When a DM Starts the Campaign off on the Wrong Foot

[MrMyth]

After trying to bait them into wrapping up the current adventure arc (and speaking to them about it metagame via email), they didn't go along with it. Last night's session, for which I prepared about 8 hours, ended up being a series of confusing discussions about why they shouldn't attack the BBEG. ("We don't have enough proof," "things are too ambiguous," and "what if he is too tough.") What was intended as a straightforward combat that should have taken 30-45 minutes and lead into the "rest" of the adventure (a typical save the small town vs. the evil humanoids mission) was instead replaced with split party investigations, going to brothels, visiting orphanages, street preaching, breaking into buildings - all done by individual characters with no clear goals in mind.

I try to make things as straightforward as possible, but they always find ways around it. The villain in this case was a LE manipulative type, and they totally bought every thing he said (even though the group KNEW he was evil and was trying to destroy the city).

I don't know. If the villain is a master manipulator who is successfully convincing them of things that are not true, then it may well be you aren't making things as straightforward as possible.

You really can't have it both ways - if you use a villain based around deception, and he succeeds at deceiving the PCs, you can't then go ahead and blame it on them. I'd take a step back, and either drop convincing proof in their laps that truly gets them to take action, or switch to using genuinely straightforward villains.

Outside of that, as others have said - did they enjoy the session? That is the important part, more than whether they went down the proper adventure path that you had planned. Taking the current adventure away from them and tossing them on another, because it didn't go as planned... I'd consider that carefully before doing so, if they are truly enjoying the game as it is now.

Which isn't to say that you need to keep running a game you don't enjoy, of course. But I'd certainly talk it over with them first.

 

[Retreater]

The problem is that the session was really, really dull. I think out of the 6 players, maybe 1 or 2 enjoyed much of it. The other 4 claimed to be frustrated, getting headaches, or really bored. There were also arguments after the game about the playing styles of others. I wouldn't be surprised if 2 or more of the players dropped out of the group after the session. It was probably the worst I've run in years.

Here's the evidence they had going into it.
1) Guy radiates an evil alignment.
2) Pretty good (divine) proof that said evil guy was planning on summoning an undead army in the near future to overrun the city
3) Attacking to the point of nearly killing a fellow party member who had snuck into his office and - when caught - tried to surrender

I set everything up for a very straightforward confrontation with the BBEG. When he was accused of being evil, he admitted it. When the party accused him of planning to overthrow the city, he said "oh, no - not me." They believed him and left him alone.

While I could have done things differently, it would have been strangely out of character for the campaign and the villain - in which case I would have been just as justified in having the mists of Ravenloft pick them up and drop them on Level 13 of Strahd's castle.

Now I'm going to do something similar to that anyway.

Retreater

 

[Olaf the Stout]

Looks like I broke the system. Thanks for the explanation. I have to admit that I didn't read the PF Core Rules from cover-to-cover, somewhat expecting it to fall in line more with standard 3.5 D&D.

The problem is that according to the Ptolus campaign guide, the armor and magic items are there. It is a very high magic setting. The PCs saved up their money (from 1st level) and purchased the armor on their own. If the shop keeper had said "you can only spend 25% of your money here" for a metagame reason, I think that would have made some in the group unhappy.

I think that Ptolus is more the problem than the Pathfinder system. The setting is far too restrictive in many ways and way too open in other ways. The Chaotic Neutrals in the party are willy-nilly going crazy and associating with thieves and assassins; the Lawful Goods in the party are teaming up with the equivalent of the Inquisition.

It's not going to end well if it follows its natural course.

I wished I'd had more time to prepare the campaign instead of being rushed into things without understanding the rules and having something planned other than "play in the Ptolus sandbox."

I think I will let the group finish up the adventure they are working on, then I'll convert to a new system/campaign setting. Perhaps let them come in with 3rd or 4th level characters in 4E.

And I'll never run in a city like Ptolus again.

Thanks for the advice, everybody.

Retreater

But characters starting above first level don't start naked with a bag of gold. The reason why there is meant to be a percentage limit on the value of each item that they can buy is because their starting items represent what they have come across in their adventuring careers to that point.

So they wouldn't have arrived in Ptolus with 3,000gp to spend. They would have arrived in Ptolus with items aquired over months/years of adventuring that just so happen to add up to 3,000gp.

It is a subtle difference but from a realism perspective that is how you can explain why they can't blow all their money on a single high value item.

Now if they then wanted to trade in some of those items for other items at shops in Ptolus they can. However it is doubtful that they will get the full market value for the goods they currently own.

In my campaigns when players start at higher than first level I let them pick some of their items themselves but I put a limit on what percentage they can spend on any one item.

