Dealing with Genre Disconnect

[Piedmon_Sama]

Today, I am a very frustrated DM. Last night was the fifth session of my current campaign, and only the second time my group of PCs got into combat. This is actually by design, because as a DM I thrive on building suspense and laying atmosphere thick on every set-piece I produce. I've had the players getting slowly closer to the main plot of the adventure, first through a forest that I tried to make appropriately bleak and unsettling (this was where they had some first fight, just some bandits they crushed). Second, a deserted elven city that was bizarrely well-preserved and unnaturally clean, which I tried to make as unearthly as possible with faintly luminous limestone everywhere and impossibly immense uses of silver.

To make things clear, I must say this is not your normal D&D campaign. None of my campaigns are, really. I have a strong preference for heavily "mundane" or "low fantasy" style settings. Spellcasting classes are vanishingly rare, magic items never for sale, most monsters are found only in the remote parts of the earth and considered to be legends, and humans are the only player race available. Additionally, I tend to strongly base my settings around a certain era of history--the current one at least superficially resembles the mid-15th Century, though the technology and politics are about a century ahead. My players are quite fine with all of this, at least they keep telling me (and I probably ask too much).

With my game, I'm really not aiming for a "heroic" feel, especially since the characters are 4th level. I was hoping to play up suspense, horror, and the otherworldliness of the first magic they encounter. The problem is, it feels like a few of the players didn't get the memo. Specifically, I have a Paladin and a Fighter who seem under the impression they're in Lord of the Rings, when what I was aiming for was more At the Mountains of Madness.

I do my best to hint to them what kind of story they're in. I ladle on the flavor text (it helps that it's an AIM chat-based game) and try to stress that even when a skeleton's sword arm misses the players, it's just barely. I throw in allusions to human cruelty (the PCs are traveling with a slave trader, and he's their boss. Fun stories to tell.) I try not to ham it up, but I emphasize things like silence, darkness, the yawning immensity of a cavernous underground and the sputtering frailty of their torch.

But they insist on playing their characters as unflappable. The Paladin's player is playing her as a fanatic to the hilt, the Fighter is a hardened mercenary, and neither so much as act impressed at what should be (to their characters) unimaginable wonders, closely followed by gut-wrenching terror. Yes, I know Paladins are immune to fear, but it's so.... dull.

So I'm thinking of going back to using Sanity Checks (the optional rule from Unearthed Arcana, made famous by the Call of Cthulhu RPG). I tried using them in the first campaign I ever DMed (2005), but ultimately abandoned them because players kept passing their sanity checks. With flying colors. I had a solid group of bastards so unshakable it became silly, and I decided not to use Sanity Points again. I hoped thereafter that my players would just roleplay realistic reactions to facing unfathomable horrors that would scar the saltiest veteran. I have been disappointed.

I admit I made this thread at least partly to just vent, but there's a question here. With the exception of the Paladin's player, no one in the group has ever had a DM other than myself. This is the Fighter-player's first game entirely. It's fair to guess most of the players may not realize they're in such an unusual game and think this is how D&D is supposed to be. So should I try doing a standard game just to show them? I'm not going to lie, typical 3.5 games don't excite me very much. I've talked about trying other games, actually, but the players seem attached to D&D (yet are willing to let me tweak and twist it like mad). Is there some sort of compromise possible here? The players want heroism, I want horror, any way we can meet in the middle?

[Rei_Jin]

Well, the big problem, as I see it, is that your players want one thing, and you're trying to do another.

That is always, completely and utterly without exception, bound to fail.

Hard.

Players will play the game that they want to play. And if you're trying to DM differently, they'll just do their own thing to make themselves happy.

If you want to do something different to what they want, you need to sit down with them and discuss what you want to do, find out what they think they want to do, and then negotiate.

It's the only way forward, in my experience.

If you want them to see the difference between what you're offering, and standard fantasy, get them to read Robert E Howards "Conan". That's far more what you're playing than standard D&D Fantasy.

