Players Have Say, DM Should Too

[kevin video]

If they're not good friends of yours, I'd walk away, personally.

If they're good friends, to be honest, I'd still walk away...after explaining that you don't really enjoy the kind of game they're demanding, and you'd rather not let it get in the way of the friendship.

That's just me, though.  I don't subscribe to the "Better bad gaming than no gaming" school of thought, and I definitely don't subscribe to the "DM is the employee and the players are the bosses" school of thought.

I don't need to DM them, or walk away from them. They already know that I'm not willing to do an evil campaign, and that if they really want to play one that badly, I'll step down and they can do it. I already know that there are three other DMs in the group. They're happy to do it up and I'm happy to let them. Hopefully when they're done, and get it out of their system, they'll let me know and I'll come back.

[Ziegander]

But you seem to be wavering back and forth on whether or not you should expect them to overrun your game with stupidity and mutual disrespect or expect to actually be able to play the game you want. Didn't you say a page or so ago that you are just going to assume the use of a "throw-away" world that you don't even care about for the express reason that you don't want to invest anything in a game that you're worried about the PCs selfishly wrecking? You shouldn't have to deal with that kind of uncertainty and distrust. If the players are selfish assholes that cause you to never DM the game that you would like to DM... then don't DM for them.

[kevin video]

But you seem to be wavering back and forth on whether or not you should expect them to overrun your game with stupidity and mutual disrespect or expect to actually be able to play the game you want. Didn't you say a page or so ago that you are just going to assume the use of a "throw-away" world that you don't even care about for the express reason that you don't want to invest anything in a game that you're worried about the PCs selfishly wrecking? You shouldn't have to deal with that kind of uncertainty and distrust. If the players are selfish assholes that cause you to never DM the game that you would like to DM... then don't DM for them.

I'm making a throw away world not because of them, but because of the next campaign, which I'm hoping to make them realize something about themselves. Everyone's entitled to three strikes. They've technically already made two. Next campaign will define whether I officially step down or not. It'll be based on their attitudes next cycle. It's also helping that two players will be moving away.

[Ziegander]

Fair enough, I suppose. I give everyone one free strike, and if they fuck it up, then it's up to them to try to make amends and persuade me to give them another one. To each their own, of course.

[SolEiji]

I was skimming this and growing horrified at the players in this game.  I was about to be shocked, then I saw it was kevin_video...

Oh, well, par for course then.

Kevin, I've been lurking amongst you all for a while and it seems every time I read a post from you its detailing a new batch of idiots and assholes which compose of your D&D group.  There are so many bullies and That Guys in such saturation that I sometimes wonder if you've been transported to Derry, Maine in a Stephen King novel.

Doublecheck your pulse and make sure you didn't end up in Baator or any of the other lower planes by accident.  That's the only explination I have for the type of players you seem to attract.

[kevin video]

I've got it from both ends. Doesn't matter if it's DMs or players.

And if I'm in Derry, Maine, I blame the Nostalgia Critic for reviewing too many of his movies like It, and The Langoliers.

[Marco0042]

I am going to take a clearly opposing viewpoint. I see nothing wrong with playing evil as long as everyone in the group GM and players are on the same page. All lines and veils are discussed and handled like adults. That is not the case with KV's group clearly. But just because you want to explore evil in an RPG doesn't mean you are sick in the head. I was in an Evil D&D group for 6 years with well adjusted adults. We didn't rape anyone, no baby eating and never once killed a vendor. We sometimes fought the forces of rival evil factions and sometimes the forces of good. We used necromancy, evil clerical powers and lied and betrayed our way up though the evil organization we worked for. Nothing wrong with playing a group of criminals and in a Lies of Locklamorra sort of campaign your goal is to take over the criminal underworld in your city. And evil people have friends and loyalties to a point. Think of a mafia family or a modern street gang or a biker gang like Sons of Anarchy. In my opinion these are evil people, they hold life and law in contempt. But the lives of your "brothers" are worth more than the average person. You can have a code of ethics or morality you follow. What if you are a group of religious fanatics? Your character thinks he is good, and justified in his actions. Since I am doing this for the benefit of society it is ok for me to vote republican bwa hahahaaa. People can justify lots of evil behaviors and still think they are being good. Have you listened to the Walking Eye folks actual play sessions of "Apocalypse World"? I thoroughly enjoyed that and it made me want to buy the game. There are friends of mine I would not play that game with, it would stress their lines and veils. I have to be good, polite and professional all day in real life. Sometimes I like to get on ToR and play a Sith Inquisitor who tortures prisoners and follows the dark side but is fiercely loyal to the Empire. Nothing wrong with that, it's just a game and it's not hurting anyone's fun. What about making a toon on Fallout 3

(click to show/hide)

and nuking Megaton? Poor Moira is a ghoul now, so what?     

