How to cope with PCs finding fun in breaking game immersion?

[Oxylepy]

I try to run grimdark games with a lot of game immersion for the PCs, but honestly the lot of them have ADHD and love things like deadpool, so they end up after a few sessions trying to get other players in, or just doing really silly things that aren't fitting for their characters. Like opening starbucks, which I managed to work with and ended up having actually work out in world, so less gimmicky and just a coffee shop/tavern. And I try to get them to think outside the mechanics, like shoving your fist in the cloaca of the serpent grappling your friend, or unloading the dead body they're carrying around in a sack in a middle class back yard during a party. But the PCs come back to metagaming (using their phones to look up monster stat blocks), breaking the fourth wall in game, and buying pimp hats for their characters...

The end result is always me being disheartened by the game and just quitting running the campaign.

[Darkbridger]

Each of them needs to spend a session behind the screen to better appreciate what running a game for the group is like.

Worst case, they all run the game the same way and you are, unfortunately, the odd man out when it comes to what kind of entertainment you are looking for from the game.

[GM 1990]

Regards to looking up monster stats, that's something you just have to address directly and disallow if it bothers you. I don't allow it either, but I also tend to re-skin lots of stuff so it doesn't necessarily help to have a great knowledge or access to bestiary.

It sounds like you want to run one style of play and the players want another. You've got to have discussion with them and if you're not having fun, don't GM any more. GM's can easily put in an hour of prep for every hour of game session, you should be having fun if you're putting that much work into it.

what ages are you gaming with? That can also make a big difference to just what style of game you can expect them to reasonably be able to handle.

[Serisan]

If they're not interested in grimdark, they're not going to play grimdark. One of the most important aspects of any game is having shared expectations and it seems as though your players don't have that baseline established. This is simply a matter of having a discussion with them. Maybe they're loving the idea of disrupting the grimdark nature of your campaign, in which case you just need to find a way that both you and your players can enjoy the story. It has to be mutual, though.

The metagaming thing is strictly uncool. Tell them to stop. If they don't, start changing monster statblocks. If people have issues with tech distractions, institute a "no tech at the table" policy for the game.

[Cpt_kirstov]

Oxylepy wrote:

But the PCs come back to metagaming (using their phones to look up monster stat blocks)

For this, the best idea may be to 'file off the numbers' of a creature. Find a picture thats not paizo art of a monster that you want to use, imagine what abilities that monster has, and find a monster with the correct CR and abilities, and use that stat block, but only call the monster by the name of the monster in the picture. You can also cheat this both for your 'filed off monsters' and normal monsters by adding templates such as the advanced or young template to creatures.

Some amount of metagaming is expected in the rules. But if they go too far, you're within your right to ask for knowledge checks and saying "your character doesn't know that". This allows the skill/knowledge people to shine and promotes at least a little roleplay.

Oxylepy wrote:

buying pimp hats for their characters

If they are not also hats of disguise, then use it for your story... If you were planning on them meeting a cult/gang, maybe the next wanted poster they find lists the fugitive as wearing a pimp hat, and they find a gang/cult/race that is offended by their use/color of said hats, and start a feud. this feud could spill into the streets, damaging buildings/commerce and causing the rulers of the area to ban said hats.

Sometimes, its good to step back from the rules. If they get to a dinner party, stop your session for the day. Before the next session, give a number of the guests motivations, and tell the players that they don't need to bring dice, spend the whole session roleplaying the dinner party without the distraction of skill checks, just interacting with the guests. (alternatively ask them to come with 1 D20 and a index card for a character sheet with just their social skills on it for the session)

[Bob Bob Bob]

Ah yes, the Monty Python problem. I guess it's going to be replaced by Deadpool for the younger generation. The answer is quite simple:

Talk to your players like they're all mature, reasonable people about your problems and work out a solution.

Needed the emphasis for that one. It doesn't matter if you want to run grimdark, if most of the players don't then it's just not going to work. Every campaign requires player buy-in. It's impossible to run a horror campaign if one player decides to make a Bard based on Le Pétomane. It's impossible to run a grim and gritty campaign if... you know what, let's just use Le Pétomane again. If the players don't agree to the premise they're going to spend their time sabotaging it (intentionally or not) and it's never going to work. Talk to your players and see whether they actually want to run grimdark. If most of them don't then you probably need to run something different.

