How to not treat PC's like idiots (even when they are)?

[SailorNash]

We've all seen the meme, right? DM's expect Lord of the Rings, but players always turn it into the Quest for the Holy Grail.

That is easily my #1 gaming pet peeve of all time. As a player, I also want to be the Grand Hero of Destiny, but every time our group talks to someone, it always ends up the same way. With a face palm, them muttering "these people are idiots", and wishing we would just GO AWAY already. Every. Single. Time. Doesn't matter if it's a prince or a shopkeep. Doesn't matter who's the DM or what genre game. Always ends up the same way. Always.

Not only is it an unfortunate pattern, but it really breaks the immersion of the story. We're not the only dudes bad enough to go save the President...we are simply the only ones the NPC is able to send on this mission. Because we're the Player Characters, and it's our game to go and play. He doesn't think highly of us, obviously, but he expositions us whatever he's required to and then moves us along. (Some DMs can hide this a little better than others, but look and it's there.)

So, open ended question - how do you keep this from happening?

Character personalities are a bit, erm, "extreme" to say the least. Brooding warlocks or colorful sorcerers, Gnomish tinkerers, assassins and anti-heroes. And the silly randomness is the crack that keeps us all coming back to tabletop gaming, rather than just booting up Elder Scrolls. But how far is too far? What can someone do as a PC to not be dry and boring, but not push things to that breaking point? Where is the line?

For DM's, the second side of the same coin. How can you keep up a truly "heroic" or "epic" feel when your Rogue is pickpocketing the rest of the party, the Bard is trying to sleep with everything in sight, the Barbarian is grappling random strangers hoping for a bar brawl, and you're trying to tell the story of "An elf, an orc, and a halfling walk into a bar" without it being the start of some joke?


[To add: Hypothetical party, DM, and group here. Not representative of actual people or an existing situation, just a generality that seems to exist across games.]

 

[Celebrim]

Disappointment with player play is a persistent problem you face as a DM, and you have to have an iron hide not to let it keep you from running tables. And the fact that the players tend to play themselves rather than people worthy to be called heroes is probably the biggest source of disappointment.

Again, "Games 2: Dorkness Rising" is the definitive piece of literature on this subject.

I came to this thread hoping you had an answer to the question. I certainly don't have one. Maybe, "Lower your expectations?"

One of the problems that would occur whenever you the DM tried to address this question directly, is that you'd end up playing the PC's. You'd end up wearing a Director hat, telling the players what the story should be. You might be able to subtly disguise that fact behind mechanics and jargon, but that's what it would really amount to. I guess the other approach would be to just ignore the player choices and railroad the players through the heroic moments whether it makes sense or not, but that also defeats the whole point of the game. Point is, RPG's are simulations of life, and just as with life you can never fully protect people from the consequences of their own choices. You just have to roll with it and try to have fun despite the fact that your literary masterpiece ends up with less merit than a B rate movie. Try to make a B rate movie classic, I guess.

 

[innerdude]

I agree with Celebrim; there's really no one-size-fits-all solution to this problem. My groups are thankfully much more grounded in "real" character exploration than what you describe, @SailorNash, but don't get me wrong---there's still plenty of hijinks and general silliness to go around, more than I'd sometimes wish.

In terms of actually solving the problem, or at least making it better, there's only a few things I can think of that seem to make a difference for our group.

First, as a GM, you have to be willing to approach character actions and reactions from a "grounded" in-game perspective, meaning that you have to be willing to have the game world actually REACT in a plausible manner to what the PCs are doing. If the PCs are going around wreaking havoc, getting into bar fights, and acting like brute thugs, then the world should start reacting and treat them that way. Most civilizations historically have had very little tolerance for criminal behavior, especially the violent kind. If you can get it into your player's heads, that yes, the town guards WILL come after them for starting a riot, then sometimes it affects their behavior.

