Same. Once was in a game where the party rogue was always scouting ahead and taking all the best loot out of every dungeon we went into AND stealing from the party. Once my character (dwarf fighter) found out what the elf rogue was doing, he killed him. In his bag of holding we found a small mountain of treasure including things he could not even use. He rolled another rogue that was literally the same character with a different name. The entire party ganged up on him and killed this new character on sight. When the player complained about this, we told him he deserved it. He left the group and never came back.
Player: "That's what my PC would do!" DM: "You are surrounded by 12 well armed and armored guards backed by 3 people that appear to be spellcasters. The guards demand: 'Drop your weapons! You are under arrest!' " Woe betide the PC who does not submit. Player: "Why am I being arrested?" DM: "Its what the King's' Guard would do."
I had something similar to this happen once. A player had met a prince and he warned them his personal guard was following along the passage behind him and it would be safest for the party to stay with him for introductions. The terrorist of the group was playing a "lawful good, pacifist, who was too afraid to be by themselves" and immediately ran off in the direction of the guards and murdering them. He inevitably died and was upset with me over it. That was the last time I DMed a proper campaign. For extra context this was a diplomatic quest where they were supposed to be lowering the hostilities between two factions.
kinda disapointed that the "how to deal with a role play terrorist" bit wasn't just "we dont negotiate with terrorists" credits roll. solid advice as always though.
Same thing Jimpied said: Because it's a bullshit bit of rhetoric that has absolutely no meaning in reality. We do, in fact, regularly negotiate with terrorists who have a hand to play and chips in the game. Not dealing with them usually gets more people killed.
@@conormccue2871 Actually it does, it recognizes that negotiating with terrorists tells people that terrorism pays which is absolutely the wrong message.
@@terradraca A message that we send all the time because in real life, when psychos have 3 of your friends with a gun to their heads and tell you that they'll kill those people if you don't turn over a psycho you have, we tend to let that psycho go. It's bullshit rhetoric and anyone with skin in the game knows it.
@@conormccue2871 Who then go on to kidnap and threaten more people now that they know it's an effective way to get your way so now you've put more people at risk. Way to go!
I was once in a game (DnD) that died within 10 minutes because of the terrorist thief. IIRC he had picked that strange race that's literally a bunch of kleptomaniacs. Why the writers had included a playable race whose sole purpose it is to ruin everyone's fun is beyond me.
@@calemr Yea, that one. "I'm stealing everything from everyone, because that's just the lovable little rascal that I am!" Picking Kender as race is a massive red flag that the player in question is about to go full on terrorist on your game.
@@Pile_of_carbon I'm pretty new to D&D, but any time i play a evil dude, i never direct my evilness at the party, i make that clear too, at the start. I'm not going to try and fuck over the party, i like my own little schemes
I read a story where “that guy” agreed to design his next character with a friend (they both alternated picking traits for each other’s characters) He ended up playing a Pocahontas like barbarian whose tribe was murdered by some guy Obviously his goal was to hunt down the guy, but his friend said the character wouldn’t kill him Over time this character developed from stand-offish to genuinely nice and kind, and at the end of the campaign there was a massive naval battle The guy who killed Pocahontas’s tribe was leading the enemy navy, and she walked through a hail of black powder shot and sword blows, dying only a few feet in front of him The DM allowed Pocahontas one more action so the formerly antisocial player described his character as she reached down, beaten and bloodied beyond recognition From a pocket she pulled out, not a knife or a gun, but a flower from her tribe, the tribe slaughtered by the man who stood before her She pushed it up to his chest and whispered “I forgive you” before dying Since then the player has been unable to play antisocial PCs The actual story is longer and better, but the idea of players changing by playing characters they normally don’t seems interesting at the very least
I enjoy the call of Cthulhu example, shows the difference of being in character and a player terrorist. Because the "in character" explains ways to work around their role-play.
Really the only way I've found to curb this kind of player is to be involved in the character creation process. You have to be plugged in as a Dungeon Master when the players are working on their sheets, ask them about their concepts and motivations, and DO NOT be afraid to use the power of 'no' if something doesn't fit. This is 100% a case of where an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
I'm most groups I have played in all the players had veto power on what characters were allowed. Some feelings may get hurt, only once in 20 years has it ever been truly ugly, but the resulting parties are much better for it. Also as you said GM participation is SO essential.
If you’re going to steal my spellbook you better steal my focus too, by 5th level I have enough spells memorized to turn a single 5th level rogue into powder
Mr. Wonky I play a rogue character who has a kleptomaniac curse so I uncontrollably steal stuff leads to some funny moments that get me and the group laughing but I usually give what I get to the group because my character doesn't steal for profit they steal because of the curse
had a guy, who half way through a dungeon, said "my character wouldnt stay in here, we are going to all die." He then left the dungeon by himself, expecting wed all reluctantly follow. We didnt. He bailed on the campaign and never returned. We still finished the dungeon without him. Good times.
That's actually kinda an interesting character moment tbh, whether it speaks more about the character of the player or is PC. It feels like I don't often hear about any players that just coward out, even though in a lot of situations, that'd probably be the realistic reaction.
The thing there is that the player ended up telling on himself. If he'd said "My character will wait at the entrance. Can I play some of the monsters until folks leave?" that would likely be him trying to RP well. The fact that not only did the character leaver, but the player did, too, that says something. Though, a true terrorist wouldn't have left without making at least one more attempt to ruin the fun.
Seriously that would be my response as a DM or player. "Ok you leave. But because you aren't doing the adventure I am going to continue with those who are."
No player should create a character who would steal from the party in the first place. It's fun to play a thief, but even if your character is evil it's up to you to figure out why they won't make the game miserable for the rest of the party. I once made an Assassin who was insanely evil, but his order was actually so insanely cold and money-driven he had to vow he would never kill anyone without his guild's permission. Since my DM controlled the guild, he was always a perfect angel in terms of group dynamics. (minus the one time I was ordered to kill my friend in the party but that was actually a great character arc moment since he refused.)
@@dirus3142 I meant that as an example of building an rpg-terrorist defense into your character from the get-go. If you wanted to make a character who steals, you would follow the same model. For example, perhaps the thief has a code where he or she only steals from people they believe can afford it. Maybe they have strong survival instincts, and know that if they stay in the parties' good graces they will protect them when their stealing eventually catches up to them. My point is that players who want to play characters with potential RP traps should find a way around it. Hopefully that clarifies. :)
The advice I gave my players decades ago regarding thieves stealing from the party was "Don't [defecate] where you eat." Another good one is to quite an exchange from Stripes. Sergeant Hulka -"One day, one of these men might save your life." John Candy's character - "Or maybe they won't."
My rule is "there is a little grey area with loot that has just been found and not yet divvied out, but once it's given to a character it is sacrosanct and cannot be stolen by players" I feel like it stops arguments and issues among players while allowing rogues to, well, rogue. "You find three diamonds in the chest" "Hey fellas, I found two diamonds!" -An actual interaction with our rogue.
Had a Githyanki knight in an adventure where the party had to work & trust a number of illithids. That player said they really couldn't play their character in that circumstance and was steadfast about what their rigid, code-adhering character would do. Which was cool. He hung out and kibbutzed for the rest of the session and we reoriented in another direction for the next session.
My golden rule for character motivation is, it's the player's job to find a motivation for for their character. Just ask them "why does this character go on an adventure" or "why would this character investigate in mythos related cases". But most of the times an unmotivated/unsatisfied character is a simple projection of an unmotivated/unsatisfied player. In that case you have to find out (usually by asking) why the player isn't motivated/satisfied. This might have all sorts of reasons, so don't get mad if they say they dislike the adventure, the setting or the way role playing is handled.
Bear in mind: reluctant heroes are a thing. I recently played one. He always went along with the party, and fought at their side, but often complained "Why do WE have to be the ones doing this?" And "We're not heroes! I'm certainly not!". But still did it.
Chaotic Neutral is one of my favorite alignments to play, and it always ticks me off how many stories I hear of players doing things like this and hiding behind the CN alignment and thus giving it a certain stigma.
We once had a D&D session. Where we invited a new player he was actually the local paper boy and he didn't really have friends. So I invited him to the table cuz you know I felt bad. Well the kid turned out to have a few mental issues. he would repeat the same thing like 3 or 4 times which didn't bother me as the dungeon master and he would roll play hardcore which I actually liked. Well I found out my friend a veteran did not like him at all and found him very annoying. So over the next few sessions you could tell a few things would subtly start escalating he would not let him get specific items keep his character out of the loop not invite his character on adventures. He'd be like be at the gate by Sun up so we can leave on time and then he would get a cart ready and tell everyone we're leaving at sundown so he can't go with. This one time they were clearing out a giant nest of bugs and his charater break a giant egg over the New Kids characters head and the new kids character couldn't take it anymore and he's like I swing my at him. It then led the veteran player to say "up now I'm defending myself I swing at I swing the new kid" And he criticals and he kills his character. the new kid broke down in tears threw a huge fit I ended up kicking the veteran player out of the table for two years. he messaged me asking if he could play with us again and I told him he'd have to apologize to the new kid in front of everyone otherwise he wouldn't be allowed to. He did
I’d say both were at fault, not the vets vault he rolled a crit, still shouldn’t have acted like a jerk and could have handled the situation better.But I can’t say the paper boy was scottfree as well, even if he was challenged I know that I would get annoyed hearing the same thing repeated over and over again for hours.
@@seanfinn168if it’s a autistic or Tourette’s tick that’s a horrible reason but even if it’s not. There is no way in the world where the reasonable thing is to try and completely cut him out and bully him relentlessly
Dear Seth, Please, don't stop making videos! I'm about to pick up DMing, so I'm watching lots of videos on the subject (and boy they are many channels addressing the topic), but I have to admit: I get bored very quickly after 7-8 minutes of videos and usually end up skipping them. That is, with the exception of YOUR videos :) Your style, your voice, your skits, I don't know what else but your videos are the only ones I don't get bored of, and I have no trouble watching them to the end. So yeah, I think it definitely tells something about the quality of your content. Keep up the good work!
Thank you very much. Though I totally admit that most of my first year vids are pretty painful to watch. I talked too slow, my mic sucked, I hadn't quite figured out how to articulate my thoughts, and I was still just deep in the learning phase.
@@SSkorkowsky Well you are definitely out of the learning phase. Your videos are the most informative, after 40 years in this hobby there is always more to learn, and entertaining I have found. Thank you so very much.
@@SSkorkowsky Your early vids may have some issues in technique, but the content is still awesome! Thanks for all the stories and advice, and just sharing your obvious love for this past time
Seth Skorkowsky no problem talking too slow in this video haha. It was so fast I was worried you were going to asphyxiate. Great topic and well covered!
Over the 37 years I've been playing, and running RPG's, I've encountered this type of a player many times. As both a player, and a GM, I've come up with ways of dealing with them. Always try to talk to them first. Don't accuse, just suggest. Many players don't realize they are being a problem, as Seth says, and will come around once they realize they are killing the fun for everyone else. I find it best to simply ask what sort of experience they are looking to have from the game. Allow them to figure that out. Sometimes, what they want is too different from what everyone else wants, which leads to them leaving to find a group more in line with what they want. True problem players, however, will persist in their attempts to derail the fun for everyone else. I've had players that flat refused to go on the adventure. So, I've learned to allow that. The rest of the party leaves without them. The rest of the game is the party having an awesome adventure, while the problem player whines, and tries to shove in with what they are doing. I shut them down, telling them I'll get to them later. Usually, they stop being a problem, or leave the group after that. As a player, I often make melee characters. Fighter and barbarians are my favorites, as is being Chaotic Neutral, to use D&D terms. In any game, I lean towards being the muscle of the group, and having a less that pure moral compass. Mostly, this is because I just enjoy that kind of character a lot, and playing as someone who either redeems themselves into a hero, or falls into being the villain, is one of my favorite things. A good GM gives me plenty of room to take that archetype and really have fun with it. In a group I know well, I'll expand my horizons, with different archetypes, but when in doubt, go with the old favorite. However, it's also useful for stabbing the rogue lots of times after he steals from me one time to many. Yes, I've been in a party with that kind of player, who smirks and says they are just playing their character. I give them the same response when I kill their character for trying to steal from me. That usually does the trick. Yes, I warn them of the consequences of doing it again before actually doing it. I'm not a jerk. They always do it anyway, and they always get face stabbed. Really been enjoying your channel, Seth. From one long time RPG player turned author to another, good work.
Had a campaign with one such player once. The other three players agreed that the player needed to go, so a simple message was sent. Four PCs went to bed alive, three woke up that way, and the party's rogue was in a shallow ditch.
I was accused of this once, but I was running a Lawful Good Paladin and I refused to murder someone in cold blood. I was told that I was screwing over the party who were acting Neutral Evil at best and Chaotic Evil at worst.
That's almost certainly the fault of your Dungeon Master. An experienced DM won't ever allow a Paladin in a group with those sorts of characters. Sometimes you come to the table with a character, and through no fault of your own, walk into a situation that's just unwinnable. This is why, as a Dungeon Master, I'm not afraid to tell people no when they come with a character concept that might be disruptive to either the game or the group. Everyone is much, much happier for it because I do.
@@jupiterrising887 That is just the thing, the Dungeon Master was the one who insisted that either I run a Cleric or a Healing Paladin because "The Party Needs it" and dropped hints that a Paladin was preferred because they lacked a tank. So I made a Tanky / Healy sort who was Lawful Good erring on the side of someone who was all about compassion and defending the weak / doing the right thing over the letter of the law.
@@MariahSyn Yeah, well, there you go. That's the thing, you know, if your DM is making big mistakes like that the game is not going to be fun - especially when he's foisting concepts onto players out of a sense of 'party balance'.
