Spoilers for those who have never played below:
I decided to run Carnival of Tears in between Book 2 and Book 3 of Kingmaker. We started it a couple weeks ago and picked it up Saturday. Usually I run a Halloween game, not Pathfinder but since we had to cancel our usual Tuesday game due to scheduling, everyone was on board for continuing Carnival of Tears for Halloween, since it is creepy enough.
We picked up Saturday right as all the fey began their carnage.
I warned the players, this will be deadly and can have significant impact on your kingdom. They still stood around arguing (or making fun of the dead) and took hours in game before the Cold Rider (who is working for Nyrissa) finally comes out to challenge them. I had to pull my punches with a couple of the combats because they were so unorganized. When I do the math and add up all the deaths, it is over 700. Most of my key NPC's, which the players use in some of the kingdom building slots, would be killed as well.
I am at a loss for how to continue. I don't want to tank their kingdom, but I did give them fair warning. Also, this is not the only time they have not cared what happened to their "subjects." When the owlbear came through at the end of book 2, they came back into town and laughed and made fun of the towns folk. They show a complete disregard for their people. One of the players uses the excuse that it is his character (a haughty elf who thinks all other races are inferior.)
I am very frustrated with the players at this point. After the owl bear attack and their response I talked to them and expressed my concern for their actions. I do not expect them to play out of character, but I think they use that as an excuse for bad behavior. In fact, I don't think they are playing in character. They are playing as themselves. And while I think they are having fun, I am not certain I am. I am to the point of becoming the GM I never wanted to be, one that is out to beat them, if for no other reason than to teach them a lesson. And that is not a cool GM (in my opinion, no offense to those who are.)
So my question is how to move forward?
Tough situation. I would have said "talk to them", but since you did and this behavior continues it sounds as if they don't have the maturity or empathy to deal responsibly with your concerns. It's nice that they're having fun, but you also need to be enjoying yourself and that's not going to happen if they continue to make light of your efforts and concerns.
In game, this situation would cause massive unrest; which would only be increased by the rulers' seeming joviality and disregard for the common folk. In real life that'd likely lead to a revolt. I'd consider having that happen in game with the goal of changing things up to the "kingdom in the background" alternative. If the PCs aren't fit to rule then remove that aspect of the campaign and move along. You can have the people throw their popular support behind some NPC leaders who keep the PCs on as retainers to deal with the adventuring aspects of the game. If the PCs balk at the idea and want to oppose the new leaders tell them, rightly so, that it'll likely end with the complete dissolution into anarchy of the kingdom.
It might not be a great solution, but I don't see many option beyond "take a break from GMing".
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Play out the implications of their actions.
You don't have to be cruel or kind, just straightforward.
So, what are the implications?
1. Alignment change, if you can sit around cracking jokes when 700 people you are responsible for have just died then you are a stone-cold psycopath and that means you are evil.
2. Popular revolt, these are not leaders of an established nation who can fall back upon organisational structures, at this stage they lead by force of personality and force of arms. Your characters are not high enough level to ignore a big bunch of commoners, especially not fleshed out with trappers (rangers), travelling priests (clerics) etc. etc.
I like Ambrus' idea of easing them into a kingdom-in-the-background situation but I still wouldn't ignore the implications of their behaviour for the character's alignment.
I like both of your suggestions. I will shift their alignments (which will really only hurt the Paladin.) I will let them know that their people have ousted them, and that if they wish they can work for the new regimen; otherwise we will have to switch to a new AP. And my personality type HATES to leave a path unfinished!!
I cannot take a break from the GM chair though. The only other player who would be willing to GM wants to run a home brew Star Wars, where he has changed the history of the Jedi. The other players have come to me said "no way."
I do accept that part of this is on me, as GM I need to perhaps lower my expectations. However, I think Geraint hit the nail on the head, their maturity as players is lacking, and I think Kingmaker requires more seasoned players. They are all close to 30 (with the exception of one of the player's son, whom I give a lot of latitude since he is a boy.) They just have not really played before in a long running campaign. I am just stymied as to how to bring them along without a baseball bat! :)
|
....(which will really only hurt the Paladin.) .....
You REALLY have a big problem if one of the characters is a paladin that was laughing at the population being decimated.
I think that the only way is to show them that their actions have consequences.
Beside ousting them you can make them persona non grata in Restov. The Sword Lords have invested a lot of money in them and they have squandered them. The new kingdom will probably not be so well-disposed toward the lords that selected a bunch of psychopaths as their rulers.
