Forums of the Megaverse®

A lot of the game sessions the players smash their opposition with supernatural strength. This amounts to superman or spiderman killing a bank robber just because they have a gun. Their attacks are without coordination/cooperation, advance planning, or diplomacy. So take no prisoners. Half of these situations could have been avoided (neogotiation, escape, prowl, trickery, or subdued).

The few times they encounter anyone powerful enough not to be killed by them in a round or two they run from.

In short, if they can't kill them easily they want nothing to do with them.

So the story goes off the rails a lot because the players "abandon ship" when they encounter someone as OP, or more, than them. The intention of such encounters is for the players to use their skills and abilities. Why have prowl if you are never prowling? Same with pick locks, pick pockets, computer operation and hacking, etc.

It has made the play rather dule, consisting of fighting or running away. None of the players appear to want to roleplay, get creative, be diplomatic, use espionage, or anything like that.

Just kill or flee.

So the games feel rather 1 dimensional.

Is there a way to get players to play outside of fighting?

Characters are:

Spider-Man 2099 from Heroes Unlimited (jumps 1,000ft/runs 200 mph), Super-natural

Atlantean Undead Slayer - Supernatural PS

Mining Borg

Cyberknight (DBee with Supernatural attributes)

As a GM I sometimes feel the same way when players seem to be playing in seemingly "simple" ways when I can see so much more that they could be doing that I think would be fun for everyone. But I have had to learn that everyone has a different idea of what is fun!

I'm glad they do abandon ship! I have seen many player groups who seem incapable of retreating even when it is obvious they are outgunned. But if they are doing it to often, what if the stakes are raised to the point that they feel they have to keep trying in order to save the day? ("We have to get out of here - She's too powerful!", "But if we give up now, the whole city will be reduced to rubble!"). It is difficult to gauge that level where a confrontation is challenging but doesn't seem impossible. They players don't know how much S.D.C. the bad guy has left - I try and let them know by telling them how the bad guy look look they are on the ropes, reeling from a powerful blow, or their armour is falling off them or whatever, to give the players a sense that they are getting somewhere, even if there is a ways to go.

I don't understand what you are saying about the players not using their skills - if they are in combat with an opponent (which it seems like you are talking about), how could they be using pick locks or computer operation in that situation? It's a bit late to try prowling when the enemy has already seen you and is firing away.

Is it the situation that is wrong? Maybe you could alter the challenges they face in order to encourage them to use other skills? If they are attacked, or tasked with attacking someone else, then fight or flight will probably be the main thing (though tactics would be good!). If they are given a mission like a heist of some kind, then all of those skill you list (prowl, pick locks, pick pockets, computer operation and hacking) are almost bound to be used. If the players still choose to tackle the heist by foolishly strolling into the lobby with guns blazing and try to take what they are after with force, then that is up to them - that is obviously how they prefer to play.

Would it help to pit them against 'innocent' misunderstood opponents or honest law enforcement just doing their jobs, that perhaps the players would not want to kill, forcing them to come up with different ways of defeating them? Or are they the type of players that don't mind murdering loving family man Officer Mahoney one week from retirement? (mine are )

What if you have them hired to do a job, by an employer that insists on rules to follow? ("I want you to capture Evil Joe alive - and don't cause any collateral damage or harm anyone else in the bar; I have friends who drink there", "Get me the Purple Rose Diamond, but do it quietly - I want the authorities to remain unaware until I have had time to get it out of town", "

Or - give them what they want. If they like fighting, let them fight.

I guess my last post didn't make it through

Its sad that I lost so much writing.

I started with Thank you Soldier of Od.

I agreed with you quote, "Everyone has a different idea of what is fun!"

I described the adventure. The players who encountered an adult NPC dragon who could not be bullied or killed by the characters and their running away from him the 1st chance they got. The adventure took place in the Dragon's refugee camp. The groups NPC Shifter hired the adventurers to escort him to places like the camp so he could attempt to return D-Bees who don't want to stay on Rift's Earth to their home dimension. The Dragon defends the camp from Gargoyles and polices it keeping the DBees from murdering, robbing or enslaving each other. After his latest battle he demands the routine bowing of the camp only to see the players refusing to bow while the whole village does. While the dragon does not trust the Shifter is not sending DBees to their deaths or selling them into slavery.
The intent was for the players to do side quests at the camp. Win over the people. Win over the Dragon. Use Domestic and Survival skills to boost morale and feed and shelter people. Heal.

They ran away.

It sounds like you are a bit disappointed your players are not reacting to situations and problems the way you want them to DarthAuthor.

