PDA

View Full Version : Player motivations and Good Campaign



NooDM
2013-12-09, 06:52 PM
I have a table at the moment consisting of 5 people and me who are all new to Tabletop RPG, we are basically using 3.5 D&D but with a bit of home-brewed elements to make things flow better for everyone. I went about being the DM as I was the one who asked around for who among my friends was curious on Tabletop RPG in general. We have been playing this once a week for basically almost 2 months now.

I think I have made an agreement that no matter what betrayal of other players will never be allowed work after a slightly poor hiccup on my part with the dice rolling of the party face to influence other players, luckily he was having a bad day with the rolls for the most part so things didn't get out of hand and I learned from the mistake.

The slight issue lies in what I do with the plot; you see when some of my party are being particularly bad end of the neutral spectrum to the point of basically being evil by another name. A part of me thinks how am I to make a villain more evil then the players so that there is a sense of heroism going on in the campaign? Or at least a task to keep them busy and so no harm to the world.
This is only because I am unsure that I as a new DM can go on making a villain campaign. The notion of it really doesn't feel natural for me and so far what has felt natural has allowed my passable DM skills to make the game an ok learning curve for both a game mechanics and role-playing in general.

Party Composition is:
Human Sorcerer Face who basically tries to extort money for heroic services he would have done anyway to save his own skin and literally got treasure already for his problem.
Elf Barbarian who is literally trying to kill anyone who looks important or plot worthy for the sake of derailing all my plans for the campaign.
Dwarf Barbarian who goes about drunk all the time and trying to hook up with the Halfling barmaid.
The Elf Ranger who is morally conscious to at least try to stop the Humans plans when it sounds devious and hopes to do good by people when he isn't suffering from ADHD.
And the recently joined Half-Orc Cleric of Kord who has only been with the party for about 2 sessions and so far has been "What would Kord do?"

Ultimately the question to ask is how do go about making an enemy worse off/task needing full occupation that the party doesn't have the goal of take over the world, become an evil lich or the like?

Any input will be appreciated :smallsmile:

Honest Tiefling
2013-12-09, 07:57 PM
...Elf Barbarian who is literally trying to kill anyone who looks important or plot worthy for the sake of derailing all my plans for the campaign...

No amount of IC shenanigans is going to help this. Sit the player down, preferably all of them and outright ask what they want from the campaign but to keep in mind that you are new. Perhaps asking them what they want will reveal why they are doing what they are doing, or give you a way to talk about your own expectations of the campaign.

Rephath
2013-12-09, 08:10 PM
Understand all the characters' motivations and use them like a trail of bananas to guide them to your chosen destination. It's like railroading, but without annoying your players.

stupiddDice
2013-12-09, 09:12 PM
Understand all the characters' motivations and use them like a trail of bananas to guide them to your chosen destination. It's like railroading, but without annoying your players.

The problem is though, that it seems that at least one player has no motivation beyond "screw the plot, characters, and setting, I'm chaotic neutral."

Airk
2013-12-10, 11:07 AM
These forums do such a good job of reminding me how utterly disfunctional this hobby is.

Screw these guys. Seriously. Sit the down at a table in a non-game related way and have a serious talk about the HELL they think they're doing. Mr. "I kill important looking NPCs on sight" in particular needs to either knock it off, or get the hell out, because he's not even trying to play the game, and there's a certain amount of social contract involved that he is absolutely not adhering to. It's not cute, funny, or even acceptable to do what he's doing right now, and it needs to be made VERY clear that he's ruining your fun AND probably everyone else's. Especially since there's no game if you leave.

With HIM out of the way (Or on your side. One or the other), you can have a serious chat with your players about what they think they actually want to do with the game. What their ideal game is. Contrast this with what YOU want to do. Try to figure out if these ideas are at all compatible, or if either party is able to look at the other party's idea and say "Well, that sounds kindof interesting, let's try it." - and then make an actual good faith effort to do so. (Saying, "Sure, I'll play in your heroic game." and then being a backstabbing, plot-derailing jackass is NOT a good faith effort.) If you can't agree on a game that all parties feel is interesting, you should probably just go play Settlers of Catan or something (assuming all parties even think THAT is interesting) because at the end of the day, you're just going to get frustrated otherwise.

Seriously. Saying "Let's all play an RPG" is about as useful as saying "Let's all play cards." You need to actually figure out what game you're playing and I don't mean "what system." Until you can sort that out, there's basically nothing anyone can do to help you.

ElenionAncalima
2013-12-10, 11:53 AM
You may have to use motivations, other than heroism, with this bunch. A large reward can motivate your sorcerer. Impressing women could motivate the dwarf barbarian. You can still motivate them to do the right thing...you may just have to accept that it will be for the wrong reasons.

I would talk to the elf barbarian's player, though. He/She could quickly become a problem for the game. You mentioned that everyone is new to tabletop RPGs. Perhaps this player doesn't fully understand the amount of work goes in, as a GM, to create a story. Make it clear that you don't want to railroad them and that you are okay with them behaving in ways you didn't expect, however, constantly and deliberatly derailing the story makes your job harder than it needs to be.

Rhynn
2013-12-10, 11:54 AM
Why would you play with a disruptive player? You wouldn't keep someone at a poker table if they kept throwing chips, tearing up cards, or throwing everything on the floor.

Disruptive behavior has to stop, or the player is out.

As for the other issues (e.g. playing bad guys, not wanting to run a villain campaign): you can either try to talk the players into playing good characters, or you can run a different kind of game. It seems like you're trying to tell a specific kind of story, and this is the most fundamental problem of using the RPG medium to tell a story: you don't control the protagonists. You can't. And you shouldn't - after all, why have players if they aren't the ones making choices?

I run campaigns with themes, and campaigns without.

For campaigns with themes, I talk to my players first, and they understand what it is and go along with it. Sometimes a specific player likes that theme more or less. Everyone has to compromise a little sometimes.

For campaigns without themes, I just create a setting (this can be an entire world, a city, or even just a single dungeon to start with) and let the players do what they will. It's a lot less work for me to just create a setting, locations, characters, and situations than trying to control every bit of pacing and storytelling and metaphor and so on. It's also more fun for me, because I am constantly surprised by where the players take things.

Amaril
2013-12-10, 01:16 PM
Elf Barbarian who is literally trying to kill anyone who looks important or plot worthy for the sake of derailing all my plans for the campaign.

