going to DM my group for the first time, A bit overwhelmed

[Nosta]

so I will be Gming my group of four people plus myself as the gm and i'm not sure if I can deal with some of the players, two in particular
the one female players is always trying to get in to the pants of the npc and lots of times turns a story part that is to be epic of such in to a laughing stock

but its my one player who bothers me the most. Back A couple of years ago in the first D&D game I was in.
I had become the goo avatar of fate (there was a good and bad one) and long story short if I did what the goddess wanted she would help me out in various ways. now on my first quest from the lady fate was to get this girl to fall in love and have a child as her son would one day be a great hero

well we were trying to figure out how to get the girl to fall in love with this one guy and the lawful neutral rogue/bard propose the idea of paying some thugs to rape her cause to quote him " it should not matter how the job gets done"

so how do you deal with people like this who take a fantasy life and turn it in to a Dark festering nightmare of moral boils

[Red Fel]

so how do you deal with people like this who take a fantasy life and turn it in to a Dark festering nightmare of moral boils

Don't invite them to your game.

Talk to your players in advance. Tell them what you expect of the game in terms of setting, tone, atmosphere. Ask them if they will be able to work with that. If they can't, then either run a different game, or ask them not to come to yours.

If the problem is that the players' expectations don't match yours, then either change your expectations or remove the players. Those are your options.

[theboss]

Don't invite them to your game.

That's overreacted action... I dont believe throwing them out of her game is morally ok. I mean that's THEIR role-play and they can decide to do everything they want to do as long as it healthy for the table...



Talk to your players in advance. Tell them what you expect of the game in terms of setting, tone, atmosphere. Ask them if they will be able to work with that. If they can't, then either run a different game, or ask them not to come to yours.


So basically play as i expect you to play.... Again, this is D&D - unlimited options, of course doing stupid things will cost your life, but you decide what you want to do untill it hurts the party or unhealthy for the table.



If the problem is that the players' expectations don't match yours, then either change your expectations or remove the players. Those are your options.


I dont recommend throwing them out.. If they would throw you out would you be ok with it? I dont think so...
Try to speak to them and explain them that stupid things will come with a heavy price.

[Red Fel]

That's overreacted action... I dont believe throwing them out of her game is morally ok. I mean that's THEIR role-play and they can decide to do everything they want to do as long as it healthy for the table...

Geek social fallacies. There is nothing "morally" wrong with not inviting someone. And be clear - I didn't say throw them out. I said don't invite them. As in, before the game starts, they're not invited.

If you tell me someone is going to make drama when they come to your party, I'll tell you not to invite them to your party. If you tell me someone is going to be on the phone the whole time if you invite them to the movies, I'll tell you not to invite them to the movies. And if you tell me you have two players who disrupt the game when they come, I'll tell you not to invite them to the game.


So basically play as i expect you to play.... Again, this is D&D - unlimited options, of course doing stupid things will cost your life, but you decide what you want to do untill it hurts the party or unhealthy for the table.

If I invite you to play chess, and you bring LEGOs, there has been a fundamental misunderstanding of the evening's activities.

The OP has a clear expectation of how he expects the game to go. As long as that expectation is clearly communicated to the players, it's not appropriate for them to disregard it and play "whatever they want."

If I tell people I'm running a high fantasy game, I don't want to see space marines. If I tell people I'm running a zombie survival horror game, I don't want to see Pun-Pun. There are degrees of flexibility, but they have to respect the game's framework.


I dont recommend throwing them out.. If they would throw you out would you be ok with it? I dont think so...
Try to speak to them and explain them that stupid things will come with a heavy price.

Imposing IC consequences for OOC conduct is a bad idea. And make no mistake, that's what you're proposing. Breaking the mood is an OOC action, not an IC one. Once you let the players into the game, you need to preserve verisimilitude. A character who is constantly cracking jokes in what is intended to be a bleak horror campaign may be violating the concept of the game, but he's not violating the laws within the game; to penalize him in-character would be unjustified and punitive.

This is a case where talking to the players is necessary. If you want them in your game, tell them what your expectation for the game is. If they can't abide, they should find another game - or at least wait until you run one in line with their expectations.

[theboss]

Geek social fallacies. There is nothing "morally" wrong with not inviting someone. And be clear - I didn't say throw them out. I said don't invite them. As in, before the game starts, they're not invited.

Geek social fallacies? Misunderstood that...
Of course there is, if they're a vetern members (or even new members) in their party they have the right to be invited to every session.
It's like your friends going to the cinema and not inviting you.