A few items to consider:
Trying to force players and their characters into adventures or scenarios they do not want is bad.
You as the Gamemaster should enjoy both writing and running the game sessions.
A *good" session should end with the players and the G.M. happy the played and willing to play again.

You might be constructing plots and characters too far above what your players are willing to invest themselves in. If all your players want to do is have a cake-walk blowing through low-threat bad-guys, can you be happy writing and running that game?

I am currently running a game with a 50 year old and his teenage kids. I keep the game very simple, both rules wise and plot because the goal is to have the kids making major decisions. Sometimes he gets a bit bored, or over-analyzes what is a very simple problem/plot, but the goal is to share a fun evening with his kids.

Write scenarios the players can solve the way they like to play. If they get bored or are unsatisfied then you could offer to bring out some of the more complex material and sidequests you mentioned.

For some reason, my posts aren't posting

I have to save my replys before I post them.

Short recap:

I am disappointed.

I agree, "A *good" session should end with the players and the G.M. happy the played and willing to play again."

I am not happy GMing cake-walk blowing through low-threat bad-guys.

Good line, "Write scenarios the players can solve the way they like to play."

My mistake, I asked the players what they wanted. How can I go wrong doing that?

Well, I believe when I asked them, they go into creative magical thinking mode. Imagining what they wanted to play and play as is different than actually playing. When they each made their own characters they were excited about making them. Then when the game started they were excited about the idea of playing the new character.

Somewhere in the middle of the game they stopped playing as the "character" and played as themselves.

What's wrong with playing as oneself?

Nothing.

But i had written an adventure for characters they told me they wanted to play. Not the way they actually were playing. Nobody knew they would get bored playing the character they made and the adventure I made for that character. Or that to do what was fun, for them, they woud play so far out of character, for the character, and out of adventure for me, the GM.

How do they actually play? They want to have fun so they want to do what ever that is for them.

What's wrong with that? Nothing, if the adventure "fits". If NOT they abandon ship.

I'm left trying to improvise an adventure for characters that players don't "really" want to play.

On some levels, I get it. At some point we all wanted to play a jedi with the cool lightsaber.

If a player wants to play a *good* Jedi they can.

Then the GM mentions, hey, are you sure you want to play a Jedi?
Yes. Why?
You used your mind trick spell to get a free beer and cheat at gambling. You shot that guy first. Jedi aren't supposed to shoot first. And you killed him. You could have talked him down, Mind Tricked him, Force Pulled his weapon away, deflected his shot "IF" he shot at you. And your a Jedi, why are you using an energy pistol? And Jedi are not motivated by money, why are you taking out of the pockets of those you kill. And if you do, why not donate it to charity. And what about Jedi Knight Venn. The Order sent you to find him and out why he has not be in contact. Act 1 was finding him. You just hung out in a bar instead of investgating to find him. When it got too boring I skipped to Act II and had him walk in and ask you for help with his mission. You turned him down. Are you sure you want to play a Jedi Knight?

It seems like the player wants to play a self employed mercenary / scoundrel with no Code and abondons their mission / adventure just an indulgence in whatever whim they feel like.

And if that's what they want to do then it would be great if they said so and worked with me to create the adventure they want to go on.

Sounds like you and your group have several good things going DarthAuthor:
1) player and G.M. coordination on character creation
2) player and G.M. communicating on adventure content pre and post session
3) no in-fighting between players over leadership or loot
4) no GM railroading by forcing decisions upon the players

Congrats, you are doing a good job.

From your descriprion the problems, it seems there is a disconnect between how the player describes the character (alignment and personality) and how the player actually plays the character. This is a role-play problem and you can help a bit as G.M.

Examples:
1) A player of a herioc knight who is suppose to be honest and bravely protect the weak tends to be selfish and cowardly. Remind the player their character would act differently.

2) Another common stereotypical example is a paladin character that goes along with the party stealing or acting like murder-hobos. In this case, the character has a divine power they must keep happy, so dreams and visions and if bad behavior continues you could be rather heavy-handed as G.M. in what action is appropriate to straighten them out.

3) A player who is lacking in mental strength is trying to roleplay a genius and wise scholar/wizard/priest. When they try to take an action that would be obviously bad to their character mention this to them and offer alternatives their character could use to accomplish the same goal. It sounds like you are already doing this, so good work. Remember, the choice is the player's and they may insist on the initial actiion they came up with....again, as G.M. you tried to help but did not force a solution.