No. Just no. Do not keep playing with this person without having a serious talk with them, and likely not even then. These are among the very worst kinds of players to run with, and honestly, if you know they're doing this purely for the sake of messing up your ideas, I'm a little baffled as to why you continue playing with them at all, but I don't know the full situation.

Anyway, yeah, I'm gonna agree with what pretty much everyone on here has been saying--the best way to figure out how to make your players happy is to ask them. Sit them down and take the time to figure out what everyone, including you, wants from the game and agree on the best possible way to make it happen. If you find out they want to play a villainous game and you're not comfortable running something like that, maybe one of them should GM instead, or, if all else fails, you may be better off finding another group--some of them just aren't meant to be.

That said, though, your descriptions of the other PCs (aside from the barbarian) don't sound all that villainous to me. They sound like the kind of people who would belong in a somewhat gritty world with flawed and often tragic characters, but all of them, even the sorcerer from the sound of it, could eventually work as protagonists. But again, I don't know them or their characters nearly as well as you do, so I'm not really the best judge.

Hyena
2013-12-10, 01:26 PM
Kick the barbarian out. I've dealt with such sort of people before and talking simply won't help.

Jay R
2013-12-10, 05:43 PM
Some of these people are not playing D&D. They are trying to break your game, and . My advice is to let them break it, by running the game as athe world would interact with these characters.

Then start another game later, with only the people who want to play.


Human Sorcerer Face who basically tries to extort money for heroic services he would have done anyway to save his own skin and literally got treasure already for his problem.

All NPCs should refuse to hire him. There are other heroes. There are now no quests for the party. Game Over.


Elf Barbarian who is literally trying to kill anyone who looks important or plot worthy for the sake of derailing all my plans for the campaign.

He's a mass murderer. There will soon be a high-level posse after him. They will not try to bring him back alive. But there aren't any quests any more.


Dwarf Barbarian who goes about drunk all the time and trying to hook up with the Halfling barmaid.

Jail. Every time. With fines.

Also, if the barmaid has said, "No," and he keeps trying, he is now Evil. Any party member who doesn't help arrest him is also Evil. They are no longer allowed in the tavern; nobody will interact with them


The Elf Ranger who is morally conscious to at least try to stop the Humans plans when it sounds devious and hopes to do good by people when he isn't suffering from ADHD.

He's trying to play the game. Keep him when you start a new game without the people who aren't trying to play it. Try to help him focus. (That's what wandering monsters are for.)


And the recently joined Half-Orc Cleric of Kord who has only been with the party for about 2 sessions and so far has been "What would Kord do?"

Again, he's playing. If his interpretation of what Kord would do involves playing the game straight, invite him back.


Ultimately the question to ask is how do go about making an enemy worse off/task needing full occupation that the party doesn't have the goal of take over the world, become an evil lich or the like?

Don't give in to them or try to find a way to make the game work with people who aren't interested in playing it.

(Or go the fairer route. Tell them that the above will happen if they keep acting that way. Let them roll up new characters if that would help.

But don't let them hijack the game, and any attempt to play wjhile they are acting like this is them hijacking the game.

Jakodee
2013-12-10, 06:49 PM
Get rid of the barbarian, motivate the sorcerer to be somewhat good (think mr.crabs), the dwarf is trying to be a comedy relief; let him but not to the point of disrupting the game, and the ranger and the Orc sound fine.

Slipperychicken
2013-12-10, 07:59 PM
The problem is though, that it seems that at least one player has no motivation beyond "screw the plot, characters, and setting, I'm chaotic neutral."

I'd probably just tell this guy that you're not going to GM for that nonsense. If he wants to play with you as GM, then he can treat the game you're trying to run (and all the time you've put into it) with some respect. If not, then he can leave, go play a Bethesda game, and kill all the plot-important NPCs he wants.

BeerMug Paladin
2013-12-10, 10:56 PM
Looking for a villain that is worse than the most evil player character? Given what you've said, I think a good go-to would be a villain trying to rid the world of a specific creature, permanently. Something like genocide towards a specific race that the villain considers to cause nothing but trouble for the civilized world.

It could be something like goblins, or kobolds, but to really make this villain something the player party would oppose, I'd suggest the target be something the player party has a connection to. Elves, dwarves, orcs, or maybe even humans (naturally, half-breeds would also be expunged). That would make their interest in defeat of the villain personal, yet opposing the villain would also be heroic, as they would be doing their part to save countless innocents from an untimely death.

PersonMan
2013-12-11, 12:41 AM
Jail. Every time. With fines.

Also, if the barmaid has said, "No," and he keeps trying, he is now Evil. Any party member who doesn't help arrest him is also Evil. They are no longer allowed in the tavern; nobody will interact with them

While I agree that the other responses are workable, I don't think that harassing someone is grounds for instant-Evil.

Raine_Sage
2013-12-11, 01:15 AM
Agreed kick the barbarian, the guy's just being a douche for the sake of being a douche and you don't have to put up with that.

That said, if you're otherwise fine with players being jerks (IC only I hope) and most of your dilema comes from not knowing how to build a campaign around that well, villains don't have to be more evil than the party. They just have to be someone the party wants to stop.

Whether they want to stop the guy because of altruism or because him blowing up the world means no more busty barmaids then that's their prerogative.

AMFV
2013-12-11, 02:45 AM
Some of these people are not playing D&D. They are trying to break your game, and . My advice is to let them break it, by running the game as athe world would interact with these characters.

Then start another game later, with only the people who want to play.



All NPCs should refuse to hire him. There are other heroes. There are now no quests for the party. Game Over.




Because he's trying to get paid?!? Negotiation means that you'd never get hired... that's pretty stiff dude, most characters like money, particularly adventures that use items to survive, and trying to extort more money is pretty natural for them.

And if you think people don't try to renogiate prices then you've clearly never hired a plumber, a mechanic, or a lawyer.



He's a mass murderer. There will soon be a high-level posse after him. They will not try to bring him back alive. But there aren't any quests any more.


Seconded, although this probably stems from player boredom, I'd try to figure out what's making him bored, or play a fugitive-esque campaign, that may draw him in some.



Jail. Every time. With fines.

