Heroic Campaigns...and how players disrupt them.

[Joseph Elric Smith]

I have only had one campaign ever ruined by the players, and that was about 20 years ago, when we didn't; know any better. Every campaign I have ran since then I tell the players up front what I am hoping to run, then once the game gets started, I modify the world to the players actions I tend to run dynamic world where while the plots and back story may continue the party may or may not take part in it based upon their characters actions, I find running a successful campaign is a combination of the story lines I had in mind at the start and the effect the characters have in the world
Ken

 

[Voneth]

The GM's often think that they know what's best for the plot and can't handle it when the PCs feel incapable of handling the plot.
my 2c.

Hmm, and sometimes it's a guy who is grandstanding or gets a power trip from messing with other people.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Sounds like you have less of a problem with him being heroic and more with him not being a team player.
...
I hate to say it, but some players are better off playing card and miniature games where the object is to defeat your friends...

can I get a HALLELUJAH, brother!!!!!!

Games where players are competing to have the better character, to be the strongest, get the most loot, and even considering roleplaying competitive (heh, my character is going to influence this plot more than yours) are not going to have heroic themes. If you've set up competition between the players as a group and the DM, its just gonna get worse.

I'm very much a follower of the "cooperative storytelling" model of RPGs and have tried to learn to identify and reject the "Doom with die roles instead of reflexes" followers. But the "competitive storytellers" can be just as disruptive and come in under the radar more easily...

Kahuna Burger

 

[Endur]

Heroes are now Slaves

Well, this sounds like a lack of imagination on the part of the GM.

Once the heroes become slaves, the campaign can go on. The evil overlord probably sends the slaves off to the Gladiator pits or maybe to the salt mines.

If its the gladiator pits, you get to run fights in the pits and level up the characters.

If its the salt mines, they get to dig and dig (or maybe break through into deep underground tunnels nobody knew about, fight a balrog, etc.).

In either case, eventually the slaves break free, maybe spark a slave rebellion, the heroes become leaders of the rebellion and drive the evil overlord out of power.

Tom

I brought this up because this is how my last game ended, after everybody agreeing to play heroic characters and fight against evil...then out of the blue one of the characters, who happens to be neutral and not evil, roleplayed an encounter and thought it best to turn the other characters in

... even though it was within how his character was designed (for the most part)...

it ended the game because he layed a trap for the others and when they realized that the boat they were on was owned by the evil overlord and they were suddenly trapped and became slaves, or they could jump over the side into a ocean with no land around, then the player told them about it...

yes there was a lynching...err...almost a lynching. One of the players even said he has rope in his garage...

I guess the real question is, why is it so hard for some people to play good and heroic?

 

[David Argall]

why trapped?

"it ended the game because he layed a trap for the others and when they realized that the boat they were on was owned by the evil overlord and they were suddenly trapped and .."

But how, without DM help, was he able to trap the party? At the least, the DM has all sorts of ways to warn the other players, and to some degree a duty [such as a few sense motive rolls against your backstabbing "friend".] This does sound like DM error.

 

[green slime]

Back to the issue at hand
Its not that bad.

You just make the evil character have to choose between two evils... I mean there is an Evil SO bad, SO major, the Evil PC is going to get his butt kicked beyond whereever, so the only choice to co-operate within the party.

For instance, in the above scenario, where the party was captured and made slaves, the BBEG, "thanks" the betrayor by running a big sword through him, in the standard tradition of who can trust a traitor? Or has him thrown in goal with irons on. Noone is going to come to his rescue...

That'll give the player something to think about...While the others have a chance to escape, he gets to push up the daisies.

Also important is the plot twist, wherein the threat isn't really from where it seems to be from. The BBEG who is openly evil isn't the REAL BBEG, he is just a plot distraction, and subject to some bad press, that is all.

 

[Keith]

Yes, Earthshadow, I’ve had this same problem. Generally, I would prefer campaigns to take a heroic turn at some point, even if not right out of the gate. I don’t really enjoy DMing or playing in ones that don’t. I get to experience enough mundane, career-track aspects of life; I don’t need to role-play them. I want to play something I will never have the chance to do in real life, likely. Not just the casting spells or disabling traps part, but the whole saving the world or at least some of it shtick.

I do have trouble playing with people who just want to accumulate power. To be honest, if I wanted that feeling, I would take care of it in real life. Anyway, the advice I have is this: come up with a relatively long-term plot arc that requires an anti-hero component. Then create several paths by which a self-motivated evil character might find themselves drawn into that role. Perhaps by coercion; live by evil...well, you know the rest. I think the DM has every right to expect to get a thrill out of the way their own campaign goes. They have a lot of options available to make that happen, too. The evil character being used by a good society to do good despite their own intent works OK. I also agree with the people who suggest that, at least some of the time, you tell players outright not to create evil, selfish, or otherwise non-heroic characters. It is enough that D&D characters are so often nothing but glorified tomb robbers without them always having to be pompous jerks as well! I have my doubts about people who perpetually want the game to go that route.

 

[Marius Delphus]

One DM I know has run two games (not campaigns) in which the assassin PC successfully offed all the other PCs. We "re-booted" one of the games because we wanted to finish the dungeon.

I ran a campaign (more than one game) with two Evil characters (four Neutral or Good) and somehow they all stayed working together. I'm not sure how (or whether) I managed that, but my suspicion is that it had something to do with the fact the characters had a vested interest in their mutual survival. The characters were certainly not Bright, Shining Heroes but were rather thrust (unceremoniously) into a situation where they basically had to deal with whatever I threw at them. (Plus, it was a college game, so very laid-back motivation-wise. This was where I learned the lesson "make the *players* worry, and their characters will follow suit.")

I'm inclined to agree with the above (various posters) that Evil characters are, for the most part, a result of "competitive" players. Players that don't want any time out of the spotlight; players that don't want (their characters) to behave the way someone else (the game milieu) tells them they ought to behave; players that think their Evil characters (and by extension, they themselves? Pop psych here) are "cooler" somehow; players that like the thought of "getting away" with stuff they could never do in real life.

I'd posit that, as in many DM vs. player "style" conflicts, the choice of an anti-heroic campaign versus a heroic campaign often leaves very little room for compromise. About the only wiggle room you get is to appeal to the Evil character's selfish nature and "prove" (through plot/adventure development) that going along with the Good characters is going to be the more attractive option *always* (as per green slime's example).

Cogito ergo uh-oh. I think, therefore something's about to go wrong.

[EDIT: Thanks, Keith. Your post reminded me of the plot acrobatics required to keep the Evil characters toeing the line. Also reminds me of Autolycus from "Hercules: The Legendary Journeys" (Bruce!!): while not particularly Evil, certainly a character who did good deeds (at least in his first few appearances) only because they were in his best interest. I should add that I usually simply prohibit Evil characters these days, because they're too much of a pain in the rear... but I'm also lucky enough to be in a group where it's not an issue.]

 

[Keith]

Interesting points, Marius. Thought provoking. I agree wtih you, and have nothing to add, just wanted to say that was a cool contribution (to a good discussion all around).