The group I am DM'ing for is all evil. I run my own made up adventures. The group is working for a Duke (Cleric of Hextor) trying to take over an entire island to be King. One of my players is always doing something to tick this guy off (like mouthing off, declining assignments, etc). He actually stole some platinum pieces from him, an evil Duke on a campaign to be King! Then, when the Duke killed him (via one flame stike, LOL), he got mad and said said that I am just trying to be an A'Hole. Any advice to how I can handle situations like this where a player thinks the his character can just run around and jack up my world that I spent countless hours making up, then gets mad about his character death, etc?
Keep in mind that although you spend time working on your campaign setting and adventures, you are not running the game for your own enjoyment only.
You are running the game for your players.
They want to have fun, whether they are heroes or villains.
If you accept them to play evil characters, take responsability for it, don't repproach them to act accordingly.
As much they should take responsability for their actions, if not as characters at least as players.
Although it can be fun to play an evil character, it is not as easier as people often think. Although evil characters might not take any responsability for their evil deeds, the players should understand that there might be some retribution. Forces of good or law might stand against them. Paladins, rangers or bounty hunters might be on their trail.
|
Having fun is one thing, but having a PC treat a powerful and obviously high level megalomaniac like some type of idiot is just bad gameplay. Worse gameplay would be a DM who allowed that type of figurehead to be made into a laughingstock. There are consequences to PC actions. If you act like an idiot you are probably gonna have something bad happen. Mouthing off to a noble in RL medieval times usually earned you death. Why shouldn't it in D&D? Evil doesn't equal stupid.
All evil groups are tough. I was in one once. Some were team players, some just used the opportunity to be even more of a d*** than he normally was. Sounds similar to your guy.
Rule #1 with an evil group: Focus on what binds them together. When players play an evil group, they don't want to be thugs but masterminds of greater evil. What is those greater evils and how does one person's greater evil work towards someone else's? If anything an evil game is much more character driven than a good game.
"Evil will always triumph, ... because good is dumb." - Dark Helmit. Good groups are willing to react to events. Evil groups want to make the events that good groups must react to. I think you need to have a sit down talk with your players and build a campaign specifickly around what they want to accomplish with their characters.
The best evil group I have ever seen portrayed is (oddly enough) Order of the Stick. In this one, Red Cloak reveals that allying with Xykon was a great boon to goblin-kind, but they are not on the same side. But they're working together because getting power from the Snarl helps both Xykon and Red Cloak achieve their goals. This might not be a bad model.
|
|
If you didn't have the Duke attack him I would think less of the world design. It would have a feel of fakeness because the PCs can get away with stuff that they shouldn't be able to by any line of rational reasoning and that removes some of the immersion quality.
One slight change I might offer....Next time the flame strike knocks the dude to -7 or so HP. That is a nice little warning not to frig around with the BBEBossman.
Then, when the Duke killed him (via one flame stike, LOL), he got mad and said said that I am just trying to be an A'Hole.
"I was trying to be an a-hole, but you are the one that succeeded."
The group I am DM'ing for is all evil.
This told me everything I need to know. For some reason, any time a party gets the green light to play evil characters, they think it means they can run around like psychopathic retards and get away with it. Yeah, no. I have no idea where the players get these ideas, as I highly doubt the DM runs the actual evil NPCs of the world in the same way that these players want to run their evil PCs. I know I don't. The one being an a-hole is the player. Unfortunately, I wouldn't expect the situation to improve, given personal past experience. I'm not opposed to running an evil campaign, but I would expect the players to put the same level of effort into character development, into making their decisions within the game world, and into working cohesively together as they would with every other character.
Thanks for the feedback. The PC's eventually plan to rise in power in this same army when they get a high enough level. The other players get a little upset with the "dumb" one. The tell him to wait just a little longer and they will be able to overthrow the leader etc. Its kind of funny. More than likely they will talk the ninja into assassinating him. He finds it fun to sneak up on people while they are sleeping and coup de grace them. He even talked about doing it to the "dumb" one because the group gets mad about him messing up their plans, etc. Then the player gets mad because the are plotting against him. Its actually quite humorous.
The Duke: While I take my army west to attack Delmarth, you must secure the bridge to Dashon...
"Dumb" player: Screw you (insert random insult here).
Other players: Dude, come on. Couple more missions and we will level and get some gold to buy some items and stuff. Then we can bounce or thy to overthrow him or something.
Then got mad when the Duke killed him for stealing from him! The rest of the party is actually tryin to get in good with him until they decide to make their move. Diplomacy on the other officers, doing good on their missions, etc.
Thanks for the feedback. The PC's eventually plan to rise in power in this same army when they get a high enough level.
So what's the "dumb" one's goal? He sounds like he just wants to cause trouble and kill things. Try letting him do that or something.
If you didn't have the Duke attack him I would think less of the world design. It would have a feel of fakeness because the PCs can get away with stuff that they shouldn't be able to by any line of rational reasoning and that removes some of the immersion quality.
One slight change I might offer....Next time the flame strike knocks the dude to -7 or so HP. That is a nice little warning not to frig around with the BBEBossman.
Yeah, it I ended up doing that cuz during the damage rolling he was throwing a fit. He has a sorcerer (low HP) and saw me rolling a handfull of d6's. So, it just brought him to -HP. Then he got healed. The rest of the party was uber mad cuz they got hit with the flame strike too. LOL. They passed the save tho.
Yes I am a little too nice of a DM. But anywho, I dont think this campaign will last much longer. The players are going to end up killing the "dumb" one (thats really what they call him) or he is going to get himself killed. Then, he will get mad and blah. So, hopefully everything will work out.
Evil campaign and he just got them hit with a flamestrike. Yeah, he's gonna be lucky if all they do to him is kill him :)
Who the hell healed him? I would have figured they would have let him bleed to death. "You challenge the master, serves you right." Later when they kill the Duke, "Remember when you hit us with that spell as you killed suicide sorcerer, well you shouldn't have done that."
|
The Duke: While I take my army west to attack Delmarth, you must secure the bridge to Dashon...
"Dumb" player: Screw you (insert random insult here).
Other players: Dude, come on. Couple more missions and we will level and get some gold to buy some items and stuff. Then we can bounce or try to overthrow him or something.
I seriously hope that conversation didn't take place, as written.
The other PCs didn't blurt out 'Hey, play nice, and we can kill this guy later...' in front of that very same NPC?
Because, if they did, then they'd better roll initiative and prepare for a potential TPK.
Any advice to how I can handle situations like this where a player thinks the his character can just run around and jack up my world that I spent countless hours making up, then gets mad about his character death, etc?
Keep killing the offending PCs until the player gets a clue.
Seriously, you are under no obligation to treat him with kid gloves just because he can't figure out how not to piss off the guy with substantial political and personal/divine power resources. It's good the other players understand the situation. They'll be your biggest help in both calming the over-reacting player and in trying to keep him in line.
By the way, you're not being an a-hole until you get up on the tabletop to do the dance of triumph to celebrate screwing the players over. Then, the charge can stick.
I appreciate all of your replies and help to this situation. I guess I just need to get rid of the DM guilt. However, the way things are going, it won't be long until the ninja waits till he's asleep and coup de grace's his behind. Yeah, he actually told the sorcerer to sleep with one eye open.
I appreciate all of your replies and help to this situation. I guess I just need to get rid of the DM guilt. However, the way things are going, it won't be long until the ninja waits till he's asleep and coup de grace's his behind. Yeah, he actually told the sorcerer to sleep with one eye open.
That is what familiars are for. :D