PDA

View Full Version : Why, oh WHY do They do it???



Malruhn
04-25-2010, 08:05 PM
I just spent the afternoon at a local gaming store, watching a group play, and was astounded...

Two of the guys (10-person group) were playing evil characters in a Good group - and did everything they could to destroy group cohesion. To make matters worse, the DM actually ALLOWED them to do it, and basically sat their like I was, just watching the group tear itself apart.

Both kids were attention-whores and stepped all over the other players' attempts at talking during their turns, and there was more cross-table talk than at a family reunion...

I watched the two (no, they WEREN'T working together) try to subvert other players to play like they were doing, and were doing everything they could (though they didn't know) to make me angry.

And the DM (who's been DMing since the late 70's!!) allowed it, because he didn't want to break up the group!

DUDE!! There IS no group! There are eight kids that WANT to learn to play or play better - and two butt-heads that are doing everything they can to destroy that and turn these kids away from the game.

I am SO glad that I held back and didn't roll up a character today, even though I am Jonesing something awful.

Why do players insist on doing stuff like this? Why do DM's ALLOW this? Can't either group see what effect they are truly having on the gaming experience of all involved??

Well - I have a decision... roll up a character specifically designed to gank these two, OR say to heck with it and ONLY walk in there with the intent to DM. Flaming bastages. Blood and bloody hells!! GRRRRRRRRR!!!!!

Arch Lich Thoth-Amon
04-25-2010, 08:37 PM
I've seen something similar a few years ago. In th end, everyone walked away pissed. DM's need to have backbone as well as imagination. Unfortunately, in this day and age, more and more people are afraid to upset others.

Even though i wasn't playing, but rather had my own campaign in another room, i knew a few players in that campaign. They were newby's, and i can honestly say that they have never gone back to pnp, which is unfortunate.

Thoth joins in on Malruhn's chant: Flaming bastages. Blood and bloody hells!! GRRRRRRRRR!!!!! Flaming bastages. Blood and bloody hells!! GRRRRRRRRR!!!!! Flaming bastages. Blood and bloody hells!! GRRRRRRRRR!!!!!

Dark
04-25-2010, 09:02 PM
I've always have had a zero tolerance to that kind of game-play I DM my players know it and when I or one of my players bring in a new member they are told it as well. Now mind you I've lost more than one player due to it but in the end my group is fine with it.

jade von delioch
04-25-2010, 10:15 PM
You should talk those 8 players out of playing that guys game and steal them.

kirksmithicus
04-26-2010, 01:19 AM
Wow, a 10 person group is pretty big and quite unruly. My guess is that because of the group size, that there is to much time to screw around between turns. I know that when we had 8 or 9 people, we used to do more talking and less paying attention to the game because of the time factor. Now that our group has shrunk back down to 5 people we pay attention more as the action moves along at a more tolerable pace.

If I were you I would suggest to the DM that you split the group in two. Meet and play at the same time and place but play as two different parties.

As for the two immature players problem. If the speeding up of the action doesn't help, you should have the players of the other characters give the offending players character a beat-down or kill them. Or they could all go into a room with monsters, then retreat, close the door behind them leaving character x behind to get ripped apart by the baddies. They are evil characters after all. Then introduce the no evil character rule. If they still don't get the point and continue to be douche bags, then they should be told to hit the bricks. Their fun should not come at the expense of others.

Tribunus
04-26-2010, 12:32 PM
Chello!

One of the many reasons that I use the "group alignment mechanic" from the ToEE computer game with people I don't know when I'm gaming and setting it to NG. Basically, that makes the only allowable alignments LG, NG, CG, and NT. i also kick people from my group that are disruptive. You can take books and go home and play WOW for all I care.

jade von delioch
04-26-2010, 03:04 PM
10 people is nothing,If the GM has any clue as too what he/she is doing then that shouldn't be a problem. I was in a group that had 16 players at one point and my friend handled it like it was nothing. We never had any of those problems that were discribed above, but maybe that was because we were playing Palladium Fantasy and Not D&D.

Crom on his Mountain
04-28-2010, 11:21 AM
D&D's the same way, I've been in a campaign that fluctuated between 8 and 12 people and there was no problem other than the fact that sometimes combat could drag. I could see it being a problem in hack-n-slash campaigns though. If your campaign is nothing but one combat encounter after another it could get tedious if you don't have patient players.

templeorder
04-28-2010, 11:51 AM
10's tough, but not unworkable if the GM designs around it. I prefer smaller, but... meh. A lot of people just want to get out there and do crazy stuff - for them role-playing does not have a challenge aspect to it, its more just acting out. We have one person in our group - wound tight in his real life, very chaotic. One person can be dealt with, especially when the PLAYERS put forward the guidelines of what's acceptable. About every other session i spend 10-15 minutes with the players just asking what working and what's not as far as characters. That sort of thing is very useful to let players speak from a character perspective and say "well, my character is about ready to lose it on so[xyz person] because my goals and values are being tromped". Note any fun aspects of the tension, but drive home that at some point, the character will no longer tolerate a direct assault on their values or the endangerment (in destroying party cohesion and through a lack of trust) of the group. Basically allow them, from a character perspective, to give fair warning. Then, KILL 'EM ALL!!! Seriously, have the group act on those characters.

