Ever have one of those moments when...

[Stone]

I freely admit I am not the best GM or the best gamer around. That being said, one of my last sessions had me doing some serious soul searching. The players succeeded in killing 4 innocent people, in group bickering upto the point of 1 PC entangling another PC (which made the bad guys job much easier), throwing a car through four buildings (85 STR brick), and oh yes, taking out the team leader (same brick blindly threw a metal object into the building the team leader was in and hit him).

I tried to explain to the group that they are supposed to be heroes, however I think my words fell on deaf ears. One response I received was;"Can't make an omlette w/out breaking a few eggs".

Now I could lower the boom and have all of the supposed heroes become hunted by UNTIL, PRIMUS, and all the major heroes, but I am sure the PC's would do something along the line of attacking an UNTIL or PRIMUS HQ in an attempt to get them to leave the PC's alone. I could have some villians try to recruit them, but I really really detest running a villian game.

Right now I am leaning towards just scrapping the campaign, PC's, and maybe finding a new group of players. I do not expect the PC's to win the boyscout merit badge for good behavior, but I have a group of 5 "anti-heroes" who don't mind opening up full power on normals.

I would try to a Dark Champions campaign, but I'm pretty sure we would end up w/a body count contest. Sigh....


I am open to suggestions...

[Black Lotus]

The players and GM should cooperate with each other to tell a story. As well, the players ought to roleplay the characters correctly. If they would rather play villains, they should have said so from the get-go, I think. And if they just don't take roleplaying very seriously, or at least try to get along with the group, they're probably in the wrong place.

I see two reasonable options.

1.) Scrap the campaign and find new players: this is a fine option, and probably the one I would choose in this situation -- but only after trying to reason with them and failing.

2.) Try to begin again playing a villain campaign: not the option I would go with, but there it is.

[ghost-angel]

Welp, you gotta make sure the game that the players are playing is the game that you are playing. Is everyone in agreement as to the genre to play, and also in agreement as to what that genre means?

There's definately flavors of "Hero" genres.

I'd propose starting over since the game they're playing isn't the game you were expecting. Explain what kind of feel you want from the game and see how they react.

If they give you blank looks ... find a new group. No reason you should frustrate yourself trying to roleplay with what appear to be nothing more than hack'n'slashers.

[Trebuchet]

Oh, man, I feel for ya. Bummer. :(

Gaming is supposed to be fun for everyone, players and GM alike. It sounds like you and your players just aren't on the same page. If you're not enjoying yourself because the players are acting like savages in the game, then you really only have two options:

1) Explain to the players that this is not what you had in mind; and present them with the options of either straightening up or changing to a different type of campaign (if you're willing to run one.)

2) Terminate the game and look for another group of players.

In your case, I'd probably go with Option 2. After a player fiasco like you described, I suspect your players are not really interested in playing with you in the first place or they'd have paid more attention to your hints.

[Hugh Neilson]

For the most part, I echo the comments above. You're running a Four Colour Superhero game, and the players aren't playing one. However, I/m curious about a couple of comments.


group bickering upto the point of 1 PC entangling another PC (which made the bad guys job much easier)
************************************************** ********
taking out the team leader (same brick blindly threw a metal object into the building the team leader was in and hit him)
************************************************** ********
One response I received was;"Can't make an omlette w/out breaking a few eggs".

You'll know your players beter than I will, but as I read these statements, I wonder whether there are some players who do want to play the four colour heroes. Older X-Men sees a lot of internal strife between the "Wolverine Approach" and the "X-Men don't kill" philosophy (Uncanny #142 even sees an opponent commenting on how much easier that makes their job).

Most of your examples are either "the brick" (who clearly seems to be a player not playing 4 colour Supers) or unnamed. I can see a character entangling the brick because he's as big a threat as the villains. I suspect he's also the Omelette guy.

Maybe some of your players want that four colour game. Perhaps the answer, after a discussion with the group as a whole, is that those players should form the starting point for your new group.

