when good campaigns go bad

[Gromnir]

we gots hijacked by our players

[Volourn]

No. Nothing of that magnitude.. cna't believe your players totally ignore the 'brains as a power source' hook. Did any of the 'good' characters at least pretend to be offended by the whole idea? Hmm..

[Cantousent]

Okay, but let's face it, players are a greedy, bloodthirsty bunch.

 

Capture instead of kill? Sure, only to torture information out of someone. How often have I had to lift an eyebrow when some cleric of the golden haired savior god decides that it's more convenient to kill the surrendering goblins?! How many times have I shaken my head in utter disgust as the goodly paladin comes up with more and more elaborate schemes to avoid tithing to his order?! When was the last time players didn't choose "True Neutral" so they could essentially do whatever the hell they wanted without taking on that all dreaded "evil" title?!

 

I got a good laugh from your experience, Gromnir. When I'm done working on this damned system, I actually have comments.

[Volourn]

"Capture instead of kill? Sure, only to torture information out of someone. How often have I had to lift an eyebrow when some cleric of the golden haired savior god decides that it's more convenient to kill the surrendering goblins?! "

 

So true. Which is where my orc example from that other thread came to fruitation.... from the penchant of all players to hunt down every last enemy even if they flee.

 

Players are bloodthirsty for the most part.

[Cantousent]

You know, I've slammed my head against this wall before. It's not just the moral questions that players dodge. It's the intricacies. Everything a player sees in a game revolves around becoming more powerful or showing off their ability to role-play. ...But don't make any mistakes, the "ability to role-play" doesn't translate into a truly substantial involvement in any emotional way. Nope. It means that the player can pat himself on the back for playing a role.

 

Now, some folks really do get into the role. They enjoy the game and start to have some attachment to key NPCs and have a feeling for the community and even look at each other as their characters. The problem is that victories are fleeting as a DM. Our role isn't to face the players with challenges. That's just one method we use to reach our end goal: a fun gaming experience. So we must challenge the party on one hand, but give them an interesting and vibrant world on the other. We have to give them incentive to use non-combat abilities and then give them a sense of satisfaction when they're are successful in using these abilities.

 

What's worse is, some folks couldn't care less about anything other than combat while others want puzzles to solve and some even want to focus on roles and dialogue. There is no real balance. The only thing a DM can do is bounce back and forth like a pinball as he satisfies one gaming taste or another.

 

Now, as for your problem, I hesitate to suggest these ideas because I'm sure you use or consider them already.

 

One thing to try is to introduce and then invest some time in an NPC who truly personifies the plight of the "living brain tissue" donors. Do whatever it takes so that only the most truly vicious and heartless of players cannot help but be touched by his condition.

 

Plant specific and broad hints to show how truly horrible was the effect of this brain tissue harvesting on the human community.

 

Attribute some unhealthy side effects to the psychic based loot they find. Maybe associate it with some sort of mental and physical sickness.

 

Have some of the outlying communities threatened and perhaps even destroyed by the menace associated with these artifacts.

 

Are there deities? If so, maybe have them drop some hints. If not, then a mystic experience might still seep into the campaign. Some transcendent experience that will guide the players to see what a bunch of heartless, worse than slave owning jack asses they are.

 

If you are deadset against any sort of mystic experience, try to tie their self-interests, at the very least long term, with investigating and overcoming this vile practice.

 

Anyhow, I don't know how any of that will work, but it runs the range from subtle to beating your players over the head with it.

 

Let us know how any of this works.

[Llyranor]

Looks like Eldar is going on a killing spree come next session.

[Fenghuang]

I think one of the funniest things I've ever read was the transcript of Eldar's Campaign when they were deciding what to do about the vine, and Baley's bard says "WELL WE DON'T HAVE TO KILL HIM WHAT'D HE DO TO US?!!"

 

Then the others attack the vine and almost get their asses handed to them.

 

I like games where I can be subterfugey better. I think I did an okay job of that in Ender's Vamp campaign, which is my only real experience with PnP, but then again I did attack that one dude after my bag of sneaky tricks ran out...

 

(He wanted me to drink an unknown substance that could've done my disgused by Obfuscate character harm, not knowing what it was I decided to attack while he still thought I was his friend, but it turned out that even though he looked pretty mild mannered he was an Elder.

[MrBrown]

To get player's to make moral decisions, you need to:

 

- Reward it uniquely. That is to say, no other mechanic brings the same rewards as making moral decisions does. Or, make it the only reward system.

