Neutrality Bites

[LostSoul]

My thoughts:

Role-playing is a group activity. The GM is NOT always right. If he puts adventures to the players that they have no desire to go through, it is his own fault. (On the other hand, if he puts adventures forward that the characters should want to play through, then it's the players' fault.)

As GM you have to tailor adventures to the players and thier characters. They'll give you motivations (and if not, you make ones for them), and you run with those. If you don't do this, you can't expect the PCs to have any fun at all.

Neutral PCs have so many possibilities for motivations. Treasure hunting. Searching for old enemies. Self-improvement. Ego building. whatever. What's more, they have the possibilty to grow into heroes. What could be cooler than that? Usually I play a Neutral PC who is selfish and callous. He has a "heart of gold", though, and doesn't like to see bad things happen around him. He sees this as a self-destructive weakness, but whatever.

If you want to GM a Good adventure, make the actions of Evil and Neutral PCs come back to bite them in the ass. The peasant you killed or stole from or didn't help had powerful friends that hate you now. The PCs don't exist in a vaccuum. Follow thier evil actions through to thier logical conclusions. By doing so, show them that Crime Doesn't Pay.

 

[Psion]

My thoughts:

Role-playing is a group activity. The GM is NOT always right. If he puts adventures to the players that they have no desire to go through, it is his own fault.

But it's okay if they players make him run a game that he isn't interested in running?

Uh, I don't think so. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

If your idea of fun doesn't happen to match my game, then it is your perogative to find another GM who is closer to their style.

Further, if a GM is not having fun, it tends to have a ripple effect, unlike if one player is not having fun.

 

[LostSoul]

But it's okay if they players make him run a game that he isn't interested in running? Uh, I don't think so. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

If your idea of fun doesn't happen to match my game, then it is your perogative to find another GM who is closer to their style.

Further, if a GM is not having fun, it tends to have a ripple effect, unlike if one player is not having fun.

1. There are more players than GMs. Reduced fun for one vs. more fun for the rest = more total fun.

2. Exactly. Same thing goes for a GM; he should find different players.

3. Perhaps he should not GM, then, if he spoils the fun for the rest of the group?

 

[Psion]

1. There are more players than GMs.

So the GM should tough it out, eh?

3. Perhaps he should not GM, then, if he spoils the fun for the rest of the group?

He shouldn't run THAT GROUP if his style doesn't match. With the right group, perhaps he can do wonders. But the GM is under no obligation to be a slave to a group of players. He is in it for the fun, too. If ANY participant is not having fun -- GM or player -- they should feel free not to participate.

 

[LostSoul]

He shouldn't run THAT GROUP if his style doesn't match. With the right group, perhaps he can do wonders. But the GM is under no obligation to be a slave to a group of players. He is in it for the fun, too. If ANY participant is not having fun -- GM or player -- they should feel free not to participate.

True. I guess we agree. I'm just trying to say that the GM needs to compromise sometimes, just like the players do.

 

[UnDfind]

Player/DM clashes

Most everybody has at least one player that's more focused on the acquisition of wealth then the playing of the game, or even his character. Those guys don't mean that you're a bad DM, or that they're bad players. All it means is that you have to figure out a way to have fun. Here's a few options I've found to work:

1) Make them defend their wealth. If they have a bunch of booty, they have to put it somewhere. You can't carry around all that gold and magical junk on you all the time. Have the place where it's stored come under siege, or even have their stuff stolen so they have to track it down.

2) World shattering plotline. Kinda cheesy, but if you put the players in the central roles of an event that may very well destroy everything if they don't put a stop to it, then they have the option of sitting around with their gold waiting for the world to end, or put a stop tro whatever's going on.

3) The Quest is the Quest. This is the out-of-game answer to this kind of problem. My players and I usually have a sort of mindset that, for the betterment of the game, the adventure is there to be played. And in the spirit of the game, players should do their best to find reasons for their characters to be attracted to it. This works very well, despite all the people out there who say "well MY character won't do that 'cause..."
Of course I try to come up with adventure ideas that appeal to the players, but sometimes one player out of the bunch might think that his character wouldn't really go for it. If he simply finds a reason, then everyone can just move on and enjoy. Of course if the player finds the adventure too out of whack for his character to go for, you can always find some way to help him feel better about it (yes, the promise of gold usually works for characters like that). But if the group can be primed to go for the whole "have fun and play the game" thing, arguments like this become more petty.

I dunno, that's just how my group has worked these problems in the past.

 

[Nightfall]

My two cents, is I think Ruin is being unfairly harsh. These guys have problems running. No one is a perfect Gm (though I think after hearing what Psion runs, he's my guidepost for what I as a GM/DM would like to be. If we are SUPPOSED to be a board the helps out people with problems in the RPG field, the thing we MUST do IS listen to each other.

Btw, Psion I'm with you on that "what's good for the goose is good for the gander."

 

[Dougal DeKree]

Hey there...sounds interesting.

I had a campaign once where the PCs were all evil and had to save the world! I didn't get to really play it but I keep it in reserve for future use.
...snip...
You enter in a campaign of extermination and destruction where torturing for information and collateral damage are fair game! You will not let those creeps destroy everything you hold dear (gold, alcohol, women and material confort)!

Hello,

this plot sounds interesting - especially since my group is always whining about wanting to play an evil group. The key point about being evil is, IMO, that you are good at what you are doing, or your head ends up upon a city-wall.

Would you mind giving me a little more information on this campaign?

Dougal DeKree, Gnomish Illusionist and "Magic-Items-Seller"

 

[Black Omega]

The first rule of evil is...Get Away With It.

At least that's what I put of the character sheet of my evil PC.

The campaign sounds interesting because it gives the evil people a more or less 'Good' goal. In this case enlightened self-interest wins the day. It seems like a key is why the PC's have to deal with it. The Temple of Ultimate Good might ignore an anonymous note, but what if the party simply tries to do things to the Evilerguy so other people notice them?