[Oxylepy]

I actually had tried breaking the group from the last campaign I ended into serious player, and silly players. Then the silly game's participants never actually got together to come up with a campaign setting (other than Tron, which I was fine with as a one-off adventure). And the one serious game player got a job and couldn't come any more. So I took the 2 seriouw players and let them have 3 characters then floated the one if people decided to show up ever. But one of the silly players came in and took it from the campaign I had been running to... pimp hats and silliness. So now I'm just completely out of the spirit to DM. This coincided with the players getting to go through an immense mansion, which they got to keep if they survived the night. Loads of NPCs and an absolutely gorgeous building (based on a real life mansion)... but I completely lost heart right when they got there, as he had been pulling the immersion out.

[MythicFox]

It's a card I hate to have to play myself, but you might have to have a talk with the group as Bob^3 suggested but flat out tell them "Guys, this sort of thing makes me not want to run this game. And if it keeps up, I'll stop." I don't recommend this lightly, but being honest with the group about your feelings should help them realize that this isn't just a problem but something that may end the game.

That said, it seems as if one specific player is a major share of the problem. If you've answered this and I missed it, forgive me, but do the other ostensibly-serious players have a problem with this? Are they going along with it, and if so is it because they don't want to be a killjoy? Maybe have a talk with the other players (either separately or together) and see if they'll help you talk to him. But some players just don't get it, just aren't attuned to the game, and you might have to make a hard choice here as to whether he goes or the game does.

But if it helps you feel any better, this is a problem that's existed in some form for as long as tabletop gaming has been a thing. Not to name-drop, but many years ago on another message board Gygax himself gave me the advice I'm sharing now. So remember you're not alone and that just about everyone who's ever run a game has been in the predicament you are.

[Dave Justus]

I am actually pretty happy if my players are finding fun in games I run, whether they are breaking immersion to do so or not.

My advice would be to focus on people having a good time and try to get your satisfaction from that, rather than only being happy if they have fun in a specific way.

[Saldiven]

Dave Justus wrote:

My advice would be to focus on people having a good time and try to get your satisfaction from that, rather than only being happy if they have fun in a specific way.

I disagree with this.

The GM shouldn't be forced into a situation of, "Oh well, at least they're all having fun," when the GM isn't having fun, himself.

Serisan made the best comment by mentioning shared expectations. The best play groups are the ones where everyone is looking for the same general thing from the game. Some people have a wide variety of game styles that bring them enjoyment, while other people have a much narrower range of preferred styles. Nobody is wrong for their preference.

It sounds like the players and the GM have widely different preferred styles and expectations. The group needs to have a sit-down conversation about this so that everything is out in the open. Either the group needs to find a way to bring everyone's expectations closer together, or the group is just going to evaporate.

[Oxylepy]

That's pretty much what has happened with a lot of other campaigns. I get burnt out doing the work, and feel at a loss when they try to go silly instead of being immersed.

I've decided to hold the game and am killing this world off. I'm getting everyone together plus a few other people to begin world building from scratch as I had done myself in the past. That way they have a chance to actually see how the history unfolds from the ground up, instead of the newer players being completely disjointed from the world, while the older players whose characters are current gods cannot convey to them the world setting through stories, and while they fail to actually inquire or care about the history I designed and the older players lived.

So, we'll start with tectonic plates and continent design/placement. Then develop the history from the vantage point of them as creator gods

[HWalsh]

A suggestion I have about the silliness is simple:

Reinforce it in the game world. Respond to absurdity in the same manner that the world would respond to it.

True Story:

I was running an nWoD MtA game. Serious setting and I let 2 jokers into the game. 100% my fault.

One of which tried to mimic the concept of "Old Man Henderson" and the other was just weird. The other was, in a modern setting, a native American weapons enthusaist who insisted on running around with an honest-to-goodness bow and arrow with a tomahawk at all times.

So... Old Man Henderson died. His penchant for silly jokes and immersion breaking during a tense situation caused a political incident and he was executed. No mercy. No joking. No tolerance.

The other one managed to last a little longer. He got implicated in a murder. Why? He killed someone with a bow and arrow. That isn't exactly subtle.

Once the APB went out for "insane Bowman with a headdress" that was all it took.

So, how does that transfer into yours?

Okay. They want to make a "Starbucks."

It's not like the fantasy setting has name recognition for the brand. Let them waste their GP on a business that fails.

They run around buying pimp hats? Slap them with a -2 penalty to social interaction checks because people have a hard time taking them seriously.

Remember, this is a mideval setting as well. A character walking around with a curry purple hat and a pink and blue sequints studded long coat who shouts out, "Yo yo yo where my ladies be at boyee?" Is likely to be thought of as rude and barred services at best and/or insane at worst.

In the real world people got lobotomies for worse.

[Jiggy]

I read the title, got as far as "How to cope with PCs finding fun," and gave up. :(

[Zhangar]

@ Jiggy - Have you never had to deal with a deliberately disruptive player or players?