Heck, if you can, pick up a copy of the Conan the Barbarian D20 RPG. Second edition is the latest one (AFAIK) and is really, really good. I prefer it to D&D any day of the week/month/year. Then get them to read the rules, and make characters up. Much easier for you, and helps them seperate what kind of fantasy you're playing.

[String]

Have you talked to your Pally and Fighter about this? Have you brought it to their attention that you are working towards a certain genre, and that your aim and their play-style arent meshing? Point out these things you've posted just now, let them know. I would also tell them (but only if it's true) that you'd be willing to compromise and make a world that's a little more 'fantasy' if they'd be willing to play characters a bit more 'mundane'.


Also, this campaign setting you've described looks kickass. If you ever need more players, PM me.

[Fiery Diamond]

I think, that with your players apparently not fully realizing the way you want to do your campaign, that you may be asking for a bit much. As you've acknowledged, your setting and the way you approach it is a bit different from most D&D settings. There's absolutely nothing wrong with what you want to do, and it sounds like you do it well. However, if your players aren't in on it, it isn't going to work.

Don't "hint at" anything. Talk to your players up front and directly about the dissonance between your intent and theirs. Remember that they're trying to have fun. If they can't/aren't willing to change the way they interact with your setting, you should politely change what group you're DMing if you want to keep the setting and feel that you have crafted. Otherwise, you'll have to change your approach. As a story-maker, I can understand the pain that abandoning your story and setting would cause, but keep in mind that D&D is meant for everyone to have fun, and since the players outnumber the DM, the DM has a special obligation to his players.

(I DM a group, just so you know.)

[Neon Knight]

Well, you could try switching up your influences. Robert E. Howard was an associate of H.P. Lovecraft, and their work influenced one another. Try reading The Black Stone, Worms of the Earth, and the Shadow Kingdom. Howard's emphasis is slightly different; a bit more action oriented and with more heroism or bravery, but still have strains of the same cosmic horror that Lovecraft had. Even the brave men in these stories balk and shudder at the horrors they face, but they still get the swordplay on. That might be the balance you are seeking.

Or you could try a different kind of horror. Instead of a cosmic, impersonal, nihilistic horror, you could go for a very personal, emotional horror. The insignificance of their own existence not phasing them? Maybe the sad and horrible story of torture at the hands of slavers or the mad play of a serial killer might get to them.

Of course, your players just might want to roleplay extremely heroic heroes and just are plain uninterested in horror games. Maybe they even like that you play up the terror of the surroundings and derive extra pleasure from being unflappable even in these horrible circumstances.

[BRC]

The question is, Is their unflappable nature being really detrimental to anybody elses enjoyment of the game. It sounds like what your saying is that you don't like how these two players arn't dropping their jaws everytime you painstakingly describe some eldrich horror culled from the nightmares of lunatics.
Now, though slightly cliche, their character backrounds provide some justification. A fanatic paladin would probably feel that their deity would protect them from whatever they are up against, they may just be abit too stupid and indoctrinated to fully understand what they are up against.
Kind of the same thing with the hardened mercenary, Depending on the character maybe they are just putting on a brave face, thinking to themselves "I'm not going to let these newbies see me afraid", though if the horrors are really as imfathonable as you say, I wouldn't buy that explanation.
That said, realistic roleplaying isn't easy, especially in terms of fear reactions (Which is what your trying to elicit). It's one thing to see the DM say "Four massive wolves burst from the fog, their eyes are solid black and seem to resonate with intense hunger". It's another to think to yourself "Alright, I'm a solider whose survived plenty of battles, although those were against human foes. I'm currently armed with what is essentially a sharpened metal club and protected by some chain mail. Rushing towards me are four giant wolves and I think they want to eat my soul." and then respond in a realistic manner. That's the type of stuff experienced roleplayers do, you can't really expect him to spontaneously improvise an appropriate yet in-character reaction in his first campaign.