From personal experience, I was running a session where two player characters were suppose to break into a wealthy home and kidnap the occupant. One character stood watch, the other went inside. The one that went inside was distracted by my description of all the valuables in the home and stated he was looting the silver plates and utensils. I as G.M. suggested this would be a long and noisy process but the player insisted much to the frustration of the player on watch outside. Their would-be victim was alerted by the ruckuss and made the job much more difficult.

The players will continue to make different/frustrating choices you have to deal with as G.M. Sometimes I run my own material during sessions and sometimes I run purchased material. When I run my own material I give the players a longer leash and I adjust during the game, maybe an NPC comes in to help during a battle or the bad guys surrender. Using comercial adventures I keep them from derailing or breaking the adventure as written by keeping them to the prewritten options.

Thanks Foilfobber,

I am curious about your adventure purchases.

The Rifter?

Don't mean to make myself out as a faultless victim of my players. It just disappointing for me to see them rinse wash and repeat combat.

Some disputes come up over how skills work but, from my GM side, I don't just want to "give" them an out with a dice roll.

You are on to something about how to get the players to be invested in the adventure.

What works best for you?

darthauthor wrote:Thanks Foilfobber,
I am curious about your adventure purchases.
The Rifter?

Don't mean to make myself out as a faultless victim of my players. It just disappointing for me to see them rinse wash and repeat combat.
Some disputes come up over how skills work but, from my GM side, I don't just want to "give" them an out with a dice roll.

You are on to something about how to get the players to be invested in the adventure.
What works best for you?

The Rifter has all kinds of material, for Palladium products I have only been a G.M. for the Macross/Robotech RPGs. The first run of Robotech material is where I made several purchases which are not available now since Palladium no long as license to produce them. I particularly liked First Strike although there were errors in the combat stats for the opponents listed in the adventures.

Palladium is the fourth gaming system I was introduced to. The first being D&D by TSR, then Star Wars by West End Games and third Shadowrun by FASA. The setting specifics, game mechanics and terminology change, but the issue of PLAYER vs CHARACTER remains the same. Good roleplaying is not something you can should force on players, they either choose to do it or not. That said, I am a big believer in incentives; either Experience bonuses or perhaps more tangible rewards such as equipment or favors from NPCs.

As far was investing the players in the adventure, part of their character creation can involve you as GM setting up the current dilema. In your example you mentioned a dragon that was defending a settlement and you felt the player didn't give the dragon appropriate recognition. I see two possibilities for setting up character investment:
1) One or more characters had family that was part of that town and the dragon had saved the lives of people actually important to them
2) The dragon or a significant NPC in town is a teacher/sponsor/mentor to one or more of the characters; the character owes their training/equipment/status to the NPC or dragon

This won't solve bad role-playing. A player that won't role-play will just ignore the character ties established whenever it suits them. As mentioned above, you can't shouldn't force players to role-play.

I would not saw the players did not give the dragon "recognition" so much as they were used to bullying or bulldozing to dominate a given situation.

They knew what an adult dragon could do. They knew the dragon would have a high opinion of itself and would not take orders form anyone.

The players openly discussed if they could "take" the dragon with one of them mentioning that they could hurt it but if they didn't kill it, it would take at at least one of them every melee round. One player noting that even if they were successful, slaying the dragon would leave the camp defenseless.

No one argued that the dragon would act superior and demand others bow to him as their protector. The characters saw that all the others in camp bowed down. There was no stigma in bowing to an adult dragon after it had fought and won a battle that left it injured.

They also knew, this dragon policed his camp. None of the players were going to "getaway" with anything. I guess they just thought, "This isn't fun." I made it clear, this guy is no easy kill. Can kill any one of them. HE won't be intimidated and if you try, his ego and reputation, amongst his camp, would demand he have to put humble the players before the rest of the camp.

Considering there out of game talk the players didn't "like" any adventure were they were so "policed" by a cop they couldn't over power.

For once, I think they felt like their victims.

Good thread. Good advice, and well received! I think the boards are getting nicer!

It can be very frustrating both as a player and GM when we see an opportunity for role-playing that other players ignore. Most of us good give plenty of examples, but I think we all know what it is like.

In my experience a great many role-players find it very difficult to allow their character to "back-down" in a confrontation with authority or a greater threat. It has caused problems in many past games in which I have have played. We all behave differently in a game that we would in real life - We're a lot braver when the only real threat is losing some abstract numbers on a piece of paper rather than real pain, injury, imprisonment or otherwise. I think that is a shame , and I'm always impressed when people play "in character" despite that being against their better judgement.

