Investing the characters

[Silus]

So I'm re-prepping a campaign that I may be running later this year (Yes, it's a ways off, but I feel you can't prep nearly enough) and I'm having a bit of a problem. The story is loose enough to allow for the players to putz around and be their own alignment (unlike the first game I ram for them which was built for good characters and they all rolled evil), the world is sandboxy-enough to allow for quite a bit of random exploration, and there's plenty to do. Think a setting heavily inspired by Fallout but in a quasi-fantasy magi-steampunk setting.

ANYWAY, the problem I'm having is getting the players invested in the plot and actually following through with it instead of what was going to happen for the campaign I had previously planned, that being "let's join the BBEG as they obliterate the world".

Basically, I want the players (The actual players and the characters themselves) to HATE the Disc 1 Boss.

Intent: Guy shows up at the PC's village with a small army of CR1 mooks and raid the town, looking for some MacGuffin. Naturally, the village leader/shaman/head person knows that this is a bad thing and gives it to the PCs or hides it where a PC may find it or something of that nature. Needless to say, the Boss does't get it and the PCs have to relocate the MacGuffin in their ruined village, find out why the Boss wanted it so badly, and somehow possibly deal with said Boss.

Problem: I can't find a way for the PCs to get invested enough to want the Boss' death. Honest to God, I'd put money on the players wanting to hand over the MacGuffin and join the guy regardless of whatever their alignment is. I want them to despise this guy, I want'em to make it their priority to 1) find out what's so special about the MacGuffin, and 2) make the Boss (and whoever he may or may not be working for) pay for what he did.

What I don't want to do is have to remind (or even bring up to) the players that their mission is to track this guy down and straight up murder him. I want it to be their mission, not something that the new DM has mandated they do.

So, any ideas, or should I just kinda do what I can and hope for the best?

[Driderman]

Still railroading. Also, assuming these are the same juvenile-mentality players you've referenced in other threads, I wouldn't get your hopes up. You even say as much yourself.
If one of the primary joys of your players is derailing your intended story and going off doing random acts of horribleness, there's not a lot you can do about.

[hymer]

Maybe don't prep so much? Just make a situation at first, and see what the players want to do with it? And then start prepping for real?
Either that, or explain to the players what this campaign is going to be about, and tell them to make characters that fit the aim.

[Firest Kathon]

As an easy way to avoid them joining the BBEG, make him/her/it not wanting to let them join. Maybe he just hates all humans/elves/whatever the PCs have in common. If they still want to join, let the BBEG screw them over ("Bring me the MacGuffin and I'll make you officers in my army" - "Now I have the MacGuffin. Mooks, kill them.")

[Driderman]

Yeah, saying "you can be anything you want and do what you feel like" but then going "but you have be someone that would follow these rails and do as expected" doesn't really mesh well. Decide, do you want to give a sandbox or do you have a story that requires certain restrictions on characters in terms of alignment, goals and personality?

Edit: Betrayal advice is good advice though, if you want the players to hate your villain. Let them go ahead and do his dirty work, then have him betray them.
Once they manage to escape/survive his backstab, have him exact petty revenge for the "slight" of not falling to his scheme by hitting them where it hurts (family, resources, whatever) if you feel that would make your players hate the villain (as opposed to the DM) even more.

Also, if they all decide to roll evil characters again and you allow it, acknowledge that the story is going to be about a group of vicious bastards that are looking out for number 1 and will kill any number of puppies along the way, just for fun. Don't try to enforce a heroic story on villains, but you could possibly try to guide them into being "socially acceptable" villains that people who they have a common goal with can work with. The "lesser" evil, so to speak.

[Actana]

As an easy way to avoid them joining the BBEG, make him/her/it not wanting to let them join. Maybe he just hates all humans/elves/whatever the PCs have in common. If they still want to join, let the BBEG screw them over ("Bring me the MacGuffin and I'll make you officers in my army" - "Now I have the MacGuffin. Mooks, kill them.")

This might get the players angry at you for "tricking them", but honestly, this is what I would recommend too. Make sure the villain acts condescending towards the party. He just doesn't respect them, like them, and even if he permits them working for him, he screws them over. I've found that nothing gets a player's wrath going more than a betrayal.


Other than that, you can't really force an objective onto the players without making it feel like railroading. Try to find what makes the players tick, and see how you could exploit that. One thing to consider, if you want to play the betrayal angle, is to establish the place the PCs are living in as a relatively nice place, maybe have one or two adventures in it. Then, have some NPC in the town rat the village out to the BBEG in some sort of betrayal scheme, and have the betrayer join the BBEG as an ally. This might get the players wanting to kill the betrayer first, from which you can lead the PCs towards killing the BBEG.

This of course assumes your players are actually interested in a story and not just randomly going off in every direction simultaneously.

[Silus]

Still railroading. Also, assuming these are the same juvenile-mentality players you've referenced in other threads, I wouldn't get your hopes up. You even say as much yourself.
If one of the primary joys of your players is derailing your intended story and going off doing random acts of horribleness, there's not a lot you can do about.

It's mostly that the players tend to craft greedy, self serving characters that only care about where the next coin is coming from and if killing the person giving said coin will net them more.

Granted I could have the massicare happen off screen and if the PCs decide to pick up the trail, then I'll plant clues or something. Granted they'll likely loot the ruins of their village, loot their dead loved once (which have been murdered, had unspeakable carnal acts performed upon them, then cannibalized, not necessarily in that exact order) and soldier on without a blink of the eye.

Speaking of, would it be acceptable DMing policy to subtract XP for excessive lack or RPing? For example, the PCs stumble back into their village (Where they've lived for YEARS) and find their family and friends butchered, their homes burned and general destruction, and all that they say is "Ok, we loot the ruins".

[Tengu_temp]

Make it personal. Wait with introducing the BBEG, and before that use a lot of various NPCs in the game. See which NPCs the players like. Use those NPCs more and more often, to make sure that the players get attached to them.

Then, when the BBEG appears, the first thing he does is kill their favorite NPC.

[Actana]

Speaking of, would it be acceptable DMing policy to subtract XP for excessive lack or RPing?

That would likely gain the ire of your PCs, but it could work as long as you're clear and upfront about how it works.

Then again, it might just turn into a game of chaotic stupid PCs doing things because "it's in character".

[Silus]

That would likely gain the ire of your PCs, but it could work as long as you're clear and upfront about how it works.

Then again, it might just turn into a game of chaotic stupid PCs doing things because "it's in character".

Any advice for dealing with a situation like that then? I want to throw in some actual RPable moments, but I worry that several (like 60%) of the PCs will be in Murder Hobo mode and just gloss over it.

"Ok, so one of the last surviving members of your village, <Character>'s little brother, decided to go scavenging in that city over yonder. You all know the place is lousy with shadow creatures and it's all but suicide for anyone unprepared. He did say he was just going to be looting the outskirts for stuff though. What do you guys do?"

"Meh, leave him. We don't care."

*Facepalm* "....Right." *Begins adjusting NPC for monster status*


Make it personal. Wait with introducing the BBEG, and before that use a lot of various NPCs in the game. See which NPCs the players like. Use those NPCs more and more often, to make sure that the players get attached to them.

Then, when the BBEG appears, the first thing he does is kill their favorite NPC.

The idea was to have the BBEG show up around level...2-3? Somewhere around there after the PCs got some combat and scavenging under their belts and some in-game socialization with their fellow villagers. Then the BBEG comes in and bad things start happening. Resistance is crushed, the women and children are taken as slaves (those that are not killed for sport or having unspeakable acts performed on them anyway) and the men are outright killed, all under the promise that it'll all end if the MacGuffin is turned over. Granted it would go:

1) Crush resistance
2) Round up women and children, separate from the men
2a) Ignore some being dragged off elsewhere (these are D&D equivalent Fallout Raiders we're talking about here)
3) BBEG tells the elder what they're there for and that they'll leave once they get it.
4) Elder refuses, BBEG starts killing people.

[Actana]

Any advice for dealing with a situation like that then? I want to throw in some actual RPable moments, but I worry that several (like 60%) of the PCs will be in Murder Hobo mode and just gloss over it.

I suppose "get better players" is out of the question?

Jokes aside, talking to the players and letting them know of what kind of game you want to run can also help, but I have a feeling you've tried that already. If that doesn't help, you could try either using another system that promotes interesting characters, or at least reading up on the systems that does this and try to adapt certain aspects of them into your game. Two examples would be Fate and Riddle of Steel.

Riddle of Steel has Spiritual Attributes, which are practically the things your character believes in. You could ask players to write down some beliefs their characters have, like their faith in a religion, passion (positive or negative) for something (person, object, concept, whatever tickles their fancy), an oath they have sworn, or a "destiny" they think they have for themselves. Whenever this might come up in play, you can remind the player that their PC has this belief, and give them some sort of bonus when dealing with their belief as an incentive.

Fate has things called Aspects, which are the key concepts of your character. They're more freeform and allow for a whole bunch of things. While adapting the mechanics into D&D requires a bit of work, the concept can still be applied: have your characters write down their "high concept" or what they think their character is at its core, their "trouble" or what their character's biggest flaw is, and something else, like how they were trained, where they come from, or another background related issue. Then try to work those things into the game somehow, and maybe give them an incentive to follow through along the line of their aspects, even if it results in a more dangerous situation. Then kindly remind them about their Aspects when they come up. Don't force them to take the paths though.


The benefit of both the Spiritual Attributes and Aspects is that the player gets to decide what they think is important to them, and are thus more willing to pursue goals towards those aims. When you have the characters and their beliefs written down, alter the story a bit to incorporate those things into the narrative as hooks.

[Driderman]

So like last time, you're planning out the story, including how you want your players to respond to it, in advance...?


If your players craft greedy, self-serving characters either tell them up front that for this campaign, we're playing something else, or adjust your game accordingly.
For the greedy characters hating the villain, let the BBEG tempt them with promises of reward, then betray them once they deliver whatever he wants from them.

[Thrudd]

You need the cooperation of the players for this. If you know they will not create characters that care about anything but money and do not like to follow plotlines, you can't force them. You literally can't make them care about something they don't care about.
My guess is, if you want them to hate someone, have them take away their loot. If all they care about is gaining money and power, then they will hate someone who is stronger than them that sometimes beats them to the punch and steals their loot, or actually takes it away from them after they have found it.

I would recommend not planning this type of story for this group of players, unless you have discussed it with them beforehand and they agree to play good characters who care about their families and innocent lives.

If they refuse to play anything but evil psychopath characters, there's nothing you can do about it. Deal with it, and design your campaign around that assumption.

[Silus]

So like last time, you're planning out the story, including how you want your players to respond to it, in advance...?


