Does anyone else feel that their players kinda fetishize Royalty?

[KineticDiplomat]

As a late arrives, let me see if I can sum this up:

1) The GM creates scenarios where the governing authority asks them for things ranging from "against our modern sensibilities, but really there's a case here for both sides" to "over the top puppy kicking".

2) The party does the thing that the governing authority asks. They seem to enjoy it.

3) The GM is aghast that they picked the side he was casting as the villain, who happens to the be the governing authority.

4) In an effort to make his players pick the "right" side the GM doubles down by starting back at 1 with an EVEN BIGGER EXAMPLE.

5) Repeat ad nauseum

Is that right?

[Easy e]

It’s not the DM’s job to provide you a purpose to play… The DM is only there to keep the world together and consistent and actually “alive”… it’s the player’s job to decide whether or not they should follow the “main plot” or even if there is a “main plot” to begin with.

No, the DMs job is make sure everyone is having fun. If that means provide purpose and direction to a group who wants/needs it; then give it to them.

That may not be this group though.

IDo people wake up and expect God to tell them what to do and what their purpose is in their actual lives? No! Then why should Player Characters in a world as immersive as our own expect their version of God to grant them that luxury?

Yes, many people wake up and ask God for signs and portents on which direction they should take, and they consult the bible for clues on how to live. And yes, they do pray for guidance in their actual lives.

However, since in this "fantasy" world you can interact pretty directly with the Supernatural, especially if you are a cleric, warlock, paladin, etc.

[Cluedrew]

That is just how the campaign got started. That is not what I was asking: What have you told them about your expectations for what this campaign is about and how they should approach it. Speaking very generally, not in terms of any particular decision.

There are no expectations.... It's a straight sandbox and I had told them that this is a living breathing world that reacts according to their choices and actions....

I have no idea how that statement could be true. The first one, you might have a sandbox and a breathing world. But obviously you had an expectation about how they would take advantage of that and are kind of upset that they didn't. And that's not wrong, not on its own.

The problem is you seem to be under the impression that anything more than "Are you sure?" is railroading even when (apparently) no one involved is enjoying it. You could give them other options, or even just mention that doing what the king says is the only choice. Like explicitly, I like the phrase "Whatever you do is the plot." but there many other ways to explain it.

I think the king and the royalty business that started this is secondary to: They don't really get what they can do in a table top sandbox. They are probably waiting for the event where someone comes up to them and offers a deal to overthrow the king and be their new "good" quest giver.* Even if you have told them that they can make choices it obviously has not sunk in yet, and making the quests on the main path unpleasant is probably not going to teach them that. But just explaining them might do it.

So I am adding my voice for the "Talk to the group." option. Between you and the rest of your group, without going through the game itself. You can provide guidance without railroading (just don't force them to take it) and I don't see how telling them they have a choices they can make is taking freedom away from them.

* Also if they don't want a sandbox adventure, that might be the best solution. The next quest giver can be kinder and also give them more choices to ease them into the sandbox thing. It is a big switch so doing it all at once.

[TeChameleon]

Oogah.

Trying to think of how to put this; I tend towards bluntness, so I apologize in advance if I give offense. None is intended, I'm just trying to communicate as clearly as I'm able.

Paladinofshojo, you are railroading your players.

Not in the usual plot sense, admittedly, but by adamantly refusing to provide even the barest semblance of an overarching plot, you are excercising an undue amount of control over their play. Meta-railroading, if you will. If your players don't know what to do, making the one path they think they have figured out as unpleasant as possible but refusing any other feedback is... honestly, if not for the open confusion you seem to be expressing, I'd almost think this was a gigantic, mean-spirited trolling attempt on your players.

A DM-guided plot is not badwrongfun- you seem to have swung too far the other way after a bad experience with your previous DM. As a DM, you must be willing to adapt to your players' needs, or everybody is going to end up frustrated, and the game will be a complete waste of time (a game that isn't fun is astonishingly pointless).

[ngilop]

As a late arrives, let me see if I can sum this up:

1) The GM creates scenarios where the governing authority asks them for things ranging from "against our modern sensibilities, but really there's a case here for both sides" to "over the top puppy kicking".

2) The party does the thing that the governing authority asks. They seem to enjoy it.