. Lets face it most D&D pc's are evil anyway. Oh they're just goblins or kobolds so it's ok to slaughter their whole village. They look different from us and my god says they're evil so we can do whatever we want to them and take their stuff. These are sentient beings and the book judges them as evil so good people can be free to do whatever they like to them. I am not defending KV's group here, I don't like bullies. But I do think that evil can be played in a responsible way and an rpg is an ok way to explore some delicate subjects. I don't want to play a racist, or a rapist and I don't want to play in a game with one. But I'm ok with a guy who murders for money or eldritch knowledge or for food. That's right, a cannibal would not be a problem for me in a game. I have different lines and veils than some people. I don't want to play evil every time but I'm perfectly fine with doing so and I don't believe it's a matter of being a child or sick in the head. 

[pelzak]

Hi,

RPG can be played with good, neutral or evil characters, it doesn't really matter as long as whole group is following the same character path. I will write this from D&D point of view but this can be applied to any system.

There are very simple rules to keep control of any campaign:
1. Make them hate someone as much as possible (BBEG, BBGG in this case?). This is rather simple.
They want to burn village? BBEG is living there, have some business there, or he is just bigger bully then they are.
After he will kick their asses, rape them, torture for three months and make them beg and cry they will hate him enough.
If player will say "my character is not crying, he is strong", ask him to make difficult Fort save each day of torture, sooner or later they will cry. 

2. Make them aware that every action is leading to reaction. This is the case for evil and good also.
They are not the strongest people in the world (if they are this is some god-like campaign).
If they are burning villages then someone will react to this. Deploy regiment of troops or some ultra heroes that will own them. If they are very evil let them die, then raise them (losing level for being raised will hurt them).

3. If they are not willing to follow your lead... this one is tricky. Try to convince at least one of them. Then focus 80% of your attention on player/s following your path, rest will have 20%. So if someone is not willing to retrieve ancient artefact and want:
"I want to burn that village and rape every one there" then don't focus much on that "Ok, village is burned and everyone raped" the go to the group that is following your lead and describe their adventure in details. Alternatively you can assume that everyone that is not following your lead in playing on "hard" level (harder opponents, bigger risk of death, less rewards etc.) while group that is following adventure hook will play at "normal" level.

4. If group is not following adventure hooks let NPC do that. If you tried to involve them in princess rescue mission and they said "fuck it, we want to do other evil things" then let them meet some time later NPC who rescued princess and in reward get shiny magic armor that they can only dream of. Make this NPC so strong that they can't just kill him and take reward for themselves.

5. NPC are for your eyes only. Don't bother to explain to them why NPC is having 200 HP. It's your business, not their. 

6. As already said, this is DeMocracy, not democracy.

7. If they are killing your NPC don't be angry, you are having many cloning machines and can spam them with the same NPC over and over (different name, different appearance, the same stats).

Hope this helps.

Best regards,
Pelzak

[kevin video]

The next campaign is going to be evil. There's an evil module that I found, and we're going to use it. I told them up front that I want to get it out of their system, and they were fine with that.

[Marco0042]

Hi,

RPG can be played with good, neutral or evil characters, it doesn't really matter as long as whole group is following the same character path. I will write this from D&D point of view but this can be applied to any system.

I agree

There are very simple rules to keep control of any campaign:
1. Make them hate someone as much as possible (BBEG, BBGG in this case?). This is rather simple.
They want to burn village? BBEG is living there, have some business there, or he is just bigger bully then they are.

Absolutely. Or a rival faction is making too much noise and likely to draw the eyes of the forces of good on your town. They have to be taken out because it's good for "Business". Some Pain in the ass morality group is making trouble for your gambling operation, organizing protesters. Dig up some dirt on the leader and blackmail him to silence. Or point him at your rival. Lots of options for evil people plots. Just watch some organized crime programming and convert the stories to your setting.

