PDA

View Full Version : Roleplaying problems with mature players



Cybris75
2013-02-25, 03:59 PM
I'm the relatively new DM (about a year) of a campaign where we have recently run into roleplaying troubles.
Over the course of the last year, we've come to be more comfortable with D&D 3.5 rules, and have more time to concentrate on roleplaying than on rules-checking. There are four players; three of them are over 30, and
one is in his late 20s. I, the DM, am 38. We're a mature bunch, and all have lots of roleplaying experience with various systems (not together, though).

The problem is this: non-violent conflict between PCs and NPCs is problematic. I think I'm playing some adversarial or indifferent NPCs as being too forceful in conversation, leading the players to just accepting
the NPC's opinion as fact, contrary to what I believe their characters would do.

At the moment, the party consists of a Cleric of Heironeus, a Cleric/Paladin/Grayguard of Heironeus, an opportunistic Swashbuckler who likes to
go solo when the Cleric's methods are not to her liking, and a bored Sorcerer who was hired by the other PCs. All PCs are level 12, with corresponding powerful abilities and standing.

Example 1: the PCs are tasked with finding a low-level acolyte of the Kord church, because an oracle told them this person would be of importance in a future apocalyptic event, and her life was in danger and they
should protect her. They go to the corresponding Kord temple, and want to see her. A lowly Kord priest tells them that she is away conducting
some rite-of-inititation in which she has to tackle a bear and tells them not to interrupt.

Motivation of the Kord priest: "Let the acolyte stand for herself, and give her the chance of proving herself. If she is assassinated and goes out with a fight, or maybe slays her assassins, she will feast in Valhall
forever. Besides, we of Kord are strong and don't need Heironeus clerics to pamper us"

Expected outcome: the cleric PCs are bound by orders and convince the priest to witness the bear-tackling, escorting the acolyte to safety.

What happened: I (as the priest) strongly suggest the PCs mind their own business, because Kord only wants to be worshipped by the strong. The PCs disregard their orders and decide to stay and wait. The acolyte is
assassinated. As a result, as phrophecied, the world with end in 20 years.

Example 2: in a remote village, the daughter of a merchant was killed. The PCs are asked to stand wake for the dead girl, because the local priest was killed, and the nearby bog emanates necromantic magics, so
a wake for dead people is necessary, because they might rise during the night of mourning. They to that, but the girl rises as an undead creature and escapes with the help of an unknown helper. The PCs must explain
this to her father.

Motivation of the father: grief, anger, helpless accusations.

Expected outcome: they console the pining father and vow to find her and put her to rest.

What happened: The single-classing Heironeus cleric volunteers to inform the father. The player (not the PC) can't cope with the range of emotions I exhibit playing the NPC, and enters a confused state of undecidedness,
while the other players don't want to tell him what to do or say. I resolve the situation with a 10 minute break, followed with a diplomacy check. (BTW, I know the player well enough - no deaths in the family, and
no reason for acting all catatonic.
The player is 35, and not usually affected in this way by stuff that happens in the game.)

Example 3: the PCs are given a quest, which the church of Wee Jas (a legitimate power in this corrupted town,
led by a vampire!) know of. A mercenary wizard working for the Wee Jas church finds the PCs, and offers to join them. He expresses his
purpose ("Of course I will inform my superiours of what you are doing. Bartender, drinks for all!"). He is a necromancer.

Motivation of the wizard: He doesn't really care about the local church, but he does care about the quest, intellectually. He doesn't need the PCs to invite them in on their journey, but prefers not to hide and
follow them, because it's more advantegous to travel together.

Expected outcome: The PCs should strongly deny associating with a necromancer (creating undead is forbidden in most of the lands, except for this city, where they perform manual labour).

What happened: I (as the necromancer), persuade the players by sheer force of played personality to take him with them.


The problem is that, although most of my players identify very much with their characters, and know them inside out (Level 12!), my NPCs still convince them to do things that the PCs would never do. The players
rarely have the idea of rolling for "sense motive" unless I tell them to (if I think that the PCs would never buy the crap my NPCs are feeding them). I never use diplomacy against PCs or break the interaction rules in any way, but they rarely think of using diplomacy, bluff, or their PCs other social strengths against NPCs either.