The other thing I've found as a GM is that the PCs have to have something they care about in the game world written into the fiction. If they are truly rootless, vagabond murderhobos and they couldn't care less if the town next door is burnt to the ground, then they'll generally act like it. If you want players to not act like witless morons, they have to have something their characters value, something they're willing to protect, and make sacrifices to protect. This can be a person/NPC, a place, a personal quest, an internal code of honor, doesn't really matter as long as it's real to the character, and they're willing to play their PC like it's real.

In reference to the above, as a GM I now mandate that every PC will have some element of their background that ties them to every other PC in the party. This is a non-negotiable element for me to run a game. If a player doesn't like it, they won't be playing in a game I run. In most cases I tend to make them all part of a single organization, which gives them a natural tie and sense of common purpose.

Last but not least, if you can give players the freedom to create some of the fiction on their own and then live with what they've created, it seems to help. When something in the fiction is conceived and brought to life by the player, they're less likely to discard it on a whim. This also helps with another problem, which is that RPGs often suffer from the syndrome where the player knows far, far less about the actual "world" the character inhabits than the character would. The characters in the game world would grasp vastly more about their situations and actions/consequences than can generally be conveyed by a GM.

Giving the players freedom to create some of the fiction on their own gives them a chance to create in their own minds something about the world that is fully concrete and real to them. They're not guessing about what it looks like, or trying to parse what the GM tells them about it; it simply becomes reality in the game world as they imagined it.

Finally, if anything I've described to you sounds like stuff your group wouldn't ever take seriously, then the problem is ultimately the group and you should get a new one.

 

[pdzoch]

I second the previous comments.

I have found that the PC conduct is largely dependent on expectations going into the game. I always sit with the players and ask what they want from the game. As a DM, I have to ensure the game matches how the players want to play.

One thing that [MENTION=85870]innerdude[/MENTION] mentions is making the PCs care about the game world. There should be something that the PCs want to achieve and something that they do not want to risk. To that end, the world reacts to them. When they make ridiculous irrational rash decisions, the world reacts negatively and puts the PC and their objectives and whatever they value at risk. As a example, a character with a noble background can quickly found himself outside the noble circles due to running with the bad crowd and the background fails to pay the expected dividend.

That said, these PCs are Heroes. And they will sometimes act outside the normal conduct of the world. The world could respond in awe, respect, deference, and maybe admiration at the boldness of these PCs. Within reason. This will be the balance you as the DM the characters will have to experience and live out. They will shape your world. But your world can shape them.

And yes, I have had the local constabulary lock up a player party before. Luckily, some benefactor bails them out, but at a cost -- a new adventure, one where there is great reward, but also great risk.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

As everyone else has mentioned, yeah, this continually happens. I certainly haven’t got a fool-proof solution. For the most part, I let the people play that way that want to play that way, but focus more on those that have investment in their characters and the campaign.

Having recurring NPCs can help. That way they’re not just a one-time deal that only matters inasmuch as they advance the PC goals. Keeping the campaign set to one area can help with this. Give the NPCs distinctive goals and personalities.
Also, I really try to make the group use the NPC’s real names. It really cheeses me off when someone just says “I go talk to Swordy McSwordface." Depending on the situation, I might respond with "I'm sorry, who? There's no one called Swordy here."

Rewarding good behavior by inspiration also helps a whole lot. And maybe NPCs that are treated as more than just disposable props are more likely to help the PCs out. But generally, I'd advise carrots over sticks.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I don't try to force the PC into being a certain type of character. Maybe the players aren't interested in fitting into what you are trying to do? You want them to be the Fellowship of the Ring on some epic quest but apparently they have fun with stuff that is smaller scale and a bit less heroic, the thief thieving, the barbarian brawling, etc. Talk to them and find out, maybe adjust your expectations, possibly find a different group. There are a lot of possibilities.

 

[innerdude]

Another thing --- Maybe it goes without saying, but system matters here.

One problem that can send D&D 3.x/PF astray, particularly, is that a level 9 fighter or cleric could probably take on an entire 100-person village of 1/2 CR commoners by themselves. It's easy to fall into the metagame mindset----"I have 105 hit points and AC 28 . . . there's no one here that could even challenge me. Oh, really, now, Master GM? All of your town guards are now level 8 master assassins?" If your group has a hard time "getting into character" on their own, these kinds of metagame aspects can make it worse.