If your players craft greedy, self-serving characters either tell them up front that for this campaign, we're playing something else, or adjust your game accordingly. Let the BBEG tempt them with promises of reward, then betray them once they deliver whatever he wants from them.

Aye, I suppose I am :smallfrown: It's a hard habit to break. I had wanted it to be like the main quest in a Fallout game where yeah, the plot is there, here's the hook (Your dad leaving the Vault, getting shot in the head and wanting revenge, etc) and here's some incentive to follow it. If they do follow it, awesome, they'll pick up some nice/neat stuff along the way. If not, no skin off my nose, I've got other quests and dungeons planned.



You need the cooperation of the players for this. If you know they will not create characters that care about anything but money and do not like to follow plotlines, you can't force them. You literally can't make them care about something they don't care about.
My guess is, if you want them to hate someone, have them take away their loot. If all they care about is gaining money and power, then they will hate someone who is stronger than them that sometimes beats them to the punch and steals their loot, or actually takes it away from them after they have found it.

I would recommend not planning this type of story for this group of players, unless you have discussed it with them beforehand and they agree to play good characters who care about their families and innocent lives.

If they refuse to play anything but evil psychopath characters, there's nothing you can do about it. Deal with it, and design your campaign around that assumption.

Suppose I should ask the PCs to go ahead and get some character concepts together (granted I won't be running until like...October) so I have something to assist with plot-crafting.


.

While I really like these ideas (and may implement them at least in the concept portion of the PCs character creation), I'm already dipping into a lot of systems as it is (It's all D20 with a D&D base, but still).

At the core, it's Pathfinder.
I'm using some templates and possibly refluffed magic items from 3.5.
Dragonmech mecha (kinda) will be showing up.
D20 Future/Apocalypse things will be cropping up as well, mostly environmental factors.
Some monsters from Sword & Sorcery will be making appearances as well.
And a (un)healthy level of homebrew.

As it stands, I'm already getting heavily critiqued by the players about incorporating too much non-Pathfinder stuff and that it's supposedly making it too hard on myself or something of that nature (Honestly it's the difficulty of trying to deal with the PCs thats the issue).

[Actana]

While I really like these ideas (and may implement them at least in the concept portion of the PCs character creation), I'm already dipping into a lot of systems as it is (It's all D20 with a D&D base, but still).

It could work purely as a roleplaying hook. No real mechanics needed, just ask the players to write down a thing or two about their characters along some certain lines (like high concept, trouble and background, for example. Or something else). Then give them "roleplaying experience" if they take on those matters. No real additional mechanics needed.

[Artemicion]

It could work purely as a roleplaying hook. No real mechanics needed, just ask the players to write down a thing or two about their characters along some certain lines (like high concept, trouble and background, for example. Or something else). Then give them "roleplaying experience" if they take on those matters. No real additional mechanics needed.

Yes, I would also go into that direction. I feel it always is better to reward players for doing something they are not used to rather than penalizing them for not doing it. Thus bonus xp for good roleplay rather than penalty for bad (or absence of) roleplay. To be effective, the rewards should be significant (a least the equivalent of what they would get for an encounter of their level).

You could also express quite bluntly at the start of the game that yes, the world is a sandbox with quite a lot of loot and possibilities for mayhem, but the really great rewards will come from following the awesome pot hooks you have created. It's up to them to choose which they prefer.

Having the evil dude steal their loot or hurt their pride is indeed a good way to create hate. And possible resentment from the players towards you if they understand you are doing it just to make them follow your plot. Having the evil dude have something the PCs really want might be a good way to create envy, which might also make them somehow follow your plot (wow that dude totally has a +5 cleaver of butchering! it shall be mine!), and if they get what you are doing they might actually find you kind of clever.

I guess you really have to find the right balance between the stick and the carrot.

[prufock]

Your pre-game should include a short questionnaire that the players fill out for each character.
-What do you love?
-What do you hate?
-What are your goals?
Then have the villain interfere with one of the above for each character.

If your players don't give a crap about RP, there's always the old standbys:
-Steal their stuff.
-Break their stuff.
Give your villain a rod of cancellation as his weapon (let it function as a club for melee attacks). PCs get close, he drains their magic items. Hatred will follow, especially if it's a magic item they've worked hard to get.

[Evo_Kaer]

It could work purely as a roleplaying hook. No real mechanics needed, just ask the players to write down a thing or two about their characters along some certain lines (like high concept, trouble and background, for example. Or something else). Then give them "roleplaying experience" if they take on those matters. No real additional mechanics needed.

^This

The reason why everyone usually writes a background story for his/her character in my group is that you get more invested in the character. You care more about it and you care more about its surroundings.

Anyway, Welcome to Puppetry 101.
I have some ideas that might work in your situation. (I know DMs who make such threads wish they wouldn't have to, but I just love how they get my creative gears running)

So, I suppose it is a given that the characters get back to the village just to find it burned down.
Now the following could go wrong:
Problem:
- They don't search the village (unlikely but possible). So they don't find the Macguffin, probably don't even know about it (unless you tell them beforehand)
Solution:
- Just let them wander off. They will get into another village taken over BBEG, because someone has to feed his troops, no? Also he needs money, so they need to pay to get through or to leave at all. I mean they already stepped on private ground without paying anything, we can't let them leave before they do.
This should either give them a bad taste about the BBEG or get them the idea of "Hey there is some powerful guy we want to work for. I'm sure we can get everywhere for free then and even cash in money from random people. Awesome!"

Problem:
- The PCs want to work for the BBEG.
Solution:
- BBEG wants to know where they're from. Asks them what they have to offer or asks outright for the MacGuffin to show their worth. "Bring it to me and I let you work for me". So if they have it with them, they give it to BBEG or they go get it and then bring it there. Now here's the fun part. "So you actually brought what I asked for. To be honest, I didn't think you would. Of course I will keep my word. You may work for me, I always need more slaves. Put them into the mines, they should do just fine there"


Now if that doesn't tick them of, I don't know what will

[Thrudd]

There are ways to balance story and player agency in your game, without requiring them to play certain types or adopt specific character motives.
You have a sandbox world with various locales they can explore, including towns and villages, ruins and dungeons for delving. The people, gods, monsters of your world have their own motives and plans.
Now, this requires some in-game time keeping. The game starts on year 1- month 1 -day 1. On days and times decided by you, evil guy begins his plot, things happen. Maybe the players are there when it happens, maybe they aren't, but they will hear about it at some point. Other people in the world will react to the evil guy, a king will make a declaration, a town will hire mercenaries, more monsters start appearing in new places, etc. If the players care, they will get involved and try to stop the evil guy. If they don't care, they will still be impacted indirectly by the repercussions of evil guy's actions.
What you need to plan is the timeline of events assuming the players don't interfere, and how the world and people react to events. You can even include some randomness in there, giving a percent chance that on day-X, bad guy will find macguffin, or on day-Y there is % chance the king's army will catch up with evil guy and there will be a big battle. By month-Z,day-Z, evil guy will have completed his plan and succeeded, unless players have intervened. If he succeeds, towns are invaded by monsters, people enslaved, humans and demi-humans now in peril everywhere they go, the players will have to deal with the new and changing conditions of their world.

You still get to create a detailed world and a story, but the players get to decide in what way they participate in it. You need to divest yourself of the desire to control the players in any way, and let go of desire for any specific outcome to events. The game is in seeing what the players do in your world and whether they succeed or fail in their endeavors.

[Silus]

There are ways to balance story and player agency in your game, without requiring them to play certain types or adopt specific character motives.
You have a sandbox world with various locales they can explore, including towns and villages, ruins and dungeons for delving. The people, gods, monsters of your world have their own motives and plans.
Now, this requires some in-game time keeping. The game starts on year 1- month 1 -day 1. On days and times decided by you, evil guy begins his plot, things happen. Maybe the players are there when it happens, maybe they aren't, but they will hear about it at some point. Other people in the world will react to the evil guy, a king will make a declaration, a town will hire mercenaries, more monsters start appearing in new places, etc. If the players care, they will get involved and try to stop the evil guy. If they don't care, they will still be impacted indirectly by the repercussions of evil guy's actions.
What you need to plan is the timeline of events assuming the players don't interfere, and how the world and people react to events. You can even include some randomness in there, giving a percent chance that on day-X, bad guy will find macguffin, or on day-Y there is % chance the king's army will catch up with evil guy and there will be a big battle. By month-Z,day-Z, evil guy will have completed his plan and succeeded, unless players have intervened. If he succeeds, towns are invaded by monsters, people enslaved, humans and demi-humans now in peril everywhere they go, the players will have to deal with the new and changing conditions of their world.

You still get to create a detailed world and a story, but the players get to decide in what way they participate in it. You need to divest yourself of the desire to control the players in any way, and let go of desire for any specific outcome to events. The game is in seeing what the players do in your world and whether they succeed or fail in their endeavors.

So essentially have the plot continue on with or without the players?

If so, then I figure that's the proper plan now. Was going to go that route with the campaign I was planning previously, but that culminated in orbital bombardment and locking the nation down in a quarantine. When this was mentioned to the players, the general reaction was of annoyance and dismay that the "default" ending is the "bad" ending. Also they were complaining that a party of 5 (Around lvl 16-18), with 4 of those being casters wouldn't be able to take on ONE lvl 20 caster.

[Rhynn]

Make it personal. Wait with introducing the BBEG, and before that use a lot of various NPCs in the game. See which NPCs the players like. Use those NPCs more and more often, to make sure that the players get attached to them.

This. Get the players invested in some other aspect of the setting first - NPCs they like, a base they claim/make for themselves, positions and power, respect or authority in a society, treasure, cool stuff, whatever.

Then the BBEG comes in, kicks everything over, sets fire to whatever they were invested in, laughs at them and goes on his way.

Handing out a humiliating but non-lethal defeat (fairly, without railroading! - but not necessarily in a "correctly-balanced" or "appropriate" "encounter") could work too. My players' PCs were beaten in a fair fight by a few warriors from a neighboring clan. They responded by sneaking over and setting fire to the guys' longhouse, crippling some of them and their family members and causing several deaths, plunging the two clans into a feud. It was glorious and 100% setting/culture-appropriate!

[NichG]

This all comes down to player psychology, and actually because you know your players already and how they behave, that makes things a lot easier.

Basically, did your players ever obsessively pursue something, even if its something that you didn't intend or were like 'hey, what the heck, why are you so focused?'. If so, use that to get them to go after your villain.

In general, PCs really will not forgive the following things:

- Betraying them
- Stealing their money or stuff
- Being forced or heavy railroaded into doing someone's bidding
- Arrogant/socially obnoxious NPCs.
- Laws that are inconvenient
- People more powerful than them who are not afraid to use their power in overkill/brazen fashion.

Any one or two of these will be enough to make the PCs (generally) go out of their way to exact revenge, even if there is no real reason to do so.

