Does anyone else feel that their players kinda fetishize Royalty?

[Witty Username]

Players have a natural sense of what is expected, and a inate desire to do otherwise.

Two friends and me were pitched on a game , world conquered by a Demon lord and we were rebel fighters against it. We made three Lawful Evil characters (no communication during character creation). Mine being a character who was serving an overlord whose world domination plan was badly banjacked by the turn of events.

[Dreamer]

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.

Picture a sports referee who constantly makes calls that only benefit one team. Pretty awful right? Now imagine the players get rid of him, and get a new referee. But this referee is so terrified of seeming biased like the old one, they never make any calls at all. No matter what rules are broken, they do nothing. And the players, used to the old referee, continue - one team breaks the rules with impunity, and one team sticks to all the rules to avoid punishment. Sure, the referee technically managed to avoid making the same mistake as the previous one, but they're so focused on not doing that they're making a just as big mistake themselves, and nothing has actually changed for the players.

In case it's not clear, you are the new referee in this metaphor. You are so focused on not railroading (which well done, you've avoided) that you're completely failing to see that your players don't know you're not railroading. Talking to them, and telling them this, is not railroading.

The problem is your players are so used to railroading, that they think the rails are there. It doesn't matter what you change in the game, they're just going to look for where they think the rails are, and follow them. They've done this repeatedly, like when they killed a six year old girl, unhappy that they did so, because they thought that was what the rails were. The solution is very simple, and I'm not the first to tell you this: Tell. Them. There. Are. No. Rails. They are not going to just realise it, no matter how much you change in game.

An example of how to do this. Set up a clear, simple choice, with two or three obvious options. Then, briefly stop the game, and not as an npc, but as you, tell them that whatever they choose, that will be the game. That all the options are fine. Make it explicit. Then go back into the game. It only has to take a few seconds, and it's very clearly not railroading because it is giving them options. And hopefully, once they've realised they had a choice there, there'll be more on the lookout in future, and you might actually get a game that you all enjoy.

I hope this helps. Sincerely, a long time lurker who just wants you and your players to have fun.

[Bohandas]

I mean, I think a lot of people inappropriately fetishize royalty in real life, even in countries where such things aren't present or relevant. But I'm forbidden from going into more detail in this venue.

[Bovine Colonel]

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.

I'm not the first to say this, but you definitely have more pressing problems than whether removing an NPC could be construed as railroading.

[Saelethil]

As pretty much everyone else here is saying, you need to talk to your players OoC about what they want and expect from the game as well as what you want from the game. This is not railroading. This is communication which is necessary for positive change.
Until you take this step, NOTHING else that has been recommended here is going to solve your problem. It might relieve some of the symptoms for a few sessions but the real problem will still be there. You and your players seem to think that you are playing completely different games.

[Psyren]

Not yet, our next session is tomorrow night…

And I got to admit I am kinda dreading it because I don’t want to influence how they play…

^ I'm still not seeing what the outcome of this was. Did you talk to them OOC or not? What did they say?

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…

We're inclined to think it's the DM's fault when we see things like this:

The players looked at me kinda annoyed and angry.

Even if it's not all the DM's fault, "annoyed and angry players" are a problem for the DM to solve, or at least be part of the solution.

[Talakeal]

I find myself in the same boat as the OP quite often. Although in my case its even worse, the players assume I am railroading them, side with villains, commit atrocities, and then blame me for railroading them into it.

Picture a sports referee who constantly makes calls that only benefit one team. Pretty awful right? Now imagine the players get rid of him, and get a new referee. But this referee is so terrified of seeming biased like the old one, they never make any calls at all. No matter what rules are broken, they do nothing. And the players, used to the old referee, continue - one team breaks the rules with impunity, and one team sticks to all the rules to avoid punishment. Sure, the referee technically managed to avoid making the same mistake as the previous one, but they're so focused on not doing that they're making a just as big mistake themselves, and nothing has actually changed for the players.

In case it's not clear, you are the new referee in this metaphor. You are so focused on not railroading (which well done, you've avoided) that you're completely failing to see that your players don't know you're not railroading. Talking to them, and telling them this, is not railroading.

The problem is your players are so used to railroading, that they think the rails are there. It doesn't matter what you change in the game, they're just going to look for where they think the rails are, and follow them. They've done this repeatedly, like when they killed a six year old girl, unhappy that they did so, because they thought that was what the rails were. The solution is very simple, and I'm not the first to tell you this: Tell. Them. There. Are. No. Rails. They are not going to just realise it, no matter how much you change in game.

An example of how to do this. Set up a clear, simple choice, with two or three obvious options. Then, briefly stop the game, and not as an npc, but as you, tell them that whatever they choose, that will be the game. That all the options are fine. Make it explicit. Then go back into the game. It only has to take a few seconds, and it's very clearly not railroading because it is giving them options. And hopefully, once they've realised they had a choice there, there'll be more on the lookout in future, and you might actually get a game that you all enjoy.

I hope this helps. Sincerely, a long time lurker who just wants you and your players to have fun.

This is great advice.

[Bohandas]

Who decides what is evil? Heck, one of the more popular gaming settings out there managed to justify the sacrifice of thousands of people daily just for more efficient interstellar travel.

It's a little out of line to say that the WH40K empire's policies are justified. I think it would be stretching it even to argue that they're the lesser evil.

[Reversefigure4]

The players are obviously operating on a different wavelength to the GM, and the GM doesn't seem to follow that offering them choices is the exact opposite of railroading them. I'm not sure in what world saying "Guys, are you happy slitting peasant throats? Nobody wants to overthrow Joffrey, or join the circus, or do anything else? Remember that you have all the options here - slit the girl's throat, cast a spell, leave entirely, become pirates, get sick of the peasant murdering and go raid monster dungeons for cash, etc?" Why is it better to just sit there and wait for them to realise they have choices?

"Fetishising Royalty" could be as simple as "We're used to a game structure where quest givers give us a quest, and then we do it." It's the most basic underlying structure of RPG and video game experience, so it's not hard to believe players default to this.

Look at it from Hypothetical Player Point of View. I want to play the GM's game. I want that more than not playing the game (that's a punishment, for me). I ask the GM what he wants to do in the game. A NPC provides a plot hook "King Joffrey tells you to go massacre the peasants." OK, so that's what the game is about? Working for an evil king? Sure, it's not entirely to my taste, but it's better than not playing at all, right?

So my character goes to kill the peasants. The GM doubles down on this, describing how young and innocent the peasant girl is, how bloody and awful it is when I slit her throat. But he doesn't tell me now to, or that the character has any other options. I don't like this, but I do it anyway, because I want to keeping playing. Maybe it's just this bit of the plot that's a bit dark, and eventually we'll get to something I like better.

I, Hypothetical Player, don't particularly like sandbox games. I don't want to generate my own plot. I just wish the GM's plot was a bit less bloody, but every time we go back to King Joffrey, what he wants is worse than the last time, and there's no other options presenting...

Eventually, Hypothetical Player gets sufficiently annoyed with this and leaves the game, or changes their character to be more of a Lawful Murderer, or accepts that the game will be Peasant Massacre: The RPG and leans into it, learning to enjoy that style.

[Alcore]

{Scrubbed}