My PCs are horrible people!

[Greylock]

...Very Hobbes/nihilist group I'm playing with. There may have been some hangover issues from the previous evening. And yes, they're my wife and her two girl friends.

I was tickled pink by this bit. I've never gamed with an all-male group. Never. I have played in a group where I was the "token male". Our current campaign, which is about three years old, females are the majority.

There are stereotypes, usually quite negative, of what a female dominated campaign can be like, but brother, let me tell you, it ain't fairies and unicorns and sparkly vampires. It's not uncommon at all in our game for all the guys to sit looking agape at the gals who just suggested the most brutal response to situations. And there are a couple of the ladies that ALWAYS fire first, ask questions later.

 

[imurphy943]

@ Barastrondo

So, can we agree that the OP should try not to worry too much about PC morality, and maybe try sitting on the other side of the screen with an amoral PC to view both sides of the argument?

 

[Belzbet]

i think you are thinkng too much about this. Yeah they act immorally but morality is for the real world, unless you have paladin in the group let it slide. obviously they are having fun and thats what matters.

 

[Barastrondo]

So, can we agree that the OP should try not to worry too much about PC morality, and maybe try sitting on the other side of the screen with an amoral PC to view both sides of the argument?

I don't think the GM should be held to a different standard than players are. The GM shouldn't be asked to try playing a jerkface PC to see how the other side feels if the players aren't likewise being asked to try running a game. And I think it's perfectly fine and natural to have boundaries that make you say "This makes a game unenjoyable," particularly because it's not good for anyone if you make the GM pretend like those boundaries don't exist. If the GM isn't having fun, sooner or later nobody will be having fun. Logically you want to make sure the GM's having as much fun as everyone else, then, even if you don't want to do it for empathetic reasons.

Honestly, my initial point still stands: there is no reason to believe that callous, amoral play is the standard for RPGs. It's one way of playing, but if it doesn't work for everyone at the table, then I become very leery of saying "Never mind your fun, let them have theirs." There's something about telling someone to be selfless so that other people can roleplay selfishness without feeling bad about it that is kind of messed up from a meta perspective.

 

[imurphy943]

But is it then okay for one person to selfishly demand that others change their roleplaying style (which they are apparently having fun with) because it doesn't suit their tastes?

Nobody is holding anyone to my standard. I would support players trying to run a game as much as I would appreciate a DM being a player. Empathy is incredibly important to any social group. I mean no offense by the question, but do you DM or play? Have you tried both? I try not to argue unless I have been on the other side of the argument before; if you only DM, I would still recommend trying the other side of the screen. This experiment would probably work best with three-five players other than yourself, to really get a feel for the social dynamic.

On the other hand, if you do play in other DM's games, then I have genuinely never held your viewpoint, making it more or less impossible for further argument to get anywhere, and I should leave the thread having said my part.

 

[fireinthedust]

But is it then okay for one person to selfishly demand that others change their roleplaying style (which they are apparently having fun with) because it doesn't suit their tastes?

I think an important point of my complaint has been lost.

I have no issue running a ridiculous campaign if that's the goal.

In that game, the players decided upon courses of actions that have consequences. For example, they mistreated villagers and sent them out to be roasted horribly by a dragon. As well, they left a cart out by the entrance to the village (to block attackers so they could lessen a surprise) and were shocked when, after a fight, the cart and mule were taken. This wasn't a comedy game, but a normal game.

The whole point of a game is to have a scene described, choose your PC's response, and then learn the consequences of your action choices.

The issue is that, when the choices were made and responses given, they chose actions that would shock the game world.

The issue is that they're cruising for a bruising, but will get upset when it comes.


I GM the way Robert Jordan GM'd (according to his intro to the d20 Wheel of Time): their choices matter, and they're not always easy ones. If they do something stupid, they have to live with it. I'll go easy if I'm the one who made the mistake, but if they pick a fight with a dragon it will fight back. Dragons are dragons. A 30 foot fall is a 30 foot fall.

For that reason there's a sense of accomplishment, and I have players who come back every week. that's the social contract.

Ultimately, I don't want the PCs to get themselves killed, but if they do dumb stuff I have to respond to it.

btw, the three of them decided to set a trap for the dragon by covering a dead bandit in lamp oil so that, when the dragon started eating it, they fired flaming arrows at it so it would ignite. It was clearly and demonstrably a fire-breathing dragon. One of them complained "oh come on, why should it be immune to fire? You're 75% water, but you're not immune to drowning".