I also pick some of their items for them, rather than just let them pick them all. This stops players that bring in new characters having super optimised gear compared to the existing characters in the campaign. It also means that they get items that are different from the standard (and often boring) +X Stat bonus item, +X sword, +X armour, +X protection item.

Olaf the Stout

 

[pemerton]

If the players are complaining about the session being dull, but can't bring themselves to play in a way that is more interesting for them, then it seems like you do have some dysfunction in your group.

From my own experience, I think something like you're describing - the players want an interesting session but can't bring themselves to actually make it happen - can be the result of confusion among the players, and between players and GM, about legitimate motivations for PC actions. In particular, if there is a strong ethic in the group of "no metagaming" and "actions must be justified as being within character" then a game can veer off the rails in the way you describe.

My suggestion (which really repeats some of what I and others have said upthread) would be to have a frank out-of character conversation. Ask the players why they didn't go for the bad guy. If they tell you they (the players) honestly thought he wasn't the villain, then you know you need to set up your plots more straightforwardly. But if they tell you that they (the players) knew but they though their PCs did not, then encourage them to be a bit more proactive in metagaming their PCs. For example, the cleric PC (assuming there is one) could be a bit more forthright in emphasising the existence of the divine proof, and insist that the villain come back to the temple for more testing. At that point, presumably the villain would resist and a fight would ensue.

On the other hand, if the players knew that the villain was the villain, and chose to have their PCs think otherwise simply because they couldn't be bothered, and deliberately wanted to tank the game even though it meant they had a dull time, then I don't know what to suggest. That's the sort of dysfunction from which a group may not recover. . .

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

In real life if you were planning an operation that had a serious risk of death attached, but a potentially huge payoff, you would *only* pick people you knew for certain you could trust. People that you'd known for years. Ofc that's not what happens in a typical game, but that's rpgs for you.

I see most parties as...well...parties.

Y'know- a bunch of people gathered around a source of alcohol who find a common ground of agreement when someone says: "You know what would be REALLY cool?"

That's why we have cliff divers, bungee jumpers, free climbers, noodlers, and all kinds of people who risk their lives for fun.

Substitute the modern world with the sword & sorcery set, and voila! Adventuring party!

 

[The Human Target]

Though I understand the theory behind this, I disagree with it in practice.

Tell the players what system you're running and what books you'll allow. Within that and any cultural restrictions you're setting (e.g. you're in a Dwarven nation so you'll all start with Dwarves), let 'em roll up what they want as far as the dice will take 'em. It's down to you as DM to figure out how these guys are going to end up as a party, and after that if the PCs don't get along: well hey, that's reality. They'll either have to roleplay their way through it, throw down on each other, or whatever...and if one or more PCs do end up leaving the party, keep in mind they're still going to be out there for later reference; your world just gained some depth.

Lanefan

I disagree strongly.

Its not the DMs responsibility to cater solely to their characters nor do I think most people enjoy party in-fighting.

 

[The Human Target]

I'd say its time to cull the players down to the group that plays both more how you enjoy your game being and that enjoy how each other play.

There can be only one.

 

[Wasteland Knight]

Update:

After trying to bait them into wrapping up the current adventure arc (and speaking to them about it metagame via email), they didn't go along with it. Last night's session, for which I prepared about 8 hours, ended up being a series of confusing discussions about why they shouldn't attack the BBEG. ...What was intended as a straightforward combat that should have taken 30-45 minutes and lead into the "rest" of the adventure ..was instead replaced with split party investigations, going to brothels, visiting orphanages, street preaching, breaking into buildings - all done by individual characters with no clear goals in mind.
...
Next session, I'm not even going to try to wrap up anything. I'm just pushing the game ahead a few weeks time and starting things "in media res" to where the action is.

Retreater

Reading this, I don't think the problem is Pathfinder (although unfamiliarity with the rules doesn't help) or Ptolus, but rather that you have serious group issues. Your players are all running off on their own agendas without regards to the campaign. Whether due to selfishness, boredom, frustration or combining together in a vicious cycle I can't say for certain, but to be blunt, if you continue on I don't see it getting any better. You've got six players who aren't meshing together as a group (I'm talking as a group of people, not the PC's). My advice would be to decide what type of game you want to run and let the players who's gaming style fits that type of campaign follow you and the others can look to finding a group where they'll fit. Sounds harsh, but currently your game is spiralling out of control and is probably past the point of no return.

 

[Doug McCrae]

On the plus side, your players are good roleplayers. I've played in groups like that myself where there was little party cohesion. In fact I had a GM who actually used to encourage that kind of thing. He saw a big part of the game as being inter-PC conflict. That same guy liked very slow moving games as a player. I think his ideal session was - PCs learn something, PCs spend next three hours discussing what to do about it. He frikkin loved to talk.

I really think your group would work great for some GMs, but not for you. Like me, you prefer a more cohesive party, a faster paced game.