So yeah, I would say that unless it's actively hurting the experience for other people, unless it's really ridiculous in terms of responses, just leave it alone.

[Raum]

I do my best to hint to them what kind of story they're in. I ladle on the flavor text (it helps that it's an AIM chat-based game) and try to stress that even when a skeleton's sword arm misses the players, it's just barely. I throw in allusions to human cruelty (the PCs are traveling with a slave trader, and he's their boss. Fun stories to tell.) I try not to ham it up, but I emphasize things like silence, darkness, the yawning immensity of a cavernous underground and the sputtering frailty of their torch. May I suggest something blunter than hints? I try to set game expectations before character creation.

It can also be very difficult to get atmosphere, tone, and style elements across in a text based game. In person those are often conveyed without words. Worse, if you're like me (I generally play via Fantasy Grounds 2 these days) typing is too slow for verbosity without slowing game play.


But they insist on playing their characters as unflappable. The Paladin's player is playing her as a fanatic to the hilt, the Fighter is a hardened mercenary, and neither so much as act impressed at what should be (to their characters) unimaginable wonders, closely followed by gut-wrenching terror. Yes, I know Paladins are immune to fear, but it's so.... dull. You might try using something 'normal' looking in unexpected ways. That helps build 'player' paranoia which may nudge the RP in the direction you want.


I admit I made this thread at least partly to just vent, but there's a question here. With the exception of the Paladin's player, no one in the group has ever had a DM other than myself. This is the Fighter-player's first game entirely. It's fair to guess most of the players may not realize they're in such an unusual game and think this is how D&D is supposed to be. So should I try doing a standard game just to show them? Nah, play what you and your players enjoy. It may help to play in different genres you are interested in though.


I'm not going to lie, typical 3.5 games don't excite me very much. I've talked about trying other games, actually, but the players seem attached to D&D (yet are willing to let me tweak and twist it like mad). Is there some sort of compromise possible here? The players want heroism, I want horror, any way we can meet in the middle?Heroic horror? It probably depends what type of horror you're attempting. Solomon Kane style 'kill the bad thing' would work. Call of Cthulu probably won't...at least I can't imagine it as heroic.

[Neon Knight]

Heroic horror? It probably depends what type of horror you're attempting. Solomon Kane style 'kill the bad thing' would work. Call of Cthulu probably won't...at least I can't imagine it as heroic.

Oh, I can't believe I forgot to mention Solomon Kane! Yet another creation of Robert E. Howard. Yes, I am something of a fanboy in that regard.

[Raum]

Oh, I can't believe I forgot to mention Solomon Kane! Yet another creation of Robert E. Howard. Yes, I am something of a fanboy in that regard.You have a Savage Worlds link in your sig and forgot Solomon Kane?! :smalleek:

[Neon Knight]

You have a Savage Worlds link in your sig and forgot Solomon Kane?! :smalleek:

I will mortify my flesh in penance. :smallwink:

[Piedmon_Sama]

If you want them to see the difference between what you're offering, and standard fantasy, get them to read Robert E Howards "Conan". That's far more what you're playing than standard D&D Fantasy.

Heck, if you can, pick up a copy of the Conan the Barbarian D20 RPG. Second edition is the latest one (AFAIK) and is really, really good. I prefer it to D&D any day of the week/month/year. Then get them to read the rules, and make characters up. Much easier for you, and helps them seperate what kind of fantasy you're playing.

I've been meaning to take a look at Howard for ages now. In fact, this thread has motivated me to finally get on it. If I like what I find, I think I'll finally go ahead and buy Conan d20. My players have a serious "comfort zone" problem involving D&D (they won't try Rifts or D20 Modern), but I'd vastly prefer to just use a low-fantasy system than keep modifying D&D.


Have you talked to your Pally and Fighter about this? Have you brought it to their attention that you are working towards a certain genre, and that your aim and their play-style arent meshing?

