HELP! Forced unity when the characters don't feel it...

[LeifVignirsson]

I will explain what I mean...

This particular campaign is having five of us come together to "solve the world's problems/clean up the last campaign's mess" arrangement. I was part of the last campaign so some of this is my DM getting back at me, though our party leader was the main defiler (Hey, I take some responsibilities for this, but not all of it...)

Anyway, the breakdown is this.

5th level mage NG (until last night, that was me... I gave the character back)
5th level paladin LN (more of a constable, doing our investigative schtick)
5th level fighter N (WAS dating the handler of the constable until recently)
4th level rogue CN (who is a fire elf)
4th level druid ?? (just added, fire elf's handler's girlfriend)

Right, now that you know the breakdown, I will give you some history. The fighter was instantaniously arrested by the constable as part of the intro into the party, complete with handcuffs and being led away at sword point. At that time, the fighter made it very clear that she dispised the constable and would do everything in her power to be a thorn in his side. Later, the fire elf was added into the group (let's just say that they kept him in the sewers to extinguish the fire, as it were). He was ALSO put under the charge of the constable and the fire elf openly stated that he would be a thorn in the side of the constable.

Even I was arrested by the constable for freely casting magic (there is a side story to it all with a College of Magic controlling all casting, blah, blah, blah) so you can tell... the constable is a winner.

Anyway, we were doing marginally all right until the handler for the constable left for Asia for a few months. We carried on, through many protests, but the DM chugged along anyway, telling me as a side note that it was up to me to change things. Did I mention my character was supposed to be the solution to the world's problems? Yeah, no pressure there...

So, anyway... Constable leaves, fighter and fire elf handler get sexually involved with each other, then the fire elf's handler gets a gf of his own, brings her into the party, constable comes back, fighter breaks up with constable, constable moves out, yada, yada, yada.

Now, we are at a games crossroad. The constable was coolly received at the last session and at least two of the players (fighter and fire elf) are convinced that the constable will get even with them by killing them off. Meanwhile, the new gf is all confused and has no idea what is going on.

Through all of this, the DM is demanding unity. He doesn't want to run four individual parts of the story, but everyone is motivated by their own desires and needs for their characters. I have had long, "high volume" discussions where both of us were pounding our heads against the keyboards. He isn't getting what I am saying or he is ignoring it. I am losing interest in it if that is going to be his attitude (if he is ignoring me, I know he is the DM and it is his game).

Anyway, he has handed each of us a deadline. We are to do these things before the next session next Sunday. After my long story, what do you think we should do? Start from scratch and have the alignemtn "good" forced upon us? Try to salvage the party? Change the story as the DM grudengly offers (he really doesn't want to change the story, he has his heart set on it)?

Your help is greatly appreciated. If it is brief at points during my post, it was because I am pretending I am working and almost got caught...

 

[Mystery Man]

Anyway, we were doing marginally all right until the handler for the constable left for Asia for a few months. We carried on, through many protests, but the DM chugged along anyway, telling me as a side note that it was up to me to change things. Did I mention my character was supposed to be the solution to the world's problems? Yeah, no pressure there...

That's not a good idea no. Sounds like he's desparate for someone to take a stand and no one in your group gives a damn. That could be on him for not running a tight emersive campaign, but every player needs to understand it's not all about them.

Through all of this, the DM is demanding unity. He doesn't want to run four individual parts of the story

Speaking as a DM (and if I'm understanding this correctly), he's only one person and keeping track of everyone's individual needs and maintaining an almost individual campaign for every single player is a monumental pain in the ass. You guys need to work together.

but everyone is motivated by their own desires and needs for their characters.

He should be sensitive to this and do the best he can, but you all need to set some reasonable expectations.

I know he is the DM and it is his game

Mm, it's actually all of yours.

Anyway, he has handed each of us a deadline. We are to do these things before the next session next Sunday.

Try your best and move on.

That's my take anyway. Good luck.

 

[Chimera]

The GM is railroading you into a plot you don't want to play - that apparently most of the players don't want to play. Demanding that you play the characters the way he wants you to play them, demanding party unity despite events and behaviors that do not support unity. Arguing with you about how YOU have to force everyone into compliance and unity.

