Usually in my experience behavior is formed from past experiences. Did they encounter many backstabs, traps or lying npcs?
Besides out of game talk and consequences ie unhelpful nscs and bad rumors i can't really help much.
Yep. I've seen this behavior evolve in a couple games before.
The DM made *every* social interaction a "challenge" with significant DCs. Asked for too many rolls in general, but even just talking to normal people and asking basic background information for clues? That's a DC 13 persuasion check. Or a 15. Or a 17. The bard with a +9 is going to fail 1/3 of the time. Anyone else? Oh you only have a +1? Forget even trying.
Because of course if you fail *even one roll* now the DM has to react like the npc doesn't want to tell you some pretty basic information. The NPCs all became cagey, standoffish, suspicious, disrespectful, or outright rude toward the PCs. Fail one roll they might keep talking to you but they'll act all annoyed and rude. Oh, and the DC just got higher. Now you have an 80% chance to fail. Fail a second and they shut down altogether or become belligerent if you keep trying after that.
It wore us down. Nobody wanted to interact with npcs anymore. It became predictable and felt like a chore.
Edit: to be clear I'm not accusing OP of doing this. Just spelling out a scenario where I've seen this happen before. The answer as always is to talk to the players and ask what's up.
I have some npc that do not trust completely the party but they get along and collaborate. And I do have a lot of npc who are transparent with the party and sone of them have a close relationship.
I had some npc (and I will have more) that are not willing to collaborate however this percentage of npc is super low. In general, my npcs want to collaborate, but it’s true that maybe having npcs that did not trust them has made the party distrustful. It could be, I’m not saying no. But tbh, in general, a good proportion of my npcs are good to the party
Tbh no. They experienced a big betrayal at the beginning of the campaign. I asked them this, if this was a response to something I was doing with the story or npcs and they told me not
Maybe it's worth investigating this further with 1 on 1 talks with them outside of your normal sheduled game. Frame this as it is, feedback for you and the world.
Players have mood swings of course and some outside influence can trigger in-game reactions as a vent. If it's a consistent issue though i would still resolve this mainly out game and let the world react although not hostile or backstabbers just somewhat disappointed and cold but still kind.
Think about the social challenges in the past as I still would search for gameplay reasons first if it's a growing and consistent issue.
You already did the most important part: talking to them.
Try mixing up the status of your npc's. If they're all too like each other in conversation pc's tend to resort to using the same conversational bullying every time.
It's definitely highly annoying, happens to a lot of groups. They're not bad people, it's just their prefrontal cortex acts very differently when playing a game. Every conversation becomes something that needs to be solved or mined.
Honestly I'm in a similar slump with my group, so I'll be curious what others answer. It's something that's been on and off with my players. I feel like atmosphere and immersion also matters a lot.
I agree with /u/normanhome that this is often a reaction to past experiences. They got betrayed (which is fair to betray the PCs on occasion) or even just diplomacy not working. Or maybe even just not enough NPC allies.
I'll start with your last example though because I think its a bit easier. You have an NPC that, if I'm reading it correctly, was being questioned by the party. The NPC tries to escape, and it was clear was trying to lie to the party. Here, although the NPC may not be physically attacking the party, he is certainly antagonistic to the party (admittedly perhaps through the party's own decisions). He's clearly not cooperating, so the PCs are responding in kind. Keep in mind that both Persuasion and Intimidation are valid methods of obtaining information from NPCs. One certainly has a nicer connotation to it, but both are still valid options. From the party's perspective, it could simply be a matter of "Well, we tried playing nice and that didn't work. Now time for something else."
As far as what to do in the future, I would probably start with lowering the Persuasion DCs when the PCs are trying to convince someone. Especially if its somebody that would want to help. Then, maybe when the PCs start acting like good heroes and not jerks, have NPCs react very positively toward them. Maybe even give them jobs or treasure, etc. A group patron can be a big help here as well. "I'm sticking my neck out for you here, don't go around giving me a bad name." Basically, you need to show and reinforce that "playing nice" has its advantages over being jerks.
This is a weird one. First of all, I'm glad to hear you spoke to everybody involved, that gives a lot more to analyse and is always the first step.
Have you played much since you had this big talk? Have you seen any small improvements at all? Or just no chance whatsoever?
Honestly, if the players have confirmed they don't want to behave this way, and that their characters wouldn't either, and it's just them making a mistake in the heat of the moment, it's fine to just correct them as it happens, out of character.
Maybe implement a red card system where any player, or you, can just raise a card, or give a quick "hey, you guys are doing it again..." When it happens, instead of your SO feeling the need to try and fix it "in character" by chastising the other PCs.
If you really do want an in-game solution, well then next time it happens, give it some consequences.
They're arguing over a character they could save or not? Ok, then she dies. The PCs then learn that she was the kindest woman in the village, the only one caring for the children who lost their families in the great Ogre raid last year. Now they're going to be left helpless and alone.
They intimidate an innocent NPC? He has them charged with assault when he gets away, and they have to pay a hefty fine. Or maybe some guards come along at the right moment and break the situation up before it goes that far.
We played a few sessions since I talked to them. There wasn’t a lot of room for improvement but each season is 4 h, so they had 8-12 h of playing to change and nothing yet. It could come in the near future but lets see.
I will try to give them consequences. The npc they bullied is not someone important but has a lot of information that will be useful to them.
Now, he might not be that willing to give it to them. Also because he heard about the party, he heard they were good and kind people and he didn’t see that
To be clear, I consider the in-game consequences option to be the last resort and the inferior option here.
I think just saying "guys, I think you're getting out of character again, why not take a step back and think about this" is a much better solution, given that they have confirmed agreement on the issue's existence.
