My PCs are horrible people!

[fireinthedust]

I don't see much difference between comedy games and serious games. It doesn't matter if the world is filled with robot monkeys, and the players are fighting zombie chickens, it can still be serious (I like to cite Samurai Jack). And it doesn't matter how grim the situation is, there can still be comedy relief (one of the things I didn't like about the Lord of the Rings movies).

I apologize for misinterpreting your complaint- I assumed it was from moral reproach rather than frustration with PC stupidity.

No apologies necessary, actually, as it's a bit of both. I'm both shocked by their actions, and frustrated by the frankly silly plans. Granted, they got me by creating a bottleneck in the Inn, and so survived an attack of 25 bandits at 1st level (which is amazing).

There is a difference between comedy and serious, though.

Comedy, by my understanding, means the expectations of character actions are different. For example, they could quest in Christmas land for the Mighty McGuffin, botch fighting the evil Count Evil, blow up the Christmas Morn Inn using a giant model train, and still be hailed as heroes.

The idea of Comedy Relief requires its presence in a tragedy, a gritty or horror game, or some other situation where things aren't by default happy.

This can also include a game that is none of these things (ie: star trek, historical, super hero), but is simply based on "suspended reality".
Actions have consequences here, and whether or not there are funny moments, the NPCs will react like normal people would.

I am additionally mollified by evil PCs and have no desire to run a game for them. It's harder than a normal game, actually, because you need to use entirely different adventure hooks. they don't move without the promise of treasure, which means they are that harder to introduce to adventursome scenarios.

 

[S'mon]

I am additionally mollified by evil PCs

Mortified? Mollified would mean something like they calm you down and make you feel happy.

 

[Mallus]

The issue is that they're cruising for a bruising, but will get upset when it comes.

So then don't give them the bruising. You're in control of the entire world outside of the PCs, so it's your decision to make.

Or, if the campaign's tone has become unacceptable to you, ask your players to change, or, if they're unwilling to, graciously fold the campaign.

Let me say this as plainly as possible: this problem has nothing to with in-game consequences, logical or otherwise. The only real choices here are #1, do you want to keep running the campaign and #2 are the players willing to alter how they're playing.

For that reason there's a sense of accomplishment, and I have players who come back every week. that's the social contract.

Didn't you just say the players aren't going to enjoy the consequences you have planned for them, and have previously indicated they're been enjoying their dastardly hijinks so far?

So theorizing about the nature of and satisfaction inherent in accomplishment doesn't apply here. Your players aren't going to feel pleasurable accomplishment, they're going to get mad.

Ultimately, I don't want the PCs to get themselves killed, but if they do dumb stuff I have to respond to it.

Honestly, no, you don't. Not in-game, at least. Or if you mitigate your responses so that they intrigue your players, rather than just tick them off.

Your campaign world is about to experience a zombie-based apocalyptic scenario, right? Your concern is that the PCs have made too many enemies and therefore won't be able to survive in the new environment (question: is this a total surprise or do the characters know it's coming?).

The way to make this both reasonable and playable is to wait until the PCs are fairly competent/powerful before loosing the zombie hordes -- that way, even though their hated, they're also valuable. I can see plenty of great role-playing opportunities arising from having to work with the people they causally mistreated (even if they keep causally mistreating them).

I don't see much difference between comedy games and serious games. It doesn't matter if the world is filled with robot monkeys, and the players are fighting zombie chickens, it can still be serious (I like to cite Samurai Jack).

I like the way you think!

There is a difference between comedy and serious, though.

Right. It's who's on the receiving end.

Mortified? Mollified would mean something like they calm you down and make you feel happy.

It can be strangely soothing to have your worst fears about human nature confirmed!

 

[fireinthedust]

Honestly, no, you don't. Not in-game, at least. Or if you mitigate your responses so that they intrigue your players, rather than just tick them off.

Yes, yes I do. We all do.

There is a phrase for ignoring the actions of players for the GM's plot: Railroading.

RPGs that are more than glorified story time (GM reads a book/ could be Choose your own adventure) require the GM to respond to PC actions in game. If they pick a fight with the slavers' guild, the slavers will want to fight them.


I think the main issue is that there is one player who thinks I'm just going to mess with their heads. I think she doesn't trust me for some reason, and while I understand the examples, they really aren't things I was trying to do: there was this cart left by the gate with their treasure on it. Bandits arrived at the gate, there was a big fight, a dragon showed up, and after all was said and done the cart and mule were gone. Not destroyed by the dragon, simply gone, along with the boots and short swords the party. I admit, I had a bandit steal it so I could use it in a story later; but even if that doesn't come up, the group shouldn't be leaving their treasure lying around when there are bandits in the area!