The Player vs DM attitude

[Negflar2099]

How do we stop it?

I'm writing this because I saw two posts today that seem to be related, even if they aren't linked. One asks how many DMs out there are Rat Basterds and the other asks if the PCs were surrounded by an overwhelming force would they surrender?

In my opinion the answer to one probably determines the answer to the other. I've seen too many DMs, heard too many stories, played in too many games, where the DM thinks the only way to "win" is either A) kill all the players or B) mess with their minds like only a true rat basterd would.

Players in turn, having suffered in these games themselves, or having been schooled by those who have suffered, develop the counter attitude. Winning, (ie not letting your character die, be tricked, kidnapped or failing to complete the objective (whatever it happens to be)) is the only way to play. Anything else is letting the DM win.

These players develop a deep seated paranoia that compels them to never trust a single NPC (especially a father figure or kind old lady or someone the DM clearly wants them to trust), never let their characters be kidnapped or arrested (as in the above example), and basically have their characters act like insane sociopaths who torture, loot and behave totally inconsistently from one session to the next (or even one moment to the next in the same session). Otherwise they run the risk of again letting the DM win.

Obviously I don't like this attitude. I don't enjoy it in my games. It all but ruins things for me and I don't know what to do. I've tried talking to my players (repeatedly) but like paranoid conspiracy theorists the more I assure them I am not out to get them in the rat basterd way the more convinced they become that I am just setting them up for a huge fall.

Now the sad part is in movies, books even videogames, betrayal and loss are important to amping the stakes in a story but because of their paranoia I could never include such things in my game. If I do then all my talk of being a nice DM goes out the window.

What can I do to combat that attitude both among my players and when I play in games DMed by other people? And does anyone else see it as the same problem I do or is this just my hangup? What do you think?

 

[Oryan77]

What can I do to combat that attitude both among my players and when I play in games DMed by other people? And does anyone else see it as the same problem I do or is this just my hangup? What do you think?

Unfortunately, every player that had that attitude with me stopped getting invited to our games. Once a bad DM causes a player to have that attitude, it seems impossible to gain trust from that player even though you aren't that DM.

I really don't like playing with players like that. It completely pulls me out of the game and makes D&D seem more of a board game than a roleplaying game. And I could never seem to change those players attitude towards the game. So I can't offer any advice since nothing ever seemed to work for me except for going our separate ways

That really is a terrible quality to have as a player though. You'll wreck a good DM with that attitude and miss out on some great gaming. I've had to explain OoC what an NPCs motive was and explain behind the scene events just to assure players that I wasn't screwing them over....the NPCs were screwing them over. And I hated doing that. I really felt it took away from the realism of the campaign world and drew the players out of the game.

 

[Ariosto]

Well, the D&D game started out as something to challenge players. That was the DM's purpose -- like the designer of a video game, for instance. The chance to lose (fail to score points, give up a life, etc.) was what made the chance to win interesting.

Theoretically, one could set it up so that there is some such challenge also being presented to the DM, something one can win or lose. WotC's designs have occupied themselves a bit with trying to quantify resources so that DMs can in a sense build scenarios as a sub-game parallel to players' building of characters.

From what I have seen, that seems to work pretty well in 4e. Not only can a DM feel pretty free to take off the gloves, but it can take an earnest attempt to win a fight for the monsters to offer the players the expected challenge.

I am sure it is a rule in 4e that players can make their attacks non-lethal, and I see no reason it should not likewise be possible to defeat PCs without killing them.

That so many players are unwilling to surrender is, I think, a factor that often precedes any experience at all with RPGs. I have seen it for a fact in novices, and I cannot help but notice similarity to the "No, you missed me!" argument in childish play. I speculate that to surrender is in a sense voluntarily to concede loss, whereas getting a character killed can be seen as "luck of the dice" or otherwise beyond the player's control -- so that the player does not see himself as a "quitter".

In that case, having capture in fact not depend on surrender can be a relief. The telling blow descends, and with it blackness ... that is not the final "big sleep", after all. There is a new challenge, one the player can win by escaping captivity!

This was rather less a problem in my experience 20-30 years ago. In FRP generally, including AD&D, "parley" with enemies was part of the game. They might surrender, even be taken into a player's service, and there was no reason to think that as a rule these options were barred to players. The RuneQuest rules-book was notable for explicitly raising the subject of ransom, which may be one reason RQ players tended to make clear arrangements for just that. Then again, players with some acquaintance with ancient or medieval history (fairly common when FRP was a spinoff of wargaming) would probably already know of the practice.

If you demonstrate the viability of less deadly alternatives, then players will have the chance to observe and choose.

Of course, if their choice -- and reputation -- is for merciless "no quarter" massacres, then it is hardly unreasonable that they should reap what they sow.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Some players enjoy this style of play. Who are we to tell them how to play? If adversarial games provide the fun and enjoyment that the participants desire, then let them have at it.

 

[ggroy]

With such paranoid players, the game largely becomes a free for all hack and slash.

All this means is that a lot of the DM preparation becomes relatively simple. The NPCs, badguys, monsters, etc ... are all there to be killed and looted for the most part. No need anymore for complicated backstories, etc ...

 

[Nifft]

Beat them about the head with a thick book.

"... but only until morale improves", -- N

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

That so many players are unwilling to surrender is, I think, a factor that often precedes any experience at all with RPGs. I have seen it for a fact in novices, and I cannot help but notice similarity to the "No, you missed me!" argument in childish play. I speculate that to surrender is in a sense voluntarily to concede loss, whereas getting a character killed can be seen as "luck of the dice" or otherwise beyond the player's control -- so that the player does not see himself as a "quitter".

In that case, having capture in fact not depend on surrender can be a relief. The telling blow descends, and with it blackness ... that is not the final "big sleep", after all. There is a new challenge, one the player can win by escaping captivity!

I think that a good portion of it comes down to an expectation of Plot Invulnerability. However, a lot of people forget that Plot Invulnerability only applies to the MAIN character of the story (which may not be your individual PC!), and that even those with Plot Invulnerability sometimes face no-win battles. Even Xena once told Gabrielle that running away was the top option when facing a superior force...and she's the titular character.

(Heh...I said "titular.")

Personally, I don't really ascribe to Plot Invulnerability in my campaigns. Sure, I'll fudge the odd roll in favor of the party, but don't try something insanely stupid..."I'm going to stop the dragon from breathing on the party by shoving my fist down its throat!" That will not end well. If I give you any odds of success, they will be slim and I will not fudge.

I try to make it clear that this is the case, too. When I'm teaching new players the hobby, I try to have a RPGvet on hand to "take one for the team" and volunteer to play "The Black Guy" who is only there to show the seriousness of the situation. IOW, his PC is there to get killed, just to show the noobs that PC death is a possibility.

When that's not an option, I'll either state that up front or I'll make this clear in game when someone is trying the highly improbable. I'll tell you the odds are slim, that I won't fudge, and if a roll is required on my part, it will be in the open, just to prove that there is no fudging.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Beat them about the head with a thick book.

"... but only until morale improves", -- N

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7wc55oXWf8]YouTube - Crazy monks[/ame]

 

[ExploderWizard]

I try to have a RPGvet on hand to "take one for the team" and volunteer to play "The Black Guy" who is only there to show the seriousness of the situation.

Damn. A brother can't catch a break even in a heroic fantasy game.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Damn. A brother can't catch a break even in a heroic fantasy game.

Not unless his name is Drizzt, probably!