3) The GM is aghast that they picked the side he was casting as the villain, who happens to the be the governing authority.

4) In an effort to make his players pick the "right" side the GM doubles down by starting back at 1 with an EVEN BIGGER EXAMPLE.

5) Repeat ad nauseum

Is that right?

You forgot the part where none of it is even remotely close in any way, shape, or form to railroading. Or that doing thing close to decently/efficiently/benevolently is boring.

[King of Nowhere]

They don’t cheat on their dice rolls, they don’t do anything to female NPCs that would be considered “offensive”, all they do is play the game mechanically. The way they talk to each other OOC as players seem to be as if they are discussing a show. As if they don’t have any agency in the narrative.

When the King orders the execution of the hilarious halfling jester for referencing how a visiting princess kicked him in the balls I assumed the players would be attached to the clown and save him, or at the very least leave the King’s service, but they simply said “RIP Juggles” as their characters began beating the clown as he was begging for his life and trying to plead to them with all the “laughs they shared over the years”….

They are not sociopathic players, when they are sent to raid towns and villages I make it an effort to make it as unpleasant I can for them… the last one as they arrived into the town I had a little peasant girl chasing a ball towards them.

When she saw the men she just looked up and smiled at them and said, “hello! We don’t get strangers in town too often!” They will see that a few of her teeth have fallen out, suggesting that she is around 6.

The players looked at me kinda annoyed and angry. Then the rogue shook his head begrudgingly and rolled to slit her throat.

I asked him, “are you sure?” and he said, “well yeah… the story has to proceed right?”



These are all video games though… They are focused entirely on telling a story, not player immersion….

You can’t start a business or make a family in GTA can you? In Breath of the Wild, Dragon Age, Assassin’s Creed you are literally railroaded into doing a quest line which the entire game is based on, Skyrim is arguably better at it than all your examples, but even it is a “dumbed down railroad” version of TES’s best RPG game, Morrowind, in which your actions have weight as whichever faction you join forces you to be excluded from others and their quests…. Which will impact your entire game… also information wasn’t as readily available as it is in Skyrim…. You actually had to collect and read books to figure out what’s going on. And EVEN with all of that, there are still limitations to immersion because you are not surrounded by actual people but coded sprites with scripted responses.

Point is, videogames aren’t the benchmark to what tabletop RPGs should be held to because the two are run by different metrics.

perhaps they are used to videogames, and they don't know they can change the plot?
perhaps they are still used to doing things under the old dm, and they are expecting directions?
how are they supposed to know if you don't tell them?
this is a clear culture clash, you must talk with them of expectations immediately. DON'T drop hints; dropping hints is a good way to set up mystery and enigma, but it's a terrible way to communicate.
And you are as guilty as they are; perhaps more, because by your recounting the players have stated several times that they believe they have to carry on the tasks you put in front of them, no matter how bad (i also blame the current grimdark fashion for making people think that's how a fantasy world should be), and despite this you never corrected their flawed assumption.

I am kinda nervous about that because I’d rather have them naturally progress as players instead of me having to “correct” their behavior.

yeah, about that: "natural progression" is a lie. we interact with our environment and with other people, we get feedback for our actions, we correct ourselves.
That's why we have a whole teaching system. we don't let our children loose and expect them to "naturally progress" to become engineers. At best, "natural progression" happens when one already has a good grip of what they're doing, what they want. which is clearly not the case in your group.
Back in the days when people still thought there were "natural" things, somebody tried to study how children would grow up without adults to teach them. so he had people feed them and clean them up, but with strict orders to not talk to them or show them affection. They thought, without guidance (we may call it railroading), they would start speaking the "natural language", and they would behave according to "natural laws". Of course, those children never learned to speak, and they all died early.

Once you teach someone a few different ways of doing things, a few different options, they can choose the one they like most, and perhaps there's some actual free will involved in that process. At least, there's enough of a capacity to take informed decisions, which is enough of a free will as far as I'm concerned. But if people don't know they can make choices, or they have no idea what they can choose, they aren't making a free choice there, and you aren't giving them freedom in refusing to inform them.

EDIT: also, in your crusade to eliminate every hint of railroading, you are trying to railroad them. you want them to abandon the king, and so you force them by having the king give increasingly bad orders. you don't want to punish them for taking choices, but you force them to kill npcs they like if they do.

