So here is the situation.
I am the DM and we just started the Way of the Wicked AP (looks awesome) and right out of the gate I am having trouble with one my players. The first session we spent entirely on character creation where I read them the issues that evil games face from the AP and we discussed it at some length. I explicitly said that you need to make a character that can play their way into the concept of a group of evil characters working together to bring down a LG Kingdom that tried to execute them. I also banned non consensual PvP, it's fine if it is something that two players want to RP but we are all there to take part in a shared imagination of the evil group mentioned above.
After spending all the first session trying to hammer home the social contract for the AP, right out of the gate the first action of one of the characters in the first encounter after escaping from their prison cell, as they were fighting the prison guards, was to cast sleep on one of the other players (who was a witch) and then try to kill them. The "reason" he did this was because "his character didn't want competition from another INT caster". I am pretty frustrated with the situation as not only do I see this as OOC him just trying to be a dick, but even in character it makes no freaking sense to while breaking out of prison off one of the other people helping you to get out of prison especially right in plain view of all the other characters who are now just going to kill you (especially since the witch befriended the NPC Ogre that was locked up with them by healing him).
Currently I am considering not asking him back, but this is the 3rd campaign I have had him in and I don't want to just boot him without good reason. He has been okay in the past, sometimes problematic, but not to this extent. He is a friend of a friend, and while I have known him for several years we don't hang out together. I DM for a couple different groups of friends exclusively so this isn't an open game at a store or convention. I am seeking advice from other GM's who have dealt with situations like this before or even from players that have been on either side of this kind of issue.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
In my experience, we first talk with the person in question trying to make him understand that the game must be fun for all the others,not only for him.
If that fails and the player keep doing the a*!$+%! we usually stop calling him when we play.
Already happened couple of time and always finished this way.
Explain your problem with the situation to him, and then tell him that if he does anything else like that then he's out of the group.
Thanks for the reply!
I stopped the session, and explained again the campaign concepts and me and others listed plenty of reasons that his characters would want to work with the others. His replies gave the impression that he could only conceive of an evil wizard killing other PCs and seemed surprised that anyone could think any differently. He even mentioned off handed that this would be a problem again at high level. It feels like after the first session when the social contract for the game was made explicit he made a character almost exactly opposite of what it required.
Honestly? I'd lay down some basic ground rules as to what your intent behind the AP is.
We too are an Evil Campaign, and one of the first issues that our GM tackled right away is the simple fact that the PC's can interact with each other with hostile actions, and that Evil usually doesn't function well with itself unless it either has no brain (it's stupid and follows those superior to itself), has some other, underhanded motivation behind the assistance (just going to jack that item later, I'll use the idiot as a human shield for now!), and many others that would take too long to configure and mention.
Because of this, he adjusted our alignment to Lawful Evil (and made other changes with other classes and such accordingly). The thing is, Lawful Evil, even though it serves a different cause, still abides by a code of honor and/or rules that, if broken, can result in devastating consequences.
Sure, we had an Alignment change, and the GM specifically stated that there will be no blatant attacks made against other PC's. But that does not change the fact that the PC's can still perform "evil" acts, such as burn down a local bar, steal objects, even on each other (such as damage me with a Negative Energy Channel to knock me unconscious, preventing me from falling off the cliff due to charm effects).
Sometimes a GM has to be blunt and direct, and while the PC's may absolutely dislike it, that's just the way you want it to be. It defeats the purpose to even have an AP and then have it end quite abruptly with no progress on the AP given at all, and that's a very valid point for a GM to make. Otherwise, you might as well just call it "Evil PVP Session #90210" and have level 2 clowns face each other just because they're Evil and have some blind, random motivation to kill others.
