Help me be nicer to my PC's!

[Olaf the Stout]

I've noticed in the group that I DM that I have a tendency to be a little mean with my NPC's. By that I mean that my NPC's (of both good and evil alignment) are often uncooperative and clash with the PC's.

I think a lot of this stems from the fact that one of the PC's (Barbarian/Rogue) in the group has "a might makes right" attitude. He doesn't care at all for authority and often tries to threaten and/or intimidate people to get them to do what he wants.

Let me be clear in saying that it is definitely the PC that has this attitude. The player of the particular PC also plays a much more diplomatic Sorcerer in the same campaign so it isn't the player with this attitute, it is just the personality of the Barbarian/Rogue.

To give an example, the party at the moment is trying to solve a series of murders in a town. They found the location of the local Theive's Guild and busted in. The dealt with the intial guards, leaving one of the them alive for questioning. The Barbarian/Rogue then threatens to kill him unless he tell the party everything he knows. In this situation the Rogue is stuck between a rock and a hard place. He obviously doesn't want to die, but at the same time, if he spills the beans the Thieve's Guild will probably track him down and kill him (or worse) anyway.

In this situation the thief lied and said that he didn't know much as he was relatively new, telling them a few minor details about the place. The party failed to see through his lies but were disappointed that a lot of the bad guys they came across seemed to not know much. My other option would have been for the thief to beg for mercy and tell the party everything he knew. That works sometimes but I don't think I'd want to do that everytime the party threatens someone.

To give example of the PC's dealing with good NPC's, the party was hired to protect the daughter of a merchant by acting as decoys. The merchant had discoverd that a assassin has been hired to kill his daughter. The merchant wanted the PC's to perform the decoy role a certain way but the Barbarian/Rogue wanted things done his way. The NPC's logic was that it was his daughter's life on the line so the party should follow his plan. The Barbarian/Rogue's opinion was that the party were the ones that were putting themselves in danger for him so they should be able to do things however they wanted to.

I find that often the PC's end up getting into an arguement with good NPC's because I have decided their goals and motivations beforehand. Often they don't "need" the PC's and only the PC's. They could get another group of adventurers to fill the role so they won't bow to all their demands. The party on the other hand wants to dictate terms.

So what am I doing wrong? How to I turn things around and stop the party disliking and getting confrontational with a lot of the NPC's they come across? And how do I do it without letting the party simply dominate and ride over the top of all the NPC's?

Olaf the Stout

 

[CruelSummerLord]

Frankly, it seems to me that this is the PCs' fault, not yours. If that idiot Barbarian keeps angering everybody they come across with his my-way-or-the-highway attitude, then people are going to stop hiring the PCs or even helping them. If the PCs' "I don't take crap from anyone" attitude starts getting them into trouble with powerful city officials, nobles and merchants who refuse to hire them for the belligerent attitude, or something like that, maybe the barbarian's fellow adventurers will take steps to shut the numbskull up.

Now, of course in some circles that sort of attitude could earn respect. Army captains and military men, or martially inclined nobles, might respect his gumption, and enlist the party in dangerous, do-or-die missions. This sounds like the kind of thing your might-makes-right guy might enjoy, so maybe that'll allow him to blow off some steam.

In other cases, it might help to have your NPCs ask the adventurers' advice and incorporate their suggestions into whatever they do. After all, the PCs presumably have expertise that the employer doesn't, or they wouldn't be hiring your players to begin with. And a case could be made that the barbarian has a point-if they're going to put their necks on the line, they ought to have some input into the plan.

Your merchant might not know how to handle the situation himself, and so any advice the adventurers can give might be most welcome. He might veto anything that sounds too dangerous to his daughter, but if they can come up with a clever way to thwart the kidnapping and trace it back to the villains, then I'd say by all means let the players design a capture scenario and let them either profit from its success, or deal with the fallout if it fails. As an added bonus, it lets your players do the planning, instead of having an NPC do it for them.

 

[BabbageCliologic]

I've noticed in the group that I DM that I have a tendency to be a little mean with my NPC's. By that I mean that my NPC's (of both good and evil alignment) are often uncooperative and clash with the PC's.

I think a lot of this stems from the fact that one of the PC's (Barbarian/Rogue) in the group has "a might makes right" attitude. He doesn't care at all for authority and often tries to threaten and/or intimidate people to get them to do what he wants.