Also, if the barmaid has said, "No," and he keeps trying, he is now Evil. Any party member who doesn't help arrest him is also Evil. They are no longer allowed in the tavern; nobody will interact with them


Have you ever been in a bar? Harassing a barmaid gets you thrown out, not put in prison, also drunk harassment is hardly evil, particularly if it's in fun or if the character believes that it might be reciprocated.

Kid Jake
2013-12-11, 05:38 AM
Instead of making a campaign about saving the world or slaying Barney the great purple wyrm, why not just make it about survival? Let Mr. Mad-Dog Elf lay into some annoying Blabbermouth and have his fun...

Then let them find out that the Blabbermouth was the newest, brashest member of some elite mercenary company that doesn't like having its rep ruined by a bunch of nobodies murdering one of their men. Boom. Retaliation.

They go on the run to avoid the wrath of their new enemies and the powerful friends that a mercenary cartel would have at its disposal; they try to clear their names; they hide their identities; they make their living as soldiers of fortune. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MVonyVSQoM) The beauty being that if your players don't start taking down the evil mercenaries (or, if you'd rather, neutral but angry mercenaries) then the mercenaries show up on their doorstep to take them down.

If your friends are new to the tabletop and they're having fun, then don't squash their fun, work with their 'quirks'.

If the sorcerer wants to be greedy then let him haggle over the quest reward instead of giving to them as treasure; let him feel like he really squeezed those simps even if you give him the same reward to the copper that you originally planned.

If the elf wants to murderhobo and the rest of the party hasn't stopped him then work it into your plot; let vengeance follow him like a hungry dog.

If the dwarf wants booze and carouse, then every now and then throw him a barmaid; maybe toss a bastard into the mix just to mix things up.

And if the other two don't want to raise hell like the rest then throw them a little appreciation now and again; not just mechanically, but let the NPCs treat the heroic PCs like heroes or even exclude them from the wanted posters.

Maybe the rest of the group will come around if they start to feel like they're making a difference, but even if they end the campaign as a bunch of backstabbing sociopaths it can still be memorable. Instead of looking back and asking 'Remember when we saved Lancaster village from the lizardpeople?' They'll ask 'Remember when we saved Lancaster village from the lizardpeople and made them pay us with a diamond the size of a small dog?'

Mastikator
2013-12-11, 06:00 AM
Instead of making a campaign about saving the world or slaying Barney the great purple wyrm, why not just make it about survival? [snip]

This. Survival is the only kind of campaign where a murder hobo isn't disruptive.

Potentially you can do an "evolve or die" scenario where literally every single NPC can and will easily and brutally murder any PC who attacks them (don't bother stat-ing the NPCs either, their stats are made up on the fly with enough firepower to pulverize the PCs). When the Elf Barbarian player does his thing he dies. He'll try it again and again and die every single time. Anyone that defends him dies, everyone that doesn't lives.

Or just kick the Elf Barbarian out.

Really the only options I see.

NooDM
2013-12-11, 06:22 AM
Thanks so much for all the good input, some of it being absolute gems I completely neglected before but now sound perfect. The funny thing is some of these I thought I knew but were a bit hard to keep in mind in the moment so I might need to be particularly meticulous on my notes in the future.

I suppose one of my good moments so far as GM is that I have been responding as a person in each scenario would have done, as realistically as you can in a world where dragons are real and trade negotiations are made with giants.

After being able to talk to everyone, in particular the Elf Barbarian, he got the idea when I put across that plot might have a hard time getting done at all when all the law people are victims of at least attempted murder and one or two players might not want to be fugitives by virtue of association.

Also I think the irony to the ADHD is that as a ranger without a favored enemy of course he would be distracted :smallbiggrin: But I did say I would integrate what he chose as at the time I was world building in response to what people have been saying they want out of the experience. And everyone was for a while finding there feet in characterization in the earlier session but it is getting better.

Planting sweet bananas of motivation will be definitely in the plan now that I have some time before we start up the sessions again and an idea what everyone wants. That will be at the start of next year as we have to go our separate ways for the Christmas term holiday (a lot of us attend the same University).
Especially when I hinted at unconventional ways for players to increase there power level / Feats at disposal (easy leading the Human Sorcerer through that trail of bread crumbs).
And money might be an issue when food gets accounted for making them want to pursue a job I make, which would only be worse if I made good reasons for fines and boy do I have a choice of those.

And again, thanks for helping out one of the new guys :smallsmile:

Scow2
2013-12-12, 11:09 AM
Party Composition is:
Human Sorcerer Face who basically tries to extort money for heroic services he would have done anyway to save his own skin and literally got treasure already for his problem.
Elf Barbarian who is literally trying to kill anyone who looks important or plot worthy for the sake of derailing all my plans for the campaign.
Dwarf Barbarian who goes about drunk all the time and trying to hook up with the Halfling barmaid.
The Elf Ranger who is morally conscious to at least try to stop the Humans plans when it sounds devious and hopes to do good by people when he isn't suffering from ADHD.
And the recently joined Half-Orc Cleric of Kord who has only been with the party for about 2 sessions and so far has been "What would Kord do?"

Ultimately the question to ask is how do go about making an enemy worse off/task needing full occupation that the party doesn't have the goal of take over the world, become an evil lich or the like?

Any input will be appreciated :smallsmile:Make the half-orc Cleric of Kord (A Chaotic Good god of Responsible and Awesome use of Strength and physical prowess) the party leader, and encourage him to blow up the Elf Barbarian for irresponsible and harmful application of strength. And drag the sorcerer along on world-saving missions (Or physically punt him out), and let the drunken Dwarf hook up with the Barmaid.


Kidjake's suggestion to turn them into The A-Team is a better idea, though. Every campaign should have the party turn into The A-Team.

Slipperychicken
2013-12-12, 11:20 AM
Potentially you can do an "evolve or die" scenario where literally every single NPC can and will easily and brutally murder any PC who attacks them (don't bother stat-ing the NPCs either, their stats are made up on the fly with enough firepower to pulverize the PCs). When the Elf Barbarian player does his thing he dies. He'll try it again and again and die every single time. Anyone that defends him dies, everyone that doesn't lives.


That's extremely cheap and immersion-breaking. If every barmaid can handily squish the PCs like bugs, why are these comparative weaklings the heroes? Why don't the NPCs just solve their own problems with their GM-given, godlike power?