If you tell me someone is going to make drama when they come to your party, I'll tell you not to invite them to your party. If you tell me someone is going to be on the phone the whole time if you invite them to the movies, I'll tell you not to invite them to the movies. And if you tell me you have two players who disrupt the game when they come, I'll tell you not to invite them to the game.


The thing is... They aren't disrupting the game, they play as they wish and from what it sounds they aren't doing anything to annoy someone ; They're doing it because they believe it's the fastest/smartest/easiest way to do it.
And there's nothing wrong with a little humour in D&D sessions, so if they do something they believe its funny - they should it.



If I invite you to play chess, and you bring LEGOs, there has been a fundamental misunderstanding of the evening's activities.


That's not a good example of what she describes. She described that two members of the group annoyed her by making
ignorant decisions theoretically, what it has to do with it? The DM can't decide how the PC will play, becuase it their decisions, the consequence however are up to the DM.



The OP has a clear expectation of how he expects the game to go. As long as that expectation is clearly communicated to the players, it's not appropriate for them to disregard it and play "whatever they want."


I'm sorry, but how my party plays for about 8 years isn't based on how the DM expects the game to go, it is based which the DM needs to be prepared for every scenario that the PC's got into ; Both good and bad scenarios.



If I tell people I'm running a high fantasy game, I don't want to see space marines. If I tell people I'm running a zombie survival horror game, I don't want to see Pun-Pun. There are degrees of flexibility, but they have to respect the game's framework.


They should respect the DM way-of-playing, but there's a huge difference between expecting the PC play as the DM wishes too, then respecting his way-of-playing.



Imposing IC consequences for OOC conduct is a bad idea. And make no mistake, that's what you're proposing. Breaking the mood is an OOC action, not an IC one. Once you let the players into the game, you need to preserve verisimilitude. A character who is constantly cracking jokes in what is intended to be a bleak horror campaign may be violating the concept of the game, but he's not violating the laws within the game; to penalize him in-character would be unjustified and punitive.


Im propsing a solution which would be good for both sides, because not inviting them is not a good solution in my opinion (unless they have a problem OOC), each side should understand the other, so it wouldnt go into a bigger problem later in other DM's.
Making jokes in sessions is absolutely fine, not everything needs to be serious ; after all, you're playing with your friends and you should have fun! Of course, sometimes there are incidents which needs our full attention. What im trying to explain is that D&D sessions should be fun at first and then play your character.

[Alistaroc]

so I will be Gming my group of four people plus myself as the gm and i'm not sure if I can deal with some of the players, two in particular
the one female players is always trying to get in to the pants of the npc and lots of times turns a story part that is to be epic of such in to a laughing stock

but its my one player who bothers me the most. Back A couple of years ago in the first D&D game I was in.
I had become the goo avatar of fate (there was a good and bad one) and long story short if I did what the goddess wanted she would help me out in various ways. now on my first quest from the lady fate was to get this girl to fall in love and have a child as her son would one day be a great hero

well we were trying to figure out how to get the girl to fall in love with this one guy and the lawful neutral rogue/bard propose the idea of paying some thugs to rape her cause to quote him " it should not matter how the job gets done"

so how do you deal with people like this who take a fantasy life and turn it in to a Dark festering nightmare of moral boils
Brethren.
I'm in the same boat actually, I've got 2 players who ruin the "fantasy" of any given situation with either gag humor or,
a Dark festering nightmare of moral boils.
If they're decent people, just talk to them a little. Ask them what they're trying to get out of it, and offer another way for them to achieve roughly the same entertainment level through slightly more... heroic, means. If they're really in it for the gag or darkness, I don't know what your campaign material situation is, but it doesn't sound too hard to throw them a bone. Give them a quest posing as entertainers at a ball while someone steals an artifact, or a client needs to know the whereabouts of a certain someone, whose only known location is a secret well-kept by some very beat-up-able thugs. I find that since players are so diverse, having that sort of flexibility when permitted is a good compromise; they play a little more heroic for the campaign, but will have their times to kinda let go more.
It really depends on the campaign, and the group though. I'd say talking to them is the best idea, just let them know you're trying to have fun too, and you're looking for a compromise, rather than ordering them how to play the game.

[DarthSpader]

Play the game. If one of them suggests something heinous like "raping some girl just cause" happen to have the town gaurd/bystanders/batman be in the area, hear the screams and intervene. Weather they kick the PCs butt as well..... That's up to you. But most games I've played in the worlds are dynamic. Stuff happens I. Response to or in spite of the PCs doing things. Major crimes - would definitely attract the attention of nearby folk. And Likley the guards. Who would obviously be strong enough to either deal with the offenders or have the ability to bring in reinforcements who can.