Let me be clear in saying that it is definitely the PC that has this attitude. The player of the particular PC also plays a much more diplomatic Sorcerer in the same campaign so it isn't the player with this attitute, it is just the personality of the Barbarian/Rogue.

To give an example, the party at the moment is trying to solve a series of murders in a town. They found the location of the local Theive's Guild and busted in. The dealt with the intial guards, leaving one of the them alive for questioning. The Barbarian/Rogue then threatens to kill him unless he tell the party everything he knows. In this situation the Rogue is stuck between a rock and a hard place. He obviously doesn't want to die, but at the same time, if he spills the beans the Thieve's Guild will probably track him down and kill him (or worse) anyway.

In this situation the thief lied and said that he didn't know much as he was relatively new, telling them a few minor details about the place. The party failed to see through his lies but were disappointed that a lot of the bad guys they came across seemed to not know much. My other option would have been for the thief to beg for mercy and tell the party everything he knew. That works sometimes but I don't think I'd want to do that everytime the party threatens someone.

To give example of the PC's dealing with good NPC's, the party was hired to protect the daughter of a merchant by acting as decoys. The merchant had discoverd that a assassin has been hired to kill his daughter. The merchant wanted the PC's to perform the decoy role a certain way but the Barbarian/Rogue wanted things done his way. The NPC's logic was that it was his daughter's life on the line so the party should follow his plan. The Barbarian/Rogue's opinion was that the party were the ones that were putting themselves in danger for him so they should be able to do things however they wanted to.

I find that often the PC's end up getting into an arguement with good NPC's because I have decided their goals and motivations beforehand. Often they don't "need" the PC's and only the PC's. They could get another group of adventurers to fill the role so they won't bow to all their demands. The party on the other hand wants to dictate terms.

So what am I doing wrong? How to I turn things around and stop the party disliking and getting confrontational with a lot of the NPC's they come across? And how do I do it without letting the party simply dominate and ride over the top of all the NPC's?

Olaf the Stout

The Barbarian/Rogue is dominating the group's interactions. You could solve this several ways.

1. Ask the player to retire the PC. His dominating ways are making it difficult for the group.

2. Cut him out by having NPCs refuse to talk to him. If NPCs hire the PCs, have the NPC fire the Barbarian/Rogue at the first sign of a problem. "You don't want to get paid, do you? You're fired. I've heard of you and I don't need your trouble-making." Have other good NPCs treat the Barbarian/Rogue as a pariah and the other PCs as people to be pitied. "Oh, you're such nice people, but I don't understand why you hang around Barbarian/Rogue. He's just plain rude." Even their foes will hear about his behavior and most won't trust him "I won't talk with him in the room. He's a wack-job!" is a good take for prisoners. Have any prisoner refuse to cooperate and beg the other PCs for protection.

Give the Barbarian/Rogue every opportunity to change his attitude. People will cross the street to avoid him. Bartenders will throw him out of their pubs. Shopkeepers will overcharge him or refuse him service or close shop right as he walks through the door. Johnny Law will hassle him, telling him to move on, while the other PCs are welcome to stay a while. Local priests will avoid him and won't do anything to help such a trouble-maker. Even have good powerful NPCs lean on him, telling him to clean up his act "or it won't be pleasant." If the player complains, state that's what happens when your PC is a bully.

3. Kill the PC. Because he's the big mouth in the group, their foes will definitely think he's in charge. Have them rush in screaming "Kill their leader, kill Barbarian/Rogue!" And have them focus their attacks on him, to the exclusion of the rest of the group.

/BC

 

[CanadienneBacon]

Or you could just say to yourself that the barbarian/rogue is playing his character true to form. While not everything should necessarily go a barbarian's way while in a city or a town--curse these civilized humans and their city streets--I personally find nothing wrong with the player's chosen personality tact for the barbarian. He's playing a stereotype, true, but D&D is nothing if not chock full of delightful stereotypes just waiting to be played.

By the wording of your OP it seems you've already alluded to the advice you hanker to follow: let the PCs be heroes more often and don't plan out NPC reactions as much or as often.

 

[Hammerhead]

Since I haven't heard the details of the respective plans, I can't comment on them, but it's generally better to listen to the advice of "professional" bodyguards than that of a rich merchant. I mean, I'm sure he's smarter than the meathead barbarian in most areas, but tactical expertise probably isn't one of them. And in general, the DM should avoid having his NPCs come up with plans for the PCs to follow.