I had one session with my brother and a couple of our friends. My brother played as the thief that yoinked stuff from other characters, but the reason why nobody ever got mad at him is because he would always give the item back with a small cheeky statement like "You should probably keep a better hold of this" Nobody even bothered to roll for spot checks to see if he yoinked something either, I would've had him roll sleight of hand if they said they were actively keeping better watch on their stuff... but because he always gave them back the items it was just a little running gag while the group wasn't in combat.
Heh. This video reminds me of a handful of people in my early Roleplay groups. Leaving that mess felt like the scene in Shawshank Redemption where the protagonist crawls out from the pipe and laughs in the rain. You can work with a bad roleplayer, if they're willing to learn. But if a person's just an awful person... you're better off finding a new player. It's amazing how having a few really good players can turn a meh plot into an outstanding experience, or a few really bad players can make you quit the hobby for a few years. Great video Seth, keep up the grand work! :)
Absolutely. The first question to ask when dealing with a "problem player" is, "Is this person just an arsehole?" It's not your job as GM to teach arseholes how to behave like normally-socialised humans, you can't do it anyway and you'll lose all your good players trying.
@@nickwilliams8302 Very true. It's often a hard decision to make, but sometimes a player needs to be ousted, a game dropped, or a group left if it's just not fun anymore. I made the mistake of sticking with it because I was young and dumb at the time. And nearly left the hobby as a result. Glad I didn't though, the groups that came after were absolutely amazing. My advise to anyone who's having a rough time of getting into TTRPG's is to look at the group and consider if it's a group thing rather than the game itself. :)
I once was in a game where a player would always initiate combat to fight, but would never fight if someone else would initiate combat/ the party gets ambushed. He would hold characters back from fighting so he would initiate the fight. He stated because his character was bloodthirsty, but that did not explain his odd way of picking fights. I started to realize why he is like this when I played some games of warhammer 40k, where he was so dead set on getting first turn. The guy had a "me first mentality" on gamming and after a while I stopped playing games with him.
Thanks Seth. These videos are BEYOND helpful. This one in particular...this one hurts me a bit. This is something I am dealing with right now. I’m losing most of my group because half of them fit the bill as RPG Terrorists and, despite all my efforts, they never got better. I should have acted sooner and cut the bad players out, but...I didn’t. And now I have to burn my whole little server and start over anew. To anyone reading this, don’t make my mistake. ACT on these people. Talk to them, advise them, plead with them, and then, if none of that works, KICK them out. Their negativity will only spread to others and end up really hurting everyone. It’s like cutting off a limb, but if that limb has gangrene, it’s gotta go.
Good advice. I'm sorry you had to learn this the hard way, though. Don't be too hard on yourself. Balancing a group and dealing with problem players is one of the hardest parts of GMing.
"It’s like cutting off a limb, but if that limb has gangrene, it’s gotta go." that's an extreme metaphor the problem players killed a campaign you put tons of effort into making I take it
I've experienced a problem player before who genuinely thought his actions were fun snd just liked derailing games. What made him stop was when he was playing Vampire: The Masquerade and actually messed up so bad that he actually exposed the existence of vampires to the local cops-- because he stole a bike (that he didn't need, just to have one) and killed the cop who tried to stop him. In game, his character was killed by the leader of their party, while the NPC heads of the clans had to cover up stuff. Not until his character died did he actually say, "I probably shouldn't have stolen the bike."
Conversely, one of my best players made the mistake of being so 'in character' that he nearly wrote himself out of the game. See, he was playing that 'edgy, angsty vengeance driven' barbarian type, and I had to pull teeth to even get him to join the first half of the adventure. After he nearly kills a FRIENDLY NPC, and then tells everyone that he just wants to leave, everyone tells him, "Then leave!" Which he does. And we all paused as he realized what he'd done. That player and I had a talk and he apologized for what he'd been doing and begged to stay, so we both worked out some things for the next session. That second session he not only made amends in game with the others on a logical, in character way, he actually married the first game's antagonist and their story is now our B-Plot. So what could have been a game terrorist was just an instance of taking role play too far without realizing it.
I had a moment like this, where one of our party and I kind of halted the game; both of our characters had a fear of the open sea (don't know the reason of my friends PC anymore, but my character was a dwarf, hailing from a mountain kingdom and stuff, not the most original, I know). Our GM was caught completely off guard by our refusal to set sail, and the rest of our party couldn't really get us on the boat (riches and money didn't work on me at least, since I played a kind of druid/geomancer and in The Black Eye this means that I had a religious zeal against smelted metal). So, whilst they were setting up ship I was going around town, looking for a reason to board the ship. Then it occurred to me: we were investigating a sea monster (which more rational people said would just be a reef, that changed visibility with the tides). So I went to the local drunk fishermen to hear their side of the story. Of course they made it out to be THE monstrosity to ever be set into the world. When I asked if it was scaly, the GM caught my drift. They told me, that it had to be some kind of dragon. Dragon. Dwarf. War since times immemorial. I was set. I pretty much jumped on the ship as the first party member, momentarily forgetting my fear of the sea and did beckon my fellow heros on board. Needless to say, my friend still was afraid of the sea. After a short break (we take breaks to eat and stuff when at the table, and trust me - when playing for 8-10 hours, you really do want them) we returned to the problem at hand. We didn't find a good reason for him. He wanted to come aboard, but he played his character so afraid of the sea, no sane reason would work. And he was all like: "But that's just my character!". So I tried a different approach: if we could not give the PC a good enough reason to face their fear, I would simply circumvent their fear. My party had a wizard with us, but said wizard knew naught about rituals of the nature magic kind. And i had talked to my GM about the plan. Point is: in another round I was playing a shaman, and they have very unique rules. So noone except for me knew, how that stuff worked. They kind of had to trust me on that. So I made sure to inform the GM, that I'd con that player in AND out of character. So I went about and made big preparations for a ritual. A flashy one. One that actually looked like proper magic, but actually was absolute bull. Thing is: I technically was able to bind powerful spirits to aid me. And everyone knew that i could not reach out to the wind what so ever since my prime Element was Stone and Ore. What noone besides the GM and I knew was, that i had taken another non-profit handicap: I couldn't actually reach out to the spirits of water either, since my dwarven people were afraid of it. But i made it look like I bound a powerful spirit of the sea into a flask of seawater. I told the fearful PC that I made a bargain with the spirit: I would only have to quaff said flask of seawater whilst being on the sea, and the spirit would grant us the protection of the sea, guaranteeing our survival, at least until we would be back at the shore, were the pact was made, where to he would help us get. (From this point onward, I'll just finish the story of our misadventure, the game being held hostage had been resolved. Sorry, I just love telling Stories :( ) Since he now had no more reason to be afraid he went aboard with us. The rest of the sea adventure was hilarious in itself, with everyone failing basically every roll except for one: whilst my dwarven self was below deck, contemplating his own stupidity of actually setting sail on the sea, with no solid ground beneath his feet, the scaredy cat being sea sick and our fighter being out cold because he "had to manually guarantee the safety of the booze caskets in the bad weather" (He was drunk.And when the bad weather actually came he was so far gone, he misstook the sling barrel for a fair woman inviting him to dance. Said casket knocked him out eventually. I told you already, we failed every role except one.) our silver tongue an the wizard went to investigate the reef. Case in point: there was a reef. A tricky one. Since we found evidence of an uncharted, dangerous reef, we should have called it a day. But the wizard was not content with it just being a reef and actually worked arcane magic around it, to look for more dangerous things. Needless to say, that actual sea dragons don't like wizards poking around with arcane magic on their turf. Also needless to say, that below the visible reef, there was a factual sea dragon. Stuff happens. Now, the only roll we actually managed, we managed to crit: Mr silver tongue actually convinced the dragon, that it would be beneficial for it to not kill us on the spot, since we could just report the reef and NO DRAGON, but if we would be to die, there would be more investigations conducted, until eventually a fleet would come to hunt the dragon. The dragon bought it, let us leave. Since only the (half passed out) wizard and the man himself saw the dragon, he told the party how his manly gusto was enough to make the dragon flee deeper into the ocean. We left it at that. Though officially, there never was a dragon. So case in point: if you unintentionally hold the game hostage and perceieve it: try to fix it, even if your GM is unable to. If one of your friends does, and he does not perceieve it: dick him over with things he would not expect. Fun fact: he was actually too sick to notice me just pouring the flask of sea water out on the shore and telling the wizard it was just a fluke, whilst swearing an oath to never set foor on a seabound ship again. I didn't even try to hide it. The player laughed his ass off, but, his PC didn't make the perception check to notice the shaken dwarf screaming his oath at the top of his lungs towards the sea whilst dramatically pouring out the seawater. Buisness per usual at our table.
The over-reluctant hero trope seemed to peak in the early to mid-2000s at my tables. In different and completely unrelated groups, whether I was a player or a GM, they just kept popping up. At one point it almost felt like I was in groups where the GM had to trick PCs into going on the adventure. That's what made me decide to make character motivation a part of character generation and our preliminary session.
I'm in a campaign where all of us are basically new to DnD, some of us have like 4-5 sessions played. We don't have a roleplay terrorist, we have a straight up terrorist. He set fire to the ship we were on just to delay it at a brief break location and get enough time to summon his beast conclave animal, when we were 3 ingame days from our destination. It took 3 hours, and he and another player killed a crewmember and looted the ship. This guy got arrested and died in the escape next session.
My favorite thing that they say is "Don't force me to compromise my character concept!" whenever the GM tells them that they need to tone down the "screw everyone else" way of playing just because they don't want to face that they're ruining the game for everyone else.
Very good topic. Chaotic Neutral players can switch the tracks on a party. Your correct about the jerk players. As the main DM, this can be really frustrating. Good thing the other players had a talk with him, he was replaced by someone who is really engaging in the game.
Great video, Seth. Unfortunately, these are just a couple examples of what I consider roleplay terrorism. My group had a roleplay terrorist, but her form of terrorism involves a lot of pouting if she isn't getting her way, appearing completely disinterested half the time, and getting upset when another player character does better at THEIR party role than she could, even if her character is built to fill a different role! We talked to her, which simply resulted in her throwing a toddler-like tantrum (yelling, crying, snotting all over herself, stamping her foot, etc.), and we're not sure any good will have come from it. The worst part is she's married to one of my best friends whom I've known and gamed with for nearly 25 years! If she doesn't grow up and stop ruining the game, I may have to find a whole new group. (The rest of the players are siblings with her husband, making exclusion of one or two of them really not an option.) Roleplay terrorists suck.
Watch out for any one of these behaviours as they travel in packs - if you see one, chances are all are present. 1. Other players are loot drops. 2."Upgrades" character sheets on the sly. 3. One use/charged items/abilities never run out. 5. Hides dice rolls or rolls a lot and may deliberately get hard to read dice. 6. Habitually overlook rules, trick dice, etc. 7. "Helpfully" manipulates other players in and out of the game for their own characters' benefit (sudden but inevitable betrayal).
I had a roleplay terrorist as a fellow player. He was a thief who stole from the party constantly, using the excuse, "I'm a thief! Stealing is what I do!" After having enough of his BS, my fighter drew his sword, and attacked the thief. As I dealt the killing blow, the thief's player asked me why I did that. My response? "I'm a fighter. Fighting is what I do." "But you're supposed to fight the ENEMIES!" EVERYONE else at the table chimed in, and said, "Precisely!"
Thanks. Though I can't take credit for that term. Some unknown genius out there coined that term, and it was a gift to the world in describing something that so many of us needed a name for.
@@SSkorkowsky yup and i actually like the alignment too to me it means freedom to live on your own terms i know all too many people who use it as a "i get to be a jerk and screw over the team" card and thats the RPG terrorist you are talking about last time i played C/N i played a teifling rogue who was shunned and abandoned and chose to live his life the way he wanted once he met the party his listless life got direction and his friends became important to him and he would do what was necessary to help them along
Great video! Luckily, in nearly 40 years of RPG-ing, I've encountered terrorism maybe a handful of times, and it's always been isolated incidents. I think terrorists lose sight of the idea that gaming is a collective experience, and we're all responsible for our own enjoyment as well as our fellow players.
My group of almost a decade had a single campaign where a character dipped into RP terrorist - his first character in the campaign died, and he was very upset about it. His second character was an "agent of vengeance" - this character's motivation was literally "my deity came to me in a flash of inspiration, and told me a name. This person's comrades had let him down. I am now tasked with following and punishing them." 1) The rest of the group had ZERO reason to welcome this character - he was hostile 100% of the time, and took every possible opportunity to guilt trip over them over the comrade they tried to save, but failed. 2) This particularly rubbed me the wrong way, because my character was stunned for legit the entire fight - my character was stunned during a surprise round, and only passed a save after their character failed the final death save. So I was being criticized for rolling nothing higher than a 5 for the entire fight. And being blamed for the dice. .....Yeah, there was eventually some drama OoC. A good chunk of that drama was on me, venting my frustration in a petty rather than constructive way. We've been able to move on, no more drama in several years. It's been on my mind, since To the Abandoned Sacred Beasts premiered - because Hank and Schaal are an example of this troublesome dynamic working well: How do you RP a set of characters that have malice toward one another, but are still allies for not just the short term, but midterm as well?
@@davidlennyman444 Nice thoughts. But yeah, this was a case where not all parties involved were on board. In the game I was in, it boiled down to enabling the player to in-character complain about his previous character's death.
A slightly less-malicious version of this I've encountered is the "anti-metagame zealot", wherein the player is basically so adamant about not metagaming and not breaking character that they're kind of annoying. This one is distinguishable from the RP Terrorist in that, at least they're consistent. This player I once played with knew the monster-manual pretty well and the like, but he constantly shot down his own ideas because he was worried they'd count as metagaming. He'd spend way too long arguing with himself, and he'd never do anything he considered 'out of character' even when it was really necessary. I will give him credit that his character was definitely pre-established and he didn't move goalposts, and also didn't mind other players giving him the same treatment.
