Neutrality Bites

[Mr. Grimm]

I agree with most REL and to some extent Part. Man. If you really want to run an heroic campaign, then you're going to have to force the players to choose alignments. Threatening PCs with the notion that their characters are straying too close to evil only works if you threaten to take characters away -- as you said, they seem to want to play evil anyway.

You've mentioned that the characters just seem to spend their time harassing shopkeepers; that can't be all they do, can it??? Why do they or you bother showing up then? I can only suggest that you talk to them and see what kind of campaign they want, let them know what you want and see if you guys can come to a compromise.

Hero-oriented type modules may be typical and certainly using them a timesaver, but it isn't too difficult to adapt to those modules to something more mercenary. And maybe you should look into finding more ways to reward your characters for good actions and punish for evil. Evil acts bring the attention of the city guard, gets them banished from towns and cities and kingdoms, thrown into prison (do one character as opoposed to all) so that character collects no XP while the rest are out free. Shopkeepers refuse to sell them items -- a real hardship for characters in need of armor repair, magic components or even horses and food. Harrassed storeowners start complaining to the local thieves' guild -- why are they paying all that protection money if they have no protection? Or the merchant's guild uses its influence with the town/city rulers to deal with them.

That's punishment. As reward, have more things come their way for good deeds. Can you give seperate rewards to characters in the party whose action are more distinguishable than their not-so-good brethren? Have a fighter gain access to the best training the city can provide with a bonus ability/item/XP's as a result. Heroes get free meals and stays at the inn, don't get shafted when buying a horse or weapon or magic item that is supposed to have 20 charges but only has 3, and heroes don't get the rotting dry rations.

Just use a little imagination and be willing to spend a little time to see if your players will come around to your way of thinking. I think you can have fun despite your players and they can look at it as part of the fun of the game. If that doesn't work, squash 'em!

 

[TheMan]

It is an overwhelming commonality on these boards to see what I like to call the "DM tyranny." This is that attitude where the DM simply says "this is the way it is going to be so if you don't like it too bad." I feel that this takes away from the true flexibilty and creativeness that role playing games inspire.

I do agree that the DM has the final say in any argument arising out of their campaign. I also feel that the true distinction of an excellent DM is the ability to tailor the game to the players and their wants and needs. Granted, you can still have fun and be challenged with pre-made characters, trying to best role play the pre-established background and traits of the character you were handed, but tell me how many of you have ever had an idea for a character (however bizarre) that you wanted to take through a career of adventuring? So does everyone else. I sucks to be 'forced' to play something you don't want to play. So what am I eluding to?

The best campaigns I have been in are the ones that challenge every single player regardless of their experience, character skill, or desired personality (and alignment) while at the same time encouraging role playing. I try my hardest to tailor my campaign to the players and the characters they play. What I see on these boards a lot is a DM who has an idea that they want to see to fruition, which consequently requires certain character types. Now tell me, is this for the DM's benefit or the players? l

My ranting does lead to a conclusion. What I feel the DM's should do is provide a campaign that can easily adjust to the desires of the players. This is not easy (which is why, in my opinion) many DM's avoid this. I, as a DM, have a good time when I can challenge every single player and get them "into" the game. Sharing the excitement and desire of the players should be the true goal of the DM. This is regardless of what types of characters the players decide to make.

To quickly address those individuals who posted that the DM should be firm and said "my way or the highway" - that's fine, but that isn't easy when its difficult to find other gamers, and even more difficult when those other players are long time friends (including girlfriends and spouses for some of you). So what do you suggest for that scenario?

As an add on it seems that the difficulty in dealing with players that want to play evil (or selfish nuetral) characters comes from immature, and mostly younger players. True?

 

[MavrickWeirdo]

A humble sugestion on modivation

Since they don't want to be heros, cast them in another role, such as... Fugatives

"Framed for a crime they didn't commit, they are seeking the one armed assassin, while alwayse on their trail is a Paladin of Pelor."

When running moduales they need to root out evil organizations to find out clues about the one armed assassin, but players have to keep a low profile and avoid the attention of the athorities because the Paladin is usually only a day or two behind them.

Just a sugestion.

 

[BenBrown]

Unfortunately, "fugitives" loses meaning quickly once the characters become decently powerful. You either have to smack them down completely (i.e. kill them) or let them rampage.

A GM who does not want to run a campaign for evil pcs who is confronted by a party consisting mostly of evil pcs is in a rotten situation.

The real solution is to sit down with the players say "okay, what kind of campaign do we all want?"

EVIL! they say.

"Okay, I'd rather not run one of those. I don't think I'd enjoy it. Anybody else want to run?"

If nobody else wants to run, start molding them to your will. If someone else wants to run, let him run it and get the crap out of their systems.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

BenBrown - That's what I'm talking about. He should quit as GM if there's no possibility of him sorting the campaign out. It's very simple. There are RPGs I will not run, not because I can't, not because I don't think they're good RPGs, but because they're not fun for me.

So I don't, and I don't come whining to the BBSes if I foolish recant on that and try it.

Blackdirge/Zerovid - If you can't sort the players out, don't keep GMing.

Quit and let one of them GM, or play a different RPG, or do SOMETHING but don't bitch and moan. The advice has been given here, you have to either improve the player's connection to the game, find new players, or quit.

One thing to do, if you must, is simply to show that actions have consequences. Write an adventure so that their backstabbing and callousness results in stuff they don't like, or better, could result in that unless they act. It's not that hard if you're even half-competant as GM.

Otherwise, quit or get new players...

