|
So I ran a game this weekend that was set in "fantasy greece" and uses Greek Gods instead of DnD ones, because I'm really lazy when it comes to lore, and greek mythology is really fuckin' interesting. They're all in this Mercenary Troupe, that just came back from a super succesful campaign in which they sacked a city in a day. Anyways the dwarves start doing their "Glory after battle" dance, which is a mosh pit that happens to a bard singing this song http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1gF0uhHsqk (Yes, I play it for everyone,) and a Drow comes over and gives them drinks. I botch a roll on some Halfling thieves under their tables, and they notice that these little bastards were trying to get to their purses. Only one guy seems to missing anything, and the Halfling dropped it when he ran. All of a sudden, the bard goes quiet, and the dwarves get really pissed. He suddenly jerks up and starts being covered in "dark energies" and he sings another song about how Hades is coming to plunder the town, and that hey have a few minutes to leave before they all get conscripted into the King of The Undead's Army. The Patrons refuse, and as the bard keeps going, a few Dwarves peel off their skin to reveal they are actually skeletons, and the Bard just looks like a shadow dude. All black with nothing but white eyes with no pupils. The Party finally decides "Hey this isn't part of the fun, this guy is for real" but it's too late quite a few dwarves are dead, even more are skeletons and the rest have left. Now, for party comp we had a Dragon Shaman, a Sword Sage, A Sorcerer, and a Monk. Not even a turn in, The half Dragon guy sets the bar on fire. And the Sword Sage gets half his health taken from him, (the skeletons had a ward that reflected any damage that came from direct flesh contact back to the user.) But eventually they kick everything's rear end, the Highlight being the Sword Sage picking up a chair and swinging at the Shadow guy so hard he broke the back wall. (The shadow guy was incorporeal.) And the Sword Sage instead of fighting, spending the rest of the battle shooting the poo poo with him. Bargaining. So eventually, the battle is over and they guy just kind of laughs, because the Sword Sage wants to work for the Shadow Dude, and the rest are like, "Hey he just tried to kill us!" The Shadow dude eventually gets tired of arguing and a scroll is shot in from an arrow. It basically said they'd get 20k GP as a signing bonus, two acres of land, and standard fees for any work they do. It also mentioned that Shadow Guy was the Lich Malchias. They start to argue, when the Sorcerer remembers the Halflings and decides to do a check to see if anything is missing. (The bar is still burning during all of this, though no-one has come to check the place out yet,) when she finds a rune on her ankle. In fact, she finds a rune on each persons ankle. After some quick checks she figures out it's a rune that will explode if it hears certain keywords, and also a kind of scrying tool, that allows the rune writer to listen in whenever. You see, unbeknownst to our party, the halflings in this city are actually part of a local terrorist faction, that have been wreaking havoc throughout the city. The lich and the halflings are unrelated, but it just seems like a way too convenient coincidence. (This is because I wasn't planning on them to talk to my BBEG, or try to work for him, I was planning this other thing with a pirate ship to get the explosive runes off.) So now half the party want to go to the Lich's place, to see if he'll take the runes off, and the other half want to find the Halfling Faction. Then it was a good point to wrap up, and my players were still arguing when we all joined up in skype later  I felt like a good GM at that point.
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 05:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 02:41 |
|
|
I think I made a big mistake. Sorta. So, right near the beginning of the campaign I did some backroom dealing, and a character who was originally going to be a dual-identity NPC became a triple-identity PC. The problem is, I find myself doing all this stuff to the player out in the open but none of the other players have any idea what the gently caress. I mean, it'll be cool when the big reveal happens (which i was planning for the end of the campaign) cuz then I can look back and be like "remember that time? it was him all along!" My question is, should I just out with it and see how trying to deal with those consequences changes everything? Like, literally this is the last "clue" of the mystery aspects of the campaign, but all this poo poo is more or less tied in a tangled web. I'm trying to be vague for the sake of brevity, so if anyone needs a broader explanation, I can certainly elaborate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 04:25
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:I think I made a big mistake. Sorta. I'd tend to get it out there, just so more people can have fun. But as you say, it's hard to say more without more details.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 04:50
|
|
|
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away... A Rogue got into a feud with an evil Duke; the Rogue was in love with a Lady, but the Duke wanted her to himself. The feud escalated, neither side backing down; eventually the Duke sent a Necromancer to put a curse on the Rogue, and Mercenaries to kidnap the Lady back. The kidnapping was botched and the Lady was killed. The Rogue was transformed from a half-elf to a shifter, and told that so long as he sought revenge he would stay in this new form. (Later, the Warden trained him to be a Druid.) The Druid (the PC) came across a magical Mask that gave him not only the ability to disguise himself, but to use some of his old swashbuckling abilities. He created a persona around the Masked Man to raise a revolutionary Brotherhood to overthrow the Royal Family. The Druid persona became a mercenary in the employ of another duke, in order to get close to his enemy. So, at this point, the party has been able to piece together that the Masked Man responsible for the coup and the Rogue are probably the same person. They came across one of the Mercenaries involved in the kidnapping, a Detective, who was able to identify the Druid as actually being the Rogue (but kept the secret to himself, out of guilt for what happened to the Lady) Meanwhile, there is post-revolution political intrigue and war brewing on every front. etc. There's the setup. If I need to get longer with this, I can.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 05:01
|
|
|
Everybody likes a "hmm, that's odd" here and there. As long as long gameplay segments aren't based on private player knowledge, everyone will have fun. I had a similar thing where I ran a one-shot for a player, and they changed their character (telling me the original character, a time mage, 'never existed'.) The players went to Time Mountain, basically, where a hooded character gave the PC a headache/nosebleed whenever they came in contact with her. The reveal that this was someone unhinged from time was very, very rewarding, just based off one player's reaction. (The others had fun too; one started a time travel rumor that he was a living God and stepped into the future to find statues of himself).