I haven't brought it up to them yet, but I am going to. The Fighter's player, being the new guy, is eager not to offend, so he won't be a problem but the Paladin's player is kind of prickly. Aside from the roleplaying issue, he and I are going to have to have a talk about Rule Zero before the next session.
He's the one I'm worried about, I keep expecting him to say 'screw this game, I'm out' and it was hard for me to get four attentive players.


Also, this campaign setting you've described looks kickass. If you ever need more players, PM me.

Thanks! Actually I am looking for players because attendance tends to be spotty.... maybe we can talk.


Don't "hint at" anything. Talk to your players up front and directly about the dissonance between your intent and theirs. Remember that they're trying to have fun. If they can't/aren't willing to change the way they interact with your setting, you should politely change what group you're DMing if you want to keep the setting and feel that you have crafted. Otherwise, you'll have to change your approach. As a story-maker, I can understand the pain that abandoning your story and setting would cause, but keep in mind that D&D is meant for everyone to have fun, and since the players outnumber the DM, the DM has a special obligation to his players.

I'm totally willing to compromise, here. If my players are obeisant but secretly not having fun, I'm not going to be at all satisfied with that.


Of course, your players just might want to roleplay extremely heroic heroes and just are plain uninterested in horror games. Maybe they even like that you play up the terror of the surroundings and derive extra pleasure from being unflappable even in these horrible circumstances.

I think that for the Paladin, that's it. I may be totally projecting (over the internet it's doubly hard to tell) but sometimes I think the guy knows I want him to roleplay some doubt/fear and goes full bore in the opposite direction, just to rattle my cage. It may be his way of passive-aggressively telling me he's not satisfied with my long descriptions and lack of mobs/loots.


The question is, Is their unflappable nature being really detrimental to anybody elses enjoyment of the game. It sounds like what your saying is that you don't like how these two players arn't dropping their jaws everytime you painstakingly describe some eldrich horror culled from the nightmares of lunatics.
Now, though slightly cliche, their character backrounds provide some justification. A fanatic paladin would probably feel that their deity would protect them from whatever they are up against, they may just be abit too stupid and indoctrinated to fully understand what they are up against.
Kind of the same thing with the hardened mercenary, Depending on the character maybe they are just putting on a brave face, thinking to themselves "I'm not going to let these newbies see me afraid", though if the horrors are really as imfathonable as you say, I wouldn't buy that explanation.

Quite right. I'm not asking to curl into a fetal position and suck their thumb while the drooling horror from beyond time slowly advances on them. It makes sense (to me) that if something scared you nearly out of consciousness you'd fall back on the instincts given by your training. The problem is, I don't get the feeling like they're thinking that deeply. It's more like "hmph, my character's tough as nails, she ain't impressed."


May I suggest something blunter than hints? I try to set game expectations before character creation.

It can also be very difficult to get atmosphere, tone, and style elements across in a text based game. In person those are often conveyed without words. Worse, if you're like me (I generally play via Fantasy Grounds 2 these days) typing is too slow for verbosity without slowing game play.

Well, I told them before we started that I had a campaign idea and it involved an almost completely mundane setting, which they said they were alright with. But then I made several mistakes: I let the Paladin's player play a Paladin, in a world where they're supposed to be rare individuals of great importance to the Church (which should make "4th level Paladin" an oxymoron). Then I let several of the characters have magical equipment (a fighter/rogue has gloves of dexterity and a +1 trident, the fighter has +1 greatsword and platemail) figuring it was conceivable because every PC but the fighter is a nobleman/woman from a wealthy family. The magic items could be explained as carefully-guarded heirlooms handed down over centuries. In retrospect, though, this probably gave them completely the wrong idea; here I am telling them this world is "closer to our own than a D&D setting" and they're not feeling any tangible difference.


You might try using something 'normal' looking in unexpected ways. That helps build 'player' paranoia which may nudge the RP in the direction you want.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, elaborate please?

[Townopolis]

What time do you play? If it's at a time when I can swing it, I also want in.

