so I'm just starting my first campaign as a DM, and one of my player's characters is getting traumatized by the rest of the group. We were talking and he thought it might be fun to have a villain arc (which is made a lot easier by his backstory [he may or may not have killed his parents]). I was already planning on testing his character down the line, but he's already asking me about it now... Anyways, I wanted to ask for some tips about how to villainize a PC or if I should even do that when most of the party is good/neutral
I tend to say either everybody's evil or nobody's evil. If he really wants to try it, then I would speak with the rest of the party about it and see if they would want to do an arc where they need to put a stop to the evil character, otherwise everybody's just going to be upset over him. I would also say that that character(s) isn't/aren't allowed to flat-out attack each other, unless the character's arc progresses to the point where there's no other choice.
Needless to say, be careful about this. It could easily lead to hurt feelings.
What you are asking about doing is difficult to pull off and I would suggest not trying to run something like this as a first time DM. I know everyone wants to be Matt Mercer or Matt Coleville right from the off, but should not try to run the really hard-to-finesse types of stuff in your first campaign. Get your feet wet with more bog-standard types of play, dungeon crawls where all the monsters are evil and killable, simple 2-faction setups in a town, ransom notes, that kind of thing. Do not try to do the elite level DMing when you are just getting started.
one of my player's characters is getting traumatized by the rest of the group
Can you explain please? What do you mean by this? Are the other players at the table being mean to this player? Or are their characters picking on his character? Is the player feeling put out by this and frustrated? This is an OOC (out of character) situation, if so. The group needs to not be mean or unfair to this player. (Of course, if the player is having fun, then it's all good.)
What you are ultimately suggesting is PVP - player vs player (or more accurately PC vs PC) gaming. A lot of even very experienced DMs do not allow PVP at the table because it is too disruptive. As a starting DM, you should probably avoid this. Again, down the line, when you have a campaign or three under your belt, if you are sure your players can handle it, go for it. But right now, you are just learning how to deal with DMing. Do that first.
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.
This is your first campaign. Dont let a player in the group dictate how you need to run the game for them. This is a group thing. You are running the game, not the player. They need to understand that this is your first time as a DM running a campaign. Im not trying to say that your players should not have any input, but this is somethin that needs to be discussed with the group. A session zero for example. With that said you can do it. Even in secret from the other players. I had a character that ended up betraying the whole party causing a major turn in events during a 2 year campaign. The characters never found out, but once the game was over the players were told about it. I even told them that there were opportunities where they could of found out during the game. It just never happened. Once they found out they loved it and was surprised by the whole thing. This also involved time an effort on the deceiving character/players part. As well as mine. Ran several one shots with the player. Those games could of gone in any direction. Could of even ended in that characters death. So my point is, make it meaningful, and if this is something that you are not comfortable with doing, just let that player know. Just dont let them push you into doing it if you dont want to, or if it simply will not work within your campaign.
Leading with "one player of my player's characters is being traumatized by the rest of the group" begs a bunch of questions before even getting to the question you pose. Presuming the party are "the good guys" why are they traumatizing this other character? Why is the victim player coming back to play?
As for villain arcs, I'd say it depends on the purpose of the party to date foremost (given the fact that "traumatizing" occurs within the party and you're presumably cool with it, it sounds like your table is "comfortable with moral ambiguity"). Embedding a villain in the party can lead to a variety of blow outs. My suggestion, don't plan a full blown "betrayer" arc. Rather, the character is bonded to the party and stays the course with the party throughout its adventures, but may be working at cross purposes. Perhaps the villain provides info to a greater evil, or pays tribute to it.
Problem is possible reasons for motivation. If this is the player wanting to go villain strictly to get back at party members, that clearly crosses the line from in game characterization and retribution against the players. That should be a no go, and really what's in order there is to discuss in pause session (session 0 for a game in progress) to discuss apparent abusive conduct visited by the rest of the party upon another player. If the player just has a dark background and wants more room to explore that darkness, that's different and there's ways of doing that without going full on backstabber.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Most people have given some good advice here - The traumatized thing is a huge bundle of questions , but also how does this player envisage having a villainous arch? is it against the other PCs or taking them along with them? I would say once a PC is no longer planning on sticking with the party they become an NPC and the player rolls someone new, otherwise they are asking for basically a second game parallel game all to themselves - not that it can't be done but its a lot of work to ask of your DM and kinda destroys the collabrative story telling element of RPGs.
If they wanna take the party with them, you can let them try but it's up to the other PCs whether or not they go along and how they react, the player needs to be prepared to be turned on, handed to the authorities and maybe even killed by the other players. - Bleed happens as well whether you like it or not and the player may not have a good response from the other people at the table and should be prepared for that too.
Another option is to invite them to write this PCs villianous arch and intentions privately and run it as a campaign in the future and you can play while they DM - oftentimes when someone asks for this, thats what they are envisaging without realising it.