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 05:22
|
|
|
I know this is probably a classic "don't do this" but... Part of it is I wanna have a big reveal when the curse can be removed, and the player has to choose which persona he wants to be, going forward. This is a lot more epic if one choice is "be the Rogue; go home to your family; save them from BBeG in the nick of time", particularly because then if he doesn't choose that, the Warden can tell him what an rear end in a top hat he is and that he's not going to help him anymore (I have a speech prepared, you see.) P.d0t fucked around with this message at 05:28 on Jun 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 05:26
|
|
|
The party defeated the local gladiator champions in the arena and now have a magic javelin. Surviving against all odds they get to ask the Sultan to declare them innocent of the murder that landed them there. There have been multiple hints both after they were set up and in between the fights that this is the ideal moment to strike. Someone really wants the Sultan dead in front of thousands of witnesses. Instead they toss the javelin at the Vizier because they thought he was just too sneaky and probably set them up so he could take the throne after they killed the Sultan. In reality the Sultan was replaced by a shapeshifter months ago, but only the Vizier noticed and he can't kill him without looking like a usurper. Instead he has been playing along, aiding the Sultan with some things so he could serve the people on others. Not liked by anyone the Vizier wouldn't have a chance to explain himself or get away from the guards and the mobs when they find a dead Sultan. His idea was that when the spear distorted the Sultan's image (magic!) and he attacked him together with the party who was loved by the crowds for their great fights thousands of people would see he was actually saving the city. He would rule benevolently until the party finds the Sultan. By spearing him they pretty much messed up the whole plan. So now guards are flooding in ready to kill them for attacking the Vizier, the mob that was screaming their names rioted when the party attacked a beloved ruler and they are on their last legs after a series of exhausting fights. My plan is to have them fight their way out, hold up the portcullis long enough for them to get through and then evade guards at the busy market, jumping over rooftops or by asking fans to keep them hidden. My issue is this. They started out almost naked in the arena, all their items taken. Aside from some leather armguards, rusty daggers and other inferior gear they managed to take from the gladiators they took down they have no gear. Being very attached to their old stuff they will want to get it back. I am imaginag an Ocean's Eleven break-in at the Sultan's Vault, but have no idea how to actually run it. Right now I am thinking in through sewers plagued by zombies or some monsters, then lots of traps and finally an Ifrit guarding their stuff, spread out among gold, jewels and other items. They get to steal plenty of stuff from the treasury. Would it be a bad idea to get an Ifrit, who when killed goes into a lamp but respawns everytime they take more of their stuff and gets better stats the more he returns? I think this might focus them to really pick which items to get first and which are less important. On the other hand I think this means the difficulty might not scale, since everytime he gets +1AC they also find their +1 weapons and that seems really boring. Any ideas?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 11:12
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:I know this is probably a classic "don't do this" but... Out of curiosity, is "go home and save your family in the nick of time" actually an explicit part of the Rogue choice? If so - why can't the Druid go to Rogue's Home and save Rogue's Family? It seems more dramatic to me to leave that out of the decision-making entirely, especially since that's essentially the final confrontation of the story. The decision then becomes "get my old life back but sacrifice my friends and future adventures" vs. "continue adventuring in my current identity but give up my past" (rather than "continue adventuring in my current identity but give up my past and let a bunch of people I care about get senselessly killed"), and the difference between those is going to dramatically change the final confrontation with the Big Bad. (Granted, the Druid can say "eh, gently caress 'em, let's go dungeoneering", at which point the Warden is fully justified in dressing him down. It just seems like an odd choice to tell the Druid that he's not allowed to save his old family if he chooses to continue with his new identity.) I may be alone in this, but I would be inclined to invert the process, and have someone (in my mind it's an old, well-meaning witch, but whatever) say "gosh, you seem to be cursed, we can't have that" and Reveal His True Form. At that point you can take the entire party into a "dream sequence" where you revisit the whole story, from the beginning where the Rogue is cursed by the Duke, through the rebellion, the Warden's intervention, and the aftermath, to the current day - and then have the Rogue/Masked Man/Druid, with the help of the party, choose which identity actually is his True Form, with the acknowledgment that any choice is going to have to require some sacrifice. BioTech posted:My issue is this. They started out almost naked in the arena, all their items taken. Aside from some leather armguards, rusty daggers and other inferior gear they managed to take from the gladiators they took down they have no gear. Being very attached to their old stuff they will want to get it back. I am imaginag an Ocean's Eleven break-in at the Sultan's Vault, but have no idea how to actually run it. Right now I am thinking in through sewers plagued by zombies or some monsters, then lots of traps and finally an Ifrit guarding their stuff, spread out among gold, jewels and other items. They get to steal plenty of stuff from the treasury. If the game started with the players being thrown into the arena for a crime they didn't commit, then yes, let them choose which items they want to take with them. You can make the confrontation with the Ifrit more intense by keying it to time instead of gear acquired; figure out how many rounds it will take to equip each item in the stash (work ahead of time here will save you a LOT of headaches in the actual gameplay) and then say that the Ifrit respawns n rounds after being killed with +1 AC or +x damage. That way, your players can choose whether they want to focus on +damage, +defense, or a mix, with the knowledge that at some point the Ifrit is going to outpace them and they're going to have to make a run for it. If the game started before the players were imprisoned for a crime they didn't commit, and the gear they're reclaiming is gear that the player characters actually earned over the course of previous adventures, then what you're telling your players with this scenario is "I don't want you to have the gear that you earned", and I'd question whether that's a good strategy for keeping players happy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 14:14
|
|
|