[Angelmaker]

The condition was "to fall in love and have a child". Explain to the rapenut how this is not falling in love and scold him a bit in character for trying to get on the bad side of a god/goddess level being. Then before next session talk to him out of character that violent and explicit sexual content is forbidden at your table and move on as if it never happened, if he ever brings up an idea like this which you are not comfortable with, pause the game and bring the topic up for discussion with your entire group and make it clear to everyone that this is not the game you want to run. If this behaviour does not ceases, you will ask the player to leasve the group or will stop dming.

@ lady: what is the problem here? Have her roll a seduction move if it is appropiate and fade to black. Have her life with the consequences ( people will start noticing her behaviour and call her bad names ). She will have to deal with the danger of pregnancy ( usually a career ender for most adventurers ). If you are simply not comfortably in a certain situation or if the situation is unsuitably for romantic advances, make the wife of the npc step in either shot her advances down with charme (" dear lady, i can understand you are after my man, but please understand he is a faithful man and engaged to me. I fear you will have to look for him in another life. ) or violently and have her make a scene your female palyer will remember (" you wench! How dare you! I have power in this city! I will make your life hell by asking my friends in the magistarte to be very thorough with looking into your documents, i am sure you petty adventurer types have forged ones anyway!") . This works for male npc's just as well, but instead of women, husband tend to be more physically dirct and violent. This could have your player take a beating or have to resort to violence. In either case it will influence his alignment as much as his reputation.

Bothnsituations can be dealt with, the unwanted romance player much easier and in ways that have real consequences, that can even further the roleplaying. The most important part is to NOT BACK DOWN. Once a situation like this has been initiated, you will need to have the npc do his or her enraged job till the end. This does not mean the npc needs to be a retired 20th level adventurer, but if it is his job to die, to derail the current plot and have your player life with the consequences, so be it! Plots are easy enough to rerail or mend. Players agency and choices are important, even bad decisions can make for epic roleplay.

Edit- rereading your post, you mixed up gm and player situations. While it can feel weird to roleplay the target of a sexual/romantic advance, this can be handled by a quick seduction check.

But as a player, it can be just as right to tell a fellow player how stupid his idea was and that you ar not going to play at a table where ideas like this are even considered. Talk to him about this during a coffee or something before the next game, so he knows you have a problem with it. Some people are very good at abstracting mechanisms from moralism and he might not even be aware of how offensive his solution is to others.

Editedit: if you really feel overwhelmed, have a friendly gm sit in on your first session and pitch you advice. :smallwink:

[Honest Tiefling]

Geek social fallacies? Misunderstood that...
Of course there is, if they're a vetern members (or even new members) in their party they have the right to be invited to every session.
It's like your friends going to the cinema and not inviting you.

I am going to hop onto the 'Talk to them' boat, and hold onto the 'Possibly kick them out' oar. They ARE making the game unhealthy because I really doubt that the DM would be describing it as a festering nightmare of moral boils if they were enjoying it! (Good imagery by the way. We should use that phrase more often.)

And guess what? Being a veteran of the group does not give them the right to be rude to everyone else. The DM should be able to ask all players if they would be comfortable with a different type of game, and the players should be mature enough to decide if they will have fun cooperating with it or declining the offer. Like an adult. In order to be a good DM, you will need to have the skills and abilities to address OOC problems OOCly without people throwing fits about being excluded for the sake of other's people enjoyment or comfort.

I am actually okay with my friends going to the cinema without me. I absolutely hate rom-coms, so when my friends want to see one I don't tend to get invited. It doesn't bother me, because neither I nor they would have any fun as I would hate the movie and probably snore or otherwise be disruptive during it. I don't need to be invited in every instance of them going out, and I don't always invite those friends to see the latest popcorn movie explosion-fest cheesy movie. It doesn't make us bad friends, we just understand that forcing everyone into every social event is going to pan out badly. I don't need my friends to agree completely with my own tastes, after all.

[Pluto!]

My friends have no moral obligation to invite me to the movies every time they go.

[Red Fel]

My friends have no moral obligation to invite me to the movies every time they go.

This.

I was referring to this article, the "Five Geek Social Fallacies (http://www.plausiblydeniable.com/opinion/gsf.html)."

People do not have a right to be invited. There is no moral obligation to include people. There is no reasonable presumption that you must invite all of your friends to every outing. These are misconceptions that spring up in many gaming groups; they are neither truths nor mandates.

