Forked Thread: Dealing with sociopathic PCs (Was: Stop being so paranoid)

[cougent]

Well, I think you start out with a slightly flawed premise - that there's a way the PCs are "supposed" to deal with NPCs, and the world around them. The implication is that they are doing it wrong, and your intended way was right.

I saw no mention of a prior agreement with the players on the game themes. Regardless of what the rulebooks might say - if you had not all explicitly agreed beforehand that they were supposed to be heroes, then they are under no obligation to play such, and doing what you prescribe here is being a bit of a jerk.

I'm guessing that's not what you meant, though. So, I will assume that the missing part here is that you specifically billed the game as heroic adventure, and that they are violating the genre they originally agreed to.

At which point, I have to rather strongly disagree with you - "slowly screw with the players to teach them a lesson" is not a good plan. When there's a problem, talk to the players.

If and only if they continue to claim they know they are supposed to be heroes, but have the characters continue to behaving in unheroic fashion, is there any teaching to be done.

Then, I still have to disagree with you. Behavior is altered by rewarding desired behavior, and providing disincentive to undesired behavior. If they know they're supposed to be heroes, but aren't playing that way, making them the powerful villains of the piece is not a disincentive.

Honestly, if they jerk me around like that and lie to me about their intentions, I'm apt to just pack up my books and go home. I don't have time for players who lie to me, and having the game fold up is a disincentive.

If I were feeling a bit more poetic, I'd use something similar to your method, but without any of the implied glory of doom, and being the big villain of the piece. If the players continue to violate the genre they agree to, they lose.

That means they don't get the power and glory and fun. That means the Good Guys are on their tails, and the BBEG that I originally intended for the campaign wins. They end up dead, or poor, powerless, and friendless in a world that's been handed to someone else.

Then, I explain to them that if they want to play villains, or just kill things and take their stuff, I'm open to that kind of gaming - but not if they lie to me.

I think this nails it pretty darn well.

My only difference is that I don't want to play or DM an evil / sociopathic game so I would just tell them to have fun without me.

I get to do that enough at a place called "work"!

EDIT: emphasis above mine, I detest "mind games" (thus the work comment) and would be very unhappy if my DM tried to "teach me a lesson". On the flip side, as a DM, I long ago stopped trying to teach lessons to my players. As noted by others, this is a game, not church, not school, nor am I their parent. The only education that a DM should provide is how to do things within the gaming system. Directly talking to the players and being honest about not being comfortable with the tone of the game is FAR superior to any attempted devious schemes.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

At which point, I have to rather strongly disagree with you - "slowly screw with the players to teach them a lesson" is not a good plan.

I don't see it as "screwing with them" - rather as "showing them that they have real power to affect the world, and that their actions matter far more than just for their XPs and magic items."

Everything that happens is a consequence of their actions. And their realization of this is the whole point of the exercise.

 

[Masada]

Well I like the idea of showing the players that their actions have impact on the world... but I don't like the idea that you have to teach them a lesson.

To me the game is about having fun. Teaching a lesson smacks of self-righteousness and tiny bit of arrogance. Not that the lesson is not completely valid, just that in the context of what is supposed to be a fun game it just seems totally not fun.

I still say a direct conversation with the players is better than creating a long, bitter, campaign of punishment.

 

[Hammerhead]

If you have an issue with your players, talk to them. Don't try to 'teach them a lesson' with your game.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Making the world react to their actions isn't screwing them, it's making the game ten thousand times more awesome.

Most players will smile at a new +1 sword, but what they'll tell stories about is the time the town made them their kings after a series of battles.

 

[Starfox]

I saw no mention of a prior agreement with the players on the game themes. Regardless of what the rulebooks might say - if you had not all explicitly agreed beforehand that they were supposed to be heroes, then they are under no obligation to play such, and doing what you prescribe here is being a bit of a jerk.