[KineticDiplomat]

I will say you've neatly come upon one of the D&Disms that most people ignore for playability.

Namely, it's a game that is at least nominally oriented to being good-ish protagonist/heroes. Very Tolkien esque in its kind of meta direction assumptjons.

Alas, any attempts to act within a medieval morality/governance structure is going to look pretty Evil by modern (and hence D&D) standards if The King is anything more than a cartoon villain or an impotent quest giver. With the exception of maybe the blood bathing empress, not much you've asked of them would be considered that morally arduous in the context

[Jay R]

Several thoughts, presented with no connecting thread.

A. No, it's not just your gaming group. This behavior has been going on for thousands of years, and will not stop any time soon.


B. Kings have great gifts to give -- including money, land, magic items, and quests.
Kings can make the lives of non-kings miserable.
Even if you're too powerful for the king to help or hurt, other people you care about aren't.


C. I would expect any gamer who is trying to play a character from a time of royal power to give the royalty courtesy and respect -- even if (or especially if) they plan to overthrow them.


D. You cited the example of the American Revolution. Without getting into any partisan details, please remember that that incident was revolutionary -- a sweeping historical change. And even there, many people in the colonies remained loyal to the British Crown.

[The Glyphstone]

Open-world video games also tend to still make their 'plot-critical' NPCS invincible/unkillable, so if your players are thinking this is pen-and-paper Skyrim, that's another reason for why they just follow what they think is the story to follow.

Seriously, listen to everyone else, and sit down for a serious honest OOC discussion with your players about the problems. This isn't a case of you not running the game they want to play, you are playing a completely different game than they are.

[Segev]

No my main problem is that they’re not engaging the world and are just doing whatever the king tells them to… with little to no character growth or building.

This is a roleplaying game and their characters should have their own backstories, goals, experiences, and aspirations.

They aren’t making rivals, personal enemies, friends, lovers, merchant-customer relations with anyone in this world.

They're serving the CE teen-king, doing his evil bidding, and they're NOT making enemies? The teen-king doesn't think they're the coolest, most badass things ever to lord over an edge? He doesn't have syccophants who see the PCs as his trusted agents and want to use the PCs' connections and importance to the king to get on the king's good side?

Why not?

This story stopped being about their Player Characters and the World and more about “the chronicles of King Rupert the Mad”. Who actually enjoys playing their entire campaign revolving around a CE teenage NPC instead of their own PCs?

Why isn't "we do whatever Rupert tells us" enough for you to have the world react to the PCs as actors? The players are making choices. The choices are in line with Rupert's desires, sure, but so what? Why do the players have to make different choices than they are for it to count as "role-playing," to you?

[paladinofshojo]

They're serving the CE teen-king, doing his evil bidding, and they're NOT making enemies? The teen-king doesn't think they're the coolest, most badass things ever to lord over an edge? He doesn't have syccophants who see the PCs as his trusted agents and want to use the PCs' connections and importance to the king to get on the king's good side?

Why not?

That would imply that they’re actually roleplaying and engaging with the court or anyone really….

In my last session, I had 25 characters set up in the Royal court, Lady’s in waiting, Lords, Knights, Ministers, Squires, etc. Each with an intricate backstory and the court was split between those who support the current regime and Lathander worshippers who are enraged that their Archbishop was slain…. Though everyone kept their personal feelings hidden as they would publicly support Rupert

And you know how many of them the party engaged with? Just the bear that was chained to the wall for entertainment….

Why isn't "we do whatever Rupert tells us" enough for you to have the world react to the PCs as actors? The players are making choices. The choices are in line with Rupert's desires, sure, but so what? Why do the players have to make different choices than they are for it to count as "role-playing," to you?

The players don’t even like Rupert personally…He made them kill entire villages of peasants to send a message to lords who overstep themselves or because he heard that they were harboring rebels.

