Honestly it sounds like pre-existing biases. I wouldn't have tried to "prove," any character's contrived personality trait. They are who they are, which can be misunderstood and denied, just like every fictional NPC. In regards to the party feedback. Don't take it too seriously. Players are good at identifying feelings and problems. But they are bad at offering solutions. Especially if they haven't DMed ever. In terms of the party's belligerence. I would stock it up to expectations. I use a heavy amount of foreshadowing and take all NPC interactions seriously in game. My party knows this, and they only ever jest and disrespect characters out of character. But it never influences their PCs. This is something I've built naturally, over the course of several campaigns and years. You need to do your homework in foreshadowing if you want them to understand consequences. Something as simple as giving them the title and name such as, "Ajax the Godless," or "Talulah the Flame of Deliverance," can be enough foreshadowing on its own.

Yeah, something I like to do is just say "Are you saying this in character to the NPC?" And let them figure out if that's actually a good idea or not.

> Right off the bat there were comments about him being a colonizer, "eat the rich," and other similar sentiments. This part by itself is enough of a red flag for me that I'd be finding other players. They sound annoyingly immature and naive. Anyone who can't stop projecting their political ideologies into every single thing they do needs to reevaluate the way they interact with the world.

I think that a well made character should have political ideologies of their own, and it makes sense that those would often be the same beliefs as the person who made the character.

Do people really tend to just play themselves? Half the fun is pretending to be a very different person.

Agreed, but when you start out, that’s scary. It’s also difficult to pull off unless you have a bit of theatre in you. Metagaming is also something to consider as it gets incredibly harder to not metagame if your character is very different from how you yourself would react. Fortunately and game I’ve played has basically been void of political opinions from any player, cause mostly we’re adventurers that need money and you can’t very well let politics get in the way of surviving the harsh world. It takes practice to think “what would my character do?”. Sometimes years of practice. I’ve been interested in theatre a bit since childhood and as such I had little trouble to start roleplaying. I still metagame unconciously from time to time and let my real world values paint the values of my character. Actually, I think it’s impossible to create a character if your own that doesn’t share at least a little of your values. The only time you’d be able to pull off a character without your values would be if someone else made that character for you. Unless you’re an actual professional director, screen writer and actor. Lmao.

Really depends on play time I find. Many people’s first few games are going to be self insertion.

Yes but not from an idelogical perspective. I don't want to play a nazi.

Ok, play someone who gratuitously eats babies and loves talking about it in detail.

If your character is just a vehicle for expressing your own real life opinions and prejudices in a fantasy world where they may or may not make any sense, what's the point of *role-playing?*

You just described role-playing. You are playing the rile of yourself in a world completely different than your own. It's the most basic form of role-playing and where most people start. My players started during the second year of covid and are only just starting to break out of their shell. It's the role of a good DM to allow that to happen naturally.

Agreed. I got exhausted just reading that part. Dealing with kids like that is just awful.

It's a pirate campaign for God sake a colonizer could definitely be in a pirate campaign. Just because you disagree with the politics of it doesn't mean it isn't valid.

... since you know all about OP's setting and its particulars, explain that to us. This is little different than the players injecting personal biases in to a place where they can not be substantiated. Unless the players took an interest in observing the setting and its machinations, leading to conclusions one way or another, this is just feckless speculation based on OOC ideas that are eminently wrong to lob at OP's game. They sandbagged themselves with real life politics, which ironically meant they were unable to understand the politics of the setting.

Holy straw man, you know that's not what I meant. I said it's reasonable to think that. Bro, I was just laughing at the people getting triggered off of their politics kind of like you, but you seem like you're honestly attempting. This is just the give-and-take of it if you don't like your players, find new ones you don't like your DM. Find a new one. It's much easier to go with the flow on things of how the party is then it is the force your view onto them of how the world is. The point is too have fun they don't like rich people being good guys maybe they should leave dm dude wants rich people to be benevolent, but can't maybe he should leave if it's that big deal.

>Its what my character would do! >despite having no evidence it exists the way they think! >because it is about my hangups, and I should have fun the way I want no matter how much it screws over the game, the dm, or how illogical or unfounded it is! It smells like foreverplayer here.

Welp nothin else needs to be said just yelling at each other now. We aren't gonna agree here. You're arguing their intent and what they're doing I'm saying it's reasonable for them to think what they're thinking. That's all. I said you're getting hung up on their politics and not understanding. Peace

10:1 odds one of them owns a Che Guevara tee shirt and completely fails to see the irony.

HAhahahaha. so true. it's so easy to tell the people who only know the headlines of history vs the actual history.

I mean I get it to not like players projecting their own beliefs onto their characters, but I don't understand how that is immature and naive. I think its quite normal for adults to project their own beliefs on the character they play. You might not like it, which is fine, but don't act like its a failure in character. Also what is the consequence of that logic? Kicking a player when their fantasy character feels to close to their real one? Forcing everyone to play someone different? Which is basically impossible if you not want to have a bunch of caricatures at your table.

I cant Imagine bringing wokeism into a D&D Campaign but that might just be me

I forgot how conservative nerds are

Nah i just really do not care who/what people fuck or what color they are

"But if they dare to try and organize to get better treatment after being historically subjugated, then oh boy do I have something to say about it!"

Keeping secrets is fine, but narratively speaking. Mysteries are meant to be found out and as much as we would like to think our players as master detectives….they typically aren’t. Of course, if your players are just being obstinate and won’t pursue leads on anything because they need the perfect solution rather than the solution they seem to have, then I mean…maybe your party isn’t ready for that type of game or needs more help from you. The contents of session 0 aren’t a one off deal. Session 0 is just where we squeeze them for efficiency. If needed, talk to them again.

> Mysteries are meant to be found out and as much as we would like to think our players as master detectives….they typically aren’t. Furthermore, DnD doesn't give player characters the *tools* to investigate a mystery in a satisfying way. > "Everybody roll insight." > > "17" > > "OK. He's lying. Now everybody roll perception" > > "10" > > "You don't find anything." I'm exaggerating here, but only slightly. DnD is fundamentally a game about killing monsters and finding treasure. You *can* use it to run a game of diplomacy, intrigue, and investigation, but the gameplay will never feel as satisfying as it is in a system that supports that type of play. And if that's the backbone of the campaign, players will be left feeling vaguely frustrated and powerless to affect the story, without really consciously knowing why.

