Legendary Actions and More of Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories

[Talakeal]

Well, a 3e dragon can probably fully heal in a week or two (whereas a 2e dragon might take the better part of a year). That gives you some idea how far back its history might matter.

That said, 3e is rife with things like permanent HP loss, vile damage, and a vast array of curses and status conditions that could prove much more difficult for a dragon to shake off than simple damage would.

Either you are deliberately avoiding the question or I am not being clear.

My players think it is unfair, from a gamist perspective, that the monsters do not start fights wounded or otherwise down resources, and you agree with them.

When I ask how to decide what monsters are wounded and how, you tell me to decide based on the monsters backstory. Which I already do if there is a storyline reason for the monster to be wounded.

How do I go about deciding whether or not I should invent injuries in the backstories of monsters who don't have a storyline reason for them so that it is "fair" to the players? How do I know how long ago they where hurt, how badly, and by what? Even if I spend hours on end coming up with a complete life history for the monsters, realism would say that the majority wouldn't be wounded, so I need to force injuries in artificially for the sake of fairness.

So how do I determine what level of injury is "fair?".

[kyoryu]

Don’t. Go a step higher.

The players think the _game_ is unfair. Fix that.

As I said, when people say something is wrong, they’re probably right. When they tell you how to fix it, they might we’ll be wrong.

At any rate, in terms of what would be fair, we’re the wrong people to ask. The only people whose opinion matters is your players.

BUT I would start with high transparency - build encounters by the book, show the stat blocks before the encounters. Show any modifications before the encounters. Go super open, and don’t try to bend the design guidelines to favor you. Play by the rules, in good faith.

Then, if they say something is unfair, ask what they think is unfair, and what would have made it fair. In cases like Lair actions, point out why they exist and that be monster would likely need more hp to counter that if they went away.

But it doesn’t matter if we think it’s fair or not.

[kyoryu]

I mean, if you start the NPCs at 80% health, but then choose NPCs with 20% more health, the game is the same and they will likely still feel it’s unfair.

[Theoboldi]

To chime in here, I don't think increased transparency is going to do anything. There seems to be such a fundamental lack of trust between Talakeal and his players that should he take such extreme measures as openly revealing enemy stats before every battle in a D&D game, it will only act as a bandaid. Most likely, it will be perceived as an attempt on his part to 'disprove' their opinions, and they will soon start pointing out things that they consider to be unfair about the monsters and the encounters themselves.

The only way forward is to address that mutual trust directly with the offending players, and attempt to extend an olive branch in that direction. Emphasize that you want to don't want to screw them over and that their fun matters to you as much as your own, and try to figure out why they do not believe that is the case.

Going after specific examples and mechanics is only going to lead you into trouble time and time again. You need to address the underlying issue.

That's my opinion as an occasional observer of this, based on my own experiences, anyways. There is a possibility I am way off with this, but it still seems to my like the only real way forward.

[kyoryu]

I don't think that transparency is the solution, but I think it's part of a solution.

At least two of the things that Talakeal has said their players dislike is basically monsters pulling out unexpected moves. If the moves are known up front, that source of discontent is at least gone.

But, if the moves are there and just stupidly over the top, then it'll still seem unfair.

That's exactly like the point I made about having monsters enter the encounters partially depleted - if that's combined with monsters that just have more hp, then it's irrelevant. 100hp is 100hp, whether it's 100% of 100hp, or 82% of 120hp.

So I think the solution is a combination of:

1) Listening to the players about what they think is unfair
2) Determining a baseline of what "fair" means
3) Sticking to that and basically "showing your work"

Since there is at least a level of distrust, I think transparency helps, combined with the rest of the stuff. I mean, that's like one of the basic things you do to build trust, right? Not hiding stuff?

[Great Dragon]

I think the disconnect is that their power scales with the number of foes they face.

From what I understand, Legendary Actions don't change. Even if 10 PCs walk in, the Monster only gets three Legendary Actions.

Sure, Legendary Actions can allow extra attacks each round (up to three) but also are supposed to add extra options for the Monster to choose from. Some costing 2 or even all 3 Actions.
******
Like the Vampire can: Trigger a Lair Action on Initiative 20; on its turn: move up to a PC, and try to Charm them (the MM doesn't have an action cost for a Vampire's charm) and then (try) grab the PC;
then the Vampire has to wait for a PC to do something;
then use a L.A. to Spider Climbing up a nearby wall with the PC (not provoking any attacks of opportunity);
then wait for another PC to do something;
then - if the first PC is still grappled, the Vampire uses L.A. Bites them.