What can I do? We are not 13-year-olds, and I don't want to resolve every conversation with skill checks.
Am I playing the strong-willed NPC's motivations too intensely? Almost all NPCs have names, jobs, and motivations, no matter how unimportant they are, and there is no hint of what will be important for the quests - is that my problem, lack of communication and railroading?

illyrus
2013-02-25, 04:12 PM
I think its probably more of a misconception of what you both expect out of the game. I've done similar as a GM where the players were consistently moved by the force of personality with certain NPCs when it was obvious to an outside observer that it was very much "a bad idea".

A quick chat with the group explaining that you expect the players to have their characters argue with the NPCs. That the NPCs do not share your views and rarely have the party's best interest at heart.

Reward them for taking a more active approach by having the NPCs in the beginning back off/give in with just a bit of work and then slowly build up from there.

Raum
2013-02-25, 05:04 PM
What can I do? We are not 13-year-olds, and I don't want to resolve every conversation with skill checks.
Am I playing the strong-willed NPC's motivations too intensely? Almost all NPCs have names, jobs, and motivations, no matter how unimportant they are, and there is no hint of what will be important for the quests - is that my problem, lack of communication and railroading?It appears like you may be running a strongly scripted campaign and the players are helpfully following what they perceive as the correct path even when you may wish something different.

When it comes to the strong willed NPCs, I suggest using two different 'voices' - the NPC's in character comments and a narrator's commentary on possible outcomes. At minimum that should provide a clear idea of what you think the impact on the game may be...

Slipperychicken
2013-02-25, 05:37 PM
A few things.

Sense Motive rolls are reflexive (kind of like Balance) -they happen every time someone tries to deceive someone else, and players can't choose whether to roll it or not (even if a character wants to believe, that's just a penalty on the skill check). Maybe the players are confused because they expect you to ask them to roll this skill, and think they're supposed to assume NPCs are telling the truth otherwise.

You need to establish that NPCs are not the DM's mouthpiece. Some DMs do run them this way, especially with "Smart" NPCs. Maybe they're used to that treatment and act by it.

You can also remind them of their duties. Like "you remember your employers orders to..."

nedz
2013-02-25, 08:47 PM
It's hard to know third hand, so I could be way off.

Are you naturally persuasive ?
Do you intimidate the players ?
Are the players easily led ?

There are some tricks you could try:

The old "Are you sure ?"
or the similar pointing out just what exactly it is that they are doing (narrator style)
(Bit heavy handed these IMHO — but they seem to be popular)

Run some (obviously) unreliable NPCs.
Mad ones perhaps ?
Or ones who have poor memories, and so forget things.
(I think you tried something like this in #2, but it was too much for at least one of your players.)

valadil
2013-02-25, 10:25 PM
Sounds like the problem is that the players are too mature. They think you've thrown a quest giver NPC into the mix, and they're trying really hard to bite the plot hook you've thrown them. Coming up with in character reasons to go with the flow of the game is generally considered good table manners, they're just going too far with it.

I've dealt with players like this, but never a whole group of them. I like having one or two players like this in a group. If you have a plot that's a tough sell, target them with it. They'll jump on it and do your work in convincing the rest of the party.

Anyway, it sounds cruel but I'd actually consider abusing their trust. Have NPCs con them, betray them, send them to fiery doom, etc. You need to show them that even though NPCs speak with the GM's voice, what they say is not inherently trustworthy.

Come to think of it, I did have one session where the players acted this way. They had a murder to investigate. They talked to all the NPCs and identified clues. Unlike your PCs, they did actually use sense motive to see who was lying. After collecting the clues and furrowing their brows, the players paused the game and told me I gave them the wrong information. The investigation as presented wasn't solvable. Long story short, they thought they were playing a logic puzzle. I explained that it was more of a social challenge. Just because an NPC isn't lying, doesn't mean he's omniscient. NPCs can make mistakes and can repeat those mistakes to the players. Once they looked at the whole thing as a social challenge they had a lot of fun with it. We just had to sync up what kind of game I was running versus what they were playing.

