|
Soylent Pudding posted:Obviously the PCs need to organize a massive town dance party until the creature overloads. Adding to the 80's video list. Borrow it? You just came up with the dance party idea! Yeah, you can use Ataraxia in your elf games and I encourage you to learn more about 19th-century psychology. Moral treatment was actually an improvement over the previous mental healthcare method (i.e. lock them up forever, maybe torture them or charge people admission to gawk at them), but it ended up being pretty authoritarian.
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 04:38 |
|
|
My Lovely Horse posted:My sessions tend to go one of two ways:  We had a talk and he's gonna try and tone it down. In fact he told everyone they had a free shot at kicking him in the shins if he started again, and while I sit too far away, I'm thinking of a reminder keyphrase along the lines of "dude, leave it to me to come up with consequences and when they occur, that's why I DM."
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
To throw more kindling on the fire: "All I wanted was a Pepsi... AND SHE WOULDN'T GIVE IT TO ME" Hell, the chorus is essentially your campaign in a nutshell quote:I'm not crazy - institution
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
MyLovelyHorse, I had a group that had a tendency to devolve into Subgroup B behavior as well. The best way I found to break them out of it was to put them in situations that were much more immediate. By this I mean, "OK, you guys can sit here and discuss all of the ramifications of X and Y plans, but while you're doing that, the bad guys aren't waiting for you." It only takes one or two times of the opposition beating the players to the punch (and thus changing the situation and making things MUCH harder for the PCs) before they start acting on their initiatives rather than discussing them ad nauseum.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
My Lovely Horse posted:Turns out group A is just as annoyed with group (or, honestly, player) B's antics as I am I've definitely seen this behavior before. It seems pretty deeply-seated and I'm not sure what causes it. I've had maybe 3 players do the super-detailed-boring-analysis thing over the years. Not only do they almost always take excruciating amounts of time figuring out what exactly to do but they almost always fail to see other options aside from what they perceive as the 'available' options. They're agonizing over the 'right' choice, trying to solve the non-puzzle that you've erected as a GM. My best guess it that they think you've decided a correct course for them to follow and the 'game' portion is working out which one is correct. One player in particular would get frustrated at me because there was no clear correct course for her to follow and she felt that was unfair. Aside from prompting the players constantly ("Okay, so you've established these are the three choices, please pick one") I'm glad communication worked out for you. It's much easier when your players are on board with the solution.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
I think what you can try to do to mitigate against that kind of behavior is to lift the curtains a little and let them know/see/feel/perceive the sort of consequences that lie on the other side of any given choice because maybe they're filling in the unknown space with all sorts of assumptions that might not even be true. Like, if it's a choice between "ford the river here where the waters are fast and rough" or "circle around and take the scenic route", you can let them know that the former will involve swimming skill checks that may result in damage from being dashed on the rocks if they fail (badly), while the latter will involve random encounter rolls. If they have a clear picture of what they'll ultimately have to weigh/trade-off against, then it might not take them as long to decide.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
Yeah that is part of it. I always try to pace my sessions so the big decision comes at the end, and then I have enough time to prep a more or less linear path along that choice to the next big one, but it doesn't always work out. Right now their choice is: ambush the enemy stronghold in the dark (where the enemy has an advantage), or wait until morning (at the risk of discovery or random events during the night); as choices go, it's "pick your poison" but there you go. Tangent: there is another difference between groups A and B, which is that A are happy to follow my linear plot points and B are always trying Diplomacy First and consider combat a last resort, and I'm trying to mitigate that by a) establishing that we're running a 90% combat game because, frankly, D&D, b) also establishing the whole "combat is as violent as you flavour it" approach, and c) giving them choices but less "solve situation X through combat or through diplomacy" and more "solve situation X through combat, or situation Y through diplomacy". May also print a sign saying THINK FINAL FANTASY, NOT DEUS EX. Which ties in with the idea of making choices transparent as well!