I can sort of see what the players might be trying to do, the idea that heroes are only truly brave when they're scared ****less, only truly mighty when the battle is tough as ****, and only truly heroic when the world is set against them. However, not likely from your description.

Anyway. Talk to the paladin. If he'll agree to a compromise, or to give horror a shot, then problem solved. If he won't, and you don't feel that it's justified (or of any interest to you) to run a more heroic campaign, let him go and drop a line to one of us folks. Heck, drop us all a line anyway :smallsmile:.

Just so you know, the idea of true heroism in the face of stuff that makes your character want to soil his trousers... that's my idea of a good game. Expect anyone I play to be scared, horrified, and sickened by the things he experiences, but to grit his way through, at least when he has enough motivation.

[Tsotha-lanti]

The choice of game almost certainly affects the players' assumptions, which limit their ability to get into the system. Maybe if you tried a game like Elric! (or even just RuneQuest) for this? They're much more low-magic (well, RuneQuest is the highest magic ever, in an awesome way, if you use Glorantha, but the generic rules are extremely low-magic-friendly) and lethal, which helps with atmosphere. Even Conan d20 might be better; it's lethal and intended for dark fantasy, obviously. (Howard's stories were basically just Lovecraft with swords and naked women. The game is the best d20 thing ever, hands down. Make sure not to use battle maps, though; the feel of the game suffers from too much tactical dimension.)

Sanity Checks never work, really. Pointless. They're not going to affect the players. The only way players will ever be scared or spooked is if they let themselves be.

[sonofzeal]

I'd actually caution against talking to them directly. Asking them to play their characters as "scared" is undue influence and probably going to be resented even if it goes through. IMO, you're better off trying to use some of the flexibility you have as DM to induce that state in players and characters via more subtle means. If you think the Fighter should be getting scared, roll DC will saves vs minor phobias - for example, when confronted with a cavernous pit leading deep into the bowels of the earth, a failed check may require the character to get out an extra source of light before continuing on, be jittery and get a +1 on initiative but -2 on attack rolls... or somesuch, maybe a Concentration penalty for the casters. A success means they can overcome that urge and function normally, while a failure should have an easy way of bypassing the phobia.

As for the Paladin's fear immunity, you could either rule that it only applies against MAGICAL fear effects, or have the character get into trouble for it. A good DM should be able to tweak things so that a fanatical character overextends themself and gets in some trouble for it. Maybe next time they're treating your macabre horrors as mundane threats, give its attack a disease component, or get them separated from the group, or in trouble with some governmental entity. Try to work it so the CHARACTER learns a bit of discretion... and reinforce that to the player as needed.

[AslanCross]

While telling your players how to RP is stifling and not very nice at all, it helps to agree with the players on what genre you're going to play. My main campaign is set in FR, so it comes with all the baggage thereof. However, when my players and I decided to run a short horror adventure (Hell's Heart) over Christmas break once, everyone anticipated it was horror, and so they reacted appropriately.

Of course, I asked them if they'd enjoy such an adventure, and they all nodded excitedly. I think it really helps to get the players' expectations down on the level. (Then again, these kids were from my creative writing club, so they did know how to flesh out characters who'd respond appropriately.)

You mentioned you ladle on the flavor text. To be honest, I realized that describing a scene for too long (though you might not be; just that your players' attention spans may disagree) tends to allow the players to tune out. If it's text based, IMO, it's even worse---for all you know they might just be skipping what you wrote. Again, I might just be misjudging you; your players might just not be interested.

[Justin_Bacon]

I do my best to hint to them what kind of story they're in.

Emphasis added.

That's your problem in a nutshell. Don't try to hint at this. You should just flat-out tell them what type of campaign you're aiming for. Either they'll want to help you achieve the atmosphere you want (in which case your problem is solved) or they won't want to play in that type of campaign (in which case you're not going to solve the problem by beating around the bush, either).