Rhynn
2013-02-26, 12:29 AM
The problem is this: non-violent conflict between PCs and NPCs is problematic. I think I'm playing some adversarial or indifferent NPCs as being too forceful in conversation, leading the players to just accepting
the NPC's opinion as fact, contrary to what I believe their characters would do.

This is actually an interesting problem. I think it's about a sort of spectator mentality. When you watch a TV show or movie, unless it's specifically telegraphing that a character is lying (by music, inside knowledge, set-up, whatever) you tend to assume they're being truthful and accurate. People can get a little confused when this isn't the case. It can also happen with books - for instance, it is a bit mentally demanding to read something like A Song of Ice and Fire, where you frequently have no idea how truthful characters are being.

I've often noticed myself thinking how my players seem to accept NPCs' words as true unless they have specific, pre-existing reason to suspect them (or just dislike the NPC).

How do you push your players to not accept things NPCs say as fact? Well, you can start by talking to the players about it, and telling them that sometimes, NPCs will be wrong or untruthful.

The other thing is hints that they should be thinking twice. You're the DM - even when you're speaking as an NPC, there's some degree of unconscious assumption that you're describing objective truths.


Example 1: the PCs are tasked with finding a low-level acolyte of the Kord church, because an oracle told them this person would be of importance in a future apocalyptic event, and her life was in danger and they
should protect her. They go to the corresponding Kord temple, and want to see her. A lowly Kord priest tells them that she is away conducting
some rite-of-inititation in which she has to tackle a bear and tells them not to interrupt.

Motivation of the Kord priest: "Let the acolyte stand for herself, and give her the chance of proving herself. If she is assassinated and goes out with a fight, or maybe slays her assassins, she will feast in Valhall
forever. Besides, we of Kord are strong and don't need Heironeus clerics to pamper us"

What hints/clues did the PCS have that they should be disobeying?


Expected outcome: the cleric PCs are bound by orders and convince the priest to witness the bear-tackling, escorting the acolyte to safety.

What happened: I (as the priest) strongly suggest the PCs mind their own business, because Kord only wants to be worshipped by the strong. The PCs disregard their orders and decide to stay and wait. The acolyte is
assassinated. As a result, as phrophecied, the world with end in 20 years.

Okay, now we hit the problem. You're running a scripted game that hinges on the PCs going to place X and doing thing Y. Your problem isn't really the PCs' willingness to believe NPCs, it's the consequences when they "do the wrong thing."

That rarely works. The more strongly scripted it is (this example is very strongly scripted), the worse it works.

You need to create a campaign that can bend and flex more, where the world won't break when the PCs inevitably get one thing wrong. Predictably, I'd suggest a more sandboxy approach with no script, no plot (as in, pre-envisaged sequence of events) - just setting, characters, circumstances, things that happen this way unless the PCs mess them up. Let the story grow organically from the PCs' interactions with these components.


Example 2: ...
Expected outcome: ...
What happened: ...

Example 3: ...
Expected outcome: ...
What happened: ...

Same thing here, generally. In Example 3, your players are just being good players - you're obviously throwing a hook at them, and they're picking it up. That's good playing! My players pick up any NPCs that even halfway look like they might be (they end up travelling with assorted outcasts, camp followers, and beaus, who I diligently spin into plot hooks after they've been pulled along).

As for the emotion thing... maybe your player(s) isn't(aren't) into that? Mine aren't, so I wouldn't even try that. We prefer more detached play, focused on ideas and what you do, rather than what any character feels. The players are more comfortable with that, and I prefer stories about doing in RPGs.

Different players have different tastes. A player doesn't have to have any reason to not be able to roleplay an intensely emotional scene - some just can't do it.


Am I playing the strong-willed NPC's motivations too intensely? Almost all NPCs have names, jobs, and motivations, no matter how unimportant they are, and there is no hint of what will be important for the quests - is that my problem, lack of communication and railroading?