@ OP - Bobx3 has the right of it. You need to talk to your players and figure out where "what you want to run" and "what they want to play" actually intersect.

[Jiggy]

Zhangar wrote:

@ Jiggy - Have you never had to deal with a deliberately disruptive player or players?

I have. Sometimes, that person has been the GM.

Want to know how to tell who the disruptive person is? You look around the table full of people having fun, and find the one person who's not okay with it. That person is the disruptive one.

Now, re-read the OP (yeah, I know, I said I quit reading; that was hyperbole to make a point, and apparently I failed) and look at who's having fun and who wants to put a stop to it.

See where the disruption is?

[Zhangar]

So if the players are trolling the GM, the GM is the one at fault. Okay.

[Jiggy]

Zhangar wrote:

So if the players are trolling the GM, the GM is the one at fault. Got ya.

If you want to define "trolling" as "having fun outside of how the GM dictates", then sure.

[Zhangar]

In light of how much time it can take to a prepare a game, I can fully appreciate a GM being pretty pissed at his players actively trying to wreck it.

[Zhangar]

In short, there can be a pretty thin line between "having fun outside of how the GM dictates" and "telling the GM to go $%^&*( himself."

[thejeff]

Jiggy wrote:

Zhangar wrote:

So if the players are trolling the GM, the GM is the one at fault. Got ya.

If you want to define "trolling" as "having fun outside of how the GM dictates", then sure.

Yeah and the simple solution for one player not having fun with the group is that player leaving the group and finding another one.

If that player is the GM and no one else steps up to run, then there is no game.

Now if it's the OP desperately wanting to run and trying to coax reluctant players into playing something they don't want just so he can be the GM, that's one thing. If it's the players pushing him to run, then they really need to stick to the kind of game he's interested in running or it's going to stop, because no GM is going to keep running indefinitely if he isn't enjoying it.

Even beyond that, it's common courtesy to stay within the bounds of the campaign style you've agreed to play. If you don't want to play like that, say so up front. Don't join the game then warp it to what you wanted.

[Jiggy]

thejeff wrote:

Even beyond that, it's common courtesy to stay within the bounds of the campaign style you've agreed to play. If you don't want to play like that, say so up front. Don't join the game then warp it to what you wanted.

Totally agree. Nothing in the OP suggested that the players had agreed to a grimdark game and then did a 180 on him, but if they did, then that definitely changes the scenario.

EDIT: Zhangar, would you have the same stance if it was the players who were trying to be "grimdark" while the GM was constantly trying to steer the game into something goofy and 4th-wall-breaking?

[Mythic Evil Lincoln]

Honestly, it sounds like the best result will come from lowering your own standards. This is a classic GM problem.

RPGs have much more in common with birthday parties than with authorial media like films and novels.

If the players you've gathered are not likely to have fun while being serious at any other time, don't expect them to have fun being serious in your game.

It's like going to a birthday party with a black tie dress code and schedule that you expect the participants to conform to. Some crowds might be OK with it. It sounds like your people are not of that ilk. Placed in that situation, they're going to try to make the best of it, and have fun despite all the stuffy rules. That's what's going on in your game.

Once you've embraced their style, you can still push things in the direction of "cool." Remember, GMing is a performance art, and part of performing is conforming to the audience's expectations. There's give and take.

It sounds like you've already achieved some flexibility, letting them take unconventional approaches. The next step lies with you. You have to revise your expectations in order to be satisfied with the result.

[KujakuDM]

(I'm going to say it again)

Talk it over with them in a mature manner, if you cant come to an agreement stop playing.

No gaming is better than bad gaming.

[thejeff]

Jiggy wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Even beyond that, it's common courtesy to stay within the bounds of the campaign style you've agreed to play. If you don't want to play like that, say so up front. Don't join the game then warp it to what you wanted.

Totally agree. Nothing in the OP suggested that the players had agreed to a grimdark game and then did a 180 on him, but if they did, then that definitely changes the scenario.

It sounded that way to me, though maybe not quite that formally. If, over the several games he talks about he hasn't made it clear what he's looking for, he's really bad at communication.

Especially with the split into a "serious" group and a "silly" group and the "silly" player joining and disrupting the "serious" group.

[thejeff]

Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:

Honestly, it sounds like the best result will come from lowering your own standards. This is a classic GM problem.

RPGs have much more in common with birthday parties than with authorial media like films and novels.

If the players you've gathered are not likely to have fun while being serious at any other time, don't expect them to have fun being serious in your game.

It's like going to a birthday party with a black tie dress code and schedule that you expect the participants to conform to. Some crowds might be OK with it. It sounds like your people are not of that ilk. Placed in that situation, they're going to try to make the best of it, and have fun despite all the stuffy rules. That's what's going on in your game.