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
I had a Subgroup B one time. It was really Subguy B, and everybody else went a long with it, but I like to tell this story. The game was basically medieval fantasy superheroes- I was going for like Masters of the Universe through the lens of D&D. The party had located a particular ancient treasure vault that they had been searching for, where they were supposed to find information about some horrible prophecy meteor that was approaching the planet. Anyway, the vault had a comically difficult lock on it, and huge metal statues of a dragon head and claws up above it. The plan was one of two things: the party's rogue/gadgeteer could get a time to shine and unlock the vault door with some appropriate prep work and a really good roll, or any attempt to tamper with the lock (including failing that lockpicking roll) would wake up the dragon head/hands construct and they'd have a cool boss fight against essentially a giant metal snake that spews lava out of its mouth in both glob and "beam" varieties. So, I described the room. The hallway leading to the room had a couple of skeletons in it that, based on their positions and blades, must of have committed suicide like decades ago. The main room had like charred skeletons that were melted to the floor by their plate armor. This triggered Subguy B. He told everybody else to wait by the elevator, and spent the next 45 minutes to an hour just absolutely interrogating me about the room. Points of articulation on the claws and head, presence of grates or vents in the walls and floor, composition of the room's materials, climbing up on the claws and head to see if they were movable, just like every possible detail of this otherwise featureless arena-style circular room. Now, keep in mind that, the rest of the party notwithstanding, Subguy B was the party's warrior archetype. Functionally immune to conventional damage, his main weaknesses were the fact that his largest attack would damage him as a side effect, and his lack of ranged options besides that one. So, his paranoia about this room was ENTIRELY out of character, in addition to being really tedious. After that hour or so of me just answering his questions and desperately hoping for somebody to just DO something, the gadgeteer informed me that she'd slipped up to the vault door while Subguy B was busy staring at bricks, and she's now going to try the lock. Her character takes a shitload of drugs and assigns all available Skill Levels to lockpicking, and then she rolls improbably well, immediately opening the vault door, and announcing, "There. Done." I looked at the clock, stood up, and shouted, "IT WAS A ONE ROOM DUNGEON!" In retrospect, I bear a sizable amount of responsibility for not just having the golem attack when Subguy B started trying to open and close its mouth.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
Tias posted:Those concepts are so cool that I want to shamelessly steal them for my Shadowrun 4 Hong Kong game. With your blessing, of course I can't take credit. The whole scenario is taken directly from the official Feng Shui book Blowing Up Hong Kong.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
Pththya-lyi posted:Basically teenage monster melodrama in the style of Jennifer's Body and Ginger Snaps. They have to get a Band to come to town, and they're the complete opposite; proof of the moral decay. Never make the answer easy in Monsterhearts, and never give them more than one trustworthy adult.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
Golden Bee posted:They have to get a Band to come to town, and they're the complete opposite; proof of the moral decay. "I found a band to help us!" "Really? Who did you get?" "...Sex Fuhrer." "..." "Look, it's hard to book a band on short notice."
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
Golden Bee posted:They have to get a Band to come to town, and they're the complete opposite; proof of the moral decay. One of the PCs was thrust into leading a vampire gang; she's trying to make them kinder and gentler, which has caused some major resentment. They haven't expressed that resentment in front of her ... yet  I think they'll make a great opposite extreme.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
echopapa posted:"I found a band to help us!" https://www.facebook.com/pages/Sex-F%C3%BChrers/136377939804553
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
My last session in one campaign got very Subgroup B. I think part of our problem was that the GM left us a very wide range of options to approach a very difficult strategic level problem. A dragon lead army was besieging a city and we were a band of brigands trying to stop them because they're raiding our turf and cutting into business. The problem was we had a range of options that included trying to raise a citizen army, sneaking through the siege lines to contact the king and generals, going to other neighboring kingdoms to rally forces, sneaking in and sabotaging / assassinating the hostile camp, ambushing foraging parties etc. I understand the GM got a little annoyed that we spent about 2 hours in war council. However, there is a point that if you give your players the appearance of too many options it's going to take a long time to actually work through the possibilities. Doubly so if it's a self declared "survival" campaign where everyone is paranoid.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 01:15
|
|
|
I might add at this point that the point of contention last time was "do we take an extended rest here" because subgroup B was utterly convinced that a secluded monastery in the mountains they'd just cleaned of enemies wasn't possibly safe enough, and the king's soldiers could arrive any minute.My Lovely Horse posted:I think I have an idea on how to deal with group B's antics to an extent: whenever someone points out the dire consequences of a plan, I can make it clear that "yes, that's what could happen if you gently caress it up"