Every time he does that, I have them beg the party, some of them are parents begging for their children’s lives, other’s are of pleading and saying that they have done nothing wrong, some of them begging for Lathander or the King to save them…. The players do not enjoy carrying out these tasks, especially when they had to roll initiative to slit a 6 year old’s neck

And before you accuse me of “railroading” them. By “deliberately making Rupert so evil”…

I’ll just say that Rupert was always intended to be an evil bastard, and they were warned countless times to not support him initially

The only reason why the Party supported him was because he had the more legitimate claim and that when he was Prince, Rupert had feasted and hunted with the party when they began to make a name for themselves at court… being charming and acting friendly… People had warned the party not to trust him, in the Royal Court, in the Military, even some stories in the taverns… but they didn’t listen…. The Paladin didn’t even bother to cast “detect evil” on him…

Rupert was written to be always be a manipulative sociopathic **** but apparently my party felt that he was entitled to rule because he is the legitimate son of the last king.

If anything, their current situation was their own fault not mine….

The only reason things escalated to the point where they are now is because they enabled the sociopathic teen king every step of the way…

[Lord Raziere]

Okay, another horror story about them.

You have been told numerous times: you need to communicate with them OOC that your not comfortable with this. Complaining to us won't fix anything.

Otherwise, Your stories only grow more unbelievable with each telling. You contradict yourself: earlier you said that they had enough manners to not make enemies with nobility, now they only interact with a chained up bear? Which is it?

[KineticDiplomat]

Upon further review, this is looking like a GM deciding the party is "doing it wrong" and has now decided that after his efforts to teach right, it's fire and brimstone time.

Stop. Just stop playing the game.

You're creating intricate courts for players who only interact with the bear, and clearly go a questing and a murderhoboing. They may actually like playing for Rupert, they may just be aligning with him because it's the fastest way to get put the door and doing D&D things, and they may actually be subtly or not so subtly sending you a "screw you" because the same level of animosity you're building up towards their actions is coming right back at your for their own very human reasons. Whatever the reverse of Occam's razor is says that their actual personal views on the legitimacy of a king through the lens of cognatic primogeniture is not what's causing this.

And since it's not, then false assignation of royal fetishizing is not the way forward. More likely you hate them for being murder hobos and they hate you for trying to force-tell a preachy story.

So, either get a murdehovoing or pick up your ball and go home, cause the idea that you're about to hit them with a wise and salient lesson on the nature of human power dynamics qccording to your preferred morality and they'll suddenly play the way you want...well it's a fantasy genre, but that one would be stretching it

[paladinofshojo]

And since it's not, then false assignation of royal fetishizing is not the way forward. More likely you hate them for being murder hobos and they hate you for trying to force-tell a preachy story.

You don’t get it do you? I want them to be murderhobos, or lawful good guys, or just chaotic neutrals, or hell even LE goons… as long as they are having fun …

What happened here is that they made bad decisions and are now stuck in a position where they are serving a deranged CE Joffrey Baratheon clone and are now just going through the motions and literally the only reason they are doing it is because “he’s the rightful king”…

I have to be impartial here, I can’t openly tell them to “rebel… or leave… or whatever” I just nod and let the world respond to their decisions

This is what we all agreed on after the last DM, no more railroading and forced to follow a single linear plot… they WANTED choice and the ability to impact the story so gave it to them, so why aren’t they happy?! And how is it my fault?!

Otherwise, Your stories only grow more unbelievable with each telling. You contradict yourself: earlier you said that they had enough manners to not make enemies with nobility, now they only interact with a chained up bear? Which is it?

How exactly do these two contradict one another?

[The Glyphstone]

Maybe you would know the answers to those questions if you actually, at any point, bothered to talk to them about it? Random strangers on the internet cannot diagnose the dysfunctions in your gaming group, especially when we're only getting an extremely one-sided account of the situation.

You say you want them to have fun. You also say they're obviously not having fun. You refuse to reconcile these incompatible positions via communication to find out why they're not having fun when, in your eyes, you gave them exactly what they wanted.

[Lord Raziere]

You don’t get it do you? I want them to be murderhobos, or lawful good guys, or just chaotic neutrals, or hell even LE goons… as long as they are having fun …

What happened here is that they made bad decisions and are now stuck in a position where they are serving a deranged CE Joffrey Baratheon clone and are now just going through the motions and literally the only reason they are doing it is because “he’s the rightful king”…

I have to be impartial here, I can’t openly tell them to “rebel… or leave… or whatever” I just nod and let the world respond to their decisions

This is what we all agreed on after the last DM, no more railroading and forced to follow a single linear plot… they WANTED choice and I gave it to them, so why aren’t they happy?! And how is it my fault?!