Besesoth posted:Out of curiosity, is "go home and save your family in the nick of time" actually an explicit part of the Rogue choice? If so - why can't the Druid go to Rogue's Home and save Rogue's Family? It seems more dramatic to me to leave that out of the decision-making entirely, especially since that's essentially the final confrontation of the story. The decision then becomes "get my old life back but sacrifice my friends and future adventures" vs. "continue adventuring in my current identity but give up my past" (rather than "continue adventuring in my current identity but give up my past and let a bunch of people I care about get senselessly killed"), and the difference between those is going to dramatically change the final confrontation with the Big Bad. Yeah, I probably should have clarified that: The Masked Man would embrace the cursed form, and probably choose to attack the BBEG in his home base, not knowing that he is already marching out to attack his family in another city. So, if the player chooses this "identity" it comes with those consequences. "I must overthrow the bourgeoisie!" and such, which ok, he can defeat the BBEG when he catches up to him, but it will have cost the player in other ways. The Rogue would revert to his old self (a much younger half-elf, with Rogue powers) who presumably would go to save his family. This also allows for [deus ex machina] to bring his lost love back to life, allowing them to start their lives over. The Druid would revert to a half-elf form, but stay the same age and class (essentially letting go of his evil self, but still showing that he has grown older). He could choose to save his family or go after the bad guy. In either case, he can wind up with an alternate love interest I set up (who loves the man inside, not the evil persona) In any case, not going to his family immediately would be the only choice the Warden would get pissed about. I kinda had the same idea about removing the curse; so an evil Necromancer said you could remove the curse by getting revenge? Surprise! He was a lying dick! So, since the Raven Queen figures pretty heavily in this campaign so far, I was thinking of having her offer the choice (after the party completed some quests; see below); "I can remove the curse, but you need to decide who you really want to be." And yeah, totally take that time to reflect with the players on everything that has led to this point. Some intertwining considerations: - The Paladin (PC) has been tasked with avenging the Lady's death, by his deity (The Raven Queen) - The Avenger (PC) has been tasked with making amends between the Druid and the Detective (also, by The Raven Queen, lol) - The idea being that the Mercenary responsible for the Lady's death is so powerful, that they can only defeat him by all working together.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 18:44
|
|
|
Biotech, making the Vizier not evil seems beyond the pale unless you're really really foreshadowed it, since the Vizier is almost ALWAYS evil. 99% of the time viziers are evil, unless the point is they're not.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 19:43
|
|
|
Golden Bee posted:Biotech, making the Vizier not evil seems beyond the pale unless you're really really foreshadowed it, since the Vizier is almost ALWAYS evil. 99% of the time viziers are evil, unless the point is they're not. That's just it, I turned that thing upside down on purpose. The idea was to keep giving more and more evidence until they realized their assumption was wrong. I basically described him as Jafar from Aladdin at the very start and they had to really hold back not killing him the first time they met him just because everyone hated that guy right away. The Sultan contradicting everything he wrote in earlier letters didn't set off any alarm bells, nor did the sudden lust for blood from a most benevolent ruler. He is increasing taxes on water a lot, forcing Nomad tribes to give up their greatest warriors to fight in the arena, etc. They love him. The Vizier on the other hand is the one who told them how to deactivate the collars that prevented them from escaping the Arena. The Vizier is the first one to find them at the murder, didn't attack them or anything, listened to their story, told them he believed it wasn't them but they had to play along for now as the Sultan came rushing in with the guards. The Vizier is the one who tried to get them out of court when they started to piss off the Sultan, etc. Not all of it might have been obvious since he also needed to keep fooling the Sultan, but I really find the situation they are in very funny and everyone is curious as to what is going on. They think it is a plot by the Vizier that they just don't understand yet. I guess it is, but just not the way they expected. Them attacking him was quite unexpected, but it was the end of the evening anyway so when I said I didn't have anything prepared for this choice they realized I wrote down some other options, but that only made them wonder more about what was going on. I've never had as much positive feedback as with this story, because they are all aware something is amiss but are having a fun adventure anyways. I used to be a bad DM with railroading and this is my second attempt at giving them genuine options and hard decisions to make and they really like it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 20:39
|
|
|
BioTech posted:The party defeated the local gladiator champions in the arena and now have a magic javelin. Surviving against all odds they get to ask the Sultan to declare them innocent of the murder that landed them there. There have been multiple hints both after they were set up and in between the fights that this is the ideal moment to strike. Someone really wants the Sultan dead in front of thousands of witnesses. Instead they toss the javelin at the Vizier because they thought he was just too sneaky and probably set them up so he could take the throne after they killed the Sultan. If the Vizier was being the good guy and onto the Sultan's shenanigans, maybe someone wanted the Vizier dead, and is happy the party did it. Like they're gearing up for this brutal show down with all these guards, and suddenly someone is like "WAIT! I have proof the Vizier was evil and conspiring against the sultan! These This happens because the Sultan thinks the party are reinforcments sent by his boss... or spies sent to keep an eye on him. So the sultan invites the party to a banquet to honor them for saving his life, and is all jovial an happy. Then the minute they are alone, leans over and says "You can tell Lord Eviliculous that he doesn't need to send spies or "help", this Sultanate will fall and the corpses of its citizens will join his undead army, as agreed.". However, i like your Ifrit battle idea, where the more times the party kills it, the strong it becomes, making them prioritize their gear retrieval. Guesticles fucked around with this message at 21:55 on Jun 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 21:38
|
|
P.S. STILL COMPLETELY DEVOID OF MERIT
|