Which uses all of the Vampire's L.A. for that round.
*********
Another tactic could be:
Lair Action
attack PC 1;
wait…
L.A. move to PC 2;
wait....
L.A. attack PC 2; (if they weren't able to move away)
wait....
L.A. move/Spiderclimb (no AoOs) to escape.
******
Now, there should be lots of foreshadowing for this encounter. Lots of Vampire stories being told in the region where the Vampire is, and not just by Old Bards, or Gypsies.
(Dracula novel reference)

Note: there should also have been at least one Encounter with (some) Vampire Spawn, which have all the Abilities of a Vampire, but don't have Legendary Actions.
Lair Actions (if having a permanent base) can be interesting to add. Most "In Lair" listings have this at least 1 CR higher.
********
But, even if breaking down the limit of Legendary Actions isn't enough, a long talk with the Player is needed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do apologise if I repeated something already posted: I wasn't able to read the whole thread at time of posting.

[Cluedrew]

Nobody else in my group will volunteer to GM.

Every time they have tried in the past the incessant whining of the other players has driven them to quite after a session or two and vow to never pick up the screen again.

This...sounds like a lesson in and of itself.

That sounds like a critical lesson to me. The essential problem is that they have realized that they are a terrible group to GM for, but somehow haven't realized that applies when they aren't the GM.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That sounds like a critical lesson to me. The essential problem is that they have realized that they are a terrible group to GM for, but somehow haven't realized that applies when they aren't the GM.

I'd say that inability to see in themselves the faults they see in others is the reason they're so intractably hard to DM for. If they're so self centered, nothing will work. Because there's no I in team, as they say.

[NichG]

Sometimes complaining is just a default means of social interaction for people. It's a way to get something for nothing and to not have to compromise (you're the one who did something wrong, so you change; why should I have to?). It would be useful to know if the players actually feel strongly enough about this to quit the group, since they're projecting it strongly enough to make the other players quit as GM.

If it's just gripes, probably best to just say 'this is the game we agreed to play; I'm going to keep running it this way, and you're free to vent if it makes you feel better. But if it's really important to you that it change then you need to be willing to compromise your play style in exchange to make the game easier for me to run since you're asking me not to use this tool the game is designed around, or take the reins as GM yourself.'

In this situation, before we can talk about building trust, I think what's needed is to build a feeling of shared responsibility for the quality of gaming time at the table. It's not 'the GMs job is to entertain us', it has to be 'our jobs are to entertain eachother'.

[Quertus]

To chime in here, I don't think increased transparency is going to do anything. There seems to be such a fundamental lack of trust between Talakeal and his players that should he take such extreme measures as openly revealing enemy stats before every battle in a D&D game, it will only act as a bandaid. Most likely, it will be perceived as an attempt on his part to 'disprove' their opinions, and they will soon start pointing out things that they consider to be unfair about the monsters and the encounters themselves.

The only way forward is to address that mutual trust directly with the offending players, and attempt to extend an olive branch in that direction. Emphasize that you want to don't want to screw them over and that their fun matters to you as much as your own, and try to figure out why they do not believe that is the case.

Going after specific examples and mechanics is only going to lead you into trouble time and time again. You need to address the underlying issue.

That's my opinion as an occasional observer of this, based on my own experiences, anyways. There is a possibility I am way off with this, but it still seems to my like the only real way forward.

This is an interesting relationship question. Your partners complain that X, Y, and Z are wrong. Your partners are human, and therefore likely a) correct that something is wrong; and b) wrong to mostly wrong about the specifics of what is wrong.

What should you do?

IMO (because I'm a ****, and have spent too much time getting and fixing requirements from customers), the correct answer is… complex.

I like to say that the customer tells me what they think is wrong, then my job is to talk to the customer and figure out what is actually wrong. Same thing here.

However, IMO, you can definitely win some points with the customer if you can find some low-hanging fruit that is *actually* something that they both need and request, and give them that.

Second, you can leverage those points and move to the more productive "you're an idiot, let's talk about what you really need" phase if a) you don't actually call the customer an idiot for not knowing what their problem actually is; and b) you can find some low-hanging fruit where it's obvious what their actual problem is, and what they really need.