In a word, yes. See above. Your plots rely too much on scripted, specific outcomes. I avoid those like the plague. The one rule of gamemastering you can always count on is:
"No plot survives contact with the PCs."

That's why I don't pre-envisage plots, I just write opportunities, hooks, context, circumstances, and characters. I remain completely agnostic as to what the PCs will do with them. I always make sure to think of several ways a situation can go, don't commit to any of them, and am usually still surprised!

Probably my favorite was when, at a tourney, I had the advisor of a young prince talk a PC into hating the eldest prince and heir (Artesia: Adventures in the Known World, there's game mechanics for speaking people into hate, jealousy, greed, envy, etc.). My expectation was that they'd be used as agents in a long-running political wrangle over who is heir to the throne. The PC just killed the eldest prince in an "accident" in the tourney melee, then (with roleplaying and a great lucky roll) actually convinced the king and court that it was an accident he was deeply sorry for (tourneys were legitimately dangerous) and accepted exile from the kingdom.


Edit: Also, there's nothing wrong with social mechanics in-game. I'd suggest one simple change: passive Sense Motive. There's no reason your players should need to go, "I use Sense Motive, is he lying?" Just use 10 + Sense Motive skill check bonus (just the highest one in the party if they're talking to someone together) to determine whether they'd notice a lie, outside influence, whatever, and tell them.

" 'Oh, the abbot isn't in right now. He's out inspecting the fields', the novice says. His voice quavers just a bit. You think he's lying and scared."

Hanuman
2013-02-26, 06:58 AM
I don't see any drama not overt problems, just you as a DM wanting a different outcome than what you're controlling the game to do.

IMO it's not your players problem, don't look at their age or maturity level because at this point it shouldn't be relevant, look at how they are reacting to you, take responsibility for the game and start changing the reaction.

Killer Angel
2013-02-26, 07:10 AM
I don't see any drama not overt problems, just you as a DM wanting a different outcome than what you're controlling the game to do.

That's true to some extent, but if the orders are: "protect the life of the low-level acolyte", I would reasonably expect many things, but not "sure, we'll wait here, 'til she finish the wrestling match with the bear". :smalltongue:

Rhynn
2013-02-26, 09:03 AM
That's true to some extent, but if the orders are: "protect the life of the low-level acolyte", I would reasonably expect many things, but not "sure, we'll wait here, 'til she finish the wrestling match with the bear". :smalltongue:

As a GM, you should be expecting (and prepared for) at least the two obvious possibilities: "they do" and "they don't." That's not hard.

It doesn't matter how unreasonable you, as GM, think that a course of option is. The PCs may still take it, so in binary choice situations ("do it or don't") you need to consider that the PCs may take either choice.

Seriously, I've had a player go "OK!" when an avatar of death guarding a path against entry ordered him to "kneel and receive death." It was pretty WTF, but the game went on (minus that character). No matter how you present things, at some juncture, some player is, for some reason, going to take some course of action that you thought they'd see was obviously wrong.

Killer Angel
2013-02-26, 09:30 AM
As a GM, you should be expecting (and prepared for) at least the two obvious possibilities: "they do" and "they don't." That's not hard.

And it wasn't hard. The low-level acolyte died.

geeky_monkey
2013-02-26, 09:48 AM
I’ve had this problem before. All the players were in their mid twenties at the time, and although they were newish at D&D we’d played a couple of simple campaigns beforehand.

The party knew that the NPC crime boss they’d been working for had sold them out to the BBEG (and I don’t mean subtle clues - they’d actually overheard them talking and knew he’d been paid to have them killed!), but they kept going to him for missions. Missions which kept ending with them walking into traps or nearly dying.

In the end he sent them into an ambush which (thanks to some stupid decisions and poor rolls) led to a TPK.

Afterwards I asked the party why they’d kept trusting him, despite the fact he’d tried to have them killed a dozen times before he succeeded.

“Because he told us he wasn’t behind the attempts on our lives!” was their reply.