So I'm running a DnD 4E game with 5 players, been running for about 4 or 5 months and everyone seems to enjoy it. The alignments in the groups vary, but my initial rule was no evil alignments to prevent any serious infighting. Over time I've come to appreciate the conflict of alignments in the party and like giving the players situations that don't have any clear cut "right" answer because it's great to watch them try to figure out what to do and they frequently surprise me with their ingenuity. I'm comfortable improvising, so this has worked out so far. Unfortunately, one of the more power hungry players let his ego get the best of him and attacked and seriously wounded a friendly NPC as a show of his power. He was ostracized by most of the rest of the party, other than his gnomish comrade (they are both gnomes and for that reason they stick together and back each other up). The power hungry player left the village they were in because he misinterpreted a dream he had (he has nightmares constantly as the result of using an evil artifact to attempt to learn how to become immortal). His gnome friend came up with a really metagamey reason to try to follow along (as he had no IC knowledge of his friend leaving), but they are about 20 minutes apart on this road. They both decided to travel along it for an entire day, so now they are in the middle of nowhere. I should also mention that they have assassins after them constantly, as their group has been going around killing members of a cult that are attempting to collect these evil artifacts. Basically these two party members have created a huge rift in the group, as most of the rest of the group is leaning towards the good alignment, while these two are falling more and more into the evil alignment, and their recklessness seems to be getting worse as they take these completely shortsighted, idiotic actions and walk away no worse for the wear afterwards, which in turn makes it so the rest of the party is stuck trying to pick up after them and make amends after one of them decides to flex their muscles. At this point I feel, both for the good of the party and also to stay consistent with the narrative, that they should be attacked and killed while they are alone, in the middle of nowhere, artifacts in tow. The main assassin is someone they already know has been keeping tabs on them (just about every cultist they have killed has been warned by the assassin prior to the party arriving), and has actively tried to kill them while they were weak (after a tough encounter) twice already. I feel like in keeping with the setting, this is just the opportunity the assassin has been waiting for, I mean both of them running off on their own, for an entire day, on a main road, and one of them is carrying a ton of artifacts that the assassin has been trying to get from them the entire time. My issue is this: Both players have trouble not taking things personally. If I kill them both, I'm sure they'll both flip out and I'll be down two players. I have other people who have been waiting for people to drop out so they can play, but that's not really motivation for me one way or the other. I guess I'm concerned that killing them both is sorta DM fiat, but on the other hand, they have made a series of poor decisions that led them to this point. I guess I'm just wondering how stupid a decision a character has to make to justify his death at the hands of the DM, and if anyone has any advise to sort of resolve this quandary. Thanks in advance!
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 05:17
|
|
|
Maybe like...talk to the problem players like adults? If this is seriously hampering the rest of the group's enjoyment, have a real discussion about this. Like did you already do that and it didn't work out? Because I can't imagine suddenly killing off their characters to 'punish' them is going to go over any better.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 06:00
|
|
|
Pitdragon posted:So I'm running a DnD 4E game with 5 players, been running for about 4 or 5 months and everyone seems to enjoy it. I'm going to guess you mean "kill" as "permadead or near-so, beyond the aid of a simple resurrection spell". My answer to "How stupid a decision a character has to make to justify their death" is a long, long series of stupid decisions, with at least one "Ya'll Going to Die, Srs." final wooden barracade the end, complete with a sign showing black-stick-figure on yellow background being dismembered and warnings in Spanish, English, and French. I'd instead propose this (which might just exacerbate your problems, don't know) is that instead of killing these dudes, the Assassin would see them turning to Evil and try to convert them. They could either come back to the party as double agents, or become notable enemy NPCs they have to fight later - if you do with the latter, I'd take your players aside and say 'Hey, I thought it would be really cool if later on the party has to fight some powerful guys, and when you guys wandered from the party, I thought it would be awesome for it be your characters. You'll have to roll up new guys, and we'll just tell everyone you wanted to play new characters. You could also give them a ninja smackdown, but have the rest of the party arrive just in time to aid them, or the Assassins get the artifacts, but the characters survive for $REASONS - Someone else arrives just in time to stop the killing blow, passing travelers bring them back from death, one of your Gods offers to spare them but they must take a journey of repentance.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 06:29
|
|
|
Guesticles posted:You could also give them a ninja smackdown, but have the rest of the party arrive just in time to aid them, or the Assassins get the artifacts, but the characters survive for $REASONS - Someone else arrives just in time to stop the killing blow, passing travelers bring them back from death, one of your Gods offers to spare them but they must take a journey of repentance. This is exactly the kind of advice I was looking for, I really don't want to kill the players off, but at this point if they died I can guarantee that no one would want to pay to have them resurrected. Honestly, I just want them to understand that if they keep making really poor decisions (such as wandering off to the middle of nowhere alone in the night by themselves after blowing a friendly NPC's arm off for daring to challenge them to an arm wrestling match) that they will eventually have to deal with the consequences. I feel like I've been giving them lots of leeway and as a result they've gone from blowing up random villagers who are trying to capture them as a result of being convinced that they are evil, to evil bullies who turn guards into frogs for daring to ask their identity before allowing them in, firing chaos bolts at anyone who doesn't do what they tell them or pay them proper respect, and blowing the arm off a tribal leader hired to protect the same village that they are protecting. I really don't want them to feel like they can just get away with whatever because there will always be a deus ex machina to save them no matter what actions they take. I really like the idea of taking the artifacts from them and having a passerby bring them back from the brink after the assassins attack, as this is a way to both bring them back down to earth a little by having them get their asses handed to them, and it provides a nice hook for future adventures. The rest of the party I don't really think has any issues with them except for the good fighter who is having a hard time trying to reconcile his alignment and his faith (Torm) with his companions (two of the members of the party are shady rogues, and they are actually much less malicious and conniving than the gnomes).
