What am I doing wrong?

[Feverdream]

I have just gotten back from Africa about two weeks ago, and I spent my summer helping out, gathering linguistic data, and otherwise having myself absorbed into various communities about the coast.

Now that I'm back, I figured, hell, I'll run a game. But recalling all the games I've played in in the past, I've come to the conclusion that I really didn't want to see any of the uber-characters that were built as much as possible to be the jack-of-all-trades, where he does not have to rely on any other players. Party members are annoyances rather than compatriots... I've seen way too many instances of players passing secret notes to the DM, where they're playing a prank or something that stalls the game because they want to annoy another player, and so on...

So, I sit my players down and tell them: I'm not going to start any game unless I hear you people talk to each other. Your fellow players are the ones you will be traveling with. No one person will be able to handle everything I throw at them. I don't want any secrets and I want to make sure everyone has a role they're comfortable in, and that role will be the part they play in the party. Remember your party members are there to help you, and they will each have skills the others don't have. So, decide on what kind of adventuring group you guys will be, and who will have what skills and what role will they play...

Was this too much for me to ask? I'm not being sarcastic. I genuinely wish to do. But regardless of my many admonishments, the table was silent. No one informed the other what character race/class they were going to play. They would give furtive glances to the other and, after rolling up stats and writing lots of things down, they finally ask the others, "So, what're you playing?" Then they'd growl, "But I wanted to play that!" I would then say, "Well, did I not tell you guys to talk to each other? Find out what roles and stuff your little 'company' would handle?" They would then fall silent for a bit more.

So, I'd ask them, "Well, what kind of company are you?" "Anything you want me to be, DM." "Me? You mean 'us'? Well, what are you? Treasure hunters? Military muscle? Mercenaries? Dragonslayers? What?" "That sounds cool..." "Which one?" "Any of them..." I would then sigh and say, fine, you're all treasure hunters of some kind." And now, back to the scribbling on the character sheets. No talking. Then they all reveal their characters, and I'd look at them, "Okay, treasure hunters, right? So, why do we have a party of three fighters and a cleric? Are you thinking that there will be no traps in the dungeons? No one with any levels of rogue to deal with this? Hrm?" They'd then throw up their arms, and things would go sour very quickly.

Now, this isn't the first time I've encountered this. I've mostly been a player, but I've wanted to DM. But I've noticed that, especially in the past two years, players tended to be less and less interactive with the party. It's as if they didn't know (or even CARE) who else was playing. I would ask people if they needed such-and-such, like, a trapspringing rogue. Then they would all go charging into a dungeon, springing every trap and dying.

I want to say that many players are becoming "me"-centric. Like they want to be the ultimate hero, and have other players and the DM fawn over their bunch of numbers. This is my observation, and it could only be endemic to my particular city. I have searched for many groups that didn't exhibit these tendencies, but I've been disappointed. Many players also tend to inform me that they're true role-players, and everyone else is a chump, and that they don't "play that way". Yet, when I join their group, they do in fact play that way.

Has anyone else observed this? And even if they haven't, how do I, as a budding DM, get my players to actually work with each other, both in-character and out-of-character? Such non-communication drives me crazy. I even had to deal with another player calling me on my cell phone every minute, asking to talk to me in private about the awesome character concept they came up with, and I told him, "Uh.... remember when I said no secrets? Why can't you tell your other players? Remember, they're going to be the ones on the journey, and if there's anything that might make problems for them, they should know OOC, right?"

I feel that maybe I just no longer understand gamers and games. That maybe I just need to walk away. I spend a summer in Africa, working with some of the most cooperative people in the world, where the community was foremost over the individual. Maybe I'm just becoming the alien here.

So, what am I doing wrong? I appreciate any help from veteran DMs who may have encountered this problem before.

Again, thank you.

[BRC]

WALL OF TEXT HURTS MY EYES!


Alright, in terms of the traps thing, you should remember that as a DM your job is to cater to what the players want. If they make three fighters and a cleric, it sounds like what they want is combat, so give them some combat.


But on your main point about the players not cooperating, it sounds like your group just doesn't know each other very well, or they arn't really interacting.


Personally, here's what I would do, run a game of Paranoia, or a DnD campaign with a similar concept in terms of party interaction.


For those of you who don't know, a big part of Paranoia is double-crossing your party members, who are probably the last people you should trust. Do a D&D campaign where you encourage the players to backstab and double cross each other, this will make your players paranoid, they will start watching each other. They WILL care who else is playing, even if it's just to keep an eye on them. Once they've gotten to know each other in this fashion, they might be ready to work as a team.

[Inhuman Bot]

Well, tomb of horrors is always a possibility.

Or, you could do the more drawn out, but fairly effective, method of walking through every step of charcter creation. Then, the party is balanced. When one person hogs the spotlight, move over to the other charcters. Make sure everyone knows the value of teamwork. Are the fighters being braggerts, saying who the others suck? Throw some undead at them, giving the cleric a chance. Give some duels for a one on one fighter, and make some mooks for the cleaving fighter.

I'am not a very experianced DM, but I have had this problem. Every, single game, or just about. Everything from the charcters each going off on their own "because the other players suck!" or attacking other PC's to take their loot. *sigh* I've joined a more mature group, since. Apperently, the old one is getting better though.

[Flickerdart]

For one session, invite a guest Batman Wizard. He'll put them all to shame with the kind of spotlight hogging they can only dream of.

[Tsotha-lanti]

Reads to me like you tried to dictate for them a style of play they don't enjoy.

If they prefer working against each other, keeping secrets, and the like, there are plenty of games where they can do that and have a ton of fun - White Wolf's games, Vampire especially, spring to mind immediately.

[Dr Bwaa]

Question for you: how are you coming up with these groups of people? Are they friends, people that you know and who know each other, or are you assembling them out of a hat full of names (so to speak) at a local [card shop/whatever]? This could make a big difference. I've never played D&D with a group of people who don't know each other (excepting online), and I know when they do know each other, the majority (at least of my players) are more than willing to bounce ideas off me and/or each other. Everyone gets excited about playing as a group, rather than exclusively their own characters. There has been one real exception (no, it's none of you guys who read these boards or anyone you know), but the thing is, players who only focus on themselves, if they're in a group of players who care about the group, are not going to last long.

[darkzucchini]

Never really had this problem as a DM (have seen it a bit as a player though), but that may be because I play with friends who all know each other quite well.

One suggestion is to start the PCs off with a reason for them to all know each other. Maybe they are all from the same village, or perhaps they have all been working for the same business, or they could all frequent the same tavern and have become fast friends. Anyway, I find that giving the PCs a common goal and a common origin from the beginning of the game can help them work together instead of against one another.

[aboyd]

So, I sit my players down and tell them: I'm not going to start any game unless I hear you people talk to each other.

But regardless of my many admonishments, the table was silent. No one informed the other what character race/class they were going to play. They would give furtive glances to the other and, after rolling up stats and writing lots of things down, they finally ask the others, "So, what're you playing?" Then they'd growl, "But I wanted to play that!" I would then say, "Well, did I not tell you guys to talk to each other?
Uh, they WERE talking to each other when you interrupted them. That's HOW some people communicate -- they start, discuss, and adjust. Not everyone builds by committee, and the idea that you can force them to communicate in a way you prefer is like trying to be a puppeteer of people who have no strings. It will end... pretty much just as it HAS ended, every time.


So, what am I doing wrong?
Stop playing for them.

[Treguard]

^ I disagree with the above, simply because they weren't in the middle of an adventure, the were beginning character creation, and communication is kind of key at this point. It's not like an interview, where a DM would point and laugh or kick you out if you proposed an unsuitable charcter. If the DM (feverdream) had been running, say, a pre-built like Tomb of Horrors it becomes much harder to just "wrap" the world to suit the demands of the party. The party they created via no communication would've just died in the ToH. Likewise, even if the DM said to the group "Okay, just to warn you guys, this is a pretty trap-heavy crawl" and everyone had individually built a rogue than they would've been equally screwed (big monsters and all..).

It's easy for a DM to start railroading for the sake of story, but before the game even begins you have to ask yourself, what's easier: Warping the world to appease the players, regardless of the verisimilitude and the DM's enjoyment? Or informing the players that they may encounter X, Y and oh, definitely Z and let them plan accordingly?

If I'm planning a large dungeon crawl inside a mountain and a player wants to play, I dunno, a sea pirate captain, then I will warn him that it's highly unlikey there'll be seafaring combat. Inside a mountain. At the end of the day he can still use the character, I'm never going to outright say "no" to any character, but the mileage he gets out of it will be different than a more suitable character and he sould realise that. By all means, cater the adventure to the party, but the world? That's a very solid thing to which the players themselves should cater towards.