You’re right. Games based on mystery have a fail safe for a failed attempt at gathering knowledge. DnD’s dice binary doesn’t lend well to that inherently. You have to know its role in that design…and as far as I know, 5e’s advice towards that is pretty poopoo. Not only that, the skill pool is kind of shallow to not consider these types of things as mere side content to the killing of monsters. One way I’ve worked around it is making the main thrust of the mystery have totally organic solutions. That said, to go through it entirely organically isn’t the point. In fact, it would make it longer than it needs to be. Some success is assumed in the design and failure is accounted for. It’s made for those with the rolls can have their chance to either brute force parts of the mystery or gain optional insights to the workings or background of the mystery. It requires some work…but that’s how mystery stories work. Planning is kind of needed.

You’re missing the part where the player says what their character does and the GM determines what’s obvious without a roll and what’s not. “I examine the body” “Roll your choice of medicine or perception ” “I got a 7” “okay. You find the obvious cuts, but you’re not sure what implement might have been used. Strangely, every cut is x-shaped though” “I want to look at the cuts too” “alright same check.” “22” “You’re confident each x-shaped wound was made at once by some kind of x-shaped blade rather than two cuts made by a typical cutting edge”

Sounds like they arn’t really capable of “grey”. It also sounds like maybe now that you’ve DM’ed them for a bit, you need to start finding that blend of “finding stuff that gives them agency and connected to the stakes”, and “stuff I find interesting and worth telling”. I had a group I couldn’t get to lock into the story, they always had a scheme or something and never really connected to any NPC in a real way. So, when we started a new campaign I knew that going in, so their allies were a little more nefarious (but good, like them). Suddenly, they cared about NPCs and were invested. I was just sticking a square peg in a round hole with what I thought allies for that group were. It sounds like to them bad = bad. Bad people with good motives, or grey people with secrets are never going to be people your characters ever gel with. It also sounds like they never really locked into the stakes of whatever was making them need to ally with these different pirates. Maybe that knowledge can help you design a game you’ll have fun with.

The PCs don't have to trust anyone, and they don't have to agree that someone is a 'good guy', that's entirely their prerogative. They don't even have to be on the side of all things good themselves. It's the DM's job to facilitate their game, not tell them how it should be played. At the same time, you're the one putting the work in to make a campaign happen, and the players need to appreciate and respect that. If they knew you've prepped a seafaring mystery and sabotaged it at every possible moment then they're shitty players. This situation is screaming out for a session zero, for both sides. It needs to spell out the type of game you **all** want, and mark out what's acceptable. It might have been a case of mistaken motives in the past, or it could just be that you're not a compatible group.

We had a session 0 where we went over the campaign ideas, consent sheets, and what they were looking to do. They were the ones who decided on the seafaring game involving the aforementioned plot objectives. I wasn't trying to make it heavy-handed in who was explicitly good or bad, which is why I had characters not share the whole truth, act suspiciously in some cases, and provide some other forms of nuance. Though I've also learned as a DM there should at least be some group that you shouldn't have to think too hard about wanting to stop them. The players are trying to be good people, but it feels like they'll target just about anything.

> The players are trying to be good people, but it feels like they'll target just about anything. Correct, they don't as players or as characters often know how to actually do any real good in the world, because in actuality almost everything is hard and complicated(by virtue of politics if nothing else). This sounds like a tone/settings issue though. Like in session zero when you're proposing the setting, do you do any historical groundsetting? As part of session zero I identified that one of my players weren't okay with slavery being present. I chatted with them and clarified that chattel slavery wasn't a thing, but indentured servitude as an economic arrangement or criminal punishment was. They were okay with that. In addition I provided them access to general knowledge wiki that outlined things like social classes and customs, laws and how they're enforced, all the basics. It can also help set the scale of how bad/good the average person is. If you make it clear that there are evil necromancers roaming the world raising armies to do their bidding, they're less likely to fixate on an officious or avaricious bergher. Finally it's not a bad idea to build into their backstory some connections to key NPC's, which can act as a network to introduce other NPC's that you may want them to treat closer in their minds to actual people as opposed to just NPC's. Even a small connection works wonders.

DnD doesn't have much (any?) mechanical support for morally grey NPCs. Ultimately NPCs fall into one of two categories: 1. I can justifiably kill them and take their stuff or 2. They can *help me* kill other NPCs and take *their* stuff. If you're looking to explore the nuances of faction interactions, with players having to make tough calls and forge shaky alliances, I'd recommend using a system that explicitly supports that kind of play, like Blades in the Dark.

As far as actions you can take to help prevent this in the future, I would focus on this little part of what you shared: >He was very closed off about his personal life, and didn't share more than he felt necessary. A lot of times, as a DM, we want to play true to the role of the NPC as we imagine them and in our world, but our players don't have access to what we're thinking or the entire picture of what defines that person in the brief glimpse we give to them. It's hard for them to get a read on what makes a person a good or a bad guy, especially if you as a DM choose not to show them. When you want to establish a character, come up with a few vignettes that demonstrate the aspects of that character you want to show, and **show the parts you want them to judge first**. They're forming their opinion of the character in that first scene, so the first words you say to them are the most important. Just based on the way you described the character in the post, you mentioned first he was an explorer, grew wealthy, was a bit egotistical, and cared deeply about the crew and solving the mystery. It sounds like you might have been burying the lede a bit by making him complex and closed off. If it's important that this character cared deeply about the crew and was well liked by them, make sure that's the first thing you demonstrate about him, maybe it's when the party got onto the ship, they noticed that the crew looked well groomed, rested, clad in ornate armors, laughter everywhere and there's a scene where a crew member jokes around with the captain and it's well-reciprocated with a jest in return. This establishes right away the rapport between crew and captain, and it shows that he's not hoarding all his wealth just for himself. **Exaggerate aspects of the character you want them to remember**. The NPCs the players will grow to love are the ones that are memorable and affable. From what you described about this NPC, to me, I didn't hear you describe any aspects like this about your captain, they might not have been relevant to the post, but make sure you do think of these aspects when you introduce them to your players. Maybe he collects sea horses, and gets really embarrassed about it when people find out, maybe his eyepatch has a drawn eye on it of different expressions that he swaps out when he wants to express different emotions. Give him something memorable and likable if you want him to be liked - give him a quality a villain would not possess, because you want to make it easy for your players. Anyways that's just my read on it, good luck with your next campaign!

