Managing multiple playstyles at the table.

[strangebloke]

Hey all.

Close to wrapping up a campaign that's been going for over a year now.

Had some serious issues with my players, and I'm interested in hearing what y'all think.

Game started with three players (technically four, but the fourth dropped out after two sessions.) I'd played with/known these guys in various systems and settings for about five years. These guys prefer a darker sort of story where everyone is very medieval in their outlook and pretty darn violent/racist/sexist. I build the setting as a collection of city states, each with SEVERE issues of one variety or another.

To be clear, these players take their medieval mindsets to a very serious degree. The demon-hunter is a big torture fan and very quick to assume that someone has been corrupted by extraplanar forces. He also is 100% fine with breaking deals and double-crossing people if they're bad guys. The sorcerer basically has 'problematic noble ass' written over his head in giant flaming letters, being a-ok with slavery, marital rape, and brutally absolutist monarchs. The third player has played several characters that vary between 'seduces the sorcerer's sister,' and 'purchase corpses from shady thugs.' They don't do it for titillation: all of these interactions are abstracted to:

'I'm going to try to torture this guy. First though, I want to figure out what kind of thing will really get to him.'
'roll insight'
*roll*
'his wings. He has a huge amount of pride in them. They're a symbol of favor from Tiamat.'
'Yeah, I'm going to go after those then.'
'roll intimidation with advantage.'

So we add two players. These players are friends of ours who are newer to TTRPGs. A warlock and a paladin. The paladin plays a super-boyscout with very VERY modern sensibilities. He's willing to accept that a demon has 'miraculously' been redeemed because 'I have faced intolerance as a dragonborn, and that makes me cautious to judge others.' The warlock is a fey-patron pseudo-druid and a former cult member. She knew when she wrote her background that the cult was more 'red in tooth and fang' than 'bunnies and sunshine,' but nonetheless staunchly played her character as the latter, objecting strongly when someone tried to put a dying Roc out of its misery.

So obviously this leads to HORRIFIC values dissonance within the party. It has been a huge struggle to keep all relevant players happy and not at each others throats. The original three were at each other's throats all the time anyway, but that's not a serious problem since that's the kind of playstyle they enjoy. The newer two players, though, were very unhappy OOC as well as IC.

We had one full session that was literally just the paladin's player complaining to the original three OOC about how they were playing in such a way as to make it impossible for his character to reasonably stay with the party.

Now, obviously, the new players were wrong to expect things to change to meet their expectations. But how do you guys handle players with very different playstyles?

[Delicious Taffy]

I don't frequently advocate for eating players who don't get along, but I think it may be prudent to put the two groups into separate games, or at least wait for the current one to end. These new players clearly weren't prepared for the sort of game your original trio have been playing. If you want the group to mesh, I recommend a compromise in the next campaign; the scumbag characters may have to be reined in just a bit, and the goody-goods may need to step down from their golden altars, even if that step down is still to silver altars. Unless you're a damn good DM, don't try to force polar opposites into the same game. If you can handle it, great, go for it.

[Corran]

I can only wonder what the replies would be, if the original 3 were playing the cute characters, and the 2 new were the evil characters and they complained that the original party made it impossible for them to play their wicked characters as they had envisioned them.

But since we can all agree that there is no wrong way to play d&d (), I think you should explain to the new players how your campaign style has been so far, and urge them to try to adapt and play characters compatible with the original 3 (if that is something they would enjoy ofc, else there is always the next campaign).

That said, you can ask the original 3 if they would be willing to change their playstyle to allow the 2 new players fit in more easily, especially since they are new to the game (newbie welcome week), or you can even propose to start a new campaign from scratch (if you are feeling up to it), sit them all down, and have them have that famous session 0 (if the original 3 agree to that). Explain that they will have to make characters that fit with each other, as they are supposed to work as a team (valuable lesson to the new players, but generally good to remind it to experienced players too), and let them work it out among themselves (keep an eye out, advise if you think you have to, but for the most part, let them do it on their own).

If none of the above is an option, you have two choices.
Split them into two different groups (assuming that is something you have the time for and you are in the mood of doing), or let the current game continue, interveining whenever an OOC argument pops up and tell them to roleplay it (be firm about it, minimize OOC talk and arguing!), and hope that sooner before later the new players will adapt (fairly possible, seen it happen a lot of times).