Feverdream, from what I've read you didn't really make a mistake. You gave them plenty of opportunities to talk, and only made decisions for them when they didn't feel the need for one. Sometimes some of the detail isn't necessary and can be streamlined anyway. If they want to keep secrets, sure, keep it between the the player and the DM, but considering the cohesive nature of a party it works out both fluff and build-wise to make the character open; divulging as much as what a group of people asking questions around a bar room table could discern from each other. If the group really have a problem with this method than other avenues, like running Paranoia or heck, even some co-operative boardgames may drag them out of their shells.

[drawingfreak]

The main point is to really have fun. This is why a terribly generic game like D&D is so perfect. You can start from nothing and create an adventure according to what the players want. I agree that they appear to want to do something more combat oriented so you can have them be in the King's service and are sent out to protect his Royal Majesty's minions.

Now, you can sneak in a few things here and there to make them reconsider their original ideas. However, be subtle about it. In the first dungeon, have a trap with a really low Search and Disable DC. Deeper in, have one that a non-Rogue would have no chance of finding. Continue to do so from then on. Eventually one of them will get fed up and multi-class.

A good way to get around that entirely is to have them discuss things before the pencils are even passed out. Have character archetypes that need to be filled. Tell them that you need someone good with swords, someone good with stealth, so on and so forth. Make it vague enough to where they can come at the archetypes from different classes.

I also offer you the resources on the Fear the Boot website:
Group Template Questionare (http://www.feartheboot.com/resources/2_GroupTemplateQuestionnaire.pdf) and example (http://www.feartheboot.com/resources/2_GroupTemplateQuestionnaire_Example.pdf)
Group Template (http://www.feartheboot.com/resources/2_GroupTemplate.pdf) and example (http://www.feartheboot.com/resources/2_GroupTemplate_Example.pdf)

[Treguard]

A good way to get around that entirely is to have them discuss things before the pencils are even passed out. Have character archetypes that need to be filled. Tell them that you need someone good with swords, someone good with stealth, so on and so forth. Make it vague enough to where they can come at the archetypes from different classes.

It sounds like the OP may have tried this, to no avail, before suggesting the examples given.

[Saph]

So, I sit my players down and tell them: I'm not going to start any game unless I hear you people talk to each other. Your fellow players are the ones you will be traveling with. No one person will be able to handle everything I throw at them. I don't want any secrets and I want to make sure everyone has a role they're comfortable in, and that role will be the part they play in the party. Remember your party members are there to help you, and they will each have skills the others don't have. So, decide on what kind of adventuring group you guys will be, and who will have what skills and what role will they play...

Was this too much for me to ask? I'm not being sarcastic. I genuinely wish to do. But regardless of my many admonishments, the table was silent. No one informed the other what character race/class they were going to play. They would give furtive glances to the other and, after rolling up stats and writing lots of things down, they finally ask the others, "So, what're you playing?" Then they'd growl, "But I wanted to play that!" I would then say, "Well, did I not tell you guys to talk to each other? Find out what roles and stuff your little 'company' would handle?" They would then fall silent for a bit more.

So, I'd ask them, "Well, what kind of company are you?" "Anything you want me to be, DM." "Me? You mean 'us'? Well, what are you? Treasure hunters? Military muscle? Mercenaries? Dragonslayers? What?" "That sounds cool..." "Which one?" "Any of them..." I would then sigh and say, fine, you're all treasure hunters of some kind." And now, back to the scribbling on the character sheets. No talking. Then they all reveal their characters, and I'd look at them, "Okay, treasure hunters, right? So, why do we have a party of three fighters and a cleric? Are you thinking that there will be no traps in the dungeons? No one with any levels of rogue to deal with this? Hrm?" They'd then throw up their arms, and things would go sour very quickly.

It does seem a tiny bit heavy-handed . . . Some people just don't communicate very well about character concepts. Telling them to talk to each other doesn't always work, and sarcasm in this sort of situation often gets people to fall silent rather than open up.


Has anyone else observed this? And even if they haven't, how do I, as a budding DM, get my players to actually work with each other, both in-character and out-of-character? Such non-communication drives me crazy. I even had to deal with another player calling me on my cell phone every minute, asking to talk to me in private about the awesome character concept they came up with, and I told him, "Uh.... remember when I said no secrets? Why can't you tell your other players? Remember, they're going to be the ones on the journey, and if there's anything that might make problems for them, they should know OOC, right?"

Remember that there's nothing wrong with a player keeping some aspects of their character secret, just as long as they still work with the other PCs at the table. I don't think I've ever played a PC where I've told the other players everything about my character concept, at least not at first. Do they start to gel better once they start playing?


I feel that maybe I just no longer understand gamers and games. That maybe I just need to walk away. I spend a summer in Africa, working with some of the most cooperative people in the world, where the community was foremost over the individual. Maybe I'm just becoming the alien here.

Yeah, I think you are. :P

Different cultures do things differently. A sizeable fraction of Western gamers tend to be fairly introverted, and uncomfortable about talking a lot about their character, especially if they're youngish. How old are your players?

I prefer if players talk to each other a little about their characters, but I'm willing to DM if they don't. I favour the evolutionary approach. You throw an adventure at them, preferably a simple one, and let them deal with it in their own way, figuring out their own solutions. D&D is a team game. If they don't work together, the monsters will smack them about, and I'll explain that co-operation is important. Repeat until it sinks in.

Now, if the players really are totally immature and uncooperative, and spend every session bickering, there's nothing you can do except finally kill them off in whatever way strikes you as most amusing and find a new group, hopefully taking the best players with you. But you should give them a chance first. Often a new party starts off silent and uncommunicative, then loosens up as the party gets to know each other.

Give it a try, and see what happens.

- Saph

[Feverdream]

So many responses, and varied. I will try to address each one, but in the meantime, I once again add thanks.

To start, a common thread is that the players "don't know each other very well". These particular players have known each other for at least 3 years, as I've seen them regularly for that time. Two players I've known for 19 years, since Junior High. But even though they may have seen each other and played games every weekend since then, that doesn't mean they truly "know" each other. Or perhaps they know each other too much, and assume that certain behaviors are inherent to the other players, create characters to counter, rather that cooperate with, those characters.


Alright, in terms of the traps thing, you should remember that as a DM your job is to cater to what the players want. If they make three fighters and a cleric, it sounds like what they want is combat, so give them some combat.
This was a philosophy I adopted from the start. I adopted it in reaction to a player (who no longer is in our group) that would literally have a panic attack if, in D&D, a party didn't consist of the usual "Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Rogue" combo. He would throw a fit if the DM-du-jour would request players all be fighters, or all be rogues, for a kind of theme adventure. I have asked what is so wrong, and isn't it the DM's job to adjust to the PCs, and not vice-versa?

I may not be taking my own words into account, so I'll try and provide more information to players so we can all come to a solid conclusion on that part.

As for the suggestion of running a Paranoia-style game, I can try that, but as an inexperienced DM, I'm not sure I'm qualified to sustain that style of gaming. Another concern is that since the players are already competitive with each other, could that possibly lead to hurt feelings? I know there's a school of thought that if they take the game too seriously, they deserve their feelings hurt. But I suppose I'm wanting to foster a more cooperative sense of gaming, rather than competitive, which seems to be where I go wrong. I just don't understand people, and I need to make more of an effort to do so.


Or, you could do the more drawn out, but fairly effective, method of walking through every step of charcter creation. Then, the party is balanced. When one person hogs the spotlight, move over to the other charcters. Make sure everyone knows the value of teamwork. Are the fighters being braggerts, saying who the others suck? Throw some undead at them, giving the cleric a chance. Give some duels for a one on one fighter, and make some mooks for the cleaving fighter.

While this is a solution, another poster here makes a counter-argument to this: Wouldn't that be me playing my players' characters for them? Not to sound all pop-psychology (I'm sure I'm too late, but allow me some slack), but I'm not sure hand-holding would give the players a "sense of empowerment", or control over their own character's destiny.

Going back and looking at BRC's comments, I'm also thinking that it would be my job not to seem like I'm throwing things at them just to teach them a lesson, unless that's the theme I'm wanting to go with. Y'know, magical queen saying, "Thy fate is sealed if you all do not seek harmony and work together..." I really need to brush up on old English...

But duly noted... Another fact I need to solidify in my already-atrophying brain.

By the way... Blood for the blood god. Just thought I'd throw that out... But it also plays into another poster's comments...