My sympathgies, by the way - it's a tough situation, and I hope it works out for you.

[Storn]

I rarely take Code vs. Killing... that four color trope. However, MOST of my characters fall under the category of "I care a LOT!!!" Killing isn't something I do with casualness in RDU. But when I feel the need to do it, I do it w/o mercy. It also happens in combat, most times out of my PCs control. And I'm okay with that... you are stupid enough to go into combat vs. me and mine... you very well might end up 6 feet under. My main PC did kill in cold blood once. Once and I thought long and hard about it. My more Dark Champ type characters regularly kill... that is THAT GENRE'S trope. But innocents? Damn, I feel terrible if any get hurt or die especially when I'm doing my best to save them.

I stated that so you know where I"m coming from. I like the middle ground.


Here is my suggestion. Talk with the players. Say that you want to do a 4 color game. Ask them if they feel the same or want something more gritty. Perhaps a common ground can be found.

If they DO want a four color game. I have this suggestion;, say fine, lets keep going with this batch of PCs. In fact, lets make them villians, in a, say, 4 episode arc. Lets roleplay out the downward spiral and get it out of our systems. Then lets make NEW PCs at the same pts levels who's job it is to track down the bad guys and launch a new beginning of the same campaign. No time is lost, no background is lost and a lot of flavor will come out of the fully fleshed out badguys... who very well might hae some great motivations. The omelette motivation is a slippery slope, but it is a damn fine DRAMATIC motivation whether or not you agree with it.

[schir1964]

Based on what you said my initial reaction:

- Find another group that has similar tastes
- Let someone else GM and see what happens

Personally, all characters in my campaigns get Reluctant To Kill for zero points. This prevents the player from trying purchase Casual Killer and the like, and will also help discover exactly which players may have a problem with this. It's kind of a litmus test for what the players want for thier characters. But that's just because I know I'm not going to be running Villians Campaign and probably won't run a Dark Champions campaign. If that's what they want, then they need to find someone else to GM. Which is fine.

- Christopher Mullins

[Fox1]

Now I could lower the boom and have all of the supposed heroes become hunted by UNTIL, PRIMUS, and all the major heroes,

This never works.

Time to let your players know that their approach to things is not what your looking for and that you're seeking another group unless they offer something different quickly. In any event, close down that campaign and those characters- it needs to be started over even if the same players express a desire to try again.

[The Monster]

I had a campaign (Justice, Inc. of all things) self-destruct over a discussion over whether slavery was inherently evil(!). I figured that when the "heroes" saw the lizardmen whipping their human slaves they'd just charge in...
Long story short, that campaign ended right there (when the PCs drew guns on each other, I erupted into a lecture about playing in character and in genre. Not my most shining moment perhaps, but it got the point across).

My suggestion is that you discuss the problem with the players. From their initial reaction, it doesn't sound like they're with you on the four-color mentality, but you never know. If you can bend a little and they can bend a little, fine. But if the GM or the players aren't enjoying themselves, it's just not worth it.

Now, it isn't clear that this campaign is irretrievable. It doesn't sound like the PCs actually killed innocents (or villains, for that matter), in fact most of the mayhem that offended you comes down to a mix of clumsiness, intergroup rivalry and tactical stupidity. My impression is that if they want to play that way, it isn't necessarily out of heroic character, just not as neat as some expect. As you pointed out, their antics made the villains' job easier. Collateral damage (at least in terms of property) is not often an issue in comics, so I woudn't worry too much about that. But if the villains keep getting away with their crimes because the heroes are being stupid and bashing each other, then you can occasionally point this out as the maniacal bad-guy laughter fades in the distance. On top of that, what the bad guys are often after is something that makes them more powerful, so it may come down to simply kicking the heroes' heinies once or twice with the exact weapon they failed to defend in the previous session.