I'd say he's just overzealous, he was making extra effort not to ruin everyone else's experience due to his disproportionate knowledge of the game. It's no fun for the new players if the veteran players lays out all of the weakpoints of all monsters. However it doesn't seem he was having much fun himself, maybe he should roleplay a character that has the "right" to know all about the monsters, but is not too strong, like a scholar or something. That way he wouldn't be self sufficient as he'd need the parties help for all dangerous encounters.
@@lapidations Seconded. For a long time I was the veteran of the group, along with another guy who went way back to the original D&D (not even AD&D) and we'd have to check ourselves for the sake of the new people we were coaching along.
@Matthew Campbell I apologize for bumping a year old comment but I have to ask. Meta gaming is unequivocally bad and should never be done, so what exactly was this person doing? Were they going overboard to the point of making choices their character wouldn't make just because of player knowledge? Like say they played a mage and use fire spells often, but suddenly when it is trolls would never use fire magic?
@@DKarkarov Metagaming is not "unequivocally bad and should never be done." Most DMs agree that there are times where metagaming can be beneficial to the table and the game. Seth has a video on it "Metagaming Isn't All Bad."
@@PrettyGuardian yeah I watched it, he was calling "knowing the rules" metagaming. We are going to disagree on what metagaming is, because if it isn't "cheating" it isn't metagaming in the first place.
Thank you for showing that "Its what my character would do" is not always a bad thing. Players should rp as their characters, but that's not an excuse to be a bad player.
I always enjoy your skits man. They are in so many of your vids and are so real that when they are on screen I honestly don't see you, I see them. I hope I can emulate and portray my characters this effectively someday. keep up the good work.
The character finding his own motivation reminds me of Tintin, where Captin Haddock had literally could have left at any moment but he kinda locked himself in. Tintin comes along and he still isn't super sure about leaving to start this adventure, until he called his ship a 'tub' and that would piss off any self-respecting sea captain and he's so angry about it that he breaks out of his self-trapped prison. And even later, when Tintin has given up, he does the same by giving him a speech, which gives him an idea he had all but forgotten about. Characters that motivate each other are a lot of fun bouncing off of each other, and you have to think about how that will impact your/their character. Its why Tintin was so fun as a movie, and I'd love to see that sort of thing happen between players.
One thing that could be added - letting someone continue this sort of behavior encourages other players to do the same. I found myself caught in this trap until I realized that the only way that I could break the cycle was to quit RPing altogether. Still like your channel and your advice. Keep posting new videos!
Excellent breakdown. Going back to a previous comment I've made, these RPG terrorists (love that term) often love to use notes to the GM in order to facilitate their bad behavior. In their eyes, if the GM responds to that note, it lends legitimacy to their actions. These notes are usually worded along the lines of, "I steal the mage's spellbook while I'm on watch" or "I backstab Joe's character." I know I've brought this up a couple of times now, but this is so apropos to the topic. Great video.
5:44 - "I'm in no way saying that a PC that's not wanting to go into a dungeon is a bad thing. Let me give you an example: A few years ago, we were playing Call of Cthulhu..." ...nuff said. XD
Joke aside though, an in-character lawyer who knows his profession wouldn't agree to do lookout or distractions either, because obstruction of justice is still a crime.
Tarvoc Obstruction of Justice is often exactly what is necessary to help the team. It’s just that it’s so helpful that governments have seen it as useful enough to ban it. Of course, you could argue under certain principles of law that the “obstruction of justice” laws are too vague to have been created legally, and therefore it is acceptable for your lawful-good character to break said law because an illegal law ought not to fall within your alignment.
Oh, the players who play unendingly silly PCs that hold up the game because nothing serious can happen with them in the room, give them instant and harsh in game consequences. The bartender asked you to leave. "No. I then attempt to start a food fight by throwing my stew at another patron. What do I roll?" "Initiative. You are surrounded by three ork bouncers, and they are grabbing you to throw you out." "Find, I draw my-" "You are grappled." I mean, a bit of silliness is fine, but, as in real life, if a person keeps playing stupid games, they'll win stupid prizes.
Some time ago, I thought I was doing this terrorist thing. I was playing as a very moral, very spiritual character, opposed by more crude and morally dubious team members. The more we were playing, the more I realized that my character's impeccable morality was in the way. Especially to our newest player (it's her first campaign ever) who made a very aggressive character, but couldn't really delve into it, because... Well, I was there, holding her on a metaphorical leash. So I went to our GM and asked if I can make a different character. He agreed... And when my new character (who's morally grey) entered the scene... My fellow players started to complain. Turns out they all liked my previous character, and to this day they say they miss her. I didn't hinder their game like I thought I was, I was making it more challenging and fun.
Sometimes the redemption arc isn't about one character in the team. It's about a team changing because of one character who broke the cynicism that surrounds that rejection of nobility that sits at the heart of many amoral characters.
Seth, thank you for this video; this was eye-opening. You put things in a new perspective for me... I had once run a "saga" style campaign for a group of my friends, and I loved it. When I brought in a good friend (who up until that point had always been the GM for the group), things gradually took a turn for the worse, and I and the rest of the players' enjoyment of the game increasingly suffered. He is a very nice guy, and is still a friend, but he went out of his way to play characters that caused problems for the group, he stole things from the party and from invaluable NPC allies, and he had a different objective for the game than all of the rest of us - except for him, all of us wanted to role play, enjoy the story and the world, and have fun - he wanted to WIN. Eventually, the campaign died because of our differences. I was surprised by how many aspects of the "Role-Play Terrorist" he was guilty of - I had always thought it was just my failing of being able to deal with him as a challenging player, that I wasn't, "DM enough" for a player of his experience and intelligence. Turns out, he played characters who were dicks, and he played like a dick, and I had never seen that. He put his enjoyment of the group activity above everyone else's, and drove the game into the ground. My contribution to that was in not knowing how to deal with a player who was doing these things, and who was also a real-life friend. Anyway, thank you, Seth, for a new perspective!
Concerning Character-Motivation, I adapted one tactic as a player. I like to play Rogue and Bard acetypes who often struggle with the classic motivations like "the King told you" or "there is glory to win". So, if I see, that my DM wants me to join in, but i feel, it would be out of character, is just say: "All right, I'm in, but just to tell you, that it was a dumb Idea to start with."
Ultimately it's just another version of griefer and I think you really nailed the psychology well. Unfortunately a lot of "I'm just RPing well" really pulls against the meta-agreement at the table of players supporting each other. When a character is constantly causing problems IC most other party members would expel or, even worse, frag such a character, but most tables don't go in for PvP like that. The "I deserve to be rewarded because I RP" aspect is particularly frustrating.
The only time this ever happened to me went something like this: RPT: “My character has no reason to go in there. I’m just RPing my character!” The rest of the party: “Alright, you stay here then. WE are going in there. If you want to help us, we would love to have you.” The RPT spent the next two hours vehemently refusing to go on the adventure before getting bored and came up with a sufficient reason to join the party. Never had another problem after that.
As a DM, I have a simple rule of thumb "A character that is abandoned or rejected by the party at large is effectively dead. Please hand over his sheet and roll a character that wants to adventure and can play well with others at the table." This is an effective warning shot and challenges their own "it's the character" excuse by arguing above the table. Anyone who plays an evil character gets 'the talk' beforehand, but I like surprising the people who like to rock a CN munchkin character as if I don't know that they aren't going to wind up dead or in jail, and I make damn sure to make sure that NPC's who enforce the law are competent investigators who have dealt with out-of-control adventurers before and have the capability to do so and aren't going to send an 'encounter appropriate' response. Evil characters must be sane, have moderated ambitions, and capable of working with a team, have a need and vested interest in keeping that team alive, and are aware that if the party abandons them, they are off the table. Evil characters with grandiose ambitions are villains, and I don't run villains. I also ruthlessly enforce the fact that V and S components of spellcasting are very obvious to everyone around you, and you can't just 'slip in' a suggestion without the sorcerers' Subtle Spell, and also ruthlessly enforce that casting spells in public is like walking around with a gun in a Walmart, people nearby are going to be very anxious, if not scared.
I was one of these for a one-shot I wasn’t too enthused about. Made a character quite literally duplicated from Rincewind in Sir Terry Pratchett’s Discworld series. Long story short, he made it 2 chambers into the dungeon, fried a few big rats, then had enough and tried to split in the middle of a fight. For his trouble, he fell into a pitfall trap and wasn’t athletic enough to climb/jump out. The team’s Dragonborn fighter found him (with his robes covered in excrement after a crit fail at climbing,) laughed, and pulled him out. Only to get hit by a laughing spell while Rincewind ditched his soiled clothing and ran for it.
If the player is giving excuses as to why they’re not going to do something, just call their bluff by saying “ok, that’s fine, get out, you don’t have to adventure anymore”
On the motivation bit, it is fair for a player when presented with a hook not to bite. If the GM presents an adventure that makes no sense for the character to be ok with that's a fair objection. A paladin not being ok with doing something evil for instance. However, if there are no big red flags and the rest of the group is on board, then their character really should have enough motivation right there. "These are my companions and they all want to do it. We risk our lives for each other. The least I can do is help out." Also, timing is important. I've noticed when players tend to present legitimate issues with a mission, it is when it is presented. They don't do it in the middle of things.
Had a situation where I was playing a Half-Orc monk that floated between chaotic good and lawful good. His training was lawful good, but his half-orc blood made him compulsively do chaotic good stuff. Thought it was a constant good at-odds thing that he might be able to work through. Well...a situation came up where a bunch of goblins came across the party who was in the swamp trying to find a guy for information. Everything was going fine until the Goblins demanded an amount of Gold to leave the party alone. Now that smart move would've been to pay the toll and move on. But...while my Half-Orc monk was lawful good, I think he would not appreciate and be personally insulted by the high-handed treatment the party was getting from these Goblins. Bard tried to convince Goblins to let us go without toll. Crit fail. Cost increased. At that point my Half-Orc monk was so pissed at the cost increase that he threatened the Goblins he would have their heads if they didn't leave right now. Rolled with disadvantage; not good enough. We kicked their asses despite reinforcements and a mini-boss that showed up. But I felt bad at the end because essentially I put the party in danger when it was smarter just to pay the toll and move on. The players didn't object to it; they LOVED it. I'm pretty sure that I was in the right, was good RP, but I didn't want to ruin the fun for the party either.
The thing is D&D isn't a single player game and some compromise for each player involved should be expected. The problem is that some people are selfish and incapable of empathy and to them it still functions like a single player game with the added bonus of annoying your friends.
I don't know of a single GM with sufficient experience (you're lucky to go three months without an issue, frankly) who HASN'T had "one of those talks" with a Player... It's what draws even folks like me with 30+ years behind the screen to videos like this... checking alternative perspectives and suggestions. The best most of us can do is HOPE... Hope that we can still get behind the screen and carry on the next adventure with our remaining friends. Hope that we can "coach" other Players around the weirdness of subjects like motivations, attitudes, and making adjustments in the game. Hope that we never lose sight of the things we really LOVE about the game and our parts in it. GM's and Players often come and go. It's part and parcel of the Hobby. Do what you can to refine your best today, to be a better "your best" tomorrow, and the rewards will generally outweigh the struggles and deficits. ...but you do NOT owe anybody the insufferable duty of putting up with a D*CK. ;o)
This happens way more often than I thought it would! Some players actually believe their inactive characters are great for the game. This comes to me as a question of "Are you an adventurer" or "Are you some jackass that would prefer to be sitting his ass at home and not be in a dangerous situation for fame, treasure and thrills"? If the latter, please check your expectations for the freaking game! Great video, I'll show it to all my players so that they can see the error of their ways!
Thank you for having the courage to put this out there. TT games are played by people. Sometimes the issue is the game master, sometimes a player, sometimes the system, sometimes the scenario, and sometimes there isn’t really a problem as much as a perception of a problem. Videos like this help keep a good sense of perspective.
"I don't care about..." "What does your character care about!?" I've had characters where I didn't understand their motivation, and I've gone along with it, but felt hallow playing the adventure. It's important to figure out the character's motivation before the campaign starts, or adventure starts, and I usually have the players tell me their character's motivation so that later they can't say, "I have no motivation." :-/
I agree with this wholeheartedly. I don't know if I've ever had one of these in my group. One of my own pet peeves is a player who justifies what he's about to do before he does it out loud, explaining why he has chosen to do what he is doing. It makes me feel like whatever the decision is, good or bad, he's trying to make sure everyone else at the table is cool with it beforehand, possibly even me as the keeper. I'd prefer people just make decisions and go with them. If people at the table don't understand it, they can later ask, in character, what he was thinking. I'm also not a fan of players using a random roll to make a decision for their character. It feels like a cop-out. Okay, I did have a terrorist player in a couple of game sessions. He was a priest of Dionysus and, when he went to heal someone in the group and no one was paying attention, he actually loosened the character's bonds so he'd bleed out - which the character did. When asked later why he did that, he said he was jealous of the other character's powers and thought he could be more popular in the group if said other player was gone ... or some such nonsense. Worse, he never played in the game again after that but kept leading us like he might, as I wanted to resolve the situation. A month later, when we finally played again, the group stumbled across Baba Yaga, who rose the murdered character from the dead on the condition that he 'owed her a favor.' It was the best I could think of doing considering the first player seemed to have played just for the opportunity to be a jerk. We all later found out he abused his girlfriend and later quit D&D because it was Satanic ...
First session ever. I was confused about what was going on, but I found a really important quest item and finally felt important to the group. Person in the group stole it immediately and no one was on my side, saying he was playing his character. I nearly quit Tabletops that day.
I've encountered those. I've eventually decided the following after numerous encounters. It's not up to the GM to come up with a reason for the player character, it's up to the player to come up with it. After all, they are at the game to play the adventure, and if they refuse to participate, that's totally on them. After all, do football coaches or referees have to explain reasons for the quarterback to touch the football?