And sorry, Flickerdart, I hope I addressed your post with comments above.


Reads to me like you tried to dictate for them a style of play they don't enjoy.

If they prefer working against each other, keeping secrets, and the like, there are plenty of games where they can do that and have a ton of fun - White Wolf's games, Vampire especially, spring to mind immediately.

Truth be told, I would love to run a White Wolf game. I used to play Masquerade a LOT. Big fan of the Nosferatu and Ventrue. And I've read the new Requiem, and found I like that even more. However, it seems my players are most comfortable with 3.5, and I am very familiar with the rules, so rather than shake things up even more, I decided to stick with that.

I think this plays in with "giving the players what they want".


Question for you: how are you coming up with these groups of people? Are they friends, people that you know and who know each other, or are you assembling them out of a hat full of names (so to speak) at a local [card shop/whatever]? This could make a big difference. I've never played D&D with a group of people who don't know each other (excepting online), and I know when they do know each other, the majority (at least of my players) are more than willing to bounce ideas off me and/or each other. Everyone gets excited about playing as a group, rather than exclusively their own characters. There has been one real exception (no, it's none of you guys who read these boards or anyone you know), but the thing is, players who only focus on themselves, if they're in a group of players who care about the group, are not going to last long.

I think this is the crux of the matter, and that you've hit the nail on the head. Though these players have known each other for the better part of three years, perhaps they're taking the mentality of their main game, that being Warhammer 40,000. I'm sure many are familiar with it. It's a miniatures war game that typically faces two players off against each other. So, they come from a mindset of competition to begin with. For the sake of full disclosure, I also play this game, but lately I've not been bothering with tournaments. I've seen some ugly attitudes surface whenever prizes are on the line.

As a result, they see each player more as competition, rather than someone to cooperate with. Additionally, I'm trying to force this mindset out of them, which is why I'm meeting resistance.


Never really had this problem as a DM (have seen it a bit as a player though), but that may be because I play with friends who all know each other quite well.

One suggestion is to start the PCs off with a reason for them to all know each other. Maybe they are all from the same village, or perhaps they have all been working for the same business, or they could all frequent the same tavern and have become fast friends. Anyway, I find that giving the PCs a common goal and a common origin from the beginning of the game can help them work together instead of against one another.

Oh, you have my envy that you have a cooperative group, trust me.

But your suggestion is what I thought I was doing at first, but many here disagree with me, so I will concede that point. I asked them to first come up with something that describes their group. Do they want to be treasure hunters? Mercs looking for a contract? Religious zealots? And so on. Then, once they've got that vague idea, they would then solidify it by talking to the other players. For instance, they decide on the treasure hunters, so I would let them decide on what they feel they need. I felt I was being more Socratic when they didn't talk to each other, so I started posing questions to them, like, if you guys encounter traps, do you have that? What about special kinds of monsters? Do you have someone that may be able to handle, or at least know about X, Y, or Z? When that would be met with blank stares, I would get increasingly frustrated, and that frustration is what let me to post here.

Since this method didn't meet with much success, should I have them make characters, first? Even then, I still want them to come up with ideas on how they operate as a group.

I'm taking all this in. Don't worry. Perhaps an amalgamation of advice will lead to the greatest middle road.



I'm very sorry that I have given such a negative impression. I would disagree with the fact that they were talking. They weren't. I believe I interrupted nothing. They immediately set about making characters. They got out their d6s and began rolling. Not once did they inquire of the other players what they were wanting to play. Even after I had told them (well, I would like to say "requested", but I'll concede your point that I wasn't exactly doing so) that they should discuss what kind of group they want.

So, we have a difference of opinion, and you came to a conclusion that I had hoped would not be the case. However, since you did, I'm listening to you. There are some possibilities that come to mind about how this came about, and why I am frustrated. It could be that I have low self-esteem. Having not run a game before, and wanting things to go more smoothly than the games I've played in in the past, I wanted to set in stone everything before the game started.

I recognize that I am wholly at fault here. That I'm coming in with impossible expectations. However, I do wish to know exactly how I'm playing my players' characters for them. I'm here, I'm listening, and I am seeking advice and constructive criticism.

Seriously, thank you, everyone.

[aboyd]

^ I disagree with the above, simply because they weren't in the middle of an adventure, the were beginning character creation, and communication is kind of key at this point.
Where did I say that communication is not key? Are you shadow boxing? Disagreeing with ghosts?

[Treguard]

Bwuh? :smalleek: Buddy, you can't shoulder the blame by yourself. If your group are harbouring intentions from another game, incompatible to the co-operative nature of DnD, then the fault lies with them. You're not playing your charcters for them because they haven't even started playing yet! You may guide them to make characters that you, the respective player and the rest of the group are happy with, but when the game starts the player is free to do what he likes. If the player then proceeds to act like an idiot or in a way that they're ruining someone's fun then that's a different issue.

Honestly, you may want to just ask them straight, whether they are willing to cooperate with each other and work as a team. If their current method of play isn't making the game fun for you then let them know that; at that point the ball is in their court as to whether to address themselves or not. You're just as much playing the game as they are; don't feel as if you have to wait on their needs at the expense of your enjoyment.

Oh, and, at the end of the day we're just a load of schmucks building opinions on incomplete information. Don't "concede" to someone who doesn't share the facts that you do. :smallwink:

Edit to save double-posting:


No no, just your sentiments. The issue is communication as intended by the OP and DM of the group. Sure everyone communicates to a degree, but the DM is trying to establish a player's interest in the rest of his team, so that they don't see tham as boring or unnecessary. I don't see that as unreasonable and practise it myself when I DM (with no complaint).

[Totally Guy]

Characters have secrets and I'll tell you why. They were all Ret-Conned.

The players create a character and think up a line or two for a brief backstory caring about what their class and race is.

It's only after that first session when the player really gets a chance to think and gets a brief familiarity with the setting. With this new stuff they can think... "maybe my guy was in the war the DM mentioned" or "maybe my character could be searching for a true love that left with a circus". At that point the player realises that none of the other characters were aware of this in the first session as of course the player wasn't aware himself. So what's the simple way of having a story that nobody else knows? Have it a secret.

It seems to me you were expecting fully defined characters before they had even stepped into the world. Unless it's a sequel or published setting in which case it's not as imposssible, just very hard.

[Feverdream]

Hrm. I'll refrain from quotes this time around, as I don't want to create yet another wall of text for people to slog through.

drawingfreak: Again, I thought I was doing that. I thought I threw the responsibility of character concept and party design to my players, and that I would evolve and adapt around what they wanted. But, that's only what I thought. It's easy to think that the self is doing all the right things.

Thank you for the resources. I've bookmarked them.

Saph: Indeed, in retrospect it is heavy-handed. And yes, I never noticed it before I had my little "vacation" in which I contracted malaria and lost 15 pounds rapidly, about how very introverted my usual playing group is. I will have to take that into account.

As far as ages go, they range from 18-32. Come to think of it, the two youngest do seem to cause the most delays for games, but I hate to think that age is a factor in this.

Yes, it's an ironic bit that I'm suffering culture shock symptoms from my own culture.

But as a new DM, I'm thinking that players could show a little leeway for me. To accept restrictions and the like and just play it out until I get a little more confidence and am able to do more extemporaneous GM/DMing. Kind of a "Pity me. I'm new here." card. But we can't always avoid being thrown to the wolves.

Treguard: Thanks for the support. I do concede the points because I'm trying not to come from the vantage that I am ultimately in the right here. It's very easy to blame others for the problems I am having, but I hope some objective, anonymous observations will help me get to the root of the problem. And even if I am the one in the right, I hope not to smack my players with "See?!? These people agree with me! You're all losers!" If one thing I learned on my little trip, it's a bit of patience and humility can go a long way in finding the cause of a problem (patience and humility are two virtues I'm still trying to come to grips with).

Glug: Well, that's interesting. I was hoping they would have some kind of background on why they know each other and how they work together when faced with a "problem".

I should have been more clear and mentioned that secrets are more of the "Well, I want to be a demon-worshipper, and I promise not to screw over the party!" Or "Can I be a half-dragon/celestial/fiend who takes great pains to disguise his flaws?" This after I asked for people not to do that, to give me less of a headache to deal with. I would even ask, afterwards, "And when they discover your flaws/worshiping practice, then what? Are you willing to let your character, one you've built up, die?"

The more I think about it, the more I believe I'm mucking this up, making it far more complex than it needs to be. I'm used to asking questions, trying to elicit as much information as I can, but for a game, that likely isn't necessary.