The basic assumption in the D&D rules, and indeed in most games I've run, is that the players are heroes by default. If an ethical code hasn't been mentioned, you are the good guys. This applies even in games like Shadowrun where this is a clearly detrimental attitude for the players (it is much better to go independent and steal cars than to do shadowruns and be betrayed by Mr. Johnsson.)

Running a game for non-heroic players is a completely different thing. Heroes are reactive - they want to lash out at evil. Bad guys are often proactive - they go out plundering the weak, not looking for the strong to fight them. This forces the DM to send good-guy opponents at bad PCs, which takes away much of their initiative. Suddenly, when they are all spread out and out looting and pillaging, a band of heroes ambushes and kills one of them, then disappears into he grass. Yay, lots of fun! And yet, this is the kind of thing heroic PCs do all the time.

 

[Hammerhead]

Really? B/c I find that the best assumption to run under is that the PCs are largely a band of greedy and violent mercenaries who destroy evil for money and power.

You don't always get the mercenary type of PC, but altruistic heroes (read: saps) don't require a whole lot of motivation to adventure. They see evil, they beat it down. You'll need to motivate the Unaligneds with a paycheck.

And I don't think that it's a good adventure structure that expects PCs to perform actions clearly not in their best interest - such as working for an employer that they know (or suspect) is going to betray them.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

Well I like the idea of showing the players that their actions have impact on the world... but I don't like the idea that you have to teach them a lesson.

How else are they to learn the fundamentals of good role-playing? If nobody teaches them how to do it, then how will they know what role-playing is all about?

To me the game is about having fun.

So, if you are running a game for such players, are you having fun? And are they having as much fun as they could have, if they could grasp the finer points of role-playing?

Teaching a lesson smacks of self-righteousness and tiny bit of arrogance.

That's something that the many thousands of teachers and lecturers around the world will have to live with. After all, if no one is teaching anything, nobody will learn anything, either, except for trial and error. And I'd prefer it if my players learned quicker than that.

Not that the lesson is not completely valid, just that in the context of what is supposed to be a fun game it just seems totally not fun.

So having fun means taking away meaningful choices from the player characters?

After all, meaningful choices is what I offer to the player characters here. They are completely free to act within the world, and beyond taking their game stats into account, I never suggest telling them: "You can't do that!"

I still say a direct conversation with the players is better than creating a long, bitter, campaign of punishment.

I don't see this as punishment. Or would you call it punishment if the PCs make bad tactical choices in a combat and thus sustain greater casualties?

And sure, you can try to talk with the players... but that may not be effective. Often, they need to be shown how good role-playing is done. If you have good veteran role-players, none of this may an issue. But if all of them are newbies or simply don't know any other way, talking may not be effective.

Mind you, it's entirely possible - perhaps even likely - that the PCs will mend their ways in one of the earlier stages. But if not, the later stages should be sufficient to get it all out of their systems.

 

[Umbran]

Everything that happens is a consequence of their actions. And their realization of this is the whole point of the exercise.

If that same point cannot be dealt with via direct conversation, then there are enough other things wrong with the group that this lesson is not likely to be learned. Contrary to public opinion, trying to "sneak in" a lesson is not generally a good way to teach. Typically, unless you are direct about it, the student is apt to come away from the lesson with something other than what you intended them to learn.

I will reiterate - no matter what the rulebooks say, you should have a discussion about genre and themes with your players before play begins. If there's some problem with them sticking to what was agreed at start, it is time for a discussion with the players.

If they say, "Well, we don't know how, can you teach us?" then a game of lessons can begin. But teaching an unwilling or unwitting student is not a good use of anyone's time.

 

[catsclaw227]

Making the world react to their actions isn't screwing them, it's making the game ten thousand times more awesome.

Most players will smile at a new +1 sword, but what they'll tell stories about is the time the town made them their kings after a series of battles.

OMG! I am agreeing with ProfessorCirno 100%. There must be some bizarre alignment of planets in multiple solar systems.