My guess is that you're giving them a situation X and thinking, "X should give them a good opportunity for roleplaying dread and fear."

But when they're seeing X they're thinking, "X is giving us a good opportunity to roleplaying how badass we are in overcoming our fear and dread with a stiff upper lip."


So I'm thinking of going back to using Sanity Checks (the optional rule from Unearthed Arcana, made famous by the Call of Cthulhu RPG). I tried using them in the first campaign I ever DMed (2005), but ultimately abandoned them because players kept passing their sanity checks. With flying colors. I had a solid group of bastards so unshakable it became silly, and I decided not to use Sanity Points again.

Sanity points only work insofar as the players are willing to use them as guidelines for roleplaying. (However, using them is one way of sending a clearer message about what type of atmosphere you're looking for.)

Personally, I've always preferred the sanity system in Unknown Armies. It's a bit richer, more responsive, and more personalized.

In my current campaign I'm using a variant of the Taint rules (also from UA). This has the nice effect of actually terrifying the players. (Although I suspect that will fade once they get access to the spells that will fully purify the taint.)


I'd actually caution against talking to them directly. Asking them to play their characters as "scared" is undue influence and probably going to be resented even if it goes through.

There is a difference between saying "this is what your character should do" and saying "here's what the campaign is about".

Open communication is, frankly, never a bad idea.


IMO, you're better off trying to use some of the flexibility you have as DM to induce that state in players and characters via more subtle means. If you think the Fighter should be getting scared, roll DC will saves vs minor phobias

This I would find infinitely more annoying as a player. In fact, I find it kind of silly to say "players will resent you for telling them what genre you're trying to achieve, but they'll be A-OK with you making up rules out of whole-cloth to force their PCs to behave the way you want them to".

[Raum]

I'm not sure what you mean by this, elaborate please?I mean transforming something otherwise normal into a tool or pawn of an enemy - or even directly into an enemy. Think of mirrors as windows which 'something' is watching you through. Mirrors which may become gateways for the watcher to come through... Pedestrians walking down the street who become possessed by a demon (Fallen (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119099/) style). The old lady walking her dog who is something more, or less, than human. There are many other possibilities but the idea is to make the horror personal, something the players (not just the characters) can have nightmares about. :smallsmile:

[Tormsskull]

Some players only understand mechanics. It gets dreadfully boring to do so, but you might have to draft mechanics that help give you the atmosphere you are going for.

Start off slowly. Perhaps when something terrifying or fear-inspiring happens, have them make Wisdom checks. If they make it, tell them that fear nearly gripped them but they are able to fight through it. If they fail it, tell them that they are so terrified that their sword arm starts to shake uncontrollably, or their fingers fidget as they are reaching for spell components, etc.

-2 on all checks, 20% spell failure, etc. Modify as needed.

[Lord Tataraus]

Admittedly, I did skim most of this thread, but I'll put in my two cents. Firstly, I would like to throw out the idea that the players actually do understand the game you are trying to run, the problem is that you want one type of character in your games. I say this from a personal stand point, I would play the badass, unphased warrior whereas you're looking for the insecure wanderer. I would have the same reaction to this type of game, not because I don't like it or anything, but I would much rather have a tough guy than an insecure one as my representation in-game. Contrary to what you think, the pally and fighter are reacting to the horror. For one, it is light horror as far as I can tell and it permeates throughout the world, thus being natives to these world, the characters are highly desensitized as they should be, anyone else would've died of a heart attack long ago. Then on top of that you have the one guy who has embraced the horrors of life to the extreme and has become part of it (the mercenary) and then the opposite end with the pally who turned to the only ray of hope, religion, and survives through fearless blind faith as his shied to the horrors. They are the realistic badasses and fit perfectly into your world, with horror around every corner, horror becomes bland. If you played in a normal fantasy world with one section they just dropped into, then those reactions are a little more shakey, but still understandable, however, from the information given, their characters are actually more realistic then you would like. Remember, an RPG is not a movie, hardly anyone dies in a zombie apocalypse, no one says "let's split up" and you expect the unexpected.

