gate is just poor... ouch

[Tanuki Tales]

The measurement of failure? I pitch the ideas and no one wants to take the idea at face value, so no one bites my pitch and thus feels like nothing stuck to the wall...

When I asked someone else why my ideas don't work... it's basically simple "Not many people want to be evil" and these ideas have a common concept: A chance to explore being evil...

Thus it feels like I'm falling into privation...

Have you given them the option to be subversives inside of the group or start off as members and then become appalled and break out?

The first makes them the bad guys technically, but they work against the greater machine of the evil they're part of, doing good or neutral things in attempts to assuage their souls since they won't or can't leave the organization proper.

The second has them hounded by both sides of the Hat society as they try to escape their villainous roots and prove that they aren't just the same as the group they've cut ties with. They are villains only by the definitions of the societies they were apart of and/or trying to re-enter and the object becomes to prove they are, in fact, good guys.

[LoneMage210]

Have you given them the option to be subversives inside of the group or start off as members and then become appalled and break out?

I was going to give them the option but I can't even offer that if no one's willing to bite with my ideas...


Also, why put the players through the ordeal that Evangelion is just to give them a worse ending (at least, according to some interpretation) than what actually happened? Who would want to commit time and commitment to a game knowing that failure is the only option?

I don't know, but I'm willing to try ANYTHING to get a game going, even if it means enforcing "Failure is the only Option"

[Tanuki Tales]

I was going to give them the option but I can't even offer that if no one's willing to bite with my ideas...

Not trying to be mean or anything, but it doesn't sound like you even included it in your pitch to them. If you know they don't want to be card carrying villains like Xykon, you need to explain to them how they're, in the words of Wreck-It Ralph:

Bad Guys but not Bad Guys.




I don't know, but I'm willing to try ANYTHING to get a game going, even if it means enforcing "Failure is the only Option"

I see an issue here; you shouldn't be enforcing anything except the rules of the game. A GM is there to facilitate, not dictate.

[LoneMage210]

Yea but I guess when you have several failed ideas, you more or less have to do whatever it takes for the idea to stick with the group

[Tanuki Tales]

Yea but I guess when you have several failed ideas, you more or less have to do whatever it takes for the idea to stick with the group

Why can't you just come up with new ideas or new ways to pitch your old ideas that will mesh with both you and the group?

[LoneMage210]

Well, feels like it sounds like you want me to give up pitching the idea of being the bad guy to the group... because really all my ideas have a common theme: a chance for me to explore being evil, and it's quite hard to "abandon" the theme.

[Marlowe]

I'm not sure if Eva's quite the right choice to explore EVIL. Would the players be playing SEELE?:smallsmile:

[LoneMage210]

I'm not sure if Eva's quite the right choice to explore EVIL. Would the players be playing SEELE?:smallsmile:

Here's the score and reasoning of Black Crusade's Infamy: The pilots were once Criminals who were hard-pressed to fight for SEELE and their agenda. The OpDir such would end up being tangled up in SEELE's web and well, finds themselves in a pickle when the Human Instrumentally plan starts to be a thing.

It doesn't quite explore being Evil but then since their backgrounds imply a Criminal background, the Encroacher Angels would poke into their Criminal pasts a bit, to know what Evil is (the Angels being more or less "animalistic")

[Tanuki Tales]

Well, feels like it sounds like you want me to give up pitching the idea of being the bad guy to the group... because really all my ideas have a common theme: a chance for me to explore being evil, and it's quite hard to "abandon" the theme.

No, I'm suggesting you stop pitching it the exact same way and expecting an answer other than "No" from your players.

[LoneMage210]

Yea but... feels like I'm repelling everyone as I go... like well, I try to give people a choice on how to see evil but, the moment I mention I want to do an Evil game, they instantly repel me... putting me in a spot where well, I want to give up GMing in general and just stick to being a player.