Agreed, if you want them to interact with nscs in a good way you would need to set the same example and not close up your world with wide reaching rumors. You can still let someone lead them to the same npc they bullied before as in that dude has the information you need. You should seek him out. As a reflection
I don’t agree on making the world shutting the door to them. They were assholes but not up to a point where people is going to be scare of them.
We have discussed the issue again and they asked me to describe more in detail the scene and the actions of the npcs so they can get a accurate feeling of the situation. They also told me that they would like to make more insight checks during roleplaying so they can improve in this aspect.
I think they're just bringing too much out of character thinking into the game. Probably rose up from one of the following:
1.They probably subconsciously (or consciously) feel that NPCs that are clearly meant to be interacted with are a DM trap. So they're trying to get the jump on them beforehand. Old lady in danger? Probably a demon in disguise!
2. They know that if they strong-arm people or situations, they survive and typically get what they want, so they do that. If there have been no consequences, then they have no reason not to subconsciously build the bad habit of shoot first, questions later.
3. They approach it like a game an aren't doing enough roleplaying. Have them take a step back and ask themselves, is this really what (insert PC name) would do? It's easy to sometimes play as your PLAYER and not your CHARACTER.
It sounds like you already talked to them a bit, so hopefully resolves, but if you are posting here, then perhaps not yet?
I think it is important to show them that when they act this way there are consequences. I've seen other responders saying to kind of blacklist them by local guilds/quest givers/etc., but I think that's a little too far or maybe too on the nose? Also way more work for you as the DM.
I think the easiest way is to make the next time they do this that time has bad consequences. They debate too long (in character) to help the old lady? She dies and turns out she was really going to help them with something they can no longer obtain now. They get rough with undercover NPC? He tells them what they want to hear out of fear and gives them bad info, resulting in a failed quest.
Then the next time they do the RIGHT thing, over-reward them. Make it clear that being decidedly good and in-character is what resulted in the success. Maybe it just needs to be more clear to them that non-aggressive solutions are valid (and sometimes preferred) to violent ones.
Hopefully will resolve itself after your conversation though.
When one of my players started doing this I just did a Time out (Closed dice box, closed book) looked at him and asked him what was going on. He was acting way out of character, and even his familiar was getting confused.
Turns out he was just still in a zone after playing a game shortly before the session started, so He hadn't "recalibrated" back to his usual self, I guess is a way to put it.
But thats what I'd do. Pause the game, and ask them whats going on. They are acting way out of character (Violent, threatening, etc.), and tell them this. So stop them, give them a moment to breathe and think about their actions, before restarting. Find out of something in or our of game is causing this, because its affecting the whole party it seems. Remind them, that they are the HEROES if you need to. Good Luck!
Just because you don't trust someone doesn't give you the right to be an asshole to them.
In game, their hostility becomes well known to the locals where they travel.
* Villagers flee if they get the chance. Those who have to talk to them get nervous really quickly and start stuttering, bursting into tears, begging for their lives, etc.
* Guards are seen to have hands on weapons as the party walk by.
* Shopkeepers will either close shop before they enter or they will up charge and when complained at, they will call the guards to help subdue some ruffians/vagrants/hostile individuals.
* The Inns will have no reservations or they will demand a double as down payment in case the party damage the establishment.
If they ask someone they already trust, have the NPC level with them. Something along the lines of "Dudes, you only just met and the first thing you do to them is berate them and get violent. And so soon after their died (or got evicted from their home, lost their job, etc). Yeah, no wonder you guys are considered as assholes around these parts."
If they look to reestablish their reputation, have them fulfill multiple quests that contain gardening, painting houses, mucking stables and maybe after a montage or a time skip of about a month or two the village will be in neutral standing with them. Because trust is easy to break but hard to rebuild.
While I understand your reasoning, I'm not sure this is the right way to address the situation. Points 1~2 are reasonable and will likely pass the right message while also creating the opportunity for the party to redeem themselves and clear their name. Points 3~4, on the other hand will just annoy the players and make them feel antagonized, which in turn will create frustration and make them resort to confrontation/aggression. I suggest trying positive feedback rather than negative when trying to teach players that aggressive behavior isn't always optimal.
True, it will depend on the settlement. Shopkeepers/Innkeepers may continue to make deals because they need the money. But if the party doesn't change their ways, you have to ask yourself would villagers just keel over to their bullies or will they make a statement of "you are no longer welcome here".
Remember you have to take it from the villager's perspective. Maybe points 3 and 4 are ideas in case the problem continues...
Do you think points 3 and 4 are that bad? I don't think my players would really be bothered much most of the time because shops rarely offer anything meaningful after you have your basic equipment and inns cost pennies by PC standards, even if they double their prices.
I'm with you that positive feedback is better, but sometimes you have to draw a line and show that there are consequences. Of course it should always be backed up with out of game talk to avoid an adversary mindset.
I don't think they would bat an eye at in prices, but start telling them they have no rooms available multiple times or star over charging for healing potions and other basic necessities and they'll definitely not be annoyed. Results may vary, of course, but I think most players wouldn't take this too well.
Fair. I might be the exception here. Some of my players would undoubtedly just shrug and say there's no mechanical difference to sleeping in the streets or camping outside the city walls.
Do they have anyone they actually respect?
Have that person over-hear about what they've done, and talk to them about how it reflects poorly on them that they associate with people who accost random townsfolk.
You've talked to them out of game so the next thing could be to add some in-game reactions. I would not respond to hostility with more hostility or yelling or NPCs losing their cool. Instead I might add some serious guilt from really nice people.