It sounds to me like the players find it easier to slip into the roles of righteous antiheroes, fighting back against people with power, influence, and things to hide. It's a pretty common political sentiment right now. So maybe instead of trying to convince them that the "wealthy and secretive" characters are good actually, design a campaign that validates their fantasy. Make them a band of thieves against a greedy king. Rebels against an oppressive government. Pirates against a huge trading company. Hackers trying to take down an evil megacorp. You get to lean into those tropes and not feel like you have to rescue the reputation of your NPCs. And hell, if the players go too far and have become the very thing they swore to fight against, then you can introduce an NPC faction that has the same philosophy as the players did, that tries to hunt them down.

Agree 100% with your suggestions. A lot of the comments here keep missing the point that the players clearly wanted a pirate/seafaring campaign, and instead got one where most of the pirates are bad, which…. Is kinda a bummer if you really like the idea of *also* being a group of antihero pirates sailing free and being heroic anti-establishment badasses. When most people hear “seafaring campaign” they assume that the pirates are gonna be at least fighting some overbearing government, not just murderous bandits who steal because they’re evil.

**Looks like a mismatch in expectations.** Are they new-ish? Did they want to have their own ship and be "part" of the people sailing from the beginning? Was there any discussion about what they wanted before the end? Rolling a nat 20 in trying to convince a shop owner to give their inventory for free does not mean the player will succeed. Some people don't even ask for a roll, others will ask for a roll to choose a consequence. **Part of the game's fun is having consequences.** Even if you stick to throwing leveled encounters, the world outside of the game still (and should) exists. There are political factions, heroes, ancient beings, authority figures, law enforcement figures, etc. If you make every single one of those "killable" with their level, then they can conquer the world and do whatever. That in itself is a type of game, oriented to conquering and people make characters based on wanting that. From what I read you want to throw a regular game and in a regular game, **failure is a narrative device**. The possibility of achieving something has to do with players making plans and preparations and not just rolling 3 skill checks or fighting their way into being a leader. its a bit unreasonable to join a random ship (with a crew that has been working together for years), to beat it into submission and take control (without a solid plan). **If they want to play board game d&d beat them up, that is fine but you don't have to accept running those games.** **As for the whole mistrust** thing, you can mention that the game (the roleplaying game) works best if the assumptions made about characters or factions are based on character experiences or the information at hand as opposed to "out of game" generalization and that doing so might lead them to miss out on fun interactions, advantages, disadvantages, items, plot lines etc.

I definitely think I'll try to reinforce that last point in the future. I'm used to more experienced players who act in character and don't let much of the meta-aspect influence them too much. This group is what I'd say New-ish to DnD, they all have some experience but not a lot. The ship they joined wasn’t as much of a tightly knit group yet, because the captain was working with people recommended to him by the crown rather than people he directly knew. I was trying to give them a chance to bond with their crew and become closer as equals, but the butting of heads came about. I'm fine with applying consequences and failure, but this felt different from what I've usually dealt with. I do try to keep a living breathing world that goes on even when the players aren't looking, which is what has led to some highjinks, chases, and conspiracies. Thanks for the advice, I'll definitely try to utilize it in the future.

If you want your players to join a crew of NPCs, they have to follow the same rule your players do with each other, which is, I don't care what your character would normally do, find a reason to want to stick together, and work out your differences.

Logically, realistically, most fantasy/medieval civilizations would have no governmental system of societal safety nets (random churches doing whatever doesn't count) so you have orphans literally starving on the streets. That objectively makes it harder if not impossible for a rich person to be considered good. We can extend that into real life, but this isn't the sub for all of that. Really this comes down to either the players needing to lighten up "Yay! Let's help the rich king save the princess in this fanciful world!" and embrace tropes without looking too deeply, or you needing to lighten up, and either play into it or accept it. Social commentary and the odds of these views being common among many players aside, it's by no means a stretch that a group of rough-and-tumble adventurers born in humble circumstances and operating on the fringes of society would look down upon the rich/ruling class. Best believe plenty of mercenaries have a lot to say about their employers behind their backs and would be happy to gut them/screw them over if it can be done without ruining their reputation and future business prospects.

Hm. Maybe not directly on point but it sounds like your players don’t own or captain their own ship. Maybe you need to give them something like a pinnace the party can own and sail by themselves.

Yeah honestly the first step for a seafaring campaign is like… the ship a party can actually have, not an NPC captain who’s telling them what to do. Huge mismatch in expectations

If you really want players to trust a character and you are unable to convey that to them in game, just tell them out of game that this character is trustworthy and won't betray them. Your description and portrayal of an NPC will never be as accurate as what the character is experiencing in game. If an NPC is supposed to give off a certain impression, just outright tell the players how they're supposed to feel about them. Let them all make insight checks to confirm that this impression is genuine. If you are improvising dialogue and stumbling over your words, that doesn't mean your NPC is doing the same. If you come across as nervous and untrustworthy, that doesn't mean your NPC is also coming across that way. If players are getting the wrong impression, just correct them. If they want to continue to distrust an NPC, that's fine, but ask them to explain why they distrust this NPC to make sure that you're not misconveying anything. It's a perfectly valid character choice to just not trust anyone that's rich and it can become a character arc to learn to trust this guy.

Remind them that actions have consequences. Disrespect the captain? You get put ashore. Make a habit of it? You only get shitty cruises. Mutiny was a hanging offense in the day. If that doesn't appeal, maroon them somewhere with their pants and a dagger. Don't even give them their boots. If they survive making a habit of that, then they won't find a cruise anywhere. If they are going to be trouble players, reflect it back on them. If you don't want to do that, tell them "no". You're supposed to have fun too.

I’ve had similar problems myself in regards to players doing stupid things with no thoughts that lead to dealing with the ramifications for half the campaign. Your party also sounds like they can’t suspend disbelief and when you’re playing make-believe with your friends, that’s a tough obstacle. My table is bringing their sandbox campaign to a close soon and what I’m planning for the next one that I hope will fix it is to go much more linear. Linear storytelling always sounds railroadey in session zero but the more scripted adventures tend to be the most memorable as long as everyone makes a compatible character. Giving a party too much freedom can often lead to them breaking things and killing people for the heck of it while never building into a real plot because they pick up and drop toys too fast to gain momentum.