 

- Take GM judgement out of it. Player's can't make moral judgements if some outside authority dictates one is "right" and some other is "wrong". This applies to reward mechanics as well as in-world events.

 

 

A few more points:

 

- Reward systems are what RPGs are about. Determine your focus, and then wrap the reward system around it. Besides increase in character effectiveness, rewards can also be narrative power, or social ones.

 

- World/physics simulation doesn't lead to moral decisions. You need a system for it. Seriously. At least a reward one.

 

- "Roleplaying", as it is commonly understood as "staying in character", does not lead to making moral judgements. "Staying in character" is being static; moral judgement is all about change.

 

 

 

For an example of reward systems and mechanics on "moral judgement", you could check out the Spiritual Attributes in The Riddle of Steel. They're all about answering "what is worth fighting for?".

[Nartwak]

Your friends are playing sentient creatures, yes? I think the resolution is clear. Perhaps I'm too direct though.

[Cantousent]

snip

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You know, MrBrown, I always enjoy your posts. They're clear and concise and to the point. Of course, they're a bit anti-septic, which isn't reall all that bad.

 

Here's the problem. The things you describe aren't really new. These are the things that DMs are forced to do just to run a successful game. Any game that has progressed for 8 months is successful.

 

Furthermore, saying that there should be some sort of reward associated with the players' decisions is obvious to the point of insult. Turn your fine mind to specific examples. Take a chance and give us an idea rather than make observations from the stands. Seriously, you talk the talk. I even think you can walk the walk. Hell, I don't doubt you can dance the walk around me while I stumble about like a zombie.

 

The point isn't to insult you. I'd just like to get away from general ideas or technical terms and down to the nitty-gritty.

[MrBrown]

Here's the problem.  The things you describe aren't really new.  These are the things that DMs are forced to do just to run a successful game.  Any game that has progressed for 8 months is successful.

 

If I did think those points were already clear, I wouldn't make them, would I?

 

 

Furthermore, saying that there should be some sort of reward associated with the players' decisions is obvious to the point of insult.

 

The key point here is moral judgement; it's not "just" player decisions.

 

 

Turn your fine mind to specific examples.  Take a chance and give us an idea rather than make observations from the stands.  Seriously, you talk the talk.  I even think you can walk the walk.  Hell, I don't doubt you can dance the walk around me while I stumble about like a zombie.

 

The point isn't to insult you.  I'd just like to get away from general ideas or technical terms and down to the nitty-gritty.

 

But... But... Theory is too beautiful to be soiled by actual play!

 

 

Seriously, I don't see much to make specific examples about. Gromnir's problem: "Players do not make moral judgements". The answer: "Reward them for it, and they will". Duh.

 

Unfortunately, I don't remember any related reward systems that would be free and online... I'll need to dig up, or maybe make a crude d20 version of the Riddle of Steel one.

 

 

 

Oh, one thing though. Watch out for "Over before it even started": Making the moral judgement the game is supposed to be about (or is it? At least I'm assuming it is, from the post) seems to take 5 seconds time, and that's before Gromnir gets to say "you're at this tavern...".

 

Gromnir: "The world is completely dependant on the Unethically Produced Commodity. But, a revolution is starting, to rid the world of this past. Which side do you choose?"

 

*5 seconds*

 

Players: "Ok, were the revolutionaries!".

 

*End moral decision making, begin "staying in character".*

[MrBrown]

Ok, a Riddle of Steel Spiritual Attributes conversion to d20... This thing doesn't really work, it's just an example.

 

 

1. Get rid of other experience awards. Totally. Shoo shoo. And tune down the loot, maybe

2. Get rid of alignment. Alignment is "staying in character", and is only in the way of moral judgementing.

 

 

Define a set of Spiritual Attributes for each character. RoS has 4, picked from several types, mainly Destiny, Drive, Faith and Passion. They need further definition, such as a specific character might have "Drive: Become a general of the Army", or "Passion: Love for his family". Each attribute has a score from 0 to 5, starting at maybe 1 or 2 for each.

 

They work like this:

1. Whenever the PC does something that any of the spritual attributes "apply" (to be defined, but for instance the love-for-family guy defending his family) to, the player adds the attributes as a bonus to his rolls (in D&D, mainly to-hit, skills, damage, AC, saves and spell DC). If more than one apply, they stack.

2. Each "scene" (to be defined) that the above happens, the player adds a single point permanently to all all SA's that applied. If the PC does something against his SA, it is lowered by one point.

3. The player can, at any time, permanently take a point away from any SA and gain an amount of experience (maybe 100 to 200) that applies immediately.