I just watched this video and I had a sort of R.P. terrorist situation yesterday. Bear with me. In a DND campaign in which the PCs are all part of the same army company and simultaneosly do quests for their queen which often leads them to confronting some supernatural stuff, they got to work, although reluctantly, with an organization one of the characters is afraid of and considers wicked, a sort of magical police-church thing with vast influence around the game world. It's an important factor around the world and often will get its hands around supernatural phenomena and arcane users because that's their jurisdiction and, most importantly, has the power to enforce it. The character in question had some trouble with authority, never a good thing in the army, almost killed a noble and some innocent people over some shady but legal stuff the noble had done and got chastised by the character who plays his captain and got demoted together with the lesson of "if you gonna face your demons you gotta do it smart or you gonna get killed". After they had to collaborate with this magical police investigating some freak dissapearances, this magical policeman (called a Magistrate), who was really a chill dude and helped them to the best of his ability, sent his apprentice, a 13 y.o. girl, to help them and establish a connection between them and the company to investigate this phenomena. I intended to place that character to explore the character's (a CG divine soul sorcerer) fear and tension with this people, with a relatively weak character from that organization. The girl was placed under custody because the party leader distrusts mages in general, but stayed with the other two only female members of the company, a PC and an NPC. The very same day the character intended to assassinate her even though the girl was staying in the same tent with one of the best elven scouts in the whole army (the NPC) and the other PC. When the scout discovered his attempt, the player stated that it could only end with his character or the NPC dead, and also it would have been a terribly stupid decision in any case because it would bring a lot of trouble for the company because the Magistrates would sure retaliate with deadly force or impose heavy sanctions upon them and the realm as a whole. He presented his case as non-negotiable, and was willing to make a whole new character if it be necessary. I'd argued against that kind of inflexibility for two reasons: it doesn't allow his character to grow and explore his fear (as the girl was in no position to hurt him), it showed he learned nothing from past similar mistakes, and it's too rigid for a dynamic story in which they have to interact with antagonists they're not always in the position to just go and kill them because it'd spell doom upon their cause (like attacking nobles of their realm). In the end, I found the only reason he accepted to continue with that plot, and that was that his character hates seeing children suffer, and he realized that the NPC is a just a child. We had to rollback the scene and ended with him almost suffocating the girl (who was deprived of her arcane focus and silenced) and realizing he was about to kill a little girl. All in all, the resolution was good, the character got caught and severely punished (and there are potential problems ahead), the girl thinks he tried to rape her, but I got worried of a character trend which makes him unable to explore his character's... character and flaws. TL;DR: don't just attempt to kill any NPC you dislike or challenges your beliefs, even less if your alignment is "GOOD".
Seth: great video as always. Very mature advice on dealing with *the player* and not the character. And to anyone celebrating stories of those who have retaliated to terrorists by intentionally ruining their fun to teach them a lesson, perhaps ask yourself if reciprocating the bad behavior is the best way to handle this.
This is a tale of how I dealt with the worst "that guy/ RP terrorist" I've ever encountered as a DM. I learned a lot from this incident, mostly how to shut down these types of players. I once had a player build an assassin rogue in 3.5. He was constantly telling the other characters (and players) that he could kill them all, so they should just go along with what ever he wanted (The other players were all about 14 to 16, he was 18). Eventually he turned on the rest of the party and killed them all one by one. He left with a smirk and a "told you so," leaving a shattered campaign behind him- or so he thought. Next game, everyone showed up to start making new characters, except the Assassin. Just as everyone started rolling dice I had a brainwave and told my players to pull out their old characters, and started the events of the last game over, this time with out the Assassin. After an hour or so of play one of the characters discovered the Assassin crouching under a staircase mumbling to himself "I killed them all... I am so great... I kelled them all..." we had a laugh and got back to the game. One of my players bumped into Assassin a month or so later who asked how the new campaign was going. He was less than impressed to find out what had happened to his character!
God on you. I had a player who did the same thing except not only did the DM not retcon the events of the game but he flat out rewarded the player with being second in command to the villain. The DM even refused to kick him and only killed everyone because aid DM kept giving him a bunch or rare stuff!
@@bigblue344 that sucks dude, sounds like a pretty toxic game. 😥 I really only thought of the retcon at the start of the next session, and the idea runs contrary to what you learn in D&D -"what's done is done, move forward" kinda thing. I just didn't want to start a whole new campaign just because of one jerk player!
Great video as always. I don't know if you've done this or not but I would love to see a video about the basics of roleplaying itself for beginners or just general advice on roleplaying.
Yep. I've had that. Had one player who I used to play with 1 on 1, but did not work well as part of a group. I had another one that, if he wasn't the centre of attention or the group wasn't following his plans, would actively sabotage the efforts of all the other characters.
Great video Seth. I would like to share my take on this subject. I always ask my players to give me, along with their background, the motivation of their characters and their dreams/hopes... That way, I can tight up every thing, in a way that they feel a sense of accomplishment and belongings.
I'd like it if more GMs took your approach. I was accused in not so many words of pulling the 'reluctant' kind of rp terrorism once. I tried to talk it out with them but it didn't work out. The thing is, I'd made and provided a backstory that had plenty of useful stuff in that would help with offering reasonable hooks and what motivated her. They didn't even bother trying to offer something she would be interested in. I tend to play reluctant heroes because I like fish out of water rp but I don't think I've ever done it in the ways described here.
As a DM, I've had to deal with more than one terrorist in the same campaign. After two years of their "gotcha" tomfoolery, I got fed up and told them they'd never challenge my moral compass ever again.
I play Fokk a half orc barbarian, a purely chaotic power house that adds an element of unknown to the party dynamic. However I never make actions that would directly result in less fun for the party. For example fokk wouldn't pick a lock, he would simply smash it, if that proved ineffective he would smash the door or chest open. Quite fun, chaotic, and great rp material. Especially the caveman like half orc voice. "Fokk ANGRY" note that both my wisdom and intelligence are quite low. This is on purpose to make the rp even more funny.
This is part of why a session zero is so important. Before anybody makes characters, let's all get on the same page about what kind of campaign we're going to have and what kind of characters we should be making. Get some motivations, hooks, and connections started before putting any numbers to paper. I've been this 'roleplay terrorist' exactly once, and I blame the GM. We sat down beforehand and talked about what we were building, and all came up with characters from the same (Earthdawn) cairn who were the sole protectors of their isolated community as they opened up to a dangerous new world. And then the first adventure ends with a call to march off to the other side of the continent for another epic campaign to dump a ring in a volcano or something. It's not what we wanted, it's not what we had discussed in advance, and I couldn't see my character abandoning his defenseless village to go save a bunch of strangers. I dropped out, and the campaign basically died.
@Seth Skorkowsky Greetings Seth, When I initially clicked on this video I thought that it was advice on how to play a character whose role is a literal terrorist in the game (e.g. my current Call of C’thulhu character is an ex-IRA saboteur who gets offered a chance at calculated vengeance for the death of his family and has to make use of his skills as a terrorist to bring down an organization). However, I did find this video, just as I have with all of the rest of yours, to be very relevant to the sorts of problems that I encounter with players (in this case, the reluctant ones). In my first campaign, I was defiantly guilty of railroading the overly-reluctant ones which may have left a sour taste in all of our mouths. With more experience as a GM, I have found more and more just how effective communicating to them, as you put it, not "what's stopping you doing it?", and instead, "give us a motive for you to do it.' , truly is. I will definitely try using your "checklist" next session to see if their outside conflicts are bleeding into how they treat each other in the game. Take care, Seth!
A player in my game just quit because I had to call him out on this. His terrorism was in the form of out-of-character demanding of how the adventure should go or dominating over how other players should take their turns and play their characters.
As a player, while in character, just move along with the mission. I'll RP a character not wanting to follow through on a mission, but when it becomes apparent to be a player conflict their new conflict can be watching the rest of the group have fun. And their character can reap no rewards for not participating.
Another wonderful and insightful video! Thanks, Seth. I wanted to check this video out after you mentioned it in your video about meta-gaming. I find that there is a definite link between the two subjects. I often think that the RP terrorists who stick to the "I was just paying my character" motto could really benefit from applying some good meta-gaming to their approach. For example: If your character is a chaotic evil warlock, instead of murdering the party in their sleep, take some time to find a creative reason why your character WON'T kill them. Maybe your pact patron demands that you work with this group of adventurers toward some unknown goal. And your patron would get angry and punish you by revoking your powers if you didn't cooperate with them and instead chose to harm them. Now, with some helpful backstory conditions, you're now free to continue to do "what your character would do", while simultaneously harmonizing with the entire group and the DM (Seriously, players, keep your DM happy! It's not sucking up. Your DM invests a LOT into the game. Shouldn't you invest in them?) Now, everyone can have fun and get on with the game. Not only that, but it can open up some great dynamics for RP with the group instead of sabotaging the game. So by applying a bit of helpful meta-gaming (Asking and answering the question of how your character, who ordinarily murders everyone they come across, will refrain from wanton murder.) and using it to RP toward the group, instead of having an attitude of "This is my thing and everyone else just has to deal with it.", you've defused the terrorist within your character and yourself!
I once were in the situation where my character dig in her heels. She was reluctant to into sewer water to find a hidden passage with some kind of whirpool of shit in there and she was a low level wizard that just wasn't physically fit at all. She really begged the rest of the party if they could look for another way in, but they won't. She was stuck up there while the stronger characters jumped in and found their way to the other side. Finally she decided to try as well and to make sure she is not the last one... She very nearly died... twice... (some really bad rolls involved, but the character just knows she nearly died twice in sewer water) before she could pull herself out of this sewer water and sat down crouching up and obsessively cleaning herself up again with magic and refusing to go back in. In the end some of the fitter characters had to be called back over again and take her by the hand to go through...She was really really not happy with anyone... And it took a lot of time to go on with the story because of that, so I kind of held the game ramson for some time... I still think it was fair in that moment
Great subject. My approach is direct. Before game with a new group or whenever someone new comes up, I make clear that all, without restriction, are equally responsible for each others fun. Things like "If anyone here plans to steal from the party, disrespect powerful figures or have torture scenes, assume now in front of everyone before we start wasting time". This approach is usually enough to start on the right foot. After that, if someones start tô deviate from the point, I ask loud and clear "are you sure you are making this game fun for others by doing this?". Naturally, players tend to explore the boundaries either way, but the great thing about it is that they create the habit of discussing with other players before doing unortodox shit, which improves a lot the sensation of trust between the group of players, sometimes way more than between characters
I once played a Paladin who chopped a hand off the party thief, The thief player yelled "I was just playing my character" and I responded "So was I.."
Thief that steals from a party member is always risking losing a hand, or his head.
😳😂
Same. Once was in a game where the party rogue was always scouting ahead and taking all the best loot out of every dungeon we went into AND stealing from the party. Once my character (dwarf fighter) found out what the elf rogue was doing, he killed him. In his bag of holding we found a small mountain of treasure including things he could not even use. He rolled another rogue that was literally the same character with a different name. The entire party ganged up on him and killed this new character on sight. When the player complained about this, we told him he deserved it. He left the group and never came back.
I cut off a little finger for the first offense. No other offense noted.
@@leolyre168 slightly less severe, sent the same message. Well done.
Player: "That's what my PC would do!"
DM: "You are surrounded by 12 well armed and armored guards backed by 3 people that appear to be spellcasters. The guards demand: 'Drop your weapons! You are under arrest!' "
Woe betide the PC who does not submit.
Player: "Why am I being arrested?"
DM: "Its what the King's' Guard would do."
Boom!
Yeah, bitch!
I had something similar to this happen once. A player had met a prince and he warned them his personal guard was following along the passage behind him and it would be safest for the party to stay with him for introductions. The terrorist of the group was playing a "lawful good, pacifist, who was too afraid to be by themselves" and immediately ran off in the direction of the guards and murdering them. He inevitably died and was upset with me over it. That was the last time I DMed a proper campaign. For extra context this was a diplomatic quest where they were supposed to be lowering the hostilities between two factions.
@@danielalexander8402 Wait; a passifist caracter, on diplomatic quest, started murder-hoboing?!
...
That seems very OUT of character!
@@agsilverradio2225 Right? The guy still gets mad at me when I bring it up to show what is very definitely out of character.
@@danielalexander8402 ...I think you should try to stop associating with him. He is clearly either a psychopath, sociopath or moron
kinda disapointed that the "how to deal with a role play terrorist" bit wasn't just "we dont negotiate with terrorists" credits roll.
solid advice as always though.
Probably because the line is bullshit. They ALWAYS negotiate with terrorists.
Same thing Jimpied said: Because it's a bullshit bit of rhetoric that has absolutely no meaning in reality. We do, in fact, regularly negotiate with terrorists who have a hand to play and chips in the game. Not dealing with them usually gets more people killed.
@@conormccue2871 Actually it does, it recognizes that negotiating with terrorists tells people that terrorism pays which is absolutely the wrong message.
@@terradraca A message that we send all the time because in real life, when psychos have 3 of your friends with a gun to their heads and tell you that they'll kill those people if you don't turn over a psycho you have, we tend to let that psycho go.
It's bullshit rhetoric and anyone with skin in the game knows it.
@@conormccue2871 Who then go on to kidnap and threaten more people now that they know it's an effective way to get your way so now you've put more people at risk.
Way to go!
Regarding the thief who steals from the party: I kill bandits on the road. So why not kill the thief in my camp?
It's what my character would do...
I was once in a game (DnD) that died within 10 minutes because of the terrorist thief. IIRC he had picked that strange race that's literally a bunch of kleptomaniacs. Why the writers had included a playable race whose sole purpose it is to ruin everyone's fun is beyond me.
@@Pile_of_carbon
Would this be a kender?
Yeah, Kenders can really be that kind of... Selfish "Fun" that I really can't comprehend.