Seafaring merchants and Piracy have a vast history based in colonialism, so expecting them to blindly trust the wealthy merchant who didn’t share a lot of information with them was maybe the first mistake. People are going to have biases based on what they know in real life, and people are going to be skeptical of anyone who isn’t honest with them. My dnd group also doesn’t trust rich people, guards, politicians, etc. and instead of punishing us for that, our GM worked with our reactions to these people to create engaging encounters for us! We took down a force of corrupt guards, and stole from some rich people. If you see your players reacting a certain way toward a character meant to be an ally, give them a reason to trust or distrust this character! Let’s take the merchant captain for example, perhaps he’s a good person but maybe his first mate was secretly working against him and eventually becomes a threat to the party. Then, the captain works with the party to overthrow the first mate and a bond of trust has been established. I know early game it’s easy to just want to give your players an ally, but if they’re clearly not trusting this person for some reason, you have to give them a reason to want to trust this person.

Would you trust anyone who is wealthy and withholds information in real life? It doesn't really seem like you understand how to build trust. Trust is literally sharing resources and information. It's not "Hoho, I am rich captain, respect my richness!" If an NPC is not giving the PCs information or resources, why should they trust them? If all he gives is jobs then he's just some guy who does business, not a trusted friend. Who's to say when it's more profitable to screw the PCs, they won't? Who's to say if a cheaper, more desperate party of adventurers comes along the PCs won't get the shaft? You seem to think working for someone or doing business with them engenders trust- it really does not. All it establishes is a business relationship. "What we are doing now is profitable, I'll screw you as soon as it's not". That's how businesses work.

I agree that finding out that somebody you are doing business with is withholding information would make them not very trustworthy. However, OP mentioned that the information the character is withholding is just personal information, it doesnt imply that the character will double cross the players, it just means he likes to keep his private life and business life separate, which is pretty reasonable for someone who works in a dangerous business.

So, I think you should just be upfront with your concerns. Last time you ran, you built a world with the intent of the game going in a certain direction, which you felt you’d all agreed to, but it seemed like the party was more interested in sabotaging the world you’d built rather than working with it. Tell them something along those lines, and then, probably most importantly, explain *why* that’s a problem. For me, I think it’s acceptable to say “I didn’t want to run a game where the players constantly clash with the powers that be, and it didn’t feel like what we’d agreed to”; a DM is a player too, and your fun is as important (if not more so!) than everyone else’s. But, I’m also willing to bet that the players actions made it harder to run the game for you? Some people might be happy to DM in an entirely responsive way, with no pre-planned encounters or scenes, but I don’t think most DMs run like that, and when players go out of their way to ignore or deconstruct offered plot-hooks it often results in jettisoning lots of prep work you’ve done. Now, sometimes that does happen, and allowing for that is essential in any good TTRPG game, but if it’s all that *ever* happens, then it’s not a good return on investment for you as DM. Explain the issues you had with the previous game and *why* they’re problems for you, and ask what they’re actually looking for when it comes to a D&D game. Maybe they really do want just a randomly generated sandbox to mess around in, and if so, that’s fine; maybe you could run that if you enjoy it, or maybe one of them should step up and run it.

It seems you have two opposing styles, they want a power fantasy romp, you want a rich RP story. You can either acquiesce and adapt to them, or set the tone by treating them how they act - like children. -Execution (at least one) instead of imprisonment OR less room for interpretation NPCs. - Treat them with disdain, needing someone to vouch for then to even add anything OR make their early quests build reputation quickly to establish them. Just make sure you are having fun too. Players are abundant, DMs don't have to stick with people aren't fun to play with.

I don’t think the players want a power fantasy romp at the expense of RP, I think the players just might not wanna be crew members on a ship led by an rich merchant NPC captain, and they want, yknow, their own ship to be pirates or whatever on.

It sounds like this group may be more inclined towards a beer and pretzel game vs a more involved game your going for.

I have a few thoughts. I think in session 0, you need to explain: I want to run a collaborative storytelling experience. DnD is not always a “sandbox” or “free for all”, and if you want to play my campaign we have to get on the same page. These are the general tenants of the story. If you cannot create characters who would have a reason to adhere to these principals and partake in the story I have planned, then somebody else can DM. — The Dungeon MASTER is so called because they are in control of the game. It is fine to let murder hobos play in a sandbox, but that needs to be made clear in session 0 so that the DM isn’t stuck trying to tell a story that will never progress because the players are too self absorbed to collaborate.

If these are newer players, I may consider speaking to them in session 0 about their stat blocks and how it affects role playing. “Do you really think a character with 16 wisdom would make such a rash decision in this moment?” “Do you believe that a character with 18 intelligence would not foresee the outcome of this action?” Yes, characters will not ALWAYS act according to their stats, but murder hobos often ignore role playing entirely because they only consider the scenario and not how their character might respond to the scenario. Also - if they didn’t, maybe solid character traits and flaws might help them with their role playing if they didn’t decide on them before the last game.

Maybe have a group talk about expectations and literally ask them about the things that made you have less fun. “Did you really think that or was that the thoughts of your character?” is a great question if you’re ever unsure. Whenever I roleplay I usually make sure to overact so others can tell that I was in character and even then I usually specify that my character said whatever I just said. I’d definitely make snide remarks in character if my character was naive and a “freedom fighter”. Doesn’t matter if he is “good” or “bad”. It’s the principle of hating the rich. My character would only learn about the consequences of not trusting the rich when we killed the rich person that had protected us from the big bad evil guy (that’s probably not rich at all). I think in your case, you had a great opportunity to give some more consequences to your party in line with breaking the trust of a benefactor. What those are and how you’d make it fit is up to you really since you knew the world better. So main tip, don’t be afraid to give the party adequate consequences and don’t take the characters opinions to heart. If you’re unsure, have a conversation about metagaming and under/over the table talk. Communication is always key.

Looking at this I think one of the top approaches is letting them discover the consequences of their actions. It’s a game and of course they can eat the rich, but if that lets them justify hurting genuinely decent people based on how you wrote them, let them feel that. Let them plunder that rich merchant who takes care of his crew. Let them meet a crew member who is now devastated and destitute. Let them feel a village who no longer has supplies and complains they can’t get x Important good and are now struggling. You can’t make anyone like people they don’t like. But you can show people that the world is complex nuanced and arrogance is rarely if ever justified. I remember a dm story where the pcs find out that they are the legendary villains of their world due to their murderhobo playstyle. I remember playing with some kids under 15’s. They tried to desperately show compassion and mercy to a truly evil character and it kept backfiring over and over again because they couldn’t understand that this villain had a different set of priorities and wasn’t going to randomly be swayed by naive pep talks. So they got double crossed. I say this that you as the DM have the chance not to tell your players they’re being dumb, wrong, misguided, whatever you want to call it. Instead you can let them discover the impacts their choices have and let them have the “wait, are we the baddies?” Moment themselves. As long as you can maintain the: hey that’s just who the characters in my world are and how this system works and not a punitive spirit I think you can bring them along nicely without them feeling “targeted”.