BWR
2013-12-12, 11:40 AM
I'm going to have to go with "talk to the players before doing anything IC"
Ask them why they do what they do and explain that it's ruining your game and could they please have their characters act appropriately.
If they refuse, you can either try to run the sort of game they like or you refuse to run games for them.

Those are the two best options. Solving things IC can be fun but generally comes across as the DM being a ****. Yes, they started it and were much worse and it's perfectly acceptable for the game world to react to the PCs in whatever manner the DM wishes, but it's just not the best way of solving it.

Mastikator
2013-12-12, 12:00 PM
That's extremely cheap and immersion-breaking. If every barmaid can handily squish the PCs like bugs, why are these comparative weaklings the heroes? Why don't the NPCs just solve their own problems with their GM-given, godlike power?

Why don't the NPCs solve their own problems? What problems? Immersion? What immersion? We're talking about dealing with a player that murders every quest-giving NPC. Immersion and quests and adventuring was never a part of the game with that kind of player(s).

Rhynn
2013-12-12, 12:18 PM
Why don't the NPCs solve their own problems? What problems? Immersion? What immersion? We're talking about dealing with a player that murders every quest-giving NPC. Immersion and quests and adventuring was never a part of the game with that kind of player(s).

Why would you deal with a player through the character, though?

Addressing wildly problematic player behavior through the game is never a good idea.

What you're proposing is essentially letting the problem player ruin the game for everyone on a fundamental level, not just on a case-by-case basis. Why let the griefer have that power?

(Mildly problematic player behavior can be addressed, usually by enforcing a sensible game-world, and by incentivizing desired behavior and de-incentivizing undesired behavior. Griefing, though, can't be dealt with that way.)

Slipperychicken
2013-12-12, 12:26 PM
Why would you deal with a player through the character, though?

Addressing wildly problematic player behavior through the game is never a good idea.

What you're proposing is essentially letting the problem player ruin the game for everyone on a fundamental level, not just on a case-by-case basis. Why let the griefer have that power?

(Mildly problematic player behavior can be addressed, usually by enforcing a sensible game-world, and by incentivizing desired behavior and de-incentivizing undesired behavior. Griefing, though, can't be dealt with that way.)

tl;dr version: Use OOC solutions for OOC problems.

Rhynn
2013-12-12, 12:56 PM
tl;dr version: Use OOC solutions for OOC problems.

Damn you and your efficiency! :smallbiggrin:

kyoryu
2013-12-12, 01:25 PM
Seriously. Saying "Let's all play an RPG" is about as useful as saying "Let's all play cards." You need to actually figure out what game you're playing and I don't mean "what system." Until you can sort that out, there's basically nothing anyone can do to help you.

Yeah, this.

As far as the barbarian, there's two possible (real) motivations for his behavior:

1) He hates railroading and predetermined plots, and wants to play in a sandbox
2) He gets his kicks from being disruptive

Number 1 is reasonable, even if the way he's communicating that is pretty juvenile.

But if he's getting his enjoyment from being a disruptive element, there's probably a low chance of that working out - if you make the game a sandbox, he'll find some way to disrupt that.

Jay R
2013-12-12, 05:09 PM
While I agree that the other responses are workable, I don't think that harassing someone is grounds for instant-Evil.

These are people described as "being particularly bad end of the neutral spectrum to the point of basically being evil". The dwarf is harassing her "all the time". This isn't somebody who harassed somebody once, so any comment about "instant" anything is simply false.

If you wish to discuss a single incident, from somebody who isn't to the point of basically being evil, then you're not discussing what we've been asked about.


Because he's trying to get paid?!? Negotiation means that you'd never get hired... that's pretty stiff dude, most characters like money, particularly adventures that use items to survive, and trying to extort more money is pretty natural for them.

The original poster did not talking about negotiation. He said "extort". To extort is to threaten physical violence. If that's what he's doing, then I repeat - nobody would ever hire him again.


And if you think people don't try to renogiate prices then you've clearly never hired a plumber, a mechanic, or a lawyer.

I did not say I " think people don't try to renogiate [sic] price"; please do not make up falsehoods about me. It is not true that I've "never hired a plumber, a mechanic, or a lawyer."; please do not make up falsehoods about me.

I have no problem with negotiation. But I promise you that any plumber, mechanic, or lawyer who tries extortion on me will go to jail. It's a crime.


Have you ever been in a bar? Harassing a barmaid gets you thrown out, not put in prison, also drunk harassment is hardly evil, particularly if it's in fun or if the character believes that it might be reciprocated.

Yes, I've been in a bar, but I've never harassed a barmaid. And after being turned down several times, the character should not believe that it might be reciprocated.

It gets you thrown out the first time. Doing it "all the time" is stalking, and can in fact get you put in jail.

tulebast
2013-12-12, 05:37 PM
If the dwarf wants booze and carouse, then every now and then throw him a barmaid; maybe toss a bastard into the mix just to mix things up.

Ah, I remember a game I was in once where another player ran a half-elf bard who was quite a ladies man (as in as many as he could juggle in every port). We were trekking across Toril when the father of an angry lass finally caught up with us to accuse him of abandoning his pregnant daughter. Amusingly, his character offered the man a fairly sizable dowry to ship the daughter out to Baldur's Gate so he could marry her. We had a whole game session devoted to the wedding and in party intrique, because:


She was not a happy camper about being "forced" to marry the half-elf who had abandoned her. The groom decided to acquire a philter of love (not a common item, and not entirely legal to possess...) to make her more amenable to getting married. All for the sake of the child, of course.
Some characters were being kept in the dark, re the philter of love, as they wouldn't be down with the coercion. However, it turns out that father had enemies in Baldur's Gate who were interested in taking some vengeance of the nuptials, and so they were otherwise occupied.
The PC elven cleric (of the elven god of mischief) was bound and determined to turn the entire affair into a circus, and came one saving throw away from dispelling the philter of love (though to his credit, he did make the wedding the talk of the town for weeks afterwards)


And that is the story of how our lecherous bard decided to settle down and we came to have a permanent base of operations, the Bent Unicorn Tavern, in Baldur's Gate, run by the very capable wife of our team leader.

Slipperychicken
2013-12-12, 05:50 PM
I have no problem with negotiation. But I promise you that any plumber, mechanic, or lawyer who tries extortion on me will go to jail. It's a crime.