So you do have a few options. You can opt to houserule their alignment as Lawful Evil (just because they were Lawful Evil doesn't change the fact that they can conceivably be jailed in a Lawful Good area), and specifically state to the PC's that there will be no blatant killing of each other (which I would personally recommend, since it works out quite well with our group so far). You can also explain to the PC's the reason behind an AP, and that them pulling the crap they are pulling defeats the entire purpose of having an AP to begin with, or other players for that matter. You can probably cook up some other idea similar to this that can still make your point and enforce the concept of being Evil and having an AP.
If they still want to argue and complain about not being able to kill each other, then you can either kick those involved with the behavior (which I would recommend if it's just one, maybe 2 PC's pulling the stunt), or just say they're not doing any more Evil characters, and if they complain, then summarize them the reasoning I gave you for my options.
And if they still don't like it? There's the f***ing door. Have a nice day.
Explain your problem with the situation to him, and then tell him that if he does anything else like that then he's out of the group.Thanks for the reply!
I stopped the session, and explained again the campaign concepts and me and others listed plenty of reasons that his characters would want to work with the others. His replies gave the impression that he could only conceive of an evil wizard killing other PCs and seemed surprised that anyone could think any differently. He even mentioned off handed that this would be a problem again at high level. It feels like after the first session when the social contract for the game was made explicit he made a character almost exactly opposite of what it required.
Ok, if you have tried the "sit down and talk it out like adults" step (always critical, often ignored), then yes- make it very simple: "No more of that crud or you are out. Sorry."
The only other option is to talk with the other players and see if they'd just rather play something else. Clearly this guy simply is not mature enough for a Evil campaign. Many players aren't.
|
Explain your problem with the situation to him, and then tell him that if he does anything else like that then he's out of the group.Thanks for the reply!
I stopped the session, and explained again the campaign concepts and me and others listed plenty of reasons that his characters would want to work with the others. His replies gave the impression that he could only conceive of an evil wizard killing other PCs and seemed surprised that anyone could think any differently. He even mentioned off handed that this would be a problem again at high level. It feels like after the first session when the social contract for the game was made explicit he made a character almost exactly opposite of what it required.
Well there is nothing left to discuss. He put up a huge flag and basically told you he is not buying into this social contract. In fact he is telling you to expect this behavior going forward. He needs to be asked to leave. Politely if possible of course.
This is part of the problem of playing evil characters.
Thanks for the replies and all the good advice!
Serve some curry next game session. Mention that it was made from the previous Player you "removed" from the group.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is part of the problem of playing evil characters.
While I certainly believe that villianous campaigns have some problems that heroic campaigns do not, let me put forward the notion that this is not one of them.
The GM made a rule: no non-consensual PvP.
That he had to make the rule in the first place -- that's part of the unique problems inherent to an evil campaign. I commend the GM for explicitly talking to the players about these sort of things before the campaign began.
That the player isn't following the rule -- that's just good old-fashioned contrary behavior. If the rule was "everyone must play a paladin of Iomedae" and the PC had his paladin convert to the worship of Abadar and renounce Iomedae as a false goddess in the first session, it would be no different.
I agree with much of the advice given above.
Talk to him politely and like an adult. Make your expectations clear. If he can not or will not follow the rules, warn him that this may cause you to eject him from the game. And if the behavior persists, politely eject him.
I've been running RPGs for thirty years. It's been a long time since I've had to throw someone out of a game. In my experience the overwhelming majority of gamers are good people.
I really hope in your case it doesn't come to that.
Good luck and happy gaming!
Gary McBride
Fire Mountain Games
Whether they agreed or not it is easier to justify these types of actions if the characters are evil.
What does being a good person have to do with being a poor roleplayer?
So here is the situation.
I am the DM and we just started the Way of the Wicked AP (looks awesome) and right out of the gate I am having trouble with one my players. The first session we spent entirely on character creation where I read them the issues that evil games face from the AP and we discussed it at some length. I explicitly said that you need to make a character that can play their way into the concept of a group of evil characters working together to bring down a LG Kingdom that tried to execute them. I also banned non consensual PvP, it's fine if it is something that two players want to RP but we are all there to take part in a shared imagination of the evil group mentioned above.