I would have people in the new kingdom threat them coldly, always asking full price for everything up front and never giving them any slack for a long, long time.
Well, as an update. I sent out an email to everyone letting them know the status of their kingdom and the issues. And that we would discuss how (or if) we would move forward in Kingmaker. I let them know it wasn't punishment, simply playing the game without pulling punches. One person has canceled and will not respond to any queries. And another one is being quite shirty in his replies.
So, all in all, I would have to say they are unhappy with me at this time.
I would say, considering all the times I do pull my punches and let them do whatever (which is probably part of the problem) I am aggravated at the response.
Time will tell though!
Thank you everyone again for your input and help. It was a tough decision and I obviously needed some perspective.
Thanks again!!
|
This happened (sort of) IMC, with one-third of their population dying as a result of the Carnival. One of the PCs died during the course of the battles, and in death he made a deal with an unknown spirit to return the slain townspeople to life and in exchange, this spirit would come to collect on its debt in ten years.
It may look like a hack GM job of glossing over, but making deals with the King in Yellow doesn't lead to better outcomes. This will come back to haunt them big time as it's almost halfway in game time until the deadline.
Sometimes players will be unhappy with whatever you do. Some like to argue and some people are there just to do whatever they want because they think it's fun and because since they are the heroes they should always be right and win. A lot of the time those people don't understand the concept that as a GM it's not always about catering to the players. Actions have consequences and stupid things lead to harsh results. If they don't like it then they should find another table to play at, it is your game after all and you're taking the time to prepare and run everything.
Close to 30, and they act like this? Good lord, my group (and I) are all in our late 20's to early 30's, and this would never happen unless the characters being played were evil.
I'm getting the feel from your posts that the players were the ones joking about the dead, and the characters were just very unsuccessful in the saving of the town. If that is so, an alignment change might not be in order.
If that's not the case, then you have two possible outcomes:
A: Your players are great role-players trying to portray some sort of "descent into madness" or something. However, your later comments about them canceling and not returning communications or just being squirrely about it indicates this just isn't possible.
B: Your players are bad role-players. Some might say terrible. I, personally, would refer to it as "Sorry guys, our playstyles just don't match, hope you find a DM better suited to your needs, and if you wrote down my address and phone number on anything, please burn it" level bad.
Is this sort of behavior normal for them? Do they often laugh at say, war documentaries? I expect laughter at things like, say, Zombieland. But I would be quite worried if I heard a trio of men laughing heartily throughout Schindler's List.
Especially the one with a son. If this behavior is normal for him, you may need to keep an eye on it for the sake of the kid. If not for that, I'd say drop these guys as a gaming group. Find an online game or such, there is no reason to game with bad gamers, and no reason to associate with bad associates.
My wife works for Child Welfare, so maybe its just the ruboff, but even without the kid in the mix, I wouldn't let those players back to my table after that, if it played out like I'm imagining. Hopefully I'm imagining wrong, and they are nice normal folks playing a game (badly) to have a good time. Hopefully.
Hopefully.
I laughed when I read option A, because no, no they are not that clever! So I must pick option B sadly.
The one with the son is certainly shows moral apathy, in all the games we play. He is a friend, and not a bad guy. I do appreciate your advice and cautious, I will keep an eye on it.
At times I wish I could kick them all out! But 2 are friends and that would just be bad.
I am going to try standing firm on my decision; it will be in their court how they wish to respond/react. As much as I love gaming in person, life is too short to be this frustrated when I can game with folks over Skype.
I laughed when I read option A, because no, no they are not that clever! So I must pick option B sadly.
The one with the son is certainly shows moral apathy, in all the games we play. He is a friend, and not a bad guy. I do appreciate your advice and cautious, I will keep an eye on it.
At times I wish I could kick them all out! But 2 are friends and that would just be bad.
I am going to try standing firm on my decision; it will be in their court how they wish to respond/react. As much as I love gaming in person, life is too short to be this frustrated when I can game with folks over Skype.
You don't have to lose friendships over it, well if they were actually good friends anyway. You basically could say that you take the game more seriously then they do, and the way they have been playing as of late is borderline insulting and taking the fun out of the game for you. Explain that you work hard preparing the campaign and what they were doing was more or less mocking your hard work. Now if they can't see past the game and remain friends with you, then I really have to question the quality of them as friends at all.