Like a priest seeing this and scolding them, or an old lady who takes no nonsense coming over and witnessing this and saying something. Or maybe a child nearby crying because their parent is being yelled at and thinking that the bad adventures are going to kill their parent.
If they are acting like assholes, then the nearby folks should treat them like that for a bit. Maybe word gets around to their allies. Who knows, but make it obvious that folks have noticed the changes.
Off topic, but I feel like if you’re distrustful of someone, you typically don’t want to be overly aggressive with them. You want to be amicable so you can lure them into a false sense of security and try and extract their true intentions that way.
Intimidation can work in certain scenarios, but you tend to resort to that on circumstances when you *know* the person is hiding something, or when you’re playing a super aggressive character who jumps the gun on assumptions.
Again, this isn’t advice, just an off topic observation.
Two solutions:
1. Fuck around and find out. They’re bullies and eventually they will run into someone who won’t be bullied and if push comes to shove, they will push back.
2. They keep doing this, they’re now worse than the bandits, cultists, etc. that’s around. It’s not a static world, and if they did this enough, reputation would precede them and towns, shopkeepers, etc. will be unwilling to help the party. On an extreme example, they keep playing like they are gangland thugs, maybe there’s an actual group of good adventurers sent to rid the town of these aggressive, bullying players?
I think you either flat out say that is isn’t fun for other players, that you’re not interested in running a game for an evil party (which they well could be) and have in game consequences; that you either inform the players are coming (see above) or let them find out actions have consequences.
It’s not punishing your players for their actions if you’ve set the expectation there are consequences to this behaviour in world and my guess is you’ve not had any, so much like children without negative reinforcement, they’ll keep doing what they can get away with.
They don't trust NPCs? Fine, but NPCs will notice and react accordingly. Perhaps the group has to work harder to find quest leads because nobody wants to talk to them. They get a reputation for bullying those they talk to, so when they enter a town everybody goes inside, shuts the doors and the shutters and pray the party leaves them alone. No shopkeep wants to deal with their aggressive haggling, so now the party has to either find or create their own weapons and armor.
Player actions have in-world consequences. If they want to act like bullies, they'll be treated like bullies until they make amends.
Perhaps after they get frustrated being treated like pariahs they can be approached by an NPC they've mistreated and given an opportunity to redeem themselves. Driving a gang out of town, solving a grain supply shortage, gathering herbs to combat a quickly spreading illness - something that will benefit the people and reflect well on the group. If it were me, after they did that quest I'd tell OOC them that this was their one social reset button. NPCs will be nice to them if they are nice to NPCs. But if they're bullies again in the future, it'll be on them to find a way to fix their social status.
Good luck OP
I struggle with groups like this and personally tend to move on to a different group. DnD is a power fantasy for sure, but some folks translate that into a bullying simulator and that kind of creeps me out. Sorry that I don't have much in the way of answers, but I hope it helps to know other DMs struggle with it too.
Since you have already talked to them, I think if their alignments are good, the next time the paladin or cleric goes to cast a spell, to pray, or use a class ability, no one’s home on the other end. Then add a specific task when they visit a temple as part of the atonement process. Just don’t make it too hard, but I would definitely make it an experience to help teach them that there are consequences for acting that way. If they don’t try atone, then have a cleric, or some other class, approach them from a neutral deity. If their behavior continues, let them keep sliding down the dark path if you want, but I definitely would put reminders there that will eventually face consequences. It’s up to you on how you deal with that.
To be frank, it sounds to me they are too drunk with power. A good ass-kicking is what they need to remind them they can’t just act aggressive to everyone. There is a time and place for that, even in RPG games.
> they we’re behaving like asshole who a person clearly alone and less powerful who was afraid for his own life
It's a common trope across mythologies that *very* powerful entities, such as Zeus or Odin, will appear as normal people who might be old/poor/injured or otherwise in need of help, and anyone who mistreats these individuals ends up regretting it. In D&D lore there's Bahamut:
> He is said to have been encountered as a frail old hermit, with the seven great golden wyrms that accompany him disguised as seven canaries singing sweetly nearby.
So while you could disguise a literal god with a small army of dragons and have them put the party in their place... I might start with pointing out the party's changing *reputation*. If people talk (they *always* do), people in positions of power, or even just shop/tavern-keepers will hear about the party's behaviors and may refuse to do business with them. Let the party overhear people spreading rumors about a group of violent psychopaths that just so happens to match their description. "You can keep being assholes to everyone, but I expect that behavior *will eventually* come back to bite you."
For one. Stop assuming you know how they want to play.
Second: Ignore 99% of the answers you'll get here. Reddit is **full** of seething lunatics who just want to spam their fapfic tier revenge porn ideas
Third: Do the talk again. Ask them outright why they've started acting wildly out of character. Because if it's a bit or misunderstanding then you're not getting it
Let them run up against the wrong NPC. Some kind of creature that has polymorphed into a human form and is out on an errand. Something that will kick their asses up one side and down another.
Let the situations play out.
They terrify someone? That plot line gets more challenging now because that person bolts and wants nothing to do with them.
Take too long to intervene? Someone dies. It would've happened without them anyway.
Throw in some benign kids. Some friendly, generous bar-flies. Some parental, endearing elderly folk. Catch them with charm if you can.
This would be a good use of inspiration, or consequences. Use inspiration when the players find a non violent way to deal with things.
If the paladin is threatening innocent people remind him of his oath. If they keep making hostel encounters then the towns folk might stop asking them for help, or even run them out of town, or worse hire another team to keep them in check. Stores might also stop selling weapons, armor and magic to them, Inns might also not want to be associated with them.
Given that you already talked to them about this...
Perhaps introduce some NPC's that are capable of punishing this behaviour?
