Team killers?

Good morning all, Hopefully this is the correct area to post this. I am trying to GM my own game (Palladium's Robotech) and while having put a fair amount of work into campaign pre setup I am yet to get enough players online at the same time to run a campaign scenario. One issue that I am having is that I opened the game to other players in order to swell the ranks. Two of the players that have responded want to play Diabolic (Evil) player characters in what is meant to be a team based game. I can foresee these players being "team killers" and ruining the enjoyment for the other players. My question would be how do other GM's or DM's deal with the Internet "trolls" that would take pleasure in wrecking the game for others?

Hey Michael! With roll20, a lot of us advertise the fact that we don't want 'chaotic-evil' when recruiting. Since GMs usually have the power to dictate terms, you shouldn't have an issue with this. Or just talk to them and tell them the players' enjoyment comes before their character's motivations.

Since you are the GM, if you do not like their application, do not accept them to join your game. Don't send them the Join Link or Invite to Game. If they have joined your game & you don't want them in the game anymore, GM can press "Kick Player" on the campaign details page. Note: If someone is trolling or wrecking your game in some way, and kicking them out doesn't solve the problem, you can Report their posts to the Moderators/Devs.

As most players hadn't player this system before, I invited them to the campaign first. I ended up spending about 45 mins helping to make their characters, and then at the end of that process the topic of Alignment came up, I tried to talk each player individually out of choosing that option, however both were adamant that that was their choice. Wishing now that I had thought to limit the player choice selections. I don't really want to do this, would it be bad form to kick them out of the campaign at this early stage?

Sorry, at this stage neither player has done anything wrong as such. I suppose you would call them "power players" and I can see both being very destructive to the team play feel of the game (which I have been trying hard to reinforce).

I wouldn't remove them from the game yet. Just make it mandatory for them to write in their backstories as to why they would sacrifice their lives for the other characters, then if they want to play to their character's motivations, remind them of that bit.

Just tell them they can choose new alignments or leave.

You are well within your rights to say, "I'm sorry, but this table does not accept characters of Evil alignments" and invite them to rethink their character concepts or find another table. I understand the frustration of trying to get enough players together, but 'tis better to have a smaller group than to have the 'right' numbers with the 'wrong' mindset.

The truth is that most RPG players are Chaotic Evil. Kill, kill, kill ooh, shiny, me wants it my precious... I personally don't allow players to start evil, their actions may take them there, but that can be dealt with. I also make it clear that I will not stop characters from taking vengeance on offending characters. You can toss any player in the game at any time, the devs will not allow them to bother you. I would advise you to have a reason, like 'does not follow campaign guid lines', you have the same rights to exclude players here as if it was being played in your kitchen. I would offer them a chance to bring their characters into line with your requirements, if they do not do this, "Give them the thumb." I find the reverse of a dearth of players is true, my games are wait listed at the moment, running a 25 year old system that has had many updates since then. The Roll 20 experience for me has been that people are hungry for games, it is a GM's market, one can afford to be picky and still have a full roster.

I've played in a campaign with a "no antisocial characters" rule, simply stating that the players are not to be lone wolves. Yes, those are the coolest characters for a movie or book, but they just don't work in a team. I always like to interview players first before starting in on character creating and game rules just to make sure that they agree on the goal of the game- for everyone to have fun. When creating characters, it's best to have them describe their character to you before going into stats, that way you can see if they're going to be a fit for your campaign or not. Sometimes, it's very easy between these two things to see if a player is going to work out for you. Some character designs really help you understand the player's intentions, which could be either to have the story focus around them or to cause havoc among other players. Either of those are a bad fit for most game groups.

if a character is not to your prefered specs. just tell them so.. i just told one of the chars in my latest game that he was not allowed to be an ogre.. (no argument he just changed the char) even though he really wanted to be. i wouldnt of minded but an ogre had a -2 lvl adj and the game was starting at lvl1, thus he was an advantage, so i just politely explained that. Now he is playing something else. Just grab each player one at a time, and explain, that you are looking for players who can work well together in a team, and since the other players are not of an evil alighment, you believe that their characters will not get a long that well, and ask them to reconsider their alignment choice, you could even suggest moving one point, to Chaotic neutral or neutral evil. cheers

My advice: Explore with these players why they want to play that alignment, and how they see it playing out within the group. A simple discussion, rather than being kicked without any real warning why, is much more productive and will stop these players being annoyed at you as a GM. Create a game where everyone including yourself has fun, by drawing on what they wanted to achieve, not by second guessing their intent (for example you call then trolls and imply they intend to ruin the game deliberately). Maybe ask yourself where the disconnect is between you trying to emphasise the team aspect, and the players you invited to the game choosing to play "diabolic" characters? And why you did not address it with them when they raised the suggestion? However, I think such discussions are off-topic for the Roll20 forum so to bring this slightly back into focus, Roll20 is a big community but still a finite pool of players and GMs. If you want to GM for lots of different people I think it is important in Roll20 to approach games in a collaborative, communicative manner. If you are opening your game up then you might come across players who you would not enjoy having at the table, or who do not mesh with the style of game you're running, but it doesn't make them bad players or "trolls".