After he will kick their asses, rape them, torture for three months and make them beg and cry they will hate him enough.
If player will say "my character is not crying, he is strong", ask him to make difficult Fort save each day of torture, sooner or later they will cry. 

  This is the DM getting his jollies at the expense of the players. Making the PC's hate the BBGG is the same as getting a Good group to hate the BBEG. No need to resort to DM fiat and spoiling the game so you can flex your DM is GOD muscles. There is a thread on these boards about this. Read it all the way through, folks on this board gave some excellent advice.  http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=2093.0

2. Make them aware that every action is leading to reaction. This is the case for evil and good also.

 

No question, no matter the campaign actions have consequences. Just remember this is a game and your job as GM is to help facilitate an enjoyable experience for the group. In Burning Wheel you even lay out the potential consequences before the challenge so the player knows what she is getting into before she commits to the challenge.

They are not the strongest people in the world (if they are this is some god-like campaign).
If they are burning villages then someone will react to this. Deploy regiment of troops or some ultra heroes that will own them. If they are very evil let them die, then raise them (losing level for being raised will hurt them).

That's right, you are the GM so cheat. Then laugh maniacally while you masturbate at the table. Show those bastard players who their god is and if they want to survive the campaign they need to provide you with chips, mountain dew and blow jobs.    Ok, I went overboard here. Look raising a village in warfare appears in lots of movies. But usually there is no motivation for this kind of thing. If you look at crime bosses, usually they help their communities so that the neighborhood folks are not willing to assist the authorities. When the great depression hit and people were out of work and starving Al Capone opened soup kitchens all over Chicago. John Gotti's neighborhood was one of the safest places to live in Queens. Well except for that guy who accidentally ran over one of his kids. If the party has a tavern where they are dealing in prostitution, gambling and the sale of black market goods they want the city watch to leave them alone. It is much easier to keep the corrupt guards on the take if the neighborhood is quiet and safe.

3. If they are not willing to follow your lead... this one is tricky. Try to convince at least one of them. Then focus 80% of your attention on player/s following your path, rest will have 20%. So if someone is not willing to retrieve ancient artefact and want:
"I want to burn that village and rape every one there" then don't focus much on that "Ok, village is burned and everyone raped" the go to the group that is following your lead and describe their adventure in details. Alternatively you can assume that everyone that is not following your lead in playing on "hard" level (harder opponents, bigger risk of death, less rewards etc.) while group that is following adventure hook will play at "normal" level.

 

The crossing gate is coming down and the engineer is sounding the whistle, the train is pulling into the station, be on it or under it. Aren't we past the X-DM and Gygaxian Dungeon stuff yet? If the party doesn't follow my plot I am going to make sure they have a shitty time. If you want them to listen to the story you wrote, then have a book reading or a kindle party. If you want to role-play, have a game together.  How about you let the characters goals and beliefs drive the plot rather than your module. Lets break out the plot hammer and bash in the players heads with it. 

4. If group is not following adventure hooks let NPC do that. If you tried to involve them in princess rescue mission and they said "fuck it, we want to do other evil things" then let them meet some time later NPC who rescued princess and in reward get shiny magic armor that they can only dream of. Make this NPC so strong that they can't just kill him and take reward for themselves.

No problem here, remember actions have consequences. It's also ok to have them loose the contact when the princess dies at the hand of the kidnappers. "You let the Princess die now you want me to help you? take a walk." This has nothing to do with evil or good, sometimes a party won't want to follow your plot hooks, ok then what do they want to do?

5. NPC are for your eyes only. Don't bother to explain to them why NPC is having 200 HP. It's your business, not their. 

   

Sure it is a measure of someones DM skill if they can kill the party. show them who's boss by making some random NPC in town actually be Odin in disguise and he turns them into dust without a roll. That will show them. Oooh, I know how about a DMPC, those always work great.

6. As already said, this is DeMocracy, not democracy.

Exactly, we are not playing together, they must bow and scrape before the allmighty DM.   

7. If they are killing your NPC don't be angry, you are having many cloning machines and can spam them with the same NPC over and over (different name, different appearance, the same stats).

 

Yes, this sounds so fun. Plus it makes the GM's job very easy. You have one NPC and just use him over and over again. Get attached to your NPC's, they are your babies. Stop those damn players from having any control over the world. 