How exactly do these two contradict one another?

1. Okay. cut the knot then: leave. stop DMing them. no gaming is better than bad gaming. if they complained so much about choice then decide to get stuck in this without doing anything to get out of it and not communicate what they really want openly, that is their fault. Stop putting up with their contradictory behavior, they're not worth your time.

2. Any person of a lower class paying attention to a chained up bear instead of a noble is sufficient reason for a noble to think of it as a snub and think of them enemies just from that alone. if the kingdom your truly making is truly made to be like in GoT and horrible, they shouldn't have the luxury of ignoring the nobility for fear of getting punished. and the fact they have a direct line to the king? thats power, thats reason enough to for people to want to influence and talk to them regardless of what they choose. nobility is all about wanting respect for mere dint of birth and not merit, if they aren't paying attention to the nobility they've already screwed up, and if you don't have nobility recognizing how close they and acting accordingly your not portraying them accurately.

[KineticDiplomat]

Nope, I get it.

Neither side is having fun. There's some rationalization going on on both sides why they're sabotaging the fun, but it's pretty much a growing animosity. The GM is using "faithfully playing the world" as a cloak for putting the boot in where he can for the players "wrong" choices and then absolving himself of even the barest table leadership requirements under the guise "it's the sandbox they wanted" all while growing to dislike the players

The players are sticking to "rightful king" for some reason, their personal view on primogeniture probably not actually being the reason. Single source reporting here, but they are also very clearly just putting up with the GM as they grow to dislike his game.

So...go home. Stop playing. Find another group. This connection isn't working at a fundamental level and it's not going to work. Gaming groups are relationships, and the chemistry ain't there for this one. Pull the trigger and move on.

[paladinofshojo]

Maybe you would know the answers to those questions if you actually, at any point, bothered to talk to them about it? Random strangers on the internet cannot diagnose the dysfunctions in your gaming group, especially when we're only getting an extremely one-sided account of the situation.

Okay how is this one-sided? When have I blamed anyone or anything for my game not being fun?

Tell me, if you were a player in the campaign I described… what would you do? Why would you be unhappy?

Nope, I get it.

Neither side is having fun. There's some rationalization going on on both sides why they're sabotaging the fun, but it's pretty much a growing animosity. The GM is using "faithfully playing the world" as a cloak for putting the boot in where he can for the players "wrong" choices and then absolving himself of even the barest table leadership requirements under the guise "it's the sandbox they wanted" all while growing to dislike the players

What “punishments” am I giving for their choices exactly? How have I ever influenced the world with my personal biases? There’s a reason why I am talking about this with YOU rather than THEM…

Because I don’t want to influence their game in any way shape or form… I want to just be an observer…

[Lord Raziere]

Okay how is this one-sided? When have I blamed anyone or anything for my game not being fun?

Tell me, if you were a player in the campaign I described… what would you do? Why would you be unhappy?

We can't tell you. We are not your players. We haven't experienced what they have.

its one sided because unless you get your players to post their side of the story here, all we have is your word that they even exist.

So either go talk to them or leave the group and let them sort it out themselves. Otherwise your just going to remain in this deadlock until it blows up. Not worth it, do something or jump ship.

[paladinofshojo]

2. Any person of a lower class paying attention to a chained up bear instead of a noble is sufficient reason for a noble to think of it as a snub and think of them enemies just from that alone. if the kingdom your truly making is truly made to be like in GoT and horrible, they shouldn't have the luxury of ignoring the nobility for fear of getting punished. and the fact they have a direct line to the king? thats power, thats reason enough to for people to want to influence and talk to them regardless of what they choose. nobility is all about wanting respect for mere dint of birth and not merit, if they aren't paying attention to the nobility they've already screwed up, and if you don't have nobility recognizing how close they and acting accordingly your not portraying them accurately.

But who would want to associate with the King’s “pet rats”? They aren’t “real” nobles… they’re barely knights, with the party lead being “ennobled” with a small tower in the country as his land, all they are are just upjumped commoners and foreigners who are ridiculously strong and competent…

Most of the nobles, even the ones that give them quests deliberately insult them, wondering if they are illiterate, complimenting them for “not smelling like horse dung”… and they don’t retaliate at all…

We can't tell you. We are not your players. We haven't experienced what they have.