Again, I want to emphasize that the villain or betrayal or mole type stories can be super fun and awesome with an experienced DM and an experienced group of players. I highly advise against this sort of thing, though, for a new DM. There is a level of DMing finesse required for this that you just cannot have the first time you are DMing. Heck even experienced DMs will often not have that level of finesse. It's like picking up a tennis racket and for your first lesson, trying to beat Serena Williams on Centre Courte of Wimbledon. You're expecting too much of yourself.
Go beat the 12 year old on the clay courts in your housing development first... Serena Williams doesn't end up on your competition card until much, much later. If ever.
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.
Disclaimer: I cut my GM teeth on games like Top Secret, Twilight: 2000, and the original black box 2013 setting for RTalsorian's Cyberpunk, so I'm very comfortable GMing _characters_ who are at cross purposes. Also, I'm definitely not a Matt Mercer or Colville acolyte, rather I aspire more to be like Seth Skorkowksy's everyday GM approach. Gaming should be relaxing is my big take away from him.
I appreciate what BioWizard is saying, and my contributions here are respectful counter points to their stance. Noting my disclaimer, I'll start saying there's a whole slough of TTRPGs often involving intrigue and espionage where betrayal can happen, many of them written with the presumption that the players haven't ever gamed. I'd say the caution advocated here isn't necessary IF your group already has a degree of narrative sophistication in their imagination. I agree that IF is a BIG IF, moreso in this case as it sounds like there's some bad dynamic in your game that needs to be sorted, since the play isn't supposed to be adversarial among the players. So work that issue out ASAP.
How do characters with cross purposes exist in a game that's non adversarial? It will require a high degree of meta gaming, which may require a degree of cooperation and openness than what your "villain" player is going for. In other words, while the characters may be ignorant of some of the villain machinations, the players know at minimum the villain is on a different path.
Will this work with inexperienced players? I have a D&D group now going on three months that started every and has relaxed to every other week consisting of one experienced player and five minimal to no players. The bulk of the groups are bards or characters with a performance background/proficiency that are basically a travelling band who adventure to gather more lore to incorporate into their performances (and occasionally just some straight up hero work). Among them is a Hobgoblin Wizard nicknamed Tim with an archaeology background, picture TNG's Worf mixed with Indiana Jones but one who would be totally cool with the Ark disappearing into the bowels of the Dept of Defense (and a net instead of a bullwhip because the player asked the DM to design the character and proficiency in sandbag isn't in the RAW). He largely functions as the travelling band's bookkeeper/manager and adventure lead generator. Tim's real job is less Worf and more like Garek in DS9. He works for his nation's security apparatus and his real agenda is to uncover, recover, sample or report on any magical technologies that could advance his nation's security posture. His nation also has a reputation for paranoia and preemptive strikes. So while the characters largely think they're simply exploring the world to gain a deeper understanding of its magical history, they're also unwittingly supporting the Cold War arms race efforts of Tim's people.
This plays out fine, the characters think Tim is a capable dude, with an understanding of the world that's led to some fantastic wonders, and the backbone to pull his weight when discovery goes bad. The players always look forward to Tim's heel turns when the table learns he's meeting with one of his contacts to divert a magic McGuffin back to his nation (outside of character knowledge) and there's always lively speculation as to when Tim will go "too far" or in what circumstances could Tim be force to choose patriotism over his friends (as DM, I honestly have no idea where this will go). And, get this, Tim isn't even the main driver to the story, this is all just a side arc to most of the band's travels. I'm far from a AAA GM, but I came to gaming I think fairly well read and landed in the GM role because of the ability to juggle story. I just don't consider it as an advanced skillset as some GM spokespeople claim it. We're all, even children, use to handling much more complicated narratives than what D&D usually throws us, take advantage of it in your game or your players will disinvest and take up those other distractions again.
Another more D&D lore bound example of mixing good and evil or hero and villain in D&D is the Dragonlance novel Darkness and Light. Sturm and Kitiara are an excellent example as to how to integrate cross purpose characters on a common mission. A Raistlin/Caramon dynamic is more illustrative of what I think BioWizard might be warning about.
Bottom line, sort out with your players, after sorting out the more pressing stuff, whether this sort of dynamic is something the characters want to explore. If you can't get a consensus, yes, file away the villain's motivations for some later game or later evolution of your present game when you think you and they can navigate it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
A lot of this depends on the players and how they handle things. Experienced players with a new DM is a different story from both being new.
It also sounds from the OP like there are some player-to-player issues going on here -- in other words, this is not just a cool idea a player and a DM came up with over lunch one day. The player asked to become the villain because the other players were apparently treating him as such. That could point to a major issue.