[strangebloke]

I don't frequently advocate for eating players who don't get along, but I think it may be prudent to put the two groups into separate games, or at least wait for the current one to end. These new players clearly weren't prepared for the sort of game your original trio have been playing. If you want the group to mesh, I recommend a compromise in the next campaign; the scumbag characters may have to be reined in just a bit, and the goody-goods may need to step down from their golden altars, even if that step down is still to silver altars. Unless you're a damn good DM, don't try to force polar opposites into the same game. If you can handle it, great, go for it.

I agree! Only thing is, the new players haven't played with anyone else up to this point. They'd take it very ill if I abandoned them. And I don't really feel up to running two campaigns.

But since we can all agree that there is no wrong way to play d&d (), I think you should explain to the new players how your campaign style has been so far, and urge them to try to adapt and play characters compatible with the original 3 (if that is something they would enjoy ofc, else there is always the next campaign).

That said, you can ask the original 3 if they would be willing to change their playstyle to allow the 2 new players fit in more easily, especially since they are new to the game (newbie welcome week), or you can even propose to start a new campaign from scratch (if you are feeling up to it), sit them all down, and have them have that famous session 0 (if the original 3 agree to that). Explain that they will have to make characters that fit with each other, as they are supposed to work as a team (valuable lesson to the new players, but generally good to remind it to experienced players too), and let them work it out among themselves (keep an eye out, advise if you think you have to, but for the most part, let them do it on their own).

See, I've tried this. The original players scoff at the newbies, and frustrated by what they perceive as limited character/player seperation. They are willing to try to accomodate the newbies to some extent, but they get very frustrated when the newbies get IRL frustrated by their shenanigans.

The new players meanwhile are trying, they really are. There are other problems here, with one of the new players basically controlling the other new player's character. 'Selkie, you have the outlander trait, remember? So you can make sure we don't get lost.' 'Oh, yeah. I do that.' The net effect is, though that there is a huge dissonance between what they portray, and what the fluff of the setting says they should do. The paladin assumes that psychiatry is a well-developed discipline that is available to commoners in my very-medieval setting.

I guess what I'm really asking for here is how to dump some players without feeling like a total jerk.

[Arcangel4774]

You could go heavy into corrupting the innocent. It may not be nice but make situations where the character will die or be responsible for attrocities if they don't dirty their hands. Build up to it, so that it's reinforced that the setting is dark, and someone so pure wouldn't last long.

Example:
Force them to have to sacrifice somebody good/pure to save a whole town. Either they sacrifice them (corrupting the innocent pc's), the innocent refuses (go in depth with misery, torture, etc that their weakness causes WITHOUT explicitly blaming them), or the innocent sacrifices themselves (they then can reroll a character more fitting, reiterate the setting when the reroll). If the og3 get what your doing they can play it in such a way that forces lots of the choice on the newbies, reinforcing either their curruptiong or culpability.

[hymer]

'Selkie, you have the outlander trait, remember? So you can make sure we don't get lost.' 'Oh, yeah. I do that.'

That particular example doesn't seem overly controlling to me. Reminding someone of their character's capabilities isn't controlling them in my book.

I guess what I'm really asking for here is how to dump some players without feeling like a total jerk.

Make it clear that it's a question of playing styles, not personalities clashing. Help them find someone to play with. You should know more roleplayers than they do, or at least have a better idea of where to look.
You say you're not prepared to run two campaigns. How about running the same campign twice? You wouldn't need to prepare much extra material for having two groups running the same campaign.

[strangebloke]

You could go heavy into corrupting the innocent. It may not be nice but make situations where the character will die or be responsible for attrocities if they don't dirty their hands. Build up to it, so that it's reinforced that the setting is dark, and someone so pure wouldn't last long.

See, I guess this is an example of what I really don't want to do. I've done some of this as a matter of course: One of their rivals is fond of sending children at them with magical bombs implanted. But if I start doing especially hard or targeting them... yeah, I'd feel like a jerk.

That particular example doesn't seem overly controlling to me. Reminding someone of their character's capabilities isn't controlling them in my book.

