I've been running into a problem with a few inexperienced players who keep acting as if the freedom to do anything in a game also frees them of the consequences of their actions. So far this has resulted in two TPKs, mostly because a single player acts pointlessly aggressive and initiates combat with an NPC and draw the ire of all their allies and also the town guard. The rest of the PCs, showing solidarity, fight along side their completely in the wrong partner and get killed along with him when they inevitably turn to deadly force to try and escape.
I've thought about this for a little while and I decided that the new characters they make will be themselves (at least for a little while). I'm mining the classic trope of heroes from another dimension quite shamelessly, but I think that playing as themselves will make them feel more inclined to protect their life and less likely to pick fights with people to whom they fairly lost bets.
Does anyone think this will work?
It might work, unless the moron who started the mess is aggressive IRL as well.
Or if the players are too attached to the characters that are themselves. They may interpret GM actions as personal attacks rather than as "the GM trying to teach them something."
|
I'm confused. Why do the other PCs have to get involved, exactly? Part of the consequences of PC actions is the other PCs have the freedom to wash their hands of their dopey companions.
Sounds like these PCs could use some jail time (due to their actions) and the players shouldn't be allowed to talk or anything during that time. Kind of like many groups do when a character dies.
It just seems to me that making people play themselves might not have the intended effect you're seeking. They still know it's a game.
It might work, unless the moron who started the mess is aggressive IRL as well.
He actually isn't IRL, he's a big guy and talks a big game, but he's too mild to pick a real fight.
Or if the players are too attached to the characters that are themselves. They may interpret GM actions as personal attacks rather than as "the GM trying to teach them something."
I had not considered that actually. I used to have a guy in that group with whom this would be a problem, but the current guys I've got get that it's a game and I'm not out to get them. But I will keep that in mind, thanks for bringing it up.
I'm confused. Why do the other PCs have to get involved, exactly? Part of the consequences of PC actions is the other PCs have the freedom to wash their hands of their dopey companions.
Sounds like these PCs could use some jail time (due to their actions) and the players shouldn't be allowed to talk or anything during that time. Kind of like many groups do when a character dies.
It just seems to me that making people play themselves might not have the intended effect you're seeking. They still know it's a game.
They're family IRL (two brothers, a cousin, and a friend since childhood; the cousin is the overly aggressive one), so they're used to sticking by each other, right or wrong, and that's carried into the game.
Actually, funny you say that abut jail, because one of those TPKs was picking a fight in a Chelaxian penal colony. I don't really get how you're suggesting I deal with jail though. Who isn't allowed to talk and when?
Perhaps you're right, but I think it's worth a try. Nothing else has worked.
|
|
Sorry, Robert Cameron. I assumed a few things, and need to clarify.
1. I assumed that your players were generally law-abiding and that they were in a town/village/city and could be arrested by local guard.
2. I assumed that said jail would have solitary areas, where said characters could be stuck so they'd be "quiet" for a bit. Much like what happens in some groups when you die: "Sorry, you can't talk, you're dead, and there's no speak with dead spell going."
3. I also assumed that the other players would get sick of the individuals being twerpy and picking fights...and not be "hell and high water" family types.
Sounds like a talk with the players is in order. Most of this could be cleared up with discussion about what RP means to you, what it means to them, and how the actions their characters take may have grave consequences.
Sorry, Robert Cameron. I assumed a few things, and need to clarify.
1. I assumed that your players were generally law-abiding and that they were in a town/village/city and could be arrested by local guard.
2. I assumed that said jail would have solitary areas, where said characters could be stuck so they'd be "quiet" for a bit. Much like what happens in some groups when you die: "Sorry, you can't talk, you're dead, and there's no speak with dead spell going."
3. I also assumed that the other players would get sick of the individuals being twerpy and picking fights...and not be "hell and high water" family types.Sounds like a talk with the players is in order. Most of this could be cleared up with discussion about what RP means to you, what it means to them, and how the actions their characters take may have grave consequences.
No, the party is generally not law abiding. Both time they were in out of the way areas with no formal guards. Once in an open air prison with no guards to stop them from getting stomped to death by a gang they had grievously insulted. The other was at a roadside tavern where they were given some mob justice by a group of lumberjacks who were attacked by the party after the party lost a bet and refused to pay up.
I guess I'm just a not getting it, but I'm not sure what a "time out" would accomplish. Have you tried this in the past and had positive results?
I had part of that talk before the prison game. I explained that this would be a very dangerous environment and if they decided to go against the flow they would be risking their lives. That did not help. However, I do think that's a good suggestion, so I'll have to ask them what it is they want and what they're trying to accomplish.
But I'm still sticking with the real people as characters idea for the moment. Mostly because I wrote up the game for it.
|
I've been running into a problem with a few inexperienced players who keep acting as if the freedom to do anything in a game also frees them of the consequences of their actions. So far this has resulted in two TPKs, mostly because a single player acts pointlessly aggressive and initiates combat with an NPC and draw the ire of all their allies and also the town guard. The rest of the PCs, showing solidarity, fight along side their completely in the wrong partner and get killed along with him when they inevitably turn to deadly force to try and escape.
I've thought about this for a little while and I decided that the new characters they make will be themselves (at least for a little while). I'm mining the classic trope of heroes from another dimension quite shamelessly, but I think that playing as themselves will make them feel more inclined to protect their life and less likely to pick fights with people to whom they fairly lost bets.
Does anyone think this will work?
What a horrible situation, I feel for you!
|
|
I have an idea, something I've done once in a game and it worked PERFECTLY!! Don't kill the party, ARREST THEM! Bring them to lower than 0 non lethal damage and take them to jail, hand cuff them, and have them try to solve things with cunning or diplomacy.
Well the situation was very different, but the players did steal things from a local business and they where arrested for it. The party waited for the guards to leave the prison a little unguarded, then the sorcerer used charm person on the only guard left, the rogue freed himself and the guard was convinced to let them go. Before leaving the rogue flanked the guard with his own short sword (nice having ranks in sleight of hand I guess), and the rest of the party gave him the finishing touch. After that, they escaped out of the prison. It was pretty funny and it taught the players not to mess with authorities.
I have come across many players who want to be themselves in the adventure world and I'm ok with that. It's all about keeping the players happy and letting them do things that the real world would never allow.
Maybe they've learned their lesson now, too. They've had 2 TPKs, so they know that not only does it happen, it isn't just a fluke either.
Playing yourself could be fun. Especially if it is an "idealized" version of yourself. For example, I took French in high school, Spanish in undergrad, and Indonesian in grad school, but I'm not fluent in any of them. Not even close! But "idealized" SmiloDan speaks 4 languages! Hahaha!!!