Palladium's experience points system does help that if used well. It rewards role-playing far above fighting. Running away from a dragon is not "avoiding unnecessary violence."
Maybe using that as a reward will help? Make a point of pointing out in game when they do something that will earn them a lot of experience points ("You bow before the dragon even though you would prefer to duke it out? That shows definite self-restraint and good judgement - that's 150 XP right there", "You reckon slaying the dragon would leave the camp defenceless? Good point - 50XP for an insightful observation.", "You turn and run? Umm, okay... roll to dodge".
Maybe that would inspire them a bit? If not, then unfortunately, you might have to accept that this adventure may end up slightly different to the kind you prefer Wrap it up quick and ask one of them to GM the next one!

The character going into a house, getting side-tracked, ignoring the plan, and causing trouble, while their comrades stare incredulously is an important staple in any role-playing game!

Soldier of Od,

Your a motivational speaker. You should write a book

Soldier of Od wrote:We all behave differently in a game that we would in real life - We're a lot braver when the only real threat is losing some abstract numbers on a piece of paper rather than real pain, injury, imprisonment or otherwise.

While I mostly agree with you, something many GMs forget is that we aren't playing ourselves. When I sit at a game table, I have no desire to play a mild, downtrodden local truck driver trying to make ends meet and trying to decide if my medicine is more important than my rent.
I want to play Achilles, or Hector (both of whom fought gods (and WON)), or hell, even Paris who 'ONLY' stole the wife of the most powerful man in Greece.

There was an old cartoon way back when in Dragon Mag. It had a Wizard in a Inn asking the Clerk "How much for a room for someone who can burn the place to the ground with a single word?" Dickish for sure, and not something I'd ever do (nor any of my characters), but having a character that everyone around KNOWS I could do that, that's something I like.

To use an example from literature, there was a brief excerpt from a Fafrd and the Grey Mouser story which had the weapons permit Fafrd was carrying around town (when there was supposed to be NO weapons for non nobles), "This mans statement that "Many a graveyard could be filled with the corpses of those who have tried to divest me of my rightful property" impressed me greatly." Now bear in mind, Fafrd was at the time, Outside the gate/wall. Talking to the guard through the gate which was not open.

These are the stories that inspire a great many of us to games. And while we all tone it down a least some, playing lickspittle isn't what many of us want.

Now, don't get me wrong, I've seen some absolutely moronic behavior in games before. And I do tend to come down HARD on the more egregious stuff, and blatantly evil or abusive activities will get the "Hand of God" smack down (unless it was designed as an evil campaign). So I do understand the GMs side as well. It's just something I occasionally like to remind GMs of.

The character going into a house, getting side-tracked, ignoring the plan, and causing trouble, while their comrades stare incredulously is an important staple in any role-playing game!

YES! Yes it is!

killgore444 wrote:

Soldier of Od wrote:We all behave differently in a game that we would in real life - We're a lot braver when the only real threat is losing some abstract numbers on a piece of paper rather than real pain, injury, imprisonment or otherwise.

While I mostly agree with you, something many GMs forget is that we aren't playing ourselves. When I sit at a game table, I have no desire to play a mild, downtrodden local truck driver trying to make ends meet and trying to decide if my medicine is more important than my rent.
I want to play Achilles, or Hector (both of whom fought gods (and WON)), or hell, even Paris who 'ONLY' stole the wife of the most powerful man in Greece.

Yeah, you are totally right, i like your examples - it's just that I find that many people (especially when they first (and by at first I mean for years!) start role-playing), whatever their supposed character personality may be, tend towards a style of play that is very confrontational when it comes to interactions with those with power or authority. Maybe it is a wish-fulfilment thing! It is possible to play a powerful hero or even a powerful self-serving money-grabbing mercenary without mouthing off to the big crime lord or local sheriff whenever they ask you to do something you would rather not do. One can play whatever character type they enjoy, but when players consistently antagonise and upset the big-hitters in the adventure, it is often no fun for the GM or the players to then have to role-play out the negative consequences of that behaviour. Don't get me wrong, that sort of thing can be great fun on occasion as part of a wider storyline, but when it keeps happening, and every encounter is "who is Jessie going to **** off this time?", it can become very tiresome for all involved.

If you are in a bar and the bouncer asks you to leave for whatever reason, in real life most people will just leave, even if they are rock hard and know they could beat up the bouncer(s). Only the ******** start a fight.

darthauthor wrote:Soldier of Od,
Your a motivational speaker. You should write a book

Um, thank you. ...

Hey Soldier of Od,

What's the faces thing about?

