I just started HotDQ this weekend. I'm a relatively new DM with relatively new players. We're more familiar with the PC incarnation than the pen and paper.
Anyway, three of players simply can't get along. One is an aging Monk convinced he sees visions of the future, but is played like Don Quixote via Barney Fife. One is essentially a deranged Fighter whose solution to every problem is slaughter. The last is a NG who loves tactics and strategy and has plenty of compassion. The Fighter and Monk play the game with no regards for the other players. The Ranger especially is annoyed by how the Monk ruins every attempt at strategy, and how the Fighter often slaughters innocent creatures.
So the question from an inexperienced DM: how would you handle this. I tried to introduce in game consequence, but it did not dissuade them. Also the Ranger is determined to kill the Fighter next time he acts evil. How do you handle it when players actually want to fight each other?
In-game consequences don't do anything. The ranger killing the fighter wouldn't help, even if he had a valid excuse for it, which he doesn't.
If the ranger can't go along with what the other players are determined to do, then you all need to talk about whether you should really be gaming together. It's possible that you just can't. But if you can understand why everyone wants to play the way they do, maybe there's a way to remove or adjust certain incentives for their behavior.
I predict that people are going to say: "Why should the ranger player go along?" Well, the ranger sounds like the most reasonable person in this group, threat of character killing notwithstanding. Ideally, the others would go along with him, but realistically that's a lost battle, unless everyone talks it over.
There are groups that dont work with each other. Sometimes because of the players, sometimes because of what they play. You can not change the first. But you can change the second. When they create charaters simply tell them you want them to work together, not against each other. When they cant do that, find a new group that can.
This is specifically from a different RPG (Fate), but your players are failing at one of the most important rules of roleplaying: part of your job as a player is to make the other characters around you look awesome.
I'd teach them this rule, tell them that it is the new #1 rule of your campaign (given the circumstances), and then point out when they are breaking it. They will either learn or leave the group (perhaps be your hand).
First, I'm amused. Not by the situation itself, but the fact that I was at that point (like many others) when starting as a DM. So I have a lot of sympathy for you, but I like to speak frankly: You made probably your first mistake even before character creation.
When you use a modul, always read it first and ensure, that your players have a bit of knowledge what is roughly happening. In HotDQ it would be: "An evil cult, called Cult of Dragons, are collecting and stealing treasures over the entire Sword Coast. Your party will try to stop them to do, whatever they plan to do with those treasures, since the Cult of Dragons isn't interested in wealth at all". When your players have a rough idea, they can build their motivation around it and the motivation will link them to each other and be it to each others benefit.
But even now you can still talk to your players about it.
Of course it doesn't stop players of creating awkward characters. After seeing enough spiked-chain-fighters, monk/druids, etc. which were so combat concentrated that they couldn't even think outside of encounters and filled the emptyness of character with bloodlust, I can suggest you the following.
1.) Talking to your players often helps. If there are more than those three players, ask their opinion. When you're new at P&P-games, you often sees only the things which are more out of PC-Games, the fighter seems like a typical WoD-Brute character to me, while the monk watched definitely too much TV. This can be pretty annoying for those who have already experience or knows better of what the game is about (fun). Tell the players that atm the fun-factor isn't as it should be and let them think why that is so and how to change it by themselves first.
2.) Let them roam a while in a satisfying way. A fighter who likes to kill isn't necessarily a bad concept (even though it isn't great either, since it can be really disrupting). But there are more than enough chances to kill stuff, so try to talk to the player, that the character begins to think (or maybe the ranger might persuade him ingame), that a slaughter at any situation will only bring small reward with a lot of pain. When the ranger makes the arrangements, then his battle-prowess and merciless will be a great strategic asset, while the fighter can make a slaughter, without dying. Maybe (even though most players won't agree to it, especially new ones), there might be some leverage needed ingame, so the obviously evil character can't do what he wants to to people who don't deserve it.
The monk is a harder problem, but if he thinks he sees the future and such, just warn him once outgame and come up with an ingame consequence. There are reasons why not many crazy guys are roaming the streets...
3.) Maybe you should let them fight. If both players agree, you can simply let them fight or compete in a way, where one character either dies (and the players creates a new, more fitting one) or is dutybounded to the winner. A ranger won't be able to fight a fighter head on, but he doesn't need to. The ranger has a good chance, as long as he keeps his strategic mind openly. In RL sometimes a direct confrontation can work wonders, ingame it might be true, too. But be sure that both are able to accept any kind of result, since otherwise this will become a scar.
And there are plenty of competitions they might consider, like who kills most kobolds.
The basic idea is, to get a consens between outgame and ingame. P&P is a good way to relieve stress, but it shouldn't build up more stress than necessarily (there are just some days, where nobody is truly happy about the session). As a DM you should keep resilient and go on and if they can't do it right after talking and sorting it out by themselves, then take decisive action.
