Just a small introduction to my situation (skip if you wanna)
So I've just started DMing recently. I'm doing a lot of research, checking videos, searching for tips, reading books, ...ect. I'm definitly not a great DM at the moment but I manage and I realise the most important thing is practice. Luckily I've got 5 friends who wanted to play D&D with me and I volunteered to DM. Three partymembers have never played D&D before so there was a lot of explaining at first. The 4th member played half a campaign 2 years ago, so she's rusty. The 5th member has been playing on and off over the last couple of years, but overall he's the most experienced player at the table. Either way they're all realy excited to play, so I feel blessed.
We're playing through Roll20 at the moment as our country is in lockdown and we're not allowed to meet in person. I want to play the Dragon of Icepire Peak, but I want to keep that campaign for when we're allowed to meet up again. For the time being I'm throwing some small challenges in their way in a homebrew story called 'Road to the North'. The idea is that they start in Baldur's Gate and have to make their way up to north to Phandalin. Along the way I make up some challenges to mostly let them get familiar with the mechanics of the game and get to play around with the character's they've created. Seemed like a nice introduction to pass the time. It's mostly a journey with not a lot of depth at the moment. But it's not really turning out as I had hoped.
(In case you skipped the introduction you can pick it up here)
What I find in the first couple of sessions that the party is not reacting in the way I thought they would. They're adventurers, so I thought they would see adventure when it was right in front of them. But they don't. They're going well out of their way to avoid everything. The bottomline of the adventure is 'Make your way up North' and it's like they interpreted that as: "Get to the North as quick as possible and avoid everything else that comes your way." At the moment they have no moral compass or any inclination to help the world around them. Or even eachother.
Also, all of their alignments are either 'Good' or 'Neutral', but only last session they sold out 3 young children (!!!) to an evil cultist group. No questions asked. They just didn't want trouble and didn't care for the kids. Is it me or are all my characters actually 'Evil'? They want payment for everything and if the victims don't have anything to offer, they just walk off.
As of now they're also not a team in any way. They're all playing for themselves and are using their unique abilities as much as possible at the most inconvenient times. The party was chased through the streets and both elves in the party decided to hide. Leaving the rest of the party in the cold. Instantly the rogue started stealing from NPCs and the druid was distracted by an animal in the streets. The bard took out his lute and started playing a tune. All while 12 town guards were charging them. To be fair, I can kinda understand this behaviour. They're all still getting to know their newly formed characters and they want to focus on things that make them unique. But it results in a very inconsistent story with little logic.
So here's my main question:
How do I achieve creating scenarios that my players are invested in. How do I make them care about everything that's going on in the world. Should I confront them with the repercussions of their actions more? How do I get them to work as a team. It would be a great story arc to get them from being individuals who only focus on survival, to being a group of friends with a moral compass who are willing to die for eachother and the world around them, but I have to design that story arc and I'm not sure how to start. Have any of you been in the same situation?
In the end they say they've had a great time and can't wait to play next, so maybe I'm overreacting. But I want our game nights to be more meaningfull than what they are now.
Long story, I know. Thanks in case you made it this far.
You very well may be overreacting a bit. Especially if they readily offer that they’ve had a great time. However, that doesn’t change that the party is acting evil. And that needs to be dealt with. If there are any clerics or paladins in the party, maybe they find certain powers not working until they’ve made amends in the eyes of their deity. The next adventure hook that they would normally ignore could be handed to them by a prophet or celestial messenger of that deity as an act of penance for recent evils.
Really, a prophet of any of the good aligned gods might work to spur the whole party to be more invested in the world. A priest of Lathander approaches them in the street and says. “Excuse me, I don’t mean to be too forward, but your appearance—This grouping. I dreamed about you all last night. In it, you had three young children bound and laid out on an altar. You each drew a dagger and raised them over the children, then struck, killing the children. I felt divine power welling up in me, and I started to cast a spell far more powerful than anything I really know to end this evil. But Lathander said to me in the dream ‘They need not die yet. The good they can do could balance the scales. I have decided to test them.” Then you can set up a new side quest on their way north. When they complete it, the priest blesses them and sends them onward with this departing word: “You have caught the attention of the gods. Do not be surprised if they set more tasks in your path. Some may simply test you. Some may be for your blessing if attended to. Some may be from those who oppose you and intend you harm. But you will not know which is which unless you invest in the world around you. You have tunnel vision. You must widen your view to the world around you, or you become as the villainous who see only their own goals, regardless of the harm they do to others.”
Wow, those are some good pointers I can work with! Thanks a lot kcbcollier!
Last session they found a magical red gem which they showed interest in. I could tie that in with the concept of having to be worthy before it reveals it's secret. An NPC could translate that message quite well. I'm going to try and incorporate that in the next couple of sessions. Great stuff! Thanks!
I think your main problem here may be the inexperience at the table. For instance the hiding from the town guards and selling each other out, may stem from the players not having a good idea of how deadly or not the game can be, and trying to avoid dying. If they feel like the challenge is overwhelming they might just flee to save their characters' skins -- not realizing that since the game is run by a DM who has a moral compass (hopefully!), this is exactly the wrong thing to do, because most DMs reward heroism and sacrifice, rather than selfishness. (Excepting of course PCs whose character sheet says they are selfish and the players are RPing in character.)