4. Whenever an SA is at 0 (such as from the use of #3), the player can change it. For instance, Passion: Love for family to Passion: Love for homeland.

 

#3 and #4 are crucial.

 

 

In actual play, you do this: Let's say you have two characters with the following SAs:

John:

Faith: The King.

Passion: Love for Maria, the daughter of Baron Vodstok.

 

Bob:

Faith: The King.

Drive: Become a noble.

 

 

Then in play, the GM does something like these:

- The King orders Baron Vodstok and his immediate family beheaded for treachery.

- The King disbands all nobility, and turns to true dictature.

- Baron Vodstok offers to take Bob as part of his family, if he takes his daughter in marriage.

 

...And what you get is mechanically supported decision making that completely defines the reward system. Or more appropriately, a drama-driving mechanic. In each of those examples, the characters must make a choice between their SAs, AND they get points no matter what they choose... As long as they DO make the choice.

 

 

And in Gromnir's setting...

Tiki-tiki Too-too the Thri-Kreen has:

Faith: Unethically Produced Commodities are of the Devil, and not-to-be-used.

Passion: His pack.

 

And then Gromnir says: "Someone in your pack has a disease that can only be cured with UPC!". And Tiki-tiki must choose whether to abandon his morals or his love, AND he gets points whichever he does.

 

What the GM does here is called a "bang", btw. In these kinda of games, the GM just needs to keep banging.

Edited May 3, 2006 by MrBrown

[Kaftan Barlast]

the problem for Gromnir is that our players didn

[Atreides]

I love this thread already.

[Nick_i_am]

Good read.

 

This is why I probably wouldn't be confident in myself as a DM, esspesally as jerk players would find themselves being hit in the face with a meteor any time they rolled a 1.

[Archmonarch]

Just one question, Gromnir: Do you maintain the half-orc persona while DMing? I can see that being an obstacle to communication. "

[Gromnir]

2 quick comments...

 

1) point of the thread were not to get advice.

 

don't get Gromnir wrong, we not mind advice, but for a campaign to run 8 months we gotta be doing something right. am not trying to fix at this point. our number 1 goal is for players to enjoy the experience, and they is. fact that they went and did things far different than we expected is irksome to us, but is not really a problem.

 

2) "To get player's to make moral decisions, you need to:"

 

as far as we is concerned, there never is and never should be a reason to Make players do what we want 'em to. am not gonna specific reward the rights and wrong moral choices. is maybe the way other folks GM, but not Gromnir. we set up the rules and the setting and we tries to give players stuff to do, but we do not dictate to them overtly or through carrot & stick routine what it is we wants them to do. we got expectations, and that helps us better prepare for what players will want to do next week or month, but we never try to make'em do stuff. am just simply surprised at the direction the players chose... considering our rather alarming lack o' subtlety.

 

btw, eldar's advice, other than the Divine intervention stuff (no Gods to muddy our campaign with Transcendent Morality,) is stuff that were built into the campaign from start. we had clear and definite practical reasons for the players to wanna makes the brain battery moral questions their primary focus. the whole undead stuff were one such method we used. in a d20 kinda world with traditional undead but no clerics, and given that undead is such a terrible foe for mind zorking psychics, makes undead a real and serious problem for our players. the growing undead threat and the use o' brain batteries were linked. we were giving the players an obvious kinda Big Threat to contend with. also, our resistance movement (more like sympathetic terrorists,) afforded all kinds o' potential for players to meets npcs and situations that we thought would makes 'em question The System.

 

heck, we even had our players eventually discover that a sub-race of degenerate humans had survived the seeming destruction of their race. illithids in Gromnir's campaign is not bred from humans, but is, in point of fact, a remnant of a cult o' humans that managed to survive their race's apocalypse. those brain eating monsters is what is left of humanity (though we gots a couple baba yaga and merlin kinda characters in our world who is rumored to possibly actually be human as well.)

 

see, the thing is that the players were really having fun with the world we created and they were enjoying using the brain batteries and brain powers far more than they were interested in getting involved in a Big Picture campaign... which is fine for them, but Gromnir obviously miscalculated. our players happily harvest from kills and preserve tissue and when they is in towns or cities they restock their supply o' batteries or even buy slave stock from which they can makes their own bats, now that their appropriate craftsmanship and profession skills is high 'nuff to be doing so. our greedy players would prefer to perform the gruesome brain harvesting themselves if it is meaning they can save a few brass coins by so doing. did far more work than we had to with detailed setting and npc backgrounds n' such.