They’d never considered that I might be lying when role playing a conniving, cut-throat, sleazy crime boss! They couldn’t even claim they’d not known I was roleplaying him – I always wore a bowler hat when I was him (he may possibly have been inspired by Badger from Firefly…).

Joe the Rat
2013-02-26, 09:58 AM
You've given us the age, but not the vintage - what's the prior game experiences of these players? What types of systems and stories?

Play experience may affect how they approach information.


Regardless, if there are two possible outcomes to a situation, you should have an idea of where things will go for either outcome. They had to keep this person alive to prevent the end of the world... so what was your plan for if they failed?

Jornophelanthas
2013-02-26, 10:30 AM
Regardless, if there are two possible outcomes to a situation, you should have an idea of where things will go for either outcome. They had to keep this person alive to prevent the end of the world... so what was your plan for if they failed?
The OP clearly answered that:

The players failed, so the world is going to end in 20 years. Which means that the campaign can still continue (for now).

Amphetryon
2013-02-26, 11:00 AM
It sounds like you're not encouraging (or allowing, depending on perspective) the social Skills in 3.5 to come up on their own, and are instead defaulting to the social skills of the Players involved, yourself included. Things could very well go more smoothly for all involved in this case if you allowed the social interactions to be guided by the Skills (Diplomacy, Intimidate, Bluff, Sense Motive) the game has in place for the situations. This doesn't mean you reduce the social interactions to "roll Diplomacy, it works, moving on." You simply use the rolls and modifiers to them to inform how you're conveying information, and how that information is received.

As it is, the Players are likely giving you a real-life Circumstance Bonus to your (unrolled) social Skill checks due to a combination of your position as DM and your ability to portray these specifically scripted* situations.

*As Rhynn indicates above, the highly scripted nature of the encounters is a contributing factor to the issues you're having.

KillianHawkeye
2013-02-26, 05:14 PM
I have to agree with Rhynn. Your biggest problem seems to be having only a single expected response for each situation. It's hard enough to predict people's actions in real life, and it gets even harder in a game like D&D when players are to varying degrees balancing between roleplaying as their character and metagaming what they think their character is "supposed" to do or not do.

Killer Angel
2013-02-26, 05:31 PM
I have to agree with Rhynn. Your biggest problem seems to be having only a single expected response for each situation.

But it is not.
The OP is perfectly able to develope different scenarios, sometimes they're already planned.
The problem is that the players tend too much to choose the less plausible outcome, often to their own detriment, and forget the personality of their characters.

dps
2013-02-26, 10:53 PM
But it is not.
The OP is perfectly able to develope different scenarios, sometimes they're already planned.
The problem is that the players tend too much to choose the less plausible outcome, often to their own detriment, and forget the personality of their characters.

Ah, heck, I do that in real life, as anyone looking at my finances would quickly realize.

On a more serious--and hopefully, helpful--note, if your players are too inclined to take bad advice from NPCs, throw more than one NPC at them at a time, giving different advice.

So, in example 1, have the oracle that gave them the prophesy send one of his servants with them to aid them on their quest. Make him a low-level guy without ranks in any PC classes, so he's not going to be of much actual use in combat or the like, rather serving as a porter or guide or such. But he'd be when the priest of Kord tells them not to interfere to argue that they should be doing what his master charged them with instead.

That should help in situations where an NPC is trying to convince them of something, though it's not a guarantee that they still won't make the "wrong" choice. It wouldn't have helped any in your example 2, because it's not quite the same thing. There, instead of making a choice other than the one that you thought they should/would make, it sounds like they tried to do what you expected--console the grieving father--but botched it.

Devils_Advocate
2013-02-27, 12:41 AM
The PCs disregard their orders and decide to stay and wait. The acolyte is assassinated. As a result, as phrophecied, the world with end in 20 years.
How? What made this one person the only one who could ever prevent the end of the world? Why can't the PCs personally prevent the end of the world (and mightn't that be a better plot than "The world is unavoidably doomed")? Why can't they have her raised from the dead -- or, alternately, why does her death mean she can't do whatever is necessary even if brought back?