No, I'm not. And thankfully neither are their characters!

 

[Barastrondo]

But is it then okay for one person to selfishly demand that others change their roleplaying style (which they are apparently having fun with) because it doesn't suit their tastes?

Of course not. The goal is a game where everyone is having fun, and a social contract is easily understood.

Nobody is holding anyone to my standard. I would support players trying to run a game as much as I would appreciate a DM being a player. Empathy is incredibly important to any social group. I mean no offense by the question, but do you DM or play? Have you tried both?

Yes to both, for not quite thirty years. I currently play most frequently in a friend's long-running game, the campaign world of which he's been working on since 1e, and our present characters have been off-and-on running around that world since the mid-90s. I've also played in games for other GMs that I didn't particularly enjoy all that much, but not for nearly as long; I'd rather pass on a game than stick around when the group has incompatible objectives with my own.

But my point that some players are very interested in NPCs and not at all interested in amoral play is not just based on my personal experience. It's based on many players who never GM, but love social interaction and the presence of NPCs they can care about. I married one of them. That's why I maintain that you don't have to be a GM to care about NPCs -- at least one bit of living proof sleeps beside me.

On the other hand, if you do play in other DM's games, then I have genuinely never held your viewpoint, making it more or less impossible for further argument to get anywhere, and I should leave the thread having said my part.

Well, the main point I wanted to make way back when was that your experiences weren't universal, as dramatically different as they were from my own. I had hoped it wouldn't have been as contentious a point as it was, but so it goes.

 

[imurphy943]

I don't see much difference between comedy games and serious games. It doesn't matter if the world is filled with robot monkeys, and the players are fighting zombie chickens, it can still be serious (I like to cite Samurai Jack). And it doesn't matter how grim the situation is, there can still be comedy relief (one of the things I didn't like about the Lord of the Rings movies).

It does sound like the characters are cruising for a bruising, so give it to them. If you don't want to kill them, there are other, less severe penalties ranging from loss of gear to torture resulting in ability point loss that the avengers can try to inflict. If nothing happens, they will probably just continue doing what they're doing.

I apologize for misinterpreting your complaint- I assumed it was from moral reproach rather than frustration with PC stupidity.

 

[Elf Witch]

But is it then okay for one person to selfishly demand that others change their roleplaying style (which they are apparently having fun with) because it doesn't suit their tastes?

Nobody is holding anyone to my standard. I would support players trying to run a game as much as I would appreciate a DM being a player. Empathy is incredibly important to any social group. I mean no offense by the question, but do you DM or play? Have you tried both? I try not to argue unless I have been on the other side of the argument before; if you only DM, I would still recommend trying the other side of the screen. This experiment would probably work best with three-five players other than yourself, to really get a feel for the social dynamic.

On the other hand, if you do play in other DM's games, then I have genuinely never held your viewpoint, making it more or less impossible for further argument to get anywhere, and I should leave the thread having said my part.

The DM should not have to run a game they don't enjoy. I won't run an evil campaign. As the DM I put in more work then the players and I think I have the right to enjoy the game as much as they do. And if the DM is not having fun nobody is really going to because the game is going to lack something. A DM who is enjoying their game looks forward to it, thinks about it often , plans things, wants the PCs to succeed.

How much fun can it be if all the DM wants is for the PCs to die and dreads each game?

It is not a matter of forcing someone to change their play style if all they want to do is play evil characters then they need to find a game with a DM who likes that kind of thing.

 

[Sunseeker]

The DM should not have to run a game they don't enjoy. I won't run an evil campaign. As the DM I put in more work then the players and I think I have the right to enjoy the game as much as they do. And if the DM is not having fun nobody is really going to because the game is going to lack something. A DM who is enjoying their game looks forward to it, thinks about it often , plans things, wants the PCs to succeed.

How much fun can it be if all the DM wants is for the PCs to die and dreads each game?

It is not a matter of forcing someone to change their play style if all they want to do is play evil characters then they need to find a game with a DM who likes that kind of thing.

I agree, having fun should be the #1 priority(within reason) of D&D...of any game. If the DM is not having fun, the game will reflect that, and the DM needs to communicate this to his players before the players simply get pissed off at the poor quality of the game. The players need to understand that they are contributing to the problem and need to be part of the solution.

I'll run just about any kind of game, but I need to know what kind of game I'm going to run from the beginning. If my light-hearted game turns into a gritty and dark game thanks for cruel players, I'm gonna lose interest.