[Marlowe]

It sounds like you really need another concept. It sounds a lot like you're trying to push variations on the same theme to your potential players long after it should have been clear that they're not interested.

You're not going to adequately "explore the nature of evil" with PCs that don't want to be evil in the first place. It's most likely, in this situation, that even if they do accept they're going to rebel against the concept as much as they can.

Want sort of characters do these people like to play? What sort of themes do they enjoy? Remember what was said above. The DM is a facilitator and not a dictator.

If you can prove you can supply a good campaign based on the sort of characters and themes they actually enjoy, they'll be far more likely to try out your own ideas.

[DontEatRawHagis]

Yea but... feels like I'm repelling everyone as I go... like well, I try to give people a choice on how to see evil but, the moment I mention I want to do an Evil game, they instantly repel me... putting me in a spot where well, I want to give up GMing in general and just stick to being a player.

My group does villain games every once in a while. Mainly because DnD is overplayed sometimes. Yes, its fun to play in a medieval setting with elves and dwarves, but sometimes you just want to play as the Joker or Lex Luthor.

I find that you have to pitch games in the right way to get people interested. I usually preface that I have been told I am a good DM for beginners. This allows me to pick up new players interested in learning as well as bring up new systems to hardcore players.

The last game I pitched was a Cyberpunk game with conspiracies, mystery and intrigue. The Zombie game I pitched was a combination Walking Dead and Resident Evil.

The idea is not to say you will play as Evil characters, but that the world is interesting enough that the players will get sucked into it. Thats what I find anyway.

[snikrept]

In my experience most new players roll up characters who claim they are good but who perform actions like evil.

So just don't tell them it's an "evil" campaign, give them morally grey choices and let things evolve naturally.

[Darth Stabber]

Evil pcs is fun for one and all, but it's much better to let everyone fall to their own corruption. I started a sandbox game, and one of the players wanted to play a dread necromancer, and I explained to her that DNs are never good. She launched into long drawn out debate with me about why they shouldn't be ruled out of being good, and I developed a hunch about why she was doing it, and told her she didn't have to play a good character. The look on her face made it seem as though I told her up was down, black was white, and 2+2=87. She shortly dropped all of her arguments, and started stating her character out. The other players decided that they were going to roll with the morally grey thing, and by the time we were done the party was 2/3 evil, 1/3 neutral. I wouldn't begin to tell you how to do start an evil campaign in a non-sandbox game, but forcing it is usually counter productive. Most players think they want to play heroes, and never realizing that they are really playing murder hobos.

Also, weirdly, this group of primarily evil (grown to 3 evil and 2 neutral) characters is more likely to let enemies live and and let the unthreatening leave that most good parties I have encountered (though they have less than pious reasons for doing so, letting them live so they may interrogate them, letting them go so to spread word of their power and the terror they inflict), and the least negative intraparty drama of any group I have encountered.

[Craft (Cheese)]

In my experience that's just a special case of a more general principle: Never, ever try to tell the PCs what their motivation is. Telling a player "Your little sister has been taken by slavers because you sold her to them" tends to have as many problems as "Your little sister has been kidnapped slavers and now you're going off to save her."

What tends to work better is "Your little sister is now in the possession of slavers. How did this happen and what are you going to do now?"

[nedz]

Maybe your potential players don't like the idea of playing evil ?

It's hard to know really. Their failure to bite could be down to a number of reasons. Have you tried asking them what sort of game it is which they want to play ?

[Cikomyr]

I understand why some people might not be enthousiast playing evil right off the bat. A lot of people expect evil party members to be sociopathic betrayers who are always on the lookout to kill and betray each other.

If you wanna play THAT, play Paranoia.

Instead of arm-twisting your players into playing the badguys, you should leave it to them to make that choice. They will find it much more rewarding if they jump on the altar themselves than you tying them up there.