With that understanding, hopefully you can work this out. The players most likely won't want to play the unrealistic insecure wander who should be dead by now, so you're either going to have to roll with it (don't let up on the horror, their characters are built to withstand horror and would go through withdraw), or start over with a different approach.

[magellan]

I think i see where your problem lies
You are telling your players to be scared, and they are not.
This is hardly suprising.
You need to scare them.

Spooky trees and walls won't cut it, no matter how spooky you describe them. They are just trees and walls after all.

Now how does scaring work? Its a peak. sounds to me like you are aiming for constant scariness. That won't work because it dulls very quickly. Especially if there is nothing to be genuinely scared about. For example you said they fought some bandits in the spooky forest... well if there wer bandits in it it couldnt have been so scary after all right? I mean, they could stand it and must also find enough travelers to rob who also can brave the forest.

I'm not saying a little false lead now and then is wrong, but i suggest not to overdo it. Save elaborate spookiness descriptions for the part where something terrifying is going to happen.

Also: magic is low but they have a few standard items? No big mistake happened there... the magic they encounter will be nothing like what they find in the books. Not more powerful, just different and darker. The pool in the elven city that heals 1d6 HPs also cause voices in your had whispering in an unknown language for a few hours... (or something like that just off the top of the head)

Bottom line:
Unknown and unpredictable things are frightening. Trees, as a rule, are not. They are only bent.

[Yulian]

In all seriousness, can I suggest you try running the Ravenloft setting? It's a great deal more like what it sounds you're going for and it also has multiple cultural and technological levels as well as a more "realistic" political structure. It's the favourite D&D setting for my group and I (I usually run) and lends itself very well to subtlety.

The setting also comes packaged with Fear, Horror, and Madness saves. It works currently up to 3.5 rules. The setting can help compel IC reactions to unnatural things and sanity-straining circumstances because there are rolls to be made then you must RP the results.

It really isn't just vampires and ghoulies and low-rent horror. One of the most horrible and awful Domains is run by a human. Go look up "Falkovnia" and see. It's a fascistic nightmare where nonhumans are property of the state, all natives are branded with the ruler's symbol after birth, and the entire economy is built for war. Nothing really supernatural at all, and my players are in terror of ever finding themselves there, almost moreso than anywhere else. Okay, not moreso than Bluetspur, that's a Domain of crawling, Lovecraftian horror.

Look into it. It may be more what you're going for.

- Yulian

[valadil]

I'm pretty good about prepping my players for the type of game I'll be running. I send out a lot of background reading. I also make sure that they know my game isn't D&D, but Valadil's Game - an RPG loosely based on D&D. This helps to dissuade rules lawyers from playing, but also takes players out of the standard D&D game mindset.

That said, I had one player who just didn't get it. For my gritty, R-rated world inspired by GRRM, she wrote a character better fit for a fairy tale. Okay, fine, she hasn't actually played yet. I'll just tell her that doesn't fit and we can move on. Nope. She also complained when the game neglected to feature both dungeons and dragons.

That little bit of disconnect with one player was enough to ruin the campaign for me. I rushed the ending, but at least I didn't quit half way through. We're still friends, but I won't be inviting her back in the future. Even if I run a game with a genre she can handle I don't want to deal with players who I can't communicate with at that level.

Sorry if that doesn't help you figure out what to do with your players. I meant to commiserate and ended up ranting.

[BRC]

Ooh, Fun idea. Rather than fuming about these unflappable characters, have some fun with their psycological states.


For example, that mercenary isn't scared by the eldrich horrors or whatever because he's been exposed to countless more mundane horrors on the battlefield. He's seen men hacking each other to pieces simply because they happen to be born in different nations, he's seen villages burned to the ground so the enemy can't use them as shelter. He's seen people who may have grown up and created great works of art, or discovered the cure to a deadly disease kill each other. Compared to a lifetime of that, the stuff he sees crawling out of the shadows at him is wierd, but it's not exactly horrifying. That said, talk to him and encourage him to play that up. Such a person wouldn't mind using some helpless villagers to lure something evil into a house, and then burning the house down. If a less skilled ally has a better weapon than him, he would take the weapon by the logic that it would be most effective in his hands.

