Carrots and Whips to Encourage Player/Character Cooperation

Umbran said:

No they aren't. They have a different opinion. You do the boards a disservice by calling them liars. Please don't do that.

Click to expand...

Sorry. You're right. It was an excess of hyperbole on my part, and in hindsight didn't come out sounding the way I wanted it to. Again, sorry about that.


Allow me to rephrase, then...

There can come a point when the hassle and stress of dealing with a bad game or troublesome players outweighs the joys of playing. That's when not playing can start to become preferable to bad gaming. At that point, if you've tried every reasonable fix and can't find another solution to the problem, you might want to seriously consider not gaming. For many people, the relief from such hassles and stresses can make a big difference in their general happiness.



On the other hand...

amerigoV's idea isn't half bad. Paranoia is a game that might suit your players quite well.

I would suggest both the 'talk to the group' and the 'kick em to the curb' approach... in that order.


With the latter being a staged approach of dropping PCs from the party that don't fit in, followed by dropping players from the group that are not willing to bring in a new PC that does fit in... If they are really playing the character, they won't mind the PC heading off on its own.

I say this from personal experience having a handful of my PCs get kicked to the curb, left behind on Imperial Starships, mutilated, and even beheaded by other party members. Each story was highly entertaining and memorable.. especially the beheading

My reaction was to bring in a character that was more inline with the groups goal, often one that the killer of my previous character recommended.

I do like Aberzanzorax's idea.. for a 'normal' game

I've got one or two players who struggle with their character's motivations -- how they can stay true to their character and still be a useful participant in the game.

Since I've got the time on my hands and they don't, I'm writing their backstories. They can have as much input as they want, but I'm writing motivation for sticking together into their entry into the campaign. They're all members of the same guild and they've got good reason to want to stay in the guild's good graces. They each have a reason to trust at least two other members of the party. And so on.

I do not recommend this unless you've got a noticeable amount of time to spend, and several weeks of prep time before the campaign starts. And players who are willing to give at least some feedback -- last time I did this, at least one player tuned out for the whole game due to lack of interest in the backstory I'd written. Not just ignored the backstory -- tuned out for the whole game. (frustrating!)

This time, we did one or two sessions just to feel out the characters, and now we're in a long break (while another DM runs another game) before we start back up in my world again. So I have plenty of time to write up the story of how they got to here.

Also, it helps that they're starting at level 7, so at least some of those characters have had years to develop actual friendships. It's coming out to about two pages per character (typed, double-spaced) and I'll do one round of "tell me what works and what doesn't work" for each player before I finalize them all.

Did I mention I've got some time on my hands?

I think the Carrot and Whip approach is the right one:

First: produce the carrot and tell them where you're going to shove it if they keep acting like gits.

Second: whip them. Whip them good.


Apart from that, the Paranoia suggestion sounds about right.

Mouseferatu said:

Yeah, like the others have said, this isn't a problem that you should try to solve in-game at all. Not with bonuses, not with XP, not with penalties, nothing.

This is a people problem, and the only way--the only way--to successfully deal with it is a frank and honest group discussion.

Click to expand...

Since I can't XP it I'll echo MouseDracula here. DO NOT use in-game penalties or bonuses to create party unity. That way lies madness (and flipped tables).

Aberzanzorax said:

This might be very bad advice...
...or it might be good advice, depending on your group, their personalities, etc.


Say you're starting over. Everyone rolls percentile dice (or you choose, but this is dangerous because you get blamed) and the highest person makes a character.

Give him a plot hook and an Inn Full of Adventurers TM.

Then, he needs allies to go on said plot hook. Have him recruit characters. He meets a motley group of candidates, one after another, who he interviews...AND ALL OF THESE CANDIDATES ARE PLAYED BY THE SECOND HIGHEST ROLLER.

No character sheet, no abilites, just a race, class, alignment, and outlook/attitude.

Player 1 can veto player 2's characters until, in game, they find a pair who can work together.

Then, the two of them, realizing they still need more people, work together with the other players, one at a time, interviewing prospective candidates.

Repeat until they have a cohesive party.


The reasoning behind this is threefold... 1. It creates "in game roleplaying reasons" for a group that gets along. 2. It gives onus to the group to kick out rabblerousers in game...and go back to recruiting. 3. It makes pretty clear/explicit who is intentionally trying to use "but I'm roleplaying a character" as an excuse for "I enjoy being a pain in the arse while playing D&D".



But, yeah, this is a people problem. Talk to them before this.

Click to expand...

This is a really interesting idea not just for 'problem groups' but creating a party int he first place. I might try this out the next time I start a campaign.

Retreater, I've read your 1st post and only your 1st post, and my reaction to anything you've said is basically this:

Why do you have people that don't hang out in real life playing in your game?

I don't get it. If they're not even buddies or friends in real life, what hope do you have of them using teamwork, let alone having fun?

I think players don't respond well to carrots. I've brought carrots to my last three game sessions and they haven't all been eaten. Instead, the giant bags of cheap cheesy poofs have been devoured.

So... maybe you should try to provide cookies instead.

Retreater said:

Recent examples include a paladin who threatens to kill the associates of the chaotic neutral wizard or else to leave while on the mission in the wizard's guild tower; a pacifist cleric who heals the enemies in combat and walks away from the party if they deal lethal damage to opponents; another party member is trading party secrets to an obviously evil gang of ratmen and purchasing illegal poisons from shady associates.

Click to expand...

This sounds to me like the players really like going after whatever their characters would. Or possibly other stuff, but I'll assume the best.

As a DM I would probably start looking for ways for their goals to interact with each other by tying together the NPCs that are involved.

For example, I would make the ratmen work for the pacifist church. They preach non-violence and they think it's great; they decide that it's no big deal to get ratmen to do their wetwork.

I would expect the situation to explode in blood opera. I like a good blood opera so that would be a win in my book.