Dungeons & Dragons on Sidechat | Idk if yall have issues getting your players to stick to the setting/theme, but I have. My solution? I said “this game yall have to play good aligned characters, and if I see someone with a neutral or evil alignment I’m killing them with a falling rock.”

Sidechat

Download

Join communities on Sidechat Download

Dungeons & Dragons 2w

Idk if yall have issues getting your players to stick to the setting/theme, but I have. My solution? I said “this game yall have to play good aligned characters, and if I see someone with a neutral or evil alignment I’m killing them with a falling rock.”

Anonymous 2w

As a forever GM I don’t think that strategy would be the one for me - players are going to make the decisions they feel are right for them, that’s part of the fun of the game. To limit those decisions to what you deem as “good aligned” (and good is such a heavy and nuanced word) feels like you’re limiting players’ input into your story which is a pretty big taboo in my book. If they want to make complex/nuanced characters that don’t do the good thing all the time, that’s just D&D to me.

Anonymous 2w

My logic always is I will make the world and set a no go list of subjects allowed and the rest is player choice

Anonymous 2w

I have two campaigns with the same group. Our main campaign is the “serious” one where most of them are good-aligned (I’m fairly neutral but trying to give my character some Growth™) and we’re trying to do the whole Save The World shtick. The other is a mini campaign we run when one person gets busy, where we’re all insanely chaotic bounty hunters and we basically get to be insane every couple months. It’s about balance.

Anonymous

#1 2w

For sure - I was running SKT for the first time, and I wanted to get them to for once, try something different. That was my goal - and the joking threat of giant rock worked like a charm

Anonymous

#1 2w

That’s not to say you can’t respond with consequences in kind (that are justifiable given the circumstances), but that’s where the story gets fun in my book.

Anonymous

#1 2w

my friend was running a campaign & we had a player at our table whose character "was evil and wanted to take over the world" or whatever and just completely did not gaf about the story the dm made. imo if players are like that (using 'my character is evil' as an excuse to not engage AT ALL with the story the dm has given them) its just disrespectful af. i will say that if a character has a valid reason within the specific setting of the campaign to be evil or mad then that might be different

Anonymous

#2 2w

like, say theres a big bad guy the party is trying to get to. maybe a PC had prior trauma related to that character, and is just using the party to get to him, & doesnt actually care about the rest of the party. maybe the party intends on capturing him, but that one character will try to kill him the moment they see him. THAT type of thing is interesting. its just annoying when a player wants to kill everything in sight like it just ruins the vibe and the story for everyone else

Anonymous

#2 2w

Absolutely, there should be a conversation between the player and GM/others to ensure that while the PC is evil, they share the same goals as the team, and that reason has to be concrete enough to where the evil character isn’t spoiling the others’ fun. However, there are SO many fun ways to play evil characters that I would never outright ban them at my table

Anonymous

#1 2w

Rock

Anonymous

#4 2w

the main campaign: dear god! there’s a cult attempting to abduct the king’s son! we must protect him at all costs! the side campaign: oh, YOU’RE Higgins? we’re supposed to kill you. and uh I fire my gun.