[only1doug]

i'd suggest you play with the group as is, run a standard adventure and don't hesitate to kill off the characters, they will learn to work together to survive, or they won't survive.

once you have TPK'd them a couple of times then you can try suggesting again that they work together (if they haven't already figured it out).

If they somehow survive then just remember to make traps that do stat damage. if they still pull through then maybe they are working together better than you thought.

Good Luck!

[aboyd]

I would disagree with the fact that they were talking.
Yet your opening post has this:


They would give furtive glances to the other and, after rolling up stats and writing lots of things down, they finally ask the others, "So, what're you playing?" Then they'd growl, "But I wanted to play that!"
So your players were, according to you, right in the middle of asking each other what they wanted to play, and then they were figuring out who felt strongest when there were character collisions.

THAT is communication. You may want words to flow beforehand, but they want words to flow while they're getting their hands dirty. You may not like that the communication happened in the middle instead of front-loaded, but it's still communication.

What would have happened if you just let them continue? You do realize that many, many players build up their teams in an iterative process, right? They have a pow-wow -- they build, discuss, tear down, build, discuss, revise, build, discuss.

Let the process work. Cutting short their process and then declaring it non-communication is hyper-narcissistic. They are not you. Their method may not be your method, but it may still work.

And if it doesn't work, rather than forcing them to be successful and miserable, let them fail. Let them learn on their own and internalize their own feelings about it. Let them come up with their own solutions. God, that's parenting 101.

And, if that failure makes you unhappy, that doesn't mean you get to force them to do things to make you happy. That means they can't make you happy and you need to find less stupid players. Write them off and move on. Don't try to change them.


However, I do wish to know exactly how I'm playing my players' characters for them.
You're dictating how they play. And I'm not referring to the rule set or any base that is needed for common ground. Of course something like that needs to be set firm. But once the foundation is solid, why micro-manage? Is that a happy, successful system that has worked for you & your players before?

I'm not suggesting that you just let the players do anything. You have rules about the mechanics of gameplay -- we roll d20s, we have armor, races, classes, spells, etc. You may even have house rules -- work as a team, select a group goal, etc.

Those are FINE. Just stop leading the players by their noses. If they fail to work as a team -- perhaps they don't have a rogue in a game that involves lots of traps -- then JUST LET THE TRAPS WORK. When they're all upset about failing, just shrug. Offer to keep DMing if they want to give it a second shot. Let them puzzle out why they died/failed/turned to stone.

If you want them to have a group goal and they're sitting around dumbfounded, just explain that you're waiting for the group goal and then allow the long uncomfortable silence while they sit there. Just wait. If they don't come up with one and yet insist on playing, either say, "I'm sorry, it sounds like you want a different DM" and let them go, or attach a natural consequence. IN GAME, TO CHARACTERS. Not to the players. You don't get to scold actual human beings over a stupid game. But you could do something like this: "No XP awarded this session, because XP is based upon how well you roleplayed your team goal. Since you didn't have one, there is no way to measure how well you did, so no XP."

When they sit up and whine that you've wasted their time, don't be unbending. Tell them you'll give them XP if they can come up with a goal. Ask them what they think they did well at in the game; ask "Would that make a good goal for the team?" Do this across the board. Any time they spurn your advice, allow the game world to keep spinning, even if it runs them over. You don't kill them on purpose. You don't be mean. You don't shout, "Rocks fall, everyone dies!" But you do say, "I'm really sorry that the bugbear was able to kill the group of 5 mages. I guess mages need meat shields or something, so they can cast spells safely. I'll stick around and DM a reboot if you all want to try again from a different angle."

And IF, on the bizarre chance that their 5 mages survives, well, then let them survive. Perhaps they've stumbled across a strength. If they can make it work, good for them.


I even had to deal with another player calling me on my cell phone every minute, asking to talk to me in private about the awesome character concept they came up with, and I told him, "Uh.... remember when I said no secrets? Why can't you tell your other players? Remember, they're going to be the ones on the journey, and if there's anything that might make problems for them, they should know OOC, right?"
So basically, you had a player that was so enthusiastic he couldn't stop calling you with ideas, and you shut him down because you were married to the idea that the players were a "no secrets" group. I think two things about that:


The players need to decide if it's a "no secrets" group of players. The DM should be deciding about the NPCs.
It's a shame that you couldn't meet an enthusiastic player in the place he was at. Most DMs feel pretty lucky to find people who are genuinely interested in the game and enjoying it.

[only1doug]

Hmm, additional thought:

If the group comes to realise they are short on essentials: Rogue, wizard etc...
and try to hire one or more then throw in ridiculous spotlight hogging DMPC's who want all the loot, when the players complain then tell them that they should of created characters to fill those roles themselves if they wanted them.

[Shazzbaa]

Don't worry -- I have a couple of friends who've travelled abroad and they have told me that culture shock upon return is completely normal.

The "secrets" issue is becoming a big thing here, though I think it's not the real problem. I can understand where the "you're dictating their playstyle!" camp is coming from... as a player, I love having secrets. I love setting up slight intra-party conflict. That's when I'm having the most fun. I've also never tried this "everyone makes a character together" thing, and that would... admittedly, be weird and awkward for me. I usually approach the DM with my concept, and ask if it would be stepping on any other players' toes (since they all probably came to the DM with their concept, too), and I don't really find out about the other characters until I come to the table. It's true that many DMs would give anything for the sort of players you have, who are so enthusiastic and full of ideas...

However.

People forget that the DM is playing the game too, and he gets to say what kind of game he wants to run. If he doesn't want to run something full of party conflict, if he's uncomfortable with that, then I think he does get to put his foot down and say, "that won't work for this campaign."

As I said, my groups typically keep lots of secrets, to the point that my characters who DON'T have secrets are often suspected of it anyway. But... my groups also work together for the team goal, so I don't think the "secrets" issue is the root of the problem. The problem is getting the players to be interested in a team goal.

I must admit, I'm sort of at a loss, but here's one idea:

Your players love having secret goals, and are the most interested in their own character concepts. They want to build their characters one-on-one, and it's doubtful that making them build their characters together will make them want to work together more. Instead, meet them where they are -- work with them individually to build their character, and if they want to have crazy backstory secrets then you can perhaps say "that's a bit much, but I'll let you ..." and let them have a hidden quirk or two.
While you're doing all this, try to set the characters up with mutual goals. They probably still won't get along with the other characters perfectly, but some of that character conflict seems to be what they enjoy. If one guy is charged by his god to join up with other warriors to do X, and one guy is charged by his diabolic lord to seduce other warriors into helping him do X, then they're all working towards the same goal, and even though none of the characters enjoy each other's company and probably all look down on the other characters, they have a good reason not to outright kill each other.

I have no idea if this would work or not, but this issue is ...tough. So it's just a thought.

Another thing I feel a need to address -- you seem very, very concerned about players being competitive and not working together, and worried about hurt feelings. Is it honestly this serious? I get a kick out of characters not getting along, but it's very separate from how I feel about the people playing those characters. Out of game, we laugh and chat about how much our characters don't get along. Are your players really likely to take this outside of the game, or are they just having a blast bickering in-game?

[Yakk]

An interesting idea to get things rolling would be to use a system that contains random mechanics for character creation with built-in plot hooks and inter-character hooks.

As an example, look at Greg Stolze's Reign "One Roll Character Generation".

You roll a big fistful of d10s, with some dice matching another players dice.

Each match of multiple d10s produces a character background point. Matches that contain "borrowed" dice indicate that this event was somehow connected to the player you borrowed the dice from.

Next, each player's goal is to build a character history that is consistent with the roll that they just made (which includes game-mechanical effects), and then burn some extra points to customize the character to be more playable.

Lots of back-story, lots of inter-connections in the past of characters, all produced in a gamey method that is actually fun to go through.

There are other such "random character background" systems that can be used, turning character generation into a game, with rules that can be adapted to generate the feel you want.

[Feverdream]

To answer your question, Shazzbaa, yes, I am a bit worried. In the past two and a half years, there's been this constant struggle. I'm rather tired of it all. It's the same characters over and over, and even the same two players always having a problem. In fact, I think most of their IC problems are reflections of their OOC attitudes towards each other that they won't admit to. And this is different players all exhibiting the same attitudes. Yet, regardless of any unsaid animosity, whenever a game is mentioned, they show up, and the moment the games begin, someone is trying to kill the other.

In our most recent games, experimenting with 4th Edition Dungeons and Dragons, one elected to play a minotaur. The other immediately stepped in to play a ranger whose favored enemy is... minotaurs. In another game, one wanted to play a Paladin, and another immediately passed a note, saying he wanted to play a Cleric of Erythnul... There are many more examples of this.