I mean, that's awfully heavy-handed, isn't it? If the fate of the world routinely turns on groups of legendary adventurers making exactly the right choice, it seems like it should have been destroyed already by now. So even if they were explicitly warned that her death will result in the world's destruction, surely it's reasonable of them to be skeptical of such an incredible claim. Sounds like you basically rigged everything to go wrong unless they listened to the right NPC, and they listened to the wrong one.


The problem is that, although most of my players identify very much with their characters, and know them inside out (Level 12!), my NPCs still convince them to do things that the PCs would never do.
Deciding what the PCs would choose is the players' job. It's not even just a job of the players; it's the job of the players.

Like, isn't that an essential part of the whole exercise? I thought that the whole idea of any remotely standard pen and paper RPG was that a hypothetical scenario is laid out, the GM decides what the NPCs would try to do, the players decide what the would PCs try to do, rules are consulted and applied and dice are rolled to determine what happens based on those decisions, and what happens is the story.

Unless your players are deliberately making out-of-character choices, obviously it's far from unimaginable for their characters to behave as they say, since your players had no trouble imagining it. Quite frankly, your imagination is probably far more limited because you've made loads of unwarranted assumptions.

You're evidently unwilling to railroad, at least in the strong sense of saying "No, you can't do that" -- and that's good! But though that symptom is absent, the major cause of railroading is still present: You've decided ahead of time what the PCs are going to do. Which isn't working, because that's not how it's supposed to work! The plot isn't meant to be something that the GM tells the players, it's meant to be something that the GM and the players build together!

Really, I am perplexed as to why so many GMs seem to regard player input into the story as a problem to be solved. Isn't facilitating player input into the story pretty much what a roleplaying game does by definition? Trying to fight the most basic thing that a game is made to do seems like an obvious recipe for frustration. And yet for some reason, there seem to be many people who do not regard that as a bizarrely perverse approach to the activity.

I would have thought that the prospect of finding out how the player characters react to things would be the main appeal of GMing.

But sometimes people do not behave how we expected them to behave. In such cases, our expectations were wrong.

Hanuman
2013-02-27, 01:13 AM
That's true to some extent, but if the orders are: "protect the life of the low-level acolyte", I would reasonably expect many things, but not "sure, we'll wait here, 'til she finish the wrestling match with the bear". :smalltongue:
That's a flaw with giving orders, or also a flaw with having all your characters sane. You could give less orders, or lower your players SAN.

Rhynn
2013-02-27, 02:48 AM
NB: I don't want to pile on Cybris75 or anything - these aren't all remarks directed at you, but more general statements and my views on principles of running gmaes. Hopefully, some of it will be useful in solving your situation. I do think they probably relate, in part, to your problems, although as I've said above, I think there's problems with your players, too, that they need to overcome - not huge or unexpected problems, just natural ones.


On a more serious--and hopefully, helpful--note, if your players are too inclined to take bad advice from NPCs, throw more than one NPC at them at a time, giving different advice.

This is a good idea. Having two NPCs give contradictory advice or statements will force a crisis of sorts, and the players will have to learn to deal with it. Hopefully, they'll realize that NPCs aren't always saying the immutable truth.


You're evidently unwilling to railroad, at least in the strong sense of saying "No, you can't do that" -- and that's good! But though that symptom is absent, the major cause of railroading is still present: You've decided ahead of time what the PCs are going to do. Which isn't working, because that's not how it's supposed to work! The plot isn't meant to be something that the GM tells the players, it's meant to be something that the GM and the players build together!

This is some holy truth of GMing RPGs right here. Stories emerge from the interaction of PCs with the circumstances, environments, and characters created by the GM. You can't write a plot ("they'll go here and do this"), you can only write the trappings that become a story when the PCs interact with them.


Really, I am perplexed as to why so many GMs seem to regard player input into the story as a problem to be solved. Isn't facilitating player input into the story pretty much what a roleplaying game does by definition? Trying to fight the most basic thing that a game is made to do seems like an obvious recipe for frustration. And yet for some reason, there seem to be many people who do not regard that as a bizarrely perverse approach to the activity.