It's one of the reasons I have come to prefer Savage Worlds. A single lucky crossbow bolt or swing of an axe can take down a hero in a single round. When the burly barkeeper and his tough-looking town guard buddies threaten the party, it's not something to be taken lightly. The real sense of heightened risk tends to alleviate some of the worst metagaming aspects.

 

[Celebrim]

Another thing --- Maybe it goes without saying, but system matters here.

I think it matters less than you think. Attempting to keep players in line by fear might work, but you are getting about two steps ahead of yourself here. The first thing to ask is, "Why is that even a thing?"

One problem that can send D&D 3.x/PF astray, particularly, is that a level 9 fighter or cleric could probably take on an entire 100-person village of 1/2 CR commoners by themselves. It's easy to fall into the metagame mindset----"I have 105 hit points and AC 28 . . . there's no one here that could even challenge me.

Ok, sure power corrupts. But power doesn't corrupt everyone. I've had players that would gleefully start torturing NPCs if they could get away with it, and players that upon encountering 100 commoners would adopt them like so many puppies and cry if even one died. Why does one player immediately see something to exploit and another something to protect?

 

[Mad_Jack]

This is why Session Zero is so important... If you want to run a certain type of campaign, or to have your players be willing to invest in your world, you all as a group have to get together and agree to do so. And then be willing to police yourselves when you find yourselves wandering too far from where you want to be.
Working out the parameters for just how much silliness is allowed in a serious campaign, or how "grimdark" the world should be or just what sort of "mature" issues are acceptable in the game is an important part of having a successful campaign. (There may actually arise a situation in a serious campaign where the party bard can get away with throwing a pie in the king's face, but a player shouldn't knowingly build a character who throws pies in every fight when they've already agreed to a serious campaign. Conversely, a group of beer-and-pretzels knights-in-shining armor expecting to slay dragons and rescue maidens while tossing out witty dialogue shouldn't suddenly find themselves faced with dealing with questions of the moral and social consequences of the hundreds of starving goblin children they've left behind in their wake.)
At the most basic core of the issue, players need to want to invest in the world around them, and be willing to do so. And that's something that needs to be established before the game begins. There needs to be an agreement amongst the group to not just passively accept but actively pursue the tone and engage the setting of the campaign.

On a more particular note, having the evidence and repercussions of the party's actions be apparent and long-lasting is one way to keep the party invested in the setting. Recurring npcs who interact with the characters even when the interaction isn't important to the story and remember and act according to the previous interactions they've had with the characters are key.
For example, not only will the same members of the town guard usually be guarding the gate whenever the party passes through and share their previous experiences with the party (being intimidated, bribed chatted up, etc.) with others, but even when off-duty they may recognize and interact with the party, greeting them in the marketplace, wanting to drink with them at the tavern, or perhaps even asking them to get involved in some aspect of their lives. The party may return to the tavern they stopped at several character levels ago to find that the tavern-keeper refuses to allow them into his establishment due to the bar fight they were involved in back then. PCs walking through the marketplace may encounter people who have witnessed their previous actions or heard about them from others, may have their feet stepped on by accident, or an unruly child may throw a stone at them. The next time they return to the market, the person who stepped on their foot or the child who threw the stone will most likely be there again, and the manner in which the party interacted with them the first time will inform their behavior in the present situation.
Physically, if the party did something that affected the world around them. the consequences of their actions should remain for an appropriate amount of time. Broken windows and kicked-in doors remain boarded over until repaired. If the party mage dropped a fireball defending a village, there should be a patch of scorched earth present until the grass grows back - if it ever does, a tree cut down to use as a makeshift bridge to ford a stream will be used by others in the area, and if the party manages to flood an area while damming up a river the ecological consequences will remain long after the water dries up...

 

[happyhermit]

IMO the basics are; Players selection for the campaign (which is also essentially GM selection), Session 0, Chargen not in a vacuum (GM and player interaction at the very least.

If you start with those then IME actual problems are greatly limited.