@@calemr Yea, that one. "I'm stealing everything from everyone, because that's just the lovable little rascal that I am!" Picking Kender as race is a massive red flag that the player in question is about to go full on terrorist on your game.
yeah you dont steal from mafia and live
@@Pile_of_carbon I'm pretty new to D&D, but any time i play a evil dude, i never direct my evilness at the party, i make that clear too, at the start. I'm not going to try and fuck over the party, i like my own little schemes
“Then roll me up a character who will.” My usual answer to the over reluctant character.
I read a story where “that guy” agreed to design his next character with a friend (they both alternated picking traits for each other’s characters)
He ended up playing a Pocahontas like barbarian whose tribe was murdered by some guy
Obviously his goal was to hunt down the guy, but his friend said the character wouldn’t kill him
Over time this character developed from stand-offish to genuinely nice and kind, and at the end of the campaign there was a massive naval battle
The guy who killed Pocahontas’s tribe was leading the enemy navy, and she walked through a hail of black powder shot and sword blows, dying only a few feet in front of him
The DM allowed Pocahontas one more action so the formerly antisocial player described his character as she reached down, beaten and bloodied beyond recognition
From a pocket she pulled out, not a knife or a gun, but a flower from her tribe, the tribe slaughtered by the man who stood before her
She pushed it up to his chest and whispered “I forgive you” before dying
Since then the player has been unable to play antisocial PCs
The actual story is longer and better, but the idea of players changing by playing characters they normally don’t seems interesting at the very least
That is beautiful.
that is cool, as long as the guy gave her a reason to forgive him i suppose.
@@viniciussardenberg706 And he doesn't have an allergy to said flower.
That would probably still scare the hell out of him I assume?
real life character development
I cried.
The traditional name for this kind of player is 'That Guy', but I think I'll be using RP terrorist from now on.
I’ve herd “My Guy,” for “That’s what My Guy would do!”
I enjoy the call of Cthulhu example, shows the difference of being in character and a player terrorist. Because the "in character" explains ways to work around their role-play.
Perfect example!
I "awww"ed at that player when Seth said he was trying to apologize for his legitimate RP.
Really the only way I've found to curb this kind of player is to be involved in the character creation process. You have to be plugged in as a Dungeon Master when the players are working on their sheets, ask them about their concepts and motivations, and DO NOT be afraid to use the power of 'no' if something doesn't fit. This is 100% a case of where an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
I'm most groups I have played in all the players had veto power on what characters were allowed. Some feelings may get hurt, only once in 20 years has it ever been truly ugly, but the resulting parties are much better for it. Also as you said GM participation is SO essential.
I wish I had seen this comment 2 years ago...
If you’re going to steal my spellbook you better steal my focus too, by 5th level I have enough spells memorized to turn a single 5th level rogue into powder
Powdered _rouge_ is the best.
mdiem thank you for that
But the spell book was only missing for the short period of time it took me to copy the spells I didn't know.
You have to catch him doing it first
Mr. Wonky I play a rogue character who has a kleptomaniac curse so I uncontrollably steal stuff leads to some funny moments that get me and the group laughing but I usually give what I get to the group because my character doesn't steal for profit they steal because of the curse
had a guy, who half way through a dungeon, said "my character wouldnt stay in here, we are going to all die." He then left the dungeon by himself, expecting wed all reluctantly follow. We didnt. He bailed on the campaign and never returned. We still finished the dungeon without him. Good times.
That's actually kinda an interesting character moment tbh, whether it speaks more about the character of the player or is PC. It feels like I don't often hear about any players that just coward out, even though in a lot of situations, that'd probably be the realistic reaction.
The real crime was sentence structure all along
The thing there is that the player ended up telling on himself. If he'd said "My character will wait at the entrance. Can I play some of the monsters until folks leave?" that would likely be him trying to RP well. The fact that not only did the character leaver, but the player did, too, that says something. Though, a true terrorist wouldn't have left without making at least one more attempt to ruin the fun.
:D
"Screw you guys, I'm going home"
Well, bye?
Seriously that would be my response as a DM or player. "Ok you leave. But because you aren't doing the adventure I am going to continue with those who are."
No player should create a character who would steal from the party in the first place. It's fun to play a thief, but even if your character is evil it's up to you to figure out why they won't make the game miserable for the rest of the party. I once made an Assassin who was insanely evil, but his order was actually so insanely cold and money-driven he had to vow he would never kill anyone without his guild's permission. Since my DM controlled the guild, he was always a perfect angel in terms of group dynamics. (minus the one time I was ordered to kill my friend in the party but that was actually a great character arc moment since he refused.)
The thing is what, and why the player is stealing.
@@dirus3142 I meant that as an example of building an rpg-terrorist defense into your character from the get-go. If you wanted to make a character who steals, you would follow the same model.
For example, perhaps the thief has a code where he or she only steals from people they believe can afford it. Maybe they have strong survival instincts, and know that if they stay in the parties' good graces they will protect them when their stealing eventually catches up to them.
My point is that players who want to play characters with potential RP traps should find a way around it. Hopefully that clarifies. :)
The advice I gave my players decades ago regarding thieves stealing from the party was "Don't [defecate] where you eat." Another good one is to quite an exchange from Stripes. Sergeant Hulka -"One day, one of these men might save your life." John Candy's character - "Or maybe they won't."
My rule is "there is a little grey area with loot that has just been found and not yet divvied out, but once it's given to a character it is sacrosanct and cannot be stolen by players" I feel like it stops arguments and issues among players while allowing rogues to, well, rogue. "You find three diamonds in the chest" "Hey fellas, I found two diamonds!" -An actual interaction with our rogue.
@@KiwiLombax15 Solid take.
Had a Githyanki knight in an adventure where the party had to work & trust a number of illithids. That player said they really couldn't play their character in that circumstance and was steadfast about what their rigid, code-adhering character would do. Which was cool. He hung out and kibbutzed for the rest of the session and we reoriented in another direction for the next session.
You rob the Barbarian at your own risk. Rage isn’t an ability, it’s a life style.
Or the Paladin. Smiting Evil, wherever (s)he goes because (s)he is on a mission from a god.
My golden rule for character motivation is, it's the player's job to find a motivation for for their character. Just ask them "why does this character go on an adventure" or "why would this character investigate in mythos related cases".
But most of the times an unmotivated/unsatisfied character is a simple projection of an unmotivated/unsatisfied player. In that case you have to find out (usually by asking) why the player isn't motivated/satisfied. This might have all sorts of reasons, so don't get mad if they say they dislike the adventure, the setting or the way role playing is handled.
Not wrong. There are cases where 'rpg-terrorists' are just happen, because the player doesn't know what he/she actually wants.
Bear in mind: reluctant heroes are a thing. I recently played one. He always went along with the party, and fought at their side, but often complained "Why do WE have to be the ones doing this?" And "We're not heroes! I'm certainly not!". But still did it.
I've never understood how obtaining nation building levels of wealth is not motivation enough for any character who hasn't taken an oath of poverty.
Chaotic Neutral is one of my favorite alignments to play, and it always ticks me off how many stories I hear of players doing things like this and hiding behind the CN alignment and thus giving it a certain stigma.
They think Renegade Shepherd alignment means Bucket Over Head Skyrim alignment.
Saw the title and figured: “ I better watch this before it gets flagged and the channel gets shut down.”
And the Studio (aka Seths Living room) get's raided by the feds.
I'm amazed there are adds. His terminology is on point despite he baggage.
We once had a D&D session. Where we invited a new player he was actually the local paper boy and he didn't really have friends. So I invited him to the table cuz you know I felt bad. Well the kid turned out to have a few mental issues. he would repeat the same thing like 3 or 4 times which didn't bother me as the dungeon master and he would roll play hardcore which I actually liked. Well I found out my friend a veteran did not like him at all and found him very annoying. So over the next few sessions you could tell a few things would subtly start escalating he would not let him get specific items keep his character out of the loop not invite his character on adventures. He'd be like be at the gate by Sun up so we can leave on time and then he would get a cart ready and tell everyone we're leaving at sundown so he can't go with. This one time they were clearing out a giant nest of bugs and his charater break a giant egg over the New Kids characters head and the new kids character couldn't take it anymore and he's like I swing my at him. It then led the veteran player to say "up now I'm defending myself I swing at I swing the new kid" And he criticals and he kills his character. the new kid broke down in tears threw a huge fit I ended up kicking the veteran player out of the table for two years.
he messaged me asking if he could play with us again and I told him he'd have to apologize to the new kid in front of everyone otherwise he wouldn't be allowed to. He did
I’d say both were at fault, not the vets vault he rolled a crit, still shouldn’t have acted like a jerk and could have handled the situation better.But I can’t say the paper boy was scottfree as well, even if he was challenged I know that I would get annoyed hearing the same thing repeated over and over again for hours.
@@seanfinn168 you sir, are a jerk. But not a roleplaying jerk but a real one.
Justifying abuse of other's limitations is pretty low.
@@seanfinn168if it’s a autistic or Tourette’s tick that’s a horrible reason but even if it’s not. There is no way in the world where the reasonable thing is to try and completely cut him out and bully him relentlessly
Dear Seth,
Please, don't stop making videos! I'm about to pick up DMing, so I'm watching lots of videos on the subject (and boy they are many channels addressing the topic), but I have to admit: I get bored very quickly after 7-8 minutes of videos and usually end up skipping them. That is, with the exception of YOUR videos :)
Your style, your voice, your skits, I don't know what else but your videos are the only ones I don't get bored of, and I have no trouble watching them to the end.
So yeah, I think it definitely tells something about the quality of your content.
Keep up the good work!
Thank you very much. Though I totally admit that most of my first year vids are pretty painful to watch. I talked too slow, my mic sucked, I hadn't quite figured out how to articulate my thoughts, and I was still just deep in the learning phase.
@@SSkorkowsky Well you are definitely out of the learning phase. Your videos are the most informative, after 40 years in this hobby there is always more to learn, and entertaining I have found. Thank you so very much.
@@SSkorkowsky Your early vids may have some issues in technique, but the content is still awesome! Thanks for all the stories and advice, and just sharing your obvious love for this past time
Seth Skorkowsky no problem talking too slow in this video haha. It was so fast I was worried you were going to asphyxiate. Great topic and well covered!
Check out Matt Colville if you haven't already. He helped me a lot as a GM.
Over the 37 years I've been playing, and running RPG's, I've encountered this type of a player many times. As both a player, and a GM, I've come up with ways of dealing with them.
Always try to talk to them first. Don't accuse, just suggest. Many players don't realize they are being a problem, as Seth says, and will come around once they realize they are killing the fun for everyone else. I find it best to simply ask what sort of experience they are looking to have from the game. Allow them to figure that out. Sometimes, what they want is too different from what everyone else wants, which leads to them leaving to find a group more in line with what they want.
True problem players, however, will persist in their attempts to derail the fun for everyone else. I've had players that flat refused to go on the adventure. So, I've learned to allow that. The rest of the party leaves without them. The rest of the game is the party having an awesome adventure, while the problem player whines, and tries to shove in with what they are doing. I shut them down, telling them I'll get to them later. Usually, they stop being a problem, or leave the group after that.
As a player, I often make melee characters. Fighter and barbarians are my favorites, as is being Chaotic Neutral, to use D&D terms. In any game, I lean towards being the muscle of the group, and having a less that pure moral compass. Mostly, this is because I just enjoy that kind of character a lot, and playing as someone who either redeems themselves into a hero, or falls into being the villain, is one of my favorite things. A good GM gives me plenty of room to take that archetype and really have fun with it. In a group I know well, I'll expand my horizons, with different archetypes, but when in doubt, go with the old favorite.
However, it's also useful for stabbing the rogue lots of times after he steals from me one time to many. Yes, I've been in a party with that kind of player, who smirks and says they are just playing their character. I give them the same response when I kill their character for trying to steal from me. That usually does the trick.
Yes, I warn them of the consequences of doing it again before actually doing it. I'm not a jerk. They always do it anyway, and they always get face stabbed.
Really been enjoying your channel, Seth. From one long time RPG player turned author to another, good work.
37 years of playing and CN war or brb.... you are a cultist of Conan the barbarian just like me!
Read the Abercrombie books ... he's pure to your style.
Still alive... still alive..
Had a campaign with one such player once. The other three players agreed that the player needed to go, so a simple message was sent. Four PCs went to bed alive, three woke up that way, and the party's rogue was in a shallow ditch.
I play wizards, Charm the thief so they can not make a Roll to Steal.
Just noticed the bleeding baby head. Why do you own a bleeding baby head?
Wait, you don't? Nerd
It's what his character would do
I was accused of this once, but I was running a Lawful Good Paladin and I refused to murder someone in cold blood. I was told that I was screwing over the party who were acting Neutral Evil at best and Chaotic Evil at worst.
That's almost certainly the fault of your Dungeon Master. An experienced DM won't ever allow a Paladin in a group with those sorts of characters. Sometimes you come to the table with a character, and through no fault of your own, walk into a situation that's just unwinnable. This is why, as a Dungeon Master, I'm not afraid to tell people no when they come with a character concept that might be disruptive to either the game or the group. Everyone is much, much happier for it because I do.
@@jupiterrising887 That is just the thing, the Dungeon Master was the one who insisted that either I run a Cleric or a Healing Paladin because "The Party Needs it" and dropped hints that a Paladin was preferred because they lacked a tank. So I made a Tanky / Healy sort who was Lawful Good erring on the side of someone who was all about compassion and defending the weak / doing the right thing over the letter of the law.
@@MariahSyn Yeah, well, there you go. That's the thing, you know, if your DM is making big mistakes like that the game is not going to be fun - especially when he's foisting concepts onto players out of a sense of 'party balance'.