Hope this helps.

Best regards,
Pelzak

Yes, this has helped about as much as Tracey Hickman writing X*D*M.

[pelzak]

Hi Marco0042,

You don't get the point.
In this case we are speaking about players trying to ruin the campaign.
If DM will let them - they will. This is that simple.
Game should be fun for both sides. If players are aiming to compete with DM who is having bigger penis then DM should act swiftly.
Otherwise will end up pissed off with ruined campaign.

If your players are intelligent you can speak with them and say "Hey guys, this is not fun for me, let's find common ground".
If they are not (and if I understood correctly this is the case here, group of somehow frustrated late 20' / 30') DM should hit them hard to make them aware that if they are ruining his fun, he can ruin their.

Simple as it is.

Of course better option is to find better players but if I understood correctly this is not an option in this case.

Best regards,
Pelzak

[Marco0042]

Finding the right group of folks to play with is definitely not easy. I just feel that fighting fire with fire doesn't make sense. The house burns faster.  I would rather try to solve people problems rather than combat them. But I'm an old hippy as you can see by my sig file. Then again I haven't played with people like this since I was a teenager, many moons ago. When I was 15 years old I joined a group where one of the players beat up the DM for killing his character and sat on his chest and forced him to say his character was not dead. I left and didn't play there again. Now I'm an old man I don't have time for that kind of BS. Nor do I have time for the kind of crap KV is having to deal with. I really enjoy playing with my friends, they are all great people.  I only wish they were more interested in trying new games. 

[pelzak]

Marco0042,

I'm full of respect for your attitude. As you can see I'm not that peaceful.
If I'm being hit I retaliate (maybe not good attitude but anyway...).

I had similar group of players many years ago. But I was in better situation than KV, because I live in medium city and I was able to replace players one by one to finally get group, that is fully enjoying playing together.

Best regards,
Pelzak

[InnaBinder]

How about you let the characters goals and beliefs drive the plot rather than your module.

How do you do this when the players don't collaborate on their goals or beliefs at all, when their goals and beliefs are at odds with each other on the face of things, and without making it look like you're forcing the players' goals and beliefs to conform with 'your module' by simply twisting it - and thus them - to fit?  Honest question.

[veekie]

How about you let the characters goals and beliefs drive the plot rather than your module.

How do you do this when the players don't collaborate on their goals or beliefs at all, when their goals and beliefs are at odds with each other on the face of things, and without making it look like you're forcing the players' goals and beliefs to conform with 'your module' by simply twisting it - and thus them - to fit?  Honest question.

Definitely a major issue. Goals and beliefs themselves vary, from the annoyingly vague("I like to slay evil"), to the overly specific("My character is twenty-third in line to the ruler position of House Tarnzalo, I will <insert long elaborate plan requiring massive plot, NPC and team collaboration> to gain the position of ruler"), or even the incompatible with adventuring end goal(anything relating to leadership with responsibilities you can't walk away from). Theres even where players provide you with personality, or a detailed history, but no actual motivations.

Thats before you even go into inter-PC conflicts of interest, and to a lesser degree, conflicts with environment(third level character wants to have personally kicked the ass of a small army), etc.

[Unbeliever]

How about you let the characters goals and beliefs drive the plot rather than your module.

How do you do this when the players don't collaborate on their goals or beliefs at all, when their goals and beliefs are at odds with each other on the face of things, and without making it look like you're forcing the players' goals and beliefs to conform with 'your module' by simply twisting it - and thus them - to fit?  Honest question.

I think this is just bag "playership."  Everyone around the table should make characters whose goals (1) are consonant with the campaign.  This means, in your ordinary course of D&D affairs, that you'll have to have some motivation to kill monsters, rescue princesses, or whatever.  This is one of the great things about D&D, you do, most of the time, kind of know what you're getting into and can then work characters around that. 

That goal can be kind of attenuated:  you can be working with this band of mercenaries in order to acquire sufficient fame and power in order to reclaim your birthright or whatever.  But, you've got to have a reason to be at the table.  And, frankly, I find it hard to play a character who doesn't have a damn good reason to be adventuring.  Otherwise he'd retire Bilbo Baggins-style after like 4th level.

