DM Advice: handling 'he can't talk to me like that' ~cuts NPC throat~ players.

[Slife]

So... Stormraven...

You're saying that when you have a group of five* people gathered to play a game, the goal is to only entertain one of them?

Seems a little odd.


So, to continue the party analogy, what kind of drinks do you buy? Five cases of your favorite kind, or a mixed batch (including a case of your favorite drink)?

*Assuming standard group size

 

[billd91]

No. Keep serving fish. If the guests don't like fish, that's their problem. If they want something else, they can cook dinner and eat at home, if they can get off their lazy hind ends and do it. You can always find other guests who do like fish.

OK, this is getting ridiculous. The RIGHT answer is to serve enough fish so that you can eat it and have some to share (should any of your friends decide to be adventurous) and also serve some other foods as well.

Cripes, SR, you're as stubborn as Mallus on this!

 

[Elf Witch]

Thanks.


Me too.


I have trouble seeing the destruction of actual property as analogous to the vandalism of a virtual space. You can't really trash an idea. Or you can, but it's incredibly easy to restore to pristine condition.


Wonderful in whose eyes?


Sure. But that doesn't mean that a host is well-advised to ignore their guests preferences.


And that's perfectly fine (note my advice in this case is shelve the game and go to a pub). What I've arguing against, well, perhaps 'railing' is more accurate, is the rather duplicitous notion that the DM should *keep* running a campaign they don't enjoy and use in-game actors --otherwise known as NPC's they can't possibly defeat-- in order to teach the players the error of their playstyle preferences. This strikes me as DM'ing under false pretenses.

Don't get me wrong a good host makes sure that they see to theri guests comfort let's take the dinner party example when I do one I make sure to find out if there are allergies, special food needs, dislikes. I want my guests to enjoy the dinner.

Now I was taught that when you are a guest at a dinner party unless you are allergic you don't make a fuss over what is served. You move it around your plate you eat what you like. If thr hostess asks you can say I am not a big fish eater or if the food is simply not to your liking you say that you just were not hungry.

You don't order pizza that is rude an insulting to the hostess.

I have a friend who is a terrible cook but I love her company and she always has interesting people at her dinner parties. So I know most of the time the food is going to suck but the company makes up for it so I eat before I go.

But if the food is that bad you just don't go to any more of that person's dinner parties. There is no need to be an ass about it.

Gaming is the same way. A good DM tries to make a game that is fun for his players but the players need to meet the DM halfway. They need to make it fun for the DM as well.

If your DM has worked a lot on his world and wants to run a game based on good PCs who want to make a difference saving the world then the players need to either go along with it or say no I am not interested.

But coming to the table and trashing the game by playing your PC in away that is going to derail the game is rude. And no it is not the same as trashing a home but the sentiment is the same.

I don't disagree with you on the DM keeping running a game that the players don't like. That DM needs to find new players just like the players should find a new DM.

I don't believe you can teach players in game if they are not interested all you do is upset everyone. In a case where you feel the PCs are behaving badly instead of bringing NPCs to punish them it would be better to just talk to them and if they are not willing to change and you don't want to play like that then you say so.

Though I tell my players that consquences happen in my game for the good and the bad. If they do evil things eventually unless they play it really smart it will catch up with them. I don't try and punish them unfairly but say they piss off a powerful ruler who has the means to destroy them then that is how I will DM it. The same way I would if a party of 1 level good PCs went and pissed off an elder red dragon.

 

[Slife]

Don't get me wrong a good host makes sure that they see to theri guests comfort let's take the dinner party example when I do one I make sure to find out if there are allergies, special food needs, dislikes. I want my guests to enjoy the dinner.

Now I was taught that when you are a guest at a dinner party unless you are allergic you don't make a fuss over what is served. You move it around your plate you eat what you like. If thr hostess asks you can say I am not a big fish eater or if the food is simply not to your liking you say that you just were not hungry.

You don't order pizza that is rude an insulting to the hostess.

The situation analogous to ordering a pizza is going to Storm Raven's game and bringing your World of Darkness or GURPS or whatever and DMing yourself, ignoring him.

I don't believe you can teach players in game if they are not interested all you do is upset everyone. In a case where you feel the PCs are behaving badly instead of bringing NPCs to punish them it would be better to just talk to them and if they are not willing to change and you don't want to play like that then you say so.

Though I tell my players that consquences happen in my game for the good and the bad. If they do evil things eventually unless they play it really smart it will catch up with them. I don't try and punish them unfairly but say they piss off a powerful ruler who has the means to destroy them then that is how I will DM it. The same way I would if a party of 1 level good PCs went and pissed off an elder red dragon.

Agreed. If you think there's a fundamental disconnect, you should take some time OOC and talk to the players about it.

"We attack the arbiter"

"OK guys, wait a second. You do know that he's the lawful authority in this region, so the paladin will get divine smackdown if he goes along with this. And if you take out the king's right hand man, he's going to declare you renegades and call in favors to have you hunted down. If I recall correctly, that's what he had you do five sessions ago, in fact, so you should know he'll escalate with more powerful adventurers. If you want to be fugitives from justice living on the run, go ahead, but don't expect your characters to have long lifespans."

There. The ball's back in the player's court, you haven't told them anything they shouldn't already know in character, and hopefully they've thought through their actions a little.

If they decide to go along with the Bad Idea anyway, well, they were warned, and can't blame you when the king declares them outlaws and sends a CR+3 encounter at them every day they're within his sphere of influence.

 

[roguerouge]

I have trouble seeing the destruction of actual property as analogous to the vandalism of a virtual space. You can't really trash an idea. Or you can, but it's incredibly easy to restore to pristine condition.