So it’s automatically the DM’s fault because….?

I can take criticism, but the problem here is that you’re immediately acting like I’m the problem because I’m the DM… and you automatically expect me to actually change the course of the game to suit my needs because of your own experiences with “bad DMs”… even though I’ve stated time and time again I don’t do that…

[Lord Raziere]

But who would want to associate with the King’s “pet rats”? They aren’t “real” nobles… they’re barely knights, with the party lead being “ennobled” with a small tower in the country as his land, all they are are just upjumped commoners and foreigners who are ridiculously strong and competent…

Most of the nobles, even the ones that give them quests deliberately insult them, wondering if they are illiterate, complimenting them for “not smelling like horse dung”… and they don’t retaliate at all…



So it’s automatically the DM’s fault because….?

I can take criticism, but the problem here is that you’re immediately acting like I’m the problem because I’m the DM… and you automatically expect me to actually change the course of the game to suit my needs because of your own experiences with “bad DMs”… even though I’ve stated time and time again I don’t do that…

1. That......doesn't sound like any PC I've ever heard of. That doesn't sound right at all, at least intuitionally speaking.

2. Because whatever YOUR PLAYERS say is the problem. We don't know the problem, because all this is SUBJECTIVE. We can't read your players minds and tell you what those specific 4-5 people have problems with you. We can only offer this general advice:
-Either communicate with them to figure out what their problem is OOC, no IC barrier to communication, speaking plainly and directly
-or leave, putting the game behind you and let them figure out how to have fun without you, because you've decided to be completely passive despite seeing a problem and the player have decided to be completely passive so your both wallowing in misery according to you and if your truly unwilling to confront them about any of this, save yourself the work and pain for lack of fun return on your investment and get out.

furthermore as the GM, you change the course of the game by reacting to them at all. the game wouldn't exist without you, your not a non-interfering observer, your a player like them just with a different role, and if your not having fun you deserve better. your not a martyr for the other five guys fun, so don't become one. communicate with them OOCly to get this sorted or get out.

[paladinofshojo]

1. That......doesn't sound like any PC I've ever heard of. That doesn't sound right at all, at least intuitionally speaking.

I know right… I would have expected them to kill one or two nobles by now but nope… they just let them do as they please with complete impunity…

furthermore as the GM, you change the course of the game by reacting to them at all. the game wouldn't exist without you, your not a non-interfering observer, your a player like them just with a different role, and if your not having fun you deserve better. your not a martyr for the other five guys fun, so don't become one. communicate with them OOCly to get this sorted or get out.

I disagree, it’s not my job to railroad especially when the party isn’t complaining openly about it… I just want them to have fun and actually enjoy playing…because they’re not just my “players” they’re also my friends.

The only reason I am the DM was because apparently no one else wanted to and they all felt that I would do the best job because I would take it more seriously… which I have.

[Lord Raziere]

I know right… I would have expected them to kill one or two nobles by now but nope… they just let them do as they please with complete impunity…



I disagree, it’s not my job to railroad especially when the party isn’t complaining openly about it… I just want them to have fun and actually enjoy playing…because they’re not just my “players” they’re also my friends.

The only reason I am the DM was because apparently no one else wanted to and they all felt that I would do the best job because I would take it more seriously… which I have.

1. Hm, Yes. strange. Very mysterious. I wish I was there to ask the players themselves why they act that way. y'know. like you can. Supposedly.

2. asking them whats wrong and discussing how you can adjust yourself with them OOC is not railroading. your using a definition that no one in the community would hold you to. as for this friend thing, that doesn't matter. communicate with them or end the game, if your truly friends with them they will understand your reasons either way and be fine with it. prolonging the silent suffering helps no one, get it over with either way.

[The Glyphstone]

Whether or not you have been the cause of the problem till now, if you refuse to engage and communicate with your players to fix the problem, then you become the problem. Its that simple.

Being an impartial, cold black box observer is no better than being the AI programmed to operate a video game.