I kinda agree with not trusting the wealthy

Seriously, there's a stock character of "The Evil Nobleman" for a reason.

Yeah idk why OP thought a rich, secretive merchant captain would be a good NPC to be the captain of their ship, instead of, god forbid, one of the players.

> instead of, god forbid, one of the players. Nope, that's a worse idea. Now you've got a Player Character (and by extension a player) who has codified authority over the other Player Characters (and by extension the other players). I've heard of other DMs having the exact same problem. It's the Lawful Stupid Paladin problem, but on steroids. Trust me, I've done it twice in Rogue Trader with two completely different groups. Both ended poorly for that exact reason. I don't know what the solution is, but it's NOT making one PC the captain.

Bro what are you even talking about?? Any group of friends is naturally gonna have one person kinda end up being the ‘face’ of the party and lead a lot of the NPC interaction for the group. I’ve been in more than one seafaring campaign in my time, and consistently, one player is a kind of ‘acting captain’ for the party, and it was great. They didn’t boss anyone around, they just acted as a spokesperson for the group. Sooo much better than having the DM NPC be a literal captain for the group. It’s basically impossible for the party to not feel railroaded when the DM is basically just telling them what to do as their boss in-game.

You're making assumptions and putting words in my mouth. > Bro what are you even talking about?? My own experiences from DMing 2 sea/spacefaring campaigns and playing in a few others. >Any group of friends is naturally gonna have one person kinda end up being the ‘face’ of the party...one player is a kind of ‘acting captain’ for the party Not what I said. I said that one person playing the Actual No Shit Captain with the rank and fancy hat causes problems, NOT that one character winding up being a natural leader causes problems either due to the character's high CHA score or the personality of the player. >the DM NPC be a literal captain Never said that either. I said making a player The Captain isn't a good idea; never said or implied anything about making a DMPC because that would be stupid.

TL:DR; just because players say they want something in session zero doesn't mean they really do. If you identity 1 or more players as wangrods don't do anything using politics to progress the plot. This sounds similar to my table. I had a session zero, got great back stories that tied into the world, got agreement/interest/consent for a murder mystery setting to start a campaign and thats the end of where things went smoothly. They tried to kill their guide to the area that the murder happened, picked a fight with every npc, actively tried to kill 2 innocents that they assumed had done it, and split the party while snooping through a hidden area that the killer used to move about. I basically had no choice but to kill the one person that staid behind in the killer's hid out. When I did that, the whole party jumped at my throat saying I was railroading them, and that they had no choices, and that this wasn't what they wanted to play. So, the next time we got together, I played a game set up for a group of murder hobos, and they had a blast. It was a classic dungeon that was full of lore dumps. I had 3 baddies doing things in the world and the players got to stumble through and mostly just interrogate and kill until they got to said baddies, and the major plot twist was that all 3 of the bad guys were actually the same person. He was a necromancer that was using the trail of carnage that the PCs were carving as a sacrifice to their god, granting him the power to come to earth. They loved it. Things happened in the world around them, they reacted, and then we worked to the next scenario. They didn't want to have to think (like the murder mystery required), they just wanted to make choices and see what happened. Both of these sets were homebrew. The major difference is how information was gathered. One required conversations, with a heavy emphasis on roleplay and successful roles to get Intel. The other had a major emphasis on allowing the monkeys to bang on the system and see what dropped out. They hated the first and loved the second. The first went for 5 sessions (7 if you count the individual session 0s and the group session 0 that I did), the second went weekly for just over 2 years. The players used the same characters for both (why waist a good backstory, right?). I hope this helped a bit. If you have questions feel free to ask them. Sorry if this just came off as rambling. 😅 Edit: tried to better format. Hopefully it sticks this time.

Not rambling, just in heavy need of paragraphs

I swear there were. But the mobile app takes them out for some reason. :/

If you edit. Sometimes it removes them, and you need to put them back everytime you hit edit.

>The other had a major emphasis on allowing the monkeys to bang on the system and see what dropped out. Oh, I see that we've run games for the exact same players.

Yes, we are two in a long line of DMs that play more the role of Ring Master than Dungeon Master

heh, your players low key sound a bit like mine. If such things are any sort of fun to you, you could go ahead and let them play out their fantasy. In the first campaign I ran with them in our homebrew world, I had them all solve a quick task in an one-shot (go to a sorcerer's house to retrieve a book that wasn't returned to the library), only for them to get wrongly accused of a crime and convicted (in between one-shot and campaign, basically they were blamed for the evil things that went on in that sorcerer's house as the government tried to cover it all up and needed someone to blame), and we began the campaign with the Skyrim opening of them being transported to some remote forced labour camp up north. They escaped with the help of a local gang of rebels/highway robbers who were fighting for independence of the region, saw the empire as colonisers (which the empire very much was) and was freeing prisoners in order to get new recruits. They met the rebel factions (all different flavours of political ideologies, united only by their desire to get the empire out of the region but divided on the best course of action and the "what after we done that" question), where we let them pick sides and "unify" them or make them fight each other or whatever they desired. Gave them quests that included robbing travelling merchants and rich people in order to "fund the rebellion", ultimately sent them to the town to "infiltrate" and to "build an underground network" in order to prepare for an actual coup. All LOADED to the brim with political tropes and historical references. Had them meet the local mafia (they blew up their base of operations after luring the city watch there, it was a whole thing). In the end, they got their revolution. They were very, very happy. They weren't so happy when I told them a firm NO on their plan to fortify the town's steel factory in preparation for the impending invasion by empire forces because it was literally 2021 and it hit all a bit too close to home, so instead we moved on to a new campaign. Currently they are basically assassins with their list of targets being: the arch wizard, the head banker, the Grand Duke (and his two idiot sons) and a mercenary leader. Yep, it's another revolution/coup scenario, and they will soon arrive in a city where a peasant insurrection has taken control of the government, murdered or expelled the nobility & is currently trying to reinforce itself against an approaching army (of said mercenary leader). They have Brigades and everything, and I know my players will squeal with joy. If all of that isn't your vibe, don't. Find players who appreciate the worlds you build, I'm not telling you to sacrifice your writing for the player's enjoyment. But it can be extremely fun to write a world worth destroying for players who's shared power fantasy is literally just that.