Making them villains would be a bad idea. Their "omlette" reaction implies to me that if you try slap this on them, it'll just provide an excuse to really let loose.

[The Monster]

Oh, I meant to mention that intergroup bickering can be quite in genre, as can a reputation for being loose cannons (yes, the mayor needs your help, but dang it, he sure doesn't *want* it - better to send them out of the city against the villain's remote stronghold).

[memorax300]

Worse comes to worse if the players keep doing stuuf like that let the know there will be consquences. Even if it means killing one of their characters. If one complains just tell him well you can make an omlette breaking some eggs. Granted my advice is not the best but I can`t stand players who pull that sort of crap in my games.

[Stone]

I guess I should've put up more detail. I am really not sure the players see that they did anything wrong. The game world is kind of "gritty". The team leader is worried that normals are beginning to truly fear all "supers" not just the villians. He is trying everything he can think of not to give normals a reason to fear him and the team, but this is how the session went downhill.

The team is sent to Mongolia to take down a "super" terriorist who has pretty much taken control of the capital. On the way there, the team leader uses diplomacy working w/the the military and police in order to be allowed into the country to take down the terrorist.

Once the team moves into the area of the city where the bad guy is, they fall under attack from a nearby building. They determine there are 5 suspects w/sonic stunners shooting from the building. They also determine there are other people who may or may not be involved or hostages. 1 PC tells the brick to throw something through a window, so the brick spots a junked vehicle and uses his full strength to throw it through the window, and the building, and the three buildings behind it. He kills four people (the PC's know of) in that building. The PC's storm the building and find the attackers are automated defenses. They quickly defeat them. Citizens are now freaking out and running all over the place. 1 PC entangles a citizen so the group can ask her some questions. This angers another PC who begins to threaten the 1st PC. They begin to bicker. The leader makes his PER roll to sense there are more attackers. The PC who used the entangle is shot, but not stunned. A different PC decides he is going to head off on his own. The leader tells him not too. He ignores the leader and starts to head out, the PC who just got shot, decided to entangle the the PC trying to leave and starts another bickering session. Things went down hill from there....

Like I said eariler. I am not expecting them all to have "protection of innocents" like the team leader. There are going to be times when deadly force and even killing a villian will be necessary. The players seem to think they are free to use their powers and not worry about collateral damage or injuring innocents.

[Lanith]

I've played in games similar to what you mention, but sometimes they can get a little out of hand.

One thought for you is to have a PC (my suggestion is the brick) get recruited by a villain group. Once the player agrees, take their character sheet and tell them to create a new character. "You can't play this character anymore, he's a villain now."

You might find that all the other players get the hint very quickly.

[Deadly Rose]

This reminds me of X-mas last year while Ben was down here. My brother plays as some ninja guy whos blind and for some reason he (my brother) decided to just kill off my character after this Ben, Russ (my other uncle) and myself were so pissed off that we just packed up. So so lame that people can just play along and have to become rebels >_<

[Black Lotus]

This reminds me of X-mas last year while Ben was down here. My brother plays as some ninja guy whos blind and for some reason he (my brother) decided to just kill off my character after this Ben, Russ (my other uncle) and myself were so pissed off that we just packed up. So so lame that people can just play along and have to become rebels >_<

Ben Seeman has RELATIVES? My God! And here I'd thought he was the Highlander!

My whole world -- I can feel it falling away.

[Deadly Rose]

Ben Seeman has RELATIVES? My God! And here I'd thought he was the Highlander!

My whole world -- I can feel it falling away.


Hot damn, I have powers over people I didn't know exsisited. HAHAHAHA!

[Black Lotus]

Hot damn, I have powers over people I didn't know exsisited. HAHAHAHA!

I refuse to believe you exist. Imposter!

BEN IS THE HIGHLANDER!! And some day... I will cut off his head and absorb all of his power in the form of convulsions and multiple lightning strikes. Ha ha ha ha... ah HA hahahahahahaha!