This might risk a derail, but I think it's because so many GMs take all their cues from books and movies and TV shows and computer games - as is only natural and inevitable. But RPGs don't work like that. The GM isn't the author of the story, the GM just creates the framework for it and manages the world.

GMs who think they are writing a story with scenes, a beginning, a middle, and an end, are going to run into frustration eventually. Not all the time, but often enough that it's a bad principle. RPG stories are emergent, even post hoc - it only becomes a story after you've played it out and somebody recounts it.


I would have thought that the prospect of finding out how the player characters react to things would be the main appeal of GMing.

That, and creating a cool world/environment for them to mess up and make their mark on.

Lorsa
2013-02-27, 07:02 AM
Hello Cybris75, nice of you to drop by and I hope you will find the help you need. Let me add my own thoughts to this.

You mention that you have not played together before. There will always be a learning curve when you get to know the players and during that time you will run into problems such as these.

While others have discussed thoroughly the problem with relying too strongly on expected outcome, I will not dwell on it too much. Suffice to say, players will always surprise you. I once ran a solo campaign for a player in a modern setting, using the WoD rules where his character was working for FBI solving weird and supernatural crimes. One of these cases lead to a vengeance-type demon that was empowering women to kill the worthless men that had ruin their lives. When confronted with said demon(ess) I expected the player to try and kill her. Instead he recruited her for his team. For the demon it was an obvious choice, learn whatever this weird goverment sponsored group was up to and then backstab them at opportunity. Why the player chose to trust a demon(ess) I still don't really understand. But it made things very interesting.

Now, while you as DM might expect certain characters to act certain ways, it is always more important to know what your players will do. While players' choices will depend on the characters they play to some extent, in the end knowing them is what matters. Some players are more narrow in their behavior than others, with all their characters, no matter what is stated on paper, exhibiting traits that is solely coming from the player himself. Some players know about their limits and problems (and try to challenge them as I do), others are blissfully ignorant. So, it will take some time, but eventually you will get to know your players and then you can rely more on "expected outcomes".

The scenarios presented as example are very interesting, because I don't think their actions are very strange at all. Let me try to explain.

1. I believe this boils down to the belief of religious freedom as being important. Something that is quite hard-coded into most people coming from democratic western societies. When being accused of not allowing an individual her religious freedom they simply might have wanted to do the right thing. Also, maybe they thought a church of Kord, despite the difficult trial, wouldn't let an acolyte try something she obviously wasn't ready for. Kord likes fair fights doesn't he? So, when you account for believing that being good means giving people their freedom of religious choice and trusting that a priest of Kord wouldn't throw his acolytes to death their choice isn't SO strange. Besides, had you been as strong with the explanation that the oracle was never wrong and the prophecy 100% true and exactly HOW important this acolyte's life was? In any case, this probably tells you that the players value freedom of choice and trust priests of Kord.

2. This is probably the least strange scenario of them all. You said the player had no experience with death in the family and this might very well the reason! In all interactions or choices, we draw upon experiences in our life. When we encounter something completely new and foreign and find no similar experience to base our actions on things get complicated. The experiences doesn't necessarily have to be "real", they can be derived from a roleplaying table as well, but they have to come from somewhere. You probably did a great job portraying the grief and accusations of the husband and the player, never having experienced people with grief before had no idea what to do. It is probably because of his lack of death in family that he became catatonic. Similar things happen to me too, when my characters are put into situations where I as a person have no idea how to act I get confused even though my character shouldn't be. It's annoying but only more roleplaying (or life experiences) will help solve the issue. Also, I think dealing with grief is becoming a big problem in some western countries. Parents don't want to upset their children so they tell them the dog has been "sent to a farm" or other such stupid things. All that comes out of it is that when the child becomes an adult she has never had to deal with loss and grief in her life and is totally unprepared when it happens. The best thing you can do to your kids is to tell them the truth and help them with how to deal with it. That's how we learn. Too many people avoid dealing with death completely and in the end it just bites you in the ass.