If you are trying to run Game X, and your players insist on running Game Y, and talking to them doesn't resolve an issue, you and your players are playing two different games. In that case, let them go play Game Y elsewhere. Alternatively, you can stop running Game X, although no DM should be forced to run a game if he doesn't enjoy it.

[Kish]

well we were trying to figure out how to get the girl to fall in love with this one guy and the lawful neutral rogue/bard propose the idea of paying some thugs to rape her cause to quote him " it should not matter how the job gets done"
I would never consider someone who thought that was appropriate for a nonevil character a friend or anyone I would choose to be in the same room with, and making that mental adjustment would cause the "my friend wants to do something creepy in a game" problem to disappear.

I suspect I don't agree with a single one of theboss's premises*. If a group has one player who makes the group less fun for all the other players, kicking that player out is morally and logically optimal. If you want to play a character who doesn't fit the campaign that's something for you to get over.

*I would agree with: If they're a current player in the group (veteran-ishness irrelevant), not inviting them to one session is no solution. Instead, make them no longer a current player in the group and don't invite them to any sessions anymore. Problem solved.

[A_S]

I'm a bit unclear from the OP on whether this group has already been gaming together prior to this.

If this isn't a long-running game, just the OP deciding he wants to DM some D&D for his friends, then Red Fel is entirely right about everything and I'm confused about why there's even an argument about this. Theboss, would you really be offended by the following situation:

Your friend: "I want to DM a game set in this super cool campaign setting I've been working on!"
You: "Great, my first level feat is Spell Thematics (fart noises)."
Your friend: "That's not really the tone I had in mind for this campaign. I'd rather you came up with something a bit less flagrantly ridiculous."
You: "I don't wanna."
Your friend: "Okay, then I'd prefer you sat this one out. I'll run a one-shot soon that'll be more light-hearted, and I'll let you know when it's happening."

This seems like totally normal behavior to me.

-----

If this is a long-running gaming group, and the OP is just taking over as DM, then I can see how it would be a bit of a questionable move to say, "Okay, we're running things my now, so you guys who don't want to play my way are no longer invited." In this case, I think the obvious solution is, don't DM for people who want to play a style of game you aren't comfortable DMing.

[AnachroNinja]

I didn't see much to indicate how the rest of the group felt about these players actions, yet a lot of people seem to assume these players are bad eggs ruining the game for everyone. I think a lot depends on the group consensus. As noted, it would not be appropriate for the OP to take over DMing and just start uninviting people, especially 2/5 of the group, if no one else has any issue with their play style.

On the other hand, the DM puts a lot of with into their world and story line so it is completely appropriate to have a conversation with all your players, so as to not single people out, and let them know what type of game you want to run. If they do not want to play the same type of game, it might be best if you did not DM the game.

[theboss]

I'm a bit unclear from the OP on whether this group has already been gaming together prior to this.

If this isn't a long-running game, just the OP deciding he wants to DM some D&D for his friends, then Red Fel is entirely right about everything and I'm confused about why there's even an argument about this. Theboss, would you really be offended by the following situation:

Your friend: "I want to DM a game set in this super cool campaign setting I've been working on!"
You: "Great, my first level feat is Spell Thematics (fart noises)."
Your friend: "That's not really the tone I had in mind for this campaign. I'd rather you came up with something a bit less flagrantly ridiculous."
You: "I don't wanna."
Your friend: "Okay, then I'd prefer you sat this one out. I'll run a one-shot soon that'll be more light-hearted, and I'll let you know when it's happening."

This seems like totally normal behavior to me.


I've never personally offended by my friends, but D&D has unlimited options, so why limit it?
I mean, there're alot of unbalanced things that should be fixed but that's not what Nosta here says :


well we were trying to figure out how to get the girl to fall in love with this one guy and the lawful neutral rogue/bard propose the idea of paying some thugs to rape her cause to quote him " it should not matter how the job gets done".

That's just a way to solve things the way that the so called "Players who are ruining the game" thought it's the easiest/fastest/smartest way to deal with it, Honestly i dont get what's the problem here? All's well that ends well? seems to me that or me or you dont get the meaning of this game correctly, not everthing should end as you expected it to end - as in life as in game...
Let me refer about the DM supremacy in d&d : I agree that if you run a campaign that doesnt fit to some players (good campaign, and one wants to be evil, or the opposite), but that's still not it.
She's mad about the way they decided to deal with the problem/role-playing/whatever it was.... And now when she's the DM she forbid that way of thinking ? *Doing something that doesnt seem the right way to do it? Who let you the privilege to decide what's right and what's wrong? Because of your DM supremacy?
I'm sorry, but not inviting players (vertern or new) simply because you dont like the way they thinking? Then dont be the DM....