One of the best way is to hold the group responsible for one of the offending character's actions. Then its clear they are a liability. If they keep doing it, the resentment becomes justified through the story, not as only something personal. It much easier to change, switch, or remove those characters. Of course, its probably a player issue and wont change no matter the character... so unless folks are willing to confront the players, nothing will change.

I say talk to the GM first and then tell them you are starting a game without those players - post a little manifesto on the type of campaign you will run and the player/character behavior you expect that clearly excludes their type of actions. Steal the group at that point.

cplmac
04-28-2010, 01:10 PM
First, I am not one for having both good and evil alingments together in a party. The initial post shows exactly why. The DM in that game needs to allow for the other 8 players to have thier characters go after the other 2. On option would be to have the other 8 manage to get the other 2 arrested and thrown in jail. Now have those 2 players make new characters but not allow an evil alignment. If they don't want to do so, tell them that they aren't in the game then and have to leave. There's the door, don't get hit in the arse with it on the way out. You want to play an evil character, there are consequences to be had.

Malruhn, I say go for it. Roll up that high level paladin and come in to the party's aid and save them from the other 2 players.

jade von delioch
04-29-2010, 02:26 AM
When people play evil alignments it just makes me think that they don't even want to try to role play a Real person. Its the "I can do whatever I want and get away with it" character.

Xandros
04-30-2010, 05:06 PM
I have never understood the idea of 'Why did the DM let them do that?' or 'Why didn't the DM take control?'. As a DM I have always let the characters (not the players though) do as they do, and don't try to control the group. As the DM I set up the scenerios, that they can react to as they choose, and allow them to try anything. I judge combat, and decide the consequences of their actions but don't tell them to behave a certain way. I once had a rogue decide that he was going to pick the pocket of the captain of the guard. The rogue was 3rd level. The captain was 10th level. His spot check exceeded the rogues sleight of hand check, and the rogue was caught and arrested. The rogues player asked why I let him do that if the odds were so slim?

Why did the good characters in the game let evil characters travel and adventure with them. The characters could decide to avoid the evil characters (just like in real life I choose to avoid disruptive people), leave them behind, split up the group etc. The consequences of the evil players actions is that they could be left behind, not get a divvy of the treasure (if they insisted on following the group that left them behind anyway), not get healed, or if things got extreme even killed by the good characters. Those aren't the DMs choices though, they are the characters being played as the players see them.

jpatterson
04-30-2010, 06:01 PM
This last post is correct but ignores the actual dynamics of the group itself - yes, the characters IN-GAME are exactly responsible for themselves, how they deal with situations, etc, BUT attempting to separate meta-game/player/group from character issues is fingers-in-the-ears-la-la-la territory.

The GM, traditionally, is the authority. The GAME MASTER. Meaning he is responsible for the game's overall functioning and structure, including enforcement of rules, policies and laws and organization during a session, that's what "masters", referees, keepers, directors or whatever elses do.

The GM maybe has no direct character behavior authority (and that's debatable), but group-wise, he DOES have player-authority; it is social contract that players accept him as the arbiter and adjudicator, in and out of game, for behavior and performance for the session itself, they give him their trust and implicit permission to make changes and impose penalties and restrictions on both players and characters, if he deems it necessary, for the good of the game, if it is generally agreed it is reasonable, and he should always listen to disagreements and protests, though usually in a lull rather than the middle of an event. And players and GM can both walk away if they feel the other side is not living up to their end of the agreement for the game, or are too disruptive, etc.

At the most basic, selfish level, a GM's actions with 2 out of 8 players being asshats comes down to whether or not HE wants to put up with their nonsense, and if he wants to risk the session and the rest of the group. If he's not worried about it, then he should not be surprised to be a groupless GM.

jade von delioch
04-30-2010, 10:37 PM
The last time, as a player, that one of my characters ended up in a group with a character of unsavory morals, I promised to kill him with all lack of empathy the moment that his actions caused 1) trouble for me, 2) disgusted or dishonored me in anyway. Luckily I did not have to do anything since he left the group soon after.

I think that is the problem in that situation. It seems that the Gm only steps in when the good characters want to do away with the evil characters and never the other way around.