Actually, it can be incredibly hard to get a campaign back on track after its been trashed, either by an undesired TPK or by players who take the feat Resist Common Sense.

That's the point of this thread, isn't it? That the OP is having trouble dealing with a narrative that he feels has been trashed?

 

[roguerouge]

I counter by saying this: by reacting in such a manner, you are not imposing on the players. You are actually freeing them. if their choices only result in level appropriate responses, then they don't actually have meaningful choices. They are on a set of railroad tracks of your making, and they will end up at "win-town" (so to speak) right on schedule, no matter what they do. On the other hand, if their choices have meaning, if the campaign world reacts to them in a consistent and reasonable manner, then their choices could easily get them killed. As a result, they have actual choices, not the false choices you seem to want to stick them with.

Obscured amongst the flame war here is a valid point about story construction. Which I happen to agree with.

 

[haakon1]

Agreed. If you think there's a fundamental disconnect, you should take some time OOC and talk to the players about it.

"We attack the arbiter"

"OK guys, wait a second. You do know that he's the lawful authority in this region, so the paladin will get divine smackdown if he goes along with this. And if you take out the king's right hand man, he's going to declare you renegades and call in favors to have you hunted down. If I recall correctly, that's what he had you do five sessions ago, in fact, so you should know he'll escalate with more powerful adventurers. If you want to be fugitives from justice living on the run, go ahead, but don't expect your characters to have long lifespans."

There. The ball's back in the player's court, you haven't told them anything they shouldn't already know in character, and hopefully they've thought through their actions a little.

If they decide to go along with the Bad Idea anyway, well, they were warned, and can't blame you when the king declares them outlaws and sends a CR+3 encounter at them every day they're within his sphere of influence.

I wholeheartedly agree with this approach.

 

[robertliguori]

I wholeheartedly agree with this approach.

I agree with this approach with the proviso that there should be endgame scenarios besides "The king's endless stream of resources that appeared as soon as you started opposing him wear you down." If you start with a list of what the king has, what he can reasonably allocate to stopping the PCs, and what he can unreasonaly allocate once it becomes clear that the PCs do agree that an attack on the King's man is an attack on the King and are coming to finish the job.

For extra credit, skim George R.R. Martin's later books in the Song of Ice and Fire series, so you can describe how rapidly horrible things get in medieval society when power vacuums occur. With the right narration and player buy-in, virture really is its own reward, and sin its own punishment.

 

[Herobizkit]

I just wanted to come in again and remind everyone (and some in particular) that the Fantasy Role-Playing Game is a shared experience. While the DM does suffer the burden of the heavy workload, the end result is pretty much self-gratification unless the DM has players to interact with his creation. By contrast, the players should be willing and able to work within the confines of the DM's world vision. If the players threaten the harmony of the DM's vision, or the DM enforces his vision on the players regardless of what they do, the easiest solution is to call "time out" and talk it over as the above poster suggested.

After all, in a game of players vs. DM, the DM always wins.

Except for Diaglo... he's just a referee.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Man, you are a grump...

Seriously though, at the point this starts sounding like good DM'ing advice, shouldn't you just lay off D&D for a while and go drinking with your mates instead?

This was back around twenty five years ago, I was a much Younger Grump then... the campaign continued for a good number of years afterward from the above mentioned mass hanging.

Not mentioned in the above is that I had been fairly blatant in my use of the Clue Club (tm) in regards to the situation with the orcs. In part it was about the culture of the orcs being changed by non-violent contact with non-orcish beings. (And, in the long run, this was just as destructive of the orc culture as the war had been.) Also, and this may or may not be viewed as important, the orcs were the original inhabitants of the area - humans, dwarfs, elves, etc. were the invaders. (And the players had been informed of such.)

Some (not all) of the Paladins and Clerics of the primary monotheistic religion were openly criticizing both the Church and the secular authorities for their treatment of the orcs. (Based loosely on the Society of Jesus during the Spanish invasion of the New World, with similar consequences for the Clerics and Paladins involved....)

Once the players figured out what their characters should have realized the game went much more smoothly, and that was, I think, the only TPK in the campaign. The players were caught up in the Kill things, Grab their treasure, Rinse and Repeat school of thought. There was a great deal of adventure to be had, and adventurers were not only generally allowed, they were most often welcome. Sometimes they had to argue with orcs, or deal harshly with orcs (and humans) from neighboring areas that were still at war, and on more than one ocassion protecting the local orcs from either neighboring humans or orcs.

Murdering an unarmed, unarmored orc, who's only crime was walking openly on a public road - not hiding, not planning an ambush, but simply traveling from Point A to Point B, having grown accustomed to the relative peace that had broken out in the local area was not the act of a thoughtful or Good character. I even recall the moment when one of the players realized that it was murder, and that the orcs were not the bad guys in this area of the world. The next time the game went much more smoothly as a result.

One of the other, openly stated, conceits of the campaign was that I like to see the good guys win. If the players insist on playing the bad guys then the good guys will still win... I do not want to run a game about villains, murdering folks because they disagree with the characters.

And yes, I was exaggerating about playing out the hanging and torturing the ex-Paladin in Hell for all eternity - but not about his trial and execution, nor of his being an ex-paladin - he has committed murder. I have never been a big fan of the 'we can get away with it because we are the PCs' mode of thought. I might go so far as to tell the ex-paladin that he is sent to a warmer place than he expected....

What does this all mean? That I was running a good game, and you are having bad wrong fun.
Not all play styles are the same, but the DM has just as much a right as the players to having a good time with the game. Maybe a tad more - in general a DM puts a lot more work into the game - but not much more. The game has to be fun for everyone.

It also means that I posted the above with not anywhere near enough sleep, and as a result was more Cranky than Grumpy.

The Auld Grump