So for example, what you could do is have a game before the raid on their village which is all just local stuff or even fairly light-hearted stuff, but have some guy who basically just shows off and is mildly irritating. Have the PCs get roped into an easy-pickings 'intro adventure' type deal where they go and find a ruin near the village or whatever and come out with a lot of money.

Then, this triggers the attack (there was a MacGuffin among the loot). When the attack happens, have the obnoxious guy beat them to the punch of joining the evil army - maybe he reveals to the raiders where the PCs are hiding their stash, or reveals that they were the ones who went into the ruins, or whatever. The villain seizes the MacGuffin, and then rewards the obnoxious guy with a commission in the army and some of the PCs' other belongings. Have the obnoxious guy 'let' the PCs keep some things out of pity.

The players will be seething now. They were railroaded, betrayed, shown up by a more powerful NPC, and had their stuff stolen. They will absolutely hate these guys. Your big problem will be preventing them from doing a suicide rush rather than planning out their revenge.

[Thrudd]

So essentially have the plot continue on with or without the players?

If so, then I figure that's the proper plan now. Was going to go that route with the campaign I was planning previously, but that culminated in orbital bombardment and locking the nation down in a quarantine. When this was mentioned to the players, the general reaction was of annoyance and dismay that the "default" ending is the "bad" ending. Also they were complaining that a party of 5 (Around lvl 16-18), with 4 of those being casters wouldn't be able to take on ONE lvl 20 caster.

Yes. However, personally, I would avoid apocalyptic "world will end if you don't do something" scenarios. This does give the impression of railroading: if they don't fight the guy you want them to fight, the game is essentially over. Think smaller scale, at least until your players are all demi-gods themselves and they're not limited to one world/plane of existence. I would not literally have the entire world become enslaved if they don't get involved...more like a small region or a single kingdom. Of course, your bad guys should have short term plans and long term plans. Perhaps it will be several years of in-game time before the big plan comes to fruition, where they have gathered all the forces they need and are ready to do something big, and by then the players will be higher level and able to deal with more. And that timeline will be pushed back every time the players drive away a monster tribe, or recover an artifact the bad guy needed, or get two rival kings to cooperate.

[Driderman]

Yes. However, personally, I would avoid apocalyptic "world will end if you don't do something" scenarios. This does give the impression of railroading: if they don't fight the guy you want them to fight, the game is essentially over. Think smaller scale, at least until your players are all demi-gods themselves and they're not limited to one world/plane of existence. I would not literally have the entire world become enslaved if they don't get involved...more like a small region or a single kingdom. Of course, your bad guys should have short term plans and long term plans. Perhaps it will be several years of in-game time before the big plan comes to fruition, where they have gathered all the forces they need and are ready to do something big, and by then the players will be higher level and able to deal with more. And that timeline will be pushed back every time the players drive away a monster tribe, or recover an artifact the bad guy needed, or get two rival kings to cooperate.

If the plot absolutely has to be apocalyptic end of the world, make it so there are a least a handful of steps before this point is reached. Like, first the villain takes over the local keep/base/whatever and solidifies his power in the region. Then, over a span of time, he extends his reach through various acts that the players will also have knowledge of (marries the princess and the king conveniently dies, starts a cult that overthrows the presidency, gets a hold on some very rare material for his doomsday cannon).
Gradually, events unfold that the players should be able to realise are the stepping stones to something bad that they might not like, even if they don't know what specifically. If they keep ignoring, so be it.

But really, apocalyptic end of the world scenarios are overdone, just don't do it :smallwink:

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I will go one step further with the NPCs: ask the players about NPCs who are attached to their characters. Ask them about details. When you prompt them for this information, they become invested in the NPCs, because those NPCs were made by them, in a manner of speaking. So, something like...

"Which one of you knows the barkeep? What's her name? How'd you wind up meeting her? What's the one thing you always notice about her?"

Don't use a set list of questions, just start digging based on what they answer; build on their answers. If the player says "we met when I was drinking my brains out late one night", you can follow that with "why were you drinking so heavily?" Maybe follow it up later with "so how did the barkeep help you through that?"

Hopefully you get the general idea; that's more important than the specific questions I listed here. Ask leading questions like "who's the blacksmith you always trust to keep your equipment in good shape?"

The end result, if you can keep your players engaged, is a village of NPCs that you can use and re-use in gameplay. Then you can kill them off.

[Rhynn]

I will go one step further with the NPCs: ask the players about NPCs who are attached to their characters. Ask them about details. When you prompt them for this information, they become invested in the NPCs, because those NPCs were made by them, in a manner of speaking. So, something like...

This is excellent advice, and I think I'll try "filling out" some of my campaign home bases this way!


The end result, if you can keep your players engaged, is a village of NPCs that you can use and re-use in gameplay. Then you can kill them off.

You'll have to balance things out some, though - don't kill all of the NPCs the players are invested in, just some, or even only a few. This serves two purposes: first, it doesn't risk actually ticking off your players (a slight risk, but a risk); second, it leaves them with NPCs they care about that can be under threat; and third, it doesn't de-sensitize them. ("Oh, if we like a NPC they just die anyway.")

[CarpeGuitarrem]

This is excellent advice, and I think I'll try "filling out" some of my campaign home bases this way!
As point of note, I can't exactly take credit. It's a corollary to how Dungeon World works. ("Ask questions, build on the answers.")

You'll have to balance things out some, though - don't kill all of the NPCs the players are invested in, just some, or even only a few. This serves two purposes: first, it doesn't risk actually ticking off your players (a slight risk, but a risk); second, it leaves them with NPCs they care about that can be under threat; and third, it doesn't de-sensitize them. ("Oh, if we like a NPC they just die anyway.")
Ha, quite. The bigger picture is to use the technique to create a textured world. Then, if you want, you can violently disrupt that texture by killing an NPC--and that disruption is what energizes players.

[Rhynn]

As point of note, I can't exactly take credit. It's a corollary to how Dungeon World works. ("Ask questions, build on the answers.")

After someone (was it you?) mentioned the Dungeon World SRD in another thread, I've been reading it (started with Fronts). I think there are a lot of great ideas to be gleaned from it for other RPGs.

[Silus]

If the plot absolutely has to be apocalyptic end of the world, make it so there are a least a handful of steps before this point is reached. Like, first the villain takes over the local keep/base/whatever and solidifies his power in the region. Then, over a span of time, he extends his reach through various acts that the players will also have knowledge of (marries the princess and the king conveniently dies, starts a cult that overthrows the presidency, gets a hold on some very rare material for his doomsday cannon).
Gradually, events unfold that the players should be able to realise are the stepping stones to something bad that they might not like, even if they don't know what specifically. If they keep ignoring, so be it.

But really, apocalyptic end of the world scenarios are overdone, just don't do it :smallwink:

Well considering the party (3/5 of who are self-centered and materialistic for about every character) and the steps needed to stop the rocks raining from the sky and the otherworldy monsters from eating all the faces, the PCs would have to (for "best" ending):

1) Stop the BBEG from killing the leader of one of the few nations in the world.
-The PCs have stated that the general objective is to betray the leader and side with the BBEG.
--Failure in this destabilizes the nation as the city-states all vie for control, leading to civil war (assuming the other conditions are met)

2) Take measures to halt or flat out stop the infestation of highly contagious xenomorph type creatures (Akata if you play Pathfinder)
-I honestly cannot see the PCs doing this
--Failure results in gassing of population centers resulting in unforeseen consequences including but not limited to 1) undead scourge, 2) Major outcry and conflict with the 3rd faction, or even 3) infestation explodes out of control and threatens the rest of the world (assuming the other conditions are met).

3) Keep a 3rd faction (Interplanetary exterminators/peace keepers/PMCs) from quarantining the nation and taking care of the whole thing themselves.
-Same as #1, the PCs would likely fight the 3rd faction, steal their stuff and cause chaos.
--Failure results in martial law by the 3rd faction and subjugation "for their own good". (assuming the other conditions are met)

So as the end of the world is not being averted or even trying to be stopped (barring me beating them over the head with a Plot-Bat), the outcome is post-apoc quarantined wasteland prison.

Edit: For the record, I'd allow them to deal with the situation however the saw fit. And, considering the characters, the playstyle and previous voiced intents, the "bad" ending is likely the outcome. The players also have voiced that trying to tool a "save the world" campaign for a party of characters that, frankly, don't give a flying **** is going to be far too much work and that I as the DM should probably just start fresh. As such, I'm prepping the post-apoc setting.

[Driderman]

Well considering the party (3/5 of who are self-centered and materialistic for about every character) and the steps needed to stop the rocks raining from the sky and the otherworldy monsters from eating all the faces, the PCs would have to (for "best" ending):

1) Stop the BBEG from killing the leader of one of the few nations in the world.
-The PCs have stated that the general objective is to betray the leader and side with the BBEG.
--Failure in this destabilizes the nation as the city-states all vie for control, leading to civil war (assuming the other conditions are met)

2) Take measures to halt or flat out stop the infestation of highly contagious xenomorph type creatures (Akata if you play Pathfinder)
-I honestly cannot see the PCs doing this
--Failure results in gassing of population centers resulting in unforeseen consequences including but not limited to 1) undead scourge, 2) Major outcry and conflict with the 3rd faction, or even 3) infestation explodes out of control and threatens the rest of the world (assuming the other conditions are met).

3) Keep a 3rd faction (Interplanetary exterminators/peace keepers/PMCs) from quarantining the nation and taking care of the whole thing themselves.
-Same as #1, the PCs would likely fight the 3rd faction, steal their stuff and cause chaos.
--Failure results in martial law by the 3rd faction and subjugation "for their own good". (assuming the other conditions are met)

So as the end of the world is not being averted or even trying to be stopped (barring me beating them over the head with a Plot-Bat), the outcome is post-apoc quarantined wasteland prison.

Edit: For the record, I'd allow them to deal with the situation however the saw fit. And, considering the characters, the playstyle and previous voiced intents, the "bad" ending is likely the outcome. The players also have voiced that trying to tool a "save the world" campaign for a party of characters that, frankly, don't give a flying **** is going to be far too much work and that I as the DM should probably just start fresh. As such, I'm prepping the post-apoc setting.

So basically, you set up a railroad track you already knew in advance your players would never follow, and now you're asking us how to make them do it anyway? :smallconfused:
Just for the record, you guys are around 10-15 years old at the most, right?

[BootStrapTommy]

Make them witness the BBEG burning puppies, stepping on kittens, using homopobic and racial slurs, and talking about how he sexed their mothers the other night because they're just a bunch of pansy who could never defeat him.

If that doesn't work, get new friends because they sound like twits.