 

were simply wondering if other gms had had a similar experience... players go all Lord o' the Flys on 'em... or simply act in a completely unexpected manner. has never really been something we had to deal with in the past.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[MrBrown]

2) "To get player's to make moral decisions, you need to:"

 

as far as we is concerned, there never is and never should be a reason to Make players do what we want 'em to.

Oh, I agree completely with that. I guess I worded my original post badly.

 

It's more about getting to the (agreed-upon) "point of the game" and avoiding drifting, than forcing something to someone.

 

 

am not gonna specific reward the rights and wrong moral choices.

Just for the record, I didn't suggest so (and never would; I consider GM judgement of player decisions to be pretty bad form in just about any case.)

Edited May 3, 2006 by MrBrown

[Kaftan Barlast]

I have two sort of modes for GM'ing that usually go wrong

• I have a very detailed plot prepared = the players take an unexpected turn and I find myself throwing them in hours worth of random combat to get the time to think up with something decent but I fail and I need to end the session early to re-plan.
   
  
• I have a fairly plotless, non-linear, player-driven scenario prepared = the players sit on their asses and wait for the story to start.
  

Its hard to be a GM

 

 

 

2 quick comments...

 

1) point of the thread were not to get advice.

2) "To get player's to make moral decisions, you need to:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Terribly sorry, Mr. Gromnir. Shant happen again!

Edited May 3, 2006 by Kaftan Barlast

[Cantousent]

You can't really help it if you use the alignment system from the DnD rules. I mean, most of these settings have gods. Part of the balance of the Paladin class is that they have a code. Morality is part of the game.

 

I don't like to lean on characters, but it falls on me to play the role of their deity. That means I must make moral judgements regarding their in-game actions.

 

Another problem with DnD is that alignment is such an important part of the game that it's impossible to avoid. You can modify the rules, but you can't really get away from the whole alignment system. Not entirely, at least.

 

Now, as for morals, take this online campaign. The players want to smite the hell out of a vine. I'm thinking to myself, why the hell is it so important to fight it rather than just run away or maybe even leave and come back with some way of dealing with the plants in a less destructive manner? Forcing them to make a decision is not my role.

 

However, trying to guide the players is not entirely out of the question. The carrot/stick method that MrBrown described isn't my style. I find that players will respond to rewards built into the story. Acolades from the villagers. Fear from the bad guys. Genuine gratitude from the nobles. I have an in-person game I'm running right now and one of the NPCs made a small carving for the mage. It's made in the likeness of her familiar, and it has no magical powers or real value. However, the player loves it. It was never something she'd ask to have done, but it is a way of tying her more closely to the people in the village. Now, when she's out, she can take out her little carving and think about her friend at the village. It's (heaven help me) cute.

 

I guess what I'm saying is, not every reward needs to be reflected in the ruleset. In real life, folks go out and die for little bits of ribbon and maybe a good word. Tactics like these, no matter how cheesy they might seem, really work on the players.

 

For a bit. Then they want a new staff that calls down lightning from the sky.

[Tigranes]

why the hell is it so important to fight it rather than just run away or maybe even leave and come back with some way of dealing with the plants in a less destructive manner?

 

Because at that point I planned for us to go along the road and river, and I saw any threat that could move along the length of the river (you called it a tentacle) as a potential backstabber later. But that's neither here nor there.

 

Gromnir, you did express a little disappointment that the intricacies of your setting were not seized upon, and instead the campaign is trugging along like a "normal D&D campaign". Are the players satisfied with this, and are you? I mean, it's not like you don't have a right to derive enjoyment from the game just because you're a DM. You shouldn't drag the palyers the way you want to, but there's no reason not to continually offer creative hooks for the player to latch onto the psychic thing.

[Cantousent]

I called it a tentacle until Nick made a successful check to see that it was a plant. heh heh heh.

 

Anyhow, I get the feeling that the players latched onto the psychic thing pretty well. They just completely ignore the moral ramifications. hahaha

 

I guess the quick and easy answer to Gromnir's question is: yes. I often provide a hook that players overlook. Damned players.

[Tigranes]

My character was too busy stopping Baley from a general whirlwind of molestation. "

[Cantousent]

See, Gromnir, I have characters who constantly try either to molest or pummel each other. You. can. not. win. :Eldar's crazed laughter icon:

[Blank]

C'mon guys, the bard was all wrong. The tentacle clearly tried to take a bite out of poor Horace (not the horse). Horace, of course, was able to get away, and he was so startled that he yelled for help, and the others came to aid him, although, there was a moment when I doubted that would happen.