Write a serious story with hard themes over the course of about 4 hours (including multiple dynamic npcs...

This. People fuck around way less in CoC game because they will die and have hard consequences easily.
Also, talk to your players and say it's a serious campaign.

>delete all my work
Why? Just find a group of people who want to play a serious game

>Have an idea and create campaign in total solitude
>Find a group of strangers that probably just want to fuck around once every two weeks or so
>Drop your campaign on them with any headsup and expect them to be in line with your ideas for tone and conduct

That's how you fuckers always come across. Do you not talk to your players beforehand what kind of game you want to host?

Sounds like I'd be better off staying home and doing anything else.

I have NEVER had a serious campaign. No matter how much I try. SO I just stopped trying and allow for some slapstick funsies, so to speak.

Players just want to have fun.

This guy sums up my thoughts on this thread
Even a simple "hey guys its good you are having fun but could you dial down the shenanigans

This

Take horror as an example.
There are a lot of things you can do to make a horror game have a really scary mood.
But all of them combined mean exactly jack shit if your players don't want to be spooked.
Get them onboard, then proceed forward.

>Write a serious story with hard themes

Hahaha fucking hell is that what you're calling it

Protip, "what if the well loved nice guy... IS ACTUALLY BAD" and a literal monster baby dilemma aren't actually hard themes, and adding rape doesn't make it a serious story

Oh fuck are you actually part of that guy's group?

Welcome to GMing.

Players act like shits the entire time and then complain when theres no direction.

Honestly, when I personally play games of any kind I'm a huge fan of high mortality, no magic, and I tend to find settings where there aren't realistic consequences for being stupid to get pretty boring, because I can only willingly suspend my disbelief for so long. Take Fallout for example. Your naked character receiving a bullet to the head won't die because
>constitution lol
And if you up the difficulty enough that you do die to a bullet to the head, the enemies don't. That hurts immersion. Same is true in a TTRPG. It's much more interesting to have to work around the fact that everyone can, in fact, die in a single hit, because it makes combat about more than just
>I'm higher level than you lol
To me, it's boring both as a player and as a GM to have a party go "I attack the army" and then win just because LVL20 lol. It just feels like a pointless, grindy powerwank. Far more fun and interesting is, say, something like the 1504 Battle of Cochin, where 140 Portuguese soldiers and about 1000 local allies held off an army of 60 000+ over a four-month long siege through discipline, great leadership, intelligent use of their equipment, great espionage, and excellent preparation. Those Portuguese weren't level 20 superhumans. A gunshot wound would kill them just the same as a Malabari. Reading about that is actually tense and exciting because it's not invulnerable superheroes beating down all opposition and laughing off all pitiful attempts at damaging them, but men who will die to a cannonball just as surely as a glass vase.

In the game I'm running, the players really are free to attempt whatever they want, but as a GM I'm not here to enable powerwanking. I'm here to tell them what happens when they do the thing. If the thing they do is smart, things may go well. If not, they probably won't. But either way it's more exciting BECAUSE there are consequences.

>imperative tone
ur a faget

Why do people speak of consequences only in negative terms?
Do you reward your places for success the same way you penalize them for failure?

Yes, of course! Keep in mind the powerlevel of the whole setting: if they manage to ambush and kill a dude with a rifle and a few rounds of ammunition, they now have the ability to one shot kill just about everyone they meet. High lethality cuts both ways. And if they do, despite the extreme difficulty, succeed in say, killing all of a town's guards and stealing everything in it, then that's what they do. There's no magic Mary Sue NPCs to keep them in check.
Besides, achieving success when success is hard is far more just plain fun than when it's handed to you on a plate.

Then what you speak of is a tone and model of an individual game, and what you personally enjoy.
I have yet to see any actual game that didn't have "consequences" for the players, because consequences is what happens due to the players' actions. A game with no consequences would have nothing happening in it.

>Then what you speak of is a tone and model of an individual game, and what you personally enjoy.
Isn't that exactly what I said with
>Honestly, when I personally play games of any kind I'm
>when I personally play
But I think it's fair to say that across the board, disbelief is easier in general to suspend when consequences are realistic.
>I have yet to see any actual game that didn't have "consequences" for the players, because consequences is what happens due to the players' actions. A game with no consequences would have nothing happening in it.
This is just autism. In colloquial terms, the existence of "consequences" implies the vulnerability of the person to whom they apply. Conversely, a lack of consequences implies that the person is invulnerable. In short
>Why do people speak of consequences only in negative terms?
Because that's what it means to most people.