One way to potentially affect player decisions long-term is to reward heroism and refuse to reward selfishness. For instance, are you using the Inspiration system in your game? If not, maybe try using it -- give a point of inspiration (which a player can spend at any time to give advantage on a single die roll) to players who act in a heroic manner, and do not give it to those who are selfish. So 3 people in the party hide/steal, and two stand up to the guards and act honorably? OK, give those 2 inspiration.
Also, how are you doing XP? You could consider giving XP bonuses to players who have their characters act heroically or constructively.
As your players see Bob always getting 100 XP more than they do, and getting inspiration he can use to roll advantage at crucial points, they might start thinking it's something they could have also if they just acted a little more like Bob instead of killing children....
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I think before you jump into the next session, you can have a discussion (or essentially a vote) with the players about what kind of game you want to run, and what they want to run and are familiar with. Is it more like Lord of the Rings, where the purpose of these heroes is to be bound together in some great quest as a team, or do each of these players think that they're playing The Witcher, where their gritty anti-hero can do as they please and that opportunities to "do the right thing" may even be a trap by the story-teller. How grim is your setting? Do the players actively care about good and evil, or do they think that you're out to trick them into agreeing to scenarios where they die? I don't think it's fun if the characters believe there is no risk at all, but maybe find a way to imply that you're not actively out to punish them for engaging with the game.
I think it also helps to get a hook into the characters as soon as you can so that they feel there is an in-character reason for them all to stick together, like on their way north they defeat some bandits, steal their treasure and can go "aha, none of us could have done that alone, and look at the riches and acclaim it has brought us."
Something else you may want to think about... Make the actions of the characters have impact and consequence in the world.
You could have them encounter something very deadly and have another group of similarly inclined adventurers just walk on by or get out the popcorn and watch. Only have the NPC adventurers intervene at the last moment and …side with the monsters; kill the monsters and rob the party; or demand payment before intervening…
Have one the kids escape the Cultists and return home. The tale of the child slavers begins and the party is pursued by the law. Only to be saved by a cleric or paladin NPC that sees the ultimate good in them.
In the end – this game is about group fun. Talk to the players and tell them your idea for the campaign and get their ideas.
As far as I read you, you describes THREE things you find "problematic" as I can see.
1. The Players act "evil"
2. They are concerned about survivalk
3. They are only concerned about getting north
Number 1. This might or might not be a problem. Your players are having fun, but they might be taking the campaign in a direction you don't want. That's really something you have to decide for yourself, are you OK with the direction the players are taking, or do you think that will eventually ruin your campaign. One thing I can add is that when you wrote that they sold three kids to some evil cultists. Did the PC's KNOW they were evil cultists? Especially with new players, you really should be quite explicit that these are shady people. Ask your players why they did it, would they still have done it if you explain what the guys were up to?
Number 2. This can sound a little like a "new to the game" issue. Try introducing D&D (or any roleplaying) to a couple of kids, and they will do a lot of strange things (that really is not strange at all). Running away and hiding in combat, caring more for their own life than that of their friends - well, that's how a lot of us would probably actually act in that situation in reality. A walking skeleton - run the other way etc. It might not be this "issue", but can it be that they actually are "caring" so much for their characters that they are doing more like the players would do in real life, then what "we" expect them to do in a game of D&D where we have been taught for decades that you get XP for killing critters? If you think this could be the case, should you do anything with it, or embrace it? It might be the one campaign where they will act like this before they "learn" the (unwritten) "rules" of the game.
Number 3. You write:
'Make your way up North' and it's like they interpreted that as: "Get to the North as quick as possible and avoid everything else that comes your way.
I must say that is quite often a quite valid interpretation of your "goal". If "all" you said was that this is about getting north, you have indirectly said, this is only a transportation part. The true adventure will start when the get north. It's a whole other thing if you presented it as: "This will be like a road movie where you travel north and explore places you discover". However, you didn't (at least according to what you wrote, but correct me if I'm wrong). It might be your players are just trying to get to what they perceive as the "start" of the "real" adventure as soon as possible. The way you described it, it sounds like nothing will happen there. This sounds like the part of the travel that will never be shown on a film. You haven't said it's dangerous, you haven't said it's problematic, you've basically just said it will be transportation to the start of the adventure.
I hope some of what I've written might be helpfull. Your player are having fun, so you must be doing most things right. Remember that!
I think before you jump into the next session, you can have a discussion (or essentially a vote) with the players about what kind of game you want to run, and what they want to run and are familiar with. Is it more like Lord of the Rings, where the purpose of these heroes is to be bound together in some great quest as a team, or do each of these players think that they're playing The Witcher, where their gritty anti-hero can do as they please and that opportunities to "do the right thing" may even be a trap by the story-teller.
Everyone being on the same page is extremely important. I did this with my group in Session 0... that although I was not going to dictate alignment or character, I said "this is not going to work unless you are planning to be at least somewhat heroic." They all laughed at me because they were planning to play heroic characters, so no problem.
One possible issue with "voting" though -- is that if all the players vote "Dark Knight Returns" and the DM votes "Silver Age," then to please the players, the DM has to run a game that he does not want to run, and maybe wouldn't enjoy. I have learned the hard way over the years that although yes, a DM is to some degree by definition self-sacrificing, there is a level of self-sacrifice that will wreck the campaign. And running a game that is thematically something you detest, just to please the players, is on that level.
