My players might not like the story I want to tell

[Drache64]

So I've been the DM for 5 years and a few people have tried to DM our group and I happily supported them, but all in all my group just really likes my style and the other DMs fizzle out.

We're back to me being the DM and the story I want to tell is one I've dreamt up for a few years and I'm really passionate to tell it. I've been running the first few sessions and as usual they've been very successful and everyone has been excited and they talk highly about it for days.

But as my story unfolds they are getting hints as to where it's leading and they're getting the hint of who the main villain is and its a character they really really hate, which is why I made him the main villain. I changed his name and reskinned him as Yurtrus the orc god of death to get away from the name they hate, but they are really against this character.

If I continue this story I'm passionate about, the players will probably groan and one might whine and get really upset, but I'm sure they'll still play because they enjoy each session and have a lot of fun.

I don't really want to back away from my story. They hate this character because I played him as a PC a few years ago and he was very powerful and then betrayed all of them for more power. Now he's a level 20 awakened Mystic parading as an interdimensional god.

It doesn't seem to be the story they hate as much as the villain it resolves around. As a story teller I can't help but think I've done a great job at developing a despicable bad guy. But it seems to have hit too deep.

I tried changing his name and calling him a classic villain (Yurtrus) but that doesn't seem to be enough. Ideas?

[PopeLinus1]

Well if they hate the opponent, make him weaker, have them fight, have them beat him(in an especially violent or karmatic way) then have it be reveled that he’s just the figurehead of an organization fulfilling his plan.

[Vitruviansquid]

The Gm is the most important player in the game. At the extreme, if the Gm is having so little fun that he leaves, then there is no game any more, though if any single player leaves, the game can survive. If the Gm isn't having fun, then he can't have the creativity and passion that makes the game fun

I don't mean you should never compromise with your players or be conscientious of how fun the game is for them, but watch out that you don't bend so much for your players that you burn yourself out.

[Thrudd]

Make sure your god-powered villain doesn't appear too often and don't make everything in the game about how awesome and powerful he is. Don't put him up against the PCs when they are far too weak to have a hope of surviving against him. Don't have him appear, laugh at them or threaten them, then disappear. Don't let him escape by means of plot-armor or improvised contrivance if they get close to killing him. The game is about the players making choices and working towards the goal of their PCs. They shouldn't be made to feel like the game is about your villain or the story you've thought up that they won't have any effect on.

If they really hate the villain character, then they should want to defeat him, right? They want to kill him? Is it possible that they're upset about the character appearing because they think you won't let him die? Or do you play him in a way that annoys them, and they're anticipating that? There's a reason they would be upset about this character being involved, and it apparently isn't the name, so you need to figure out what that is. Do they know he is overpowered or has abilities that are impossible to deal with? If they are missing some hint you've given them about how to defeat him, then you need to give them more hints or allow for more possibilities.

Maybe all you need to do is reassure them, out of character, that they will, in fact, have the possibility of satisfaction from this campaign (aka defeating the villain), despite whatever experience they've had with this character in the past.

[Airk]

You pretty much lost me at "There's a story I want to tell."

RPGs are not the place for GMs to tell their stories. Go write a novel if that's what you want.

[Drache64]

You pretty much lost me at "There's a story I want to tell."

RPGs are not the place for GMs to tell their stories. Go write a novel if that's what you want.

Any player with that mindset isn't welcome at my table lol sorry. And luckily my group doesn't have that opinion. A good GM is a story teller at heart in my opinion and my players enjoy my mindset.

I did have a conversation with some of them after I wrote this and I figured out it's just one player who really hates the villain because he's a power gamer and hates any NPC that's stronger than him, especially when that NPC used to be a player character. The other players think he's cool and has a lot of character. They will enjoy finally defeating him as he's just been a side entity for a while, now he's the main villain and they are excited to take him down.

[Sebastrd]

You pretty much lost me at "There's a story I want to tell."

RPGs are not the place for GMs to tell their stories. Go write a novel if that's what you want.

I agree with Airk. You may want to go read Don't Prep Plots. If you've predetermined any outcomes in your game, your players have a right to be pissed. However, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt at this point and assume it's just a question of semantics and that your players have full control over the outcomes in your scenario.

On the one hand, it's fantastic that your players harbor such animosity toward your villain. Any good DM would give his right arm (or left; whichever is his non-dice throwing arm) for that kind of emotional response to an antagonist.

I suspect the players' frustration stems from the fact that he's a DMPC. Either they object to his getting special treatment by getting a serious power upgrade behind the curtain while they've had to work for everything they have, or they don't believe you'll give them a fair shot at taking him down later and expect you to bail him out with DM fiat. It's a safe bet that both of those problems can be fixed by talking to the players OOG and perhaps making some adjustments based on their feedback. The satisfaction your players will feel if the villain finally gets his well-deserved comeuppance is worth the risk.