A a person who plays a thief often I have to say that the actions of that GM were in the right. The GM is not your babysitter- he does not have to be your conscious and common sense when it comes to stealing. If you do something as a thief in game and don't pull it off then you better have a plan in mind to deal with the consequences. Besides, a good thief never gets caught.
However, This does open up the reason I dislike game like D&D where playing a rogue below a certain level is useless since you fail all the time at the tasks that you are supportively well trained at. Its either that or all D&D GMs are unable to stat anything for low leveled characters.

Story: The only time I got caught was by my own group after I robed a some NPC a few houses away from where we were staying. Total medagaming on their part. They were jealous that I stole a ton of money and had the Half ogre hold me upside down and shake the money loose. The GM in this case was a a$$hat and not the type of GM that should be sitting behind the screen. No one should have been surprised when I left that group.

cigamnogard
05-05-2010, 07:53 PM
Just because a player is playing an evil character does not mean that he should interupt others playing - that is the role of a good GM
Just because a player is playing an evil character does not mean that they are always going to do evil acts. I have allowed lots of players the chance to be an evil charcter in the "good" group. Yes, it required babysitting and carefully watching what they did but I sttill have all my players and they keep an eye on one another both in game and out of game ;) It also made for several amusing situations
- Such as when the bard cast 'speak with animals' and finally the pegasus had the opportunity to tell the party that the rogue was evil! Also the pegasus' name wasn't x but y ;)

Malruhn
05-05-2010, 07:59 PM
Xandros, evidently you don't care whether your group has any cohesion or if the majority of the players are actually ENJOYING playing the game, eh? These two micro-penises purposely acted like snots to derail the group - and it was obvious to both me AND the DM that the rest of the group didn't like what was happening. My question was, why didn't the players have the common decency to play AS A TEAM, and why, oh WHY didn't the DM do something??

It's wasn't the "role playing" that was at fault here, like your example of an idiot thief that tried to pick-pocket a mark that was WAY out of his league... it was two PLAYERS that were disrupting the game. The other eight players were younger folks that were inexperienced at gaming (a couple were playing their FIRST characters). They didn't have the sophistication to know they could split the party (though the DM was trying to keep the party together) and the butt-heads were trying to split the party so monsters could have an easier time with them so the two players could strip the dead bodies.

Also, this was a weekend game at a gaming store - a "pick up game" as it were. In these games (like in Conventions), the group is SUPPOSED to work together, in what has been described as a "social contract." Imagine a 3-on-3 pickup basketball game where one of the people on your team wanted to play a THIRD team on the court, and did everything he could to disrupt your under-manned team so the opposing side could win... THAT'S what was happening here.

Do you STILL want to remain "hands-off"??

cigamnogard
05-06-2010, 07:46 PM
Now, let's say it was me a "newbie" playing the pick up game
-> I would not be playing but encouraging the "new-players" to try a different pick up game that I was more familiar with
Now let's say I was the DM
-> the two trouble makers would quickly be finding something in game that only they would have to deal with such as the town paladin
Now let's say it was my son who was the newbie
-> okay let's not as it would have been ugly

jpatterson
05-07-2010, 01:04 AM
This is a problem I've seen with gamers, is the passive-aggressive avoidance of player-conflict in the cases where it is needed. You don't metagame and send an in-game element like a paladin against the character of a disruptive player - that is still rewarding them, giving them screen time, validating their actions, etc. and saying very bad things about you and your own methods and values to all the other players at the same time. You stand up and say "You two, leave my game, you're not welcome." Then you can actually play the game with all the other players who are there to cooperate.

cigamnogard
05-07-2010, 07:35 PM
First off the paladin can be done as a subtle warning and if that is not enough to bring them into line then the paladin simply kills them and removes them from the game.
Justice done
the rest of the players also witniss the power of the DM

tesral
05-10-2010, 11:39 AM
From the description it was a spineless DM, not because of character actions, but he let those disruptive players step on the other players. Attention whores must be curbed. If they leave, fine. I don't need attention whores.

I would also make it plain to the other players that they do not have to tolerate the actions of the two malcontents. They can go player vs player on them. I will also use in game consequences for in game actions. Passive aggressive behavior earns what it deserves. I WILL NOT put up with it. I know it when I see it and it gets confronted and dealt with.

I'll see such players lose characters until they leave or they buy a clue. Play Stupid Evil and you get the wages of sin right back.

templeorder
05-10-2010, 02:01 PM
Play Stupid Evil and you get the wages of sin right back.

My thoughts on evil exactly - its "stupid" that makes you a target - just like it does if you are "good". We have lots of mixed parties and it works fine. Theres some tension sometimes, but its usually resolved with humor or a little give and take.

But a group is a group - both GM and players and issues like this need to be dealt with as a group - NOT just by a GM laying down the law. Thats personal preference as i don't want to feel like i'm dictating behavior to children as opposed to a social contract all of us heed for mutual enjoyment.

cigamnogard
05-10-2010, 06:34 PM
Valid point.