The Paladin, they arn't afraid or shocked because of their fanaticism. They see the eldrich horrors and they think "Don't worry, [Diety] will protect me. If I die, it's all part of [Diety's] Plan". For this case, have the player really flesh out this religion. It's codes, it's laws, it's beliefs. Don't let her make this stuff all generic "Do-good" stuff. Alot of religions are chock full of seemingly arbitray laws, make sure to include those as well, things like not wearing red at night, that type of stuff. Many of these laws should prescribe death as the penalty. Now, make this paladin stick to these laws strictly. Another PC neglects to behead and burn the corpse of a demon summoner, the paladin reacts negativly, and with fire.

[Devils_Advocate]

I think i see where your problem lies
You are telling your players to be scared, and they are not.
This is hardly suprising.
You need to scare them.
Seconded.

Y'see, if you watch enough horror movies, you eventually attain a level of genre savviness (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GenreSavvy) that the actual characters in the films lack. You become all "Don't go down in the basement to check on that strange noise yourself, you idiot!" Intellectually, you may realize that the characters are normal people who just don't have all the information you do, or are scared and not thinking clearly, and that you might even act the same way yourself if placed into a similar situation in real life. But even then, it's hard not to think of the characters' actions as stupid. It's just that you know why they're acting that dumb.

In short, even understanding why characters react to things in the way they do may be insufficient to trigger empathy with the characters; your understanding of them may not cause you to share their feelings. And, well, being told to roleplay reactions that you don't empathize with can be annoying. To paraphrase something that someone once said on this board, "When my group is fighting a troll and none of us pass our Knowledge(Nature) checks, I don't then think 'Oh no, however shall we defeat this terrible monster?'; I think 'God damn it, I wish we could just use fire.'" You can inform a player that within the context of the setting, the characters have an exaggerated sense of the danger posed by monsters that the players know aren't threat. But don't be surprised if a lot of players roll their eyes and think/say "Oh, goody, I get to play an ignorant shmuck. Well, let's get this over with."

It won't be exciting for such players, because they aren't frightened, because they know there's no real threat, so they don't empathize with their characters, even if they buy that "Yeah, OK, my character is very scared. Whatever. The idiot."

There's a fairly simple way to avoid this problem: Put the characters in situations that are actually dangerous, and thus frightening to the players! How do you do this without wiping out the party and thus ending the campaign? Leave a clear line of retreat. Attack with big, tough, but slow-moving (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MightyGlacier) monsters, or guardian creatures, that do plenty of damage, but that the party can run away from. Give the characters good reason to run screaming, and maybe you won't need to tell the players that they're supposed to be scared.

Ideally, you don't tell, you show.

Edit: Here's another example of something you can do to make things scarier for the players: The characters, traveling through orcish territory, are attacked by several groups of orcs over the course of a few weeks. It's no big deal, nothing they can't handle. Until one day, one of the orcs in a group that ambushes them unexpectedly starts beating the living crap out of them, because he's a level 7 barbarian. He didn't look different from the other orcs in any obvious way that would give away the difference in power, but he nevertheless turned out to be much more powerful. The group is thus given the lesson that a few rare orcs are far more dangerous than your average standard orc, but you can't actually tell them apart from your average standard orc. Suddenly, the group has much more reason to be on edge around orcs in general. If they're clever, they may generalize this to "Humanoid monsters can be more dangerous than one might guess" or even to "things can be far more dangerous than they appear to be."

In this case, there's no disconnect between player and character that makes the characters' newly instilled sense of caution hard to empathize with. The players have the same information as the characters, and are wary for the same reasons.