This. When the plumber pulls a gun and demands double the negotiated price, then he's both evil (coercion is evil in dnd) and going to jail.


A lot of PCs think they can get away with nonsense like that, because they assume (often rightly) that the GM isn't willing to bring down the hammer on them, in the form of serious police action.

CombatOwl
2013-12-12, 05:59 PM
I have a table at the moment consisting of 5 people and me who are all new to Tabletop RPG, we are basically using 3.5 D&D but with a bit of home-brewed elements to make things flow better for everyone. I went about being the DM as I was the one who asked around for who among my friends was curious on Tabletop RPG in general. We have been playing this once a week for basically almost 2 months now.

I think I have made an agreement that no matter what betrayal of other players will never be allowed work after a slightly poor hiccup on my part with the dice rolling of the party face to influence other players, luckily he was having a bad day with the rolls for the most part so things didn't get out of hand and I learned from the mistake.

The slight issue lies in what I do with the plot; you see when some of my party are being particularly bad end of the neutral spectrum to the point of basically being evil by another name. A part of me thinks how am I to make a villain more evil then the players so that there is a sense of heroism going on in the campaign? Or at least a task to keep them busy and so no harm to the world.
This is only because I am unsure that I as a new DM can go on making a villain campaign. The notion of it really doesn't feel natural for me and so far what has felt natural has allowed my passable DM skills to make the game an ok learning curve for both a game mechanics and role-playing in general.

Party Composition is:
Human Sorcerer Face who basically tries to extort money for heroic services he would have done anyway to save his own skin and literally got treasure already for his problem.
Elf Barbarian who is literally trying to kill anyone who looks important or plot worthy for the sake of derailing all my plans for the campaign.
Dwarf Barbarian who goes about drunk all the time and trying to hook up with the Halfling barmaid.
The Elf Ranger who is morally conscious to at least try to stop the Humans plans when it sounds devious and hopes to do good by people when he isn't suffering from ADHD.
And the recently joined Half-Orc Cleric of Kord who has only been with the party for about 2 sessions and so far has been "What would Kord do?"

Ultimately the question to ask is how do go about making an enemy worse off/task needing full occupation that the party doesn't have the goal of take over the world, become an evil lich or the like?

Any input will be appreciated :smallsmile:

Eh, kill 'em all and start over. Seriously, it's okay to have a party of heroes and one misfit. It's not okay to have a party of misfits and one hero. Can't run d&d without some level of player participation and common direction. At some level, your players have to either hook themselves into your plot or provide you with enough hooks of their own to drive a plot in their own right.

Kid Jake
2013-12-12, 07:35 PM
Also, if the barmaid has said, "No," and he keeps trying, he is now Evil. Any party member who doesn't help arrest him is also Evil. They are no longer allowed in the tavern; nobody will interact with them



I assume that you consider this guy (http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ls0s1qOYRE1qhughh.jpg) to be Chaotic Evil then? Being persistent isn't the same thing as forcing yourself on someone. I'd consider it more sad than evil.


Edit: Or for a creepier/drunker/sadder example: this guy. (http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/charlie-crying-always-sunny-in-philadelphia.gif)

DrTempest
2013-12-12, 08:18 PM
It sounds like you're dealing with a bunch of new players, and as much as it can suck to deal with these guys, there is a simple realization that is missed by a lot of new players.

That is, that the DM needs to enjoy the game too. Most new people see the DM as the dealer in a blackjack game, where they are simply "the house." The house doesn't have feelings, reactions, the house is simply there to play the game as it is, and to be the rules in living form. Further reinforcing this concept is the fact that the world they are in is usually completely tailored to them. Fighting an escalating war of "how to make them heroic" is a generally bad idea.

Explain to your players that this type of game is for you to enjoy as well, and by breaking the game, whether it be through story, lack of immersion, or lack of clarity is proving it difficult to enjoy the game that you have worked hard to make. A DM caters to a party, but you are a player too! Remind them of that. If they give you more problems after that... I'd suggest finding new players.

InQbait
2013-12-12, 08:33 PM
I say, don't kick out players. Educate them.

Jay R
2013-12-12, 10:03 PM
I assume that you consider this guy (http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ls0s1qOYRE1qhughh.jpg) to be Chaotic Evil then?

No, of course not. I wouldn't consider any character not in a D&D universe to be described purely in terms of the unrealistic over-simplified D&D alignment system.


Being persistent isn't the same thing as forcing yourself on someone.

"Being persistent" is not consistent with the description we were given, which began with "being particularly bad end of the neutral spectrum to the point of basically being evil by another name".

That does not describe being consistent.


I'd consider it more sad than evil.

Then that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about " basically being evil by another name".

veti
2013-12-12, 10:16 PM
No amount of IC shenanigans is going to help this. Sit the player down, preferably all of them and outright ask what they want from the campaign but to keep in mind that you are new. Perhaps asking them what they want will reveal why they are doing what they are doing, or give you a way to talk about your own expectations of the campaign.

Fortunately, this particular modus operandi practically solves itself. Just stop bailing the character out.

If he tries to kill "anyone who looks important", it's only a matter of time - and probably not very much time - before he goes for someone who is ridiculously higher level than himself, and gets himself reduced to a small pile of dust blowing in the wind.

So let him do it. Send a signal to the players that they don't automatically survive everything, acting suicidally will get them killed. Then let the player roll up a new character. If they haven't learned their lesson yet, rinse and repeat as needed until they get bored with generating new characters.

(Oh, and make sure each new character starts at 1st level, and they have to survive at least one full session before they get to level.)

But for the rest of the players - I think their behaviour is well within workable parameters. When they discover the villainous plot, the sorceror's instinct may well be to take it over rather than just scotching it, and the ranger may or may not try to prevent that. That's okay, that's fine, let it play out. If the players choose to play against each other, one or more of them will end up being acutely uncomfortable - but it's a lesson they all need to learn.

Kid Jake
2013-12-12, 10:28 PM
Dwarf Barbarian who goes about drunk all the time and trying to hook up with the Halfling barmaid.

Is the extent of the description of the dwarf. Turning him into a foaming rapist and declaring that he's evil (and everybody that knows him is evil) is a bit of a knee-jerk reaction.

I'm not going to try and guess which members of his party wallow in the shallow end of the alignment pool (he said some not all) but I'd at least give them the benefit of the doubt.

