Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)

[Talakeal]

This sounds like a case where the players really have no idea what to expect from any of their actions and are just blindly making random declarations and hoping you let them know what to do.

I really don't get this Talakeal, You say neither you nor your players had fun, which you recognize as a problem. But, at the same time, you don't see you doing anything wrong, even when pointed out to you.

Ok, so the situation is my players did something really weird and random which they regret doing.

I personally think it was because I put the one socially awkward player on the spot, he came up with a stupid plan on the fly, and then everyone was too proud to back down or just didn't want to speak out because they thought it would upset me or their fellow players.

I don't think it was because of any of the perfectly innocuous campaign design decisions and house rules that people are pointing out in this thread; but that is pretty common on forums. Something weird happens, forum people try and find an explanation, and up picking apart every little facet of the campaign even when they are completely unrelated, and the OP gets defensive, it is a cycle I have seen (and participated in) many times before.

I think I did three things wrong:

1: Not stopping the game and waiting for everyone to calm down when the player became frustrated at his failure to use social skills.
2: Not having a longer session 0 where I try and get the players to clearly come up with and discuss motivations for their characters and the party as a whole.
3: Valuing world consistency and verisimilitude over fun in the moment.

Although for the case of number three that is less of a mistake and more of a DMing style; and I personally believe in the long run letting the players know that their decisions actually have weight rather than me simply giving them the illusion of choice will eventually make the game more fun for everyone; but I know there are many other schools of DMing that will disagree.

As far as I understand the situation, the players don't want to kill the trolls becasue of their lack of utility, but because of the horrible acts they committed

I agree, but the trolls never changed character, they were committing horrible acts in the first place, which is why the PCs were sent out to kill them to begin with.

It just seems really weird that the players chose to help the trolls commit said horrible acts and now they want to go back and kill them like they planned to do in the first place.

Yes, chose, the players could have actively worked to subvert the trolls or even just left, the spell that stops the PCs from attacking the trolls works both ways, and would have protected the PCs from the troll's attacks if they had just decided to support the dragonborn or smuggle the children out of their village while the warriors defended it.

I can't think of any situations where I would like to be mind controlled, I can think of several where I would rather die than being mind controlled.

That really depends on the character and the situation.

I have had characters who would refuse mind control on principal, but there are legitimate tactical reasons to accept being put under mind control.

For example, I imagine in real life if you could come up with a method to mind control people into giving up smoking (or any other harmful addiction) people would voluntarily sign up for it by the bus load.

But again, this wasn't mind control. It was conditional psychic damage.

(emphasis mine) Well, yeah, that's pretty much how I act whenever i face a monster with class levels, specially one that can cast spells as incredible as a modifed version of Geass.

That's pretty odd. Monsters with class levels are a pretty standard feature of the game. They also exist for the sake of customization rather than power, a troll with caster levels is actually weaker than simply putting in one of the plethora of monsters that has innate spell casting.

For the record, the troll in question was no stronger a spell caster than the party sorceress, and the modified geas was actually weaker than a standard geas (psychic damage rather than forbiddance) which she would not have been able to cast.

[Quertus]

Ah, I thought you had said something about new job, moving, new players. I guess I was having issues with my senility.

So, were either of your veteran players involved in your previous quit-worthy event?

[Talakeal]

Ah, I thought you had said something about new job, moving, new players. I guess I was having issues with my senility.

So, were either of your veteran players involved in your previous quit-worthy event?

I did you are correct. I recently moved from the middle of nowhere back to the big city where I know people.

They were at the table but they were not directly involved, they neither made the decision to slaughter civilians nor did they quit brcause of it.

[Cluedrew]

I am not calling anyone a psychopath.

I said that IF someone thinks that it is fun to spend an evening fantasizing about slaughtering non-combatants they have some serious issues.

What a weird thing to say. That's just, like, your opinion, man.