You can start by offering them Deals with the Devils. Ways that they would gain power through some immoral actions. There are a broad ranges of possibilities for you to exploit than simply going "you are evil, lol"

[ThiagoMartell]

You either change your ideas or change your group.
Were I in your shoes, I'd go with snikrept's suggestion and give them morally gray choices.
Personally, I find black and white morality boring except when it's there for a reason. What I see is that you're taking grey settings and presenting them as black and white. "Exploring the nature of evil" is simplistic when you could be telling a much more structured, diverse and interesting story by having characters in all shades of white, grey and black.

[Thinker]

So I'm interested in GMing a game but... amoung my many groups, I can't seem to get any idea off the ground...

Here's a list of failed ideas to prove a point...


An Adeptus Evangelion game using the Infamy rules from Black Crusade where I plan to kill off everyone during the Human Instrumentaly Project
A Star Wars Saga Edition game featuring a focus on the Galatic Empire and a chance to change the Original Triology
A Pokemon Tabletop Game that has the trainers take the role of members of any of the major Criminal groups (Rocket, Aqua, Magma, Galatic, Plasma)
A Black Crusade game with some form of focus as I build around


I don't know what to do to get a game going as a GM... just sure I want to let the PCs be the bad guy but... it feels like not many people want to be the bad guy and I want to run a first game with that chance. Now what?

Those options aren't that interesting. There's no room for anything but being cartoonishly evil. In Star Wars, evil's motivation is basically to be evil for the sake of it. In Pokemon, the criminal groups' motivation is generally a ridiculous destroy/take over the world idea.

Try doing a small campaign with a small focus. Encourage morally ambiguous, self-interested characters. Mercenaries, pirates, criminals, and freedom fighters could fit the bill. If they enjoy that, you can expand the game.

[Hopeless]

So I'm interested in GMing a game but... amoung my many groups, I can't seem to get any idea off the ground...

Here's a list of failed ideas to prove a point...


An Adeptus Evangelion game using the Infamy rules from Black Crusade where I plan to kill off everyone during the Human Instrumentaly Project
A Star Wars Saga Edition game featuring a focus on the Galatic Empire and a chance to change the Original Triology
A Pokemon Tabletop Game that has the trainers take the role of members of any of the major Criminal groups (Rocket, Aqua, Magma, Galatic, Plasma)
A Black Crusade game with some form of focus as I build around


I don't know what to do to get a game going as a GM... just sure I want to let the PCs be the bad guy but... it feels like not many people want to be the bad guy and I want to run a first game with that chance. Now what?

1) Seriously? Why not just have them generate characters and give them the opportunity to introduce their characters whilst you take notes about their character back story and then use that backstory and throw in that a nearby military base has stopped responding with the local community and a patrol from the next nearest base was seen heading to the base...
A secret military research project has infected the surviving inhabitants of the base into cyborged zombies who look for additional organic recruits for their fledgling nanotech society even as the military slowly react to the loss by bombing the site however your PCs by this point has discovered the zombies have spread to their town and beyond... and they have the choice of either continue running or turn and fight...

2) A shuttle carrying troops from aboard the first Death Star escape its destruction but not without suffering damage and jumping they find themselves crashlanding on a mysterious jungle world, no communications, no means of repairing their ship and a world spread out before them and a chance to restart their lives away from the Empire... at least until they find a way to either get offworld or contact the Empire... if they want to of course...

3) Your players are summoners whose sole ability is to summon extra planar creatures that look far too cute to be believably deadly to defend themselves as rivals hunt them down to take their arcane sigils the source of their mystical power... of course knowing there are loads of others hunting them for their sigil balls makes it easier for them to band together and jump their foes before they do the same to them...

4) Don't know it, is it similar to Fading Suns or Warhammer 40k?

[Zombimode]

The measurement of failure? I pitch the ideas and no one wants to take the idea at face value, so no one bites my pitch and thus feels like nothing stuck to the wall...