>Write a story
This is where you fucked up. Keep your plot ideas as loose and open as you can, and let the players write the story. Have NPCs that are doing thing with or without the players, but have the players determine where exactly the narrative is going.
Having a detailed outline of what you want to happen will only go awry when the players are introduced to it, because they will never go in the direction you want and it will only bring you frustration.

>But I think it's fair to say that across the board, disbelief is easier in general to suspend when consequences are realistic.
Depends entirely on the game and the setting, really. Consequences for a modern or down to earth setting like WoD or DeGenesys isn't the same as for DRYH or Paranoia.
>Because that's what it means to most people.
It's foolishness then, because at that point, you are crowing "Haha! I do bad things to the players!". It's GM dick measuring.

>It's foolishness then, because at that point, you are crowing "Haha! I do bad things to the players!"
What. Mate, the OP asked how to get his players to play in the tone of the setting, and I replied, in essence, that the consequences for their actions ought to fit the tone of the setting. Have you even been reading my posts?

These.

The answer to OP has come about many times in this thread, all the ones that say "Talk to your players about your campaign expectations".
Consequences for their acts is part and parcel to the game, but won't make the players act any different if they don't care, or get them angry that the game is different from what they were expecting.

Fellow PC in my campaign constantly cracks lame jokes in meme lingo IC and it's unbearable

Mate now you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. Fuck outta here

>o me, it's boring both as a player and as a GM to have a party go "I attack the army" and then win just because LVL20 lol. It just feels like a pointless, grindy powerwank.
It is, but assuming you didn't start at level 20 it should be, because your players will have been playing the same characters for possibly years to reach this level.

Not that the rest of your point is invalid, I just didn't entirely agree with that example.

...

>In the game I'm running, the players really are free to attempt whatever they want, but as a GM I'm not here to enable powerwanking. I'm here to tell them what happens when they do the thing. If the thing they do is smart, things may go well. If not, they probably won't. But either way it's more exciting BECAUSE there are consequences.
This is a very good outlook. If you make a serious setting and the players are fucking around and not taking things seriously, let them, but have serious consequences if their actions put them in danger. If they're running off trying to bring gay marriage to the kingdom instead of fighting the lich army, let the lich build up power over time (though it should go without saying that you don't just let the players forget about the lich entirely until you can pull a gotcha! moment, that's a dick move that's funny in a greentext but not in an actual game). Let the players go back to a town they've been to before and it's a pile of rubble and corpses, because this big threat that the party has been ignoring ran through and razed the place on his way to the next step of his master plan. The players don't have to take things seriously from the start for a setting to be serious.

Not that user but isn't that just a common sense decision that comes with making things challenging for the players? Combat where all you do is punch the bad guy with the confidence that you can beat the bad guy that way is objectively shit.

>players treat your game as a Game
>whine on Veeky Forums

You should end your campaign, you're clearly not suited for DMing.

>If the thing they do is smart, things may go well

The problem is what is smart and what isn't is often based arbitrarily on what the GM decides is and the only real way to work out what the smart solution is and what isn't the smart solution is to be able to read the GM's mind.

Then even if you do manage to work out something smart and outwit the GM, he doesn't like you doing that because his ego, so it doesn't work because reasons.

This is the main reason systems have slowly given powers more empowerment and clarity over what they can or can't do and attempted to get the GM in line to conform to this so everyone has a better experience.

I think you need to create consistency and be open and communicative about what the options the players attempt will mean, how likely they are to succeed and what consequences may occur BEFORE the players attempt to do them or you're just playing 'mother may I' and 'rocks fall everyone dies lol'

Well yeah, I'm not saying every combat should be like that. But the other user specified level 20, and I think (personal opinion) that at that point you're pretty much comitted to powerwanking anyway, so you might as well let people have fun with it.

Honestly if I wanted something gritty and serious I'd avoid level-based systems all together, because I think they push the idea that every fight is objectively gonna be 'balanced' for you. If you want your players to be careful you'll be wanting a more lethal system.