[Deadly Rose]

I refuse to believe you exist. Imposter!

BEN IS THE HIGHLANDER!! And some day... I will cut off his head and absorb all of his power in the form of convulsions and multiple lightning strikes. Ha ha ha ha... ah HA hahahahahahaha!

Fine, believe what you must, or don't. Maybe I'm just in your head. JUST A LIE IN YOUR HEAD!!!! *WOOOO hand gestures*

(highlander always reminds me of an episode of Aqua Teen Hunger Force)

[Mad Tech]

It seems as if you need to sit down and talk with your players about what kinda of game they really want to play. Do they want to be heroes fighting defending honor and standing up for good, vigilantes out for justice as they see fit, or villains out to do whatever they want.

Don't try and push the players into a mold that they don't want to conform to. This will only frustrate you and anger them. Find the direction that the players want to go in and then modify the campaign to fit. But of course, the character's actions should have consequences, so if they destroy downtown and kill innocent people, they will be hunted by the police and any superheroes in the area. Their secret identities might be uncovered, their bank assetts and not-so-secret base seized by police, etc.

Mad Tech

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

this sounds like an out of game problem. I'd go with talking to the players about the kind of campian they want, vs. the kind of campain that they should have. If they don't want an 4C hero game then you have a problem, it could be they misunderstood genre conventions (unlikely but possible)

[prestidigitator]

All I can say is that I feel for you. A little player squabbling is one thing, but constant feuding that turns into PVP more often than not is something I personally detest. Sometimes I manage to quash such periods by throwing the PCs up against things they have to cooperate on or risk devastation. Sometimes this doesn't work and I put a campaign on hold until it gets forgotten or returned to with a renewed feeling of enthusiasm.

Some of my friends started a regular, "player dueling," session at the local gaming shop. Their explanation was that they wanted to introduce new players to the D&D system and get them used to building characters and handling combat, but all I saw was a glorified version of Warhammer, with players getting their egos behind the prowess of their characters and their ability to min/max and beat each other using obscure feats. GREAT way to introduce new players to roleplaying! I almost retched when I first heard this. I have completely refused to have anything to do with it on principle. I think it has died off by now (thankfully!).

[bigdamnhero]

Here's my question: how many XP did you hand out for this debacle? If you really think the players don't understand they screwed up, here's an easy way to get their attention:

-1 XP for group squabbling (up to you whether all players get this, or only some of them),
-1 XP for increasing anti-super paranoia,
-1 XP for the player who attacked another PC,
-1 XP for the player who tried to abandon the group,
-4 XP for the player who killed 4 innocent civilians...

...you get the idea. You don't have to hit them with all of these; just enough to get the point across. Not that XP is everything, of course. But if the purpose of Hero XP is to reward good roleplaying (and not just a high bodycount), then you have to be willing to dock players for "bad" roleplaying.

From here, one of three things is likely to happen:

1) The players (or at least some of them) realize they screwed up and try harder next time: win-win.
2) The players (or at least some of them) still don't get it, but you use this as a springboard into a "What kind of game do WE want to play" discussion: you either come to an agreement, or go your seperate ways. Or,
3) The players (OALSOT) get pissed off, quit, and you go out and find new players: still better than what you've got now.

Good luck - it's a tough situation. Let us know how it works out.


bigdamnhero
"Life is like a sewer: what you get out of it depends on what you put into it."

[Chris Goodwin]

There's a fundamental disconnect going on at the table. Stone, you need to talk to the players. Tell them that when you started running, you envisioned one kind of game, and when the dice hit the table there was something else entirely. If you made this clear at the beginning, and the players are going in a different direction, then if I were you I'd scrap it now; otherwise, if you can get everyone's assent to doing it differently then I'd give it one more session, and scrap it then if there's no change.