(2) These goals need to be able to cohere with everyone else's, though usually a lot of attention to (1) takes care of that.  They also shouldn't be of the spotlight "everything is about ME!" style that Veekie describes.  That's childish. 

Finally, I guess I'd say they need to be attainable within the milieu of both D&D rules (with some wiggle room for fudging) and the setting and so on. 

If the PCs can't manage that, then they should be called on it (by the DM or their fellows). 

Within all of that, you can have room for tons of conflict.  I'd also say that good DMship requires throwing the players a bone every so often.  If the player's background says they want to be the greatest swordsman in the land, have enemy swordsmen seek them out on the battlefield to test their mettle.  Stuff like that. 

In one campaign we have the following PC motivations, which are all a bit different and have some conflict but cohere: 

• homicidal, near maniacal rage towards the most common enemies in the setting, though in all fairness they did kill him and his family in brutal fashion
• acquisitiveness, she has transitioned from being a mercenary to wanting to set herself up as a merchant princess, in part b/c the PCs have developed ties to one of the great merchant houses in the course of the campaign
• protecting her son, who will likely be a pawn in upcoming power struggles, as well as helping out her friends
• general do-gooding and protecting the weak, as well as a general hatred of the most common enemies in the setting

Oh, and just to give you a sense of the level of potential conflict, the son mentioned in the above bullet points is actually a (well, the only and first) half-breed with the most common enemies in the campaign setting. 

[veekie]

Right, which presumes some sizable collaborative setup time, the right group and the right setting. You need self-motivated players who can work together on common goals, and provide details you can expand into a plot. You need people who can push their own goals in a semi-predictable manner(unpredictable, or wide open goals do not drive the plot, they just generate random trivia), yet do not hijack the group's controls.

While player-driven campaigns DO have a role, plot-driven campaigns are very much easier to get going, and also for less self-motivated players to have something to go on. You, as GM, can dictate everything but the PCs, allowing for matters to run behind the scenes, involving varied NPCs, environments, and abilities(including player-inaccessible abilities). This allows you to set up actual long term arcs, since the only unknown factors are the dice and the players, and you can predict the dice.

[wotmaniac]

I know I'm a little late to the party, but here's my 2cp:

As has been said already -- these players just seem immature.

A game that uses the traditional model (in regards to the way creative control is shared), like D&D, definitionally requires that the players get on board with the kind of game that the DM wants to run.  It's one thing for a player to decide that they're not having fun -- they can just find another group, one that better fits their play style.  If the DM isn't having fun, then there is no group.  Given that DMs are a much rarer commodity than players, then, well, you get the point.

I'm reminded of a couple of very useful articles than just may help you in this:
http://bankuei.wordpress.com/2010/03/27/the-same-page-tool/
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/checkfortraps/8041-Managing-Problems-and-Players

Just remember, do not feel like you are forced to conform to your players' whims just for the sake of "going along to get along" -- else you end up with a monstrosity like this.

[/2cp]

[pelzak]

Hi,

Also I introduced following system that is helping players and me (DM) to keep everything under control (however if entire group is somehow retarded then this may not work).

We are having something called Player Points.
At the end of each gaming session before XP is awarded each player and DM is rated how good/bad he was playing (mostly role-playing).
Scale is from 1 (worst) to 10 (brilliant) and each player is assessing each player and then we are taking average (so after each session you are receiving from 1-10 player points).
Players points are accumulated by each player like XP but are "attached" to player not to character.
Those points can be spent on any re-roll (did you just rolled 1 on HP?) with the rate 5 points per one re-roll.
There are also some other non-game-breaking benefits that can be bought with those points.

This is having two effects:
1) Everyone wants to well role-play his character to get as much points as possible.
2) After each session there is feedback from other players about everyone so if someone is pissing people off he will be told about it. This is also the case for DM. If your players are unhappy you will get poor 4 or 5. This way I know if my players are having fun or not.

Best regards,
Pelzak

[InnaBinder]

Just remember, do not feel like you are forced to conform to your players' whims just for the sake of "going along to get along"

Just so long as you're okay with the mutiny that's at least possible (if not necessarily probable) when you choose not to conform to your players' whims based on a DM's "this is my game, and you need to play along or GTFO" attitude.  A DM with no players and a known tendency to insist on getting his way is not often a highly-sought commodity at another table if his game falls apart.