As for the other commentators. Thank you for you replies.

As a GM, the issue is less of a player character being a bad guy or bully or throwing their weight around.

I think it would be interesting to run a villain adventure. My mind is excited about coming up with ideas for it.

The screw ball in it is for the players to tell me they want to play a principled Jedi/ Paladin/cyber knight while their words and deeds are that of a Sith Lord.

I'd rather the players told me they want to be a Sith Lord and act like one then say they want to be a good superhero while being a murder-hobo. I guess its the appeal of characters like "Deadpool" (he's basically a crazy). At least his explanation is he's crazy.

It does make me wonder who would be the appropriate boss villian to create for the (evil) players. Batman, superman or such? To be put back in the easily esacapable, everyone breaks out of, arkham asylum.

Anyone have any great ideas for the people who try to stop murder-hobo players?

Soldier of Od wrote:If you are in a bar and the bouncer asks you to leave for whatever reason, in real life most people will just leave, even if they are rock hard and know they could beat up the bouncer(s). Only the ******** start a fight.

You don't go too to many bars in Texas do you?
In truth, all that behavior requires is a little to much alcohol (in a Bar, say it isn't so). To Quote Ron White on Bouncers:

I don't know how many of them it would have taken to kick my ass... ...But I knew how many of them they were going use.

darthauthor wrote:Hey Soldier of Od,

What's the faces thing about?

It was just supposed to be surprise and blushing - embarrassment at the compliment you gave!

darthauthor wrote:It does make me wonder who would be the appropriate boss villian to create for the (evil) players. Batman, superman or such? To be put back in the easily esacapable, everyone breaks out of, arkham asylum.

I think a good opponent for an evil player group is another evil group, but with conflicting goals. Pit the two against each other - with the threat of the authorities on top.

First thoughts are something like Suicide Squad. Those guys have bombs in their head's.

darthauthor wrote:First thoughts are something like Suicide Squad. Those guys have bombs in their head's.

That is definately one direction you could take, however the players may then shift the focus from whatever adventure you have planned as GM to disabling/circumventing whatever magical/technological control devices are in place.

The idea of a GM controlled character which influences or even controls the PCs is often refered to as the Patron or Sponsor. It could even be an organization rather than an individual person. In Rifts Earth, you have Atlanteans, A.R.C.H.I.E. 3, the splurgoth, varies demonic powers, alien intelligences as well as leaders of whatever civilization (Coalition, NGR, New Quebec, Iron Heart, Lone Star, New Lazlo) the PCs are currently visiting to draw inspiration from.

foilfodder wrote:

darthauthor wrote:First thoughts are something like Suicide Squad. Those guys have bombs in their head's.

That is definately one direction you could take, however the players may then shift the focus from whatever adventure you have planned as GM to disabling/circumventing whatever magical/technological control devices are in place.

So?
At this point the GM has likely established a soft power control on the group as now they're going to be thinking about revenge. If they start going off the rails again, just have some members of the group show up to try and re-enslave or kill them.
This gives them (and the GM) something to focus the game.

I mostly want to put out there, I don't see my the player characters as enemies to be punished but actors who get to make up their own lines.

If player characters want to be murder hobos technically they can do it but I would probably saw they need to have an alignment of Diabolic or at least Miscreant.

Also, they have to be "neat" or someone is going to notice all the dead people or mass graves, at least that people have disappeared.

The further they are from civilization the more they are going to get away with it unless they kill someone "important."

The dragon situation left the dragon with a grudge against one of the players. So the dragon teleported to Lazlo. Hired a detective to find the player character based on his name and a photo of him. Then shapeshifted into his likeness borrowed some money under his name at the casino he frequented and lost it on purpose.

Had the player served with a civil court claim to defend himself in court. Something he could skip out on and the debt but not without ruining his name and credit. So he hired a lawyer and a lie detection agency to prove his innocence. It worked and the case was kicked out but no one would lend him money and were afraid of associating someone whom had a dragon with a grudge against him. The court scene was also a way to expose the characters bad behavior because he had been caught once before cheating at cards and rented a truck he never returned. The agency wanted him to pay for the cost of a new truck. He tried to lie and blame the shapeshifting dragon as the one who rented the truck. I gave him the choice to let the lawyer defend him for $25k, made some rolls and got them to drop the civil suit. It was kind of fun to play out a trial.

I think my style of GMing is to let the players attempt what they want but to stick them with the consequences. Especially, if they claim to be the "good" guy and they are playing like murder-hobos. I just have to figure out how anyone would know what they have done and where to find them. Something some players make easy.