I would be a very BAD fit for a grimdark anti-hero campaign, both as a player and especially as a DM. I have no talent for producing storylines for such an atmosphere, and would be miserable trying. Just like I would be miserable trying to run a murder-mystery based campaign. For one adventure, yes. For adventure after adventure -- I'd want to jump off a bridge.
So although it is right and good to discuss things with the players and try to make everyone as happy as possible -- it is NOT a good idea to try and build a campaign that you personally dislike, just to please the players. You will end up being miserable and it will SHOW.
Figure out what you are going to love running, with some flexibility, but don't give them the option to play in a campaign you'd hate to run. For example, I hate the Forgotten Realms world with the white-hot intensity of a thousand suns. This is NOT a place to debate why I do -- let's just accept it for the sake of argument. Given that I do, I would never suggest to a group of players that I might be willing to run a FR-based campaign for them if that's what they all wanted. In fact when I pitched my Roman Empire idea to them, I did say that if they wanted to do a FR-based game, there was another DM ready to do it, and we could let him do it (he's one of the players and had volunteered). But I would not be willing to do FR.
No one wanted to do FR but if they had, I know that I would be a terrible fit for running that world, and I wouldn't try.
Know your strengths and weaknesses, loves and hates. Play to your strengths, and within that subset of gaming, make your players as happy as possible.
You need to have played a fair number of RPGs or CRPGs to realize "in order to be high enough level to beat the main storyline, we have to do side quests".
The party was chased through the streets and both elves in the party decided to hide. Leaving the rest of the party in the cold. Instantly the rogue started stealing from NPCs and the druid was distracted by an animal in the streets. The bard took out his lute and started playing a tune. All while 12 town guards were charging them.
I'd like to explore this remark as GodrickGreat discussed another.
What initiated the "Party" being chased by the guards? If the Bard, for example, didn't do anything, it might be perfectly natural for him to play his lute and observe how things developed. He might find a way to insinuate himself into the matter at a better point. But running from the town guards just makes him look like he is a party of the group that started the mischief.
The rogue stealing from NPCs during this scene is a bit curious. How did he imagine he was going to aid his comrades with one hand in some fellows pouch? Or worse, having been caught stealing?
The druid becoming distracted by an animal is also curious, but I could see it happening, if it were some exotic animal. But if the druid "pretended" to be distracted by the animal then I see thins like the Bard just playing his lute. Let's see how this is going to develop, and maybe I can help.
I don't know what to think of the elves hiding except to think maybe they needed to hide because they started the whole thing?
I'd like to hear more about how that whole thing went down before I could decide if any of the players were acting strange.
I hope you get it ironed out. This is a real great fun game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
Well they could very well be on their way to becoming villains. Could be interesting seeing all the good guys in your world starting to attack them then they eventually come to the realization they are the bad guys. Now that is well and good but unlikely they will even give a shit about that either.
The only other thing I can think of is to have them make elaborate and detailed backstories that they put a lot of time and effort into, so now they have an investment in the game and something they care about. And focus heavily on paying off the work they did in the backstories. That probably will not align with your "Make your way north" theme you have going on but that's the best i've got for ya.
You need to have played a fair number of RPGs or CRPGs to realize "in order to be high enough level to beat the main storyline, we have to do side quests".
Are you serious or kidding? I would never implement that on my group of players.
Yes, I can make the main road long, but when the players reach that, they will of course have the resources to be able to "beat it". If not, I haven't done my job as a DM (is my humble opinion).
I'm serious, plenty of modules are designed that way. I haven't read the adventure the OP is running, but if you head straight for Strahd in Curse of Strahd you die...
You need to have played a fair number of badly designed RPGs or CRPGs to realize "in order to be high enough level to beat the main storyline, we have to do side quests".
Fixed.
I think the whole concept of "you have to do side quests to beat the main storyline" is incredibly annoying and wildly metagamey. Bioware is one of the main culprits of this in CRPGs. Dragon Age + sequels, Mass Effects 1-2-3, Jade Empire. As good as some of those games are (I do not include ME 3)... in almost every single one, there is a "ticking clock," and urgent thing that needs doing, and yet the designers clearly built the game so that you would have to dither around doing side-quests before you got to the ending.
If that's going to be what you want the players to do, don't give them a dang-blasted ticking clock. It is wildly OOC in ME 3 to be doing side quests while Earth is already being invaded by the Reapers. The situation is dire. Earth is presented as having only days/hours left. And yet you go off in your ship and do side quest after side quest before coming back to actually finish things. In Dragon Age, the "Dragon" is coming and the shadowspawn are here, but let's go on a side quest to help a farmer get his chickens back or find the control rod for a stone golem. This always jerks me out of the story, and there has not been a single time when, despite enjoying the rest of the game, I haven't rolled my eyes at the writers and grumbled about this whole design.
I would like to see the design of "you can't do the main quest until you do the side quests first" die a swift and merciless death, to be honest. I mean, as a player, I go ahead and do it, because I recognize that this is what the designers want me to do, and they are usually arrogant enough to MAKE me do it by causing the final encounters to be impossible without doing all the side quests. But remember that the designers of these CRPGs and MMOs have to do this because they make their money, to a degree, on how many hours the game takes. If ME or DA or JE takes less than 30 or 40 hours of game play (for some people, less than 60) there will be complaints that this Triple A game was too short and not worth the $60 price to buy it. And for an MMO, if they let you just get to the end they lose their monthly sub fee.