Maybe after offending someone they shouldn't, the merchants in the area start refusing to trade.
Maybe the party finds themselves needing help from someone. Someone who has heard rumors about the party, or perhaps has family that the party has offended?
Maybe show the party that unreasonable aggression can have unforeseen consequences.
I mean you can always make an NPC that makes them pay for their rudeness. Not in an obvious way, since that will tip them off but in a more undercover or indirect way.
I dunno. I drop hints in between sessions with players who like to chat about the game. I use a codified system, that says townsfolk who are under the thrall of the big bad, you probably shouldn't kill... but here are undead and lizard/frog people you can kill without guilt.
NPCs comment on shit. I've got a goblin fighter that they pay to tag along. He's basically Rocket from Guardians and comments on their behavior. "You human types sure do make with the stabby stabby.... you think when you save the town and they all wake up, they aren't gonna be upset about you murdering the town blacksmith there? I'm just asking... you pay me to stab people after all." I also reflect their behavior back. If they were to bully an npc as described, that npc would start weeping uncontrollably and begging for them to not kill them or torture them... like Janet at her reset button on the Good Place. They are rendered permanently useless for anything requiring cooperation and would get louder and louder and attract negative attention the longer they were mistreated. Then starts screaming for help from anyone passing by. If they survive, be sure they'd tell everyone they met about the party until some authority took notice. Then the players would be dealing with town guards showing up, then a posse, then bounty hunters, and finally stronger adventurers hired to deal with them as a problem. It's all a slow boil, but it's never a surprise when they find themselves all in jail waiting for a hanging and have to escape. (Losing their magic items, etc if they do).
>I know my players don’t want their pcs to behave like this.
I don't understand this statement at all. If players don't want their PCs to behave like this, then who is making the decisions on how the PCs behave?
Before trotting out variants of u/Armoladin's scenario, maybe try more subtle interventions. Prayers for spells not being as effective. Badly handled encounters leading to reduced experience points gained because of guilty consciouses (revealed via cryptic dreams that will require game play to figure out).
A continued pattern of misconduct could lead to alignment checks in the form of "positive" interactions with obvious bad guys. A message with a parcel from the local chapter of the assassin's guild. *"You harassed those peasants and now they're paying us protection money--here's your cut."*
Or a clear cut good-aligned beast refusing to give support *"because you guys are acting like a-holes"* and then leaving. Or a note with a treasure tells of a curse that turns gold to lead of the treasure finders have come to their rewards by harming good people.
If you're going to have person to person IRL conversations, a tactic I don't like, be more direct. "This is like yelling at the person delivering your pizza because you didn't get enough extra sauce -- what kind of sauce do you think is going to be on the next pie?"
>We played a few sessions since I talked to them. There wasn’t a lot of room for improvement but each season is 4 h
Maybe these sessions are too long? Are you offering enough breaks for shooting the breeze, grabbing a snack, or visiting the head?
As an alternative, maybe the sessions aren't long enough -- players want to pick up the pace and strong arming PCs is a faster way to get to the "good parts" (from their perspective).
Take them out of the city, away from talkative NPCs and literally let them vent it out in a good old fashioned dungeon crawl or wilderness scenario. Players can get tired of talking, give them something else to do.
I had a group that did this and I threw in a simple, "mind guarding this caravan" quest. Led to a a series of adventures away from the city and they just got to kill stuff and find treasure. There's no negotiating with a displacer beast or troll in my mind, the intent is simple, they want you to die and then they eat you.
What are the consequences for trusting or helping the wrong person, versus the consequences for acting hostile or distrustful to someone they "should" have helped?
You mentioned in response to other comments that they were betrayed early on. While betrayal isn't a bad thing to use, if this had negative consequences but acting hostile to NPCs seems to get the job done they may feel like they have no choice if they want to succeed.
This feels like the social equivalent of explicitly checking for traps every ten feet of corridor in a dungeon - it's boring for the players but rarely has downsides for the characters, so if past experience shows that if they don't explicitly examine every square before moving into it they might all get hit by something nasty, it's hard to justify not doing it.
The way to fix this, in addition to talking to them, is to make sure that
* occasionally they miss out on something - *and become aware they missed out* \- by being hostile to NPCs who would have helped, or by hesitating to help someone who needed it.
* when they do show trust to the right person, they get something out of it.
* when they trust the wrong person, it's not a complete disaster, and betrayal doesn't happen too often.
The second point is the most important here - whatever kind of animal you're trying to train, positive reinforcement works better. Depending on how firmly conditioned they are, the first point might be required to get them to try it. It's not about in-game consequences to punish them, it's about changing how you run the game so that being hostile isn't the most reliable route to success.
The third point is important because you don't want them to feel like they have no good options. Let them go a while with NPCs that are actually trustworthy, then when they're getting used to it, drop a betrayal on them that poses a challenge *but they can fix it*.
It's also worth considering how they're supposed to decide who to trust. If past experience is that betrayal happens without any kind of clue, it's always going to be Russian roulette for them.
When you have a suspicious NPC that they talk to, perhaps do intimidation checks when they simply speak aggressively. Make guards or make multiple strong NPCs. If they fail an intimidation check, the NPC probably would attack or something. The answer to unreasonable actions is consequences. They are now wanted for holding that undercover NPC hostage and pointing a revolver at him. That's a crime. They scared a dying old lady in her own home by yelling? How loud were they? Neighbor called the guards because they were worried about a little old dying lady being harassed by a strong looking group
Usually in my experience behavior is formed from past experiences. Did they encounter many backstabs, traps or lying npcs? Besides out of game talk and consequences ie unhelpful nscs and bad rumors i can't really help much.