[Drache64]

I agree with Airk. You may want to go read Don't Prep Plots. If you've predetermined any outcomes in your game, your players have a right to be pissed. However, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt at this point and assume it's just a question of semantics and that your players have full control over the outcomes in your scenario.

On the one hand, it's fantastic that your players harbor such animosity toward your villain. Any good DM would give his right arm (or left; whichever is his non-dice throwing arm) for that kind of emotional response to an antagonist.

I suspect the players' frustration stems from the fact that he's a DMPC. Either they object to his getting special treatment by getting a serious power upgrade behind the curtain while they've had to work for everything they have, or they don't believe you'll give them a fair shot at taking him down later and expect you to bail him out with DM fiat. It's a safe bet that both of those problems can be fixed by talking to the players OOG and perhaps making some adjustments based on their feedback. The satisfaction your players will feel if the villain finally gets his well-deserved comeuppance is worth the risk.

Thanks for the feedback, and I did have that conversation and it went great. I referenced it above.

And there is a difference between predestination and story driven plot. The "story" I'm passionate about telling is that an big evil guy has been doing nasty things and it's time to go stop him. They can stop him, join him, love him, or ignore him, but the villain has his plans and my players will be forced to react to that however they see fit. If they stop him, then they stop him. If they ignore him, then he'll control the multiverse until someone does stop him.

I'm not forcing anyone's hand, I think you guys have jumped up a bad conclusion from the word "story". But I don't know what else you'd call a series of events that will play out in thematic style.

But what a GM is not and what I refuse to be is a personal computer just being the face of the rules so players can please themselves. If they want that they can play a sandbox RPG with no plot or story (I recommend Ark) or they can find a GM who wants to do that.

But when I sit down I have an open world I've developed with characters who have motives and plans and everyone is fleshed out with a background or at least a reason for being there other than "I'm random NPC#4633". Players can jump on board and see what story I've crafted for them that evening, or just simply exist in a world that has depth. But no hands are forced, no mission is set in stone and no ending is guaranteed.

But they know if they take a left at Albuquerque and ignore everything I've prepared then all I can really do is pull out the random encounter tables and start rolling. And I won't do that for more than one session because I don't enjoy that.

[Drache64]

Make sure your god-powered villain doesn't appear too often and don't make everything in the game about how awesome and powerful he is. Don't put him up against the PCs when they are far too weak to have a hope of surviving against him. Don't have him appear, laugh at them or threaten them, then disappear. Don't let him escape by means of plot-armor or improvised contrivance if they get close to killing him. The game is about the players making choices and working towards the goal of their PCs. They shouldn't be made to feel like the game is about your villain or the story you've thought up that they won't have any effect on.

If they really hate the villain character, then they should want to defeat him, right? They want to kill him? Is it possible that they're upset about the character appearing because they think you won't let him die? Or do you play him in a way that annoys them, and they're anticipating that? There's a reason they would be upset about this character being involved, and it apparently isn't the name, so you need to figure out what that is. Do they know he is overpowered or has abilities that are impossible to deal with? If they are missing some hint you've given them about how to defeat him, then you need to give them more hints or allow for more possibilities.

Maybe all you need to do is reassure them, out of character, that they will, in fact, have the possibility of satisfaction from this campaign (aka defeating the villain), despite whatever experience they've had with this character in the past.

Hands down this was the best advice, I'm going to keep all these things in mind. Thanks!

[Mr Beer]

Having someone they really hate as the villain is a good thing, I think they might just dislike having to interact with your Marty Stu DMPC. Although having him as a villain that you get to defeat is orders of magnitude less obnoxious than having him hanging around the party the whole time like most hated DMPCs.

[Piedmon_Sama]

Any player with that mindset isn't welcome at my table lol sorry. And luckily my group doesn't have that opinion. A good GM is a story teller at heart in my opinion and my players enjoy my mindset.

I did have a conversation with some of them after I wrote this and I figured out it's just one player who really hates the villain because he's a power gamer and hates any NPC that's stronger than him, especially when that NPC used to be a player character. The other players think he's cool and has a lot of character. They will enjoy finally defeating him as he's just been a side entity for a while, now he's the main villain and they are excited to take him down.

I've been in a situation like what I think you're describing before, and it sucks. Bear in mind I don't share your mindset about "telling a story," but if that's what you and your players enjoy then hey, go for it.

Sounds like the problem isn't with your BBEG, but with this player in particular---he doesn't like to "share the stage" with an NPC he can't dominate. There are a subset of players with that mindset and they can be very irksome to deal with. In the end I had to part ways with mine because we just weren't compatible. I hope it doesn't come to that with you.