This.
You and the players should all be on the same page on what the campaign is about so their IC decisions will be molded with such knowledge in mind.
Example: A player I saw was upset at how their psyker in DH was treated by the public and the acolytes, but the GM never really explained the popular image of psykers in the Imperium or the price of their power. Once they understood what they were in for, they enjoyed the game much more, and acted accordingly.
>I think they push the idea that every fight is objectively gonna be 'balanced' for you
That is advice given for GMs, but honestly, I can't remember the last time I ran a "balanced" encounter for my players. I always weight it up, and moderate it during. The players can always run, and back in the day, it was just as expected that the players would flee a battle as hold the line to win it.

>a naked enemy with nothing but his bare fists can beat you to death if you roll poorly
>if you roll poorly
is this bait

I get that level-based encounters aren't necessarily balanced, but I find they encourage that mindset. Players will try to estimate levels, and if their NUMBER is bigger than what they estimate the opponent's NUMBER to be, they'll attack it. Otherwise, they probably won't.

Like I said: doesn't apply to all groups, people or systems, but its something I've noticed from time to time.

>Players will try to estimate levels
Shit players do this, and there are a lot of shit players to be found.
I always run my games as "This is what is in this area, if you can't cut it, you shouldn't be here". That said, I won't force the party to go places out of their league, they can choose to go to them.

Then go be a novelist, faggot. The point of games are to be fun. Whatever's going on in-universe can be somber and grimdark, but your players will feel however they want to feel. They're not your fucking slave-audience.

Yeah that's a pitfall I've actively worked to avoid. I basically have all the areas around the players mapped out and filled at all times, and they just interact with what's already there. If for example there's an enemy camp, I decide how important, powerful, well-armed, and everything else it might be, give it appropriate equipment and garrison, and with that I set up the perimeter defenses and whatnot as intelligently as I possibly can - you know, as if a human whose life depended on it had set it up. Then I run through the issues that might manifest in the system: this guard tends to doze off mid-shift, this one has a weakness for pretty girls and booze, this one will look the other way for a few coins, this one is overly brave and eager to prove himself, and so on. Then I step back and let the players interact with it. It would be boring and powerwanky if I modified my notes to deal with their plan after the fact, so I don't. I mean if I fuck with them like that then what's the point? I may as well just write my own personal wankfiction. If they neglect to actually prepare and scout out difficult encounters then sure, it does look like "rocks fall everyone dies lol" when they inevitably blunder into scary men with big sticks, but with proper preparations the stuff they do looks really impressive, because they can note patrol routes, schedules, weaknesses, obstacles, and so on, and come up with Oceans-11 style plans to get through it all. And hey, the option to just gather a bunch of mooks and flat out assault the place is always valid.

Basically, all the information about a particular place will be in my notes, and if they put enough effort in they can find all of it out. So I don't decide what is or isn't intelligent, I just present a scenario and they choose their own way through it.

>Write a story
>Players don't act like shits, take the plot seriously
>Engage the plot threads, while livening the game up with unpredictable choices and solutions.
Sure feels good.

Samefagging

I imagine with a sufficient amount of shitty attack rolls, you would be unable to kill the hobo before he killed you.

Though arguably in game that's just the character assessing how weak or strong someone is. You're likely for example not going to challenge Mike Tyson to a fist fight. Or in fantasy terms its your level 1 fighter guaging that the plate armed noble probably out fights you, as does the cave troll etc.

I'd have no issue making this a mechanical knowledge roll with information if they succeed.

It also doesn't exactly paint a clear picture at any rate because and in general the action economy is a bigger deal than anything else in D&D at least. I'm far more scared of a swarm of orcs as a character than I am one cave troll even if in respects to level the Orcs are far less than me and the troll far more.