[TheStranger]

I disagree, it’s not my job to railroad especially when the party isn’t complaining openly about it… I just want them to have fun and actually enjoy playing…because they’re not just my “players” they’re also my friends.

The only reason I am the DM was because apparently no one else wanted to and they all felt that I would do the best job because I would take it more seriously… which I have.

You seem to be interpreting “talk to them OOC” as implying something much more confrontational than it needs to be. You just need to have a friendly conversation about whether everybody is having fun and what might make things more fun. It’s not all negative, you can talk about things that are working well too.

I get that you’re worried about railroading, but it would be very strange to be playing a game with friends every week and then never have a conversation with your friends about the shared experience of playing that game. Asking why they did things or telling them you were surprised because you expected something different is not just fine, it’s necessary.

What you’re describing is like seeing a movie with friends and refusing to talk about it afterwards because you don’t want to taint their opinions of it. Meanwhile, you don’t think they even liked that movie, but you’re going to take them to see the sequel next week.

Bottom line is that an OOC conversation is necessary sometimes to keep a game running smoothly (and seems to be long overdue in this case). And discussing any shared experience with friends is a great way to relive it and enhance everybody’s enjoyment, while also giving everybody ideas for how have more fun next time by doing more of what people liked and less of what they didn’t. You’re making some strange and arbitrary rules for yourself here.

[Xervous]

You’re the GM, pull a bomb out of thin air to spice things up. Who’s to say that serving girl the king ordered to his rooms for the night wouldn’t bring a knife and gut the little turd? You’re the GM making the world, a serving girl killing a rapist in self defense is hardly contrived. If the world is living and breathing why hasn’t someone killed the king yet? There’s no need for him to be dead or alive specifically, but by removing him from the picture you can start to better your game. The players are stuck in a loop, progress the situation and they’ll start taking different actions. The plot arcs of NPCs in sandboxes offer many potential branching points for the characters to adjust the trajectory. If they choose not to act on a certain point in time the arc doesn’t stop moving, it keeps going where it was headed. Sometimes NPC arcs collide with each other, that’s where you get surprises like “oh no the butler murdered the duke”. Maybe the PCs stopping the Duke from leaving the party early would cause another NPC to be the victim, maybe it would cause the murder to be attempted on a different day. If the only events that happen are those performed by the PCs it really is a Skyrim sandbox: dead sand that only moves when you poke it.

So yeah, kill the king, remove the one NPC they were using to guide their actions, then provide better options that will promise more enjoyable play.

[Segev]

That would imply that they’re actually roleplaying and engaging with the court or anyone really….

In my last session, I had 25 characters set up in the Royal court, Lady’s in waiting, Lords, Knights, Ministers, Squires, etc. Each with an intricate backstory and the court was split between those who support the current regime and Lathander worshippers who are enraged that their Archbishop was slain…. Though everyone kept their personal feelings hidden as they would publicly support Rupert

And you know how many of them the party engaged with? Just the bear that was chained to the wall for entertainment….

Did these NPCs at any point approach the party? If so, how did the party react to them? This isn't a criticism, but an observation: players are often not social butterflies IRL, and don't have a vibrant CGI image to move around and "press A" at NPCs in a tabletop game. Some players will still take initiative and walk up to random NPCs, or NPCs they think look or sound interesting, but my guess - and this is just a guess - about why they interacted with the bear is because the bear is the only thing you described in a way that stood out to them.

Now, maybe you did have some nobility et al approach them, and they blew them off. I don't know. But my advice is to have NPCs approach the PCs, not to wait for PCs to approach them (especially if the PCs are "under orders" when they approach NPCs, and the PCs follow those orders slavishly).

The players don’t even like Rupert personally…He made them kill entire villages of peasants to send a message to lords who overstep themselves or because he heard that they were harboring rebels.

Every time he does that, I have them beg the party, some of them are parents begging for their children’s lives, other’s are of pleading and saying that they have done nothing wrong, some of them begging for Lathander or the King to save them…. The players do not enjoy carrying out these tasks, especially when they had to roll initiative to slit a 6 year old’s neck

Do the players tell you they don't like it? Have you, when they expressed that, pointed out that it's up to them whether they actually do it or not? What has the players' response been in such cases?

What have your players told you, OOC, about the game? What do they think of it?