But in a game around the table in D&D, there is utterly no reason to follow this atrocious CRPG design. If you want the characters to do the "side quests," then don't make them side quests. Make them major quests. Make them the only thing the players have to do. Or else live with the fact that players are going to do what they want, not what you want, and accept that some of the things you put in front of them as options, they may not want to do. And roll with it as a GM.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I think the whole concept of "you have to do side quests to beat the main storyline" is incredibly annoying and wildly metagamey.
Which is the reason novice players won't think to do it. I agree it's annoying, the better way of getting people to not head straight for the boss is to make it so they can't (you need to find clues about who or where he is, or bypass some obstacles to get there, or find something that makes him beatable), but that doesn't make it not a common design for published modules.
I'm serious, plenty of modules are designed that way. I haven't read the adventure the OP is running, but if you head straight for Strahd in Curse of Strahd you die...
OK - I would never ever DM anything that way. BioWizard basically "ranted" out mostly everything I feel about this, so I don't need to repeat her, but I would never run an adventure where you have to do side quests just to get enough levels to finish the main quest. This is one of the reasons I've never really found any computer game that comes even close to pen and paper RPG. When the DM gives the players the "opportunity" to finish the main quest, they should stand a chance unless they are being stupid and decide to do it unprepared. Going on a side quest to get some levels is NOT preparing in my world, that is a kind of meta gaming I don't care to invoke.
the better way of getting people to not head straight for the boss is to make it so they can't (you need to find clues about who or where he is, or bypass some obstacles to get there, or find something that makes him beatable), but that doesn't make it not a common design for published modules.
Just because the published modules do it, doesn't make it good. And this is one of the many reasons why I do not use published modules. Even back in the day when I used them I had to heavily modify them.
As you say, in my current campaign, the players don't even know if there is a BBEG, let alone who or where this individual, should he or she exist, might even be.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Something else you may want to think about... Make the actions of the characters have impact and consequence in the world.
I've been told this by a friend of mine who's also a DM. He suggested that in the next session the party discover the 2 bodies of the 3 children they sold out to the cult. The 3rd kid got away in some way. And the session after that they meet the distressed mother of the missing children. Maybe she curses the party for not helping her kids... Something to think about.
Also, maybe next combat encounter I don't hold back like I did in the last couple of encounters and maybe one of them gets close to dying. Maybe their sense of teamwork will kick in. I'll also look for challenges where the only way out is teamwork. Might feel forced tho...
You need to have played a fair number of RPGs or CRPGs to realize "in order to be high enough level to beat the main storyline, we have to do side quests".
In the end this is what I want the players to do, but like others have mentioned I don't want them to feel like side quests. I guess the only way to do it is disguise them as main story quests. Maybe the bridge to the north has collapsed and the only ferryman who can help them cross has been missing for weeks.
The only other thing I can think of is to have them make elaborate and detailed backstories that they put a lot of time and effort into, so now they have an investment in the game and something they care about. And focus heavily on paying off the work they did in the backstories.
Because most of the players in my group don't have a lot of D&D experience I decided not to push them on having elaborate backstories. Explaining the basic rules and gameflow of D&D was already quite complex, and asking them to decide on a unqiue backstory for their character seemed like a lot of information to take in for them. Also, they haven't decided on their personality traits, bonds, ideals & flaws. Maybe I have them start off with that. Small guidelines of how their characters would react in certain situations. Maybe it will trigger a more realistic experience for them.
What initiated the "Party" being chased by the guards? ... I'd like to hear more about how that whole thing went down before I could decide if any of the players were acting strange.
I used the term "guards" in my original post to keep my story short but during the session they were henchmen of mob boss. I'll try and describe what happened in the session:
During the first session the party was in a tavern/inn discussing which route they wanted to take going North. They had a map and they were measuring distance and discussing rations. Half way through their discussion 6 henchman of Ulric (a mob boss who terrorizes this part of town) enter the tavern and demand the owner of the tavern to pay his weekly share. The owner pleads with the henchman that he's already paid this week and he has nothing left to feed his family. While 2 henchman threaten the owner, the other 4 henchman walk around the tavern collecting coins and juwelry from customers. When the henchman reach our party members, a fight erupts and they kill 4 of the 6 henchman. The 2 surviving henchman escape. The party decides to search for a different inn to spend the night.
Next morning they have breakfast, pay, and get ready to leave for they journey up North. When they leave the inn they they hear a shout from their right shouting "That's them! There they are! Get them!". When they look to the right they see a horde of henchmen, who were searhing shops for our heroes, which triggers the chase scene through the streets.
So that's the backstory behind the chase. I had hoped the team would help eachother leap across fences, break down doors, maybe one of the elves would carry the halfling, realising the halfling is the slowest of the group. But instead the halfling rogue decided to hide underneath a merchant's stall and instantly steal from the merchant while the elf picked up some cloths from a nearby stall and disguised herself as a commoner. Leaving the elf ranger, dwarf cleric and dwarf bard out in the open with little to no help. Then the barad whipped out his lute. All while 12 to 14 henchman were charging them. I didn't know how to react to this because if I played the enemies truthfully...someone would have died.