Having them be hunted by UNTIL, PRIMUS, etc. is not a solution, nor is docking experience. The problem is not in-game; the problem is the social contract at the table and the (perhaps unspoken) assumptions everyone had when they started.

The GM has as much right to enjoy the game as the other players. I bolded this because it's important and because sometimes people forget it. If you're not enjoying it, then you need to either fix it or scrap it; bad gaming is not better than no gaming.

[bigdamnhero]

The GM has as much right to enjoy the game as the other players. I bolded this because it's important and because sometimes people forget it.

Amen! :thumbup: It's odd how many players forget that the guy doing the bulk of the pre-game work should also get to have fun. And then they wonder why no one wants to GM...


bad gaming is not better than no gaming.

Hmmm...I dunno. I've had periods in my life when I would've killed for even a bad game. But I had circumstances. Usually, the alternative to bad gaming is just to find different gamers.

Oh, and having now read my previous post by the light of day, I didn't mean to suggest you should be so confrontational about it. You could use the XP idea as a conversation starter: "OK guys, if I'd had to hand out XP last session, here's what it might've looked like..." Then use that to lead into a conversation about what everyone wants from the game, as Chris and others have suggested.


bigdamnhero
"Alright you primitive screw heads, listen up. See this? This is my BOOM stick."

[Blue]

They know what they signed on for, right?

"Um, guys... you DO realize this is a superhero campaign, right? WWCAD!*"

(*What would captain america do)

[casualplayer]

Nothing gets the point across like having the villains whoop the player's butts. If they fall apart in the middle of combat, take advantage of this as the antagonists should. Have the main bad guy call them the incompetent heroes that they are.

Sounds like too heavy a diet of Image comics, or Ultimate Gobbledygook. The bodycounts did mount in those books, and consequences went by the wayside.

Taking steps during character creation can help with this. Insist that the characters have a reason to adventure other than wanting to have cage matches on city streets. Less evil, more hero. Most characters are written up as one bad day from becoming villains, and it's the GM's job to create bad days.

[Just Joe]

I agree with others who said that you should talk it over with your players. Communicate what kind of game you want to run and how their actions are incompatible with it. Try to determine how much (if at all) they are willing to move toward the kind of game you envision. Think about how much (if at all) you are willing to move toward the kind of game they are playing. If, after discussion (or further playing) it looks like it won't work, then try to find another group.

And BTW, here's one possible source of miscommunication that I don't think anyone has mentioned. In many four color comics, heroes do/did things that realistically would have caused (or at least risked) civilian casualties, but were protected by the writer from such consequences. At least some of your PC's might be assuming that you will (or should) be doing the same for them. Might be worth discussing . . .

[bigdamnhero]

Sounds like too heavy a diet of Image comics, or Ultimate Gobbledygook.
Good point; it's not just a question of "Is we is or is we ain't" comicbook superheroes, but *what* comic are we in. If you're thinking Shazam and they're thinking Witchblade...


And BTW, here's one possible source of miscommunication that I don't think anyone has mentioned. In many four color comics, heroes do/did things that realistically would have caused (or at least risked) civilian casualties, but were protected by the writer from such consequences. At least some of your PC's might be assuming that you will (or should) be doing the same for them. Might be worth discussing . . .
I hadn't thought about it from that angle - excellent suggestion!


bigdamnhero
"Good. Bad. I'm the guy with the gun."

[PhilFleischmann]

The GM has as much right to enjoy the game as the other players.
Amen! ...if not actually *more* right than the other players! After all, the GM is doing a lot more work. Without the GM, you don't have a game.

This kind of behavior can only serve to discourage people from ever GMing again - to the detriment of RPGs in general. Good players are much easier to find than good GMs.

[Hugh Neilson]

And BTW, here's one possible source of miscommunication that I don't think anyone has mentioned. In many four color comics, heroes do/did things that realistically would have caused (or at least risked) civilian casualties, but were protected by the writer from such consequences. At least some of your PC's might be assuming that you will (or should) be doing the same for them. Might be worth discussing . . .