I mean, maybe the issue is not "is a psychopath", but I think that is an issue of some kind. Best case I can think of is they are horrible people without combat training and one needs to vent internally. I hope the final solution after the venting its a bit more... refined.

[Florian]

My first assumption would actually be that they're waiting for input/the plot. Similiar to playing a video game and having no clue, you start with the diplomacy option, then go for the puzzle/quest option and then you kill them and take their stuff, because you don't know what else to do.

[Koo Rehtorb]

I mean, maybe the issue is not "is a psychopath", but I think that is an issue of some kind. Best case I can think of is they are horrible people without combat training and one needs to vent internally. I hope the final solution after the venting its a bit more... refined.

Or alternatively... the point of roleplaying is to explore being people who aren't you that do things you would never do, for good or for ill. Frankly, if we're pointing fingers at people, the "self insert power fantasy" type players creep me out way more.

[Cluedrew]

To Koo Rehtorb: I mean I have done that, but if you listen really closely* I switch from "I" to "[character name]" when that sort of stuff happens. I don't like the idea of me doing it. And Ammanda is one of my favourite characters, but I don't want to be her. And the really dark characters it is to set up something later. And I don't role-play them, but I write stories about them.

For power-fantasy characters, I would say it has more to do with what they do with that power. Being the big hero is a bit shallow, but not a problem. The worst I have seen was more of an issue in terms of group dynamics than any moral problems. On the other hand I have read gamer tale threads, it goes much further down.

* In some hypothetical situation where we are gaming at the same table.

[Talakeal]

Or alternatively... the point of roleplaying is to explore being people who aren't you that do things you would never do, for good or for ill. Frankly, if we're pointing fingers at people, the "self insert power fantasy" type players creep me out way more.

And I see nothing wrong with exploring dark themes, I do it all the time.

What I am taking exception to is the idea that doing so is "fun,".

Its the difference between saying "Schindler's List is one of the greatest movies ever made, and I think everyone should see it at least once." vs. "Schindler's list is a really fun movie, I think you will really have a blast watching it!"

And now that I have Godwinned my own thread, I really wish we could drop this line of discussion before we derail the thread any further or get it into locking territory. Maybe we should pick up this conversation the next time someone brings up FATAL and the people who play it?



Edit: Although, having thought about the issue a little more, I suppose there is a place for dark humor that is funny because it is treating something horrific as comical, and I guess that qualifies as "having a fun time imagining atrocities," but I think that I personally take RPGs a little too seriously to ever get that kind of enjoyment out of one.

[Cluedrew]

OK, back to the main topic then.

I think one of the issues is everyone is playing on a reaction loop. This goes into GM-driven vs. PC-driven games (despite some disagreements, I maintain both exist). GM-driven games the main plot is created by existing elements in the setting and active threats. Quest givers and plot hooks get the PCs involved. PC-/player-driven games the main plot is created by the PCs individual motivations. The world is more static and they go out and try to impose their will on it.

But with neither of these things happening, no side is really aiming for anything, so no one else has anything to react to and we end up with meaningless little movements that people don't care enough to think through and then things get out of hand and... yeah. I don't have any major tips for fixing it, besides the high level view of a conversation about "what do you want to do in this campaign".

[Koo Rehtorb]

And I see nothing wrong with exploring dark themes, I do it all the time.

What I am taking exception to is the idea that doing so is "fun,".

So... it's okay to play bad people, so long as you don't have fun doing it?

[zinycor]

So... it's okay to play bad people, so long as you don't have fun doing it?

Talakeal seems to have very weird values. Personally I have had a lot of fun playing absolute monsters, I have also been the GM to players who play their characters as absolute and irredeemable *******s and laugh about it.

That is all good and well, because I play with adults who understand that we are playing a game, and our characters don't reflect anything on us.

But apparently there are people who aren't as mature.

[Talakeal]

I am sorry I offended you guys. I never meant to thought police or armchair psychoanalyze anyone.

Now could we please just quit with the name calling and drop it?