I had one session with my brother and a couple of our friends. My brother played as the thief that yoinked stuff from other characters, but the reason why nobody ever got mad at him is because he would always give the item back with a small cheeky statement like "You should probably keep a better hold of this"
Nobody even bothered to roll for spot checks to see if he yoinked something either, I would've had him roll sleight of hand if they said they were actively keeping better watch on their stuff... but because he always gave them back the items it was just a little running gag while the group wasn't in combat.
Heh. This video reminds me of a handful of people in my early Roleplay groups. Leaving that mess felt like the scene in Shawshank Redemption where the protagonist crawls out from the pipe and laughs in the rain. You can work with a bad roleplayer, if they're willing to learn. But if a person's just an awful person... you're better off finding a new player. It's amazing how having a few really good players can turn a meh plot into an outstanding experience, or a few really bad players can make you quit the hobby for a few years.
Great video Seth, keep up the grand work! :)
Absolutely. The first question to ask when dealing with a "problem player" is, "Is this person just an arsehole?"
It's not your job as GM to teach arseholes how to behave like normally-socialised humans, you can't do it anyway and you'll lose all your good players trying.
@@nickwilliams8302 Very true. It's often a hard decision to make, but sometimes a player needs to be ousted, a game dropped, or a group left if it's just not fun anymore. I made the mistake of sticking with it because I was young and dumb at the time. And nearly left the hobby as a result. Glad I didn't though, the groups that came after were absolutely amazing. My advise to anyone who's having a rough time of getting into TTRPG's is to look at the group and consider if it's a group thing rather than the game itself. :)
I once was in a game where a player would always initiate combat to fight, but would never fight if someone else would initiate combat/ the party gets ambushed. He would hold characters back from fighting so he would initiate the fight. He stated because his character was bloodthirsty, but that did not explain his odd way of picking fights. I started to realize why he is like this when I played some games of warhammer 40k, where he was so dead set on getting first turn. The guy had a "me first mentality" on gamming and after a while I stopped playing games with him.
Thanks Seth. These videos are BEYOND helpful. This one in particular...this one hurts me a bit. This is something I am dealing with right now. I’m losing most of my group because half of them fit the bill as RPG Terrorists and, despite all my efforts, they never got better. I should have acted sooner and cut the bad players out, but...I didn’t. And now I have to burn my whole little server and start over anew.
To anyone reading this, don’t make my mistake. ACT on these people. Talk to them, advise them, plead with them, and then, if none of that works, KICK them out. Their negativity will only spread to others and end up really hurting everyone. It’s like cutting off a limb, but if that limb has gangrene, it’s gotta go.
Good advice. I'm sorry you had to learn this the hard way, though. Don't be too hard on yourself. Balancing a group and dealing with problem players is one of the hardest parts of GMing.
"It’s like cutting off a limb, but if that limb has gangrene, it’s gotta go."
that's an extreme metaphor
the problem players killed a campaign you put tons of effort into making I take it
I've experienced a problem player before who genuinely thought his actions were fun snd just liked derailing games. What made him stop was when he was playing Vampire: The Masquerade and actually messed up so bad that he actually exposed the existence of vampires to the local cops-- because he stole a bike (that he didn't need, just to have one) and killed the cop who tried to stop him. In game, his character was killed by the leader of their party, while the NPC heads of the clans had to cover up stuff. Not until his character died did he actually say, "I probably shouldn't have stolen the bike."
Conversely, one of my best players made the mistake of being so 'in character' that he nearly wrote himself out of the game. See, he was playing that 'edgy, angsty vengeance driven' barbarian type, and I had to pull teeth to even get him to join the first half of the adventure. After he nearly kills a FRIENDLY NPC, and then tells everyone that he just wants to leave, everyone tells him, "Then leave!" Which he does. And we all paused as he realized what he'd done. That player and I had a talk and he apologized for what he'd been doing and begged to stay, so we both worked out some things for the next session. That second session he not only made amends in game with the others on a logical, in character way, he actually married the first game's antagonist and their story is now our B-Plot. So what could have been a game terrorist was just an instance of taking role play too far without realizing it.
I had a moment like this, where one of our party and I kind of halted the game; both of our characters had a fear of the open sea (don't know the reason of my friends PC anymore, but my character was a dwarf, hailing from a mountain kingdom and stuff, not the most original, I know).
Our GM was caught completely off guard by our refusal to set sail, and the rest of our party couldn't really get us on the boat (riches and money didn't work on me at least, since I played a kind of druid/geomancer and in The Black Eye this means that I had a religious zeal against smelted metal). So, whilst they were setting up ship I was going around town, looking for a reason to board the ship. Then it occurred to me: we were investigating a sea monster (which more rational people said would just be a reef, that changed visibility with the tides). So I went to the local drunk fishermen to hear their side of the story. Of course they made it out to be THE monstrosity to ever be set into the world. When I asked if it was scaly, the GM caught my drift. They told me, that it had to be some kind of dragon. Dragon. Dwarf. War since times immemorial. I was set. I pretty much jumped on the ship as the first party member, momentarily forgetting my fear of the sea and did beckon my fellow heros on board. Needless to say, my friend still was afraid of the sea.
After a short break (we take breaks to eat and stuff when at the table, and trust me - when playing for 8-10 hours, you really do want them) we returned to the problem at hand. We didn't find a good reason for him. He wanted to come aboard, but he played his character so afraid of the sea, no sane reason would work. And he was all like: "But that's just my character!". So I tried a different approach: if we could not give the PC a good enough reason to face their fear, I would simply circumvent their fear. My party had a wizard with us, but said wizard knew naught about rituals of the nature magic kind. And i had talked to my GM about the plan. Point is: in another round I was playing a shaman, and they have very unique rules. So noone except for me knew, how that stuff worked. They kind of had to trust me on that. So I made sure to inform the GM, that I'd con that player in AND out of character. So I went about and made big preparations for a ritual. A flashy one. One that actually looked like proper magic, but actually was absolute bull.
Thing is: I technically was able to bind powerful spirits to aid me. And everyone knew that i could not reach out to the wind what so ever since my prime Element was Stone and Ore. What noone besides the GM and I knew was, that i had taken another non-profit handicap: I couldn't actually reach out to the spirits of water either, since my dwarven people were afraid of it. But i made it look like I bound a powerful spirit of the sea into a flask of seawater. I told the fearful PC that I made a bargain with the spirit: I would only have to quaff said flask of seawater whilst being on the sea, and the spirit would grant us the protection of the sea, guaranteeing our survival, at least until we would be back at the shore, were the pact was made, where to he would help us get.
(From this point onward, I'll just finish the story of our misadventure, the game being held hostage had been resolved. Sorry, I just love telling Stories :( )
Since he now had no more reason to be afraid he went aboard with us. The rest of the sea adventure was hilarious in itself, with everyone failing basically every roll except for one: whilst my dwarven self was below deck, contemplating his own stupidity of actually setting sail on the sea, with no solid ground beneath his feet, the scaredy cat being sea sick and our fighter being out cold because he "had to manually guarantee the safety of the booze caskets in the bad weather" (He was drunk.And when the bad weather actually came he was so far gone, he misstook the sling barrel for a fair woman inviting him to dance. Said casket knocked him out eventually. I told you already, we failed every role except one.) our silver tongue an the wizard went to investigate the reef. Case in point: there was a reef. A tricky one. Since we found evidence of an uncharted, dangerous reef, we should have called it a day. But the wizard was not content with it just being a reef and actually worked arcane magic around it, to look for more dangerous things. Needless to say, that actual sea dragons don't like wizards poking around with arcane magic on their turf. Also needless to say, that below the visible reef, there was a factual sea dragon. Stuff happens. Now, the only roll we actually managed, we managed to crit: Mr silver tongue actually convinced the dragon, that it would be beneficial for it to not kill us on the spot, since we could just report the reef and NO DRAGON, but if we would be to die, there would be more investigations conducted, until eventually a fleet would come to hunt the dragon. The dragon bought it, let us leave. Since only the (half passed out) wizard and the man himself saw the dragon, he told the party how his manly gusto was enough to make the dragon flee deeper into the ocean. We left it at that. Though officially, there never was a dragon.
So case in point: if you unintentionally hold the game hostage and perceieve it: try to fix it, even if your GM is unable to. If one of your friends does, and he does not perceieve it: dick him over with things he would not expect.
Fun fact: he was actually too sick to notice me just pouring the flask of sea water out on the shore and telling the wizard it was just a fluke, whilst swearing an oath to never set foor on a seabound ship again. I didn't even try to hide it. The player laughed his ass off, but, his PC didn't make the perception check to notice the shaken dwarf screaming his oath at the top of his lungs towards the sea whilst dramatically pouring out the seawater. Buisness per usual at our table.
"Thats what my character would do!"
Me: *kicks him in the nuts*
_thats what my character would do_
Thief: _steals from the party_
Paladin: *Chops off a hand*
The over-reluctant hero trope seemed to peak in the early to mid-2000s at my tables. In different and completely unrelated groups, whether I was a player or a GM, they just kept popping up. At one point it almost felt like I was in groups where the GM had to trick PCs into going on the adventure.
That's what made me decide to make character motivation a part of character generation and our preliminary session.
I'm in a campaign where all of us are basically new to DnD, some of us have like 4-5 sessions played. We don't have a roleplay terrorist, we have a straight up terrorist. He set fire to the ship we were on just to delay it at a brief break location and get enough time to summon his beast conclave animal, when we were 3 ingame days from our destination. It took 3 hours, and he and another player killed a crewmember and looted the ship. This guy got arrested and died in the escape next session.
Murderhobos gonna murderhobo
My favorite thing that they say is "Don't force me to compromise my character concept!" whenever the GM tells them that they need to tone down the "screw everyone else" way of playing just because they don't want to face that they're ruining the game for everyone else.
Very good topic. Chaotic Neutral players can switch the tracks on a party. Your correct about the jerk players. As the main DM, this can be really frustrating. Good thing the other players had a talk with him, he was replaced by someone who is really engaging in the game.
Great video, Seth. Unfortunately, these are just a couple examples of what I consider roleplay terrorism.
My group had a roleplay terrorist, but her form of terrorism involves a lot of pouting if she isn't getting her way, appearing completely disinterested half the time, and getting upset when another player character does better at THEIR party role than she could, even if her character is built to fill a different role! We talked to her, which simply resulted in her throwing a toddler-like tantrum (yelling, crying, snotting all over herself, stamping her foot, etc.), and we're not sure any good will have come from it. The worst part is she's married to one of my best friends whom I've known and gamed with for nearly 25 years! If she doesn't grow up and stop ruining the game, I may have to find a whole new group. (The rest of the players are siblings with her husband, making exclusion of one or two of them really not an option.)
Roleplay terrorists suck.
Watch out for any one of these behaviours as they travel in packs - if you see one, chances are all are present. 1. Other players are loot drops. 2."Upgrades" character sheets on the sly. 3. One use/charged items/abilities never run out. 5. Hides dice rolls or rolls a lot and may deliberately get hard to read dice. 6. Habitually overlook rules, trick dice, etc. 7. "Helpfully" manipulates other players in and out of the game for their own characters' benefit (sudden but inevitable betrayal).
I had a roleplay terrorist as a fellow player. He was a thief who stole from the party constantly, using the excuse, "I'm a thief! Stealing is what I do!"
After having enough of his BS, my fighter drew his sword, and attacked the thief. As I dealt the killing blow, the thief's player asked me why I did that. My response?
"I'm a fighter. Fighting is what I do."
"But you're supposed to fight the ENEMIES!"
EVERYONE else at the table chimed in, and said, "Precisely!"
You know, there's some channels where a 15 minutes videos feels long and boring.
Not yours.
Thank you for your great work, Seth!
I love that these players all find the slogan "It's what my character would do." Without even knowing about it.
I make sandwiches at 3:00 a.m. And I watch Seth Skowkowsky videos. This is my life.
What kind of sandwich?......who cares it’s Seth
Good reason to keep on
Doesn't sound half bad
So would you say... it's what your character would do?
chaotic stupid LMAO love your advice as always!
Thanks. Though I can't take credit for that term. Some unknown genius out there coined that term, and it was a gift to the world in describing something that so many of us needed a name for.
@@SSkorkowsky yup i have been playing since 03' and it was a prolific term then too
It's a brilliant name. Short, simple, and totally self-explanatory to anyone who has seen that behavior.
@@SSkorkowsky yup and i actually like the alignment too to me it means freedom to live on your own terms i know all too many people who use it as a "i get to be a jerk and screw over the team" card and thats the RPG terrorist you are talking about last time i played C/N i played a teifling rogue who was shunned and abandoned and chose to live his life the way he wanted once he met the party his listless life got direction and his friends became important to him and he would do what was necessary to help them along
@@christophercombs7561 I remember hearing it in the late 80s
"Most likely to play lawful or chaotic stupid." should be a yearbook entry.
Great video! Luckily, in nearly 40 years of RPG-ing, I've encountered terrorism maybe a handful of times, and it's always been isolated incidents. I think terrorists lose sight of the idea that gaming is a collective experience, and we're all responsible for our own enjoyment as well as our fellow players.
I want to award this video one Inspiration Point.
My group of almost a decade had a single campaign where a character dipped into RP terrorist - his first character in the campaign died, and he was very upset about it. His second character was an "agent of vengeance" - this character's motivation was literally "my deity came to me in a flash of inspiration, and told me a name. This person's comrades had let him down. I am now tasked with following and punishing them."
1) The rest of the group had ZERO reason to welcome this character - he was hostile 100% of the time, and took every possible opportunity to guilt trip over them over the comrade they tried to save, but failed.
2) This particularly rubbed me the wrong way, because my character was stunned for legit the entire fight - my character was stunned during a surprise round, and only passed a save after their character failed the final death save.
So I was being criticized for rolling nothing higher than a 5 for the entire fight. And being blamed for the dice.