I admit that, as a first-time DM, I couldn't handle such secret animosity. I've told them that.

What's even more is that these games, none of which I have DMed, have all ended badly, with people stopping the games and not continuing them the next time we all met up.

Hrm... thank you for asking those questions, Shazzbaa. They proved far more helpful in helping me to discover the problems. See? If I don't provide clear information, it might be more beneficial to a conversation to ask for clarification, rather than immediately coming to a conclusion.

Would it be too "tyrannical" to say, "Hey, look, I'm running for the first time. Now if you're not willing to work together, and I have to constantly make rulings on the things you do to each other, wouldn't it be better if you sat this game out?"

Now, as for the secrets, again I state that I should have been more clear. It's one thing to have secrets after they've formed their group. I just didn't want the whole Paladin + Cleric of Erythnul situation going on.

[valadil]

It sounds like your players are floundering because they don't know what to do outside of the context they're used to playing in. They're looking to you to guide them until they can get their feet on the ground. I think that's why they seem ambivalent about which theme to go with for the adventuring party.

As far as their being a group of loners goes, I was going to ask about age but someone else already covered that. My group grew out of being loners a while ago when we realized teamplay was more interesting. I did have one player who didn't get the whole team play thing. I think she was looking for a more cutthroat game than the other players though. We swapped out her character for one that would be more team friendly once we saw what type of game it was and that worked better.

Have you considered giving them pre-written characters? If they balk, say it's just for a one shot adventure. I feel like if you do this you could make them friendly with each other. Maybe even reliant on one another?

What about dungeons that require several people? Like if there are a couple hallways and something to activate at the end of each of them, but they must be activated at the same time.

How about magic items that benefit two people? Like a pair of bracelets that let people share HP/damage. Or maybe something to switch positions on the map so that they would coordinate attacks? In my last D&D game I played a sorcerer with Dimension Door. We had a lot of fun putting the two tanks diagonally in front of me so I could dim door them into a flanking position around an enemy. Two full attacks on the first turn of combat from those two was nasty. Sometimes dim door was the only spell I cast as I brought them from enemy to enemy each turn. I think if you get your players to use that sort of tactics they'll start playing together better.

[Tormsskull]

Honestly, it sounds like D&D as typically played isn't for them. Maybe you could develop a point-based system for adventures. Each time a player hits an enemy, they get a point. Each time the cleric heals a wound, he gets a point. The PC that delivers the killing blow on a creature gets 2 points. Downing a "boss" gets you 3 or 4 points.

Then, show this to the players and they will all, being competitive with one another, attempt to score the most points at the end of each session. Then you can create a High Score Board and additional things.

It won't be traditional D&D, but it might be right up their alley if they want to play competitive version of D&D as such.

[fendrin]

I think you need to 'train' them on D&D.

Ok, that sounds a little harsh and overbearing, but I don't really mean it that way. Bear with me, I'm a bit wordy, but I think my ideas have merit...

1) Start easy. Using 4e is a good move here, not only because it was designed to be easier to learn, but because there aren't a ton of books for it yet. You can do this with 3.5 easily enough, though. Restrict them to the stuff in the PHB (so no MM races, no evil gods, heck, no evil characters). If they complain just ask them to bear with you for a few adventures so you can learn how to DM... say you're getting overwhelmed by the complex characters, so you want to start simple. It's not exactly a lie. Let them know that they can make new characters later when you start a 'real' campaign.

2) I would start by running some 'warm up' adventures. Don't worry about a coherent campaign or a detailed setting. Tell them you are going to run 3 or 4 disconnected adventures. Do something like one adventure at level one, then one at level two, etc. For each one, the players can level up their existing character, or build a new one. This will give them the opportunity to get attached to a character or try out different roles.

3) Before you start the adventures, describe what they're going to be. Exploring a haunted house. Delving a dungeon. Hunting down a monster that's terrorizing the village. Whatever. Don't explain the details of course, but warn them that they won't be terribly original... after all, you're trying to focus on learning ho to GM, not the story, right? Again, if they balk, ask them to bear with you for a few adventures, it will make things so much better when you start the real campaign.

Explain that you want to try out various aspects of the rules, so recommend that they have the basic roles covered. Nobody wants to play a trap-finder? Weaken the traps to make them unpleasant but survivable, or remove them altogether. Make sure there are alternate ways to counteract the traps (a puzzle, or have a bench nearby they can use stand on end to block the hole the darts fly out of, etc.) To compensate, make the encounters that are appropriate to their characters harder. This lets you experience a variety of rules while still adjusting the game to the characters.

4) Give them a reason to work together. Not as players, as characters. It's a bit easier and if they go for it it will get them working together as players, too (this is what I meant by 'training' them). Let them bicker and be petty at first, so long as they are working towards a common goal.

5) Hopefully, after a few of these adventures, they will be used to working towards a common goal. It won't end the bickering and secret keeping, but remember that as the DM, you can control the amount of stuff that comes up that might cause a a drastic game-stopping problem. Don't be afraid to say 'no' to a character concept. Sometimes it's necessary. If they complain, remind them that your goal is for everyone to have fun, and that a small annoyance at character creation is a small price to pay for a fun game.

[Burley]

Here's an idea I've had for a long time, but never had the guts to do, but may work with your group:

1) Tell the group about the idea, and make sure that everybody agrees with it before you begin.
2) Have everybody write what Race/Class combo they want on a precut piece of paper. (I suggest precutting because some people will actually try to remember the shape or feel of their paper for these kinds of things and try to draw their own paper.)
3) Put all the pieces of paper into a hat/bowl/mother's wedding dress and have each player pull at random.
4) The player must play with that Race/Class combo. They can keep it secret, but it doesn't matter because somebody is going to know that X-character is being played, so, there's no backstabbing.

I would say go ahead and put a couple of your own slips in. The tried-and-true PHB combos like Dwarven Cleric and Halfling Rogue are useful just about always.
I think it'd be fun to do this to nudge, but not force, players away from their normal play style. If they want to play a Barbarian, but drew a Warlock outta the hat, they can either learn something new, or build a horrible, ineffective character in an attempt to play what they want.

But, make sure that the group knows: No redraws, no swapping, no complaining. This is a game, it's meant to be fun, and everybody is on the same team.

[aboyd]

People forget that the DM is playing the game too, and he gets to say what kind of game he wants to run. If he doesn't want to run something full of party conflict, if he's uncomfortable with that, then I think he does get to put his foot down and say, "that won't work for this campaign."
I totally agree. And on the off chance that you were responding to my previous posts, I would like to clarify my point. When I say that the DM needs to let the players play the PCs, I do not mean that the PCs are in control of the game. The DM doesn't subjugate himself. What I do mean is that I see two different responses to adversity here, and one ain't so hot. One is to impose upon the players -- "talk when I say to talk" or "you must play X character to balance the party." That's almost always a bad solution. The other is to allow natural consequences to kick in -- "I'm sorry you didn't plan better, looks like a Total Party Kill" or "It's too bad that the class you wanted to play doesn't exist in this game setting, what will you do now?"

Do you know what I mean? One style attempts to prevent or ban bad play styles, while the other simply lets the players decide for themselves when they're tired of banging their heads against the wall. Any time you can get players to voluntarily make the choice, it's a win.

Anyway, good post. Thanks for letting me clarify.

[aboyd]

In the past two and a half years, there's been this constant struggle. I'm rather tired of it all. It's the same characters over and over, and even the same two players always having a problem.
:smalleek: Srsly?

So now that there is more info, the problem is very apparent. You haven't followed the advice of probably half the people posting in this thread -- stop playing with bad players. You know there are a dozen good gamer-matchup services, right? Why do you enable this bad behavior by suffering through it? You don't have to. Walk away or show them the door.


In fact, I think most of their IC problems are reflections of their OOC attitudes towards each other that they won't admit to. And this is different players all exhibiting the same attitudes.
So, wait. Is it the same two people, or a bunch of different people having the same antagonistic style? Because if it's the same two players, then the solution is easy. Stop inviting them. But if it's different people, all I can say is that I do not have such a problem, and this forum doesn't appear to have a lot of posts like yours. So you have to wonder, what are you doing to attract such people and enable their bad behavior?

Really. If you are the common link between many different people all behaving terribly, then it may be you. Bad players exist for everyone, but not like this. Something is going on. You may need to do some introspection.