Edit: Also, let me state that this has nothing to do with morality. There is absolutely nothing that you can think or imagine that is "wrong." The things that people imagine might be strange or say something about them as a person, but until they cross over into actions they cannot be immoral or wrong.

[zinycor]

That is pretty much the definition of sadism, yes.

"A sadist is someone who enjoys inflicting pain on others, sometimes in a sexual sense. Sadists like seeing other people hurt. A sadist is the opposite of a masochist, who enjoys being in pain. A sadist is all about hurting others, usually to get off sexually. However, this word is about more than sex."

At no point refers to the concepts of game, fun or role-playing. Not to mention that someone who plays a sadist on a role-playing game isn't inflicting pain to any person, just NPCs.

I am sorry I offended you guys. I never meant to thought police or armchair psychoanalyze anyone.

Now could we please just quit with the name calling and drop it?

You are the one who started the name calling, but ok.

[Cluedrew]

I think there is a good conversation there, but I don't think this is the place for it. In any case I would like to bring attention back to my previous post, where I covered a theory about why this might be happening:

I think one of the issues is everyone is playing on a reaction loop. This goes into GM-driven vs. PC-driven games (despite some disagreements, I maintain both exist). GM-driven games the main plot is created by existing elements in the setting and active threats. Quest givers and plot hooks get the PCs involved. PC-/player-driven games the main plot is created by the PCs individual motivations. The world is more static and they go out and try to impose their will on it.

But with neither of these things happening, no side is really aiming for anything, so no one else has anything to react to and we end up with meaningless little movements that people don't care enough to think through and then things get out of hand and... yeah. I don't have any major tips for fixing it, besides the high level view of a conversation about "what do you want to do in this campaign".

Does that seem right Talakeal?

[Talakeal]

I think there is a good conversation there, but I don't think this is the place for it. In any case I would like to bring attention back to my previous post, where I covered a theory about why this might be happening:



Does that seem right Talakeal?

Pretty much yeah.

[Talakeal]

So, game update:

We had another session and it went ok, but the PCs didn't really have a direction. They got to a humanoid village and simply couldn't decide if they wanted to approach it to trade, raid it, ignore it, or come in offering to be heroes. So they just kind of wandered around until I shoved a metaphorical hook down their throats and then we had a fairly standard session.

Still planning on having an in depth and much delayed session zero before we play again tomorrow.


Unfortunately, there appears to be some drama not directly related to the game. One of the players thinks one of the other players is hitting on during the gaming sessions and we may have to kick him from the group.

"A sadist is someone who enjoys inflicting pain on others, sometimes in a sexual sense. Sadists like seeing other people hurt. A sadist is the opposite of a masochist, who enjoys being in pain. A sadist is all about hurting others, usually to get off sexually. However, this word is about more than sex."

At no point refers to the concepts of game, fun or role-playing. Not to mention that someone who plays a sadist on a role-playing game isn't inflicting pain to any person, just NPCs.



You are the one who started the name calling, but ok.

I was responding to Koo's point about how it is "only wrong if you have fun," and I was pointing out that sadism is about enjoying inflicting pain, not the act of inflicting pain itself. But yes, I agree that it doesn't say anything about pretending, and and as I pointed out, I never said anything about wrong, and I decided that I wanted to just let the subject die, so I deleted the post. Very quick quoting on your part!


I never called anyone a name, I just said what my players were not. But yes, I posted it in a flippant manner and for that I apologize sincerely. In retrospect I see how one could easily infer that I was calling them a name, indeed I would have edited it out pretty soon after posting except I was spending Christmas with my family and they kept telling me to put my tablet away. So yes, I am sorry that I offended you.

[zinycor]

It's ok, things like tone get lost on writing, so casual remarks get taken seriously.

As for your table, maybe just focus on simpler adventures, and try to bend some rules of your world to benefit your players. At least until you and they feel like they are ready for a more hardcore experience.