The best thing to do is talk to this player of yours specifically, one-on-one and tell him something like, "look: I get it annoys you to have powerful NPCs hanging around, and that you don't want to feel like you're being forced to watch a cutscene in a videogame---I need you to trust that that's not what I intend to do and that I will keep the spotlight on you guys and your roleplaying. If you can't trust me that far then maybe this isn't the campaign for you, sorry." Be polite but firm. Maybe there are specific points you can compromise on---but where you feel like compromising would rob you of your enjoyment of the game, DON'T. As DM you are putting in way more effort than this one guy into the game; you literally have a higher stake than him and you do not have to bend over backwards and make yourself miserable for him.

[Darth Ultron]

Well, the DM is not a player and if any player does not like the DM's story, feel free to tell them to leave the game.

Anyway.

You really might want to just drop the ''Return of the Old Character''. It does sound and feel sort of like a good idea....but really it is not.

And you can ''say'' your doing it for lots of reasons...but your not. Like ask yourself, if you were the DM for a group of strangers, would you use the old character turned villain? Would you still have fun, just thinking to yourself, how cool it is to use the old character turned villain...if no one else in the whole world knew or cared? Does it mean anything to you that the players know who the old character turned villain is? Are you hopping for a big dramatic reveal monent when you say ''yup, it's him" and all the players get upset? And how did you pick this character for the villain? Did you think or know the characters might react badly?

And see, none of that has anything to do with the story. It is just what your doing or trying to do.

It might be best to hit the reset button here....or at least just get rid of the old character turned villain...and introduce a new one.

[Airk]

Any player with that mindset isn't welcome at my table lol sorry. And luckily my group doesn't have that opinion. A good GM is a story teller at heart in my opinion and my players enjoy my mindset.

S'okay, I'm pretty sure that if that's your mindset, I'd hate your table.

There's a huge difference between "being a storyteller" and "telling a story" - especially one that you've "wanted to tell for a while."

[Geddy2112]

I second the "don't tell a story" but I understand that your world should be alive, it has a backstory, and the people and the things in the world are following a series of events independent of the PC. Anytime I see storytime with the DM, the problem is something like "This happens regardless of what you do/Pet NPC's" and at that point, I chuck my dice and walk.

I like story, but I like my stories player driven. Even as a DM with a plot and things, I prefer the players do all the work of writing my campaign for me-I give them the canvas and the paint, and see what they make of it.

There is a fine line between reading your players Lord of the Rings and having them roll dice sometimes, and a sandbox full of nihilistic murderhobos. Somewhere in between is the idea game, in my opinion.

Also, bringing back the old PC is fine, but I try to do this as cameos only. Having your BBEG be one of your PC's can lead to pet NPC syndrome like others have warned of-don't have them show up and torment the party and then plot armor away, be unkillable, constantly annoying, etc. They hate the antagonist, which is good, and you don't have to make it easy, but there should be paths to success against said antagonist(including ones they think of and you did not see). Let them choose their own way to beat the BBEG, all the while having your world be living and breathing, and you are golden.

[PopeLinus1]

You pretty much lost me at "There's a story I want to tell."

RPGs are not the place for GMs to tell their stories. Go write a novel if that's what you want.

Hey, there’s nothing wrong with telling a intertaing and deep story in D&D.

You just need to be prepared to adapt.

[Sebastrd]

I'm not forcing anyone's hand, I think you guys have jumped up a bad conclusion from the word "story". But I don't know what else you'd call a series of events that will play out in thematic style.

Story: an account of past events in someone's life or in the evolution of something.

When you use that word, it implies that events have been predetermined. It makes it sound like the players are just along for the ride. I don't think that's what you mean, though. I suspect you mean...

Situation: a set of circumstances in which one finds oneself; a state of affairs.

If you've decided that the villain will steal the Mystical Orb of Onion Soup to make onion soup the permanent soup of the day at taverns everywhere, and the players will be Knights of Creamy Tomato, and they must navigate the Gardens of Pungent Vegetables to secure the Ultimate Tomato, and they must track down the mighty Wizard of Goodly Stews to learn the Ritual of Broth and use it to brew Tomato Soup of Power, and they must confront the villain and his evil Onion Golems in his Tower of Tears to rescue the taste buds of tavern patrons everywhere...then you're telling a story.

If you've decided that the villain intends to steal the Mystical Orb of Onion Soup and have him react accordingly as the players interact with his plans, that's a situation.

[JNAProductions]

I'll echo the advice already presented-don't say "This is going to happen" and make sure it happens. Say "The villain attempts to do X (and if the PCs do nothing, will succeed)" but with the players able to affect the outcomes.

Basically, let me ask you this: What's the ending of the story?