Sigbjorn wrote:
Sigbjorn wrote:
iserith wrote:
There seems to be some prevailing notion that a DM has to put up with players' dysfunctional antics. You do not. You are not a babysitter.
They asked you to run. They asked you to take time out of your day to perform a service. The least they can do is give you the courtesy of playing nice and right.
This does not make you the DM special or better than anyone else at the table, but NO ONE at that table, be it PLAYER or DM should have to put up with this kinda grief during what is supposed to be a fun time for ALL.
Understand they aren't just ruining the game for you, but for the other players as well (who aren't in on the antics), so even if you don't mind, it's a good chance the others are miserable too.
Talk to the "offending" players out of game. Make it clear should they not play nice and not play right they are gone.
After a couple of games where they are given the chance to change, should they not stop their strife/jerk ridden play, show them the door (or leave yourself). Do not try to mediate, psycho analyze, coddle or otherwise cater or rationalize their behavior. Unless these are very young, or special needs players, they ought to know better. In fact, they DO know better. They're just choosing to be jerks and you don't need that. Especially as a New DM.
There are plenty of other gamers who will play to have fun and work with you and the other party members out there. Seek them out and find out why our hobby can be so rewarding, be you player or DM or both.
In those situations I see only two solutions.
1) Tell the players to pull their heads in and act like adults. It doesn't matter what your PC would do, what matters is that everyone at the table has fun and if you're contributing to an adversarial situation then you're part of the problem and not the solution.
2) Find another group. Some groups simply just don't work.
PC's attacking other PC's does not automatically mean they are jerks. It can be functional play. If you want a social contract that forbids PC vs PC, that's fine and go for it. But don't allow it but then call them jerks for doing it - that'd be you being the jerk, in that case.
It doesn't matter what your PC would do
Thanks for the responses, all. The next we play I'll start off trying to flesh out the backstory of why everyone is adventuring together (we spent maybe 30 seconds on that). I'll also set some rules about collabarative play and working as a team. I don't mind a certain amount of friction between players, but I'll have to set some rules about actively sabotaging each other.
Having players make compatible characters is usually necessary with most groups (by compaitible I mean not morally or philosophically opposed to each other). Some groups can have character conflict while not derailing the game, but the majority cannot. This is how we learn though, through making mistakes.
Noon wrote:
iserith wrote:
You've got some great advice in this thread, I hope your group responds positively, and that you have the courage to stand up for your game. If the only solution is to kick one player for the betterment of everyone else's game; do that.
Dysfunctional players
Talk to all of them together away from the gaming table. You don't want to mix your authority as a DM, and them playing their characters into this conversation. Yes, the symptom of their dysfunction is played out through their characters, but if you think it's more about the players not getting along, then the solution needs to happen away from the gaming table. It's important to speak from your opinion as a fellow player, an equal, whose also trying to have fun in the game, and part of your job is to ensure that each of them also have fun. Highlight how this is not happening by their actions, and you desire to change this, and ask plain questions as to why they think it's happening. Involve them. Try to keep the conversation civil. If there's a player who doesn't see the problem, who blows you off, blames everyone else, gets defensive or offensive, then talk to that player separately to find out what's really going on. Why all the angst? This is a game and supposed to be fun. If you don't see a solution with that player, tell him you don't want him in your game. Just be straight.
If the players aren't all friends already, and aren't all relaxed with one another and trusting of each other, then sometimes weird rivalries can occur as they compete with each other at your gaming table. This sometimes can be friendly and lead to great roleplay, because it's all theatrics, but if you see this as something negative in your group, it's only going to worsen until you address it . To solve this, do more stuff together as a group that isn't gaming. BBQ, catch a movie, grab dinner together, do other social things. Generally, once people are more relaxed one another, they stop being d**ks at the table.
Incompatible characters
This is a whole lot easier to solve. Explain to them during character creation what your campaign/adventure/world is generally about and what types of characters would fit better. Don't only include mechanical races adn classes, but also outlooks, ages, sexes, and whatever else will help them start to see a character in their mind's eye. I sometimes reward players that pick pre-written events from the past (that I've carefully crafted to fit into the world) or dependencies on each other (for example, if anyone says they're related to anyone else at the table, get X reward) that better fit my campaign - the reward can be an extra skill or language, more starting gold, a magical weapon or tiem, or even a feat. I don't allow a player to stockpile rewards, usually one per player is ample, and it's entirely voluntarily. I don't generally reward class or race, as these are more mechanical... but I have said no to certain races and classes that just don't fit. That said, I have been convinced by players who find a way to describe the class in a way that fits the worldview of the campaign (Player chooses the class "monk" but eschews all eastern mysticism, and embraces gaelic brawling in my euro-centric low magic campaign, as an example). Something else that might help is to ensure that one of their BIFTs relates directly to one other player.