AMFV
2013-12-13, 09:18 AM
These are people described as "being particularly bad end of the neutral spectrum to the point of basically being evil". The dwarf is harassing her "all the time". This isn't somebody who harassed somebody once, so any comment about "instant" anything is simply false.


I would state that even stalking somebody isn't particularly likely to qualify as evil in the D&D sense, maybe misguided, possibly stupid, but not evil, and if you'll read further (my examples are at the bottom of this post) you'll see that it is not even really considered inappropriate, but rather romantic in medieval times.


The original poster did not talking about negotiation. He said "extort". To extort is to threaten physical violence. If that's what he's doing, then I repeat - nobody would ever hire him again.

I did not say I " think people don't try to renogiate [sic] price"; please do not make up falsehoods about me. It is not true that I've "never hired a plumber, a mechanic, or a lawyer."; please do not make up falsehoods about me.

The standard meaning of extort in this context is not threatening physical violence. Renegotiation is a part of any job that turns out to be more intensive than it was anticipated, and it something that might be expected.

Did the plumber, mechanic, or lawyer wind up costing more than you may have been quoted? If so, then you yourself were extorted, at least somewhat since they either had your finances, your car, or your **** under their thumb, that's extortion, at least to some degree.

Also he doesn't extort people, he "basically extorts" them, which is a completely different thing and is very in-line with what I was suggesting.


I have no problem with negotiation. But I promise you that any plumber, mechanic, or lawyer who tries extortion on me will go to jail. It's a crime.

Most of them don't, for example the plumber can up his quoted price, and you generally have to pay it, or else you wind up with bad plumbing. The mechanic can do the same, because your car is in his shop and it's stripped of it's guts. It's very expensive to move a car that's beaten up like that.




Yes, I've been in a bar, but I've never harassed a barmaid. And after being turned down several times, the character should not believe that it might be reciprocated.

It gets you thrown out the first time. Doing it "all the time" is stalking, and can in fact get you put in jail.

I think the implication here was "all the time" when they were in the bar, furthermore stalking laws don't usually exist in the medieval times, where it may even have been considered romantic. See: Romeo and Juliet, or for a more modern example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtbFwWkB4b8. That's certainly stalking and it's definitely looked at as a positive. Our views on stalking are extremely extremely recent.

Being a hopeless romantic who repeatedly asks out the same girl is not evil, maybe stupid, but not evil. And associating with a rapist in D&D does not automatically make one evil, not even close, guilty by association is only partially true for Paladins, and refusing to intervene in something that may or may not be your business is also non-evil, while not really good, it's not particularly evil either.

Jay R
2013-12-13, 08:39 PM
Both AMFV and kidjake are trying to ignore an essential part of the description of these actions, which was "being particularly bad end of the neutral spectrum to the point of basically being evil by another name".

If you are evaluating these player actions on any basis inconsistent with that description, then our main disagreement is that you believe the OP is describing a very different set of actions that I think he is describing.

The only other disagreement I have with AMFV is that he believes that the "standard meaning of extort in this context" is something other than the usual meaning of "extort", and the only one consistent with "being particularly bad end of the neutral spectrum to the point of basically being evil by another name".

If you are correct that these people aren't "being particularly bad end of the neutral spectrum to the point of basically being evil by another name", then your interpretation is correct, and the word "extort" has been misused.

But I urge you to never refer to an underestimate of costs as extortion in front of a professional. Some people get testy when falsely accused of criminal behavior.

For the record, yes, I've had mechanics find more problems with my car than they saw the first time, and I've had contract jobs go over budget, and such things are not extortion, which has a clear, unambiguous meaning.

Scow2
2013-12-13, 09:04 PM
Both AMFV and kidjake are trying to ignore an essential part of the description of these actions, which was "being particularly bad end of the neutral spectrum to the point of basically being evil by another name".And merely putting up with Sir-Kills-The-Plot is enough to match that description.

I'd suspect the party "Face" is the Neutral of the "Pay us an exorbitant sum on top of the excessive loot the bad guys are carrying or we won't save your village"-type, while the Barbarian is overly-crass and persistent with trying to hook up with the barmaid - Harassment, yes. Rape, no.

AMFV
2013-12-14, 12:39 AM
Both AMFV and kidjake are trying to ignore an essential part of the description of these actions, which was "being particularly bad end of the neutral spectrum to the point of basically being evil by another name".

If you are evaluating these player actions on any basis inconsistent with that description, then our main disagreement is that you believe the OP is describing a very different set of actions that I think he is describing.

The only other disagreement I have with AMFV is that he believes that the "standard meaning of extort in this context" is something other than the usual meaning of "extort", and the only one consistent with "being particularly bad end of the neutral spectrum to the point of basically being evil by another name".

If you are correct that these people aren't "being particularly bad end of the neutral spectrum to the point of basically being evil by another name", then your interpretation is correct, and the word "extort" has been misused.

But I urge you to never refer to an underestimate of costs as extortion in front of a professional. Some people get testy when falsely accused of criminal behavior.

For the record, yes, I've had mechanics find more problems with my car than they saw the first time, and I've had contract jobs go over budget, and such things are not extortion, which has a clear, unambiguous meaning.

However, he doesn't specify that it is extortion he says "basically extorts" which has a completely different meaning. If I basically force somebody to do something, then I'm not forcing them to do it, it's much more cogently in line with what you'd expect from the mechanic scenario. If I say "basically" does anything, I'm saying he doesn't do it, but in my eyes it's the same kind of negative. Furthermore even extortion as an adventurer may be par for the course, not all adventurers are good, and playing a mafioso game could be really fun.


And merely putting up with Sir-Kills-The-Plot is enough to match that description.

I'd suspect the party "Face" is the Neutral of the "Pay us an exorbitant sum on top of the excessive loot the bad guys are carrying or we won't save your village"-type, while the Barbarian is overly-crass and persistent with trying to hook up with the barmaid - Harassment, yes. Rape, no.

Yep, this is what I was reading out of it. Not evil, but generally unpleasant.

Jay R
2013-12-14, 11:54 AM
However, he doesn't specify that it is extortion he says "basically extorts" which has a completely different meaning.

Yup, this is exactly where we disagree. I think that somebody who "basically extorts" is basically extorting, and you think he's doing something very different from extorting.