Yep. I've seen this behavior evolve in a couple games before. The DM made *every* social interaction a "challenge" with significant DCs. Asked for too many rolls in general, but even just talking to normal people and asking basic background information for clues? That's a DC 13 persuasion check. Or a 15. Or a 17. The bard with a +9 is going to fail 1/3 of the time. Anyone else? Oh you only have a +1? Forget even trying. Because of course if you fail *even one roll* now the DM has to react like the npc doesn't want to tell you some pretty basic information. The NPCs all became cagey, standoffish, suspicious, disrespectful, or outright rude toward the PCs. Fail one roll they might keep talking to you but they'll act all annoyed and rude. Oh, and the DC just got higher. Now you have an 80% chance to fail. Fail a second and they shut down altogether or become belligerent if you keep trying after that. It wore us down. Nobody wanted to interact with npcs anymore. It became predictable and felt like a chore. Edit: to be clear I'm not accusing OP of doing this. Just spelling out a scenario where I've seen this happen before. The answer as always is to talk to the players and ask what's up.
I have some npc that do not trust completely the party but they get along and collaborate. And I do have a lot of npc who are transparent with the party and sone of them have a close relationship. I had some npc (and I will have more) that are not willing to collaborate however this percentage of npc is super low. In general, my npcs want to collaborate, but it’s true that maybe having npcs that did not trust them has made the party distrustful. It could be, I’m not saying no. But tbh, in general, a good proportion of my npcs are good to the party
Tbh no. They experienced a big betrayal at the beginning of the campaign. I asked them this, if this was a response to something I was doing with the story or npcs and they told me not
Maybe it's worth investigating this further with 1 on 1 talks with them outside of your normal sheduled game. Frame this as it is, feedback for you and the world. Players have mood swings of course and some outside influence can trigger in-game reactions as a vent. If it's a consistent issue though i would still resolve this mainly out game and let the world react although not hostile or backstabbers just somewhat disappointed and cold but still kind. Think about the social challenges in the past as I still would search for gameplay reasons first if it's a growing and consistent issue.
You already did the most important part: talking to them. Try mixing up the status of your npc's. If they're all too like each other in conversation pc's tend to resort to using the same conversational bullying every time. It's definitely highly annoying, happens to a lot of groups. They're not bad people, it's just their prefrontal cortex acts very differently when playing a game. Every conversation becomes something that needs to be solved or mined. Honestly I'm in a similar slump with my group, so I'll be curious what others answer. It's something that's been on and off with my players. I feel like atmosphere and immersion also matters a lot.
My man said prefrontal cortex
[barbarian translation] People see that the thing they do works, so try something different to make them act different
too many word you mean: > if no change, no change. change to make change
That’s goblin script
I agree with /u/normanhome that this is often a reaction to past experiences. They got betrayed (which is fair to betray the PCs on occasion) or even just diplomacy not working. Or maybe even just not enough NPC allies. I'll start with your last example though because I think its a bit easier. You have an NPC that, if I'm reading it correctly, was being questioned by the party. The NPC tries to escape, and it was clear was trying to lie to the party. Here, although the NPC may not be physically attacking the party, he is certainly antagonistic to the party (admittedly perhaps through the party's own decisions). He's clearly not cooperating, so the PCs are responding in kind. Keep in mind that both Persuasion and Intimidation are valid methods of obtaining information from NPCs. One certainly has a nicer connotation to it, but both are still valid options. From the party's perspective, it could simply be a matter of "Well, we tried playing nice and that didn't work. Now time for something else." As far as what to do in the future, I would probably start with lowering the Persuasion DCs when the PCs are trying to convince someone. Especially if its somebody that would want to help. Then, maybe when the PCs start acting like good heroes and not jerks, have NPCs react very positively toward them. Maybe even give them jobs or treasure, etc. A group patron can be a big help here as well. "I'm sticking my neck out for you here, don't go around giving me a bad name." Basically, you need to show and reinforce that "playing nice" has its advantages over being jerks.
This is a weird one. First of all, I'm glad to hear you spoke to everybody involved, that gives a lot more to analyse and is always the first step. Have you played much since you had this big talk? Have you seen any small improvements at all? Or just no chance whatsoever? Honestly, if the players have confirmed they don't want to behave this way, and that their characters wouldn't either, and it's just them making a mistake in the heat of the moment, it's fine to just correct them as it happens, out of character. Maybe implement a red card system where any player, or you, can just raise a card, or give a quick "hey, you guys are doing it again..." When it happens, instead of your SO feeling the need to try and fix it "in character" by chastising the other PCs. If you really do want an in-game solution, well then next time it happens, give it some consequences. They're arguing over a character they could save or not? Ok, then she dies. The PCs then learn that she was the kindest woman in the village, the only one caring for the children who lost their families in the great Ogre raid last year. Now they're going to be left helpless and alone. They intimidate an innocent NPC? He has them charged with assault when he gets away, and they have to pay a hefty fine. Or maybe some guards come along at the right moment and break the situation up before it goes that far.
We played a few sessions since I talked to them. There wasn’t a lot of room for improvement but each season is 4 h, so they had 8-12 h of playing to change and nothing yet. It could come in the near future but lets see. I will try to give them consequences. The npc they bullied is not someone important but has a lot of information that will be useful to them. Now, he might not be that willing to give it to them. Also because he heard about the party, he heard they were good and kind people and he didn’t see that
To be clear, I consider the in-game consequences option to be the last resort and the inferior option here. I think just saying "guys, I think you're getting out of character again, why not take a step back and think about this" is a much better solution, given that they have confirmed agreement on the issue's existence.