What's not to like?

If I was a player, I'd say it's time for a player revolt. Time for everyone to step up to the GM and tell him that you don't want to play that game, that it isn't fun and the entire reason you play is to have fun. If he can't make the game fun for you...then why are you playing?

I'd also have to take a serious look at this person as a GM. He appears (at least from what you're saying) to be playing favorites with the Constable and then forcing the rest of you to go along despite every reason for your characters to dislike the idea. Maybe that's his logic at work, but my response would be to ask the other players/characters if they'd like to leave the city and go somewhere else, then inform the GM that we're "escaping" his plot and deciding to go elsewhere without the constable. (Been there, done that, bagged a campaign that way - the GM refused to accomodate us and we all walked away from the game.)

 

[BlackMoria]

Hmmm. The campaign looks like a loser to me. The personalities around the table on the part of everyone (there are no innocents here) pretty much means that this campaign is destined to die a slow, ugly death and leave a bad taste in everyone's mouth.

Time for everyone to take a 'Refocus' action and determine what they want out of the campaign and determine if it can be salvaged. Which means that people are going to have to 'deep six' the attitudes and each person is going to have to own up to the fact that they are contributing to making sure that this campaign is going to run off the rails.

If it can't be salvaged - then it is time to walk away from it and either try a new campaign, a new DM or a new game or something.

 

[kigmatzomat]

I think Black Moria summed it up best. The lot of you need to have a completely out of character discussion about what you each want in a campaign and see if there's an acceptable middle ground; there might not be.

Speaking as a DM, sometimes the idea I have is unpalatable to everyone but it's the only one I've got. Those games died; fortunately they died without any bad blood.

As a player, I don't railroad worth a darn. I'll soldier on for a while but I better see light at the end of the tunnel or I'm out of there. This sounds like your last chance to fix the campaign before bad things happen between players.

 

[Alan Shutko]

It doesn't seem like the campaign is the problem. It sounds like people are taking out-of-game concerns and trying to play them out as a campaign.

I'd recommend either everyone grow up and either solve things or leave them outside of the game; or you kill the campaign, break up the group, and find other people to game with.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Right, now that you know the breakdown, I will give you some history. The fighter was instantaniously arrested by the constable as part of the intro into the party, complete with handcuffs and being led away at sword point. At that time, the fighter made it very clear that she dispised the constable and would do everything in her power to be a thorn in his side. Later, the fire elf was added into the group (let's just say that they kept him in the sewers to extinguish the fire, as it were). He was ALSO put under the charge of the constable and the fire elf openly stated that he would be a thorn in the side of the constable.

Even I was arrested by the constable for freely casting magic (there is a side story to it all with a College of Magic controlling all casting, blah, blah, blah) so you can tell... the constable is a winner.

I'd say a good chunk of the problem traces to right there. Beginning a game with PCs at odds, and having them hate one another, is a recipe for disaster in most gaming groups. The DM is at fault, for not explaining what he wanted out of a campaign, and for letting things start off this way. But frankly, the players are also at fault, for what I call "Me First!" Syndrome.

I strongly believe that, unless everyone agrees ahead of time that the game is going to involve a lot of PC vs. PC conflict, it's the duty of the players to create characters who are willing and able to work together. It's why I often reject the "I'm a loner type who prefers to be left on his own" character concepts right off the bat, unless the player agrees in advance that he's not going to use that as an excuse to constantly try to go off and do his own thing.

D&D is a group activity, and while the onus is on the DM to provide some motivation for the group to be together, the players share an equal obligation to cooperate in making that happen, IMO.

I'd say discuss your problems out of game, as everyone else has said. Than ditch this campaign and start over, after making sure the DM has a better understanding of what you want out of a game, and vice-versa.

 

[LeifVignirsson]

Thank you all for you input, this is going to assist us in our decision making. However, I do want to state right now that he has made it clear that we will not be having fun at times because we are going to be "saving the world", but if we don't save the world, then *guilt trip here* "You are dooming the rest of history"... *sigh*

It even went as far as giving us help and making it so we would go irate on said help, pull him away and never give it to us, stating that we were at fault because we made the 450 year old ghost "feel bad". I think we are going to have to have a long discussion on this...