This Barbarian/Rogue doesn't seem particularly unstable or crazy (although he is lacking in subtlety). Sometimes threatening a prisoner with death or dismemberment is the best tactic; sometimes it isn't. He doesn't sound particularly different from cool tough protagonists like Dirty Harry or Jack Bauer.

 

[Numion]

It's not a problem that the player thinks "might makes right".

Because in D&D, might does make right.

Of course if a merchant doesn't like the PCs attitude, he's free to hire someone else. But IMC he'd probably be worse off - it's the difference between hiring a Jack Bauer and a mall security guard to protect your daughter. Bauer isn't going to do it exactly like you wanted, will torture suspects, beat people up, but he gets things done. A mall guard might do exactly what you want, but fail since he's not Bauer

 

[freyar]

To give an example, the party at the moment is trying to solve a series of murders in a town. They found the location of the local Theive's Guild and busted in. The dealt with the intial guards, leaving one of the them alive for questioning. The Barbarian/Rogue then threatens to kill him unless he tell the party everything he knows. In this situation the Rogue is stuck between a rock and a hard place. He obviously doesn't want to die, but at the same time, if he spills the beans the Thieve's Guild will probably track him down and kill him (or worse) anyway.

In this situation the thief lied and said that he didn't know much as he was relatively new, telling them a few minor details about the place. The party failed to see through his lies but were disappointed that a lot of the bad guys they came across seemed to not know much. My other option would have been for the thief to beg for mercy and tell the party everything he knew. That works sometimes but I don't think I'd want to do that everytime the party threatens someone.

Well, I'm not sure what to do about the good NPCs, but it sounds in this case that the party might want to put a little more emphasis on social skills if they want to get info out of captured mooks. (In this case, it sounds like they needed maybe more Sense Motive.) You could also try planning out what different DC Intimidate checks would get out of someone. So in this case, they might get information with some lies for a given DC, but a DC+5 (or something) check means that this thief is more frightened of the PCs than the guild and spills all the beans. Basically, just generalize the Intimidate check a little.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Yeah, I'd go with the Intimidate check, which is Cha-based, not Str-based. The Brb can *scare* people, but that doesn't necessarily translate into getting them to do what he wants them to do. A scared person may panic and try to break free and attack him, or may cave in but harbor a grudge and later come back for revenge. With the guard, who was probably tied up, you could have him just break down and start sobbing and screaming incoherently.

If he's threatening members of the Thieves' Guild, they in particular will come back for revenge. That's not being mean, that's a logical consequence of messing with the mob. They will attack his family and friends, steal his most precious belongings (destroying at least a few), and then come after him when he's sleeping. Or they will frame him for crimes, or take out a huge bounty on his head -- one that he can only remove by begging on bended knee. *You* the DM shouldn't want to humiliate him -- but the Thieves' Guild will.

It can certainly be in character to be belligerent and arrogant, but NPCs should react to that personality. Authorities, both legitimate and otherwise, take issue with people who disrespect authority.

 

[MonkeyDragon]

Clearly the player is making a conscious decision to play the PC a certain way. So it's not like he doesn't know what he's doing. I suggest discussing it with the player outside of the game. Tell him that you know he's playing a personality, and that's cool. But point out that the way he treats others is going to directly affect how the whole party is treated by NPCs. If that sort of interaction is fun for him, he may want to keep being rude. If he doesn't want to deal with all the stuff that's been mentioned above, he'll tone it down.

Also point out that if he gets the party on people's bad lists, his fellow players might not enjoy the game as much. Perhaps he should ask them if they mind his behavior and the results it has. They might consider his shenanigans roleplaying opportunities. Yay! They might also consider the consequences he's bringing down on them to be a PITA. Boo.

Remind him of some Golden Rules: Good gaming supercedes good roleplaying. "But that's what my character would do!" is never an excuse for being disruptive. Thou shalt not allow thy fun to come at the expense of anyone else's fun.

 

[el-remmen]

Because in D&D, might does make right.

I just needed to point out that this point of view is not necessarily the case for all D&D games (mine for example, where cultural values and religious/legal traditions make right - and sometimes that is parallel with a "might makes right" mentality)