After spending all the first session trying to hammer home the social contract for the AP, right out of the gate the first action of one of the characters in the first encounter after escaping from their prison cell, as they were fighting the prison guards, was to cast sleep on one of the other players (who was a witch) and then try to kill them. The "reason" he did this was because "his character didn't want competition from another INT caster". I am pretty frustrated with the situation as not only do I see this as OOC him just trying to be a dick, but even in character it makes no freaking sense to while breaking out of prison off one of the other people helping you to get out of prison especially right in plain view of all the other characters who are now just going to kill you (especially since the witch befriended the NPC Ogre that was locked up with them by healing him).
Currently I am considering not asking him back, but this is the 3rd campaign I have had him in and I don't want to just boot him without good reason. He has been okay in the past, sometimes problematic, but not to this extent. He is a friend of a friend, and while I have known him for several years we don't hang out together. I DM for a couple different groups of friends exclusively so this isn't an open game at a store or...
Channel you inner "Rush Hour 2"
Ask him "Did you not understand the words that are coming out of my mouth"
In short tell him what you stated were actual table rules, not suggestions. What you can also do is plant a Mcguffin on the party making them immune to intentional attacks by other party members as long as they are not charmed or dominated. You can also just say it is always on. You as the GM will be the final arbitrator of what is or is not an intentional attack. That pretty much takes care of the problem for you if the player "forgets" the rule again.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is part of the problem of playing evil characters.
No it isn't. It is a problem with people that have limited insight playing evil characters. :)
Whether they agreed or not it is easier to justify these types of actions if the characters are evil.
That doesn't make the character being evil the problem though. Just a better excuse.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whether they agreed or not it is easier to justify these types of actions if the characters are evil.That doesn't make the character being evil the problem though. Just a better excuse.
And a poor one at that. He's afraid of competition? Really? All of Talingarde is arrayed against you and your only desire is to murder a cellmate so blatantly?
Could he have not accomplished it more artfully? Is the art of proper treachery fallen so low among wizards that they must resort to a knife in the back? Could he have not manipulated the witch into an unwinnable situation?
Or perhaps, and this is what I would do, just ignore him? I've come to understand that spellcasters of different disciplines such as wizards and the so called witches practice two very different forms of magic. The idea of competition between the two is ludicrous. I have similar spellcasting abilities to a bard. Should a bard join our illustrious group of people far too infatuated with all things infernal am I obligated to kill him for fear of him taking my place? I think not. Besides when I'm drunk enough I can appreciate any kind of poorly sang music.
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
Quick and dirty: Ask him to sit out this campaign.
Let him know that his actions are not acceptable and, since he is not willing to abide by the house rules for this campaign, he will not be able to participate. Let him know that he is welcome to join in the next "traditional" campaign when it begins.
Slightly more complicated: Create an in-game enforcer.
Create an NPC that escaped with the PCs who doesn't particularly care for the Wizard. This NPC constantly keeps on eye on the Wizard's actions, and always seems to be in the right place to get in the way of any plots or actions taken against the rest of the party. The NPC could be passive most of the time, not taking any actions in combat other than Defend, but coming out of his shell when "angered" by the Wizard. Make sure you make this NPC somewhat immune to the Wizard's spells - maybe he scrounged up some magic items to help him make his saves on a routine basis, or he's a race that is hard to influence.
You made your rules very clear.
By coming to the table he accepted!
The best options was the one you did not take.
Don't let the spell wokr at first place. You don't allow it, so it does not work. That simpel. Next is giving him a warning that thsi was not how you stated the rules and how he accepted. . Doing it again should make him not welcome any more.
If I was the player who has been killed it was problaly the last time i played with that player.
Now your best option is:
Give him a warning, and make it all a bad dream, If he pulls this agian. Throw him out!.