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 06:02
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:3. Overload it: Fill it with so much of something (in this case maybe extremes of anti-Victorian depravity) until it metaphorically "bursts." Yeah, I can't speak for your PCs, but I (in- as out-of-character) would organize a glamorous rebellion full of sex and parties until it fled! Takuan posted:I can't take credit. The whole scenario is taken directly from the official Feng Shui book Blowing Up Hong Kong. In that case, I will unscrupulously steal it! Thanks for bringing it to my attention <3
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 07:36
|
|
|
My Lovely Horse posted:I might add at this point that the point of contention last time was "do we take an extended rest here" because subgroup B was utterly convinced that a secluded monastery in the mountains they'd just cleaned of enemies wasn't possibly safe enough, and the king's soldiers could arrive any minute. In my experience this attitude is often the result of someone previously having a dick DM who would screw people over for not sufficiently covering every eventuality. Like in some previous game this guy probably had a DM that let them rest and then sprung something like 'Your battle in the monastery was heard by a passing trapper, who immediately fled and alerted a patrol that happened to be in the area - led by the skilled trapper they have arrived without alerting anyone. Roll initiative!' I had a really lovely DM for a while and it left me very skittish and very careful about making choices, because anything that looked simple and safe was going to be a horrible trap waiting to be sprung.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 14:24
|
|
|
Ashcans posted:In my experience this attitude is often the result of someone previously having a dick DM who would screw people over for not sufficiently covering every eventuality. Like in some previous game this guy probably had a DM that let them rest and then sprung something like 'Your battle in the monastery was heard by a passing trapper, who immediately fled and alerted a patrol that happened to be in the area - led by the skilled trapper they have arrived without alerting anyone. Roll initiative!' I had a really lovely DM for a while and it left me very skittish and very careful about making choices, because anything that looked simple and safe was going to be a horrible trap waiting to be sprung. I think it also comes from playing unforgiving single-player computer RPGs, which reward obsessive planning and preparation with an easier time. I have a player who both started playing RPGs with D&D 3.x and plays a lot of single-player games. If left unchecked, he would take entire sessions planning the next heist or listing out all the possible story tropes that might be in play, so that he could anticipate the twists.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 14:41
|
|
|
I run a game for the worst group of adventurers ever. I should probably change the name of the campaign to TavernQuest: The Game of Outsourced Adventure and allow them to live out their dreams of hiring contractors to do everything for them. "A monster is attacking the orphanage! We should run away and come back later with help!" - The Cavalier "I found this ancient glowing stone that appears to be full of power. We should take it to a wizard to figure out what it is." - The Arcanist "The Barbarian has been poisoned! Let's get him to town so the priest can heal him!" - The Cleric
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 14:50
|
|
|
Hey here's some bad GMing that I saw in an article, this doofus thinks that he's owning the player but in fact he's owning himself. Don't be this kind of GM.quote:And now for a completely different kind of paladin story...
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 15:40
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Hey here's some bad GMing that I saw in an article, this doofus thinks that he's owning the player but in fact he's owning himself. Don't be this kind of GM. Are the thieves supposed to be inherently evil-aligned for being thieves or something? Either way, I'd put some blame on the paladin for playing as a "Kill every criminal I see and everyone I can justify to myself spontaneously as a criminal" stupid evil.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
My Lovely Horse posted:and the king's soldiers could arrive any minute
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Are the thieves supposed to be inherently evil-aligned for being thieves or something? Paladins aren't incompetent and if the player starts playing one poorly it's your duty as GM to help them realize their character, not stop them. Perhaps by reminding them that they have a way to detect evil to help resolve the situation's moral ambiguities? And to point out that a Paladin that puts people to the sword for theft is actually not following the law? And etc. etc. etc. but no let's just chortle about the stupid player and literally frustrate them out of the game. Nice work.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Paladins aren't incompetent and if the player starts playing one poorly it's your duty as GM to help them realize their character, not stop them. I know I'm inviting some painfully obvious  here, but I can't help but think it's not the GM's job to be a goddamned kindergarten teacher and explain morality in monosyllabic words.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
The GM and player are both pretty bad, but I'm gonna cut the GM slack there based on how it sounds like they aren't very experienced in running things. The player, though, he's the usual GM for that group from what it sounds like and should know better than to do basic-rear end game derail poo poo like "murder the obvious plot NPC" or "be a complete jackass."