We don't disagree on what to do in either case; you just think the OP is describing something very different from what I think he's describing.

I believe it's "being particularly bad end of the neutral spectrum to the point of basically being evil by another name." If that's the case, then my advice is sound.

If that's not the case, and the OP means something that isn't similar to extortion, and which isn't basically evil by another name, then my advice is inappropriate.

Fortunately, neither of us needs to be sure. The OP who wanted advice will ignore my advice if my understanding of the situation is in error.

The Oni
2013-12-14, 01:07 PM
I'd suspect the party "Face" is the Neutral of the "Pay us an exorbitant sum on top of the excessive loot the bad guys are carrying or we won't save your village"-type,

Neutral Douchey, then.

I wonder why these guys haven't run into a real party of Neutral Good save-the-town, slay-the-demons-now, ask-for-rewards-later kind of adventurers and gotten their ass solo'd by the Paladin.

Amaril
2013-12-14, 03:12 PM
Neutral Douchey, then.

I wonder why these guys haven't run into a real party of Neutral Good save-the-town, slay-the-demons-now, ask-for-rewards-later kind of adventurers and gotten their ass solo'd by the Paladin.

You assume the automatic reaction of any such party would be to attack these characters. My own party is one of these, and I can assure you that our reaction would most certainly be much less hostile.

...Except maybe to the barbarian, who would probably attack us on sight.

The Oni
2013-12-14, 03:51 PM
Your Paladin would allow these dishonorable mercenaries to continue their schemes for fortune at the expense of the innocent? For shame!

Kid Jake
2013-12-14, 04:36 PM
If Paladins stopped to smite every profiteer they came across the entire world would eventually be reduced to 2 epic level Paladins eyeballing each other.

Or I guess more realistically, Paladins would quickly go extinct. :smallwink:

BeerMug Paladin
2013-12-14, 04:52 PM
Your Paladin would allow these dishonorable mercenaries to continue their schemes for fortune at the expense of the innocent? For shame!

Evil people don't deserve slaying because they're evil. Evil people must be stopped when they're in the process of doing an evil activity. Killing is only a last resort, even then.

The paladin would need to witness such a scheme or threat.

It's for reasons like this, that I've always speculated about the idea of having a lawful neutral paladin willing to kill evil entities for its own sake, instead of actually, you know, being a paragon of good that gives evil beings the chance to redeem themselves.

That way, the more typical player-character slaughter-anything-evil paladin can actually still be a paladin (of a sort).

nedz
2013-12-14, 05:08 PM
I say, don't kick out players. Educate them.

this.

They're new players and as such are just exploring the game, which is an important part of RPGs.

The Barbie Elf is going to be very easy for some NPC to manipulate. Make that happen. Also, don't run quest-giver NPCs — they're for video games. Instead have events happen in the town to which the PCs have to react. Maybe the halfling barmaid is abducted ? Maybe someone poisons/curses the beer ? The possibilities are endless. Without quest-givers there is no one for the Sorcerer to threaten, and no one for the Barbie to kill.

Scow2
2013-12-14, 05:17 PM
It's for reasons like this, that I've always speculated about the idea of having a lawful neutral paladin willing to kill evil entities for its own sake, instead of actually, you know, being a paragon of good that gives evil beings the chance to redeem themselves.
He's still Lawful Good. Killing evil for the sake of killing evil is NOT an evil act. But, you have to do more than just kill evil to be Good:

There are three extremely common situations where an Allegedly-Good person who kills Evil is not actually good:
1 - Indiscriminate targeting AKA a failure to "Scan Before You Smite" - You're not only killing Evil people, but also Good/Neutral ones based on bad/faulty/impulsive information. A failure to recognize that Good and Neutral people are capable of occasionally committing evil acts tends to result in the next:

2 - Failure to distinguish Good from Law, and Evil from Chaos: This is the "DIE JAYWALKER!" and "Everyone who commits an Evil Act mustDie!" Paladerp.

3 - Collateral damage - This is the biggest one. Within society, evil people network with Neutral and Good people, and destroying the Evil person without taking precautions causes serious damage to those he associates with. On a larger scale, wanton slaughter increases fear and suspicion, and undermines trust. Law and Good go hand-in-hand to Paladins for good reason, though Law is subservient to Good: People who slaughter Evil people, while Good, tend to be viewed unsympathetically, and twisted to be Evil through whitewashing the victims.

An Anti-Evil Slaughterbot like this (Who still takes time to be Good to those that aren't Evil) who takes care to avoid the three above situations is decisively Good.


Alignment is not personality. It's taking sides in a cosmic war.

BeerMug Paladin
2013-12-14, 08:51 PM
He's still Lawful Good. Killing evil for the sake of killing evil is NOT an evil act. But, you have to do more than just kill evil to be Good:

There are three extremely common situations where an Allegedly-Good person who kills Evil is not actually good:
1 - Indiscriminate targeting AKA a failure to "Scan Before You Smite" - You're not only killing Evil people, but also Good/Neutral ones based on bad/faulty/impulsive information. A failure to recognize that Good and Neutral people are capable of occasionally committing evil acts tends to result in the next:

2 - Failure to distinguish Good from Law, and Evil from Chaos: This is the "DIE JAYWALKER!" and "Everyone who commits an Evil Act mustDie!" Paladerp.

3 - Collateral damage - This is the biggest one. Within society, evil people network with Neutral and Good people, and destroying the Evil person without taking precautions causes serious damage to those he associates with. On a larger scale, wanton slaughter increases fear and suspicion, and undermines trust. Law and Good go hand-in-hand to Paladins for good reason, though Law is subservient to Good: People who slaughter Evil people, while Good, tend to be viewed unsympathetically, and twisted to be Evil through whitewashing the victims.

An Anti-Evil Slaughterbot like this (Who still takes time to be Good to those that aren't Evil) who takes care to avoid the three above situations is decisively Good.


Alignment is not personality. It's taking sides in a cosmic war.

An anti-evil slaughterbot would need to be good to those that are evil, as well, in order to be a lawful good paladin. If the normal rules of procedure are suspended if the target is evil, then that's more like what I described as a lawful neutral evil-slayer.

Allow me to explain with an example. Suppose it is common knowledge that there was a bandit team that routinely kills defenseless people, and will always do so if they think they have the upper hand. They cross paths with a paladin and initiate combat, but when it becomes clear that they're in over their heads, the bandits surrender. They all register as evil, and the nearest city where they could be incarcerated is over a day's ride away.