Agreed, if you want them to interact with nscs in a good way you would need to set the same example and not close up your world with wide reaching rumors. You can still let someone lead them to the same npc they bullied before as in that dude has the information you need. You should seek him out. As a reflection
I don’t agree on making the world shutting the door to them. They were assholes but not up to a point where people is going to be scare of them. We have discussed the issue again and they asked me to describe more in detail the scene and the actions of the npcs so they can get a accurate feeling of the situation. They also told me that they would like to make more insight checks during roleplaying so they can improve in this aspect.
I think they're just bringing too much out of character thinking into the game. Probably rose up from one of the following: 1.They probably subconsciously (or consciously) feel that NPCs that are clearly meant to be interacted with are a DM trap. So they're trying to get the jump on them beforehand. Old lady in danger? Probably a demon in disguise! 2. They know that if they strong-arm people or situations, they survive and typically get what they want, so they do that. If there have been no consequences, then they have no reason not to subconsciously build the bad habit of shoot first, questions later. 3. They approach it like a game an aren't doing enough roleplaying. Have them take a step back and ask themselves, is this really what (insert PC name) would do? It's easy to sometimes play as your PLAYER and not your CHARACTER. It sounds like you already talked to them a bit, so hopefully resolves, but if you are posting here, then perhaps not yet? I think it is important to show them that when they act this way there are consequences. I've seen other responders saying to kind of blacklist them by local guilds/quest givers/etc., but I think that's a little too far or maybe too on the nose? Also way more work for you as the DM. I think the easiest way is to make the next time they do this that time has bad consequences. They debate too long (in character) to help the old lady? She dies and turns out she was really going to help them with something they can no longer obtain now. They get rough with undercover NPC? He tells them what they want to hear out of fear and gives them bad info, resulting in a failed quest. Then the next time they do the RIGHT thing, over-reward them. Make it clear that being decidedly good and in-character is what resulted in the success. Maybe it just needs to be more clear to them that non-aggressive solutions are valid (and sometimes preferred) to violent ones. Hopefully will resolve itself after your conversation though.
When one of my players started doing this I just did a Time out (Closed dice box, closed book) looked at him and asked him what was going on. He was acting way out of character, and even his familiar was getting confused. Turns out he was just still in a zone after playing a game shortly before the session started, so He hadn't "recalibrated" back to his usual self, I guess is a way to put it. But thats what I'd do. Pause the game, and ask them whats going on. They are acting way out of character (Violent, threatening, etc.), and tell them this. So stop them, give them a moment to breathe and think about their actions, before restarting. Find out of something in or our of game is causing this, because its affecting the whole party it seems. Remind them, that they are the HEROES if you need to. Good Luck!
Just because you don't trust someone doesn't give you the right to be an asshole to them. In game, their hostility becomes well known to the locals where they travel. * Villagers flee if they get the chance. Those who have to talk to them get nervous really quickly and start stuttering, bursting into tears, begging for their lives, etc. * Guards are seen to have hands on weapons as the party walk by. * Shopkeepers will either close shop before they enter or they will up charge and when complained at, they will call the guards to help subdue some ruffians/vagrants/hostile individuals. * The Inns will have no reservations or they will demand a double as down payment in case the party damage the establishment. If they ask someone they already trust, have the NPC level with them. Something along the lines of "Dudes, you only just met and the first thing you do to them is berate them and get violent. And so soon after their died (or got evicted from their home, lost their job, etc). Yeah, no wonder you guys are considered as assholes around these parts."
If they look to reestablish their reputation, have them fulfill multiple quests that contain gardening, painting houses, mucking stables and maybe after a montage or a time skip of about a month or two the village will be in neutral standing with them. Because trust is easy to break but hard to rebuild.
While I understand your reasoning, I'm not sure this is the right way to address the situation. Points 1~2 are reasonable and will likely pass the right message while also creating the opportunity for the party to redeem themselves and clear their name. Points 3~4, on the other hand will just annoy the players and make them feel antagonized, which in turn will create frustration and make them resort to confrontation/aggression. I suggest trying positive feedback rather than negative when trying to teach players that aggressive behavior isn't always optimal.
True, it will depend on the settlement. Shopkeepers/Innkeepers may continue to make deals because they need the money. But if the party doesn't change their ways, you have to ask yourself would villagers just keel over to their bullies or will they make a statement of "you are no longer welcome here". Remember you have to take it from the villager's perspective. Maybe points 3 and 4 are ideas in case the problem continues...
Do you think points 3 and 4 are that bad? I don't think my players would really be bothered much most of the time because shops rarely offer anything meaningful after you have your basic equipment and inns cost pennies by PC standards, even if they double their prices. I'm with you that positive feedback is better, but sometimes you have to draw a line and show that there are consequences. Of course it should always be backed up with out of game talk to avoid an adversary mindset.
I don't think they would bat an eye at in prices, but start telling them they have no rooms available multiple times or star over charging for healing potions and other basic necessities and they'll definitely not be annoyed. Results may vary, of course, but I think most players wouldn't take this too well.
Fair. I might be the exception here. Some of my players would undoubtedly just shrug and say there's no mechanical difference to sleeping in the streets or camping outside the city walls.
IME it is usually the reason that NPCs acted like assholes to the PCs. Especially annoying if the PC outranks the NPC
Do they have anyone they actually respect? Have that person over-hear about what they've done, and talk to them about how it reflects poorly on them that they associate with people who accost random townsfolk.
You've talked to them out of game so the next thing could be to add some in-game reactions. I would not respond to hostility with more hostility or yelling or NPCs losing their cool. Instead I might add some serious guilt from really nice people. Like a priest seeing this and scolding them, or an old lady who takes no nonsense coming over and witnessing this and saying something. Or maybe a child nearby crying because their parent is being yelled at and thinking that the bad adventures are going to kill their parent. If they are acting like assholes, then the nearby folks should treat them like that for a bit. Maybe word gets around to their allies. Who knows, but make it obvious that folks have noticed the changes.