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.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
so I'm just starting my first campaign as a DM, and one of my player's characters is getting traumatized by the rest of the group. We were talking and he thought it might be fun to have a villain arc (which is made a lot easier by his backstory [he may or may not have killed his parents]). I was already planning on testing his character down the line, but he's already asking me about it now... Anyways, I wanted to ask for some tips about how to villainize a PC or if I should even do that when most of the party is good/neutral
I tend to say either everybody's evil or nobody's evil. If he really wants to try it, then I would speak with the rest of the party about it and see if they would want to do an arc where they need to put a stop to the evil character, otherwise everybody's just going to be upset over him. I would also say that that character(s) isn't/aren't allowed to flat-out attack each other, unless the character's arc progresses to the point where there's no other choice.
Needless to say, be careful about this. It could easily lead to hurt feelings.
Red flag.
What you are asking about doing is difficult to pull off and I would suggest not trying to run something like this as a first time DM. I know everyone wants to be Matt Mercer or Matt Coleville right from the off, but should not try to run the really hard-to-finesse types of stuff in your first campaign. Get your feet wet with more bog-standard types of play, dungeon crawls where all the monsters are evil and killable, simple 2-faction setups in a town, ransom notes, that kind of thing. Do not try to do the elite level DMing when you are just getting started.
Can you explain please? What do you mean by this? Are the other players at the table being mean to this player? Or are their characters picking on his character? Is the player feeling put out by this and frustrated? This is an OOC (out of character) situation, if so. The group needs to not be mean or unfair to this player. (Of course, if the player is having fun, then it's all good.)
What you are ultimately suggesting is PVP - player vs player (or more accurately PC vs PC) gaming. A lot of even very experienced DMs do not allow PVP at the table because it is too disruptive. As a starting DM, you should probably avoid this. Again, down the line, when you have a campaign or three under your belt, if you are sure your players can handle it, go for it. But right now, you are just learning how to deal with DMing. Do that first.
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.
This is your first campaign. Dont let a player in the group dictate how you need to run the game for them. This is a group thing. You are running the game, not the player. They need to understand that this is your first time as a DM running a campaign. Im not trying to say that your players should not have any input, but this is somethin that needs to be discussed with the group. A session zero for example. With that said you can do it. Even in secret from the other players. I had a character that ended up betraying the whole party causing a major turn in events during a 2 year campaign. The characters never found out, but once the game was over the players were told about it. I even told them that there were opportunities where they could of found out during the game. It just never happened. Once they found out they loved it and was surprised by the whole thing. This also involved time an effort on the deceiving character/players part. As well as mine. Ran several one shots with the player. Those games could of gone in any direction. Could of even ended in that characters death. So my point is, make it meaningful, and if this is something that you are not comfortable with doing, just let that player know. Just dont let them push you into doing it if you dont want to, or if it simply will not work within your campaign.
Leading with "one player of my player's characters is being traumatized by the rest of the group" begs a bunch of questions before even getting to the question you pose. Presuming the party are "the good guys" why are they traumatizing this other character? Why is the victim player coming back to play?
As for villain arcs, I'd say it depends on the purpose of the party to date foremost (given the fact that "traumatizing" occurs within the party and you're presumably cool with it, it sounds like your table is "comfortable with moral ambiguity"). Embedding a villain in the party can lead to a variety of blow outs. My suggestion, don't plan a full blown "betrayer" arc. Rather, the character is bonded to the party and stays the course with the party throughout its adventures, but may be working at cross purposes. Perhaps the villain provides info to a greater evil, or pays tribute to it.
Problem is possible reasons for motivation. If this is the player wanting to go villain strictly to get back at party members, that clearly crosses the line from in game characterization and retribution against the players. That should be a no go, and really what's in order there is to discuss in pause session (session 0 for a game in progress) to discuss apparent abusive conduct visited by the rest of the party upon another player. If the player just has a dark background and wants more room to explore that darkness, that's different and there's ways of doing that without going full on backstabber.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I would concentrate on running a fun campaign for your players before trying to nuance something complicated.
If one of your players is having trouble caused by the other players, you have to put a stop to it. That kind of behavior at the table is NOT ok.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Most people have given some good advice here - The traumatized thing is a huge bundle of questions , but also how does this player envisage having a villainous arch? is it against the other PCs or taking them along with them? I would say once a PC is no longer planning on sticking with the party they become an NPC and the player rolls someone new, otherwise they are asking for basically a second game parallel game all to themselves - not that it can't be done but its a lot of work to ask of your DM and kinda destroys the collabrative story telling element of RPGs.
If they wanna take the party with them, you can let them try but it's up to the other PCs whether or not they go along and how they react, the player needs to be prepared to be turned on, handed to the authorities and maybe even killed by the other players. - Bleed happens as well whether you like it or not and the player may not have a good response from the other people at the table and should be prepared for that too.