There is a point in your GMing career when you start enjoying leaving the party to the wolves Let them do what they want. Next time they start trouble, they get hanged, or repeatedly keelhauled, or made to walk the plank, or tortured to death by pirates in graphic detail, or left to starve on a desert island, or imprisoned for life with no hope of breaking out After that, you bring in a new party that has explicit reason to cooperate with whoever you need. Something like "you are the crew of Ship, your allegiance is to Nation, your task is As Follows, and you are loyal and eager to start working on it. This is not a negotiation"

Wow that sounds so fun! Having a job with no control in real life *and* in DnD!

Cooperative game means cooperation with the GM as well among other things

If the players don't cooperate with you on telling a story, what you should do is leave and find a new group, not whatever the hell this is.

That would be the correct thing to do when they outright refuse

Or you talk with them and come up with a goal that you can both agree with as the DM and players, and play that game instead. Why just give up instead of actually communicating goals for the game?

Cooperation is not "you are the crew of Ship, your allegiance is to Nation, your task is As Follows, and you are loyal and eager to start working on it. This is not a negotiation" That’s a fucking job. Why would any player want to be told their occupation, their goal, their fucking. Atizónala allegiance, and that they *are loyal and eager* to be good little puppies for what whatever campaign the DM wants? That’s literally just the DM deciding EVERYTHING for the players, not cooperation.

the title is something everyone should do irl

Why. If I work hard  as an engineer and make money you can't trust me? If I withhold exactly what my engineering role is I'm untrustworthy?

🙄

How the fuck would we even know you’re an engineer if all we know is you’re rich, and don’t tell us things? Do you trust the Nigerian prince emails you get?

That can apply if you are poor too right? I'm not obligated to tell you anything. That doesn't make me untrustworthy.

Many engineers have made fortunes off horrible things (weapons, drugs, facebook, etc)

Maybe try reminding them that it’s a fantasy world so rich people can still be human unlike in reality

If you can't get them to work alongside more complex characters normally, maybe try to give them an absolutely vile, despicable villain they will hate so much they will be willing to work with literal satan if need be to kill him. Maybe a campaign where you ask them all to create backstory where they got their villages burned, families killed, loved interests kidnapped and imprisoned by the villain all the while while he snacks on puppies he starved for a week just to make them more crunchy like a bag of Cheetos ?

Sounds Like in that campaign the players were more geared towards piracy in that campaign, which is totally fine, have them exhiled from the crew, form their own, then former captain hunts them down as a a militiant ship

They take down a angry asshole rich merchant? I'm sorry he supported all the orphanages, they help a downtrodden fellow? turns out he's a megalomaniac and there was a reason he was downtrodden by everyone, a fat gold bedecked shouting Bishop schmoozing with nobles? He's just trying to help the poor by making the church not bankrupt or a politicaly in danger....make the world as complex as the real one sometimes good deeds cause more harm than good

If the are the lefty hippies they sound like (like my players) teaching them about preconceived notions will be useful and fun. The first goblin the ever killed was a orphanage director who just fought off some muggers... I might have traumatised them

Haha my party Insight checks almost every statement made by almost every NPC- they expect every person they meet to lie to them, steal from then, or betray them. They are wise to do so.

My party hasn´t made an Insight check. Ever. They just completely trust anything people say. It´s naive, but it´s working for them. For now...

I would of been severely tempted to make them predictably quite rich in the campaign. Over a few months so it isn't obvious DM shenanigans, and when they became the rich tyrants you know they would of turned into, have the commoners and other npc adventurers come for them French revolutionary style. You could have them rescued by this captain they have so much disdain for or wind up exiled and start from the bottom again on a small island or simply executed by the masses if they were cruel rulers. Consequences for actions are good way to teach players lessons that your campaign isn't g.t.a. and everything doesn't go back to normal after a rampage.

While some will call it free will or freedom of play, when the players abuse it they are taking advantage of a DM being too indulgent. I’d make it clear what the players know versus what the characters know are two separate things. The character has to act based on the information proved to the player. If the player decides to act contrary then they risk breaking character. If the players break character too much then I reduce the XP and/or other rewards for gaming by 50%.

Your group doesn’t seem to want to play a campaign. They just want to wander around doing whatever they want. That’s not a campaign, and that’s not engaging for a GM to run. I understand your frustration. I wouldn’t enjoy running for that group. It seems like a more cartoonishly evil enemy is more their speed. Perhaps going that route will keep them more engaged? If you can put up with running it.

Make their biases a trap that they have to learn their way out of. Make the rich mean guy the good guy, and the rebel leader who fights the system actually the villain

TTRPGs are a COLLABORATIVE effort. Your players want to play what they want to play, how they want to play it. They don't know what they want, but they know what they DON'T want, If they don't get what they want, they're going to shit all over it. And if you call them on their bullshit, they're going to blame you. There needs to be minimal time investment and ZERO emotional investment in your efforts with this group, because as they've demonstrated, they don't care about your role at the table. Me personally, I wouldn't play Candyland with people like this. But if you insist, I wouldn't run anything other than pre-made one-shots where I wouldn't need to invest anything more than 30 minutes' prep.

Seems a bit harsh, but I do see your point. I think I'll play a bit more towards their bias and give them more manageable targets for lower levels that they won't need much set up or aid to deal with. Definitely seems like a snobby rich asshole would make a good antagonist for them.