One highlight in this chaos was the dwarf cleric who decided to tip over a bunch of crates, blocking the road to some of the henchman and later rotating a cart of hay and setting it alight. Maybe I should have rewarded him with inspiration and the other players would have seen this and realise that was a heroic deed.
All that helps flesh out why you found their odd behavior a problem.
Playing it out didn't need to be a TPK although. You could simply have captured the party members that could be found and taken them to the boss for a word. There the boss could ask how they plan to repay him for his losses and then more adventure ensues.
So the henchmen came into the tavern. I assume you wanted the party to fight them. And they made a good choice to find another tavern in my opinion. It would seem you wanted the party to be attacked the following morning. I guess you need to consider how they might react and not have only one plan. In the tavern they had little choice. They could hand over some valuables or they could fight. Outside it was another matter … and their noobs.
It sounds like you're going to have some challenges as DM. Good luck.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
So the henchmen came into the tavern. I assume you wanted the party to fight them. And they made a good choice to find another tavern in my opinion. It would seem you wanted the party to be attacked the following morning. I guess you need to consider how they might react and not have only one plan. In the tavern they had little choice. They could hand over some valuables or they could fight. Outside it was another matter … and their noobs.
well, this encounter was the first encounter of the campaign and I kinda created that encounter to see how they would react. Maybe on first sight combat would seem the only option, but I wanted to see if the player had a different approach. They could have spoken out agains the henchmen, maybe even intimidate them. Or they could pay up and let it slide. Or maybe follow them in the streets to see where they were heading. But I guess their lack of experience gave them the impression only combat was an option.
The chase through the city was my way of giving them an encounter that could not be solved with combat. Just to let them experience that different obstacles required different approaches.
Anyway, knowing al this and reading your tips I'm gonna have to adapt a bit, which is fine :) Thanks again!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Just a small introduction to my situation (skip if you wanna)
So I've just started DMing recently. I'm doing a lot of research, checking videos, searching for tips, reading books, ...ect. I'm definitly not a great DM at the moment but I manage and I realise the most important thing is practice. Luckily I've got 5 friends who wanted to play D&D with me and I volunteered to DM. Three partymembers have never played D&D before so there was a lot of explaining at first. The 4th member played half a campaign 2 years ago, so she's rusty. The 5th member has been playing on and off over the last couple of years, but overall he's the most experienced player at the table. Either way they're all realy excited to play, so I feel blessed.
We're playing through Roll20 at the moment as our country is in lockdown and we're not allowed to meet in person. I want to play the Dragon of Icepire Peak, but I want to keep that campaign for when we're allowed to meet up again. For the time being I'm throwing some small challenges in their way in a homebrew story called 'Road to the North'. The idea is that they start in Baldur's Gate and have to make their way up to north to Phandalin. Along the way I make up some challenges to mostly let them get familiar with the mechanics of the game and get to play around with the character's they've created. Seemed like a nice introduction to pass the time. It's mostly a journey with not a lot of depth at the moment. But it's not really turning out as I had hoped.
(In case you skipped the introduction you can pick it up here)
What I find in the first couple of sessions that the party is not reacting in the way I thought they would. They're adventurers, so I thought they would see adventure when it was right in front of them. But they don't. They're going well out of their way to avoid everything. The bottomline of the adventure is 'Make your way up North' and it's like they interpreted that as: "Get to the North as quick as possible and avoid everything else that comes your way." At the moment they have no moral compass or any inclination to help the world around them. Or even eachother.
Also, all of their alignments are either 'Good' or 'Neutral', but only last session they sold out 3 young children (!!!) to an evil cultist group. No questions asked. They just didn't want trouble and didn't care for the kids. Is it me or are all my characters actually 'Evil'? They want payment for everything and if the victims don't have anything to offer, they just walk off.
As of now they're also not a team in any way. They're all playing for themselves and are using their unique abilities as much as possible at the most inconvenient times. The party was chased through the streets and both elves in the party decided to hide. Leaving the rest of the party in the cold. Instantly the rogue started stealing from NPCs and the druid was distracted by an animal in the streets. The bard took out his lute and started playing a tune. All while 12 town guards were charging them. To be fair, I can kinda understand this behaviour. They're all still getting to know their newly formed characters and they want to focus on things that make them unique. But it results in a very inconsistent story with little logic.
So here's my main question:
How do I achieve creating scenarios that my players are invested in. How do I make them care about everything that's going on in the world. Should I confront them with the repercussions of their actions more? How do I get them to work as a team. It would be a great story arc to get them from being individuals who only focus on survival, to being a group of friends with a moral compass who are willing to die for eachother and the world around them, but I have to design that story arc and I'm not sure how to start. Have any of you been in the same situation?
In the end they say they've had a great time and can't wait to play next, so maybe I'm overreacting. But I want our game nights to be more meaningfull than what they are now.
Long story, I know. Thanks in case you made it this far.
Cheers!
You very well may be overreacting a bit. Especially if they readily offer that they’ve had a great time. However, that doesn’t change that the party is acting evil. And that needs to be dealt with. If there are any clerics or paladins in the party, maybe they find certain powers not working until they’ve made amends in the eyes of their deity. The next adventure hook that they would normally ignore could be handed to them by a prophet or celestial messenger of that deity as an act of penance for recent evils.