Now, here's the problem: Talakeal, given your post history, I strongly suspect that the ratio of your investigative skills, relative to DC of pulling useful information out of your players, will not make that second step particularly easy.

There are numerous ways to address that problem. Simply put, you can try to raise your skill (ie, practice with us Playgrounders), lower the DC (ie, train your players to communicate more good), or attempt a lower DC task (ie, fix what they think is wrong).

Don’t. Go a step higher.

The players think the _game_ is unfair. Fix that.

As I said, when people say something is wrong, they’re probably right. When they tell you how to fix it, they might we’ll be wrong.

At any rate, in terms of what would be fair, we’re the wrong people to ask. The only people whose opinion matters is your players.

BUT I would start with high transparency - build encounters by the book, show the stat blocks before the encounters. Show any modifications before the encounters. Go super open, and don’t try to bend the design guidelines to favor you. Play by the rules, in good faith.

Then, if they say something is unfair, ask what they think is unfair, and what would have made it fair. In cases like Lair actions, point out why they exist and that be monster would likely need more hp to counter that if they went away.

But it doesn’t matter if we think it’s fair or not.

Agreed, it doesn't matter what we think. But it may be good practice.

Also, I wouldn't emphasize telling the players *why* things (like lair actions) exist, or *what* the alternatives are. Yes, sure, do that, but *focus* on listening to what the players have to say about *why* it is unfair, and *what* they suggest as a fair alternative.

Actually, if you do that, you might not need to tell your opinion at all.

Either you are deliberately avoiding the question or I am not being clear.

My players think it is unfair, from a gamist perspective, that the monsters do not start fights wounded or otherwise down resources, and you agree with them.

When I ask how to decide what monsters are wounded and how, you tell me to decide based on the monsters backstory. Which I already do if there is a storyline reason for the monster to be wounded.

How do I go about deciding whether or not I should invent injuries in the backstories of monsters who don't have a storyline reason for them so that it is "fair" to the players? How do I know how long ago they where hurt, how badly, and by what? Even if I spend hours on end coming up with a complete life history for the monsters, realism would say that the majority wouldn't be wounded, so I need to force injuries in artificially for the sake of fairness.

So how do I determine what level of injury is "fair?".

You've used "game" and "story" in describing your stance, while completely missing "simulation", which is what I'm actually talking about.

According to game logic, there is a formula for how quickly things heal damage taken. In at least some versions of D&D, there are random encounter tables. Most things - including Dragons - need to eat. So, even if the Dragon's lair doesn't have random encounters, its hunting grounds most likely do. So, even if this Dragon has done nothing but hide in its lair except to hunt the subsistence level of prey, based on how long it takes to heal from "nearly dead", you can determine how far back time matters / how many random encounters it should roll for, in order to determine its current HP.

I'm simply saying, "run the simulation". The level of injury that it produces is what's fair.

[Great Dragon]

You've used "game" and "story" in describing your stance, while completely missing "simulation", which is what I'm actually talking about.

According to game logic, there is a formula for how quickly things heal damage taken. In at least some versions of D&D, there are random encounter tables. Most things - including Dragons - need to eat. So, even if the Dragon's lair doesn't have random encounters, its hunting grounds most likely do. So, even if this Dragon has done nothing but hide in its lair except to hunt the subsistence level of prey, based on how long it takes to heal from "nearly dead", you can determine how far back time matters / how many random encounters it should roll for, in order to determine its current HP.

I'm simply saying, "run the simulation". The level of injury that it produces is what's fair.

Yes, but even I (who loves doing background world building, and has more time than any previous gaming period in my life) rarely can "run the simulation" very often.
(But, I think you were already aware of that)

A lot of DMs (myself included, sometimes) simply grab a Monster Book and go with whatever is in the stat block. A few (like me) will take a little time to maybe change things beforehand (usually based on PC capabilities) like maybe Max HP, or (slightly) better Armor.
*******"
As for the OPs problem, only they can really solve that, hopefully with some of the suggested solutions.

If not, then maybe just buy the Player in question Skyrim or something.

[Malifice]

My players absolutely hate it when a monster has an ability that they cannot replicate. If it is an ability out of the monster manual, they will usually grumble and tolerate it, but if it is a custom ability they absolutely read my the riot act. I assume this is just my players being crazy and not normal, right? Anyone else have experience with that?