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
Lynx Winters posted:The GM and player are both pretty bad, but I'm gonna cut the GM slack there based on how it sounds like they aren't very experienced in running things. The player, though, he's the usual GM for that group from what it sounds like and should know better than to do basic-rear end game derail poo poo like "murder the obvious plot NPC" or "be a complete jackass." This too; this isn't a case of a brand new player who didn't know his rear end from his hands, much less how to find the former with the latter. This was their regular DM who decided it would be appropriate to play in an obviously disruptive manner. Keeshhound fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Sep 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
Seriously, the player was their usual DM. He should have been experienced enough in the game to know that a paladin (who isn't intentionally being played as stupid) isn't supposed to just decapitate thieves and everyone who stands in their path of thief decapitation. Doing things like using Detect Evil and not summarily executing lawbreakers out of hand are pretty basic D&D things that he should have learned by this point. If he quits because his behavior gets criticized by not only the DM but also at least one other party member, that's his own drat fault.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
HatfulOfHollow posted:I run a game for the worst group of adventurers ever. I should probably change the name of the campaign to TavernQuest: The Game of Outsourced Adventure and allow them to live out their dreams of hiring contractors to do everything for them. This game could be awesome. Just make it medieval Parks and Rec.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Doing things like using Detect Evil and not summarily executing lawbreakers out of hand are pretty basic D&D things that he should have learned by this point. And if he hasn't let's go ahead and run him out of the game rather than educate him. Great attitude, really good for the hobby and good for fun times at the table too. Keeshhound posted:I know I'm inviting some painfully obvious No smug emoticons here. I would estimate, conservatively, that 75% of the people who play paladins initially play them badly and need help and guidance with the character. They are one of the more difficult classes to play properly (and by that, I mean played in such a way as to produce a compelling/interesting narrative) Megaman's Jockstrap fucked around with this message at 21:23 on Sep 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:No smug emoticons here. I would estimate, conservatively, that 75% of the people who play paladins initially play them badly and need help and guidance with the character. They are one of the more difficult classes to play properly (and by that, I mean played in such a way as to produce a compelling/interesting narrative) Alright, I'll grant that, but it's still the usual DM playing, and he's doing it to a guy who doesn't seem to be that comfortable in the role of DM. Like other people have said, no one looks great here, but I'm still inclined to throw most of the blame at the feet of someone who probably should have known better.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:I'm still inclined to throw most of the blame at the feet of someone who probably should have known better. What this boils down to is that this guy didn't know what he was doing and made a very typical D&D mistake that almost everyone has experienced. Your response is that there's some mystical Ur-Knowledge about playing a Paladin that this guy should have acquired somehow (because he's a "regular" or something?) and - since he didn't - it's his fault that he was driven to frustration and left the game. Yeah, sorry, gently caress that. That's a lovely philosophy for GMing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:What this boils down to is that this guy didn't know what he was doing and made a very typical D&D mistake that almost everyone has experienced. Your response is that there's some mystical Ur-Knowledge about playing a Paladin that this guy should have acquired somehow (because he's a "regular" or something?) and - since he didn't - it's his fault that he was driven to frustration and left the game. There's nothing "mystical" about knowing how alignments and basic morality works. The guy's the regular DM. It's like the regular DM not knowing that X Spells Per Day exists and rage quitting when he expends it all in one go.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
Well played paladins are really fun, but they're basically catnip for terrible GM's and players.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Your response is that there's some mystical Ur-Knowledge about playing a Paladin that this guy should have acquired somehow (because he's a "regular" or something?) and - since he didn't - it's his fault that he was driven to frustration and left the game. I meant that as a regular gm he shouldn't have escalated it to "you don't agree with me, so I'm leaving." Yes, objectively it works from a "don't do this as a gm" angle, but it's a lot louder as a "don't be this player" annecdote.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