What have they told you that you know they don't enjoy rolling initiative to slit a child's throat? What have you told them when they've expressed this, and what was their response?

How have they reacted with NPCs you've got set up at things like the party you mentioned before approach them? What have the NPCs tried to engage with them on? What have the players told you about such encounters, if anything? Ask them why they interacted with the bear, OOC; perhaps there's a hint there as to what it is that draws their attention.

[Faily]

You’re the GM, pull a bomb out of thin air to spice things up. Who’s to say that serving girl the king ordered to his rooms for the night wouldn’t bring a knife and gut the little turd? You’re the GM making the world, a serving girl killing a rapist in self defense is hardly contrived. If the world is living and breathing why hasn’t someone killed the king yet? There’s no need for him to be dead or alive specifically, but by removing him from the picture you can start to better your game. The players are stuck in a loop, progress the situation and they’ll start taking different actions. The plot arcs of NPCs in sandboxes offer many potential branching points for the characters to adjust the trajectory. If they choose not to act on a certain point in time the arc doesn’t stop moving, it keeps going where it was headed. Sometimes NPC arcs collide with each other, that’s where you get surprises like “oh no the butler murdered the duke”. Maybe the PCs stopping the Duke from leaving the party early would cause another NPC to be the victim, maybe it would cause the murder to be attempted on a different day. If the only events that happen are those performed by the PCs it really is a Skyrim sandbox: dead sand that only moves when you poke it.

So yeah, kill the king, remove the one NPC they were using to guide their actions, then provide better options that will promise more enjoyable play.

Piggybacking off of this:

NPCs don't enter Standby mode when PCs aren't interacting with them or doing things. The world keeps spinning and moving even if the PCs don't really do much.

So yeah, kill some kings, sack the capital, have an invasion by a rival kingdom. Shake things up.

[King of Nowhere]

If anything, their current situation was their own fault not mine….

that's the completely wrong way to look at it.
Not because it's your fault or their fault, but because the blame game never helps anyone.

So it doesn't matter who's at fault. You can try to do something to fix this mess. And there's a dozen people here who talk with your players honestly ooc.
Or, you can keep blaming them and keep playing a game that grows increasingly distressing for everyone involved.

Oh, and by the way, i belive both you and your players are to blame, because you're not communicating with each other. In every social or team game, not communicating with the other players is a capital crime.
But we are so hard on harrassing you to take action, and not your players, because you are the only one we can speak to. If your players wrote on this board, we'd be telling them the same, stop the vicious cycle and talk to the dm ooc.

And if you are unwilling to do any of the things that may help overcome your problems... well, in that case it may not have been your fault in the beginning, but it will definitely become your fault for failing to try and fix things. Furthermore, as DM you have the greater power at the table, and with it comes a greater responsibility. Any newly elected politician is not responsible for the problems of his country, but we do hold him to blame at the next election if he didn't take sufficient measures to counteract them.

The only reason I am the DM was because apparently no one else wanted to and they all felt that I would do the best job because I would take it more seriously… which I have.

if your idea of "seriously" means "never talking with your players about obvious problems at the table that make everyone uncomfortable because you are afraid any input you give would be railroading", then you definitely need someone to take Dming less seriously.

What you’re describing is like seeing a movie with friends and refusing to talk about it afterwards because you don’t want to taint their opinions of it. Meanwhile, you don’t think they even liked that movie, but you’re going to take them to see the sequel next week.

very well put

[paladinofshojo]

Piggybacking off of this:

NPCs don't enter Standby mode when PCs aren't interacting with them or doing things. The world keeps spinning and moving even if the PCs don't really do much.

So yeah, kill some kings, sack the capital, have an invasion by a rival kingdom. Shake things up.

You know what, you’re right…. Just because my players don’t want to do anything about Rupert doesn’t mean the rest of the world should deal with him…

I already have half a dozen different powerful people he’s wronged…. I’ll start having the kingdom start tearing itself to the seems with several different rebellions, assassination attempts, an invasion by an Orcish Horde or Hobgoblin Kingdom who sense weakness, and perhaps even the undead plague and maybe demonic influences.

And it wouldn’t be considered “railroading” because all of this was technically inside the world but they were too uninterested to actually nip these problems in the bud.