But one of my players absolutely loathes legendary / lair actions*. He is normally one of my more reasonable players, but every time legendary actions come up in game or merely in discussion he immediately goes into a bad mood and starts grumbling and complaining or quietly sulking.


This came to a head yesterday when they were fighting a dragon. He complained loudly the entire fight about how BS legendary actions were, and at one point there was an unclear rule involving a monster's legendary action and I needed to make a ruling and we were discussing it and the player but in and said, "No point in discussing this. Talakeal always rules in the monster's favor when legendary actions are concerned. We might as well just write a house rule that states: Change description of all legendary actions to "The monster does whatever Talakeal wants it to do."

Then, when his character hit zero HP (not dead, just disabled and fully heal-able) the player got up, pulled out his phone, and went into the other room to surf the net rather than pay attention to the game.


So yeah, for some reason, this player really really hates legendary actions. I try to explain that they are necessary to keep the action moving and to counteract the advantages provided by action economy, but the player simply doesn't see it and just gets mad and turns the discussion into a fight any time I bring it up. At this point I am legitimately considered house ruling legendary actions out of the game and just giving boss monsters extra HP and damage to compensate because I am tired of fighting about it.

Anyone have any advice? Either how to socially disarm the situation or mechanically change the rules? Anyone have any similar opinions or experiences with legendary actions?



*: For anyone not familiar with this concept, it is basically a concept introduced in recent editions of D&D where certain "boss" monsters have a few special abilities that they can only use as bonus actions during the player's turn.

What? Your reaction to this player is to consider changing the rules!!???!!!??

Boot this player from your game immediately. If he apologises and agrees to stop being a douche maybe let him back. Maybe.

Get. Control. Of. Your. Players.

[Talakeal]

You've used "game" and "story" in describing your stance, while completely missing "simulation", which is what I'm actually talking about.

According to game logic, there is a formula for how quickly things heal damage taken. In at least some versions of D&D, there are random encounter tables. Most things - including Dragons - need to eat. So, even if the Dragon's lair doesn't have random encounters, its hunting grounds most likely do. So, even if this Dragon has done nothing but hide in its lair except to hunt the subsistence level of prey, based on how long it takes to heal from "nearly dead", you can determine how far back time matters / how many random encounters it should roll for, in order to determine its current HP.

I'm simply saying, "run the simulation". The level of injury that it produces is what's fair.

This is not feasible, bordering on impossible.

To do this fairly, you would need to run encounters for the encounters, and encounters for the encounters for the encohnters, and so on in an infinite regression, which is actually impossible.

Furthermore, I wouldnt know what rules to use for monsters living their daily life. PCs roll on random encounter tables when moving thriugh unfamiliar and usually hostile terrain, not when living their daily lives. If everything rolled random encounters like the PCs do when just going about its daily business I imagine the world would be a graveyard with nothing for the PCs to fight except a handful of overhwelmingly deadly monsters.

I'd say that inability to see in themselves the faults they see in others is the reason they're so intractably hard to DM for. If they're so self centered, nothing will work. Because there's no I in team, as they say.

Everyone in my group, myself included, is aware that they are a **** to DMs.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Everyone in my group, myself included, is aware that they are a **** to DMs.

If they're aware and refuse to change, then nothing you do will change anything. It's the old "how many shrinks does it take to change a lightbulb" punchline--"one, but it has to want to change."

[The Glyphstone]

Have you guys ever considered looking into GM-less games? Fiasco and Capes are the two most well-known ones.

[MrSandman]

If they're aware and refuse to change, then nothing you do will change anything. It's the old "how many shrinks does it take to change a lightbulb" punchline--"one, but it has to want to change."

This, so much this. The GM is just another player who is there to have fun like everyone else. If they know they aren't nice to the GM and can't be bothered to do anything about it, play Monopoly, where bringing everyone else to bankruptcy is the goal of the game.

[Quertus]

This is not feasible, bordering on impossible.

To do this fairly, you would need to run encounters for the encounters, and encounters for the encounters for the encohnters, and so on in an infinite regression, which is actually impossible.

Furthermore, I wouldnt know what rules to use for monsters living their daily life. PCs roll on random encounter tables when moving thriugh unfamiliar and usually hostile terrain, not when living their daily lives. If everything rolled random encounters like the PCs do when just going about its daily business I imagine the world would be a graveyard with nothing for the PCs to fight except a handful of overhwelmingly deadly monsters.