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 06:48
|
|
|
Pitdragon posted:This is exactly the kind of advice I was looking for, I really don't want to kill the players off, but at this point if they died I can guarantee that no one would want to pay to have them resurrected. Honestly, I just want them to understand that if they keep making really poor decisions (such as wandering off to the middle of nowhere alone in the night by themselves after blowing a friendly NPC's arm off for daring to challenge them to an arm wrestling match) that they will eventually have to deal with the consequences. I feel like I've been giving them lots of leeway and as a result they've gone from blowing up random villagers who are trying to capture them as a result of being convinced that they are evil, to evil bullies who turn guards into frogs for daring to ask their identity before allowing them in, firing chaos bolts at anyone who doesn't do what they tell them or pay them proper respect, and blowing the arm off a tribal leader hired to protect the same village that they are protecting. I really don't want them to feel like they can just get away with whatever because there will always be a deus ex machina to save them no matter what actions they take. I would maybe talk to your gnomes as well. They might just be doing this stuff for shits and giggles, and not realize its not fun for everyone else.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 07:11
|
|
|
I'm not sure ninja smackdown is the best tactic. I feel like there are competing motivations here. One motivation is 'in-world'; you want to model a realistic response to the characters' tomfoolery. You want to illustrate consequence. That's good, though I worry ninja assassin doesn't really feel like a 'direct' consequence. The other motivation is that you want to curve the players' behaviors. In my limited experience using an in-character vector for this kind of thing leads to resentment. Players don't like GMCs telling them the 'right' way to play. And anyway, since it's all IC they can justify it as a suggestion from some creature rather than take the advice to heart. Talk to them OOC first. Explain to them you need them to turn over a new leaf, and then do the thing with the assassin. They'll have the knowledge of what it is you want them to do and the IC justification to turn over a new leaf. And then, if they do something completely unexpected and off the rails evil, you can at least point to your previous conversation when you shank them in the kidneys. Attempting to manipulate a player's behavior on an IC level almost never works. Your intentions aren't immediately clear and you're catching them off guard. Nobody likes being 'taught a lesson', particularly in a game they're supposed to be playing for fun.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 15:01
|
|
|
Can we change the thread subtitlle to "Talk to them first?" It's almost always the first and best advice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 18:48
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:Attempting to manipulate a player's behavior on an IC level almost never works. Your intentions aren't immediately clear and you're catching them off guard. Nobody likes being 'taught a lesson', particularly in a game they're supposed to be playing for fun. I've talked to them OOC before all this, trying to explain to them that it's a bad idea to constantly get on people's bad sides and make such shortsighted decisions, but they both seem to think that they are just roleplaying their characters and they are both supremely confident that they will be able to blast their way out of any situation they find themselves in. It seems like their actions have just gotten more out of hand, like they are drunk with power. They both just reached paragon tier, so maybe that has something to do with it, but it doesn't make sense in the game world to have two gnomes going around causing havoc everywhere they go to never see any repercussions, but how do I go about having such repercussions without them both claiming that I'm punishing them for playing their characters? In all honesty the rest of the group generally enjoys their shenanigans, but the last few sessions they have caused so many problems for the rest of the group that they aren't sure how to handle them, and IC they aren't sure if they can do anything to peacefully resolve the gnome's issues (right now they are talking about attempting to exorcise the gnome who used the artifact and then turn him in to the authorities if he doesn't change for the better, they don't really like the other gnome and won't go out of their way to help him, and have threatened to simply let him die on the battlefield if he persists in antagonizing them). An IC solution to this would be great because OOC the response I get from them is that they don't feel like they are doing anything wrong, they agree to tone it down, then a session goes by and they are setting farms on fire.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 00:33
|
|
|
Then have an open and frank discussion with all the players. If everyone is having fun, even though it's causing the party problems, then it might not matter that they're causing problems. However, if the other half of the party is getting frustrated they should have the chance to air their grievances. Just have everyone sit down and spell it out. Hopefully everyone there is adult enough to realize it's nothing personal, it's just that people find different things entertaining. The gnome players might be looking for a wacky hijinks cartoonish "evil" game while the other players are being more realistic, and this miscommunication is something that you need to address as a group. Ask "What kind of game does everyone want to play" and "What are your expectations for having a fun time." Be sure to include your fun in this equation, but as an equal participant as the players.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 00:52
|
|
|
The problem, I think, is that you're approaching the conversation the wrong way. Or those two guys are just dicks, I don't know. Don't appeal to them from an in-world point of view. What you've described here is a conversation in which you tell them no really, bad deeds beget bad consequences. But that's not actually the problem. Even in your OOC discussions, you're trying to bait them with a stick to straighten up and fly right. I've never had that work on a player. The problem is that the things they do aren't fun for you. Tell them it's impossible to run two games at the same time - that running 'Standard Adventurers' next to the 'whacky gnome power hour' isn't fun for you. Explain that this is causing distress both while running the game and while writing it. I'm basing this entirely on what you've told us, of course. Maybe you already have expressed yourself earnestly to them, I don't know. But I'm suggesting that you should tell them you don't want them to play this way. I know it's verboten to tell people how to roleplay but frankly if you aren't enjoying yourself