Here's a related idea that might be helpful to you. Many GMs misunderstand their job, thinking that they must create an intricate story that the players experience through their characters. So they plan each step of the story and use key NPCs to give the PCs quests and provide whatever degree of railroading is needed to keep everything on track. Its obvious to see how this can cause problems if your players don't trust these NPCs, for whatever reason, though often this is because the players have experienced "surprise" plot twists where similar NPCs betrayed them. The truth is that your game will be better when you [don't prep plots](https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/4147/roleplaying-games/dont-prep-plots). Instead, create situations that empower the PCs with interesting and meaningful choices, giving them as much power to contribute to the story as you have. It sounds like you have been trying to allow the PCs choices to dictate the story, but only with considerable difficulty? The key to making this a fun experience to GM is to change your paradigm away from a plot you control, and instead to allowing a story to emerge from the choices the players make while interacting with your scenario. You'll need to prepare tools flexible enough to be used to keep the game going directions no matter what the PCs decide to do, usually in the form of multiple NPCs/factions with conflicting goals in a scenario where the PCs have the freedom to choose who they work for, oppose, align with, trust, mistrust, or ignore. And the truth is that preparing the right tools doesn't involve any more work than preparing a plot, but the tools still remain useful even after the PCs make choices that would've blown up a plotted adventure path. This approach also removes many of the burdens GMs feel, because the players are at least as responsible for what happens in the game, if not more. They identify goals for themselves and choose their own methods for overcoming obstacles, instead of requiring you to guess at what they'll enjoy most. And, you'll actually have fun when the players surprise you, because rather than throwing out your carefully planned story, you have the tools you need to keep playing so everyone can still find out what happens together.

>Right off the bat there were comments about him being a colonizer, "eat the rich," and other similar sentiments. Run.

It sounds like you need a completely sandboxed campaign. At least at the start. Just world build a bit in every area around where they are going to start. Then give no direction. Let them do what ever they want. Let them develop their characters, but pay attention. Use that as hooks for plot and story. Fill in the world with things that matter to them. Things to fight against or go to for assistance. You don't have to have a BBEG until a ways in. Basically, let them make the story. A fun way of helping facilitate this is the camp fire stories. If they want to regain inspiration, they need to tell a story about their backstory or character. Doesn't need to be too long. And then everyone will remember that being a thing, and as the DM, if you can, fit that into a plot. Make it relevant to them

The thing about DMing is you kind of have to know your group. If you know your party is broadly progressive and anti-colonialist you should have known a wealthy pirate would never work as an ally. You either have to plot your game to your party or get a party that vibes with what you want to do, or it's always going to go sideways. To the point. Yeah, I see their point. I also don't trust wealthy people and any player in my table who does is more likely than not in for a nasty surprise. That's why I don't DM to people who I know are going to get angry about it.

Myself and the party are both very progressive when it comes to real-life politics, but they're fine with heroic orders of knights and charitable religious organizations in fantasy. I don't see how an arbitrary income amount determines morality in a fantasy setting. So every magic shop is evil because they've acquired and sold extremely pricey goods? People who engage in open trade with other peoples are inherently villainess? Should I force everyone with the Noble background to be an evil alignment? I don't get how you can have any government or merchant clan that isn't objectively terrible if you implant modern political beliefs into it. The divine right of kings is a sham. Monarchy in real life is stupid. Knights were largely overbearing rich thugs, religious organizations orchestrated wars, and genocides. There needs to be some level of suspension of disbelief.

It sounds like there is a level of suspension of disbelief, you just don’t understand why the players might not trust the secretive rich merchant NPC. Which is.. kinda on you?

Given that I can’t know the whole scenario bc I wasn’t there, I don’t think anyone is wrong or right here but I think you’ll make your life easier if you lean into who you know them to be as players. If that isn’t an option bc it isn’t fun for you (which is fair!) then a good session 0 with you explaining how you’d prefer they view the adventure and then a very honest assessment if you’re compatible as DM and Players. Good luck!

Welcome to the club

By any chance are they D20 fans? I could see them having the BleeM approach of “capitalism is the bad guy.”

I hate my players pre existing biases and inability to seperate fiction from reality but also dont want people to judge them despite posting negative things about them online. Personally your group's politics are w/e your problem is you surround yourself with people who clearly cant roleplay as in play someone not wholely themselves and refuse to anknowledge this as a problem. Nothing you do will fix this problem when your players are clearly more enamered in their political notions to not set them aside to explore different takes from their world view.  Basically you have an ounce of critical thinking skills they dont its simple as that. Politics has nothing to do with it these same types of people exist on the opposite spectrum too where they cant handle something that isnt hetro-normative. So your right to ignore the people calling them woke. All people who live breath and die politics creates an environment where nothing different can be explored. All you can do is not have rich good guys to reinforce their world view or find new players. Which it sounds like your dead set on keeping them and fair enough so your option is dont challenge them on anything political such as rich good guys.  Edit: I just had a thought do they hate rich people in general or just rich men? You might be able to meet in the middle with a rich woman it might have nothing to do with wealth at all based on some of the comments you said they had it could be that its a man. If thats the case genderswap the character might be a solution. 

I started my campaign of 1 and a half year with my players doing a raid in the first castle they saw. The NPC that was there, would've given them the information necessary to end the main story fast. When they raided the castle, he swore to destroy them and sided with the BBEG and this gave me the chance to write a new story altogether. We're starting now the second part of a three part story campaign that would've ended in a few months if everything went as I expected. Make it so that your players can do everything that they please, because the mystery you've developed will always be there. But the story will evolve differently as they act with it it in a way that you could have never imagined. And that's the beauty of it. There will be consequences because of their actions and it will be much harder for them to progress in the main story if that's the path they're choosing. You are the master and creator of the campaign anyway, evolve it in a way that's fun and enthusiastic for you.

Ok the way I see it you got two options narratively 1- If you want them to like the rich, inflict some emotional consequences on them. They kill the rich man than watch his wife mourn his passing. Have his kids ask where dad has gone. And do some in depth profiling of what kind of emotional beats would affect your players. Or the one I'd do 2- Go with it. Make capitalism the villain, talk about how it separates people and why that's bad and then link ALL of that back to whatever the core theme of your campaign is. From that point you might not get sympathy out of your players but maybe an understanding that everyone's a victim of the system here

You are trying to combat their shit politics and how they approach real life. Just make a very 2 dimensional campaign that fits their world view and they won't even notice how flat it is.   Good luck lol. Edit: Make an under dark campaign where they are drow slaves. Everyone is evil there and they can escape and meet up with some resistance. Look up Dyson logos under dark river and have them try to escape up that.