Buzzard - Two possibilities: One they are bad GMs and unable to cope, or two, the players are awful and immature in this RPG. Either way, they have a choice...

The Man - Exactly. The whole "GM is always right" in a rules sense, a sensible aid to the game going fowards is being extended by frankly, selfish demi-megalomaniacs who think that there are only two ways, their way and the wrong way.

Which is, amusing, exactly what one of them said. I mean, grow up already, RPGs are a group activity, and just because everyone ignored you in high school doesn't mean now is the time for you to boss everyone around and for it all to be about you.

If, in one's game, not everyone is adding to it, if all the "work" is genuinely being done by the GM, one has a problem. The GM does some of the work, he does the background, stats, and so on, but he doesn't do *everything*, and if one is "suffering" from all this, one should quit promptly.

I know I'm not a "frustrated player" GM, who is upset with the work. I GM because I enjoy GMing, and if I didn't I would quit, as should anyone who really doesnt...

Particle_Man - You do suck as a GM, because you are unable to cope with other situations. You may not suck as a GM-of-Good-aligned-PC-with-a-specific-group-in-D&D, but there's a lot more to being a GM than that. If you simply can't cope with other situations, you're overspecialized, you're a dinosaur waiting for a comet. You may be superbly adapted to your niche, but if that niche vanishes...

You suck as a GM because the minute you said "No non-Good characters, period!", half the players in the world would lose all respect for you, and if the GM isn't respected, you're in trouble, because the only alternative is this kind of "enforcement" GMing...

 

[Humanophile]

May I ask where all the "if they want to play evil, let them" replies are coming from? While I have no problem with well developed and fleshed out evil characters, they're lost in a sea of Neutral Arsehole and Chaotic Arsehole characters. And when a character's two motivations are "collect all the stuff I can" and "stroke my ego", it's nearly impossible to motivate them to do anything except go around and try to break the plot 'cause they can, and the laws because they could never be like this in real life.

If you want to continue playing with these characters (which I don't know if I reccomend), have an attack of the method acting role playing. Either bore them to tears by not showing any reaction to their crimes (just let them kill or otherwise exploit civilians without rolls, and don't show any reaction as they try to elicit shock from you, giving everything in a deadpan "just the facts"), or kill them all off (they've probably given you a reason to sick the guard on them. Go overboard), and demand preludes for their next characters. Having to sit down for a sesson and character build instead of "just let me kill stuff" should hopefully give some plot hooks. Whether or not those are followed up is another matter...

Quite frankly though, there's a world of difference between what makes a good PNPRPG run and what makes a CRPG run. (Yes, I know this sounds trite and pedantic. Some people still need to be reminded occasionally.) If you really want to play and they're intractable, start every sesson by dumping them in the first room of a dungeon without explanation, and letting them run wild. This should skim off the shock monkeys (as well as the good gamers, but most of them should either adapt or at least understand and come back when the rest have completed basic training), and give everyone else time to figure out what they like.

Edit: Ruin Explorer posted while I was still writing, but I have to reply.

According to you, does Tolkien suck because he didn't write science fiction too? Personally, I see no problem with a DM preferring/focusing on one style over another, and as long as they make it clear what they want, everything's good. If a player still wants in even though they don't want that (or especially if they come in with the intention of screwing things up), it's out of the DM's hands. (Of course, if the DM bites off more than he can chew or doesn't know/respect his limits, that's his fault, but those are called learning experiences.)

 

[Tewligan]

Do your PC's have backgrounds of any sort written, or at least talked about? If so, start writing adventures based on the characters, rather than trying to jam your square-peg players into round-hole adventures that are geared toward noble do-gooders. The campaign I DM'ed relied very heavily on things that tied in to the characters' backgrounds, which was more personally satisfying all around than just doing good for goodness' sake. Adventures tend to unfold and develop pretty smoothly if you know why a character would do something. True, it makes your job harder when your players won't let you plug them into stock adventures, but noone said DMing would be easy. If you don't want to run that sort of game then, well, quit DMing or get some players who like the sort of game you want to play.

 

[HeavyG]

The real solution is to sit down with the players say "okay, what kind of campaign do we all want?"

EVIL! they say.

"Okay, I'd rather not run one of those. I don't think I'd enjoy it. Anybody else want to run?"

If nobody else wants to run, start molding them to your will. If someone else wants to run, let him run it and get the crap out of their systems.

And, if you're bitter and spiteful, like me, you make damn sure that guy regrets it by showing him exactly why evil games are not fun.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

If you want to continue playing with these characters (which I don't know if I reccomend), have an attack of the method acting role playing. Either bore them to tears by not showing any reaction to their crimes (just let them kill or otherwise exploit civilians without rolls, and don't show any reaction as they try to elicit shock from you, giving everything in a deadpan "just the facts"), or kill them all off (they've probably given you a reason to sick the guard on them. Go overboard), and demand preludes for their next characters. Having to sit down for a sesson and character build instead of "just let me kill stuff" should hopefully give some plot hooks. Whether or not those are followed up is another matter...

I think you are on the right track.

RPGing is collective storymaking. It is impossible to force the players where they do not want to go. That goes both ways. You are not required to go the extra mile to make their antics entertaining if they show no initiative in making their own characters memorable in deed or song. Annoying just doesn't cut it.

I like the Fugitive suggestion. Make the Paladin vastly more powerful that they have no hope of winning in fight. If they harass shopkeepers for fun, they are perfect targets to frame for a crime they did not commit. This angle most certainly will result in character deaths.

 

[Lothaire]

What a bunch of whiners...

You all suck as GMs, BTW.

We've missed you.