Yeah, that's a bad example. He is literally controlling her character when she leaves early, which is usualy a fourth of the session. This isn't the main issue so I won't go more into it. It is frustrating but not a serious problem.

Make it clear that it's a question of playing styles, not personalities clashing. Help them find someone to play with. You should know more roleplayers than they do, or at least have a better idea of where to look.
You say you're not prepared to run two campaigns. How about running the same campign twice? You wouldn't need to prepare much extra material for having two groups running the same campaign.

Hmm. I could try this, although I don't know anyone in their area. Thanks for the advice!

[Beaureguard]

There have been some thoughts on how to bring the new players more into line with the old, but what about bringing the old players more into line with the new?

You mentioned multiple city states. What if one of them either had, or now has due to a rebellion or something, a new, more enlightened leader. The start of a Renaissance and a new bastion of progressive (at least for your world) ideals. Maybe they're not totally boyscout paladin, but totally not okay with torture, slavery, or desecrating the dead. Give the older players something they want there enough to conform to the local ideals. Maybe they still do a little shady stuff in secret, but make it so they know if the authorities (or the good two shoes party members who will probably report) find out, it won't be accepted in this new city state. They've been operating inside the status quo, and now they'll be outside it. With a new ruler and the start of a Golden Age, there should be a lot of wealth and opportunity here for story hooks and for the players to rise to power within the confines of the new philosophy. Adapt or die. It doesn't have to turn into a "good" story, but it lets the newer players be in the "right." Being a boyscout on the fringe of society is kind of advanced RP to me.

If your older players bitch too much, remind them that they're the veteran players, and should be able to figure out how to get their characters to adapt and react in a less than ideal situation....even if they have to retcon or meta it a bit.

[strangebloke]

There have been some thoughts on how to bring the new players more into line with the old, but what about bringing the old players more into line with the new?

You mentioned multiple city states. What if one of them either had, or now has due to a rebellion or something, a new, more enlightened leader. The start of a Renaissance and a new bastion of progressive (at least for your world) ideals. Maybe they're not totally boyscout paladin, but totally not okay with torture, slavery, or desecrating the dead. Give the older players something they want there enough to conform to the local ideals. Maybe they still do a little shady stuff in secret, but make it so they know if the authorities (or the good two shoes party members who will probably report) find out, it won't be accepted in this new city state. They've been operating inside the status quo, and now they'll be outside it. With a new ruler and the start of a Golden Age, there should be a lot of wealth and opportunity here for story hooks and for the players to rise to power within the confines of the new philosophy. Adapt or die. It doesn't have to turn into a "good" story, but it lets the newer players be in the "right." Being a boyscout on the fringe of society is kind of advanced RP to me.

If your older players bitch too much, remind them that they're the veteran players, and should be able to figure out how to get their characters to adapt and react in a less than ideal situation....even if they have to retcon or meta it a bit.

Some of the city states are enlightened! There's just usually a criminal element, and the og3 are good at hiding their shenanigans.

Besides that, they like getting caught! One of their most involved plots involved getting chased by the city guard... Right into the den of a crime boss they wanted to take down.

But the boyscout playstyle has more problems than just the surrounding politics. The game is very intrigue heavy by design. The bbeg is a powerful warlock with an insidious scheme and thousands of patsies.

The og3 are trying as well. Until recently, the two of them were conspiring together about how one's character was going to kill the other one's. With each other's characters, they're always plotting each other's demise, but with the new guys they're walking on eggshells. (To some extent, anyway. Demon Hunter tricked the paladin into dropping and losing a magical, but very very cursed spear. The paladin was pissed ooc that the demon Hunter's player would do such a thing.)

I've used the 'they are new, be the bigger man' argument. It... Sort of worked. The og3 decided to take a backseat and let the paladin make decisions for the party for a few sessions. Ultimately, though, they just weren't having fun that way. They basically spent the whole session angrily texting each other.

Point is, everyone (well, except for one of the og3) is trying, and I have talked to all of them about it, but it is kind of falling into a vicious cycle.

The more I talk about this, the more I feel that the real issue is the og3's ironclad player/character separation, and the new 2's deep empathy for their characters.

[GlenSmash!]

The more I talk about this, the more I feel that the real issue is the og3's ironclad player/character separation, and the new 2's deep empathy for their characters.