Another option is to invite them to write this PCs villianous arch and intentions privately and run it as a campaign in the future and you can play while they DM - oftentimes when someone asks for this, thats what they are envisaging without realising it.
Again, I want to emphasize that the villain or betrayal or mole type stories can be super fun and awesome with an experienced DM and an experienced group of players. I highly advise against this sort of thing, though, for a new DM. There is a level of DMing finesse required for this that you just cannot have the first time you are DMing. Heck even experienced DMs will often not have that level of finesse. It's like picking up a tennis racket and for your first lesson, trying to beat Serena Williams on Centre Courte of Wimbledon. You're expecting too much of yourself.
Go beat the 12 year old on the clay courts in your housing development first... Serena Williams doesn't end up on your competition card until much, much later. If ever.
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.
Disclaimer: I cut my GM teeth on games like Top Secret, Twilight: 2000, and the original black box 2013 setting for RTalsorian's Cyberpunk, so I'm very comfortable GMing _characters_ who are at cross purposes. Also, I'm definitely not a Matt Mercer or Colville acolyte, rather I aspire more to be like Seth Skorkowksy's everyday GM approach. Gaming should be relaxing is my big take away from him.
I appreciate what BioWizard is saying, and my contributions here are respectful counter points to their stance. Noting my disclaimer, I'll start saying there's a whole slough of TTRPGs often involving intrigue and espionage where betrayal can happen, many of them written with the presumption that the players haven't ever gamed. I'd say the caution advocated here isn't necessary IF your group already has a degree of narrative sophistication in their imagination. I agree that IF is a BIG IF, moreso in this case as it sounds like there's some bad dynamic in your game that needs to be sorted, since the play isn't supposed to be adversarial among the players. So work that issue out ASAP.
How do characters with cross purposes exist in a game that's non adversarial? It will require a high degree of meta gaming, which may require a degree of cooperation and openness than what your "villain" player is going for. In other words, while the characters may be ignorant of some of the villain machinations, the players know at minimum the villain is on a different path.
Will this work with inexperienced players? I have a D&D group now going on three months that started every and has relaxed to every other week consisting of one experienced player and five minimal to no players. The bulk of the groups are bards or characters with a performance background/proficiency that are basically a travelling band who adventure to gather more lore to incorporate into their performances (and occasionally just some straight up hero work). Among them is a Hobgoblin Wizard nicknamed Tim with an archaeology background, picture TNG's Worf mixed with Indiana Jones but one who would be totally cool with the Ark disappearing into the bowels of the Dept of Defense (and a net instead of a bullwhip because the player asked the DM to design the character and proficiency in sandbag isn't in the RAW). He largely functions as the travelling band's bookkeeper/manager and adventure lead generator. Tim's real job is less Worf and more like Garek in DS9. He works for his nation's security apparatus and his real agenda is to uncover, recover, sample or report on any magical technologies that could advance his nation's security posture. His nation also has a reputation for paranoia and preemptive strikes. So while the characters largely think they're simply exploring the world to gain a deeper understanding of its magical history, they're also unwittingly supporting the Cold War arms race efforts of Tim's people.
This plays out fine, the characters think Tim is a capable dude, with an understanding of the world that's led to some fantastic wonders, and the backbone to pull his weight when discovery goes bad. The players always look forward to Tim's heel turns when the table learns he's meeting with one of his contacts to divert a magic McGuffin back to his nation (outside of character knowledge) and there's always lively speculation as to when Tim will go "too far" or in what circumstances could Tim be force to choose patriotism over his friends (as DM, I honestly have no idea where this will go). And, get this, Tim isn't even the main driver to the story, this is all just a side arc to most of the band's travels. I'm far from a AAA GM, but I came to gaming I think fairly well read and landed in the GM role because of the ability to juggle story. I just don't consider it as an advanced skillset as some GM spokespeople claim it. We're all, even children, use to handling much more complicated narratives than what D&D usually throws us, take advantage of it in your game or your players will disinvest and take up those other distractions again.
Another more D&D lore bound example of mixing good and evil or hero and villain in D&D is the Dragonlance novel Darkness and Light. Sturm and Kitiara are an excellent example as to how to integrate cross purpose characters on a common mission. A Raistlin/Caramon dynamic is more illustrative of what I think BioWizard might be warning about.
Bottom line, sort out with your players, after sorting out the more pressing stuff, whether this sort of dynamic is something the characters want to explore. If you can't get a consensus, yes, file away the villain's motivations for some later game or later evolution of your present game when you think you and they can navigate it.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
A lot of this depends on the players and how they handle things. Experienced players with a new DM is a different story from both being new.
It also sounds from the OP like there are some player-to-player issues going on here -- in other words, this is not just a cool idea a player and a DM came up with over lunch one day. The player asked to become the villain because the other players were apparently treating him as such. That could point to a major issue.
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.