Alan H. said: My advice: Explore with these players why they want to play that alignment, and how they see it playing out within the group. A simple discussion, rather than being kicked without any real warning why, is much more productive and will stop these players being annoyed at you as a GM. Create a game where everyone including yourself has fun, by drawing on what they wanted to achieve, not by second guessing their intent (for example you call then trolls and imply they intend to ruin the game deliberately). Maybe ask yourself where the disconnect is between you trying to emphasize the team aspect, and the players you invited to the game choosing to play "diabolic" characters? And why you did not address it with them when they raised the suggestion? However, I think such discussions are off-topic for the Roll20 forum so to bring this slightly back into focus, Roll20 is a big community but still a finite pool of players and GMs. If you want to GM for lots of different people I think it is important in Roll20 to approach games in a collaborative, communicative manner. If you are opening your game up then you might come across players who you would not enjoy having at the table, or who do not mesh with the style of game you're running, but it doesn't make them bad players or "trolls". Yes I suppose calling them trolls was a bit rich, the last player I was trying to work with was not even remotely invested in the game and I could only get 1-2 word answers from him. I did actually address the Alignment issue with both players in question, the least player informed me that "I'm gonna get people to see things my way ". Probably fine in another setting or genre but simply could not work, it would be like having Hannibal Lecter on the set of NCIS. I did not realize that I failed to put that info into the original post, was having a few connection issues last night and the post that is up there now ended up being typed several times over. It appears that in the process I left a fair bit of information out of the final submission. Anyway wanted to thank everyone for their suggestions, since reading your posts I have taken the Forums advice and tried to refine the guide lines for joining my campaign so that everyone is on the same page. I have also viewed some other campaigns joining instructions as a guide in order to bring my own up to scratch so that there is no ambiguity.

One of the things I do to prep before creating a campaign is to type everything up on my computer and read over it (proofreading and editing) then let a friend read over it prior to posting. I also include at the bottom of the campaign rules/ description is a small statement that I reserve the right to change anything that needs to be altered, add any additional information, and have final say say in any game matter. I found that if I don't include that last sentence, I end up arguing with people when they want to play something that would derail the game or when I realize that there is information missing that would or could alter how the group would build their characters. I heartedly recommend holding a 0 session also. This is just a meet and greet session where you talk with all your players and finalize their characters while supplying any additional information. This is also where you do a final pre game decision on players that might not be a good fit. It is that interaction in 0 session that helps you decide on if they can function as a team or you need to remove and recruit more. Good luck and do not worry for there are more players than GMs so if you remove one, two shall appear. Hail Hydra , err, roll20. :D

For me it is all about the groups 'working' as opposed to the overall motivations of the group. As stated earlier players tend to be the reap and reward kind with a few true role-players thrown in for good measure. The way I handle potential party killers (love that term, stealing it *[[1d20+@{Ziechael|sleightofhand}]] = 26 vs DC 25! YESS!!*) is to give them a reason to work with the group. So they are evil in a party of goodie two shoes, well then, it seems that they have been tasked by their evil god to work with these losers until they can get their hands on whatever the end prize is... that way their interest in the parties success is the same but you can still have some fun moral situations along the way. And who isn't to say that by the end of it those evil players just needed to be loved and will defy their god in favour of the greater good after all! Doesn't always work, but there are ways to twist every player to your every whim, afterall you are the DM... failing that, ask them politely to change, tell them to change, kill their characters and boot them from the game... there are more players than DM's and like has been mentioned before, the right players are more important that the right number of players. =D Good luck.

Final point "GM" is euphemistically known as Game Master , you have to remember you are the G od- M onkey, what you say is the law in your game, full stop.

And sometimes no matter what you write, and no matter how well the players synch at first, small problems arise between people and before you know it you have a full blown crash on your hands. The fifth session of my Sunday game ended in a complete mess with several players leaving yet the two main protagonists, the source of friction, are still in. Both of them expressed the opinion that I was favoring the other. From the very start I had mentioned it was a no hold barred, open sandbox setting. No railroading and you get to pick the plot hook(s) you want to follow. First session things went alright, second session stress lines appeared, and now this. "Looking for cooperative players who want to function in a group with more emphasis on roleplay than combat." It was a grand experiment but failed. Back to the drawing board.

al e. said: you are the G od- M onkey, what you say is the law in your game, full stop. G ame operation declaratory - M onkey :P

Michael S. said: My question would be how do other GM's or DM's deal with the Internet "trolls" that would take pleasure in wrecking the game for others? The answer is simply don't deal with them. The moment they're disrespectful, is the moment you think about using the axe, especially with random folks on the internet. TTRPGs are usually among friends, but if you're opening recruitment to the internet, you're going to need to use a heavy hand. Some players might call this 'unfair' but in the end, it's a campaign you've handcrafted not just for that particular player but for the group, and every GM reserves the right to control that aspect.

Let them play. As GM you have the power to Veto an entire gaming session whilst retaining an XP reward to the players you keep for the following. You only punish those that ruin the fun. Evil does not always mean Teamkiller. But I'm also in the camp of... you're playing a team game - learn how to actually play your alignment in this particular situation or be prepared to die a horrible death, swiftly following a kick from campaign if you don't want to roll a new sheet of a nicer alignment.