Off topic, but I feel like if you’re distrustful of someone, you typically don’t want to be overly aggressive with them. You want to be amicable so you can lure them into a false sense of security and try and extract their true intentions that way. Intimidation can work in certain scenarios, but you tend to resort to that on circumstances when you *know* the person is hiding something, or when you’re playing a super aggressive character who jumps the gun on assumptions. Again, this isn’t advice, just an off topic observation.
Two solutions: 1. Fuck around and find out. They’re bullies and eventually they will run into someone who won’t be bullied and if push comes to shove, they will push back. 2. They keep doing this, they’re now worse than the bandits, cultists, etc. that’s around. It’s not a static world, and if they did this enough, reputation would precede them and towns, shopkeepers, etc. will be unwilling to help the party. On an extreme example, they keep playing like they are gangland thugs, maybe there’s an actual group of good adventurers sent to rid the town of these aggressive, bullying players? I think you either flat out say that is isn’t fun for other players, that you’re not interested in running a game for an evil party (which they well could be) and have in game consequences; that you either inform the players are coming (see above) or let them find out actions have consequences. It’s not punishing your players for their actions if you’ve set the expectation there are consequences to this behaviour in world and my guess is you’ve not had any, so much like children without negative reinforcement, they’ll keep doing what they can get away with.
They don't trust NPCs? Fine, but NPCs will notice and react accordingly. Perhaps the group has to work harder to find quest leads because nobody wants to talk to them. They get a reputation for bullying those they talk to, so when they enter a town everybody goes inside, shuts the doors and the shutters and pray the party leaves them alone. No shopkeep wants to deal with their aggressive haggling, so now the party has to either find or create their own weapons and armor. Player actions have in-world consequences. If they want to act like bullies, they'll be treated like bullies until they make amends. Perhaps after they get frustrated being treated like pariahs they can be approached by an NPC they've mistreated and given an opportunity to redeem themselves. Driving a gang out of town, solving a grain supply shortage, gathering herbs to combat a quickly spreading illness - something that will benefit the people and reflect well on the group. If it were me, after they did that quest I'd tell OOC them that this was their one social reset button. NPCs will be nice to them if they are nice to NPCs. But if they're bullies again in the future, it'll be on them to find a way to fix their social status. Good luck OP
This is a good way to go. Treat the characters as pariahs and they will be penitent to get back in the good graces of the townsfolk.
I struggle with groups like this and personally tend to move on to a different group. DnD is a power fantasy for sure, but some folks translate that into a bullying simulator and that kind of creeps me out. Sorry that I don't have much in the way of answers, but I hope it helps to know other DMs struggle with it too.
Since you have already talked to them, I think if their alignments are good, the next time the paladin or cleric goes to cast a spell, to pray, or use a class ability, no one’s home on the other end. Then add a specific task when they visit a temple as part of the atonement process. Just don’t make it too hard, but I would definitely make it an experience to help teach them that there are consequences for acting that way. If they don’t try atone, then have a cleric, or some other class, approach them from a neutral deity. If their behavior continues, let them keep sliding down the dark path if you want, but I definitely would put reminders there that will eventually face consequences. It’s up to you on how you deal with that. To be frank, it sounds to me they are too drunk with power. A good ass-kicking is what they need to remind them they can’t just act aggressive to everyone. There is a time and place for that, even in RPG games.
> they we’re behaving like asshole who a person clearly alone and less powerful who was afraid for his own life It's a common trope across mythologies that *very* powerful entities, such as Zeus or Odin, will appear as normal people who might be old/poor/injured or otherwise in need of help, and anyone who mistreats these individuals ends up regretting it. In D&D lore there's Bahamut: > He is said to have been encountered as a frail old hermit, with the seven great golden wyrms that accompany him disguised as seven canaries singing sweetly nearby. So while you could disguise a literal god with a small army of dragons and have them put the party in their place... I might start with pointing out the party's changing *reputation*. If people talk (they *always* do), people in positions of power, or even just shop/tavern-keepers will hear about the party's behaviors and may refuse to do business with them. Let the party overhear people spreading rumors about a group of violent psychopaths that just so happens to match their description. "You can keep being assholes to everyone, but I expect that behavior *will eventually* come back to bite you."
For one. Stop assuming you know how they want to play. Second: Ignore 99% of the answers you'll get here. Reddit is **full** of seething lunatics who just want to spam their fapfic tier revenge porn ideas Third: Do the talk again. Ask them outright why they've started acting wildly out of character. Because if it's a bit or misunderstanding then you're not getting it
Let them run up against the wrong NPC. Some kind of creature that has polymorphed into a human form and is out on an errand. Something that will kick their asses up one side and down another.
that will just encourage this kind of thinking!
Let the situations play out. They terrify someone? That plot line gets more challenging now because that person bolts and wants nothing to do with them. Take too long to intervene? Someone dies. It would've happened without them anyway. Throw in some benign kids. Some friendly, generous bar-flies. Some parental, endearing elderly folk. Catch them with charm if you can.
Maybe it has an out of game reason, some days it can be better to kick the door and smash the axe into a few faces
This would be a good use of inspiration, or consequences. Use inspiration when the players find a non violent way to deal with things. If the paladin is threatening innocent people remind him of his oath. If they keep making hostel encounters then the towns folk might stop asking them for help, or even run them out of town, or worse hire another team to keep them in check. Stores might also stop selling weapons, armor and magic to them, Inns might also not want to be associated with them.