Once you've embraced their style, you can still push things in the direction of "cool." Remember, GMing is a performance art, and part of performing is conforming to the audience's expectations. There's give and take.

It sounds like you've already achieved some flexibility, letting them take unconventional approaches. The next step lies with you. You have to revise your expectations in order to be satisfied with the result.

Or, don't run for them if you're not enjoying it. Get one of them to GM for awhile. Play in their game. Find a different group.

Certainly compromise as long as you can still have fun with it. But if you can't, walk away.

There's no obligation to run a game you don't enjoy.

[Zhangar]

Jiggy wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Even beyond that, it's common courtesy to stay within the bounds of the campaign style you've agreed to play. If you don't want to play like that, say so up front. Don't join the game then warp it to what you wanted.

Totally agree. Nothing in the OP suggested that the players had agreed to a grimdark game and then did a 180 on him, but if they did, then that definitely changes the scenario.

EDIT: Zhangar, would you have the same stance if it was the players who were trying to be "grimdark" while the GM was constantly trying to steer the game into something goofy and 4th-wall-breaking?

Yes.

Actively trying to derail the game is actively trying to derail the game.

For example, if the GM's trying to run, say, PonyFinder (where I'd expect goofy/whimsical to be norm) and the PCs start committing war crimes, I think the players would be out of line.

Of course, you're dealing with a different situation if the GM mis-communicated what kind of game he was trying to run, and so the players were expecting X and got Y. (Or GM failed to convey at all what he was trying to run, and so the players had no clue at all what to expect.) In which case it's certainly on the GM to clear things up.

And if the GM and PCs were originally planning on playing X, they start playing X, and then the GM decides he'd rather run Y, it's on the GM to get the players on board with Y.

[Tormsskull]

For several years I played with a tabletop group that consisted of some permutation of the same 8-10 people. While fun, it was difficult to get the kind of game I really wanted - in-depth RP. Every game ended up being beer and pretzels.

After a long time of trying to convince the players to buy into an in-depth RP game, I wised up, and got new players. Now I get to play in games I really enjoy, with players that really enjoy them.

Moral of the story - if your game preference and the players preference don't mesh, get yourself a new group.

[Jiggy]

thejeff wrote:

Especially with the split into a "serious" group and a "silly" group and the "silly" player joining and disrupting the "serious" group.

I missed that the OP had later come back and added that story (all the posters without avatars kind of start blending together after a while). Yeah, that's not cool.

[Jiggy]

Zhangar wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Even beyond that, it's common courtesy to stay within the bounds of the campaign style you've agreed to play. If you don't want to play like that, say so up front. Don't join the game then warp it to what you wanted.

Totally agree. Nothing in the OP suggested that the players had agreed to a grimdark game and then did a 180 on him, but if they did, then that definitely changes the scenario.

EDIT: Zhangar, would you have the same stance if it was the players who were trying to be "grimdark" while the GM was constantly trying to steer the game into something goofy and 4th-wall-breaking?

Yes.

Actively trying to derail the game is actively trying to derail the game.

For example, if the GM's trying to run, say, PonyFinder (where I'd expect goofy/whimsical to be norm) and the PCs start committing war crimes, I think the players would be out of line.

Of course, you're dealing with a different situation if the GM mis-communicated what kind of game he was trying to run, and so the players were expecting X and got Y. (Or GM failed to convey at all what he was trying to run, and so the players had no clue at all what to expect.) In which case it's certainly on the GM to clear things up.

And if the GM and PCs were originally planning on playing X, they start playing X, and then the GM decides he'd rather run Y, it's on the GM to get the players on board with Y.

Please bear in mind that all my comments up to this point were based on the original post, which in no way implied the group had every agreed to the grimdark game that the GM kept trying to make happen. You and I might be more well-aligned than we originally thought.

[thejeff]

Jiggy wrote:

all the posters without avatars kind of start blending together after a while).

You mean like me? :)

But the ones without avatars aren't nearly so bad as when you've got two with the same picture. That gets downright schizophrenic at times.

[DrDeth]

I was playing an early "grimdark" game, Ravenloft. The DM was pissed I was still making jokes. My Dad, a WWII combat veteran pointed out that as things got really bad, humor became a important release, getting either silly or really black humor.

So, it's very realistic.

Grimdark is something that many DM's want to run, but not a lot of players want to play.

[Krensky]

Heh. Make the grimdark GMS read Anabasis.

Hilarity shall ensue.

[Scythia]

Jiggy wrote:

I read the title, got as far as "How to cope with PCs finding fun," and gave up. :(

But, they don't have the proper permits for that fun. We can't have unregulated fun on the market.