Everyone in my group, myself included, is aware that they are a **** to DMs.

Yes and no.

See, things like goblins, gnolls, etc come from larger tribes. If they generally follow the reasonable principle of only sending uninjured warriors / hunters / etc out, and are generally weak enough that there is no real significant ground between "uninjured" and "lunch", then you're much closer to "story reasons" injuries: *why* did the wounded hobgoblin leave the safety of the camp?

Really, any successful creature / civilization needs to be able to survive its routine - needs to, in the aggregate, prevail over the expected encounters in its lair and hunting grounds.

The gnolls can survive the random encounters in their area? Well, it's more gnolls ("hi Bob" "hi Fred"), orcs (hopefully, their uneasy peace will last, and they'll just bicker over poorly-defined territory), the dragon (good thing it's old enough to remember second edition, back when it only healed 1 HP per day, and doesn't dare attack except for food and shinies), wolves (usually clever enough to avoid humanoids), bears, deer, squirrels, birds, and bugs. The orcs keep watch on the few Land Sharks in the area, so, to us, they aren't "random", any more than the Dragon's Lair.

Similarly, a farmer needs to survive his expected encounters - his wife and kids (good luck), his dogs, his farm animals, crows, rats, and the rare woodland creature that stumbled onto his farm.

When the farmer's been living there for hundreds of years (what? I never said "human" farmer), and, while the PCs are passing through, he has to deal with Ankheg, while his neighbor is fending off ghosts, he's likely to blame the PCs for his ill fortune - and, IMO, he'll be right to do so.

Look at "Simulationist HP / wounds" as a test of your world-building. Because, you're right - if everything treats everything as a combat encounter, then (everything will be strongly restricted to "zones", or) you'll quickly find yourself in a world of trolls, ghosts, Clerics, and other alpha predators.

Well-built worlds don't look like that any more than this world does.

-----

In what way(s) are y'all ****s to GMs?

[Jakinbandw]

Tell the player that they too can get legendary actions. Play a Cavalier to 18th, and pick up sentinel and pole arm master. Now they too can act after each foe that tries to get close to them in a round (and sometimes even mid action so it's even better then legendary actions).

Now the players can't complain the monsters can do thing they can't.

[1337 b4k4]

So I'm not generally one for the "GM is all knowing, all powerful, bow before the GM" attitude, but I think the people telling you to get control of your group are right. Operating on the assumption that what you're telling us is the full story (and this isn't to suggest you're lying, just acknowledging that sometimes we make assumptions about what others want without asking), what you've told us seems to boil down to:

1) Your players don't like playing the game you're running
2) Your players don't like the base conceits that come with playing D&D
3) Your players don't want to switch to another game that might suit them better
4) Your players don't want to put the effort into running their own game
5) Your players don't want to help you run this game
6) Your players don't trust you to run this game on your own
7) Your players don't like themselves as players
8) Your players basically don't like anything except complaining about how the games are run, regardless of who's DMing

If I were in your shoes Talakeal, I'd tell my players to put up or shut up. I would tell them that I am running X game, with Y rules and in Z style, and either they can play that game or they can find some other game to play. I would give them options of other games I'm willing to run, but fundamentally you need to have fun just like everyone else at that table, which means playing a system and style you enjoy. And finally I would tell them that if they don't want to play the options I'm willing to run, they are more than welcome to step up and take responsibility for running a game. But unless and until they are either willing to run their own game or switch to a game that better suits their play that you're willing to run, tell them the game you're running and that you're no longer taking complaints or suggestions on changing that until they've actually played the game for longer than a handful of sessions.

[Malifice]

This is not feasible, bordering on impossible.

To do this fairly, you would need to run encounters for the encounters, and encounters for the encounters for the encohnters, and so on in an infinite regression, which is actually impossible.

Furthermore, I wouldnt know what rules to use for monsters living their daily life. PCs roll on random encounter tables when moving thriugh unfamiliar and usually hostile terrain, not when living their daily lives. If everything rolled random encounters like the PCs do when just going about its daily business I imagine the world would be a graveyard with nothing for the PCs to fight except a handful of overhwelmingly deadly monsters.




Everyone in my group, myself included, is aware that they are a **** to DMs.

Hnoest question.