I think that paladins - and holy warriors in general - are stereotyped as inflexible authoritarian assholes so often that many people have a difficult time understanding how they could be played any other way. In popular culture, paladin-type groups tend to be villainous dictators more often than not (TRIGGER WARNING: TV Tropes link). It's partly the fault of older editions of D&D for imposing a bunch of rigid rules and harsh penalties on paladins, but I also think a big part of it is a failure of imagination on the players' parts. Even the medieval holy warriors the paladins are based on weren't always assholes. Usāmah ibn Munqidh, a Syrian gentleman who fought in the First Crusades, reports that the Knights Templar allowed both Christians and Muslims to worship in the Al-Aqsa Mosque (the "Temple" the order is named for) and even stopped an intolerant Frank [Western European] from harassing him: quote:One day I entered this mosque, repeated the first formula, “Allah is great,” and stood up in the act of praying, upon which one of the Franks rushed on me, got hold of me and turned my face eastward, saying, “This is the way thou shouldst pray!” A group of Templars hastened to him, seized him and repelled him from me…. They apologized to me, saying, “This is a stranger who has only recently arrived from the land of the Franks and he has never before seen anyone praying except eastward.” If the Crusaders could be chill dudes, then so can your paladin character!
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:And if he hasn't let's go ahead and run him out of the game rather than educate him. As a new DM with a new player playing a paladin, I've definitely seen some issues. I created an annoying NPC that I figured the PCs would just off in short order (cross between Joffrey and Wallace Shawn from the Princess Bride. If they kill him, no problem, plot moves along and I've demonstrated that NPCs won't have plot armor. If not, plot moves along anyway. The players all hate him, but the paladin decides he must protect the NPC because he is a blood relative of the paladin's benefactor. So I play up the NPC being a jerk to the paladin (literally won't even say his name right), but he doesn't care, and gets miffed when the party just straight up murders the dude. His PC leaves the group, and he doesn't want to reroll. The guy says he still wants to play, so i narratively work out the reuniting of the PCs. It has since come out that the jerk NPC was actually behind the murder of the paladin's benefactor, so I figure the paladin has a reason to let bygones be bygones. The player is excited about this, and I think the rest of the group will be happy to have him back in the game. He then spends half a session complaining IC about how "he can't imagine any reason he'd ever work with (the other PCs) again." I'm thinking "WTF, why did you want back in with the same PC in that case?" but trying to figure out a good way to say this in front of everyone. Eventually the rogue just got sick of it and just attacked the paladin, which was apparently a complete surprise to the paladin. I guess he thought his holy angst was fun for everyone else?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
I notice a lot of rpg stories where the players kill people for being annoying or offensive or just to be "lol random". In D&D type settings mixed alignment parties always seem to end up with some very not fun morality stand-off after the evil character does something horrible, or the one lawful good character gets all upset that the chaotic good characters want to vandalize private property that belongs to the tyrant dictator. What always confuses me the most isn't the in-game reactions, it's the player reactions. Like the evil player who just killed someone for fun in front of the rest of the party gets all huffy that everyone else wants to kick him out or kill him or turn him over to the authorities. "uhg why you guys all ruining the game I was trying to ROLE PLAY!"
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 23:36
|
|
|
At my table we have one guy who generally plays lawful evil characters. He is notorious for assassinating other PCs in their sleep when they do LOL RANDOM VIOLENCE and justifying it in character with "I don't need someone like that attracting the authorities' attention." He's actually a great litmus test because generally the players we want in the group either don't do that poo poo in the first place or demonstrate that they accept their character's actions can have consequences in the game world. When I GM I sort of take the same approach. Players can do whatever they want if they think it's appropriate for their character, but I am going to have the NPCs and larger game world respond appropriately to whatever it is. After the first total party wipe they at least learned that if they want to commit random acts of cannibalism they shouldn't leave witnesses.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 23:45
|
|
|
Soylent Pudding posted:He is notorious for assassinating other PCs in their sleep you play with bad people
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 04:38 |
|
|
It wouldn't be the GM Advice thread if we didn't go a page without problems that are easily solved by talking it out like grownups.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 00:19
|
|