.....Yeah, there was eventually some drama OoC. A good chunk of that drama was on me, venting my frustration in a petty rather than constructive way. We've been able to move on, no more drama in several years.
It's been on my mind, since To the Abandoned Sacred Beasts premiered - because Hank and Schaal are an example of this troublesome dynamic working well:
How do you RP a set of characters that have malice toward one another, but are still allies for not just the short term, but midterm as well?
@@davidlennyman444 Nice thoughts. But yeah, this was a case where not all parties involved were on board. In the game I was in, it boiled down to enabling the player to in-character complain about his previous character's death.
A slightly less-malicious version of this I've encountered is the "anti-metagame zealot", wherein the player is basically so adamant about not metagaming and not breaking character that they're kind of annoying. This one is distinguishable from the RP Terrorist in that, at least they're consistent.
This player I once played with knew the monster-manual pretty well and the like, but he constantly shot down his own ideas because he was worried they'd count as metagaming. He'd spend way too long arguing with himself, and he'd never do anything he considered 'out of character' even when it was really necessary. I will give him credit that his character was definitely pre-established and he didn't move goalposts, and also didn't mind other players giving him the same treatment.
I'd say he's just overzealous, he was making extra effort not to ruin everyone else's experience due to his disproportionate knowledge of the game. It's no fun for the new players if the veteran players lays out all of the weakpoints of all monsters. However it doesn't seem he was having much fun himself, maybe he should roleplay a character that has the "right" to know all about the monsters, but is not too strong, like a scholar or something. That way he wouldn't be self sufficient as he'd need the parties help for all dangerous encounters.
@@lapidations Seconded. For a long time I was the veteran of the group, along with another guy who went way back to the original D&D (not even AD&D) and we'd have to check ourselves for the sake of the new people we were coaching along.
@Matthew Campbell I apologize for bumping a year old comment but I have to ask. Meta gaming is unequivocally bad and should never be done, so what exactly was this person doing? Were they going overboard to the point of making choices their character wouldn't make just because of player knowledge? Like say they played a mage and use fire spells often, but suddenly when it is trolls would never use fire magic?
@@DKarkarov Metagaming is not "unequivocally bad and should never be done." Most DMs agree that there are times where metagaming can be beneficial to the table and the game. Seth has a video on it "Metagaming Isn't All Bad."
@@PrettyGuardian yeah I watched it, he was calling "knowing the rules" metagaming. We are going to disagree on what metagaming is, because if it isn't "cheating" it isn't metagaming in the first place.
Thank you for showing that "Its what my character would do" is not always a bad thing. Players should rp as their characters, but that's not an excuse to be a bad player.
I always enjoy your skits man. They are in so many of your vids and are so real that when they are on screen I honestly don't see you, I see them. I hope I can emulate and portray my characters this effectively someday. keep up the good work.
Can we all just take a second to appreciate the term “Chaotic Stupid?”
The character finding his own motivation reminds me of Tintin, where Captin Haddock had literally could have left at any moment but he kinda locked himself in. Tintin comes along and he still isn't super sure about leaving to start this adventure, until he called his ship a 'tub' and that would piss off any self-respecting sea captain and he's so angry about it that he breaks out of his self-trapped prison. And even later, when Tintin has given up, he does the same by giving him a speech, which gives him an idea he had all but forgotten about. Characters that motivate each other are a lot of fun bouncing off of each other, and you have to think about how that will impact your/their character. Its why Tintin was so fun as a movie, and I'd love to see that sort of thing happen between players.
The ONE player type you shouldn't allow at your table.
The player character with the hops.
Its hard to find a better word than hops. Trying not use a lot of profanity.
I too enjoy the alignments "lawful stupid" and "chaotic stupid".
5:00
That moment has been on repeat in my head since I first watched this video.
Character motivation can really be as simple as "They need me"
One thing that could be added - letting someone continue this sort of behavior encourages other players to do the same. I found myself caught in this trap until I realized that the only way that I could break the cycle was to quit RPing altogether. Still like your channel and your advice. Keep posting new videos!
Excellent breakdown. Going back to a previous comment I've made, these RPG terrorists (love that term) often love to use notes to the GM in order to facilitate their bad behavior. In their eyes, if the GM responds to that note, it lends legitimacy to their actions. These notes are usually worded along the lines of, "I steal the mage's spellbook while I'm on watch" or "I backstab Joe's character."
I know I've brought this up a couple of times now, but this is so apropos to the topic. Great video.
5:44 - "I'm in no way saying that a PC that's not wanting to go into a dungeon is a bad thing. Let me give you an example: A few years ago, we were playing Call of Cthulhu..."
...nuff said. XD
Joke aside though, an in-character lawyer who knows his profession wouldn't agree to do lookout or distractions either, because obstruction of justice is still a crime.
@@tarvoc746 Depending on the era and country of the setting.
Tarvoc Obstruction of Justice is often exactly what is necessary to help the team.
It’s just that it’s so helpful that governments have seen it as useful enough to ban it. Of course, you could argue under certain principles of law that the “obstruction of justice” laws are too vague to have been created legally, and therefore it is acceptable for your lawful-good character to break said law because an illegal law ought not to fall within your alignment.
@@evannibbe9375 Are you a lawyer? =)
@@tarvoc746 a good lawyer would also understand the concept of "plausible deniability" so he could. Not every lawyer is the same
Oh, the players who play unendingly silly PCs that hold up the game because nothing serious can happen with them in the room, give them instant and harsh in game consequences. The bartender asked you to leave. "No. I then attempt to start a food fight by throwing my stew at another patron. What do I roll?" "Initiative. You are surrounded by three ork bouncers, and they are grabbing you to throw you out." "Find, I draw my-" "You are grappled." I mean, a bit of silliness is fine, but, as in real life, if a person keeps playing stupid games, they'll win stupid prizes.
And stupid should hurt.
@@MonkeyJedi99 Pain is a great teacher.
Some time ago, I thought I was doing this terrorist thing. I was playing as a very moral, very spiritual character, opposed by more crude and morally dubious team members. The more we were playing, the more I realized that my character's impeccable morality was in the way. Especially to our newest player (it's her first campaign ever) who made a very aggressive character, but couldn't really delve into it, because... Well, I was there, holding her on a metaphorical leash. So I went to our GM and asked if I can make a different character. He agreed... And when my new character (who's morally grey) entered the scene... My fellow players started to complain. Turns out they all liked my previous character, and to this day they say they miss her. I didn't hinder their game like I thought I was, I was making it more challenging and fun.
Sometimes the redemption arc isn't about one character in the team. It's about a team changing because of one character who broke the cynicism that surrounds that rejection of nobility that sits at the heart of many amoral characters.
"Lawful or chaotic stupid", fucking gold!
Seth, thank you for this video; this was eye-opening. You put things in a new perspective for me... I had once run a "saga" style campaign for a group of my friends, and I loved it. When I brought in a good friend (who up until that point had always been the GM for the group), things gradually took a turn for the worse, and I and the rest of the players' enjoyment of the game increasingly suffered. He is a very nice guy, and is still a friend, but he went out of his way to play characters that caused problems for the group, he stole things from the party and from invaluable NPC allies, and he had a different objective for the game than all of the rest of us - except for him, all of us wanted to role play, enjoy the story and the world, and have fun - he wanted to WIN. Eventually, the campaign died because of our differences. I was surprised by how many aspects of the "Role-Play Terrorist" he was guilty of - I had always thought it was just my failing of being able to deal with him as a challenging player, that I wasn't, "DM enough" for a player of his experience and intelligence. Turns out, he played characters who were dicks, and he played like a dick, and I had never seen that. He put his enjoyment of the group activity above everyone else's, and drove the game into the ground. My contribution to that was in not knowing how to deal with a player who was doing these things, and who was also a real-life friend. Anyway, thank you, Seth, for a new perspective!
Concerning Character-Motivation, I adapted one tactic as a player. I like to play Rogue and Bard acetypes who often struggle with the classic motivations like "the King told you" or "there is glory to win". So, if I see, that my DM wants me to join in, but i feel, it would be out of character, is just say: "All right, I'm in, but just to tell you, that it was a dumb Idea to start with."
“We don’t negotiate with terrorists.”
I wish you made this video about 15 years ago. It would have helped me explain so many unfortunate situations.
I agree. I figured all this out about a year ago but it had been happening for a while.. Its really tough when they're a close relative
Ultimately it's just another version of griefer and I think you really nailed the psychology well.
Unfortunately a lot of "I'm just RPing well" really pulls against the meta-agreement at the table of players supporting each other. When a character is constantly causing problems IC most other party members would expel or, even worse, frag such a character, but most tables don't go in for PvP like that. The "I deserve to be rewarded because I RP" aspect is particularly frustrating.
The only time this ever happened to me went something like this:
RPT: “My character has no reason to go in there. I’m just RPing my character!”
The rest of the party: “Alright, you stay here then. WE are going in there. If you want to help us, we would love to have you.”
The RPT spent the next two hours vehemently refusing to go on the adventure before getting bored and came up with a sufficient reason to join the party. Never had another problem after that.
As a DM, I have a simple rule of thumb "A character that is abandoned or rejected by the party at large is effectively dead. Please hand over his sheet and roll a character that wants to adventure and can play well with others at the table." This is an effective warning shot and challenges their own "it's the character" excuse by arguing above the table.
Anyone who plays an evil character gets 'the talk' beforehand, but I like surprising the people who like to rock a CN munchkin character as if I don't know that they aren't going to wind up dead or in jail, and I make damn sure to make sure that NPC's who enforce the law are competent investigators who have dealt with out-of-control adventurers before and have the capability to do so and aren't going to send an 'encounter appropriate' response. Evil characters must be sane, have moderated ambitions, and capable of working with a team, have a need and vested interest in keeping that team alive, and are aware that if the party abandons them, they are off the table. Evil characters with grandiose ambitions are villains, and I don't run villains. I also ruthlessly enforce the fact that V and S components of spellcasting are very obvious to everyone around you, and you can't just 'slip in' a suggestion without the sorcerers' Subtle Spell, and also ruthlessly enforce that casting spells in public is like walking around with a gun in a Walmart, people nearby are going to be very anxious, if not scared.
I was one of these for a one-shot I wasn’t too enthused about. Made a character quite literally duplicated from Rincewind in Sir Terry Pratchett’s Discworld series. Long story short, he made it 2 chambers into the dungeon, fried a few big rats, then had enough and tried to split in the middle of a fight. For his trouble, he fell into a pitfall trap and wasn’t athletic enough to climb/jump out. The team’s Dragonborn fighter found him (with his robes covered in excrement after a crit fail at climbing,) laughed, and pulled him out. Only to get hit by a laughing spell while Rincewind ditched his soiled clothing and ran for it.
If the player is giving excuses as to why they’re not going to do something, just call their bluff by saying “ok, that’s fine, get out, you don’t have to adventure anymore”
On the motivation bit, it is fair for a player when presented with a hook not to bite. If the GM presents an adventure that makes no sense for the character to be ok with that's a fair objection. A paladin not being ok with doing something evil for instance. However, if there are no big red flags and the rest of the group is on board, then their character really should have enough motivation right there. "These are my companions and they all want to do it. We risk our lives for each other. The least I can do is help out." Also, timing is important. I've noticed when players tend to present legitimate issues with a mission, it is when it is presented. They don't do it in the middle of things.
Had a situation where I was playing a Half-Orc monk that floated between chaotic good and lawful good. His training was lawful good, but his half-orc blood made him compulsively do chaotic good stuff. Thought it was a constant good at-odds thing that he might be able to work through.
Well...a situation came up where a bunch of goblins came across the party who was in the swamp trying to find a guy for information. Everything was going fine until the Goblins demanded an amount of Gold to leave the party alone. Now that smart move would've been to pay the toll and move on.
But...while my Half-Orc monk was lawful good, I think he would not appreciate and be personally insulted by the high-handed treatment the party was getting from these Goblins. Bard tried to convince Goblins to let us go without toll. Crit fail. Cost increased. At that point my Half-Orc monk was so pissed at the cost increase that he threatened the Goblins he would have their heads if they didn't leave right now. Rolled with disadvantage; not good enough.
We kicked their asses despite reinforcements and a mini-boss that showed up. But I felt bad at the end because essentially I put the party in danger when it was smarter just to pay the toll and move on. The players didn't object to it; they LOVED it.
I'm pretty sure that I was in the right, was good RP, but I didn't want to ruin the fun for the party either.
Recently had to have this talk with a player. Did not go well. Great video as always!
The thing is D&D isn't a single player game and some compromise for each player involved should be expected. The problem is that some people are selfish and incapable of empathy and to them it still functions like a single player game with the added bonus of annoying your friends.
@Jason Hobbs - It almost never does. You have my sympathy.
I don't know of a single GM with sufficient experience (you're lucky to go three months without an issue, frankly) who HASN'T had "one of those talks" with a Player...
It's what draws even folks like me with 30+ years behind the screen to videos like this... checking alternative perspectives and suggestions.
The best most of us can do is HOPE... Hope that we can still get behind the screen and carry on the next adventure with our remaining friends. Hope that we can "coach" other Players around the weirdness of subjects like motivations, attitudes, and making adjustments in the game. Hope that we never lose sight of the things we really LOVE about the game and our parts in it.
GM's and Players often come and go. It's part and parcel of the Hobby. Do what you can to refine your best today, to be a better "your best" tomorrow, and the rewards will generally outweigh the struggles and deficits.
...but you do NOT owe anybody the insufferable duty of putting up with a D*CK. ;o)
This happens way more often than I thought it would! Some players actually believe their inactive characters are great for the game.
This comes to me as a question of "Are you an adventurer" or "Are you some jackass that would prefer to be sitting his ass at home and not be in a dangerous situation for fame, treasure and thrills"? If the latter, please check your expectations for the freaking game!
Great video, I'll show it to all my players so that they can see the error of their ways!