Why do you tolerate that kind of behavior in your OP?

If a player did that to me, it would be the last time he would play at my table.

[Great Dragon]

@Malifice:

"I'd rather play a bad game with Friends, then not play at all".

At least this would be my guess.

[Malifice]

@Malifice:

"I'd rather play a bad game with Friends, then not play at all".

At least this would be my guess.

How on earth can the player discussed in the OP be a 'friend?' I doubt (based on the behavior described) a person like that has any friends.

I'd sack them from the table, and frankly wouldn't speak to them again outside of it also.

I just cant imagine spending my free time with someone with that attitude and who behaves in such a manner.

[OldTrees1]

How on earth can the player discussed in the OP be a 'friend?' I doubt (based on the behavior described) a person like that has any friends.

Remember, we only see 1 side of the story, and even then we see a breakdown in communication. That might explain why Talakeal is acting different than your expectations. Or it might not.

[Segev]

I do recommend that Talekeal just not run games for these people.

[Great Dragon]

How on earth can the player discussed in the OP be a 'friend?' I doubt (based on the behavior described) a person like that has any friends.

Well... I did have a friend who was on ok guy (if a little stubborn) but a really bad gamer. Always played the same Race, almost always the same class, and his attitude and behavior were the same both in and out of character.

[Talakeal]

The reasons I still game with these people are:

1: I really love gaming. I know most people say no gaming is better than bad gaming, but for me it really isn't.
2: I am very shy and introverted, so finding new gamers is really a challenge. And for reason I have really bad luck as every knew player I do find is significantly more crazy than my old group.
3: Most of the time it goes ok. Keep in mind that I only post when something goes wrong, the vast majority of my gaming sessions go by without a hitch, you guys on the forum just don't see them because "Everything's fine, no help needed" doesn't exactly make for an interesting discussion starter.

In the case of this particular player he is normally fine, but he is on anti-depressants and one of the side effects is that he will get periodic flashes of unreasonable anger.

But the underlying hatred of legendary actions is a constant regardless of his mood, and it isn't just him. One constant I have found over many years with many different players in many different groups is that they are likely to pitch a fit if the rules for PCs and NPCs are asymmetrical, or symmetrical in a way that doesn't favor them.

In what way(s) are y'all ****s to GMs?

Different ways. Mostly just bitching at the GM or standard munchkin / murder hobo stuff.

I personally get too deeply into character and often wreck the campaigns rather than take OOC actions that are necessary for the plot.

Like the last campaign when I was playing a LG veteran with PTSD and was told by a much higher level evil character that I would work for him or he would have me killed, so I decided to attack him on the spot as I wasn't going to violate my alignment and I felt that as I was a knight and he was a rogue I would have better chances fighting him directly on my own terms. I was promptly killed and the campaign ended with everyone pissed off.

[Segev]

The reasons I still game with these people are:

1: I really love gaming. I know most people say no gaming is better than bad gaming, but for me it really isn't.
2: I am very shy and introverted, so finding new gamers is really a challenge. And for reason I have really bad luck as every knew player I do find is significantly more crazy than my old group.
3: Most of the time it goes ok. Keep in mind that I only post when something goes wrong, the vast majority of my gaming sessions go by without a hitch, you guys on the forum just don't see them because "Everything's fine, no help needed" doesn't exactly make for an interesting discussion starter.

Glad to hear they usually go okay. I still think you should look for other groups, not to DM for, but to play in.

In the case of this particular player he is normally fine, but he is on anti-depressants and one of the side effects is that he will get periodic flashes of unreasonable anger.

But the underlying hatred of legendary actions is a constant regardless of his mood, and it isn't just him. One constant I have found over many years with many different players in many different groups is that they are likely to pitch a fit if the rules for PCs and NPCs are asymmetrical, or symmetrical in a way that doesn't favor them.

Ugh, psychoactive drugs. Those are always...complicated. Lo siento.

Do they whine and moan if things are too easy? Maybe just try a game where things always go their way, and see how they react. Don't tell them you're doing this. Pit them against foes who are no challenge. Have enemies cower before them. Make their plans go off without a hitch by letting their expected course of events play out. Try to be excited and thrilled about it the whole time. Don't let on that they can't fail.

They may really enjoy it. They may hate it; if they hate it, ask them to analyze why for you. Don't get defensive and tell them that you gave them everything they wanted, not yet. Just nod and agree that you'll try to do that better. And then do try, but never to the point that you actually challenge them.