you can only drop so many hints about the kind of game you want to run before nature takes its course. I mean either way you'll make them quit eventually - whether it's through focusing the entire game around getting them to behave (and thus driving you half-mad in the process) or telling them to tune it down or pack it in, they'll quit. Or maybe they'll turn out to really respect your wishes and adjust accordingly. Really most people are pretty nice about this kind of thing. The problem is when your desires as a DM aren't spelled out properly. There's a lot of pressure to make sure you're giving your players the best game they're after. There's a limit. You can only sacrifice so much of your own enjoyment before you have to draw a line. I don't mean to say you should have zero flexibility or not let your players have fun. Different DMs have different tolerance levels for this kind of thing and what's fun at one table is a nightmare at another. Be clear about what you want out of your own game and harmony should follow. Or they'll quit. Either way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 01:24
|
|
|
If the GM isn't having fun, then not everyone playing the game is having fun. (Don't voluntarily play games that aren't fun for everyone)
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 07:34
|
|
|
Kill your players, yesss... Give in to the dark side, yess... Incredibly stupid or reckless strategy or action fails? Because the player wants to play something else? A big-time battle as part of the plot? Inter-party fighting? All of these are valid reasons to kill them. Oh, it's roll of the dice for sure, don't outright kill them with a cave in or pull some old-school killer DM poo poo. But just do it. Just kill them. They'll have more fun knowing there are consequences for their actions or inaction in your game. Well, after they get over the butt hurt that you played the game as written, and Oh My God, PC's sometimes die. Just don't kill them on some stupid random encounter. Make their death mean something. Treat it like a tragedy in the story, and they'll roll up a new character. For you to kill. Just kill em. Just do it. Do it. Kill em. Do it. Also if the party is having conflicts with one another, fuel the fire. Try to see if they'll self destruct. Have a villain that would LOVE the party to implode on their own inflated egos. Fan the flames. Poke the cinders. If they don't learn to work together, don't tell them, just let them know that they will fail. Hope they fail. When you go into battle bellow out, "Roll Initiative Mother Fuckers. It's time for you to die." They'll, uh, love you for it, yeah. Believe it or not, they will. You don't have to be a killer DM. But inspiring the players to go crazy. Making things really, really intense. They'll find your game more rewarding in the end. They'll go to game shops and think, "Man, what a bunch of pussy poo poo. They had me fighting goblins at level 1. loving goblins. You had us fighting CR 8 monsters from the get go because we're hardcore." God Of Paradise fucked around with this message at 08:52 on Jun 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 08:48
|
|
|
Guesticles posted:If the GM isn't having fun, then not everyone playing the game is having fun. The thing is, I've found it I actually like the inter-party conflict, as does the rest of the group. It adds an element of drama that I really wasn't expecting, and makes the game much more than just "This guy wants us to do this thing, ok we did it now we get gold and xp", not that there is anything wrong with that. I love throwing a situation at them and seeing them come up with six different ways of resolving it, each with pros and cons, before coming to a decision. It's like there is a very fine line that the closer you get to, the more fun the game becomes, but things start to go haywire the further you cross the line, so it's tough. I don't want them to stop their shenanigans or become generic do-gooders that are completely disinterested in playing their characters, but I don't want them to go the opposite extreme and murder entire villages for the innkeeper daring to ask them to pay for room and board. I really don't feel like I should tell anyone how they should be playing their characters, but if your character is dumb enough to try to murder a king while you are surrounded by his guards (this hasn't happened but it's an extremely likely scenario) shouldn't they reap the consequences (summarily being stabbed to death by guards) of such an idiotic action? I realize it's not fun for them to be killed horribly, but how am I supposed to deal with them doing these things and make it seem like actions actually do have consequences if I constantly have to come up with ways to save them from themselves, and so they essentially have no negative repercussions as a result of their actions? This is why I liked the idea of assassins coming in and delivering a near-fatal blow while taking away the artifacts they have, then a traveler passing by manages to bring them back from the brink of death. It firmly tells them that their characters are not all-powerful, they do need their party, and not every random NPC they come across is deserving of abuse. They both know that they have been marked for death by the cultists that they've been killing, and assassins have already attacked them twice, once at an inn they were staying at, once by sneaking into their camp and holding a child they had rescued hostage, so it's not like the assassins would be literally coming out of nowhere. I mean honestly, I like the way they roleplay but I just want them to be more careful, not every NPC they threaten is some low level peasant, not every innkeeper they bully around will take it lying down, and not every pit they decide to randomly leap into will have a soft cushioned floor at the bottom. I've told them this time and time again but I feel like they think I'm just bluffing and that I would never do anything that would REALLY effect their characters, so why not, blow up this peasant who wouldn't move his cart, that noble who acted condescending towards them, and that one elf who looked at them cock-eyed. I think I'll just start the next session off by having a frank discussion with the entire party about how they feel about how things are going, because while it seems like they are having a good time, I can't be sure that the rest of the party isn't stewing on their frustrations.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 08:49
|
|
|