In our most recent games, experimenting with 4th Edition Dungeons and Dragons, one elected to play a minotaur. The other immediately stepped in to play a ranger whose favored enemy is... minotaurs.
"In my game world, a ranger would not travel with a favored enemy, so the group as it stands cannot form. Let me know when you guys have sorted that out."

or

"Sure, that bonus to attacks against minotaurs might prove useful. Take it. However, as you know, I'm building a game world to support teamwork. So I'm going to rule that your bonus doesn't apply to traveling companions."


In another game, one wanted to play a Paladin, and another immediately passed a note, saying he wanted to play a Cleric of Erythnul...
"Oh, I'm sorry, Erythnul clerics are an NPC-only class in my campaign."

or

"As you know, I'm creating a campaign that rewards teamwork. Since your cleric would naturally be at odds with a paladin, and since the paladin was conceived first, I'm going to allow the paladin but not yours."

or

"You can play that PC but in order to join up with such a goodly group, you would need to turn your back on your god's commands. Thus you become a cleric who has lost his powers. Sounds like an interesting concept to play, and I'd love to see how you redeem him. What's that? You're secretly betraying them? Oh, I see. Yes, well, here's the problem. The group is going to be sanctified by some level 40 demi-god clerics who will be casting every known detection and sanctification spell before the journey begins. So either your character will stand before them and be vaporized as a traitor or else he will truly reject his god and lose his powers, but survive. I'll let you pick whether you roll up a new character or lose your powers."


I admit that, as a first-time DM, I couldn't handle such secret animosity. I've told them that.
Why do you open the door when they knock on it? Why do you tell them about the games? Or, why do you allow yourself to be bullied into accepting them?


What's even more is that these games, none of which I have DMed, have all ended badly, with people stopping the games and not continuing them the next time we all met up.
If you don't DM them, then why do you show up, especially if it's the same two "known bad" people? If it's not the same two people, then we are again back to the quandry -- while everyone has met a player they'd like to avoid, hardly anyone has posted about something so chronically broken. So we would again have to wonder what is it about you that is attracted to such games?


Would it be too "tyrannical" to say, "Hey, look, I'm running for the first time. Now if you're not willing to work together, and I have to constantly make rulings on the things you do to each other, wouldn't it be better if you sat this game out?"
That's not tyranny, that's sanity!

[Oracle_Hunter]

Well, here's what I've done in the past: put them in a framework to start with.

The classic example is to say "you are a squad in a mercenary company." Now, you can go easy or hard on them now. Going easy is to just leave them there, and let them work out their roles within this concept. It sounds to me that your players are a little too thick for this.

The hard way is to write out a list of "roles" on index cards, lay them out before the players and say "OK, everyone take one." Examples roles are "scout," "commander," "second-in-command," "grunt," and so on - these not only make sure that all party roles are filled, but that there is a relational basis set up. The "commander" is the leader of the party, the "second-in-command" executes his orders, while the "scout" and "grunt" take orders. Furthermore, the players should build within their roles - the commander should not be a scout anymore than the scout should be the commander.

That said, I agree with some of the posters above: if your players don't want to play the way you do, then you have to play like they do, or refuse to run games. RPGs require some level of cooperation; at the very least an agreement on the goals on the gaming experience. If your players each wants to be a star, then play Paranoia or a narrative-based game where conflicts in player visions are easily resolved and the actual character sheets are less important.

Or play Hackmaster and actively try to kill your PCs. It's a great stress reliever :smallbiggrin:

[Vonriel]

I almost think you've misunderstood, as well. It seems like you've gotten the impression that somehow he's being very heavy-handed, immediately squashing attempted conversation with superiority-complex-like rebuttals, when it doesn't seem like that's what happened. Granted, this is just a guess, but by his posts, I think it's more likely than yours. Unless you had no intention of connecting this to the current problem at hand, which makes me wonder why it was posted in the first place without such a disclaimer. Please remember: Some of us do assume you're staying on topic with what you say.



It seems like this is more a problem with his players. But, I think you're wrong about the cause: He's stated he's known a couple of them since junior high, which means he may be staying in the group out of some feelings of friendship. It could be that the groups he's been invited to have been groups one of the troublemakers (or two) have found and said 'hey, lets go join this group.'

Feverdream, you can game with a different group and still be friends with these guys. If they like warhammer, maybe turn the regular D&D night into a warhammer night, where you and those guys can have some epic (if allowed? I dunno wh40k rules) five-way battles, while you try to establish a different group on another night for playing D&D. Or, hell, you can even try to foster teamwork by organizing some 3v2 matches with them. If no rules exist, make 'em up on the fly, that's never stopped anyone before, right? :smallwink:

[Suicide Junkie]

I have no experience in this, but would it make sense to try easing in with a half&half game?

Pair them off into two teams and give them each a support army of NPCs.
(Pick the teams such that those with the most friction are on the same team)
It sounded to me as if the players have an itch to defeat someone PvP style, so this gives them one, but also forces them to buddy up with their rival in order to do so... backstabbing the teammate would result in NPC morale loss, followed by rout, and then an embarrassing personal defeat at the hands of the enemy players.


Later, you could move up to having them be working together against a large NPC army. With an NPC King to punish traitors in the army, if necessary.

Much later, you could work your way down to more personal team adventures of the classic style.

-----

The overall idea here is to *slowly* ease them from free-for-all wars into coop dungeon crawls, by utilizing a team PvP step in the middle.

[aboyd]

I almost think you've misunderstood, as well. It seems like you've gotten the impression that somehow he's being very heavy-handed, immediately squashing attempted conversation with superiority-complex-like rebuttals, when it doesn't seem like that's what happened. Granted, this is just a guess, but by his posts, I think it's more likely than yours.
OK. Then let's use his exact words, shall we?


I sit my players down and tell them: I'm not going to start any game unless I hear you people talk to each other.
That's a DM mistake. I'm not going to restate what he wrote, because it appears you'll jump on me for restating it inaccurately. But what he wrote is the wrong way to do it. Multiple people provided better alternatives.


I would then sigh and say, fine, you're all treasure hunters of some kind."
That's a DM mistake. I provided a direct alternative in a previous post.


"Okay, treasure hunters, right? So, why do we have a party of three fighters and a cleric? Are you thinking that there will be no traps in the dungeons? No one with any levels of rogue to deal with this? Hrm?" They'd then throw up their arms, and things would go sour very quickly.
That's a DM mistake. His own description says that the players threw up their arms and that things would go sour. I provided alternatives that do not induce players to throw up their arms in exasperation.

Is that OK? I didn't portray him as "very heavy-handed" -- I just quoted him. If he comes off as anything, it's his own words. In any case, the solutions still apply.

[dariathalon]

A slight variation on what other people have posted might help as well. I've never tried it, but have heard of other groups trying it with some success. I've not heard of anyone using it exclusively, but it might be the change of pace your group needs.

First, sit everyone down and first explain the basics of the campaign to them. What is the world like? What are the party goals likely to be? (If your group seems unable to decide on these on their own, give them some to start with, as these initial goals get accomplished they can set their own later.)

Next, have them write their name on the player line of a character sheet and pass it to the left. They now describe their character to the current holder of their sheet. Ask that they not give specific mechanical details, but instead background information that the sheet-holder will use to build the character.

Now you've got each person building a character for the person to their right to play as well as telling the person on their left what their character should be like. Not only that, but everyone in the room will be able to hear what is going on with the other characters.

This may be difficult to convince your players to try, but if you tell them they only have to stick with this character as is for a level or two it might help. Make it clear up front that you will allow retraining, so if they get stuck with a feat that they don't want, or their skills aren't perfect that they will eventually be allowed to make the character more like what they wanted it to be.

From what I've heard this might not work with your group, but it is something that might help get the communication going.

[aboyd]

You know there are a dozen good gamer-matchup services, right?
I already have some PMs about that, so I'll just post them here so everyone can benefit.

Meetup (http://dnd.meetup.com/) - as an example, I entered a Texas zip code and got back 2 groups with over 200 combined members.
Yahoo! (http://groups.yahoo.com/) - as an example (http://groups.yahoo.com/search?query=dungeons+and+dragons%2C+texas), I entered "Dungeons and Dragons, Texas" and got back 72 groups.
EnWorld (http://www.enworld.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=49) - gamers seeking gamers forum
RPG.net (http://forum.rpg.net/forumdisplay.php?f=21) - gaming gatherings forum
Access Denied (http://www.accessdenied.net/index.htm) - player registry
Nearby Gamers (http://nearbygamers.com/) - Will show you a Google map with player icons everywhere near you.
Pen & Paper Games (http://www.penandpapergames.com/forums/memberlist.php) - Player registry
RPG Registry (http://www.rpgregistry.com/)
Full list (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=372312) - Gettin' tired of typing, so here's a full list.