After this experiment ends, you can see if they actually know what it is they want, or if they're just going to complain no matter what. If they're going to complain no matter what, run it how you wish, and just smile and nod, possibly with an evil grin. They're free to stop playing if they don't like it, after all. Given that they all refuse to DM for the group, and they all keep coming back, they must want to play at least as much as you want to run. So you be the one making them accommodate.

I personally get too deeply into character and often wreck the campaigns rather than take OOC actions that are necessary for the plot.

Like the last campaign when I was playing a LG veteran with PTSD and was told by a much higher level evil character that I would work for him or he would have me killed, so I decided to attack him on the spot as I wasn't going to violate my alignment and I felt that as I was a knight and he was a rogue I would have better chances fighting him directly on my own terms. I was promptly killed and the campaign ended with everyone pissed off.

There's an article somewhere around this site on "choose differently," which encourages finding an excuse why your character would go along with things. That might help your personal proclivities.

Though why did everyone end mad? Why'd the campaign end? Just let the character die, and make a new one who's more in line with where the plot's going.

[Quertus]

Different ways. Mostly just bitching at the GM or standard munchkin / murder hobo stuff.

I personally get too deeply into character and often wreck the campaigns rather than take OOC actions that are necessary for the plot.

Like the last campaign when I was playing a LG veteran with PTSD and was told by a much higher level evil character that I would work for him or he would have me killed, so I decided to attack him on the spot as I wasn't going to violate my alignment and I felt that as I was a knight and he was a rogue I would have better chances fighting him directly on my own terms. I was promptly killed and the campaign ended with everyone pissed off.

There's an article somewhere around this site on "choose differently," which encourages finding an excuse why your character would go along with things. That might help your personal proclivities.

Though why did everyone end mad? Why'd the campaign end? Just let the character die, and make a new one who's more in line with where the plot's going.

Well, of course everyone should have gotten mad - at the GM! They intentionally created a scenario with campaign-ending potential, which, if they'd had a lick of sense, they'd have known what the LG character's response would or could have been. Bad GM!

"Choose differently" cuts both ways. If the GM knows that this NPCs actions will cause the campaign to end - badly, at that - they should just choose differently. Bad GM!

That said, "choose differently" implies knowledge. It's completely reasonable to expect the GM in this scenario to know that ending the game badly was a bad plan. But it is nothing but hubris for anyone to think they will always accurately know what will be good or bad, what will be the most fun for everyone at the table. (EDIT: Incidentally, this one thing Illusionism, fudging, and linear games have in common - they all involve one player with the hubris of thinking that they know what's best for the game)

Further, the game is most fun when you are fully immersed in the character, asking WWQD-style questions. Anything that takes away from that reduces the joy that is pure role-playing. The Playground / internet has a name for that: my guy syndrome.

So, instead, you should reduce your fun, trying to second-guess what everyone else will find fun / trying to avoid things that you know that they won't enjoy.

But that's not enough. No, you've also got to metagame the bloody plot, and guess what will work with the GM's unknown plans? And, if the plot isn't boring and predictable, you're either just setting yourself up for failure, or, arguably worse, forcing a boring and predictable plot on an open game?

Yeah, no. Communicate. Be prepared to retcon. "If you attack the NPC, that's campaign over." "If he gives me that ultimatum, I'll have no choice but to attack him." "Really? You wouldn't <insert whatever stupid thing the GM thought was the only thing your character would ever think to do, and was hinging the campaign on>?" "No, that goes against everything my character stands for." Players and GM suggest alternative actions *for both parties*, and rewind the minimum necessary to have a good path moving forwards.

And, hopefully, the GM learns to never again hinge their campaign on a single course of action, let alone a stupid one.

I find this much better than the "there's no such thing as personality" advice given in "choose differently".

[MrSandman]

I find this much better than the "there's no such thing as personality" advice given in "choose differently".

You do realise that this is a gross misrepresentation of what the advice "choose differently" means, right?

[Quertus]

You do realise that this is a gross misrepresentation of what the advice "choose differently" means, right?

Depends on who is giving it.

My read of the article by the Giant (which was what was being referenced) was a big middle finger to role-playing and character personality.

Or, at least, that's my senile recollection. I reserve the right to be wrong.