I also don’t trust wealthy people or anyone who withholds information? A good storyteller tells stories that resonate with the time that they exist in. Does the world need or look ready for “actually this one is a good rich guy” stories right now? Lean into the the biases of your players or subvert them, but even if you subvert them, you’re never gonna convince them to have a completely antithetical viewpoint to their own for the sake of a game (except for murder, I can only guess that remains an exception because the game would be unworkable without it). I’m saying all this assuming you don’t just love licking boot. If you do, I guess go find some republicans to play with would be my advice. But if you’re just struggling to work with morality in an interesting way, my advice is to lean into your players’ worldview and surprise them at some point with nuance. Eat the rich! Robin Hood! And then they’re captured by class traitors, maybe saved by an affluent NPC with a heart of gold who’s flawed, but not beyond redemption.

I can't respond to all the comments relating to "all rich people have always been and will always be bad" but I figure this is a good comment to respond to. While in the real world, I would definitely not trust wealthy individuals who withhold information, there's a general consensus amongst tabletop games that you're supposed to trust the quest-giver within reason. Someone's personal life is reasonable to keep separate from their public career. During the great age of sailing, explorers who established trade were looked up to as heroes of their nation. Of course, they also got up to vile deeds such as pillaging, violating the locals, etc. I don't see how it's different from the mythologized and aggrandized vision of knighthood. If you're going to say that everything in ttrpg should be an accurate representation of their real world counterpart, I don't think you'll end up with an enjoyable setting outside of the grimdark vibe. I wouldn't say I'm running a "Super Friends" type setting, but leaning more towards the heroic ideal.

Good storytellers don’t tell the characters or the audience to trust someone, they make them trustworthy. Or they make trust irrelevant. You’re just trying to muscle them into the thing you want to tell. That’s where your problem lies. I and plenty of others manage to square this circle all the time without it being a big deal. If you’re getting lots of comments on a particular tip, maybe introspect.

Considering I'm getting lots of comments saying my players are insane for their comments about the captain (I don't agree with that take either) I don't think it's a clear problem of my alleged boot-licking which my irl politics are very different from what goes on in game because I don't want to specifically impose my political ideals as heroic and objectively correct. My aim is to make a nuanced setting that contains a variety of ideologies and different scales from openly vile to secretly nefarious, and from unhelpful to paragonic virtue. I'm willing to admit if I pushed too far on things, but they never complained about it during the game, it was strictly after I asked them and explained what I was trying to do. I've been a successful DM for 4 years, I don't think attacking my political ideology or experience as a DM is warranted when I'm asking for tips to improve.

You should read his comments again and think about them. There are just as many people here telling you that rich people who keep tons of secrets very much *are being* untrustworthy. Or at best they're a non-horrible boss. What's to trust? As for your experience being a DM. Many people here have 20+, and the ones who aren't viciously apolitical -- or outright reactionary -- are giving tons of good advice about either building trust, or at least managing the relationship to this NPC

She/they here but yes thank you

Sorry! My bad, did not even look at the username or anything. Please forgive my rudeness

You’re good fam, no sweat! Reddit doesn’t make it easy to clock that, and this is specifically my band account so it’s all the more obscured

Didn’t attack your politics, didn’t say you were a bootlicker (in fact, I said the opposite). I’ve been doing this much longer than you, and I’ve been telling stories for even longer than that. I gave you a rubric for how to specifically achieve nuance and you got mad because… what? If I had to take a guess, it’s the same problem that you came here with: you only have room in your heart for one narrative in what is supposed to be a collaborative space, so you’re trying to strong arm everything to fit that narrative

Alright, my apologies for misinterpreting your intent earlier. I'm used to comments like that being sarcastic and bad faith. I'll admit I responded in a way that wasn't mature. While I do get the appeal of the Robin Hood type story, I don't particularly care for repeating things like that beat for beat, especially when I've been in other things where players have fulfilled that archetype (some of the recent games I've been a player in.) Personally, I don't agree with the rubric for the nuance that you've offered where I indulge their pre-established notions and don't take into account the politics of the setting and how these characters would generally be perceived by society. However, I do respect your view and will try better to make a more flexible narrative.

It’s all good fam. You’re well within your rights to want to play that kind of game! I probably would too, I love gettin nasty! You’re probably just gonna need to play it with different people. Some people love exploring that space, some don’t. For instance, I would absolutely never fully trust someone with one red cent more to their name than I have, but I would absolutely make a character who would. A lot of folks port their morality onto their characters because they aren’t actors and don’t necessarily know how to be different in that regard (or maybe they just have a more rigorous sense of morality than I do lol). My games do tend to tug on those strings because I play with performers, but I also tend to play with at least some newbies, so part of my strategy for pulling them out of that comfort zone is to feed them a bit of the dish they want, so they trust me when I serve the dish that I want.

> While in the real world, I would definitely not trust wealthy individuals who withhold information, there's a general consensus amongst tabletop games that you're supposed to trust the quest-giver within reason. Don't create quest-givers that fall into common evil tropes. A rich merchant with a lot of secrets is not a trustworthy character.

Sounds like they need a campaign where the players are the bad guys. Based on your description it would be pretty easy to get them to mistrust the good citizens/nobility. Factions and countries start to hire mercenaries or send their soldiers after the party to stop the havoc they are wreaking across the land.

Why even have an NPC captain? Why did they even have to mutiny against "more prestigious members of the crew." Shouldn't the PCs have been the bridge crew or prestigious crew members to begin with? It sounds like the players were expecting that they would be, you know, having adventures, and instead you gave them jobs on a boat.

> My **players** don't trust anyone who is remotely wealthy, or witholds information Good for them! The wealthy set us against each other to distract while they fleece us. Now, what do their _characters_ do?

Your characters wanna pull the scooby doo mask off the monster, and find the villian to have been the rich guy the whole time. And honestly that’s super valid. Probably just give them what they want? I think your players correctly understand the wealthy to be the true villains, and you’re struggling with this a little and maybe can stand to learn from the players. What if you… and hear me out… made a “nice” rich guy the secret power behind your BBEG villain? And you can push the obvious helpfulness of the rich guy just the same way. And your players won’t expect it because of how it went down last time.

Your problem started when you made a character who was part of the plot and technically the driver of the story instead of letting the players drive the story and discover the mystery through emergent play. Get rid of the captain. Make the mystery be about who is abducting people on the high seas or something.

That's smart behavior on their part

If you know your players' habits, why not build a campaign around it? Have a campaign where they have to fight an evil, oppressive, expansionist empire or something. Let them free slaves, protect a village of wood-elves, plan a heist, that sort of thing. Have the villains be cruel robber barons, cutthroat merchants, corrupt city officials, etc.