Really, a prophet of any of the good aligned gods might work to spur the whole party to be more invested in the world. A priest of Lathander approaches them in the street and says. “Excuse me, I don’t mean to be too forward, but your appearance—This grouping. I dreamed about you all last night. In it, you had three young children bound and laid out on an altar. You each drew a dagger and raised them over the children, then struck, killing the children. I felt divine power welling up in me, and I started to cast a spell far more powerful than anything I really know to end this evil. But Lathander said to me in the dream ‘They need not die yet. The good they can do could balance the scales. I have decided to test them.” Then you can set up a new side quest on their way north. When they complete it, the priest blesses them and sends them onward with this departing word: “You have caught the attention of the gods. Do not be surprised if they set more tasks in your path. Some may simply test you. Some may be for your blessing if attended to. Some may be from those who oppose you and intend you harm. But you will not know which is which unless you invest in the world around you. You have tunnel vision. You must widen your view to the world around you, or you become as the villainous who see only their own goals, regardless of the harm they do to others.”
Wow, those are some good pointers I can work with! Thanks a lot kcbcollier!
Last session they found a magical red gem which they showed interest in. I could tie that in with the concept of having to be worthy before it reveals it's secret. An NPC could translate that message quite well. I'm going to try and incorporate that in the next couple of sessions. Great stuff! Thanks!
I think your main problem here may be the inexperience at the table. For instance the hiding from the town guards and selling each other out, may stem from the players not having a good idea of how deadly or not the game can be, and trying to avoid dying. If they feel like the challenge is overwhelming they might just flee to save their characters' skins -- not realizing that since the game is run by a DM who has a moral compass (hopefully!), this is exactly the wrong thing to do, because most DMs reward heroism and sacrifice, rather than selfishness. (Excepting of course PCs whose character sheet says they are selfish and the players are RPing in character.)
One way to potentially affect player decisions long-term is to reward heroism and refuse to reward selfishness. For instance, are you using the Inspiration system in your game? If not, maybe try using it -- give a point of inspiration (which a player can spend at any time to give advantage on a single die roll) to players who act in a heroic manner, and do not give it to those who are selfish. So 3 people in the party hide/steal, and two stand up to the guards and act honorably? OK, give those 2 inspiration.
Also, how are you doing XP? You could consider giving XP bonuses to players who have their characters act heroically or constructively.
As your players see Bob always getting 100 XP more than they do, and getting inspiration he can use to roll advantage at crucial points, they might start thinking it's something they could have also if they just acted a little more like Bob instead of killing children....
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I think before you jump into the next session, you can have a discussion (or essentially a vote) with the players about what kind of game you want to run, and what they want to run and are familiar with. Is it more like Lord of the Rings, where the purpose of these heroes is to be bound together in some great quest as a team, or do each of these players think that they're playing The Witcher, where their gritty anti-hero can do as they please and that opportunities to "do the right thing" may even be a trap by the story-teller. How grim is your setting? Do the players actively care about good and evil, or do they think that you're out to trick them into agreeing to scenarios where they die? I don't think it's fun if the characters believe there is no risk at all, but maybe find a way to imply that you're not actively out to punish them for engaging with the game.
I think it also helps to get a hook into the characters as soon as you can so that they feel there is an in-character reason for them all to stick together, like on their way north they defeat some bandits, steal their treasure and can go "aha, none of us could have done that alone, and look at the riches and acclaim it has brought us."
Something else you may want to think about... Make the actions of the characters have impact and consequence in the world.
You could have them encounter something very deadly and have another group of similarly inclined adventurers just walk on by or get out the popcorn and watch. Only have the NPC adventurers intervene at the last moment and …side with the monsters; kill the monsters and rob the party; or demand payment before intervening…
Have one the kids escape the Cultists and return home. The tale of the child slavers begins and the party is pursued by the law. Only to be saved by a cleric or paladin NPC that sees the ultimate good in them.
In the end – this game is about group fun. Talk to the players and tell them your idea for the campaign and get their ideas.
Semper Fidelis
As far as I read you, you describes THREE things you find "problematic" as I can see.
1. The Players act "evil"
2. They are concerned about survivalk
3. They are only concerned about getting north
Number 1. This might or might not be a problem. Your players are having fun, but they might be taking the campaign in a direction you don't want. That's really something you have to decide for yourself, are you OK with the direction the players are taking, or do you think that will eventually ruin your campaign. One thing I can add is that when you wrote that they sold three kids to some evil cultists. Did the PC's KNOW they were evil cultists? Especially with new players, you really should be quite explicit that these are shady people. Ask your players why they did it, would they still have done it if you explain what the guys were up to?
Number 2. This can sound a little like a "new to the game" issue. Try introducing D&D (or any roleplaying) to a couple of kids, and they will do a lot of strange things (that really is not strange at all). Running away and hiding in combat, caring more for their own life than that of their friends - well, that's how a lot of us would probably actually act in that situation in reality. A walking skeleton - run the other way etc. It might not be this "issue", but can it be that they actually are "caring" so much for their characters that they are doing more like the players would do in real life, then what "we" expect them to do in a game of D&D where we have been taught for decades that you get XP for killing critters? If you think this could be the case, should you do anything with it, or embrace it? It might be the one campaign where they will act like this before they "learn" the (unwritten) "rules" of the game.