When I asked someone else why my ideas don't work... it's basically simple "Not many people want to be evil" and these ideas have a common concept: A chance to explore being evil...

Thus it feels like I'm falling into privation...

The problem is: "evil" is not a compelling character description. Sure, I can conjure some images in my mind I would broadly asociate with the term "evil", but its hard to form a character, and not a carricature, arround those.

In short: just saying "your evil" is way to vague and not really compelling.

Try instead something along the lines of the following, taking your Star Wars example:
"Star War, during the time of the Rebellion. You are members of the military of the Empire or otherwise asociated with it. A range of possible characters could include the following: a young starfighter pilot from a family with strong traditions in the Empires / Old Republics navy; a none-clone stormtrooper with strong bounds of comradeship with his fellow troopers; an elite soldier who was mentally conditioned to obidience and brutality; a bounter hunter with a personal vendetta against the Rebells; etc."
It is easy to construct comeplling characters out of these ideas, but the leave it open how to develop them. The Stormtrooper can have believable and even good reasons to fight for the Empire, be in some sense a likeably guy, and still express cruelty and have strong opinions on human superiority or something. You can have characters that are on the "dark" side, are "evil" in some sense, but still have comeplling personalities and motivations.

But maybe thats not the direction you want. Maybe you want your characters be Sauron or Xykon.
If thats the case, maybe you have to question wether your idea is actually possible.
Personally, I don't think that Sauron or Xykon would make good player characters.

Characters like Sauron an Xykon work in the contexts they are appearing mostly because of two things:
1. Narrative role. The structure of the story of LotR requires a certain type of antagonist. Sauron just fulfills that role. But typically, or even necessarily, the PCs in a PnP game do not fill the same type of narrative roles like Sauron or Xykon (for the record: I don't say that Xykon and Sauron fufill the same narrative role - just that both are incompatible with the roles PCs typically perform).
2. Lack of Humanity. Both Xykon and Sauron are compelling because we don't measure them to the same standards as other characters. Sauron is a quasi-metaphysical beeing, Xykon has literally striped away his (last remains of) humantiy at aquiring lichdom. To move away from a humanocentric view: their actions are believable and compelling from their backround as something other then actual persons. This is why we accept their "evulz". (On an related note: this is also the reason why Belkar is not given much in terms of character backround or motivation)
Now, of course you could try to play a character like this, but probably it would be a very shallow experience. While there are sure people who enjoy playing really shallow characters, most people, I'd think, want to play persons, whether they are "evil" or not.

[Driderman]

Sounds to me like your falling into the trap of insisting on telling a story to your players instead of telling a story together with your players. Maybe it's simply that which is putting your potential players off, many roleplayers aren't really interested in being the audience to a DM who has already decided the entire story.

[prufock]

When I asked someone else why my ideas don't work... it's basically simple "Not many people want to be evil"

It's pointless to ask "someone else." You need to ask your players why these ideas didn't interest them, and what type of games they would be interested in playing.

[Marlowe]

Also, weirdly, this group of primarily evil (grown to 3 evil and 2 neutral) characters is more likely to let enemies live and and let the unthreatening leave that most good parties I have encountered (though they have less than pious reasons for doing so, letting them live so they may interrogate them, letting them go so to spread word of their power and the terror they inflict), and the least negative intraparty drama of any group I have encountered.

And there's the way the only functional Evil group I've been in behaved; which was "Act as blameless as possible before witnesses, and hurt only that which society is in agreement should be hurt, because it's no fun being smacked down for being evil before you even get powerful enough to start enjoying it."

In case you're wondering, we were a set of baby necromancers (and a fighter) right out of wizard school (the fighter was themed as a gangland bodyguard/chaperon that my character's father had foisted on me, his bastard daughter.).

We spent most our time cleaning ghouls out of haunted ruins for the research value, because you know, ruthless archliches have to start somewhere. And giving strained explanations to the city guard about why we were in the backstreets at 3:15 am with a cartload of defunct undead. My best line? "Family gathering. Got hectic. We're on clean-up".