[crayzz]

I can't find a way for the PCs to get invested enough to want the Boss' death. Honest to God, I'd put money on the players wanting to hand over the MacGuffin and join the guy regardless of whatever their alignment is. I want them to despise this guy, I want'em to make it their priority to 1) find out what's so special about the MacGuffin, and 2) make the Boss (and whoever he may or may not be working for) pay for what he did.

If they are just going to derail whatever plan you have, let them. Give them a taste of what they want, then screw them over as hard as you the Boss can.

[BootStrapTommy]

The single most solid advise for investing characters is to make it personal.
There is one thing everyone can relate with, especially when it comes to player's and their characters, and that's personal insults.

No one likes being looked down at, no one like being made fun of, and no one likes personal slight. If you make the BBEG slight the characters, it will slight the players. I'm not talking doing dumb things like having their friends and family die or having their home destroyed. If they're evil murderhobos those things don't matter to them, and they matter even less to them as players since they're just effectively nameless fictional characters a player has no way to relate with.

But if the BBEG calls them "weaklings", "stupid knife ears", or "bearded gnomes" then players take it persoanlly. Players take insults to their characters as insults to themselves, and I've yet to have a party who did not bite when the BBEG made it clear he thought them beneath him.

[Silus]

So basically, you set up a railroad track you already knew in advance your players would never follow, and now you're asking us how to make them do it anyway? :smallconfused:
Just for the record, you guys are around 10-15 years old at the most, right?

Less railroad and more framework. Those are the minimum requirements for the "good" outcome, good in that the nation they're in isn't reduced into a quarantined, radioactive wasteland police state. Again, they can pick up that plot if they like or not. If they do opt to stop the destruction, those are the quest objectives. The ends are important, the means are all up to the players.

And the previously metioned objectives are for the campaign I was going to run. The one I started this thread about was regarding the time-skip "let's face it y'all ain't gonna try to save the world" campaign that jumps right to post-apoc.

And most of the group is 25+, though the youngest is like 19 or so. Not sure what it matters however.

Edit: Granted the oldest one (I'd guess in his late 30's, possibly late 40's) acts like the youngest. A good number of his characters have been sexually minded and just about all have been vastly greedy ("Mo' money, mo' money, mo' money!" is a common phrase of his).

[AMFV]

So I'm re-prepping a campaign that I may be running later this year (Yes, it's a ways off, but I feel you can't prep nearly enough) and I'm having a bit of a problem. The story is loose enough to allow for the players to putz around and be their own alignment (unlike the first game I ram for them which was built for good characters and they all rolled evil), the world is sandboxy-enough to allow for quite a bit of random exploration, and there's plenty to do. Think a setting heavily inspired by Fallout but in a quasi-fantasy magi-steampunk setting.

ANYWAY, the problem I'm having is getting the players invested in the plot and actually following through with it instead of what was going to happen for the campaign I had previously planned, that being "let's join the BBEG as they obliterate the world".

Basically, I want the players (The actual players and the characters themselves) to HATE the Disc 1 Boss.

Intent: Guy shows up at the PC's village with a small army of CR1 mooks and raid the town, looking for some MacGuffin. Naturally, the village leader/shaman/head person knows that this is a bad thing and gives it to the PCs or hides it where a PC may find it or something of that nature. Needless to say, the Boss does't get it and the PCs have to relocate the MacGuffin in their ruined village, find out why the Boss wanted it so badly, and somehow possibly deal with said Boss.

Problem: I can't find a way for the PCs to get invested enough to want the Boss' death. Honest to God, I'd put money on the players wanting to hand over the MacGuffin and join the guy regardless of whatever their alignment is. I want them to despise this guy, I want'em to make it their priority to 1) find out what's so special about the MacGuffin, and 2) make the Boss (and whoever he may or may not be working for) pay for what he did.

What I don't want to do is have to remind (or even bring up to) the players that their mission is to track this guy down and straight up murder him. I want it to be their mission, not something that the new DM has mandated they do.

So, any ideas, or should I just kinda do what I can and hope for the best?

Well you are playing an antagonistic game... So get into it, reverse the players plans, when they join the BBEG, have him just be a Big-Bad Misunderstood Guy, and then have the good shining city be secretly evil. If your players enjoy fighting you, then give them what they like, make the game more antagonistic and old school, and see if their enjoyment goes up, it probably will.

[Silus]

Well you are playing an antagonistic game... So get into it, reverse the players plans, when they join the BBEG, have him just be a Big-Bad Misunderstood Guy, and then have the good shining city be secretly evil. If your players enjoy fighting you, then give them what they like, make the game more antagonistic and old school, and see if their enjoyment goes up, it probably will.

Well for the campaign at hand (The post-apoc fantasy Fallout one) I'm trying to keep the overall plot (Breaking the quarantine the nation has been under for ~200 years) as alignmently unbiased as I can. The first game I ran for them was designed for good characters, and they all run evil characters. Learning from that, I'm trying to run this one as flexibly as possible.

The BBEG that wrecks the village however is of the uncompromising "I'll kill whoever gets in my way" mentality. I don't much care if the drive to kill him is out of some sense of justice or simple vengeance. So long as he's confronted and beat, the story can go on. I don't care how they do it--straight up fight, backstabbery, manipulate another faction to do it for them, whatever. I'm trying to give the players a massive amount of freedom, more than I'm comfortable with as a DM to be honest.

But the problem is getting the "quest" in their "quest log" and giving them enough in character incentive to pursue said quest.

[AMFV]

Well for the campaign at hand (The post-apoc fantasy Fallout one) I'm trying to keep the overall plot (Breaking the quarantine the nation has been under for ~200 years) as alignmently unbiased as I can. The first game I ran for them was designed for good characters, and they all run evil characters. Learning from that, I'm trying to run this one as flexibly as possible.

The BBEG that wrecks the village however is of the uncompromising "I'll kill whoever gets in my way" mentality. I don't much care if the drive to kill him is out of some sense of justice or simple vengeance. So long as he's confronted and beat, the story can go on. I don't care how they do it--straight up fight, backstabbery, manipulate another faction to do it for them, whatever. I'm trying to give the players a massive amount of freedom, more than I'm comfortable with as a DM to be honest.

But the problem is getting the "quest" in their "quest log" and giving them enough in character incentive to pursue said quest.

If they're greedy then motivating them is incredibly easy, give them money or sundry goods, or magic stuff if they comply. Have it stored in a vault that can only be accessed by the person that's paying them, and it's pay on delivery, afterwards if they kill him (or her) then who cares, cause you've already got them on the right path. Just pay them, if they're characters like money, give them money, if they like power, give them that, and so on... Greedy characters are easy to motivate.

[Broken Crown]

The first game I ran for them was designed for good characters, and they all run evil characters. Learning from that, I'm trying to run this one as flexibly as possible…. I'm trying to give the players a massive amount of freedom, more than I'm comfortable with as a DM to be honest.

But the problem is getting the "quest" in their "quest log" and giving them enough in character incentive to pursue said quest.
A number of people have already suggested that you not start off with the big plot hook. I heartily agree. Unless a consensus between you and the players already exists at the start of the game (and it sounds as though it doesn't) that "this campaign will be about X," then it's far better to let the PCs simply explore for a while. That's kind of the attraction of a sandbox world, after all. That will give them the opportunity to become familiar with the setting and the other characters (PC and NPC) and start to actually care about them, in whatever way. Maybe they will all be murderous psychos, but they will still develop goals of some sort (presumably involving murder and psychosis). Once that happens, they will have a reason to care when the BBEG shows up and starts stomping all over their goals.

For me, one of the least satisfying campaign openings I have played in resulted from an overly-hastily introduced plot.

In the first session of the campaign, the PCs had encountered a group of thugs claiming to work for the local Baron, harassing a caravan that had camped for the night, claiming the nomads had stolen some valuable object (a magical gold goblet). Not all the PCs knew each other at this point; we had all been travelling on the same road, and happened to turn up at the camp at about the same time. A tense standoff occurs as the sun sets, when a raven swoops down, grabs the goblet, and flies into the woods with it. Everyone pursues, and fighting breaks out in the chaos.

Next session: The Baron's thugs are being defeated and driven off, when suddenly, plot! The PC sorcerer's NPC mentor confronts the raven (which is apparently really a demon), and has his soul sucked into the goblet. The raven/demon flies away with the goblet. A Mysterious (and Arrogant) Quest-Giver appears, and demands that the PCs retrieve the goblet, defeat the demon, and rescue the souls trapped inside, or Bad Things Will Happen.

Now, normally, I would have no problem with this, but at this point, my character hadn't even met any of the other PCs (just fought the same enemies in a random battle, somewhat near them). So, I'm being ordered by a person whom I don't know, don't like, and have no reason to trust, to undertake a long and perilous journey with some other people I don't know, to supposedly help some more people I don't know. And I'm supposed to do it entirely on faith, because I didn't see most of this happen, and wouldn't have understood it if I had (being a barbarian with no knowledge skills).

I went along with it, because I didn't want to be That Guy, but it felt awfully forced. Even one or two sessions spent with the other PCs (and plot-relevant NPC mentor), to get the chance to meet them and have an actual in-character reason to want to help them, would have been great. (I ended up dropping out of that campaign before too long, due to scheduling problems, but I probably would have made more of an effort to stay with it if I'd been more invested in the story.)
If the plot is introduced before the players have a reason to care, then they'll go along grudgingly (at best), ignore it completely, or (at worst) try to mess up your storyline out of a feeling of resentment.

If nothing else, letting the players wander around doing their own thing will, as other posters have suggested, give you some information about what kind of game interests them, what motivates them, and therefore how you can bait your plot hook so they'll gulp it down of their own free will.

[Thrudd]

Well for the campaign at hand (The post-apoc fantasy Fallout one) I'm trying to keep the overall plot (Breaking the quarantine the nation has been under for ~200 years) as alignmently unbiased as I can. The first game I ran for them was designed for good characters, and they all run evil characters. Learning from that, I'm trying to run this one as flexibly as possible.

The BBEG that wrecks the village however is of the uncompromising "I'll kill whoever gets in my way" mentality. I don't much care if the drive to kill him is out of some sense of justice or simple vengeance. So long as he's confronted and beat, the story can go on. I don't care how they do it--straight up fight, backstabbery, manipulate another faction to do it for them, whatever. I'm trying to give the players a massive amount of freedom, more than I'm comfortable with as a DM to be honest.

But the problem is getting the "quest" in their "quest log" and giving them enough in character incentive to pursue said quest.