A paladin should accept the surrender, and act as best as she is able to do so to incarcerate them. If there's no practical way to do so, disarm the bandits and send them on their way.

A lawful neutral evil-slaying slaughterbot could cut them all down where they stand. Since it's reasonable to assume they'd go back to killing innocent travelers again when they get the opportunity, she feels justified in killing them now, despite the fact that they had surrendered in the hopes of getting mercy they themselves would not give another.

How the two characters act in the situations you gave could be identical, but with my example, one of these characters is good aligned and the other is not.

Scow2
2013-12-14, 09:17 PM
An anti-evil slaughterbot would need to be good to those that are evil, as well, in order to be a lawful good paladin. If the normal rules of procedure are suspended if the target is evil, then that's more like what I described as a lawful neutral evil-slayer.

Allow me to explain with an example. Suppose it is common knowledge that there was a bandit team that routinely kills defenseless people, and will always do so if they think they have the upper hand. They cross paths with a paladin and initiate combat, but when it becomes clear that they're in over their heads, the bandits surrender. They all register as evil, and the nearest city where they could be incarcerated is over a day's ride away.

A paladin should accept the surrender, and act as best as she is able to do so to incarcerate them. If there's no practical way to do so, disarm the bandits and send them on their way.

A lawful neutral evil-slaying slaughterbot could cut them all down where they stand. Since it's reasonable to assume they'd go back to killing innocent travelers again when they get the opportunity, she feels justified in killing them now, despite the fact that they had surrendered in the hopes of getting mercy they themselves would not give another.

How the two characters act in the situations you gave could be identical, but with my example, one of these characters is good aligned and the other is not.The only problem with killing the Bandits who surrendered is the Collateral Damage clause, because it devalues surrender. Taking no quarter is not an Evil action: How many times did the bandits ignore pleas for surrender or mercy from their victims? What they forfiet in others, they forfeit in themselves.

The latter is still Good, yet pragmatic about it. The right thing to do is NEVER to "Send them on their way" - Only if they genuinely repent are they to be spared. The guy you're saying is Lawful Neutral is actually VERY much Lawful Good: He protects the innocent, gives charity to those in need, delivers retribution to Evildoers, and sends a strong message in shutting down Evil.

It even stands up to the "He must be Good to Evil", because the Good response to Evil is Swift Retribution.

If anything, the "Paladin" that merely disarms and sends the bandits on their way to repeat their crimes is failing in being Good, by sacrificing innocents down the line, and conceding to Evil.

The Laws and Customs of War are made under the assumption that neither side's footsoldiers are Evil as a rule (regardless of what the governments are)

BeerMug Paladin
2013-12-14, 09:58 PM
The only problem with killing the Bandits who surrendered is the Collateral Damage clause, because it devalues surrender. Taking no quarter is not an Evil action: How many times did the bandits ignore pleas for surrender or mercy from their victims? What they forfiet in others, they forfeit in themselves.

The latter is still Good, yet pragmatic about it. The right thing to do is NEVER to "Send them on their way" - Only if they genuinely repent are they to be spared. The guy you're saying is Lawful Neutral is actually VERY much Lawful Good: He protects the innocent, gives charity to those in need, delivers retribution to Evildoers, and sends a strong message in shutting down Evil.

It even stands up to the "He must be Good to Evil", because the Good response to Evil is Swift Retribution.

If anything, the "Paladin" that merely disarms and sends the bandits on their way to repeat their crimes is failing in being Good, by sacrificing innocents down the line, and conceding to Evil.

The Laws and Customs of War are made under the assumption that neither side's footsoldiers are Evil as a rule (regardless of what the governments are)

Genuine repentance is not impossible for the surrendering bandits in such a situation. It would look pretty much the same as a simple appeal for mercy to stay alive, in that situation. Since there's no way to distinguish between the two, the Good Paladin should err on the side of mercy.

Who knows? Having their lives spared by a paladin might just be the kick they need in order to ensure they turn things around.

Good should give people a chance. Neutral would decide they're not worth it.

Scow2
2013-12-14, 10:04 PM
Good should give people a chance. Neutral would decide they're not worth it.
Actually, both responses are within the realm of Good, and a Paladin could choose either. The BoED is very clear that conversion under duress (Such as "Getting your ass kicked by a paladin") is not genuine penance. It's merely cowardice.

Feeling compelled to take prisoners from any whiny and dishonest shlubb that begs for a mercy he refused to give others is how your Paladin ends up being a Stupid Good "That Guy" who creates infinite Prisoner Dillemas for the party and other problems.

The Oni
2013-12-15, 02:02 PM
I meant solo'd as in KO'd, not necessarily killed, presumably after they'd walked in on the party face's "aggressive negotiations." Surely the servants of the right sort of gods would want to show such ne'er-do-wells the power of true righteousness FIRST HAND, that they might see the error of their ways.

"Well, you know we COULD go take out the rest of that Bugbear invasion force for you, but uh, these +3 swords of goblinbane don't grow on trees..."

*cue Noblebright Exalted party entrance*

No need to make Jump (to conclusions) checks.

Amaril
2013-12-15, 02:10 PM
I love how everybody assumes we can't be the good guys unless we have a paladin :smalltongue:

Slipperychicken
2013-12-15, 02:46 PM
I love how everybody assumes we can't be the good guys unless we have a paladin :smalltongue:

Honestly, with the kind of BS I've seen PCs do* in games, there really isn't a meaningful distinction between "adventurer" and "bandit". There's a reason we call them murderhobos.

*Really, these guys will try to shake anyone down for cash (usually in the name of "getting a reward", even when no one offered a reward). They will draw their weapons on any shopkeeper who doesn't give them the deal they want. They will murder ordinary people who pose no threat to them because they "look kind of sketchy". They will feed live captives to animals, even after they hand over desired information. If you risk your life for them, they will immediately betray you the moment they think they'll come out ahead. If you let them into your house, they will attempt to palm anything which looks valuable, and even some things which don't.


It usually take a lot of haranguing to get them to act like halfway decent people, and Paladins are usually the ones willing to do that, since their powers rely on it. On the bright side, though, rampant murderhobo-ism does make real heroes more special.