[LoneMage210]

So in short, I'm setting too many constraints and not enough room to grow into the role...

Sometimes the first game does have a tendency to be full of false starts though... thanks for trying to help me cope...

Otherwise, I'm considering giving up on trying to be a GM, because I put too much effort into trying to get what I want and end up outputting nothing...

I suppose most of my group wants to be the good guy and save the day and all that... which is why I'm trying to pitch my latest scheme: Get them to play a more hopeless game

[DontEatRawHagis]

I suppose most of my group wants to be the good guy and save the day and all that... which is why I'm trying to pitch my latest scheme: Get them to play a more hopeless game

Paranoia or Call of Cthulu. The first can be a light hearted game of backstabbing and betrayal. The second a mind****.

[Alejandro]

So in short, I'm setting too many constraints and not enough room to grow into the role...

Sometimes the first game does have a tendency to be full of false starts though... thanks for trying to help me cope...

Otherwise, I'm considering giving up on trying to be a GM, because I put too much effort into trying to get what I want and end up outputting nothing...

I suppose most of my group wants to be the good guy and save the day and all that... which is why I'm trying to pitch my latest scheme: Get them to play a more hopeless game

I've played a PC in a 'hopeless' game, and where the GM wanted to nudge us towards doing evil things, even if we didn't mean to. For example, a plague was killing our village, and my PC adventured for several levels to find the cure's ingredients, and mixed it up, and administered it to his family, and....

They all died anyway because there was no cure after all, it was just an evil trick by the bad guys to keep you out of the way while we kept being evil, mwa ha.

We lost interest rapidly after that. Many people play roleplaying games for fun escapism, not to simulate suffering and arbitrary cruelty. If they wanted that, they can just explore the real world.

[ThiagoMartell]

Otherwise, I'm considering giving up on trying to be a GM, because I put too much effort into trying to get what I want and end up outputting nothing...

I suppose most of my group wants to be the good guy and save the day and all that... which is why I'm trying to pitch my latest scheme: Get them to play a more hopeless game
Bolding mine.
I think you really should give up DMing, then, or at least find a different group.
IMHO, DMs should not bother with getting something their players don't want.
If your group wants to play a bunch of good guys, let them play a bunch of good guys. Don't want to DM for a bunch of good guys? Find a different group. Can't find a different group? Well, then I think you should give up on DMing.

[LoneMage210]

I've played a PC in a 'hopeless' game, and where the GM wanted to nudge us towards doing evil things, even if we didn't mean to. For example, a plague was killing our village, and my PC adventured for several levels to find the cure's ingredients, and mixed it up, and administered it to his family, and....

They all died anyway because there was no cure after all, it was just an evil trick by the bad guys to keep you out of the way while we kept being evil, mwa ha.

We lost interest rapidly after that. Many people play roleplaying games for fun escapism, not to simulate suffering and arbitrary cruelty. If they wanted that, they can just explore the real world.

And yet isn't there systems that enforce simulated suffering in their own right?


I think you really should give up DMing, then, or at least find a different group.
IMHO, DMs should not bother with getting something their players don't want.
If your group wants to play a bunch of good guys, let them play a bunch of good guys. Don't want to DM for a bunch of good guys? Find a different group. Can't find a different group? Well, then I think you should give up on DMing.

I suppose there is a point to futility but... while considering giving up... I still want to try to do the games I want to do... but if I must earn my way to play these games... then so be it

[Rama]

My two cents, you're looking at it too black-and-white.

Let them start being good. Then throw out a morally ambiguous choice. Then another. Then another. See where the game leads from there. I'm running one game now where half the group started good and half neutral, but as of now they are pretty much all neutral and tending to follow the lead of the party member most closely toeing the evil line. It makes a better story if they start out good and fall of their own volition, rather than just starting out as evil-guy-X. If you want to explore the nature of evil, it's really all about the journey; not the destination.