It sounds like you're still hung up on this story and a particular outcome. The only way to make this type of game work is for the players to willingly participate. Find out if they are willing to play a "stop the bad guy" story and will make characters to support it. Otherwise, be prepared for this game to go pretty much the same way the last one did.
If you've got players who only make evil/neutral characters that are all about gaining personal power, you should give them a world they will have fun playing in. You know these players now, how they do things. Think of something that will be fun for you and fun for them at the same time.
Based on your description of the last game, I would say your players are not big on participationism. If you tell them what story you want them to play, they will purposely try to avoid it and make characters that would not want to participate in your story. You can't trick them into following your plot.
So don't make a plot, at least not one that requires the players to participate. Make a world, and let them play in it. Probably they will avoid the bad guy as long as he is not directly attacking them. But one day, when they are lords with a domain and incomes and some real power, the bad guy will notice them and make a move to take what they have. Then they will be interested in fighting him. Or if the players keep stealing magic items and treasure that he wanted for himself and killing monsters he planned to use in his army, eventually he will take notice of them and start allocating resources to attack them and steal their stuff. If they want the assassins and monsters and thieves to stop targeting them, they'll need to destroy the bad guy. Or they learn the bad guy has some amazing magic items (as well as a huge stockpile of money), if they want them bad enough they will go after him. It also has to be ok with you if they always remain below the notice of the bad guy, and never confront him at all. He rules his kingdom with an iron fist and conducts terrible magical experiments on his subjects, and the PC's keep to themselves and don't make waves, and maybe move somewhere else where there are more profits to be made.
Your plans can't be ruined if you don't have any plans.

[Driderman]

Welcome to the new thread, same thread as the old thread :smallamused:

[veti]

As an easy way to avoid them joining the BBEG, make him/her/it not wanting to let them join. Maybe he just hates all humans/elves/whatever the PCs have in common. If they still want to join, let the BBEG screw them over ("Bring me the MacGuffin and I'll make you officers in my army" - "Now I have the MacGuffin. Mooks, kill them.")

This is point #1. If your main problem is the players wanting to join the BBEG, then make your BBEG someone who would have absolutely no interest in the players joining them. Or someone whose aims are completely incompatible with the players, e.g. wants to quite literally convert every living thing into a non-free-willed undead.

Betrayal is a good way to get the players to hate the villain, but it's only a sub-category of the "investment" device. Your players need to be invested in what the villain destroys. That means, it needs to be something they - not their characters, but the players themselves - have put work into. That means, the betrayal/other BBEG puppy-kicking event can't be the first thing that happens in the game, should be at least 5-6 sessions in, when they've had time to establish things that they care about.


Speaking of, would it be acceptable DMing policy to subtract XP for excessive lack or RPing?

Not really, in the context you're talking about. As a player, I'd accept XP "fines" for bad RPing that takes the form of "taking unfair advantage of out-of-charater knowledge". But "playing a heartless bastard" isn't necessarily "bad" RPing, it's just a choice.


1) Stop the BBEG from killing the leader of one of the few nations in the world.
-The PCs have stated that the general objective is to betray the leader and side with the BBEG.
--Failure in this destabilizes the nation as the city-states all vie for control, leading to civil war (assuming the other conditions are met)

That's not "failure", that's "another possible way the story could go". Your players' aims are not yours. Ergo, your idea of "failure" probably has very little relation to theirs.


2) Take measures to halt or flat out stop the infestation of highly contagious xenomorph type creatures (Akata if you play Pathfinder)
-I honestly cannot see the PCs doing this
--Failure results in gassing of population centers resulting in unforeseen consequences including but not limited to 1) undead scourge, 2) Major outcry and conflict with the 3rd faction, or even 3) infestation explodes out of control and threatens the rest of the world (assuming the other conditions are met).

Just because you or I can't immediately see how the players could benefit from an undead scourge, doesn't mean they won't. Give them the choice, and play out the consequences. Either way, there is no "failure" - there is just another opportunity for another type of response.


3) Keep a 3rd faction (Interplanetary exterminators/peace keepers/PMCs) from quarantining the nation and taking care of the whole thing themselves.
-Same as #1, the PCs would likely fight the 3rd faction, steal their stuff and cause chaos.
--Failure results in martial law by the 3rd faction and subjugation "for their own good". (assuming the other conditions are met)

So 3rd faction sits on their spaceships in orbit. Until the very end, when they're committed to this "martial law" thing, none of their representatives ever physically visits the planet at all, and there is absolutely no way for the players to reach their spaceships. (Teleport won't work.) Unless they can figure out some way of building a spaceship themselves, doing anything to these guys is physically impossible.

And - excuse me for mentioning it, but not only is this quite railroady (you've decided what outcome you want, and anything less than that is a "failure"), but also it looks suspiciously like the last campaign you tried to run. With the same group? Because really, that sounds like a recipe for disaster.

If you really, really want to run this story again, the way to do it is to script out the actions of several major NPCs, including other adventurers in the world, and then let the players interact with and change these. "Best outcome" depends entirely on what they decide to do. Who knows, they might come up with a plan you've never dreamt of, which results in a better outcome than the one you've set up for them. It's up to them.

[SiuiS]

Ask them to be invested.

Seriously. Make a hand out about what the game is about. Theme, tone, setting. Suggestions, requests. Add "be invested!"

It's like a horror game. The only way to get horror is player buy in. Ask them to buy in! They should. It's why the are there.

[kailkay]

snip

Betrayal is a good way to get the players to hate the villain, but it's only a sub-category of the "investment" device. Your players need to be invested in what the villain destroys. That means, it needs to be something they - not their characters, but the players themselves - have put work into. That means, the betrayal/other BBEG puppy-kicking event can't be the first thing that happens in the game, should be at least 5-6 sessions in, when they've had time to establish things that they care about.

snip


This. So much this. Make them love something in the campaign. Make this NPC that they absolutely think is the most awesome guy ever. The friendly dwarf guy that they help get motivated to be the best he can be, after living a sedentary, more or less depressed life. Their acts inspire him, he becomes their fan, they help him out, and then WHAM, they find out he's murdered. Either it happens right in front of them, or they have to go on another adventure to put the clues together to figure out who did it. :O Turns out it's your villain, and your whole party wants his head, for the rest of the campaign.

Just as an example. ;)

[Silus]

And - excuse me for mentioning it, but not only is this quite railroady (you've decided what outcome you want, and anything less than that is a "failure"), but also it looks suspiciously like the last campaign you tried to run. With the same group? Because really, that sounds like a recipe for disaster.


Ok, I feel that I should address this as it keeps coming up.

The bit that you quoted? The bit with the "Success" and "Failure" thing? That was for the previous campaign. I have thus scrapped that campaign and timeskipped under the assumption (founded on deductions of playstyle and general player temperament) that the above "save the world" objectives would not be met.

Rant regarding this as well:
Also, since we're on this topic, I really don't see how having objectives (With VERY broad methods of completion) and consequences for not completing said objectives is railroading. And bear in mind, said objectives are optional. Failure to address the problem results in the problem getting out of control. The end of the world won't just halt because the PCs decide not to participate in stopping it. It'll continue on its merry way until all the above mentioned "failure" conditions are met (The leader is dead, the nation quarantined and the quarantined zone put under martial law).

Take a more generic plot/problem. A dragon attacks a kingdom. Now, the PCs could go and deal with the dragon as they see fit (Straight up fight, diplomacy, trickery, etc). That would be the same as meeting the above objectives. The problem at hand is being addressed. The method of how it's being addressed is up to the PCs, but it's being addressed at the least. Now, failure to deal with the dragon for whatever reason, the being NOT addressing the problem in a meaningful way (Such as turning right around and marching out of the kingdom to find better adventuring spots) won't keep the dragon from attacking the kingdom. The attacks will continue with or without the PCs being there or participating. The quest will "fail" if, or rather when, the kingdom falls to the dragon.

It's less like everyone seems to say, that I'm already coming up with the outcome and more that I'm prepping what will happen should the PCs NOT involve themselves. The PCs bite at the plot hook, fine, the end result fully depends on the PCs action and I could probably work an outcome up on the fly. No biting, that's where all of this planning comes in for "Oh, the PCs aren't getting involved? Well then, here's how things'll go without anyone to stop it".

"Oh you have to meet these objectives like this" is railroading. Straight up saying "Here's the objective, the method of achieving it is up to you" is not, as far as I can see, railroading.

Anyway, the campaign I am prepping now, the one that this thread is about, is a timeskip into the future. The nation is under quarantine and is more or less like D&D meets Fallout. The PCs all live in the same village. Initial quests (Up to about lvl 3-4) will mostly be scavenging and looting of ruins or dealing with the local wildlife. Lvl 3-4 hits, that's when the BBEG mentioned in the first post comes in looking for the MacGuffin. That, thus far, is the only scripted event I have. The intent is to engender some sense of hatred for this BBEG instead of a sense of "Oh let's go join this guy who IS KILLING EVERYONE WE KNOW". The event gets dealt with (Fighting, running away, whatever, it's up to the PCs) and the PCs are back to their own devices with a nice plot hook just hanging there. They are free to bite if they like, it does not bother me.

I hope this has made this clear enough.

[SiuiS]

Railroads aren't bad, necessarily. Direction and designs to maintain them are good.

I've also attacked a player's interests, with a villain who thought he was hot stuff using sunder. He disarmed the player's halberd (hookspear) because both parties having pole arms wasn't working for him. The player said hey, that's my favorite spear" and the bad guy smiled, stepped up and sundered the downed weapon over the PC's shoulder. The result was quick, visceral, and went really bad for the bad guy. Had the other players on edge too.

Of course, anyone who's heard this story knows it ends with the PC decimating the worlds most elite infantry unit and forcing an utter route, but you could probably pull off longer animosity.

[Actana]

I think the problem might be more that you're approaching the issue in a way that rather conducts (heh heh) railroading. You have a single issue that is the centerpoint of the campaign and around which the events unfold. These events are regardless of who the characters are or what they do.

Furthermore, the fact that you do have a kind of success/failure state does imply that there is a "right" way to go through the story you have set up, even if you don't necessarily dictate how they do go by doing it. You are trying to find a way for the PCs to hate the BBEG which does rather imply that there is a path you want the players to go on, even if they probably don't want to. I'd say you are justified in the concerns, but you might be going at it from a wrong angle.