[Talakeal]

We had another session, it went pretty well, standard dungeon crawl, kill the monsters loot the treasure, no **** ups or screw jobs.

Then we had a "session 0.5" after the game and came to the following conclusions:

Two of the 5 players changed their alignments from good to neutral (of the other three two were already neutral).

They decided they did want to defend their city, if not its current leadership, and were strongly loyal to their family*. They would be on the lookout for potential allies in the future and would be honoring their deal with the trolls for now, although they are going to try and find a way to break the Geas and channel the trolls into something more positive.

They think that what happened with the trolls is that there were a bunch of little misunderstandings or misrememberings on their part so that by the time they fully understood what was happening it was too late. When the one player said "lizard men" most of the other players honestly thought he was talking about some other dungeon that they had simply forgotten about.

They feel bad about killing children, although there was some debate about what constituted a child (probably a separate thread in that).



The sorcrerer player has dropped rebuilding her as super min-maxxed (for now), however he no longer wants to be a support character and is going to be a full blaster from now on, and says that the party is entitled to an NPC buff bot as it is an essential role for party balance but nobody wants to actually play one. Which is a more crunchy topic and I think worthy of a separate thread.

[zinycor]

We had another session, it went pretty well, standard dungeon crawl, kill the monsters loot the treasure, no **** ups or screw jobs.

Then we had a "session 0.5" after the game and came to the following conclusions:

Two of the 5 players changed their alignments from good to neutral (of the other three two were already neutral).

They decided they did want to defend their city, if not its current leadership, and were strongly loyal to their family*. They would be on the lookout for potential allies in the future and would be honoring their deal with the trolls for now, although they are going to try and find a way to break the Geas and channel the trolls into something more positive.

They think that what happened with the trolls is that there were a bunch of little misunderstandings or misrememberings on their part so that by the time they fully understood what was happening it was too late. When the one player said "lizard men" most of the other players honestly thought he was talking about some other dungeon that they had simply forgotten about.

They feel bad about killing children, although there was some debate about what constituted a child (probably a separate thread in that).

Glad to hear about that

The sorcrerer player has dropped rebuilding her as super min-maxxed (for now), however he no longer wants to be a support character and is going to be a full blaster from now on, and says that the party is entitled to an NPC buff bot as it is an essential role for party balance but nobody wants to actually play one. Which is a more crunchy topic and I think worthy of a separate thread.

What made the sorcerer desist on his min maxxed character? If you don't adress the problem, it will eventually come back. You earlier mentioned that his character has feats not related to magic casting that he would like to change to ones that are absolutely about spell casting. Which I find perfectly reasonable.

[Talakeal]

You earlier mentioned that his character has feats not related to magic casting that he would like to change to ones that are absolutely about spell casting. Which I find perfectly reasonable.

It might be if the rest of the group were similarly min-maxxed.

Everyone else has a well rounded character, honestly a little too well rounded.

Having one guy who is going balls to the wall in one direction tends to create an unbalanced party, and in this case it is even worse because the rest of the group is going to have to pick up slack in areas where he can no longer shine. For example, he had most of the parties knowledge skills, and if he drops them that means someone else is going to have to pick up his slack in that area or the entire group will suffer.

[zinycor]

It might be if the rest of the group were similarly min-maxxed.

Everyone else has a well rounded character, honestly a little too well rounded.

Having one guy who is going balls to the wall in one direction tends to create an unbalanced party, and in this case it is even worse because the rest of the group is going to have to pick up slack in areas where he can no longer shine. For example, he had most of the parties knowledge skills, and if he drops them that means someone else is going to have to pick up his slack in that area or the entire group will suffer.

You didn't answer the quote. I asked specifically about the feats

[Talakeal]

You didn't answer the quote. I asked specifically about the feats

I don't see the difference. The principal is more or less the same.

Basically, he is trying to rework his character so that he doesn't have to worry about anything but being a pure optimized blaster who can trivially solve any problem that can be solved with direct damage magic and contribute nothing if it can't.