[Thrud]

I have to go with what a couple of others have posted. You have a group with a couple of incompatable gamers. One or the other of them, or possibly both, are not going to fit into your campaign. The attitude I always have when I am GMing, is that I am the one doing all the work. The gamers are there simply to have fun. Anything that makes my life harder when I am gaming makes it less worth my time to GM. Now, I am more experienced as a GM, so my tolerances are a lot higher than yours, but the fact remains that I have a point where I simply say, 'I no longer wish to run this game'. Telling your gamers what they have to do once the game has started is a no no. However, I think it is perfectly reasonable to state at the very beginning of the game exactly what your tolerances are within the game structure.

You are an inexperienced GM. You have told them all that. Tell them that until you are comfortable with the basics of GMing, you don't want to run anything more complicated than a standard dungeon crawl style adventure. It is O.K. to admit to your inexperience and let them know that since D&D is specifically set out to have a balanced party of complimentary characters who work together, that is the only style of game that you will be comfortable running. GMing is work. Let them know that. If they don't want to stick within your boundaries, then just don't GM. It is as simple as that. Let them know that once you have played that way for a while, you will be more comfortable running a different style of game where they can all backstab each other to their hearts content. But hopefully they are desperate enough for someone to actually want to GM for them that they will be willing to bend a little to play a more basic game. And then, once they have played for a while with all of them working together to solve problems, perhaps they will not be so eager to go back to backstabbing each other.

I had a player once (a long time ago) who always insisted on playing a self-centered bastard loner who would never cooperate with anyone. So I switched the game to a four-color superhero game for a year, and they all had to play members of a superhero team, and of course they were all brave noble and true. They had to work together, and the game ended on a high note with the team saving the world in a fight against a galactus type enemy. And after that the guy stopped playing the evil bastards in my later D&D games, and actually cooperated with the group.

I don't know if it will help you, but it is just a thought.

Everyone, please remember that we are talking to an inexperienced GM here. Every GM is somewhat heavy handed when they are starting. You have to be just to get a handle on the game. You can relax into your role as man behind the curtain once you have some milage under your belt.

Just my 2 bits.

[Feverdream]

So, instead of asking for clarification, or inserting some kind of say "Well, from the looks of things with what I see here...", people have interpreted your words as condescending. Scornful. As my words, without clarification and whatnot, appeared to be simply ranting.



Mistakes freely admitted to.



I think there's a problem in timing here. I somehow get the feeling that no matter what I explain, you'll jump on me, as you claim others will jump on you for what you write. However, before anything happened, and the "call to have a game" was issued, everyone gathers. We all sit at a table to discuss the upcoming game, of which no one knows anything about, save me. Me, I'm willing to run almost anything. So, I ask them, in a more roundabout way, what is it they want to play. I add a rule, which is: I will allow basically anything, I just want a general theme of the party (treasure hunters, dragonslayers, etc), to give me a guideline on how to flavor the story, and that the party members work together. I request that you guys talk to each other and design said party. After everyone agreed to this, they started making characters, with no conversation. They don't inform the others of their choices. It is when most of the books are finally being handed around that someone says, "What're you playing?" "A fighter." "That's what I wanted to play!" and then the arms would be thrown up.

So, I would reply, with the "why didn't you guys talk together before making your characters?" Now, what's better? Me interrupting them while they went ahead and made characters with "why didn't you guys talk together?" or waited like I did, and showed them the mistake of non-communication. At least, that's what I thought was doing, but it turns out to have been a poor decision.


Quote me all you want, but people have had different interpretations of my words, of which you have not convinced them of your interpretation, it seems. Or perhaps they simply feel that, while you have good things to say (which I admit, once you get through "Parenting 101" snippets, is contained in your posts), you just do it in a poor way.

Regardless of how you portrayed me, that's the thing, you were portraying me. Instead of engaging me with questions of clarification, you immediately set out with some off-putting language. Shall I quote you? No, because that would not be constructive at this point.

Anyway, the group has not met up since that night, and so I can come to a conclusion when they do meet up. As for "not taking the advice" of people here, true. Because we haven't met up, I haven't had the opportunity to use the advice given here. For a first time GMer, who's had only one session, which was just character creation, I have yet to employ anything I've found here.

In the future, I will. But, if I were to go by your words, *****, you likely won't believe I'm "adult" enough to do so. I would only get "bullied" and stuff. I do believe this is still my first game. It's the other DMs, then, that would be "bullied". I've just seen their actions firsthand.

Text is amazing in how people can see different things without tonal cues and facial expressions to read from.

Anyway, I think this conversation has gone on long enough. Everyone has given wonderful advice, and I'll take the next few days to compile all this information. I came here hoping to get advice from more seasoned gamemasters, and I haven't been disappointed.

Thank you, all!

[Shazzbaa]

Text is amazing in how people can see different things without tonal cues and facial expressions to read from.
I... kinda feel that way about the poster you responded to. Just to speak up for *****, he certainly didn't use "nice" words, but the intent of his initial post did not seem to be hostile to me. The statement "don't let yourself be bullied" isn't meant to paint you as a push-over, it's letting you know that kicking out repeat-problem players isn't inappropriate. You've said that you tell your players what you want and they don't seem to listen -- you also asked whether requesting people to sit out if they don't want to listen to you would be tyrannical.
In that light, I don't think it's unfair for us to want to encourage you to not let your players walk over you.

And to answer your original question, no, I don't think that would be tyrannical. It might be exactly what you need to do. Best of luck. :smallsmile:

[aboyd]

So, instead of asking for clarification, or inserting some kind of say "Well, from the looks of things with what I see here...", people have interpreted your words as condescending. Scornful.
Hmm. Yes, I see that. That would be because I'm a blunt, grumpy old man. However, I'm comfortable in my own skin, so if you'd like to make a mental note that I am a jerk, I am fine with that. But you should also note that I meant you no ill will. I feel no condescension toward you. Shazzbaa's evaluation of me is accurate, and Shazzbaa's interpretation of the "don't be bullied" statement is also accurate.

But I do get annoyed when people equivocate. You know: "Dude, I have this major problem! What's that? It's MY fault? No, no, you don't understand. What's that? Even after explaining you still think it's MY fault? Dude, I have no problem here, you don't even understand. What's that? If there's no problem why did I say I had a problem? Oh just drop it!"

I got a whiff of that here, and it's not my favorite thing. So I'm probably more strident than usual. Sorry.

My original intent was simply to say that the players are screwing up your game, but only because you're enabling them. And I mean nothing hurtful or condescending by that. But it's important to be firm & clear that the error is enabling such behavior, not the bad behavior itself. You can't have success trying to fix player's bad behavior or trying to micro-manage them into being good. First, they'll resist, as we've seen. But second, even if you could fix one, you can't fix them all, and there will be an endless stream of them, forever. So the only viable long-term strategy is to work on yourself and your handling of such players.

This is hard. It involves acknowledging that you mishandled a situation. This especially sucks when you post something in the hopes that people will validate your frustration with the bad players. Suddenly people are talking about YOUR mistakes and you're sitting there reading the posts like, "What the hell? I'M NOT THE JERK HERE." I understand that can suck. But even if you're not the jerk and they are, the solution is still to change your behavior, as yours is really the only behavior you can control.


I think there's a problem in timing here. I somehow get the feeling that no matter what I explain, you'll jump on me, as you claim others will jump on you for what you write.
Yeah, you should brace yourself, because I've read your clarification, and I think my comments still apply. That's not because I hate you or I want to jump on you. It's because even with clarification, the solution is still on you. I'm not trying to be mean, but I am trying to get you to acknowledge that the mistake was yours. That's not meant to be blamey, that's meant to provide insight. If you blame the wrong thing you fix the wrong thing and everything is still broken, so I really really need to convince you to fix the right thing.

Consider it empowerment. I'm suggesting that you build a superior version of yourself.


So, I ask them, in a more roundabout way, what is it they want to play. I add a rule, which is: I will allow basically anything, I just want a general theme of the party (treasure hunters, dragonslayers, etc), to give me a guideline on how to flavor the story, and that the party members work together.
Good so far.


I request that you guys talk to each other and design said party. After everyone agreed to this, they started making characters, with no conversation. They don't inform the others of their choices. It is when most of the books are finally being handed around that someone says, "What're you playing?" "A fighter." "That's what I wanted to play!" and then the arms would be thrown up.

