When a DM Starts the Campaign off on the Wrong Foot

[pemerton]

I'd add my voice to those who suggest a frank out-of-game discussion. I would be careful about implementing an ingame "solution" (like rust monsters, gray oozes or NPCs to be made examles of) before talking out of game, because this can easily come across as heavy-handed and adversarial GMing.

If you, as a group, decide to keep the game going then rather than rust monsters the PCs might be able to donate their surplus loot to the organisations that they are loyal to - this achieves the same mechanical result but makes the PCs look powerful and heroic rather than like losers who can't look after their stuff.

The divided loyalties thing is tricky - especially if it is symptom of player prerferences that will reemerge even in a reboot of the campaign. You might want to talk with the players about what sort of mission or adversary could unify their disparate loyalties and go with that. A really powerful villain might be one example of this, but something else might come up in conversation with your players.

As to nuking Ptolus from orbit - that may not be necessary if you and the rest of the group come up with a reason why the PCs have to leave Ptolus to fight their common enemy.

EDIT: Also, to avoid problem 3, try to stick to wealth-by-level guidelines (I assume Pathfinder still has these).

 

[sev]

It should always be okay to say: "This isn't working for me. Can we talk about doing things differently?"

You and your players working together should be able to come up with way more appropriate solutions than you and us talking about it, since they're there.

I agree with everybody who said that in-game repercussions are inappropriate here -- especially given your descriptions of your players. Neither new players nor players who take their in-game experiences personally will enjoy having your dissatisfaction inflicted on their PCs.

I had a similar experience DMing, some years ago, all the way down to the mission-abandonment habit. And the additional problem that I was over-committed at work and didn't really have time to prepare for gaming anymore. We all agreed that I would take a break from DMing, and somebody else stepped in with an entirely different campaign. Now, years later, I've finally got some time on my hands, so we've re-started the campaign world 500 years in the future, rolled up new PCs and are using a whole new system. It's been fun, because now we all know each other better & know what we like and what we need to get us motivated.

 

[Lanefan]

If you don't like the system you're running then by all means sink that campaign and start something else. Maybe even let the players port their characters over (but not their possessions, and start again from 1st level) if they enjoy playing them.

But let them squabble if that's what they want to do!

Let them abandon missions if that's what they want to do!

Either of these are better than forcing characters to get along, or railroading parties into completing missions the players are bored with. But - and this is where you need a solid backstory, history, etc. before you start - make sure they know that abandoning a mission might come back to bite them later; and make sure you know how and why that might happen.

Lan-"the most memorable sessions are those where the PCs kill each other"-efan

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

(Yet another) Vote for "Don't continue using Pathfinder if you don't like the system." Be honest with them. Even if the group implodes, you'll be better off than if you continue to beat your head against an RPG tome you don't like.

Then ask if they'd like you to continue to run the campaign in another system.

If so, look at the systems you DO like. Heck, you could even ask the assembled group about their preferences. Work with your players to help them convert their PCs (if they want to) or design PCs they'll enjoy in the new system.

If they want a complete reboot, start afresh.

But ReboKesh's point is VERY important: don't get out of one jam and repeat your "mistakes" by doing the same things you did before. Don't be afraid to say something isn't available, or to have unscrupulous merchants consider them to be "unsophisticated marks" with "too much gold" and jack their prices up 1000%- these things happen in the RW, after all. Scarcity and price gouging are part of economic realities.

As is theft. Splash a lot of cash in a new city and you'll attract a LOT of attention from the underworld element.

 

[MrMyth]

Chiming in with the rest - if you don't like running a system, better to end things before you get too frustrated with it.

My advice would be to explain things to them, offer to wrap things up in one or two 'apocalypse' sessions where they can be totally awesome, and then figure out what the group wants to do next.

 

[weem]

...and if you missed it all those other times...

I agree, it's time to hit the reset button.

Your enjoyment of the game is every bit as important as that of the players. Besides, if you aren't enjoying the game, the chances are you are not running an enjoyable game anyway.

 

[weem]

x2 post.

 

[MortonStromgal]

First off I agree with everyone who said if you dont like it dont run it. As to the AC problem, I would just pick higher CR monsters or add a couple points to the enemy BAB. If its only the one player with the high AC give the other players some magic items to boost the other player AC a bit to bring it within 4 or so difference. To be fair you can give the high AC player some magic items that dont boost his AC. Make sure the items are atuned or something to the individual so they dont go trading.

 

[Retreater]

To be fair, the PCs bought their equipment based on the standard wealth levels in the PF Core Rules. They just spent the majority of their wealth allowance on +1 full plate (I have 3 out of 6 characters wearing it in the group.) They are very, very tooled out for defense.

Their offense is extremely weak. Their Touch AC is terrible. Their Armor Check penalties are awful. An encounter with a Shadow would be terrible (no magic weapons, bypassing armor). A mission requiring stealth or with swimming would be met with failure.

I know how to counteract the characters in combat. I just don't know if I should do so.

I know I could also have everyone in the city throw up their hands and say "we're not helping you anymore." Again, I just don't know if I should do so.

Retreater

 

[pemerton]

I know how to counteract the characters in combat. I just don't know if I should do so.

If the players have a lot of heavy armour wearers, it sounds like they're not all that interested in stealth or swimming missions, so I'd be hesitant to use that sort of adventure.

Shadows, on the other hand, could be a lot of fun if handled properly (and assuming that the players are interested in playing tough combats). I don't have a good handle on the 3E/PF CR and encounter building guidelines, but my intuition would be to have 1 or 2 shadows at the most, with other foes who the PCs have a better chance against - maybe a couple of evil priests who summoned the shadow(s). You'd then expect the PCs to handle the priests fairly easily, but to find finishing off the shadow(s) to be a bit of a climactic battle. This could be a fun encounter, especially if there are a few walls or pillars for the shadow(s) to move through, making the tactical challenge for the PCs a bit harder.

My general advice (for what's it worth) would be to first think of encounters that would be fun but challenging for your players, then to think of a way that those encounters can be fitted into the already-established plotline of the game, and then to think of a way that those encounters can be used to try to push the group towards a little bit more cooperation or unity. All this, of course, assuming that the players are interested in playing a fairly typical fantasy RPG.