Also, have them make characters as a group... so that they are aware of each other's decisions and how they are trying to make cool characters. If everyone knows, then everyone can help each other look cool. Even characters with secrets I have found play better when the players know, but the characters do not. At least then, everyone is in on the subtext level of the game, not just those few that know the secret. It's important to stress that they should try and make a well balanced team, if they are to succeed as a group. This can either be said blatantly just like that, or can be implied because when you spoke about your world/campaign you listed the types of threats and challenges they'd face. An urban campaign featuring a well established thieves guild in a coastal metropolis, is going to need different skills to a religious caravan trekking through the dead marshes to the ruin of Kelemvor.
Last point, have them establish how they know each know one another. Have they worked together long? Just met? Why do they trust one another? Get them to provide you the answers as to why they adventure together. Player's are very imaginative bunch, and love answering these types of questions. As long as it doesn't inconvenience your campaign, allow it. "We are a troupe of travelling troubadours. We do it for coin, but some of us don't practice our instruments as much as the next person". – says the Bard of the Fighter.
Good luck.
Noon wrote:
Noon wrote:
That's all a side issue. OP, you can decide for yourself the merits of these various ideas.
It it seems as though your core problem is that the players are not interested in one another and not interested in the other adventurers.
Getting them interested is one way to handle that.
But are you interested in running this game? If you wish to continue, you must either fix your problem or find a way to live with it.
I often require my players to establish ties between their characters. Or a group charter outlining profit sharing and death benefits. I also require the players establish their adventurer's ties to the world.
Last, I make sure to spotlight each adventurer at least once per session and to enforce that in the MetaGame. For example, if the spot light is on A but B wants to horn in, I'll tell B the spotlights on A and B's job is to play support to A for now. Later, when the spotlight moves to B, A will play support.
Anyway, you've got plenty of good advice. Figure out first what you want, then how this situation conflicts with what you want and how you will handle it.
Its as valid to quit entirely as it is to ignore the situation and let events play out naturally. The only thing that isn't valid is to be running a game you hate running.
Best,
I would take it all as blatant disrespect towards me, and I would more than likely slap the monk and fighter players. If they can't even play without being total idiots, they certainly are not going to listen to any gaming lectures, or read any roleplaying etiquette articles, give me a break people. If you have to be their nanny, its over. Its as simple as that, lest you be a glutton for punishment or are suffering from "battered dm syndrome."
Sigbjorn wrote:
MykeSchultz wrote:
Sigbjorn wrote:
Don't try to discourage it. Let them murder each other.
Then let the next wave of new characters, with inexplicable grudges, murder the survivors.
Then, once the tarantino-esque orgy of double-crossing and bloodletting is over, say to them - as if it's occuring to you for the first time - "hey guys, how can we keep that from happening again"?
Let them get it out of their system. Behaving badly occasionally is one of the fun parts of RPGs. Trying to suppress it, OR trying to be reasonable before they tire of it, are both likely to fail.
And if they don't tire of it, that means what they genuinely WANT to play is a PVP campaign. At which point you have to decide if that's something you are interested in running.
I'm going to quote some things which bear emphasis.
Ansbach wrote:
If you've stated your social contract/general table agreement is no PVP, then if they go into PVP they are being jerks.
If you haven't stated anything about that and just go off 'well everyone knows you don't PVP, so I don't have to say it', its more you being the problem as DM.
Prepare a TPK and make it look like an "accident"...oh guys, that beholder wasn't supposed to appear until later, but you just got into its lair 
hahaha..I'm Joking!
I'm having a similar problem, and I really think of the beholder solution, however that is not the right approach.
If things are getting out of control, then just tell them that they are spoiling the fun of the other players and yours. If they dont change their ways, you can tell them go and look for other players.
D&D is a cooperative game; truth be told, is so open that there are many ways to play it, but is a team play game on its core. And if the fun is slipping away, then you better wipe out and start anew.
I think we need to clarify something.
Are the CHARACTERS at each others throats, or are the PLAYERS at each others throats? Those are vastly different things.
Sigbjorn wrote:
Character tension is neat and fun, and can add a neat dynamic. But not every group can handle this (and there's nothing wrong with that!). Just remember, EVERYone needs to be on board with this sorta thing. Or if you do weird back-stabby stuff, try not to involve (and frustrate!) the player who doesn't like PCvsPC play.
But chances are, the Ranger wants to kill the Figher both in AND out of Character (I just mean the Fighter PC, not the actual person playing him!). And probably wouldn't mind the Monk walking into a group of bad guys and just saying, "Nah, I'm outta here." And he'd be well within his rights to, character-wise. Group dynamics are important, since eventually you either a character seriously questions what in the world they're doing there, or they frustratingly suspend belief
Sigbjorn wrote: