Hi, so I post this for 2 reasons. First of to vent, and second to ask for tips.
I am a totally new DM, I haven't even played the DnD tabletop game before. But I always wanted to. And this summer my brother-in-law talked about wanting to play DnD. But no-one in his circle of friends wanted to be the DM.
So I said: "Hey, I always wanted to do just that. Maybe I could give it a go!" So I learned the rules... mostly... got many of the books. I now understand that old nerd saying: "Get your kids to role play, and they'll never have money for drugs!" And started a adapted campaign of "Lost Mines of <can't recall how to spell it>. Now I love being a DM.
I love world building, I love roleplaying whit the group... But after every session I feel a sort of dread. Why? Well it's because my brother-in-law, and 1 of his friends are roleplaying psychopaths. And the worst part is that I don't think they realise that they are.
So a bit of backstory: My brother-in-law and his buddies were inspired to play DnD by a podcast made by Swedish comedians playing a older version of the game. And as a result, they have little to no respect for the world. I am the kind of person that wants everyone to be happy. And I am hoping that I might teach them to have respect for the world... or to have one of them become a new DM.
For the game they want. Might not be the sort of game I want to run... What would you suggest I do?
Sit down and talk to them about it. Bring up your concerns, and ask them what they want out of the game. They may just want to goof around and kill stuff - and that is a perfectly valid way to play the game. If, after talking to them, they still don't want to engage with the game more seriously, then you have to make a choice: either roll with it and try to have fun with that style of play, or if that style really isn't for you step down as DM for them.
Just make sure any overtly negative actions they take have equal consequences. If they start losing money and items from being jailed, or are recognised and attacked by guards before they can even enter a city they will realize they have to reign it in.
Can you clarify what you mean by "have little or no respect for the world" and what makes it a problem? Just that they prefer to kill things rather than RPing town interactions? Or something else?
Can you clarify what you mean by "have little or no respect for the world" and what makes it a problem? Just that they prefer to kill things rather than RPing town interactions? Or something else?
Like a real psychopath has little to no respect for the world I guess. Tho to be fair I feel that is mostly my brother-in-law. What I mean by that is that he will use brutal violence or the threat of brutal violence to get his way.
I also think that the fact that his, and one of his buddies, have characters that are two dimensional add to my distress. One is impulsive and bloodthirsty because of a meta game kill count comparison between the two. And my brother-in-law was a character that acts as if everything is a joke...
They sound like chaotic evil thugs. What level and class are they?
Like I said, give them consequences. Don't have every NPC be a commoner, throw in some of these where appropriate. Have nobles or merchants that they have wronged put bounties on them. Have bystanders call the guards when they start something.
They cant get away with this behavior in the real world, dont let them get away with it in your world.
I think that if this really bothers you then you should just honestly talk to them, out of game, about your concerns. It takes a lot of work to DM and you shouldn't feel dread when you're going into a session. If all parties want to continue, not only do you need realistic consequences (bounties, NPCs that can fight back, etc) but also reasons for your PCs to feel connected to the world. Do they have backstories at all? Do they have goals? Do the characters have any reasons to be involved with and care about Phandalin and the world? If they care about the world, then I'd be inclined to believe that they would care more about what happened to it.
If they just want to keep threatening and killing...well, as said by someone else, you can do one of two things: 1) decide it's not for you and tell them that you would prefer one of them to DM or 2) roll with the evil. You may have been expecting a story about heroes, but it could just as easily become one about villains, if your PCs insist on acting like villains.
They sort of have backstories. But there mostly jokes as well and they have zero rp traits. By that I mean bounds, flaws etc.
If I learned one thing from this experience that is that I will never run a campaign without a session 0 ever again! Is it to late to have one now?
Never too late. The DM is just a different type of player, and you deserve to have fun to. If you aren't enjoying building a world that exists solely for them to pillage, then it's perfectly reasonable for you to back out if need be.
I'd suggest sitting down and having a discussion about what you all want from the game. Fairly describe to them what you would consider a fun game. Have them fairly describe to you what they would consider a fun game. Find the commonalities, if any exist. Negotiate the rest. If you can come with a style of gaming that suits everyone, continue. Otherwise, disband the group. Life's too short to be playing a zero sum game where their enjoyment comes at the price of your misery. The only way they get to 100% dictate the terms of the game like that is if they want to pay you to DM. By the way - if they only agree after you tell them you're done, don't listen. If they are truly willing to compromise because they care about your experience as well, they'll do so before you leave. Compromise after they've 'lost' is just to keep you at the table so they can keep having their fun.
Or skip the touchy-feely, and just start having the world react to them. Once word gets around, reasonable people will avoid them. Picture the town in old Westerns, where everyone starts shutting up shop when known bad guys walk into town. Without outright saying it, make it clear that they are becoming the bad guys. Honestly, they may even enjoy having the world push back on them a bit. Have a visibly scared NPC try to stand up to them and say "we don't serve your type here" - it'll probably get them killed, but the purpose is to underscore the impact the players are having on the world, and give them a chance to say "wait, our type, what do you mean" and have the NPC recount some of their terrible deeds. It gives the players the chance to understand and to change. Being hated and feared isn't much fun for most people.
If their behavior doesn't change, and if (a really important if) you feel you can roll with it and still have fun, switch their alignment to match their behavior, and make them the BBEGs in your world, with a group of good-aligned NPC adventurers coming after them. They should still be given a reasonable chance to 'win' - they're the players and as DM you shouldn't ex machina them to death - but you'll need to decide what 'winning' looks like. You'll just have to get comfortable with the idea of running an evil-aligned campaign, which as I understand is a whole new challenge in itself. Shut down your existing 'good' plot hooks, and set up some evil ones. Have an evil warlord approach them with an opportunity - gold in exchange for plunging a local city state into anarchy. Have him direct them to meet his agents in the city. Those agents will give hooks to tactical assassinations, framing some important people for heinous and bloody crimes perpetrated by the PCs, inciting the populous to riot, etc...
Of course, the warlord will betray them in the end! Now they have a revenge motive to remove the warlord after he's moved in and turned said city-state into an oppressive regime. And conveniently, that also dovetails nicely into a good-aligned campaign and gives the evil players a redemption arc - should they wish to pursue it. Ok, this is starting to sound like fun - anyone wanna run an evil-PC campaign?
Ultimately, remember that as the DM, it's your world, and it reacts to their actions however you want it to.
They sort of have backstories. But there mostly jokes as well and they have zero rp traits. By that I mean bounds, flaws etc.
You know, the more I think about this, the more I think f*&^ these guys. Frankly it sounds like they just want to mock the game, (and possibly you, I'm sorry to say) and not play it.
As tempting as it is to create in-game retaliation, I'd advise against that.
You ought to discuss this with your players, especially if they are family.
As long as every participant in the game is having fun, and no-one gets hurt, the game can be whatever you like it to be.
So if you are unhappy with how it all works out, let them know. Then decide if you all want to change the flavor of the game, keep going with a hack-and-slash attitude, and/or if you want to see how in-game escalation can be.
If you don't like playing the game with them, don't. If you can tune into their type of game and have fun, great. If they can tune into yours, great. If you find a compromise, awesome.
Just reacting to what is happening in-game will most likely create tension within your family out-of-game, and I don't think that is worth it.
They sort of have backstories. But there mostly jokes as well and they have zero rp traits. By that I mean bounds, flaws etc.
You know, the more I think about this, the more I think f*&^ these guys. Frankly it sounds like they just want to mock the game, (and possibly you, I'm sorry to say) and not play it.
That I seriously doubt. I have been in my brother-in-law's life sense he was like 12. I think it's more that they don't really know what to do with said rp traits. I feel like we rushed into this campaign, if we, mostly me as I am the DM, hadn't rushed it might well have been different.
They sort of have backstories. But there mostly jokes as well and they have zero rp traits. By that I mean bounds, flaws etc.
You know, the more I think about this, the more I think f*&^ these guys. Frankly it sounds like they just want to mock the game, (and possibly you, I'm sorry to say) and not play it.
That I seriously doubt. I have been in my brother-in-law's life sense he was like 12. I think it's more that they don't really know what to do with said rp traits. I feel like we rushed into this campaign, if we, mostly me as I am the DM, hadn't rushed it might well have been different.
In that case I retract that comment. Please consider only my first comment. If everyone's willing to talk it out and take the game seriously, think there are multiple paths to this being a fun game for everyone involved.
As tempting as it is to create in-game retaliation, I'd advise against that.
You ought to discuss this with your players, especially if they are family.
As long as every participant in the game is having fun, and no-one gets hurt, the game can be whatever you like it to be.
So if you are unhappy with how it all works out, let them know. Then decide if you all want to change the flavor of the game, keep going with a hack-and-slash attitude, and/or if you want to see how in-game escalation can be.
If you don't like playing the game with them, don't. If you can tune into their type of game and have fun, great. If they can tune into yours, great. If you find a compromise, awesome.
Just reacting to what is happening in-game will most likely create tension within your family out-of-game, and I don't think that is worth it.
Thanks for adding that bit of perspective. As that type of tension is the very last thing I want.
Also, and this goes to all of you guys, it been far less than 24 hours sense I first posted about this. And in that time I have gotten a lot of good advice and sympathy. I would just like to say that it feels good to know that I, a total n00b, can only expect support here.
Yeah, have a chat with them first. But otherwise, it's entirely possible the next magical shopkeeper they try to threaten is actually a retired archmage that's about to mass polymorph them into sheep and then put up a prismatic wall around them for good measure.
Yeah, have a chat with them first. But otherwise, it's entirely possible the next magical shopkeeper they try to threaten is actually a retired archmage that's about to mass polymorph them into sheep and then put up a prismatic wall around them for good measure.
But what next? I understand wanting to 'teach them a lesson' in this way, but he has to continue playing with these people.
The players' next action is to say 'baa' and shuffle around the invisible pen, with no clear course for getting themselves out of the situation. So you've given the DM absolute control over the game, but not detailed how it solves problem. What does (s)he do now?
That's when I'd go into RP mode with said archmage.
"Alright, buckos, we're going to have a bit of a chat about being respectful to one's elders, yes? Baa once for yes and twice for also yes."
And then possibly we end the conversation by placing some sort of mass geas on them to send them to some far-flung land to rebuild an orphanage, after which point they may resume their adventuring, hopefully with a new outlook on life. Or else.
And then possibly we end the conversation by placing some sort of mass geas on them to send them to some far-flung land to rebuild an orphanage, after which point they may resume their adventuring, hopefully with a new outlook on life. Or else.
Ehhhh...taking away player agency isn’t going to solve anything, especially since OP is playing with family. That’s like taking OP’s problem (players not working with the world) and flipping it (world working against the players) which would...create more problems than it solves.
I thought the best thing for the archmage to do would be to be sitting there when they wake up. He's got a proposition for them: clearly they are effective and motivated to get the gold, so to speak. He has a rival mage, a villain, that needs to be taught a lesson, and he has something our archmage needs/wants, and of course the villain stole it from our friendly archmage. Now they have a quest to some far flung place, one full of danger and strange creatures to face down. Conveniently, our villain knows he's a hated person, knows he's got a target on his back, so he lives in a very dangerous place with may terrible monsters roaming the area (maybe a village or 2 in need of protection, like a 7 samurai story, where our company of adventurers might redeem themselves a bit by protecting people rather than destroying them), and the villain has a labyrinth of monsters surrounding his well guarded tower. ETC ETC ETC Go DM Go! you got this!
In-game consequences can be effective, but at the end of the day the issue is about expectations. It seems clear that you & they have very different expectations from the game. At some point you're going to have to talk to them about it. If you & they have fundamentally different expectations, then either one side caves, both sides compromise, or you go your separate ways and find different groups to play in. There doesn't have to be any malice involved, just agree that the style of game you want to run doesn't mesh with the style of game they want to play, and move on.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hi, so I post this for 2 reasons. First of to vent, and second to ask for tips.
I am a totally new DM, I haven't even played the DnD tabletop game before. But I always wanted to. And this summer my brother-in-law talked about wanting to play DnD. But no-one in his circle of friends wanted to be the DM.
So I said: "Hey, I always wanted to do just that. Maybe I could give it a go!" So I learned the rules... mostly... got many of the books. I now understand that old nerd saying: "Get your kids to role play, and they'll never have money for drugs!" And started a adapted campaign of "Lost Mines of <can't recall how to spell it>. Now I love being a DM.
I love world building, I love roleplaying whit the group... But after every session I feel a sort of dread. Why? Well it's because my brother-in-law, and 1 of his friends are roleplaying psychopaths. And the worst part is that I don't think they realise that they are.
So a bit of backstory: My brother-in-law and his buddies were inspired to play DnD by a podcast made by Swedish comedians playing a older version of the game. And as a result, they have little to no respect for the world. I am the kind of person that wants everyone to be happy. And I am hoping that I might teach them to have respect for the world... or to have one of them become a new DM.
For the game they want. Might not be the sort of game I want to run... What would you suggest I do?
Sit down and talk to them about it. Bring up your concerns, and ask them what they want out of the game. They may just want to goof around and kill stuff - and that is a perfectly valid way to play the game. If, after talking to them, they still don't want to engage with the game more seriously, then you have to make a choice: either roll with it and try to have fun with that style of play, or if that style really isn't for you step down as DM for them.
Just make sure any overtly negative actions they take have equal consequences. If they start losing money and items from being jailed, or are recognised and attacked by guards before they can even enter a city they will realize they have to reign it in.
Can you clarify what you mean by "have little or no respect for the world" and what makes it a problem? Just that they prefer to kill things rather than RPing town interactions? Or something else?
Like a real psychopath has little to no respect for the world I guess. Tho to be fair I feel that is mostly my brother-in-law. What I mean by that is that he will use brutal violence or the threat of brutal violence to get his way.
I also think that the fact that his, and one of his buddies, have characters that are two dimensional add to my distress. One is impulsive and bloodthirsty because of a meta game kill count comparison between the two. And my brother-in-law was a character that acts as if everything is a joke...
They sound like chaotic evil thugs. What level and class are they?
Like I said, give them consequences. Don't have every NPC be a commoner, throw in some of these where appropriate. Have nobles or merchants that they have wronged put bounties on them. Have bystanders call the guards when they start something.
They cant get away with this behavior in the real world, dont let them get away with it in your world.
I think that if this really bothers you then you should just honestly talk to them, out of game, about your concerns. It takes a lot of work to DM and you shouldn't feel dread when you're going into a session. If all parties want to continue, not only do you need realistic consequences (bounties, NPCs that can fight back, etc) but also reasons for your PCs to feel connected to the world. Do they have backstories at all? Do they have goals? Do the characters have any reasons to be involved with and care about Phandalin and the world? If they care about the world, then I'd be inclined to believe that they would care more about what happened to it.
If they just want to keep threatening and killing...well, as said by someone else, you can do one of two things: 1) decide it's not for you and tell them that you would prefer one of them to DM or 2) roll with the evil. You may have been expecting a story about heroes, but it could just as easily become one about villains, if your PCs insist on acting like villains.
They sort of have backstories. But there mostly jokes as well and they have zero rp traits. By that I mean bounds, flaws etc.
If I learned one thing from this experience that is that I will never run a campaign without a session 0 ever again! Is it to late to have one now?
Never too late. The DM is just a different type of player, and you deserve to have fun to. If you aren't enjoying building a world that exists solely for them to pillage, then it's perfectly reasonable for you to back out if need be.
I'd suggest sitting down and having a discussion about what you all want from the game. Fairly describe to them what you would consider a fun game. Have them fairly describe to you what they would consider a fun game. Find the commonalities, if any exist. Negotiate the rest. If you can come with a style of gaming that suits everyone, continue. Otherwise, disband the group. Life's too short to be playing a zero sum game where their enjoyment comes at the price of your misery. The only way they get to 100% dictate the terms of the game like that is if they want to pay you to DM. By the way - if they only agree after you tell them you're done, don't listen. If they are truly willing to compromise because they care about your experience as well, they'll do so before you leave. Compromise after they've 'lost' is just to keep you at the table so they can keep having their fun.
Or skip the touchy-feely, and just start having the world react to them. Once word gets around, reasonable people will avoid them. Picture the town in old Westerns, where everyone starts shutting up shop when known bad guys walk into town. Without outright saying it, make it clear that they are becoming the bad guys. Honestly, they may even enjoy having the world push back on them a bit. Have a visibly scared NPC try to stand up to them and say "we don't serve your type here" - it'll probably get them killed, but the purpose is to underscore the impact the players are having on the world, and give them a chance to say "wait, our type, what do you mean" and have the NPC recount some of their terrible deeds. It gives the players the chance to understand and to change. Being hated and feared isn't much fun for most people.
If their behavior doesn't change, and if (a really important if) you feel you can roll with it and still have fun, switch their alignment to match their behavior, and make them the BBEGs in your world, with a group of good-aligned NPC adventurers coming after them. They should still be given a reasonable chance to 'win' - they're the players and as DM you shouldn't ex machina them to death - but you'll need to decide what 'winning' looks like. You'll just have to get comfortable with the idea of running an evil-aligned campaign, which as I understand is a whole new challenge in itself. Shut down your existing 'good' plot hooks, and set up some evil ones. Have an evil warlord approach them with an opportunity - gold in exchange for plunging a local city state into anarchy. Have him direct them to meet his agents in the city. Those agents will give hooks to tactical assassinations, framing some important people for heinous and bloody crimes perpetrated by the PCs, inciting the populous to riot, etc...
Of course, the warlord will betray them in the end! Now they have a revenge motive to remove the warlord after he's moved in and turned said city-state into an oppressive regime. And conveniently, that also dovetails nicely into a good-aligned campaign and gives the evil players a redemption arc - should they wish to pursue it. Ok, this is starting to sound like fun - anyone wanna run an evil-PC campaign?
Ultimately, remember that as the DM, it's your world, and it reacts to their actions however you want it to.
You know, the more I think about this, the more I think f*&^ these guys. Frankly it sounds like they just want to mock the game, (and possibly you, I'm sorry to say) and not play it.
As tempting as it is to create in-game retaliation, I'd advise against that.
You ought to discuss this with your players, especially if they are family.
As long as every participant in the game is having fun, and no-one gets hurt, the game can be whatever you like it to be.
So if you are unhappy with how it all works out, let them know. Then decide if you all want to change the flavor of the game, keep going with a hack-and-slash attitude, and/or if you want to see how in-game escalation can be.
If you don't like playing the game with them, don't. If you can tune into their type of game and have fun, great. If they can tune into yours, great. If you find a compromise, awesome.
Just reacting to what is happening in-game will most likely create tension within your family out-of-game, and I don't think that is worth it.
More Interesting Lock Picking Rules
That I seriously doubt. I have been in my brother-in-law's life sense he was like 12. I think it's more that they don't really know what to do with said rp traits. I feel like we rushed into this campaign, if we, mostly me as I am the DM, hadn't rushed it might well have been different.
In that case I retract that comment. Please consider only my first comment. If everyone's willing to talk it out and take the game seriously, think there are multiple paths to this being a fun game for everyone involved.
Thanks for adding that bit of perspective. As that type of tension is the very last thing I want.
Also, and this goes to all of you guys, it been far less than 24 hours sense I first posted about this. And in that time I have gotten a lot of good advice and sympathy. I would just like to say that it feels good to know that I, a total n00b, can only expect support here.
Yeah, have a chat with them first. But otherwise, it's entirely possible the next magical shopkeeper they try to threaten is actually a retired archmage that's about to mass polymorph them into sheep and then put up a prismatic wall around them for good measure.
But what next? I understand wanting to 'teach them a lesson' in this way, but he has to continue playing with these people.
The players' next action is to say 'baa' and shuffle around the invisible pen, with no clear course for getting themselves out of the situation. So you've given the DM absolute control over the game, but not detailed how it solves problem. What does (s)he do now?
That's when I'd go into RP mode with said archmage.
"Alright, buckos, we're going to have a bit of a chat about being respectful to one's elders, yes? Baa once for yes and twice for also yes."
And then possibly we end the conversation by placing some sort of mass geas on them to send them to some far-flung land to rebuild an orphanage, after which point they may resume their adventuring, hopefully with a new outlook on life. Or else.
Ehhhh...taking away player agency isn’t going to solve anything, especially since OP is playing with family. That’s like taking OP’s problem (players not working with the world) and flipping it (world working against the players) which would...create more problems than it solves.
I thought the best thing for the archmage to do would be to be sitting there when they wake up. He's got a proposition for them: clearly they are effective and motivated to get the gold, so to speak. He has a rival mage, a villain, that needs to be taught a lesson, and he has something our archmage needs/wants, and of course the villain stole it from our friendly archmage. Now they have a quest to some far flung place, one full of danger and strange creatures to face down. Conveniently, our villain knows he's a hated person, knows he's got a target on his back, so he lives in a very dangerous place with may terrible monsters roaming the area (maybe a village or 2 in need of protection, like a 7 samurai story, where our company of adventurers might redeem themselves a bit by protecting people rather than destroying them), and the villain has a labyrinth of monsters surrounding his well guarded tower. ETC ETC ETC Go DM Go! you got this!
In-game consequences can be effective, but at the end of the day the issue is about expectations. It seems clear that you & they have very different expectations from the game. At some point you're going to have to talk to them about it. If you & they have fundamentally different expectations, then either one side caves, both sides compromise, or you go your separate ways and find different groups to play in. There doesn't have to be any malice involved, just agree that the style of game you want to run doesn't mesh with the style of game they want to play, and move on.