So, I would reply, with the "why didn't you guys talk together before making your characters?" Now, what's better? Me interrupting them while they went ahead and made characters with "why didn't you guys talk together?" or waited like I did, and showed them the mistake of non-communication.
They're all mistakes -- what you did, and your proposed alternative. Interrupting them is wrong because it's micro-managing them. Let them do their thing. And "showing someone the mistake of non-communication" is wrong too. First, because it's condescending. Second -- and this is probably why I come off as "not using nice words," (because we've tread this ground before with no apparent breakthrough) -- they were communicating when you interrupted them. I think I've said that in 3 posts now, and so if it doesn't get through this time, I promise not to bring it up again to save everyone from being exhausted by reading it over & over. But really, I hope I make my point. In fact, let's write out what happens if you let them be, which is the correct action.

DM: "I request that you guys talk to each other and design said party."
Players: "Agreed."

(Interlude while players create characters in silence.)

Player 1: "What're you playing?"
Player 2: "A fighter."
Player 1: "That's what I wanted to play!"

(Interlude while everyone scowls and the DM wisely excuses himself to get a soda or use the bathroom.)

Player 2: "You'll have to roll up a new character."
Player 1: "Screw you, YOU roll up a new one."
Player 2: "Rochambeau!"
Player 1: "I'm not letting you kick me there!"
Player 2: "No stupid, the rock-paper-scissors kind."
Player 1: "Oh, okay."

(Interlude while player 1 loses, asks to do best out of 3, is granted, and still loses.)

Player 2: "Ha!"
Player 1: "Shut up, I need to reroll the character."
Player 2: "What are you playing now?"
Player 1: "A cleric who will heal EVERYONE BUT YOU!"
Player 2: "Heh, sorry. Friends? Please? Heal me?"

This takes longer, I admit. They may resolve the conflict in vastly different ways. The point is, their initial argument is in fact the beginning of the conversation, and you short-circuited it.

It's entirely possible that things could take a wrong turn. The two players could get violent. Or one could storm out. Or they could sulk all night and fail to resolve it. That's okay, because the solution to all of those problems is the same: "Hey guys, I came here to play, and you pretty much failed on that count, so I'm going to find some better players. OK? Thanks. Bye."


As for "not taking the advice" of people here, true. Because we haven't met up, I haven't had the opportunity to use the advice given here.
Yeah, I wasn't referring to that. You've mis-interpreted my advice, or I've written it poorly. I meant that during the course of the 2+ years of being with these trouble players, you never once did what was suggested here -- walking away. Granted, you didn't have the advice two years ago, so you couldn't have acted upon it unless you had the insight yourself. I understand that. My point of saying it was that this is the explanation for why you've had trouble for so long. Do you see what I mean? I was pointing at the problem and solution and saying, "This here! This is the key for the 2 years of struggle!"

[Hawriel]

WALL OF TEXT HURTS MY EYES!


Alright, in terms of the traps thing, you should remember that as a DM your job is to cater to what the players want. If they make three fighters and a cleric, it sounds like what they want is combat, so give them some combat.


Its the players job to cooperate with the GM. By agreeing to play with the GM they agree to play with in the GMs style. If a group makes a party of fighters and a cleric that does not mean that a GM has to change every thing. That means that the players have to figure out how to overcome the obsticals of the adventure within the characters strengths and weeknesses.

If the GM wants a well rounded party they should listen to the GM and make a well rounded party. However if the players ignore that and makes three fighters and a cleric the GM is under no obligation to cater to that set up and change the game. The players will have to work through it with the skill sets they have chosen. They can find and hire a rogue, wizard, or ranger NPC. Maybe one of the fighters after getting lucky with traps, moving stealthely, or conning some one decides to pick up levels in rogue later on. Thats how players, character and GMs grow. They will be better for it.

[Feverdream]

Well, actually, I thought I was saying it was my fault. Subconsciously (or more likely, very consciously) I wanted it to be their fault, but I honestly did come here for objective opinions if I was in the wrong.

And in fact, I am. I acknowledge it. It's the title of my post, and it's rather self-fulfilling prophecy.

And I will apologize for the miscommunication. It's the ultimate irony, indeed, as I speak five languages (3 African), and yet I can't get my thoughts into writing very clearly. Or perhaps because all of them are swirling in my brain, it's no wonder I don't communicate clearly.

I think there are two sources of problems:

Me: I'm tired of your immaturity, and I'm not gonna run a game for you unless you stop all that and do what I say.

Them: You're not letting us play <Insert Drow naming convention; Select 5 random consonants, put random vowels in between each, then arbitrarily place an apostrophe somewhere in the middle> clone, or let us have anything we want.

Battle of the wills.

I think your advice is the most correct after all: Time to find a new group.

Thank you, I appreciate that.

[aboyd]

If the GM wants a well rounded party they should listen to the GM and make a well rounded party. However if the players ignore that and makes three fighters and a cleric the GM is under no obligation to cater to that set up and change the game. The players will have to work through it with the skill sets they have chosen. They can find and hire a rogue, wizard, or ranger NPC. Maybe one of the fighters after getting lucky with traps, moving stealthely, or conning some one decides to pick up levels in rogue later on. Thats how players, character and GMs grow. They will be better for it.
And Hawriel manages to say in one paragraph what took me 8 posts and 400 paragraphs. I suck.

[Ethdred]

I think that's the problem with what you've been saying here. You insist on treating the one incident as the start of their communication, and you keep saying that he interrupted and should have let it continue. But you don't take into account that it wasn't the start, they had lots of history to this; lots of history that you are not pricy to. So maybe he knew exactly how the conversation would go once everyone revealed their characters, and he knew it wasn't worth playing out that scenario. As for constantly telling him he should just give up and find some new players - he's said that these are his friends. So just leaving is not an option - if anything he should be applauded for his persistence.

[aboyd]

I'll send my response via PM, as it looks like Feverdream wants to end this thread.

[Feverdream]

C'mon now. We all just came to an understanding. I don't think we need to prolong this any more. That goes for everyone. :)

It's given me a lot to think about, and for that, I'm thankful.

[Feverdream]

Oh, and I know this post should go in another thread, but to show my gratitude for all the help, and that everyone in this thread was willing to help, I wish to run a game online.

I'm extending the invitation to everyone who posted here, first.

I'm thinking Iron Kingdoms, with Pathfinder modifications.

IK is a bit more picky on party creation. It rather requires what I was complaining wasn't happening in this thread. The mere choice of a certain class will pretty much influence the rest of the party's decisions of religion/tech/whatnot.

PM me, or post here, and I'll put up a new thread in the appropriate forum.

And hey, you can always help me out in better managing an game, both RL and Play-by-Post.

[Tsotha-lanti]

*****'s words are wise. (And, seriously, the thread title is "What am I doing wrong?" He's answering that pretty well.)

I'm of the SA school of "sever! sever!" in this kind of stuff. You generally can not significantly change adults (and if you're just a peer, you can't change kids, either), especially over a hobby, and it's no use hoping.

It's bizarre how many people post on these forums about the horrible, horrible games they're in and the horrible, horrible people they play with, but absolutely refuse to consider leaving the game - apparently because any gaming is better than no gaming. Go figure how that's possible, because the games they describe sound less enjoyable than pounding my nuts with a hammer.

[PnP Fan]

Feverdream:
I have seen some similar behaviour in one of my groups. Not the exact same thing, but similar. Some of my players either enjoy, or don't mind in-party conflict. Some of the others hate it, they want to focus on the enemies provided in the framework of the game, not the guy across the table from them. This sometimes leads to hurt feelings and some frustration.
What we do at my table,( and yes, it's a little heavy handed, but it works, and we all agree to it, and everyone has fun, which is what matters at the end of the day)
1. We restrict alignment. Usually only non-evil, but lately we've done "all good" campaigns too. This is enforced by the GM, though everyone has buy in.
2. We agree that characters must be able to work in a group. Loners, characters with other player characters as enemies, etc. . .either get shut down, or we make sure that the involved players know what's going on so that it becomes an excercise in roleplaying, not unexpected antagonism from across the table.
3. We laugh. Alot. :-) My favorite groups are people that I spend RL time with, away from the table. Because we are then Friends who happen to game, instead of Gaming Buddies.
4. Players that have a habit of continually causing RL trouble, are asked to leave. This doesn't happen often, but it has happened, and we're all the better for not having that person around anymore.
5. Something you can do to bring your players out of their shells is to start up a conversation during character creation, while everyone is rolling dice and flipping through books. Just ask everyone, in turn, what their character concept is. You can help guide them in a good direction for your campaign, get people talking about their concept, possibly head off niche competition before it starts, *AND* win bonus points with your players by showing an interest in what they are doing.