I think it was in a Matt Colville video, where one of the build-a-character questions was something like ."Why do you want to be an adventurer?"
Thank you for having the courage to put this out there. TT games are played by people. Sometimes the issue is the game master, sometimes a player, sometimes the system, sometimes the scenario, and sometimes there isn’t really a problem as much as a perception of a problem. Videos like this help keep a good sense of perspective.
"I don't care about..."
"What does your character care about!?"
I've had characters where I didn't understand their motivation, and I've gone along with it, but felt hallow playing the adventure. It's important to figure out the character's motivation before the campaign starts, or adventure starts, and I usually have the players tell me their character's motivation so that later they can't say, "I have no motivation." :-/
I agree with this wholeheartedly. I don't know if I've ever had one of these in my group. One of my own pet peeves is a player who justifies what he's about to do before he does it out loud, explaining why he has chosen to do what he is doing. It makes me feel like whatever the decision is, good or bad, he's trying to make sure everyone else at the table is cool with it beforehand, possibly even me as the keeper. I'd prefer people just make decisions and go with them. If people at the table don't understand it, they can later ask, in character, what he was thinking. I'm also not a fan of players using a random roll to make a decision for their character. It feels like a cop-out.
Okay, I did have a terrorist player in a couple of game sessions. He was a priest of Dionysus and, when he went to heal someone in the group and no one was paying attention, he actually loosened the character's bonds so he'd bleed out - which the character did. When asked later why he did that, he said he was jealous of the other character's powers and thought he could be more popular in the group if said other player was gone ... or some such nonsense. Worse, he never played in the game again after that but kept leading us like he might, as I wanted to resolve the situation. A month later, when we finally played again, the group stumbled across Baba Yaga, who rose the murdered character from the dead on the condition that he 'owed her a favor.' It was the best I could think of doing considering the first player seemed to have played just for the opportunity to be a jerk. We all later found out he abused his girlfriend and later quit D&D because it was Satanic ...
First session ever. I was confused about what was going on, but I found a really important quest item and finally felt important to the group. Person in the group stole it immediately and no one was on my side, saying he was playing his character. I nearly quit Tabletops that day.
Ugh. I'm glad you only 'nearly' quit and I hope you've found better people to rp with.
I've encountered those. I've eventually decided the following after numerous encounters.
It's not up to the GM to come up with a reason for the player character, it's up to the player to come up with it.
After all, they are at the game to play the adventure, and if they refuse to participate, that's totally on them.
After all, do football coaches or referees have to explain reasons for the quarterback to touch the football?
I just watched this video and I had a sort of R.P. terrorist situation yesterday. Bear with me. In a DND campaign in which the PCs are all part of the same army company and simultaneosly do quests for their queen which often leads them to confronting some supernatural stuff, they got to work, although reluctantly, with an organization one of the characters is afraid of and considers wicked, a sort of magical police-church thing with vast influence around the game world. It's an important factor around the world and often will get its hands around supernatural phenomena and arcane users because that's their jurisdiction and, most importantly, has the power to enforce it.
The character in question had some trouble with authority, never a good thing in the army, almost killed a noble and some innocent people over some shady but legal stuff the noble had done and got chastised by the character who plays his captain and got demoted together with the lesson of "if you gonna face your demons you gotta do it smart or you gonna get killed".
After they had to collaborate with this magical police investigating some freak dissapearances, this magical policeman (called a Magistrate), who was really a chill dude and helped them to the best of his ability, sent his apprentice, a 13 y.o. girl, to help them and establish a connection between them and the company to investigate this phenomena. I intended to place that character to explore the character's (a CG divine soul sorcerer) fear and tension with this people, with a relatively weak character from that organization. The girl was placed under custody because the party leader distrusts mages in general, but stayed with the other two only female members of the company, a PC and an NPC.
The very same day the character intended to assassinate her even though the girl was staying in the same tent with one of the best elven scouts in the whole army (the NPC) and the other PC. When the scout discovered his attempt, the player stated that it could only end with his character or the NPC dead, and also it would have been a terribly stupid decision in any case because it would bring a lot of trouble for the company because the Magistrates would sure retaliate with deadly force or impose heavy sanctions upon them and the realm as a whole.
He presented his case as non-negotiable, and was willing to make a whole new character if it be necessary. I'd argued against that kind of inflexibility for two reasons: it doesn't allow his character to grow and explore his fear (as the girl was in no position to hurt him), it showed he learned nothing from past similar mistakes, and it's too rigid for a dynamic story in which they have to interact with antagonists they're not always in the position to just go and kill them because it'd spell doom upon their cause (like attacking nobles of their realm). In the end, I found the only reason he accepted to continue with that plot, and that was that his character hates seeing children suffer, and he realized that the NPC is a just a child. We had to rollback the scene and ended with him almost suffocating the girl (who was deprived of her arcane focus and silenced) and realizing he was about to kill a little girl.
All in all, the resolution was good, the character got caught and severely punished (and there are potential problems ahead), the girl thinks he tried to rape her, but I got worried of a character trend which makes him unable to explore his character's... character and flaws.
TL;DR: don't just attempt to kill any NPC you dislike or challenges your beliefs, even less if your alignment is "GOOD".
Seth: great video as always. Very mature advice on dealing with *the player* and not the character. And to anyone celebrating stories of those who have retaliated to terrorists by intentionally ruining their fun to teach them a lesson, perhaps ask yourself if reciprocating the bad behavior is the best way to handle this.
I really thought this video was going to be about how one would actually play a terrorist in DnD
Lol loved that "because he's a dick." The deadpan delivery made it hilarious
This is a tale of how I dealt with the worst "that guy/ RP terrorist" I've ever encountered as a DM. I learned a lot from this incident, mostly how to shut down these types of players.
I once had a player build an assassin rogue in 3.5. He was constantly telling the other characters (and players) that he could kill them all, so they should just go along with what ever he wanted (The other players were all about 14 to 16, he was 18). Eventually he turned on the rest of the party and killed them all one by one. He left with a smirk and a "told you so," leaving a shattered campaign behind him- or so he thought.
Next game, everyone showed up to start making new characters, except the Assassin. Just as everyone started rolling dice I had a brainwave and told my players to pull out their old characters, and started the events of the last game over, this time with out the Assassin. After an hour or so of play one of the characters discovered the Assassin crouching under a staircase mumbling to himself "I killed them all... I am so great... I kelled them all..." we had a laugh and got back to the game. One of my players bumped into Assassin a month or so later who asked how the new campaign was going. He was less than impressed to find out what had happened to his character!
God on you. I had a player who did the same thing except not only did the DM not retcon the events of the game but he flat out rewarded the player with being second in command to the villain. The DM even refused to kick him and only killed everyone because aid DM kept giving him a bunch or rare stuff!
@@bigblue344 that sucks dude, sounds like a pretty toxic game. 😥
I really only thought of the retcon at the start of the next session, and the idea runs contrary to what you learn in D&D -"what's done is done, move forward" kinda thing. I just didn't want to start a whole new campaign just because of one jerk player!
Great video as always. I don't know if you've done this or not but I would love to see a video about the basics of roleplaying itself for beginners or just general advice on roleplaying.
Yep. I've had that. Had one player who I used to play with 1 on 1, but did not work well as part of a group. I had another one that, if he wasn't the centre of attention or the group wasn't following his plans, would actively sabotage the efforts of all the other characters.
Great video Seth.
I would like to share my take on this subject.
I always ask my players to give me, along with their background, the motivation of their characters and their dreams/hopes... That way, I can tight up every thing, in a way that they feel a sense of accomplishment and belongings.
I'd like it if more GMs took your approach. I was accused in not so many words of pulling the 'reluctant' kind of rp terrorism once. I tried to talk it out with them but it didn't work out. The thing is, I'd made and provided a backstory that had plenty of useful stuff in that would help with offering reasonable hooks and what motivated her. They didn't even bother trying to offer something she would be interested in. I tend to play reluctant heroes because I like fish out of water rp but I don't think I've ever done it in the ways described here.
Thanks for the upload
As a DM, I've had to deal with more than one terrorist in the same campaign. After two years of their "gotcha" tomfoolery, I got fed up and told them they'd never challenge my moral compass ever again.
I play Fokk a half orc barbarian, a purely chaotic power house that adds an element of unknown to the party dynamic. However I never make actions that would directly result in less fun for the party.
For example fokk wouldn't pick a lock, he would simply smash it, if that proved ineffective he would smash the door or chest open.
Quite fun, chaotic, and great rp material. Especially the caveman like half orc voice. "Fokk ANGRY"
note that both my wisdom and intelligence are quite low. This is on purpose to make the rp even more funny.
Good video. One way I saw a DM deal with a RP terrorist was to take the spotlight, and therefore, the power and control, away. Worked wonders.
This is part of why a session zero is so important. Before anybody makes characters, let's all get on the same page about what kind of campaign we're going to have and what kind of characters we should be making. Get some motivations, hooks, and connections started before putting any numbers to paper.
I've been this 'roleplay terrorist' exactly once, and I blame the GM. We sat down beforehand and talked about what we were building, and all came up with characters from the same (Earthdawn) cairn who were the sole protectors of their isolated community as they opened up to a dangerous new world. And then the first adventure ends with a call to march off to the other side of the continent for another epic campaign to dump a ring in a volcano or something. It's not what we wanted, it's not what we had discussed in advance, and I couldn't see my character abandoning his defenseless village to go save a bunch of strangers. I dropped out, and the campaign basically died.
Sounds to me like most of your group felt as you did.
@Seth Skorkowsky Greetings Seth, When I initially clicked on this video I thought that it was advice on how to play a character whose role is a literal terrorist in the game (e.g. my current Call of C’thulhu character is an ex-IRA saboteur who gets offered a chance at calculated vengeance for the death of his family and has to make use of his skills as a terrorist to bring down an organization). However, I did find this video, just as I have with all of the rest of yours, to be very relevant to the sorts of problems that I encounter with players (in this case, the reluctant ones). In my first campaign, I was defiantly guilty of railroading the overly-reluctant ones which may have left a sour taste in all of our mouths. With more experience as a GM, I have found more and more just how effective communicating to them, as you put it, not "what's stopping you doing it?", and instead, "give us a motive for you to do it.' , truly is. I will definitely try using your "checklist" next session to see if their outside conflicts are bleeding into how they treat each other in the game. Take care, Seth!
The RPnTerrorist is the kind of person whose whole personality is a smirk.
A player in my game just quit because I had to call him out on this. His terrorism was in the form of out-of-character demanding of how the adventure should go or dominating over how other players should take their turns and play their characters.
As a player, while in character, just move along with the mission. I'll RP a character not wanting to follow through on a mission, but when it becomes apparent to be a player conflict their new conflict can be watching the rest of the group have fun. And their character can reap no rewards for not participating.
This is so true. Great video, again! Keep on mate.
The only real bad players are the egomaniacs, people with metal issues,
(Often traits of a psychopath)
Only met them online..
I came here feeling like play style was about to be attacked and am now relieved
Another wonderful and insightful video! Thanks, Seth. I wanted to check this video out after you mentioned it in your video about meta-gaming. I find that there is a definite link between the two subjects. I often think that the RP terrorists who stick to the "I was just paying my character" motto could really benefit from applying some good meta-gaming to their approach. For example: If your character is a chaotic evil warlock, instead of murdering the party in their sleep, take some time to find a creative reason why your character WON'T kill them. Maybe your pact patron demands that you work with this group of adventurers toward some unknown goal. And your patron would get angry and punish you by revoking your powers if you didn't cooperate with them and instead chose to harm them. Now, with some helpful backstory conditions, you're now free to continue to do "what your character would do", while simultaneously harmonizing with the entire group and the DM (Seriously, players, keep your DM happy! It's not sucking up. Your DM invests a LOT into the game. Shouldn't you invest in them?) Now, everyone can have fun and get on with the game. Not only that, but it can open up some great dynamics for RP with the group instead of sabotaging the game. So by applying a bit of helpful meta-gaming (Asking and answering the question of how your character, who ordinarily murders everyone they come across, will refrain from wanton murder.) and using it to RP toward the group, instead of having an attitude of "This is my thing and everyone else just has to deal with it.", you've defused the terrorist within your character and yourself!
I once were in the situation where my character dig in her heels. She was reluctant to into sewer water to find a hidden passage with some kind of whirpool of shit in there and she was a low level wizard that just wasn't physically fit at all. She really begged the rest of the party if they could look for another way in, but they won't. She was stuck up there while the stronger characters jumped in and found their way to the other side. Finally she decided to try as well and to make sure she is not the last one...
She very nearly died... twice... (some really bad rolls involved, but the character just knows she nearly died twice in sewer water) before she could pull herself out of this sewer water and sat down crouching up and obsessively cleaning herself up again with magic and refusing to go back in. In the end some of the fitter characters had to be called back over again and take her by the hand to go through...She was really really not happy with anyone... And it took a lot of time to go on with the story because of that, so I kind of held the game ramson for some time... I still think it was fair in that moment
Some super solid advice here. In particular in the "What to do about it." part. Great video.
"Game masters can also be RP terrorists"
Me: "I'll be a Bard"
GM's mind: "Ok, so Undead-only campaign then!"
"I take cover behind the wall of dead bards!"
@@MonkeyJedi99 oh you!
Great subject. My approach is direct. Before game with a new group or whenever someone new comes up, I make clear that all, without restriction, are equally responsible for each others fun. Things like "If anyone here plans to steal from the party, disrespect powerful figures or have torture scenes, assume now in front of everyone before we start wasting time".
This approach is usually enough to start on the right foot.
After that, if someones start tô deviate from the point, I ask loud and clear "are you sure you are making this game fun for others by doing this?".
Naturally, players tend to explore the boundaries either way, but the great thing about it is that they create the habit of discussing with other players before doing unortodox shit, which improves a lot the sensation of trust between the group of players, sometimes way more than between characters