Instead of trying to make the players hate the BBEG without knowing what the players will do, have the story react to the PCs and make the story about their actions, not the actions of the BBEG. It can serve as a setup, but after that ditch any adventure path you had thought up if the players don't follow it on their own. You think the players will want to join the BBEG? Let them: have the BBEG announce that anyone who betrays the village will get to work for him as long as they help with the butchering of everyone else. Players turn? Then have the BBEG enslave them after the killing has been done, as he "keeps his word". From there follow the PCs as they likely try to escape slavery, and then see what they do from there. If they decide to get revenge, you can go about the story of killing the BBEG. If they decide to flee, the story is now about fleeing an oppressive and antagonistic nation that wants them dead. Insert parts of your old plot into the new one and if you find an opening hint at what's to come. If the players still don't care, let them not care: it's their story after all, and one of the focal points of the story is that the players are a bunch of amoral thugs. A story like this is likely going to end badly in-character but you need to make sure the players know that the story will end with a downer ending if they continue down this sort of amoral behavior. But regardless, make the story be about the players' actions, rather than the actions of an NPC, but still nudge them into the right direction: if the PCs want to escape the slave camp, they need to raise a rebellion against the overseers (who obviously won't even allow the PCs to become turncoats, and if they do it's just more fuel for a story) that could eventually lead up to a full uprising. If the players care only about money, have their biggest goal be in the hands of the BBEG's minions, and to get it they need to do the things you want them to. While the NPCs like the BBEG will be important to the setting, the story should remain firmly on the exploits of the PCs, and their internal motivations are key to a successful story instead of trying to force external motivations onto them.

That's one way to approach storytelling in these kinds of situations. You could also try to convince the players (not their characters) of what kind of story you want to tell, and hope everyone agrees.

Regardless, what you're doing isn't railroading by any means, but it can very much look like that. A better term could be a highway, as in there's an obvious path to take, but there are also a lot of turns to take along the way, that will lead to entirely different places. It still requires the PCs to conform to the overall premise to begin with, which I sense is the underlying problem here.

[NichG]

So the kinds of objectives you're talking about are railroading, because there's a disconnect between the objective and the actors involved.

Basically, lets say I live in a city with 10000 people. A dragon attacks the city. Yes, this is a problem for me, but at the same time there's no reason why this problem should be my problem to solve a-priori. There are 9999 other people who could step up and risk their lives and be heroes, so if I'm not a heroic character, why should I bother?.

The assumption that the PCs will jump at any threats to the global stability is the core problem you're having. If the players are not playing heroic PCs, then they have no reason to do this. It is a perfectly rational assumption that 'someone else should deal with it', and furthermore if the PCs have an easy way to escape danger then its actively counter to their natures to try to resolve the problem. Its one thing when 'the dragon will kill you if you don't stop it', but its another entirely when 'the dragon is distracted killing everyone in the city and won't notice you escaping through the city gates'.

If you want to claim to actually be giving the PCs freedom, you have to also give them the freedom to choose their own goals. Whether I attack the dragon with a bow or a fireball is not 'freedom'. Whether I attack the dragon or flee from it is freedom. That seems to be what you're missing.

That said, its perfectly reasonable to have a campaign where there are specific goals. The way to do it is to ask the players to buy in before you start the campaign, and then if they waver say 'you promised you'd buy in to this premise, or I would have run something else instead, so please follow through'. But you have to be prepared for the players to say 'nah, we hate that premise' and run something else instead.

It may be a good idea to think smaller. Don't create a villain at all, to start. Instead, create opportunities for mayhem and then allow a villain to emerge naturally from what the party does. Basically, let the PCs be evil - in the course of being evil, they will piss off some government. Now that government is hunting them, and some guy in the government is the Javert to the PC's Jean val Jean. That guy is now the villain, not because he always was the villain, but because the PCs have decided to dislike him, so you amplify what they're telling you to create the plot elements you need.

[SiuiS]

I think the problem might be more that you're approaching the issue in a way that rather conducts (heh heh) railroading. You have a single issue that is the centerpoint of the campaign and around which the events unfold. These events are regardless of who the characters are or what they do.

Is this actually a problem in this specific instance?




The assumption that the PCs will jump at any threats to the global stability is the core problem you're having. If the players are not playing heroic PCs, then they have no reason to do this.

This is what is meant by asking the players to invest. If they make a farmer, a banker, and a property manager as characters, those characters are fit for a much different game.

Ask the players to invest in the game themes of heroism and valor. Problem solved.

[Silus]

I think the problem might be more that you're approaching the issue in a way that rather conducts (heh heh) railroading. You have a single issue that is the centerpoint of the campaign and around which the events unfold. These events are regardless of who the characters are or what they do.

Something I'm trying to break away from to be sure. The "Act 1" campaign was all plot and little sideshow because, well, I'm a fairly inexperienced DM and the structure of a plot to go by is comforting, especially when you've got players almost all older and more experienced gamers than you.



Furthermore, the fact that you do have a kind of success/failure state does imply that there is a "right" way to go through the story you have set up, even if you don't necessarily dictate how they do go by doing it. You are trying to find a way for the PCs to hate the BBEG which does rather imply that there is a path you want the players to go on, even if they probably don't want to. I'd say you are justified in the concerns, but you might be going at it from a wrong angle.

I was honestly trying to build the endings like Silent Hill type endings (At least for the campaign I scrapped). Do X, Y and Z, get ending A. Do X and Y but skip Z, get ending B. But also blend in a a sense of consequence for actions and lack of actions.


Instead of trying to make the players hate the BBEG without knowing what the players will do, have the story react to the PCs and make the story about their actions, not the actions of the BBEG. It can serve as a setup, but after that ditch any adventure path you had thought up if the players don't follow it on their own. You think the players will want to join the BBEG? Let them: have the BBEG announce that anyone who betrays the village will get to work for him as long as they help with the butchering of everyone else. Players turn? Then have the BBEG enslave them after the killing has been done, as he "keeps his word". From there follow the PCs as they likely try to escape slavery, and then see what they do from there. If they decide to get revenge, you can go about the story of killing the BBEG. If they decide to flee, the story is now about fleeing an oppressive and antagonistic nation that wants them dead. Insert parts of your old plot into the new one and if you find an opening hint at what's to come. If the players still don't care, let them not care: it's their story after all, and one of the focal points of the story is that the players are a bunch of amoral thugs. A story like this is likely going to end badly in-character but you need to make sure the players know that the story will end with a downer ending if they continue down this sort of amoral behavior. But regardless, make the story be about the players' actions, rather than the actions of an NPC, but still nudge them into the right direction: if the PCs want to escape the slave camp, they need to raise a rebellion against the overseers (who obviously won't even allow the PCs to become turncoats, and if they do it's just more fuel for a story) that could eventually lead up to a full uprising. If the players care only about money, have their biggest goal be in the hands of the BBEG's minions, and to get it they need to do the things you want them to. While the NPCs like the BBEG will be important to the setting, the story should remain firmly on the exploits of the PCs, and their internal motivations are key to a successful story instead of trying to force external motivations onto them.

Sorry, my brain is kinda half-fried (Got off work not too long ago). The short of it being "Scrap the plot if the players don't bite and go full free-form sandbox"?


That's one way to approach storytelling in these kinds of situations. You could also try to convince the players (not their characters) of what kind of story you want to tell, and hope everyone agrees.

Regardless, what you're doing isn't railroading by any means, but it can very much look like that. A better term could be a highway, as in there's an obvious path to take, but there are also a lot of turns to take along the way, that will lead to entirely different places. It still requires the PCs to conform to the overall premise to begin with, which I sense is the underlying problem here.

The problem I think is agreeing on the premise itself. For the post-apoc one I'm already using like...4-5 different D20 systems and mashing them together to achieve the setting. That alone is causing the players to all but urge me to run something...ugh vanilla (Like a module or Adventure Path or something). It would honestly be the least painful option, but...ugh, premade adventure XP



It may be a good idea to think smaller. Don't create a villain at all, to start. Instead, create opportunities for mayhem and then allow a villain to emerge naturally from what the party does. Basically, let the PCs be evil - in the course of being evil, they will piss off some government. Now that government is hunting them, and some guy in the government is the Javert to the PC's Jean val Jean. That guy is now the villain, not because he always was the villain, but because the PCs have decided to dislike him, so you amplify what they're telling you to create the plot elements you need.

Well, given the enviornment, social climate (as much as there is) and general lifestyle, evil characters would thrive in the Fallout style setting, much to my annoyance. Dealing with evil characters is a headache and a half for me.

How would you rule the following analogy based event?

Fallout setting, the PCs have adopted the raider/bandit persona (or greedy-murder-hobos, whatever). They come across an Enclave research outpost. Seeing all the goodies, they attack it and kill/enslave everyone. The Enclave gets wind and the players are now on THE LIST. Cue Vertibird landings and/or KOS orders whenever the Enclave gets a confirmed sighting on the players, resulting in a constant antagonist brought on by the PCs actions.

*Shrugs* Spitballin' here.

[NichG]

Well, given the enviornment, social climate (as much as there is) and general lifestyle, evil characters would thrive in the Fallout style setting, much to my annoyance. Dealing with evil characters is a headache and a half for me.

How would you rule the following analogy based event?

Fallout setting, the PCs have adopted the raider/bandit persona (or greedy-murder-hobos, whatever). They come across an Enclave research outpost. Seeing all the goodies, they attack it and kill/enslave everyone. The Enclave gets wind and the players are now on THE LIST. Cue Vertibird landings and/or KOS orders whenever the Enclave gets a confirmed sighting on the players, resulting in a constant antagonist brought on by the PCs actions.

*Shrugs* Spitballin' here.

Yeah, thats basically the kind of thing I'm talking about. It helps to personalize things on top of this - its not just 'the Enclave', its someone in particular at the Enclave who the PCs can find out about. Maybe someone who had a relative or close friend in the outpost they attacked. Maybe its not just all kill on sight/airstrike stuff, but the Enclave tells this NPC that they can't afford to waste more resources hunting the PCs down, so the NPC makes the vendetta personal. Now you have a three-sided conflict - the PCs, the Enclave, and this NPC who really wants to hunt down and destroy the PCs even if it destroys their job with the Enclave. That lets you have things more nuanced than 'okay, its time to play out today's airstrike!'.

And if instead the PCs decide to help the Enclave researchers, then you have your hook, and you can generate antagonism by allowing the Enclave to have or generate problems.

Basically, grow the plot organically from what the PCs seem to care about/do. Make things that happen draw in more things and more elements, to give the PCs lots of buttons to push and levers to play with. Someone is impressed with the PC's ruthlessness and tries to recruit them - maybe the PCs join them, maybe the PCs betray them, maybe the PCs laugh them out of the room, its up to them. Someone wants something the PCs stole from the Enclave and is willing to buy it for ridiculous amounts of resources, but they're killed by a mysterious third party before the deal goes through. One of the Enclave researchers the PCs enslaved comes down with a case of Stockholm syndrome and becomes the obsequious toady that ends up creating even more cruelty than the PCs would do by themselves, because they're aping the PCs behavior and magnifying them, and hijinks ensue.

[Actana]

Is this actually a problem in this specific instance?

Not the whole problem or the largest part, but I do think it's still a part of it. We're trying to find a way to motivate the PCs to take up a specific story (namely, revenge) in one way or the other, which implies that the revenge story is the focal point here.