Currently he has stopped arguing about changing his stats (although I do agree it will probably just be a matter of time) and is trying to convince me to let him have an NPC bard buff-bot join the party so that he can drop all of his spells that don't contribute to direct damage.

[zinycor]

I don't see the difference. The principal is more or less the same.

Basically, he is trying to rework his character so that he doesn't have to worry about anything but being a pure optimized blaster who can trivially solve any problem that can be solved with direct damage magic and contribute nothing if it can't.

Currently he has stopped arguing about changing his stats (although I do agree it will probably just be a matter of time) and is trying to convince me to let him have an NPC bard buff-bot join the party so that he can drop all of his spells that don't contribute to direct damage.

I believe you are being too strict when it comes to feats. If your system is anything like 5e or 3.5 this shouldn't be such a big deal as you are making it out to be. You even said that the other members of the party are a little too well rounded, so a little unbalance (Such as a caster, focusing his feats on casting) would be absolutely ok.

[Talakeal]

I believe you are being too strict when it comes to feats. If your system is anything like 5e or 3.5 this shouldn't be such a big deal as you are making it out to be. You even said that the other members of the party are a little too well rounded, so a little unbalance (Such as a caster, focusing his feats on casting) would be absolutely ok.

Not sure I am being too strict about anything as he hasn't actually made any serious requests. I told him it would be ok for him to change his character, to which he proposed a min-maxxed monstrosity where everything that aided his ability to cast blasting spells was maxxed out and every other aspect of the character was stripped away and I told him to please be a little bit more realistic, at which point he just bitched.


In my experience RPGs are pretty crappy with hyper focused characters, and the rest of the group being unfocused will make the problem worse. The rest of the party will have to become even less focused to pick up his slack and will thus feel even more useless in combat. And, if they come up against something which is immune or resistant to his spells (or something that just takes him out on the first round as he is getting rid of most of his defenses) the rest of the party will be ill equipped to deal with it.

[zinycor]

Not sure I am being too strict about anything as he hasn't actually made any serious requests. I told him it would be ok for him to change his character, to which he proposed a min-maxxed monstrosity where everything that aided his ability to cast blasting spells was maxxed out and every other aspect of the character was stripped away and I told him to please be a little bit more realistic, at which point he just bitched.

He also wants to trade out any skills and feats that aren't directly relating to spellcasting.

Every character making takes a little back and fort, There is nothing out of the ordinary here. Btw am not saying you should allows him to have cha 20 and dex 3 if that is his wish. BUT picking whatever feats and skills your character should have is more than a perfectly reasonable request.

In my experience RPGs are pretty crappy with hyper focused characters, and the rest of the group being unfocused will make the problem worse. The rest of the party will have to become even less focused to pick up his slack and will thus feel even more useless in combat. And, if they come up against something which is immune or resistant to his spells (or something that just takes him out on the first round as he is getting rid of most of his defenses) the rest of the party will be ill equipped to deal with it.

Absolutely not my experience. In my experience players adapt very easily to these sort of "problems". And again, Am not talking about big changes, Just allow the guy to pick his feats a skills withing the rules of the game. To me, that doesn't seem such an awful thing.

[noob]

Not sure I am being too strict about anything as he hasn't actually made any serious requests. I told him it would be ok for him to change his character, to which he proposed a min-maxxed monstrosity where everything that aided his ability to cast blasting spells was maxxed out and every other aspect of the character was stripped away and I told him to please be a little bit more realistic, at which point he just bitched.


In my experience RPGs are pretty crappy with hyper focused characters, and the rest of the group being unfocused will make the problem worse. The rest of the party will have to become even less focused to pick up his slack and will thus feel even more useless in combat. And, if they come up against something which is immune or resistant to his spells (or something that just takes him out on the first round as he is getting rid of most of his defenses) the rest of the party will be ill equipped to deal with it.