Number 3. You write:
I must say that is quite often a quite valid interpretation of your "goal". If "all" you said was that this is about getting north, you have indirectly said, this is only a transportation part. The true adventure will start when the get north. It's a whole other thing if you presented it as: "This will be like a road movie where you travel north and explore places you discover". However, you didn't (at least according to what you wrote, but correct me if I'm wrong). It might be your players are just trying to get to what they perceive as the "start" of the "real" adventure as soon as possible. The way you described it, it sounds like nothing will happen there. This sounds like the part of the travel that will never be shown on a film. You haven't said it's dangerous, you haven't said it's problematic, you've basically just said it will be transportation to the start of the adventure.
I hope some of what I've written might be helpfull. Your player are having fun, so you must be doing most things right. Remember that!
Ludo ergo sum!
Everyone being on the same page is extremely important. I did this with my group in Session 0... that although I was not going to dictate alignment or character, I said "this is not going to work unless you are planning to be at least somewhat heroic." They all laughed at me because they were planning to play heroic characters, so no problem.
One possible issue with "voting" though -- is that if all the players vote "Dark Knight Returns" and the DM votes "Silver Age," then to please the players, the DM has to run a game that he does not want to run, and maybe wouldn't enjoy. I have learned the hard way over the years that although yes, a DM is to some degree by definition self-sacrificing, there is a level of self-sacrifice that will wreck the campaign. And running a game that is thematically something you detest, just to please the players, is on that level.
I would be a very BAD fit for a grimdark anti-hero campaign, both as a player and especially as a DM. I have no talent for producing storylines for such an atmosphere, and would be miserable trying. Just like I would be miserable trying to run a murder-mystery based campaign. For one adventure, yes. For adventure after adventure -- I'd want to jump off a bridge.
So although it is right and good to discuss things with the players and try to make everyone as happy as possible -- it is NOT a good idea to try and build a campaign that you personally dislike, just to please the players. You will end up being miserable and it will SHOW.
Figure out what you are going to love running, with some flexibility, but don't give them the option to play in a campaign you'd hate to run. For example, I hate the Forgotten Realms world with the white-hot intensity of a thousand suns. This is NOT a place to debate why I do -- let's just accept it for the sake of argument. Given that I do, I would never suggest to a group of players that I might be willing to run a FR-based campaign for them if that's what they all wanted. In fact when I pitched my Roman Empire idea to them, I did say that if they wanted to do a FR-based game, there was another DM ready to do it, and we could let him do it (he's one of the players and had volunteered). But I would not be willing to do FR.
No one wanted to do FR but if they had, I know that I would be a terrible fit for running that world, and I wouldn't try.
Know your strengths and weaknesses, loves and hates. Play to your strengths, and within that subset of gaming, make your players as happy as possible.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
You need to have played a fair number of RPGs or CRPGs to realize "in order to be high enough level to beat the main storyline, we have to do side quests".
I'd like to explore this remark as GodrickGreat discussed another.
What initiated the "Party" being chased by the guards? If the Bard, for example, didn't do anything, it might be perfectly natural for him to play his lute and observe how things developed. He might find a way to insinuate himself into the matter at a better point. But running from the town guards just makes him look like he is a party of the group that started the mischief.
The rogue stealing from NPCs during this scene is a bit curious. How did he imagine he was going to aid his comrades with one hand in some fellows pouch? Or worse, having been caught stealing?
The druid becoming distracted by an animal is also curious, but I could see it happening, if it were some exotic animal. But if the druid "pretended" to be distracted by the animal then I see thins like the Bard just playing his lute. Let's see how this is going to develop, and maybe I can help.
I don't know what to think of the elves hiding except to think maybe they needed to hide because they started the whole thing?
I'd like to hear more about how that whole thing went down before I could decide if any of the players were acting strange.
I hope you get it ironed out. This is a real great fun game.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
Well they could very well be on their way to becoming villains. Could be interesting seeing all the good guys in your world starting to attack them then they eventually come to the realization they are the bad guys. Now that is well and good but unlikely they will even give a shit about that either.
The only other thing I can think of is to have them make elaborate and detailed backstories that they put a lot of time and effort into, so now they have an investment in the game and something they care about. And focus heavily on paying off the work they did in the backstories. That probably will not align with your "Make your way north" theme you have going on but that's the best i've got for ya.
Are you serious or kidding? I would never implement that on my group of players.
Yes, I can make the main road long, but when the players reach that, they will of course have the resources to be able to "beat it". If not, I haven't done my job as a DM (is my humble opinion).
Ludo ergo sum!
I'm serious, plenty of modules are designed that way. I haven't read the adventure the OP is running, but if you head straight for Strahd in Curse of Strahd you die...
Fixed.
I think the whole concept of "you have to do side quests to beat the main storyline" is incredibly annoying and wildly metagamey. Bioware is one of the main culprits of this in CRPGs. Dragon Age + sequels, Mass Effects 1-2-3, Jade Empire. As good as some of those games are (I do not include ME 3)... in almost every single one, there is a "ticking clock," and urgent thing that needs doing, and yet the designers clearly built the game so that you would have to dither around doing side-quests before you got to the ending.