Pitdragon posted:The thing is, I've found it I actually like the inter-party conflict, as does the rest of the group. It adds an element of drama that I really wasn't expecting, and makes the game much more than just "This guy wants us to do this thing, ok we did it now we get gold and xp", not that there is anything wrong with that. I love throwing a situation at them and seeing them come up with six different ways of resolving it, each with pros and cons, before coming to a decision. It's like there is a very fine line that the closer you get to, the more fun the game becomes, but things start to go haywire the further you cross the line, so it's tough. I don't want them to stop their shenanigans or become generic do-gooders that are completely disinterested in playing their characters, but I don't want them to go the opposite extreme and murder entire villages for the innkeeper daring to ask them to pay for room and board. Have the frank conversations away from the table. Embrace the conflict between characters. At first it's annoying because it adds a wild card element and takes control out of your hands as DM. But really, if you embrace it, there will be moments where you can sit back as a DM, just watching your players argue in character, or come up with separate plots or strategies on what to do next. At these times you can just sit back and be entertained. If a player can't get along with the other players, you'll have to make the decision to ask them to leave or just let them self destruct. At that point, who cares if they're playing your little game or not?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 08:56
|
|
|
Pitdragon posted:I've talked to them OOC before all this, trying to explain to them that it's a bad idea to constantly get on people's bad sides and make such shortsighted decisions, but they both seem to think that they are just roleplaying their characters and they are both supremely confident that they will be able to blast their way out of any situation they find themselves in. It seems like their actions have just gotten more out of hand, like they are drunk with power. Before you go reprimanding them with consequences, or having an out of game intervention to 'correct' them, I think you need to make sure that you are not making a genre error. What if those players really want to be playing "The Zany Antisocial Misadventures of Hobo Force 5" where they can live out fantasies of causing lots of trouble and getting away with it? In that case there is no "problem behavior", there are just differing expectations over the genre and tone of the adventure. I would ask around to see if all the players (and you) are on the same page with respect to desired genre before addressing specific players. If the majority want "getting away with zany misadventures" instead of "serious diplomacy and consequences" and that goes against your wishes for the adventure, then I'd either ask someone else to GM or cater to what the players want instead of forcing them into my genre expectations.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 13:50
|
|
|
Paolomania posted:Before you go reprimanding them with consequences, or having an out of game intervention to 'correct' them, I think you need to make sure that you are not making a genre error. What if those players really want to be playing "The Zany Antisocial Misadventures of Hobo Force 5" where they can live out fantasies of causing lots of trouble and getting away with it? In that case there is no "problem behavior", there are just differing expectations over the genre and tone of the adventure. I would ask around to see if all the players (and you) are on the same page with respect to desired genre before addressing specific players. If the majority want "getting away with zany misadventures" instead of "serious diplomacy and consequences" and that goes against your wishes for the adventure, then I'd either ask someone else to GM or cater to what the players want instead of forcing them into my genre expectations. We were actually running two campaigns at one point, one on Saturday that I ran as a RP-driven setting rife with intrigues and competing interests within the party, and one on Monday that was run by one of my friends, which was more of a laissez faire adventure of the week type setting. They both switched from Monday to Saturday because they wanted to after hearing the stories of what the party was doing and the things that had happened. They've been playing with us for about 5 months now, so they understand the setting. And they generally RP their characters seriously, its only lately that they have gone from "use diplomacy type skills to take a shopkeeper for all he's worth" to "shoot the shopkeeper with a chaos bolt for commenting upon your height, then rob him blind, then set his shop on fire". The other players are all interested in the more serious setting, with them actually wanting to world build to strengthen this village they've been using as a base of operations and making alliances with neighboring villages against the main city, which they see as corrupt and evil. I figure if I take a hands off approach and things continue the way they've been going the rest of the party will eventually kill or imprison the gnomes. Honestly I feel like the situation is just that they have never been accosted by guards, never had someone come looking for revenge, and never been sought out by bounty hunters to collect a price on their head. They see themselves as being above the law of the land, because so far the law hasn't had any teeth.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 20:49
|
|
|
Pitdragon posted:I really don't feel like I should tell anyone how they should be playing their characters, but if your character is dumb enough to try to murder a king while you are surrounded by his guards (this hasn't happened but it's an extremely likely scenario) shouldn't they reap the consequences (summarily being stabbed to death by guards) of such an idiotic action? I realize it's not fun for them to be killed horribly, but how am I supposed to deal with them doing these things and make it seem like actions actually do have consequences if I constantly have to come up with ways to save them from themselves, and so they essentially have no negative repercussions as a result of their actions? This is why I liked the idea of assassins coming in and delivering a near-fatal blow while taking away the artifacts they have, then a traveler passing by manages to bring them back from the brink of death. It firmly tells them that their characters are not all-powerful, they do need their party, and not every random NPC they come across is deserving of abuse. From what we've been told, I think you are well justified in giving your gnomes a ninja boot to the head. They know these assassins are after them, and they wandered off, powerful and valuable artifacts in tow. They've earned the rear end kicking that is about to descend on them. However, I think you've got issues with these players that you should work out. In other words, you're giving them a very justified smack down, but possibly doing so for the wrong reasons.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 20:59
|
|
|
Guesticles posted:From what we've been told, I think you are well justified in giving your gnomes a ninja boot to the head. They know these assassins are after them, and they wandered off, powerful and valuable artifacts in tow. They've earned the rear end kicking that is about to descend on them. This. I think before sending the IC consequences out it's time for an OOC chat (away from the table please).
