My mild frustration - an evil party

[Terwox]

Eh, two easy ideas. I'd say just metagame say "hey, I'm going for more a heroic tone of the game."
Then hurry the plot along until the players are in more of a situation to be able to be heroic. You might want to hurry along the final fantasy part of "slowly being drawn into the big plot," to get the characters more motivated to be heroic. Might even want to let them whack their BBEG they see, but then they find out the BIG PLOT behind everything and get sucked into being heroes. Might be neat, and it's certainly final fantasy -- the "bad guy mercenaries" turn into "save the world paladins."

 

[S'mon]

Sylvan wrote:
>>Step 8
Effectively the PC's have to contend with greater and greater challenges, NPC's bounty hunters and family members, racking up XP if they scucceed and ending the campaign eventually if they don't. The key here is to not take everything so personally. Sure the fact that your campaign got messed up is bad, but I have just as much fun watching the "evil campaign" develop as I do my own ideas. I had one game last for over a year of sessions. They died together is a very nasty dungeon who's denziens and traps didn't care if they were evil or not.

You just have to remember that they are here to play a game and have fun, not fufill your storyline and meet your expectations<<

I agree with all this wholeheartedly. An evil PC group, by definition, is not interested in the heroic-good-guy story you have 'planned' for them. But evil games can be a lot of fun, as long as you keep the world plausible - no deus ex machinas, no 'world revolves around them' & they always arbitrarily win a la Natural Born Killers, but no arbitrarily failures or punishments either. If they fail, if high-level heroes hunt them down and wipe the floor with them, it should be as a result of their own actions. Actually in all the evil games I've GM'd, it wasn't good-guy heroes who finished off the PCs, it was their own friends and allies - think Reservoir Dogs or the Sopranos. Evil is jealous, paranoid and unforgiving. Betrayal for perceived self advantage or to eliminte a perceived threat is a common reaction. I ran great 'evil' campaigns set within the Star Wars Imperial military, with tons of jockeying for advantage & attempts to climb the slippery pole to power, with loads of Machiavellian intrigue, character (and literal) assassination, betrayal & backstabbing. While one Imperial PC did get killed by Rebels, being killed by a rival Imperial faction during some bit of skullduggery was a far more common fate. Likewise I ran an AD&D 'evil' campaign that took a solo Chaotic-Evil PC, Mortis, from low to demigod level in the service of demon prince Graz'zt; it ended when the now-super-powerful PC started making suggestions to Graz'zt that he was now really more an ally of Big G than a mere minion, then accidentally broke a treaty Graz'zt had with Thrin (Upper_Krust's deity PC), giving Graz'zt the excuse to send a kill team to hunt down and eliminate Mortis before he could truly threaten G's power. If you look at how evil functions in the real world, from dictatorships to crime families, that kind of thing happens all the time.

 

[LazerPointer]

hunt them relentlessly. They haven't had respect for the campaign you've envisioned. If it was me I'd send a bunch of paladins after them. Then, just when they're weak, BAM! with the Boba Fet.

 

[Humanophile]

I have to say, my answer would be somewhere between the carrot and the stick.

The players have made a good deal of a mess. Have someone with enough power to make them sweat hear about it, and give them a nice, cinematic battle. Preferably the good guy gets damaged enough to retreat after giving the party a good bruising, but if the party presses the attack, let them take him down (with maybe a casualty amongst their own ranks).

After that sesson, have a long talk. Tell them that you don't mind amoral/pragmatic PC's, but outrageous evil like they've been up to bothers you. Maybe you'll step up the in-game consequences for a realism balance, maybe you'll just have to kill the whole game.

If the players take the hint from both the beatdown and the chat, great. I get the feel you could handle scuzzy characters so long as they weren't so cartoony about it. If they tone things down and only act really evil when they have to be evil, all's well.

If the party agrees with you but just can't seem to play evil as anything other than rampant slaughter, give them a few more sessons as the Forces of Good draw the noose tighter around them. Let them get the bad-guy impulses out of their systems, TPK, have heroism requirements when everyone re-starts. Let everyone know that this is a limited plot arc, you shouldn't have too many complaints about it (one would hope).

If the party actively insists on playing sociopaths without consequences, and resists attempts at reform, kill the game. Spend the money that you would've spent on gaming materials on board, card, or video games. Have another excuse for socializing that doesn't evoke so much stomach-churning.

 

[Ghostknight]

But if the players ARE happy, only a truly selfish DM would have to find reasons NOT to be happy.