Something I'm trying to break away from to be sure. The "Act 1" campaign was all plot and little sideshow because, well, I'm a fairly inexperienced DM and the structure of a plot to go by is comforting, especially when you've got players almost all older and more experienced gamers than you.

I get that, games, especially ones like D&D which require rather extensive prepwork, are a lot easier to run when you know the things that will happen. I recently finished a 6-month campaign that I had planned from start to finish, and it ran a lot smoother than games I tried to adapt to the PCs. So in a sense, I don't blame you for taking the easier road. It just appears that your players aren't compatible with the type of game you'd like to run, which is why there are these problems.


I was honestly trying to build the endings like Silent Hill type endings (At least for the campaign I scrapped). Do X, Y and Z, get ending A. Do X and Y but skip Z, get ending B. But also blend in a a sense of consequence for actions and lack of actions.

I understand what you're trying to do, and in a meta sense there is a "failure" state for allowing the BBEG to live and do his thing, so it is kinda warranted to plan like that, but it can still give off a certain feeling of right or wrong actions, which in turn can create a fairly limited idea of how things should be turning out when planning the game.


Sorry, my brain is kinda half-fried (Got off work not too long ago). The short of it being "Scrap the plot if the players don't bite and go full free-form sandbox"?

Not necessarily. If I'm being a bit rambling about the subject there's likely a good reason: I've been trying to formulate a good way to put this concept into words and how to explain it best for a while, but haven't quite got there yet (mostly because I haven't tried to either).

The basic idea: run the kind of game that fits the characters, and put the story into that. If the characters are heroic, run a heroic game. If the characters are amoral, run an amoral game. And then make the story suit that tone. Have the heroic characters oppose the BBEG because it's the right thing to do. Have the amoral characters oppose the BBEG for reasons that suit the amoral characters (money, petty vengeance, because they're murderhobos looking for a target), and make the game about that. Keep the story focused on the PCs and their actions (of which moral values are a part), instead of forcing together a story with actions that are incompatible (like a group of raging barbarians in a serious heist game).

It's not a sandbox, but rather adapting to the group you're running for. You might know ahead of time what kind of PCs you're getting, but often you don't, and you will need to adapt to them. You can't really control what the PCs do, but you can direct them. Instead of making the PCs follow the story, make the story follow the PCs and use different objectives for the same result. At some point they might even latch onto the story you had planned for originally because the players care about it.

Mind you, this assumes a certain level of maturity from players who actually play characters instead of just your typical murderhobo. If your players are just out to be chaotic stupid without any outwards motives, I don't really know what will work outside of getting new players.


The problem I think is agreeing on the premise itself. For the post-apoc one I'm already using like...4-5 different D20 systems and mashing them together to achieve the setting. That alone is causing the players to all but urge me to run something...ugh vanilla (Like a module or Adventure Path or something). It would honestly be the least painful option, but...ugh, premade adventure XP

This I can't really help with, to be honest. Making sure that the additional stuff doesn't get in the way of the PCs could help make them more agreeable on the system-melding.

[Silus]

Not necessarily. If I'm being a bit rambling about the subject there's likely a good reason: I've been trying to formulate a good way to put this concept into words and how to explain it best for a while, but haven't quite got there yet (mostly because I haven't tried to either).

The basic idea: run the kind of game that fits the characters, and put the story into that. If the characters are heroic, run a heroic game. If the characters are amoral, run an amoral game. And then make the story suit that tone. Have the heroic characters oppose the BBEG because it's the right thing to do. Have the amoral characters oppose the BBEG for reasons that suit the amoral characters (money, petty vengeance, because they're murderhobos looking for a target), and make the game about that. Keep the story focused on the PCs and their actions (of which moral values are a part), instead of forcing together a story with actions that are incompatible (like a group of raging barbarians in a serious heist game).

It's not a sandbox, but rather adapting to the group you're running for. You might know ahead of time what kind of PCs you're getting, but often you don't, and you will need to adapt to them. You can't really control what the PCs do, but you can direct them. Instead of making the PCs follow the story, make the story follow the PCs and use different objectives for the same result. At some point they might even latch onto the story you had planned for originally because the players care about it.

Mind you, this assumes a certain level of maturity from players who actually play characters instead of just your typical murderhobo. If your players are just out to be chaotic stupid without any outwards motives, I don't really know what will work outside of getting new players.


Ok, so since most of the game/plot will be determined by the PCs actions, what, as a DM, should I be prepping if said plot will be more or less made up/adjusted to accommodate on the fly? Likely just static things like dungeons and location-based monsters or events?

[AMFV]

You said they were greedy how do you mean? Do they want power, prestige, money, how are they greedy, because that will really allow you to funnel them easily. If they want power, you have the BBEG control a dukedom and then promise it to them afterwards (allowing them political power) prestige is easy, and cash payments are easy ("The BBEG has a golden hoard") Greed is a very predictable motivator.

[Rosstin]

I would suggest just building a game for murder hobos.

For one thing, don't plan more than one session ahead. Just do the BBEG as you suggested. If the players want to join him, just let them. Then make a campaign about them working with the BBEG.

I know that might not be what you want as a DM, but if you try just going with their crass, brutal, murderhobo gameplay, it might actually be fun for everyone. They'll either respect you for letting them play the kind of game they want (and maybe be more cooperative in the future), continue being murder hobos (but you accept this and just roll with it), or be jerks anyway (they just hate you and there's nothing you can do but at least you tried.)

[Eulalios]

So for example, what you could do is have a game before the raid on their village which is all just local stuff or even fairly light-hearted stuff

^ This is the way to go. Re-read or review any commercial entertainment where you wound up caring about the characters. (including this here webcomic). 90%+ will begin with a shot of humor, something that makes the setting and characters goofy and likeable. Even Glen Cook kicked off the Black Company with some humor (grimdark, yes, but still funny).

So if you want investment, try something goofy and funny at the start.

And if your players really are just to'ally sick bassoons, the Indestructible Kender is always good entertainment for those sorts. Takes a lickin' keeps on tickin', constantly tries to be their friend, won't go away ... gauge reaction. If they really loathe it, then it's an agent of the BBEG. If they get to like it and express remorse for beating it up, have the BBEG kill it.

... n.b. If your players *are* the sort who like the Indestructible Kender, seriously, consider getting a mentally healthier set of players.

ETA:
Ok, so since most of the game/plot will be determined by the PCs actions, what, as a DM, should I be prepping if said plot will be more or less made up/adjusted to accommodate on the fly? Likely just static things like dungeons and location-based monsters or events?

Prep or acquire random-encounter tables and a good mechanic for generating cities and dungeons on-the-fly. rolesrules.blogspot.com and dndwithp***stars.blogspot.com both are good for this.

[Rosstin]

Ok, so since most of the game/plot will be determined by the PCs actions, what, as a DM, should I be prepping if said plot will be more or less made up/adjusted to accommodate on the fly? Likely just static things like dungeons and location-based monsters or events?

Yes, exactly. If the players like killing things and wrecking the scenery, just give them things to kill and scenery to wreck. Prepare dungeons full of swag, full of innocent children and helpless NPCs, with monsters that hate the PCs for their previous actions.

Don't guilt them, just have fun with it. Prepare places and creatures, not stories.

It sounds like you genuinely don't like these people very much and don't really want to be in the same game as them... if that's the case, you either have to:

A) Swallow your pride and try to enjoy the kind of game they want (I know this is hard, but sometimes you try this and you have a lot of fun despite yourself; I've had a lot of fun in murderhobo games before and I don't consider myself a murderhobo PC).

B) Find new people to play with.

I really suggest trying A. If it makes you feel slimy and you hate playing that kind of game, then go to B.

By the way, I am sorry that you're having such trouble enjoying DMing. As an inexperienced DM, it's very difficult to learn how to deal with a new group of strange players. It's a shame you're not lucky enough to have a group of good friends who would enjoy your carefully constructed campaign, or teach you how to build a different kind of campaign. I remember my first campaign. It's not easy, and I admire you for trying to find a way to make it work. DMing is hard.

OFF-TOPIC

And if your players really are just to'ally sick bassoons, the Indestructible Kender is always good entertainment for those sorts. Takes a lickin' keeps on tickin', constantly tries to be their friend, won't go away ... gauge reaction. If they really loathe it, then it's an agent of the BBEG. If they get to like it and express remorse for beating it up, have the BBEG kill it.
Please tell me more about this "Indestructible Kender"! I can't find any info on Google.

Is this similar to Oblivion's "adoring fan"?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XynVaIw_3t8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypXMAIL0p5w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUQvHzLfZzg

[gdiddy]

Psst.

Pay attention.

Are you paying attention? Pay more.

Throw away everything you have prepared. You will only be using teensie portion of this initial campaign seed. Don't feel bad, it's the mark of a growing artist to move on to new pieces and styles.

Tell your PCs to take flaws. Let them take an extra feat or XP in exchange for working out a personal tragedy, enemy, or disability. This is your new plot. Everyone should have a skeleton in their closet that affects the PC's life Every. Single Session.

Let the PCs make it personal. Let the PCs tell you what they care about and have their flaw snatch it away. Real life has real obstacles that you don't level up after fighting off. Luke's final conflict in Return of the Jedi in not a boss fight between the good hero and big baddies, it's an orphan trying to reach his cruel emotionally deadened father. That is real drama and that is what people get excited and want to engage with.

People care about things that they can relate to. If you are having trouble zeroing in on what your players care about, make them scared and watch what they protect.

This is called a False Grab in pick-pocketing:
1) You knock into a mark and touch his pocket. Now pay attention.
2) Nervous of thieves, the mark walks away, checking her wallet.
3) You circle around again in 5 minutes, and now you know exactly where the mark's wallet is.

Find out what your player's care about and take it from them. If they're real big numbers people, negative levels and taking their cash should do it. If they are narratives, putting beloved npcs up on the chopping block should do it. If all else fails, one of the character's old rivals kill the friendly 9 year old ghost girl always gets a response, regardless of the emotional development of my players.

[Silus]

Psst.

Pay attention.

Are you paying attention? Pay more.

Throw away everything you have prepared. You will only be using teensie portion of this initial campaign seed. Don't feel bad, it's the mark of a growing artist to move on to new pieces and styles.

How about keeping "If then" events? Like if the players kill an NPC with a family, then a few weeks later the PCs get attacked by said family looking for revenge? Or something of that nature?



Tell your PCs to take flaws. Let them take an extra feat or XP in exchange for working out a personal tragedy, enemy, or disability. This is your new plot. Everyone should have a skeleton in their closet that affects the PC's life Every. Single Session.

Let the PCs make it personal. Let the PCs tell you what they care about and have their flaw snatch it away. Real life has real obstacles that you don't level up after fighting off. Luke's final conflict in Return of the Jedi in not a boss fight between the good hero and big baddies, it's an orphan trying to reach his cruel emotionally deadened father. That is real drama and that is what people get excited and want to engage with.