The bottom line though, if your players don't want to play a specific type of game then you can't force them to; nor should you, as the game would be fun for no one. If you *really* want to do an evil game, find some players online and play via skype/openrpg or play by post.

[ThiagoMartell]

And yet isn't there systems that enforce simulated suffering in their own right?
I don't think that makes any difference, dude.
Some games work like that because some people like that. Your players don't like that.


I suppose there is a point to futility but... while considering giving up... I still want to try to do the games I want to do... but if I must earn my way to play these games... then so be it
All I'm saying is that you should try those games with people that want to try those games.

[joe]

I only briefly glanced at a large amount of the posts so forgive me if I hit anything that's been covered.

First thing: I'll trade you groups. My players have to be guided toward good to prevent their inner sociopaths from coming out. Having players that tend toward wanting to play heroic characters is nothing short of a GOOD thing. Trust me on this. :)

The safest way to make certain the campaign goes well is to see what kinds of characters your party wants to play, and try to tailor your campaign around that. This isn't to say that you should give your players complete control, but it should give you a good idea of the type of style everyone will enjoy.

It seems like you enjoy the sort of bleak campaign world sort of scenario. That's fine, and done well, that can be very good. That being said, don't make the situation completely hopeless. It can, and should be difficult, but the players should be allowed to make a difference in the world, even if it is in a small way.

All your campaign ideas sound very good by the way. If any of them are still fresh in the players' minds, you can use them still use them to advantage, just make a change of perspective (and possibly character).

Examples:
For the pokemon game, use the villain team made previously as NPCs to oppose the Player's heroes. They're already made, and even if that game previously flopped, I imagine the players would find it an interesting plot hook to go up against their former characters. If you swing it right, you can make it seem like that was your plan all along ;)

Likewise with the Evangelion game, maybe make the players some kind of group out to stop both the Angels, and Nerv/Seele from instigating 3rd Impact. They could form their own group, and work to try to preserve what's left of the world as it's known. Lots of opportunity for three-way battles here, and the players old characters can play parts as antagonists (or maybe spies or something of the like). Also for this sort of game, I would HIGHLY recommend Cthulhutech for rules, or at very least setting. And as a player, I would totally play in something like this!

You have some ideas here that are gold, it just sounds like the direction you take them is the problem. Definitely don't give up, just try to communicate with your players to see what kind of game they would want. :)

[LoneMage210]

It seems like you enjoy the sort of bleak campaign world sort of scenario. That's fine, and done well, that can be very good. That being said, don't make the situation completely hopeless. It can, and should be difficult, but the players should be allowed to make a difference in the world, even if it is in a small way.

All your campaign ideas sound very good by the way. If any of them are still fresh in the players' minds, you can use them still use them to advantage, just make a change of perspective (and possibly character).

Yea just I tend to look down on myself because they flop often and hard.


Examples:
For the pokemon game, use the villain team made previously as NPCs to oppose the Player's heroes. They're already made, and even if that game previously flopped, I imagine the players would find it an interesting plot hook to go up against their former characters. If you swing it right, you can make it seem like that was your plan all along ;)

Likewise with the Evangelion game, maybe make the players some kind of group out to stop both the Angels, and Nerv/Seele from instigating 3rd Impact. They could form their own group, and work to try to preserve what's left of the world as it's known. Lots of opportunity for three-way battles here, and the players old characters can play parts as antagonists (or maybe spies or something of the like). Also for this sort of game, I would HIGHLY recommend Cthulhutech for rules, or at very least setting. And as a player, I would totally play in something like this!