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 21:10
|
|
|
I might be turning to the dark side or something, but I think learning to hate your players unconditionally is probably the best way to go about DMing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 01:16
|
|
|
Pitdragon posted:We were actually running two campaigns at one point, one on Saturday that I ran as a RP-driven setting rife with intrigues and competing interests within the party, and one on Monday that was run by one of my friends, which was more of a laissez faire adventure of the week type setting. They both switched from Monday to Saturday because they wanted to after hearing the stories of what the party was doing and the things that had happened. They've been playing with us for about 5 months now, so they understand the setting. Yeah this sounds like an unfortunate case of players going for the quick gags instead of letting the adventure build to a more satisfying campaign. I'd throw down some major complications ... not necessarily PK, but "the past catching up" in a way that really hits the gnomes where they care the most, whether that is their treasure or reputation or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 02:32
|
|
|
Paolomania posted:where they care the most, whether that is their treasure or reputation or whatever. Stealing this from the D&DNext thread, in case people here aren't reading it (could be helpful, particularly in this case); this was presented as an alternative DM tool to the 9-point alignment system, just to give everyone the context. Give your players these options: Splicer posted:Please choose your preferred reward structure:
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 04:50
|
|
|
I'm starting a 4th edition campaign with some of my friends online next week, and I'm trying to find a program that will let me design maps and such so we can play. The 4e thread recommends Maptool, but the big torrent of stuff is down. What would be a good alternative to Maptool, or is Maptool still good enough to use without all the extra bits?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2013 17:19
|
|
|
JAssassin posted:I'm starting a 4th edition campaign with some of my friends online next week, and I'm trying to find a program that will let me design maps and such so we can play. The 4e thread recommends Maptool, but the big torrent of stuff is down. What would be a good alternative to Maptool, or is Maptool still good enough to use without all the extra bits? Roll20 is amazing, it's similar enough to maptools and a lot easier to use.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2013 17:24
|
|
|
JAssassin posted:I'm starting a 4th edition campaign with some of my friends online next week, and I'm trying to find a program that will let me design maps and such so we can play. The 4e thread recommends Maptool, but the big torrent of stuff is down. What would be a good alternative to Maptool, or is Maptool still good enough to use without all the extra bits? Maptools comes with quite a few bits, and has graphics packs you can download from inside it as well. I make, or find, a lot of my own arts assets.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2013 17:24
|
|
|
JAssassin posted:I'm starting a 4th edition campaign with some of my friends online next week, and I'm trying to find a program that will let me design maps and such so we can play. The 4e thread recommends Maptool, but the big torrent of stuff is down. What would be a good alternative to Maptool, or is Maptool still good enough to use without all the extra bits? I've got a copy of the archive, I can put it somewhere if you want to download it the old fashioned way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2013 17:32
|
|
|
Nihnoz posted:Roll20 is amazing, it's similar enough to maptools and a lot easier to use. I go back and forth between the two. Roll20 has the advantage of being very easy to use and web-based, so you don't need to worry about people installing it ahead of time or getting connections set up or anything (we always have one person who has issues that take time to resolve). But, Roll20 does seem to have issues with handling a ton of objects on the map that Maptool does not, and ultimately Maptool is a more powerful option. If you think you are going to be able to actually sit down and build useful maps in advance, I think that Maptools is a good choice. But, if your group ends up going off track a lot or you end up having to do things on the fly, I find Roll20 easier to improvise with. I will also mention that whichever you are using, you can also use a website like Pyromancers to actually construct the underlying map you want to use and import it into the tabletop program. This is particularly useful for something like Roll20, because it cuts down the number of objects vs. building the map inside the engine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2013 17:37
|
|
|
Ashcans posted:I will also mention that whichever you are using, you can also use a website like Pyromancers to actually construct the underlying map you want to use and import it into the tabletop program. This is particularly useful for something like Roll20, because it cuts down the number of objects vs. building the map inside the engine. Oh, awesome, thanks for that. I was on the verge of doing that in illustrator. Which would work, but isn't really what I was after. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2013 17:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 02:41 |
|
|
Bad Munki posted:I've got a copy of the archive, I can put it somewhere if you want to download it the old fashioned way. Oh that'd be awesome if you could do that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2013 18:07
|
|