People care about things that they can relate to. If you are having trouble zeroing in on what your players care about, make them scared and watch what they protect.

This is called a False Grab in pick-pocketing:
1) You knock into a mark and touch his pocket. Now pay attention.
2) Nervous of thieves, the mark walks away, checking her wallet.
3) You circle around again in 5 minutes, and now you know exactly where the mark's wallet is.

Find out what your player's care about and take it from them. If they're real big numbers people, negative levels and taking their cash should do it. If they are narratives, putting beloved npcs up on the chopping block should do it. If all else fails, one of the character's old rivals kill the friendly 9 year old ghost girl always gets a response, regardless of the emotional development of my players.

About how long in advance do you figure I should ask for this information from my players? As I stated before, I'm a few games away in the rotation (Still got a Palladium game to wrap up and at least one WoD game) so at the earliest it'll start late this year.



Yes, exactly. If the players like killing things and wrecking the scenery, just give them things to kill and scenery to wreck. Prepare dungeons full of swag, full of innocent children and helpless NPCs, with monsters that hate the PCs for their previous actions.

Don't guilt them, just have fun with it. Prepare places and creatures, not stories.

It sounds like you genuinely don't like these people very much and don't really want to be in the same game as them... if that's the case, you either have to:

A) Swallow your pride and try to enjoy the kind of game they want (I know this is hard, but sometimes you try this and you have a lot of fun despite yourself; I've had a lot of fun in murderhobo games before and I don't consider myself a murderhobo PC).

B) Find new people to play with.

I really suggest trying A. If it makes you feel slimy and you hate playing that kind of game, then go to B.

By the way, I am sorry that you're having such trouble enjoying DMing. As an inexperienced DM, it's very difficult to learn how to deal with a new group of strange players. It's a shame you're not lucky enough to have a group of good friends who would enjoy your carefully constructed campaign, or teach you how to build a different kind of campaign. I remember my first campaign. It's not easy, and I admire you for trying to find a way to make it work. DMing is hard.

Honestly the roadbumps I'm having are, I think, due to the nature of the players. Almost all of them have been playing for far longer than I have and have gotten bored of the "good guy" type character and generally want to do their own thing. The first group I played with were not nearly as experienced and were more keen with following a plot than being turned loose on the world. Didn't help that the first game I ran for the experienced group, they assumed I had run quite a few games before (when it was only one game) and ran me through the wringer.

But, despite it all, I'll endeavor to bugger on and at least make the setting work. I mean, there's a plot/story thing I'd like them to pick up on, but *Throws hands up* whatever. If they don't, they don't, if they do, I'll be one happy DM. I'm already retooling the first campaign so if I opt to run it again I know what to fix. Not for this group though. Never again for this group.

My one big worry I think, with going full on "The PCs make the plot" is that the moment I turn them loose it'll devolve into "Well what are we supposed to do?", expecting me to have a plot planned up for them after I've trashed the only plots and hooks in favor of letting them choose their own path.

Suppose I've got more world building to do if I'm going the freeform adventure route.

[Kol Korran]

I haven't yet read the entire thread, but I REALLY like this thread, by Dust (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=170628) It really helps making a memorable villain, and one that speaks to the sensitivities of the players and characters alike.

[Juzer]

if they are greedy let them meet someone greedier and more organized, like
a bandit "what do you got there? they told me, you found many coins: give me it all or I kill you right now"
or a merchant "you're gonna buy a special magic item from me? I'm gonna bash your heads and take your stuff keeping the magic item"
or competitor adventures at the dungeon's entrance: the PGs wants to get in, the competitor are higher level and are just getting out with whole treasure after cleaning every room like the PGs are used to do

[CombatOwl]

So I'm re-prepping a campaign that I may be running later this year (Yes, it's a ways off, but I feel you can't prep nearly enough) and I'm having a bit of a problem. The story is loose enough to allow for the players to putz around and be their own alignment (unlike the first game I ram for them which was built for good characters and they all rolled evil), the world is sandboxy-enough to allow for quite a bit of random exploration, and there's plenty to do. Think a setting heavily inspired by Fallout but in a quasi-fantasy magi-steampunk setting.

ANYWAY, the problem I'm having is getting the players invested in the plot and actually following through with it instead of what was going to happen for the campaign I had previously planned, that being "let's join the BBEG as they obliterate the world".

I've always found that "sandbox" and "investment in the plot" are antithetical to each other. It's kind of expected, because if you'r running a genuine sandbox game, each player will find different parts interesting, and getting them all to care about the plot you want to run is like herding cats.


Basically, I want the players (The actual players and the characters themselves) to HATE the Disc 1 Boss.

Then make him personally annoying to the players. You can't really make bad guys inspire genuine hatred in players while restricting them to behavior the characters find offensive. How you do that depends wholly on the people you have playing your game. I suggest trying to find out the group's pet peeves.


Problem: I can't find a way for the PCs to get invested enough to want the Boss' death. Honest to God, I'd put money on the players wanting to hand over the MacGuffin and join the guy regardless of whatever their alignment is. I want them to despise this guy, I want'em to make it their priority to 1) find out what's so special about the MacGuffin, and 2) make the Boss (and whoever he may or may not be working for) pay for what he did.

Welcome to "Why Not Sandbox? - WNS101." A fascinating course on the potential downsides to letting players do whatever they want. Turns out, players will just do what they want to do, not what you want them to do. Hope you've got the whole world mapped out in detail!


What I don't want to do is have to remind (or even bring up to) the players that their mission is to track this guy down and straight up murder him. I want it to be their mission, not something that the new DM has mandated they do.

If your players really want to join this guy, make a story about them betraying the folks who gave them the task, so they could hand this guy the McGuffin and sign on with Team Bandit, only to discover that the BBEG is only going to give them boring scutwork and lots of opportunities to get killed for no profit. I think you'll find that after the third quest to go collect 139,377 brown rocks, the players will be ready to hate the guy and their characters will realize there's more profit in killing him than working for him.

Be sure to have them go fetch some luxury items for the lazy, indolent BBEG, whilst denying them access to the same luxuries. Hell, maybe deny them food and water, while the BBEG has a feast for him and his cronies.

[Rosstin]

Honestly, Silus, it sounds like these players are really making you unhappy. And planning your campaign out 6 months in advance just so they can wreck it isn't going to make you any happier. I would just bow out of DMing the game for them if you know you're not going to like it. If these guys aren't your friends and they spend your sessions breaking your toys and it isn't fun for you, don't make a game for them.

If possible, agree to only play in their games but not DM (no preparation needed on your part.)

Or find another group entirely.

I don't normally suggest quitting, but it sounds like you're putting an unacceptably large amount of prep time into an activity that is frustrating you.

[Silus]

Honestly, Silus, it sounds like these players are really making you unhappy. And planning your campaign out 6 months in advance just so they can wreck it isn't going to make you any happier. I would just bow out of DMing the game for them if you know you're not going to like it. If these guys aren't your friends and they spend your sessions breaking your toys and it isn't fun for you, don't make a game for them.

If possible, agree to only play in their games but not DM (no preparation needed on your part.)

Or find another group entirely.

I don't normally suggest quitting, but it sounds like you're putting an unacceptably large amount of prep time into an activity that is frustrating you.

I'm considering it. The not DMing for them part at least. Granted the first campaign was a mess of misunderstandings and dashed preconceived notions of play/DM levels, but I don't want to give them any more things to poke fun at me with (All bad calls on my part as a DM. 18 Adamantine doors they pried up and sold being the first of many).

Granted I could run the game and just ramp up the difficulty and lower the loot each time the yahoos sass the DM. I do so love me some vengeance. At the very least, I'll talk to the group, air my grievances and worries about running the campaign and see if we can't come to an understanding. If no understanding can be reached, then I'll opt out of the DMing rotation.

[AMFV]

I'm considering it. The not DMing for them part at least. Granted the first campaign was a mess of misunderstandings and dashed preconceived notions of play/DM levels, but I don't want to give them any more things to poke fun at me with (All bad calls on my part as a DM. 18 Adamantine doors they pried up and sold being the first of many).

Granted I could run the game and just ramp up the difficulty and lower the loot each time the yahoos sass the DM. I do so love me some vengeance. At the very least, I'll talk to the group, air my grievances and worries about running the campaign and see if we can't come to an understanding. If no understanding can be reached, then I'll opt out of the DMing rotation.

No offense, but it doesn't sound like you'd enjoy running a true antagonistic game. I mean those exist and they can be loads of fun, as I said your players would probably eat it up, but I don't know that you would. Since running an antagonistic game involves a very different mindset, you're basically playing against your players, any time they try to wreck your plot the world bends so that they don't. Like if they join the BBEG he turns out to be just misunderstood. If you want to build a sandbox that's fine, but I imagine that in a few weeks you'd be upset because they dug long trenches out of it instead of building sand-castles, the player's style is really different from yours.

[Rhynn]

I've always found that "sandbox" and "investment in the plot" are antithetical to each other. It's kind of expected, because if you'r running a genuine sandbox game, each player will find different parts interesting, and getting them all to care about the plot you want to run is like herding cats.

I've found the exact contrary. When I run open-world games, the players get to direct play towards the things they like, which makes them very invested: they go out of their way to form connections to NPCs, they make enemies, they do things that have consequences, and so on.

A good sandbox isn't "yeah do whatever." A good sandbox is only a certain size, at least to start with; often quite small. One realm is good, and even there you start out on one small area with a town for a base and a dungeon to start in, and some other adventure locations around.

A good sandbox isn't undirected and without GM input. They only work well if the GM fills the sandbox with interesting things. The Iridium Plateau (http://refereesresources.blogspot.fi/2009/10/hexes-of-iridium-plateau-completed.html) (from Planet Algol (http://planetalgol.blogspot.fi/)) is the best sandbox I know, personally.

The GM creates locations, set-ups, scenarios, and so on, but not a plot from beginning to end. The GM creates hooks and things going on in the world: a civil war over there, a missing prince over here, and rumors about this dungeon, that dungeon, and these other adventure locations, to be heard in taverns or markets or whatever.

Then, when the PCs do grab on to something, the GM starts spinning that thread out, adding more things, consequences, reactions, bringing out events that happen independent of the PCs, and so on.

I've found it extremely fun and extremely rewarding.

[gdiddy]

Actually, I was going to give you a break down of how to make it engaging, but I honestly don't think your players deserve my effort or anyone elses', looking at your experiences with them. They seem like a tub girl of mediocrity
and random nonsense.

Your group seems like a bad fit. My suggestion: make friends with the friends who have kicked the members of your group out over the years and play with them.