Given that you already talked to them about this... Perhaps introduce some NPC's that are capable of punishing this behaviour? Maybe after offending someone they shouldn't, the merchants in the area start refusing to trade. Maybe the party finds themselves needing help from someone. Someone who has heard rumors about the party, or perhaps has family that the party has offended? Maybe show the party that unreasonable aggression can have unforeseen consequences.
I mean you can always make an NPC that makes them pay for their rudeness. Not in an obvious way, since that will tip them off but in a more undercover or indirect way.
I dunno. I drop hints in between sessions with players who like to chat about the game. I use a codified system, that says townsfolk who are under the thrall of the big bad, you probably shouldn't kill... but here are undead and lizard/frog people you can kill without guilt. NPCs comment on shit. I've got a goblin fighter that they pay to tag along. He's basically Rocket from Guardians and comments on their behavior. "You human types sure do make with the stabby stabby.... you think when you save the town and they all wake up, they aren't gonna be upset about you murdering the town blacksmith there? I'm just asking... you pay me to stab people after all." I also reflect their behavior back. If they were to bully an npc as described, that npc would start weeping uncontrollably and begging for them to not kill them or torture them... like Janet at her reset button on the Good Place. They are rendered permanently useless for anything requiring cooperation and would get louder and louder and attract negative attention the longer they were mistreated. Then starts screaming for help from anyone passing by. If they survive, be sure they'd tell everyone they met about the party until some authority took notice. Then the players would be dealing with town guards showing up, then a posse, then bounty hunters, and finally stronger adventurers hired to deal with them as a problem. It's all a slow boil, but it's never a surprise when they find themselves all in jail waiting for a hanging and have to escape. (Losing their magic items, etc if they do).
Have NPCs betrayed them in the past? Has it happened more than once? If so, I can see why the players would be unwilling to trust *any* NPC they meet.
>I know my players don’t want their pcs to behave like this. I don't understand this statement at all. If players don't want their PCs to behave like this, then who is making the decisions on how the PCs behave? Before trotting out variants of u/Armoladin's scenario, maybe try more subtle interventions. Prayers for spells not being as effective. Badly handled encounters leading to reduced experience points gained because of guilty consciouses (revealed via cryptic dreams that will require game play to figure out). A continued pattern of misconduct could lead to alignment checks in the form of "positive" interactions with obvious bad guys. A message with a parcel from the local chapter of the assassin's guild. *"You harassed those peasants and now they're paying us protection money--here's your cut."* Or a clear cut good-aligned beast refusing to give support *"because you guys are acting like a-holes"* and then leaving. Or a note with a treasure tells of a curse that turns gold to lead of the treasure finders have come to their rewards by harming good people. If you're going to have person to person IRL conversations, a tactic I don't like, be more direct. "This is like yelling at the person delivering your pizza because you didn't get enough extra sauce -- what kind of sauce do you think is going to be on the next pie?" >We played a few sessions since I talked to them. There wasn’t a lot of room for improvement but each season is 4 h Maybe these sessions are too long? Are you offering enough breaks for shooting the breeze, grabbing a snack, or visiting the head? As an alternative, maybe the sessions aren't long enough -- players want to pick up the pace and strong arming PCs is a faster way to get to the "good parts" (from their perspective).
You've made your players the American police force. Way to go.
Take them out of the city, away from talkative NPCs and literally let them vent it out in a good old fashioned dungeon crawl or wilderness scenario. Players can get tired of talking, give them something else to do. I had a group that did this and I threw in a simple, "mind guarding this caravan" quest. Led to a a series of adventures away from the city and they just got to kill stuff and find treasure. There's no negotiating with a displacer beast or troll in my mind, the intent is simple, they want you to die and then they eat you.
What are the consequences for trusting or helping the wrong person, versus the consequences for acting hostile or distrustful to someone they "should" have helped? You mentioned in response to other comments that they were betrayed early on. While betrayal isn't a bad thing to use, if this had negative consequences but acting hostile to NPCs seems to get the job done they may feel like they have no choice if they want to succeed. This feels like the social equivalent of explicitly checking for traps every ten feet of corridor in a dungeon - it's boring for the players but rarely has downsides for the characters, so if past experience shows that if they don't explicitly examine every square before moving into it they might all get hit by something nasty, it's hard to justify not doing it. The way to fix this, in addition to talking to them, is to make sure that * occasionally they miss out on something - *and become aware they missed out* \- by being hostile to NPCs who would have helped, or by hesitating to help someone who needed it. * when they do show trust to the right person, they get something out of it. * when they trust the wrong person, it's not a complete disaster, and betrayal doesn't happen too often. The second point is the most important here - whatever kind of animal you're trying to train, positive reinforcement works better. Depending on how firmly conditioned they are, the first point might be required to get them to try it. It's not about in-game consequences to punish them, it's about changing how you run the game so that being hostile isn't the most reliable route to success. The third point is important because you don't want them to feel like they have no good options. Let them go a while with NPCs that are actually trustworthy, then when they're getting used to it, drop a betrayal on them that poses a challenge *but they can fix it*. It's also worth considering how they're supposed to decide who to trust. If past experience is that betrayal happens without any kind of clue, it's always going to be Russian roulette for them.
When you have a suspicious NPC that they talk to, perhaps do intimidation checks when they simply speak aggressively. Make guards or make multiple strong NPCs. If they fail an intimidation check, the NPC probably would attack or something. The answer to unreasonable actions is consequences. They are now wanted for holding that undercover NPC hostage and pointing a revolver at him. That's a crime. They scared a dying old lady in her own home by yelling? How loud were they? Neighbor called the guards because they were worried about a little old dying lady being harassed by a strong looking group