3. I don't know how the players think here, but if the wizard was going to follow them anyway, isn't it better to keep your enemies close? I would rather have my stalker in sight where I know where he is. Also, did the players know he was a necromancer? Maybe to them he was just a wizard? It's also possible you might have played him as a very charming fellow, with your players not believing someone that charming could be evil. I really don't know.


Also, one last thing. When I play my NPCs, I try to account for how good they are at bluff vs how good the characters are at sense motive. If an NPC isn't a particularly good liar and the PCs are good at noticing such things he will twitch, stutter a bit and in other ways show signs of being dishonest. I once had a player ask me "can I roll sense motive to see if he's lying?" and I said "what do you think?" "I think he's lying" "well, there you go!". On the other hand, if the NPC is a good liar or the characters are a bit poor at sense motive I will play them as appearing much more honest. I would still let them roll if they want to but in general you should be able to tell approximately what your characters perceive by looking at how I act as the NPC.

You might just be a rather socially forceful person naturally, good at showing strong feelings, lying or otherwise persuading people of various things. Just as players affect the characters they play, so do you affect your NPCs and you might have to reign in yourself a bit and realize that not every NPC is a great at persuasion even though you yourself are.

Amphetryon
2013-02-27, 08:41 AM
I thought that the whole idea of any remotely standard pen and paper RPG was that a hypothetical scenario is laid out, the GM decides what the NPCs would try to do, the players decide what the would PCs try to do, rules are consulted and applied and dice are rolled to determine what happens based on those decisions, and what happens is the story.
I would very much like to force every GM in the known multiverse to paste the above over whatever notebook/folder s/he uses for gaming notes.

Rhynn
2013-02-27, 08:46 AM
I once ran a solo campaign for a player in a modern setting, using the WoD rules where his character was working for FBI solving weird and supernatural crimes. One of these cases lead to a vengeance-type demon that was empowering women to kill the worthless men that had ruin their lives. When confronted with said demon(ess) I expected the player to try and kill her. Instead he recruited her for his team. For the demon it was an obvious choice, learn whatever this weird goverment sponsored group was up to and then backstab them at opportunity. Why the player chose to trust a demon(ess) I still don't really understand. But it made things very interesting.

That sounds pretty awesome - indeed, it sounds like an even more interesting version of your premise. I'd probably watch that on TV. It's also exactly why I like my players to surprise me - I'm just one person trying to come up with cool ideas, so my capabilities are limited. My players will often turn my ideas into something better.

Slipperychicken
2013-02-27, 10:41 AM
Example 1: the PCs are tasked with finding a low-level acolyte of the Kord church, because an oracle told them this person would be of importance in a future apocalyptic event, and her life was in danger and they
should protect her. They go to the corresponding Kord temple, and want to see her. A lowly Kord priest tells them that she is away conducting
some rite-of-inititation in which she has to tackle a bear and tells them not to interrupt.


This one could be pretty difficult for the players. To the PCs, perhaps the acolyte needs to pass her test in order to participate in the apocalypse? Interrupting her initiation could have negative consequences, like not getting god-powers. And generally speaking, Clerics of nonevil deities don't kill McGuffins. Perhaps the danger isn't coming from the bear, but from assassins who are supposed to attack once the PCs get to her.

Lorsa
2013-02-27, 10:47 AM
That sounds pretty awesome - indeed, it sounds like an even more interesting version of your premise. I'd probably watch that on TV. It's also exactly why I like my players to surprise me - I'm just one person trying to come up with cool ideas, so my capabilities are limited. My players will often turn my ideas into something better.

Yes it was pretty awesome. Like I said it made things very interesting, but I must admit that I definitely did not see that coming. I completely understand his reasons, they are sort of similair to Roy's reasons for keeping Belkar around, but while Belkar isn't the smartest one around, a very old demon is.

Cybris75
2013-02-27, 11:34 AM
Thank you all for your replies, I really appreciate your efforts.

There is some really good and helpful advice here, and I have lots of stuff to think about now. I'll also talk to my players about this again with this new food for thought.

Thank you again, you have all been very helpful! I hope to think I learned a lot about playing and DMing from this thread.