Good point. "Fortunately, the building was condemned, so it was unoccupied".

One other in-game approach, and it's mean, is to plant in some villains with a stronger moral code than the "heroes", and have them get accolades in the press for protecting civilian safety endangered by the so-called "heroes".

Civilians on the street now quiver in fear at the approach of our "heroes". They are picking up the Reputation disadvantage due to in-game actions.

[Hugh Neilson]

And BTW, here's one possible source of miscommunication that I don't think anyone has mentioned. In many four color comics, heroes do/did things that realistically would have caused (or at least risked) civilian casualties, but were protected by the writer from such consequences. At least some of your PC's might be assuming that you will (or should) be doing the same for them. Might be worth discussing . . .

Good point. "Fortunately, the building was condemned, so it was unoccupied".

One other in-game approach, and it's mean, is to plant in some villains with a stronger moral code than the "heroes", and have them get accolades in the press for protecting civilian safety endangered by the so-called "heroes".

Civilians on the street now quiver in fear at the approach of our "heroes". They are picking up the Reputation disadvantage due to in-game actions.

[tinman]

If you have the inclination to do so (and your enjoyment of your own game should take precedence) I would suggest running with it.

First, discuss with the players the direction that their character's actions will likely take the campaign (fair warning and all that). See if they would prefer to simply make up new characters or even reboot the campaign.

Next, start introducing consequences for their actions. Maybe go a little light on the whole "brought in by UNTIL/PRIMUS" aspect at first (even if they deserve it) because that sort of thing pretty much means it's a villain campaign from then on.

Do they have any government ties? Sever them. Do they have any corporate or private sponsorship? Dry it up. If they have a base put it under surveillance by law enforcement. Let them know that the State Department (assuming they are based in the US) is bending over backwards to smooth things over with Mongolia and the President is pissed off because he's kissing ambassadorial *** over the actions of these clowns. Make sure that they understand that they are on very thin ice.

Do they have any loved-ones as DNPC's who know their super identities? What if their spouses or children are afraid of them or condemn their actions?

Ultimately, if their actions become so reckless or criminal that they have pretty much become villains and need to be taken down, have the players do it themselves. Have the players make up a new group of characters who's first mission is to bring in these rogues. Make sure that everyone is on the same page with regards to the mood and theme with the new group of PC's.

[John T]

Couple of pertinent question I hadn't seen asked yet:

1) Has this group been together before, gaming or otherwise?
2) If "yes", is this group prone to player conflicts.

(If "no", you may just be dealing with a group that isn't used to playing together, and its inevitable miscommunications.)

John T

[RDU Neil]

Couple of pertinent question I hadn't seen asked yet:

1) Has this group been together before, gaming or otherwise?
2) If "yes", is this group prone to player conflicts.

(If "no", you may just be dealing with a group that isn't used to playing together, and its inevitable miscommunications.)

John T

I was about to ask the same thing. This almost sounds like Player to Player conflict... more than issues with gaming style. One player does something another dislikes, and instead of working it out, they lash out at each other.

Now... I don't know the ages, maturity level or life experience of your players, but one I have seen in many games over the years... usually with younger players:
- The game is the place where players get to experience power fantasies.
- One such fantasy is being able to actually DO something without repercussions.
- Another fantasy is about actually being able to DO something to stop a person who is doing something idiotic/mean/stupid/etc.

One player is acting with abandon... because a game is a place to cut loose... no rules man... I can do what I want!

Another player is getting to react to their anger and disgust at such abandon and stupidity... because this is a game where I don't have to let people get away with it... I don't get walked all over... I can fight back and stop the stupidity!


I've actually witnessed this in many games over the years. I'm not saying for certain... but it sounds like the players have not matured to the level of cooperative story telling (at least not all of them) and are still in the early RPG stages of indulgent power fantasies (and conflicting ones, at that.)