If that's going to be what you want the players to do, don't give them a dang-blasted ticking clock. It is wildly OOC in ME 3 to be doing side quests while Earth is already being invaded by the Reapers. The situation is dire. Earth is presented as having only days/hours left. And yet you go off in your ship and do side quest after side quest before coming back to actually finish things. In Dragon Age, the "Dragon" is coming and the shadowspawn are here, but let's go on a side quest to help a farmer get his chickens back or find the control rod for a stone golem. This always jerks me out of the story, and there has not been a single time when, despite enjoying the rest of the game, I haven't rolled my eyes at the writers and grumbled about this whole design.
I would like to see the design of "you can't do the main quest until you do the side quests first" die a swift and merciless death, to be honest. I mean, as a player, I go ahead and do it, because I recognize that this is what the designers want me to do, and they are usually arrogant enough to MAKE me do it by causing the final encounters to be impossible without doing all the side quests. But remember that the designers of these CRPGs and MMOs have to do this because they make their money, to a degree, on how many hours the game takes. If ME or DA or JE takes less than 30 or 40 hours of game play (for some people, less than 60) there will be complaints that this Triple A game was too short and not worth the $60 price to buy it. And for an MMO, if they let you just get to the end they lose their monthly sub fee.
But in a game around the table in D&D, there is utterly no reason to follow this atrocious CRPG design. If you want the characters to do the "side quests," then don't make them side quests. Make them major quests. Make them the only thing the players have to do. Or else live with the fact that players are going to do what they want, not what you want, and accept that some of the things you put in front of them as options, they may not want to do. And roll with it as a GM.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Which is the reason novice players won't think to do it. I agree it's annoying, the better way of getting people to not head straight for the boss is to make it so they can't (you need to find clues about who or where he is, or bypass some obstacles to get there, or find something that makes him beatable), but that doesn't make it not a common design for published modules.
OK - I would never ever DM anything that way. BioWizard basically "ranted" out mostly everything I feel about this, so I don't need to repeat her, but I would never run an adventure where you have to do side quests just to get enough levels to finish the main quest. This is one of the reasons I've never really found any computer game that comes even close to pen and paper RPG. When the DM gives the players the "opportunity" to finish the main quest, they should stand a chance unless they are being stupid and decide to do it unprepared. Going on a side quest to get some levels is NOT preparing in my world, that is a kind of meta gaming I don't care to invoke.
Ludo ergo sum!
Just because the published modules do it, doesn't make it good. And this is one of the many reasons why I do not use published modules. Even back in the day when I used them I had to heavily modify them.
As you say, in my current campaign, the players don't even know if there is a BBEG, let alone who or where this individual, should he or she exist, might even be.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Thanks for all the replies guys. It's already sparked a lot of ways for me to adapt my campaign!
I've been told this by a friend of mine who's also a DM. He suggested that in the next session the party discover the 2 bodies of the 3 children they sold out to the cult. The 3rd kid got away in some way. And the session after that they meet the distressed mother of the missing children. Maybe she curses the party for not helping her kids... Something to think about.
Also, maybe next combat encounter I don't hold back like I did in the last couple of encounters and maybe one of them gets close to dying. Maybe their sense of teamwork will kick in. I'll also look for challenges where the only way out is teamwork. Might feel forced tho...
In the end this is what I want the players to do, but like others have mentioned I don't want them to feel like side quests. I guess the only way to do it is disguise them as main story quests. Maybe the bridge to the north has collapsed and the only ferryman who can help them cross has been missing for weeks.
Because most of the players in my group don't have a lot of D&D experience I decided not to push them on having elaborate backstories. Explaining the basic rules and gameflow of D&D was already quite complex, and asking them to decide on a unqiue backstory for their character seemed like a lot of information to take in for them. Also, they haven't decided on their personality traits, bonds, ideals & flaws. Maybe I have them start off with that. Small guidelines of how their characters would react in certain situations. Maybe it will trigger a more realistic experience for them.
All that helps flesh out why you found their odd behavior a problem.
Playing it out didn't need to be a TPK although. You could simply have captured the party members that could be found and taken them to the boss for a word. There the boss could ask how they plan to repay him for his losses and then more adventure ensues.
So the henchmen came into the tavern. I assume you wanted the party to fight them. And they made a good choice to find another tavern in my opinion. It would seem you wanted the party to be attacked the following morning. I guess you need to consider how they might react and not have only one plan. In the tavern they had little choice. They could hand over some valuables or they could fight. Outside it was another matter … and their noobs.
It sounds like you're going to have some challenges as DM. Good luck.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
well, this encounter was the first encounter of the campaign and I kinda created that encounter to see how they would react. Maybe on first sight combat would seem the only option, but I wanted to see if the player had a different approach. They could have spoken out agains the henchmen, maybe even intimidate them. Or they could pay up and let it slide. Or maybe follow them in the streets to see where they were heading. But I guess their lack of experience gave them the impression only combat was an option.
The chase through the city was my way of giving them an encounter that could not be solved with combat. Just to let them experience that different obstacles required different approaches.
Anyway, knowing al this and reading your tips I'm gonna have to adapt a bit, which is fine :) Thanks again!