Nope.

you prove nothing

Naked enemy attacks you, you swing your leaden pipe to intercept. [PHYS v AGI] He dodges nimbly and grabs your weapon hand. You punch him in the gut with your other hand but aside from a grunt he doesn't seem to feel it [WILL]. He headbutts you, hard [PHYS vs PHYS], and your vision goes blank for a moment as you reel backwards [WILL]. He doesn't spare a moment's hesitation [WILL] and takes advantage of the opening to land a solid punch in your solar plexis [PHYS, failed will save prevents you rolling against him], further winding you. You regain your senses and try to grapple his other arm, but he manages to grab yours first [DEX vs DEX] and pulls you in close before taking you down to the ground by hooking your legs with his right leg [AGI vs AGI]. He leans heavily on your weapon arm's wrist and you struggle to prevent him from putting his knee on top of it, but fail [PHYS vs PHYS]. With your one hand trapped under his knee and your other held down by his arm, you wriggle desperately to try to get free [PHYS vs PHYS], [AGI vs AGI] but only manage to slightly soften some of the blows he's raining down on your face and neck with his free hand [PHYS with mild penalty due to continued struggling]. You begin to feel dazed and disoriented and your struggling becomes less coordinated [WILL], [PHYS vs PHYS], [AGI vs AGI] and his punches become more focused on your neck as you continue failing to escape. He stops punching and gets his hand around your neck [PHYS vs AGI] and starts squeezing. [PHYS vs PHYS], [AGI vs AGI] [WILL] Your struggling becomes feebler and feebler, and his maddened face darker and darker, until all sensation ceases.

This is assuming pretty much every roll is a failure for the player. I run a realistic system, fights aren't just standing there and throwing blows back and forth, and enemy at an equipment disadvantage will try to grapple and otherwise get inside your weapon's reach.

When will you retards realize that people just want to have fun?

Write a fucking book if you want anyone to take your story seriously.

Y'know, all the people claiming, "Just talk to your players!" are kind of missing the point-- Namely, that folks like exist, who absolutely and categorically refuse to meet you in the middle on this topic.

They ain't even uncommon, but no, it's always the GM's fault for not talking to his players. Christ's sake.

Sounds like this particular GM wants to have fun too, me laddo.

Not everyone enjoys the same things. Maybe his players should try meeting him in the middle, at the very least.

Sure, but
>"Think about just ending the campaign and writing it all off, delete all of my work and preparations."
implies he just slinked off after the session like a moody faggot and hasn't said a word to them. That's why people in the thread are annoyed with him. If he had said
>"I asked them to try to take it a little more seriously and then the rogue got up from the table, gave me a wedgie, then tied me to the chair, injected me with cyanide, and refused to give the antidote until the session was finished. The rest of them spent the next fifteen hours hooting like chimps and at one point the wizard and the barbarian had grunting anal sex on the chips I brought, and claimed it as their love nest so now I don't even have comfort food"
we would've been on his side.

As far as annoying ITT knows, his players wanted something fun and he plopped down something too heavy for their tastes like an asshole.

Branch off this, it is better to ask what your players want then to tell them what you want.

Best thing is to talk to your players and lay the foundations on which you can build a compelling story. The story cannot be built by the GM alone. If you fail to understand this, you will never have good stories.

You played with him ?

What the hell is a dynamic npc?

If the GM talks to the players and one of them continues to be a problem, you deal with the problem player.
You are missing the point of expectations being pointedly on the table, retard.

Not that user. DEEP LORE, intrigue and heavy dark overtones may not be necessarily fun, I like more lighthearted things, but literal fucking around at the table isn't fun either. If you're actually in it for the roleplaying, even just a little bit, you're going to be bored to death.

First post best post

>Sounds like this particular GM wants to have fun too, me laddo.

GM's aren't at the table to have fun. They're there to run the game for us.

an NPC that changes and has motives and shit, like the BBEG's vizier sneaking around in the background waiting for you to beat his master in submission so he can claim the mcguffin of power for himself.

I wouldn't call one of the most predictable villain tropes in fiction "dynamic".

>I wouldn't call one of the most predictable villain tropes in fiction "dynamic".

This. If you're using tropes in your game, you're a pretty lazy DM.

The thing with "tropes" in their most literal sense is they're inevitable. You can't not use tropes.

It's when you build your stories around those tropes it gets dumb. Then it all just feels forced.

...

As far as I'm concerned, the best way to make use of tropes is subtly - obviously just 'the dashing knight saves the princess' is bad, but turning that around without some other twist to it is just as predictable. Try to be somewhat original if you can, but obviously everyone's going to view something within their own perspective and shit. The trick is to try and make them actually consider your BBEG as a character instead of going 'oh it's just fantasy Darth Vader' and ignoring anything else about them.

...