Well for the Evangelion game, there's also a third option: Have the pilots instigate their own Third Impact that's widly diffrent from what NERV and SEELE were thinking of as much as the Angels, remembering there are 6 Third Impact scenarios in AdEva, so while Seele and the Angels go in diffrent ways (with two scenarios being "not exactly as planned" if I choose them)


You have some ideas here that are gold, it just sounds like the direction you take them is the problem. Definitely don't give up, just try to communicate with your players to see what kind of game they would want. :)

I suppose I do lack that communicative ability, just there's times where I get angry on the inside, when things don't even get off the ground at all.

[Thialfi]

My two cents, you're looking at it too black-and-white.

Let them start being good. Then throw out a morally ambiguous choice. Then another. Then another. See where the game leads from there. I'm running one game now where half the group started good and half neutral, but as of now they are pretty much all neutral and tending to follow the lead of the party member most closely toeing the evil line. It makes a better story if they start out good and fall of their own volition, rather than just starting out as evil-guy-X. If you want to explore the nature of evil, it's really all about the journey; not the destination.

The bottom line though, if your players don't want to play a specific type of game then you can't force them to; nor should you, as the game would be fun for no one. If you *really* want to do an evil game, find some players online and play via skype/openrpg or play by post.


This has to be done very carefully. You run a very large risk of fracturing the group. I personally dislike playing evil characters and I know I would reach my breaking point with a group like this pretty quickly if I intended my character to have a moral compass. Some of those ambiguous choices might not be that ambiguous to some people and could lead to players searching for option c if a and b are both distasteful.

[ThiagoMartell]

This has to be done very carefully. You run a very large risk of fracturing the group. I personally dislike playing evil characters and I know I would reach my breaking point with a group like this pretty quickly if I intended my character to have a moral compass. Some of those ambiguous choices might not be that ambiguous to some people and could lead to players searching for option c if a and b are both distasteful.

It all boils down to the same thing at the end: run the games your players want to play in.

[valadil]

So in short, forcing the status of "the Bad Guys" out of the gate is just poor... ouch

Forcing anything is poor. You can only offer games to your players. One of my friends had a habit of bludgeoning people into playing his games. He's not a friend anymore.

Anyway, there's nothing wrong with your ideas. They're just not what your group wants to play right now. That's cool. Save the ideas for another time. Your groups will eventually change, either by changing people or by changing taste.

Have you ever considered outsourcing the theme of the game to them? Talk to the players you know. See what concepts they've wanted to play but have never been able to pull off. Maybe you can find some common thread between those characters they haven't gotten to play yet and you can pitch that to them. Or maybe they'll outright tell you "wouldn't it be awesome to play in Eberron." Or something like that.

Base the game you offer on something you think they'll be into. Evil isn't working. Try something different.

[LoneMage210]

Well, I did talk to other people for communication's sake... seems there is a problem: I want to do a more bleaker game, and they want to do something that isn't so bleak...

The best course of action is to go from one side of the spectrum to the other... that is from a happy idealistic world to a more bleaker world, or vice versa... now what?

[Driderman]

Well, I did talk to other people for communication's sake... seems there is a problem: I want to do a more bleaker game, and they want to do something that isn't so bleak...

The best course of action is to go from one side of the spectrum to the other... that is from a happy idealistic world to a more bleaker world, or vice versa... now what?

You either accept that your players don't want the themes you're currently considering and change accordingly, or you find other players. I recommend the first play as I get the impression you need to learn to work together with your players on building a campaign that's fun for all.

[ThiagoMartell]

You either accept that your players don't want the themes you're currently considering and change accordingly, or you find other players. I recommend the first play as I get the impression you need to learn to work together with your players on building a campaign that's fun for all.

This, so much this.
On the other hand, considering how many times this advice was given and not taken to heart...

[LoneMage210]

Took the time to come back and rethink on the ideas... man, maybe my love of bleakness is getting me into trouble... so, anyone want to do something really bleak, I'll go look for Ravenloft stuff...

[NotScaryBats]

Yeah, go to the Play by post boards here, and start recruiting. People here love that kind of stuff.