Here it is. You've hit on the difference between most veteran and most rookie players. I say most because I always put a lot of myself into my characters, I just can't find them interesting otherwise. It took a while before I learned I could enjoy having my character die, and even make decisions that would ensure my character would die a heroic and memorable death.

While I still don't enjoy games with interparty conflict, I'm sure they are fun for another type of player. I honestly think the best thing to due would be a mid campaign session 0 where you and the players discuss your expectations of the game openly. It should be obvious if you can find a middle ground or not.

[scalyfreak]

The more I talk about this, the more I feel that the real issue is the og3's ironclad player/character separation, and the new 2's deep empathy for their characters.

That is definitely a large part of the issue.

Though when I read this thread, I can't help putting a substantial amount of the blame on the new players. In groups I have played with in the past it was always a given that the newcomer, whether they were new to tabletop RPGs or not, would be the one adapting to what the group was already doing. Obviously the old group members where expected to do their best to make the newcomer welcome and help them through the initial awkward adjustment period, but it was always clear that if someone needed to make major changes to help both sides work smoothly, that someone would be the one who had not already invested x number of months or years into the campaign.

Because I come from this perspective, when I look at your group situation, I see two newcomers who have no interest at all in fitting in and becoming a part of the group. They want to play their characters a certain way, and that's all there is to it. Sure, they say otherwise, but their actions prove their words wrong.

Your two newcomers intentionally made the decision to play a type of character that is the very opposite of the tone of the campaign, and the rest of the group up until that point, a type that actually hinders the way the established group is used to - and prefers! - to play. What did they think would happen? That the corpse molester would suddenly realize the errors of his ways and join them in singing folk tunes around the camp fire?

Now that I've gotten that out of the way:

Not to try and be snarky or anything, but I think your trio of experienced players might be the worst possible group ever for someone who is completely new to TTRPGs.

The things you've described about your newbies so far, from the inability to separate IC and OOC to a need to be reminded of their character abilities, are rookie mistakes that all newcomers to this hobby make. We all made them when we were new as well, but we either have forgotten that because of how long ago it was, didn't realize it because we were so young we didn't know better, or we didn't notice because we were a group of rookies figuring it out together.

Someone entirely new to TTRPGs who is trying to learn a system, while trying to learn how to create and play a character, while trying to figure out how to keep IC and OOC separate, is already in a difficult situation. Don't misunderstand, I believe that the four of you are doing everything you can to make the two newcomers feel welcome and find their place in the group. However, your two newbies are for all we know struggling with the notion that if they do X, Y, or Z, they become bad guys and their OOC feelings and values revolt at the thought. The last thing they need is probably for the other players at the table to start murdering each other's characters, in the process implying that it's only a matter of time before either paladin or warlock is knifed in their sleep.

You group sounds like a blast to play with, but it's not one I would recommend for a first-timer.

[strangebloke]

Not to try and be snarky or anything, but I think your trio of experienced players might be the worst possible group ever for someone who is completely new to TTRPGs.

Thanks for your post!

Yeah, We've never really played with anyone except for each other. New additions have been rare, although for one of the three 'originals' this was her first TTRPG. (I'd done freeform round-robin writing things with her for years.) I had to take her aside after one of the earlier games and tell her: "If you think its in character don't be afraid to push the other guys around. I know you, you're a sweet person, but at that table, you're playing a pompous ass, and its perfectly kosher to remind them of that. Don't let these commoners push <Your Character> around."

[scalyfreak]

Addition to my earlier post: I think it's more than possible to get your newbies integrated into the group, but you might have to back track a little bit, and give them something easy with training wheels attached, before sending them out into heavy traffic.

Maybe try a casual one-off with goofy jokes and disposable pre-generated characters? For the veterans in the group it could still be a fun challenge to play something entirely different from what you normally do, and for the rookies it's an opportunity to figure out how to do this tabletop roleplaying thing in a low-risk scenario, since they have nothing invested in the characters and mistakes won't have long-term consequences.

It's a lot easier to remind someone that "your character actually wouldn't do that, they would do this other thing instead", when you created the character for them. Far less likely to be taken personally, and it'll teach them about keeping IC and OOC separate as well.

Either way, you're welcome, and good luck with them!