What? A DM has to be happy with what the players want? Come on, isn;t he an independent person, playing the game for enjoyment as well? If the game is not enjoyable for him, it is the same as it not being enjoyable for a player, but most often the group can afford to lose a player a lot easier than a DM! If I am not happy in a game, it is not because I FIND reasons, but because I do not enjoy it- there is no social contract that says the DM HAS to enjoy the game if the plaers are!

Being a DM involves a lot of personal sacrafice which ultimately should culminate in the players enjoying themselves. This should be the reward for the DM. S/he puts on a good show and the players are happy.

I disagree- the DM is not a charity worker, putting his needs aside for the good of the group- he has as much right as anybody else in the group to enjoy the game. if he isn't, then it is his right to walk away from it- regardless of how much fun the pthers may be having. Putting on a good show may not be enough for him!

Now if the players ARE happy but the DM isn't, then that DM has missed the point of DMing. It's not about taking a World and concepts and plotlines and shoving them down the throats of the players in some mad attempt to prove that you're the next Gygax/Monte Cook incarnation, but to make the players happy. You've got to be receptive to their wants and needs and to ignore that is just plain horrific.

And I repeat- the role of the DM is not that of a public service. It does not mean that players have to be railroaded for the DM to be happy, but that the DM may have a vision for the campaign and the players have a different one. In this case the DM not wanting to play a psychotic evil game. Yes, listen to the players needs and wants, but that does not mean that your needs and wants are irrelvant. If the disparity between you and the players cannot be bridged- it is time for a new Dm or a different group! Bottom line is that different people enjoy different things- a DM has a right to find players/campaign that he is comfortable with and happy running. Lets say a DM wants to run a homebrew- but all the players want the Forgotten Realms- by your thinking the DM MUST run the Forgotten Realms, even though he may hate the setting and have no fun doing so!

I'll lastly say this. If a DM's players are truly enjoying themselves yet the DM is not (due to "inappropriate" jokes, problems with the DM's concepts of "verisimilitude" not being whole-heartedly embraced by the players, alignment squabbles, meta-gaming, etc.), then that DM is in the wrong business. That DM is a control freak to end all control freaks and would be better suited directing theatre/films. That way, the participants won't really have a choice but to act in accordance with the DM's desires.

You miss the point. it is not about DM control. Noone is advocating that the DM tell the players what actions they may take next (ala the "Choose your own adventure" books"), BUT that the DM may want a certain flavour to his campaign and that players want something different. it is appropriate for a DM to ask for a change so he too can have fun, not about control- but about a DM having a right to also enjoy the game.

[QUOTE}Bottom line: If the players are happy but the DM is not, the DM has a helluva lot to learn.[/QUOTE]

I've been playing for 25 years odd- most of the time as a DM (and the first PCs I have played in the last 15 years is here on Enworld!). In all that time I have never run a campaign that I did not enjoy. I also had remarkably stable groups (even when we initially only met at the University club abd through the local RPG shop), and I have at times stopped a campaign when it went wild, and I did not enjoy it- players given the choice of change campaign or change the direction of the game. And my games are very open ended- the plots generated via character actions within my meta-plots etc.

Nothing to do with being a control freak but this is mu hobby- I do it for recreation, if it is not fun- then it is pointless and I don't need to fustrate myself playing a game I do not enjoy!

 

[WizarDru]

Hmm.

Hmmmmmm.

Interesting stuff. It could play one of several ways, depending. I'm not entirely sure, especially since I don't know much of your players, if there's even an actual problem, per se.

One thing I will say: don't try to 'fix the players' or otherwise force them to the path of righteousness by some hamhanded story tactic. It generally tends to backfire, if you spring it on the players with no warning. Resentment can even be a result, over time.

First thought: this is a steampunk universe. Generally, this impies a different moral subset than standard fantasy. This may be an issue. Further, the old saying is "A cornered animal is the most dangerous one of all." You've pushed the PCs up against a wall, possibly showing them that the normal authorities are corrupt or of no help and then sent them packing. They may think they have to be SOBs, because that's the only way to survive, and everyone is a potential enemy, stooge or snitch.

Second thought: the unreality of the 'bouyancy' wizards, and the schlock nature of them may have corrupted the tone you were shooting for. Yes, they may have become creepy later...but that time, you may have pushed your players into 'GURPS Goblins' territory, instead of 'Diamond Age' or 'Castle Falkenstein' territory. They may have assumed that they had wandered into a world with a different subset of rules and mores, and subsequent behavior flows from that. Maybe they even view everything as sort of a black comedy, or that being an anti-hero is actually what you wanted.