The thing is that sorcerers while being able to do stuff other than blasting feels inadequate when you try to push then into noncombat roles when compared to wizards or clerics(so much less polyvalence unless you reach very high optimisation such as spellbook sorcerer or sorcerers with at will psychic reformation or yet other broken stuff like that) but when you do not compare them to other casters they are already setting breaking if going toward polyvalence.
So by deciding to play a sorcerer he was already deciding to restrain itself and become less good at everything but battle (where a sorcerer is on par with a wizard at low level of optimisation and at mid levels wizard is better and at stupidly high levels of optimization both classes gets all the spells at will).

If you get to try to convince the sorcerer to be polyvalent it will make it even more annoying and op: that player is min minimizing and not min maxing as you think he is: right now he probably is intentionally making a weak character to not break the whole setting with shenanigans.
If you tell that player to be more polyvalent it might switch to wizard or cleric or use any of the methods for getting tons of spell access at once as a sorcerer then be setting breaking as hell.

[zinycor]

btw, Realistic? really? is that the word you went with? Cause reality has all kinds of people, so it would absolutely be realistic for him to be dex1, str1, cha20 if he wanted.

[Florian]

@zinycor:

It was already mentioned that all character were build and outfitted along the same parameters. It doesn't really matter what the sorcerer player wants. When that was the basic deal for the whole group, it´s either playing along or quit the game. The thing with wanting a free bard, nearly demanding it, practically shows were all of this is leading to.

[Talakeal]

btw, Realistic? really? is that the word you went with? Cause reality has all kinds of people, so it would absolutely be realistic for him to be dex1, str1, cha20 if he wanted.

I meant realistic as in "a realistic offer", I could have said "reasonable" or just "get real" instead.

I am fully willing to negotiate, he just started out asking for the moon.

Also, I don't think it is "realistic" to have someone with all 18s and 3s. Even someone like Stephan Hawking wouldn't be that extreme.

Every character making takes a little back and fort, There is nothing out of the ordinary here. Btw am not saying you should allows him to have cha 20 and dex 3 if that is his wish. BUT picking whatever feats and skills your character should have is more than a perfectly reasonable request.

Absolutely not my experience. In my experience players adapt very easily to these sort of "problems". And again, Am not talking about big changes, Just allow the guy to pick his feats a skills withing the rules of the game. To me, that doesn't seem such an awful thing.

He already did pick his feats and skills within the rules of the game, now he wants to change them, which is not within the rules of the game, and which I already said he could if he was going to be reasonable about it.

And honestly, I wouldn't have a problem with any of it, except that he is now leaving the rest of the party in the lurch. They created their characters as a group with every person dividing up their responsibilities and roles to cover all of their bases and work as a unit that is stronger than the sum of its parts. By deciding that he is going to hyper-specialize everyone else will either have to further spread out their characters to cover their bases or be completely unable to deal with certain situations.

[zinycor]

I meant realistic as in "a realistic offer", I could have said "reasonable" or just "get real" instead.

I am fully willing to negotiate, he just started out asking for the moon.

Also, I don't think it is "realistic" to have someone with all 18s and 3s. Even someone like Stephan Hawking wouldn't be that extreme.

Abosultely fits stephen hawking, you kidding me?

He already did pick his feats and skills within the rules of the game, now he wants to change them, which is not within the rules of the game, and which I already said he could if he was going to be reasonable about it.

And honestly, I wouldn't have a problem with any of it, except that he is now leaving the rest of the party in the lurch. They created their characters as a group with every person dividing up their responsibilities and roles to cover all of their bases and work as a unit that is stronger than the sum of its parts. By deciding that he is going to hyper-specialize everyone else will either have to further spread out their characters to cover their bases or be completely unable to deal with certain situations.

What is this "reasonable about it" you are talking about?
And if this such a bad deal for the group, kick him out. But I really don't see why it should be, Every party has weaknesess, that isn't so bad. If the players are willing to deal with that, then that's not a problem. If the players are not okay with that, kick this guy out.