Now, the situation is hardly irreversible, I would expect. Heroes on the mend is a popular concept, and certainly nothing you can't work with. Here's a few ideas for you:

1) Discuss this with your players. Don't just say "I don't like it.", but say "how do you feel about the way the game is going?" Find out what they expect, what they expected going in, and if there's a disconnect going on. You don't have to say "I need to change this or the game is over." (though you could), but perhaps "I'm not sure I like where we're heading, and not sure that we can run a campaign of any length like this."

2) Read Kid Charlemagne's suggestion. It's a really good one. It puts the situation in the player's faces, but it isn't railroading and gives them the power to address the situation. Unlike the 'uber-NPC' schools you, it generally gives the players both an RPG opportunity without making them feel like you're hitting them with a hammer.

3) Have the bad guy send some emissaries to the PCs. Have them offer to recruit them. That's right, have their enemy offer to hire them...because he didn't realize they were such bastards. Either way, you have some good opportunities: if they say no, they've got something to chew on...in fact, you could make it the start to an adventure, as they trail the guy or something similar. If they say yes, you can try to steer it to a 'good guys working undercover or trying to reform a bad organization'. Angel's fifth season showed how this could be an interesting and workable premise.

4) Have word spread of them to other villages and towns....but don't make them send for a brigade of paladins: make them terrified. Truly terrified. Have NPCs scream and run to their homes when they see them coming. Think of viking raiders setting upon a hapless and undefended farming village. The blacksmith can't forge horseshoes for their animals, from shaking so much for fear that they'll kill him and harm his daughter. Imagine a set of terrified commoner/expert 1s armed with farm implements making a stand while the women and children flee to the hills. They don't attack, just try to stand in-between the PCs and the escaping families....and the PCs just standing, dumb-founded. "But...but...we're don't even have our weapons out. We're not here to hurt you! We just need some supplies!"

Now, if PCs feel empowered, rather than horrified by this, you have a few choices to make.

1) have the bad guys notice them, and consider them competition...competition that needs eliminating. Soon they find themselves in the midst of a war between BBEGs, perhaps.

2) Make it clear that you're not interested in running a game where the PCs behave like sociopaths on a 'natural-born killers' style rampage. Either they choose to start acting like heroes, or perhaps a new game is in order...because you don't like creating adventures in that light.

3) Have the good guys offer them a deal to 'get out of jail'. Essentially, if they behave and prove themselves, they can be exonerated...but if they choose not to, they WILL be hunted, and they will fall. One Greater Planar Ally later, and the eclisiarch of the local church will have more donations from the faithful, and the PCs will be dead.

 

[DragonLancer]

Should I try to get rid of the more vicious characters, and ask the player to create a new character? Or do you have some suggestions?

Just explain to them that the way the campaign is going, thats not the sort of game you want to run. I bane Evil PC's in my games, and sadly, I'm thinking of asking for a damn good reason for chaotics as well.

If you have decent players they will listen, explain there side of things, and the two sides can come to some understanding and work things out.

 

[Greg K]

I agree with those saying have the players deal with the consequences. Recently, I was in a GURPS horror campaign in which my character was an amoral street thug, who just happened to stumble upon the supernatural. In his downtime, the character was, among other things, acting as a pimp for some hookers provided they did not use drugs.
Well, the character became hired on the payroll of a wealthy PC and moved onto his estate, but held onto his old apartment. One day, he realized that some of the girls were doing drugs in the apartment and staked out the building. Two drug dealers showed up at the apartment during the evening, as they left, the character ambushed them and downed them during an exchange of gunfire. Unfortunately, one of them survived, but was currently in the hospital and inable to talk with the police.
Already having a rap sheet and having had crossed paths with the police on more than occassion as the result of dealing with the supernatural, the character hired an assasin to kill the guy in the hospital.
The assassin botched the job and, after being caught, broke down during interrogation and implicated my character. The result was that their was a manhunt on my character, who until this point had kept his associates out of his side dealings.
However, once the manhunt affected the other PC's and risked exposing the wealthy guys illicit business, the group turned against my character. The wealthy guy's head of security picked a fight with my character which started as threats, escaltated to the drawing of knives and then climaxed into a shootout among my the bodyguard and my PC.
Upon learning of the shootout, the wealthy PC, decided that despite his like of my character,his presence was not good for business. Luckily, he gave my character some money and smuggled him out of town on the provision that he did not return.
Now honestly, I never expected my character to live past the one-shot adventure for which he was initially designed . He was a protagonist, but definitely not a hero so I thought he was sure to die a quick death. However, when the one shot became a full campaign, I was not disappointed that the GM turned up the heat on my character based upon his background and actions. Everyone agreed, that it made for an interesting story even if it did result in the players taking the story in a direction that the GM had not planned.

So I say, turn up the heat and make the characters face the consequences of their actions!