I think it is unfair of Steve and Ed to always play the same thing. When others ask to play "the rogue" Steve says go right ahead, but still plays "the rogue", not all games handle that all that well which makes for extra work on the person running the game.

And it's fair to say that you can dictate what I play? That's a load of crap.

Stephen took it a step further and made all sorts of p/a comments about how the person playing "his class/archetype" was playing it wrong. I kicked Stephen from our gaming group because of this. Now we have Steve who is slowly working towards Stephen.

Someone doing this is being an ass. As a GM, I would talk to them about "Look, you play your character your way, let them play theirs. There is no wrong or right way to stat something or play something". A player should not dictate what another player does.

Steve and Ed are predictable.

So? Who cares? It's called being human. We all bring baggage to the table in the form of personality. I have a friend who - despite setting out to develop a certain type of character - will eventually settle into snark and smartass because that's just who he is.

I have a hard time gaming with you if I, with near perfect accuracy, know what you will do in every situation. Steve was recently out of town and missed two sessions we still used his character, just as a NPC. Yeah the first session it was amusing, lots of "that totally is what he would do", that second session, it really hit home to the other players.

That's on you, not me.

Steve and Ed are cheating themselves out of the enjoyment of playing other concepts.

I tend to favor people who outtalk or outrun the bad guys than outfight them. I enjoy playing what I play. Why do you presume to know that I'd like someone who does nothing but sling a blaster? That sounds boring.

Steve and Ed are putting their own enjoyment above everyone else.

How so?

Yes, at episode zero, everyone should come together and develop a certain level of character synergy and make sure that the concepts fit with what the campaign ultimately will be. But to proclaim that someone cant play what they like because you might get offended? That's the height of arrogance, and as a GM I would show you the door so fast, your mountain dew wouldn't have time to warm up.

• I think it is unfair of Steve and Ed to always play the same thing. When others ask to play "the rogue" Steve says go right ahead, but still plays "the rogue", not all games handle that all that well which makes for extra work on the person running the game.

I don't think that concern is applicable to this game. You could have every character be a Smuggler:Scoundrel, and it would play just fine. One of the reasons I like it so much!

For the rest, I think you're conflating your personal opinion of people who always play the same type with their impact on the game. Most of my players stick with the same or similar types, but in our case it's simply because we don't get to play a lot, so we might as well play what we like.

(Personally I can hardly wait NOT to play a mage-type, but the last few fantasy campaigns I've been asked to because I'm the only one familiar enough with the rules. I'm sick of it! )

Moon of Dalo, on 09 Dec 2015 - 11:36 AM, said:

I'll list some of the reasons why.

• I think it is unfair of Steve and Ed to always play the same thing. When others ask to play "the rogue" Steve says go right ahead, but still plays "the rogue", not all games handle that all that well which makes for extra work on the person running the game.
• Stephen took it a step further and made all sorts of p/a comments about how the person playing "his class/archetype" was playing it wrong. I kicked Stephen from our gaming group because of this. Now we have Steve who is slowly working towards Stephen.
• Steve and Ed are predictable. I have a hard time gaming with you if I, with near perfect accuracy, know what you will do in every situation. Steve was recently out of town and missed two sessions we still used his character, just as a NPC. Yeah the first session it was amusing, lots of "that totally is what he would do", that second session, it really hit home to the other players.
• Steve and Ed are cheating themselves out of the enjoyment of playing other concepts.
• Steve and Ed are putting their own enjoyment above everyone else.

I will also respecfully disagree with what you write, especially the "are putting their own enjoyement above everyone else" statement.

I will also respecfully disagree with what you write, especially the "are putting their own enjoyement above everyone else" statement.

To be fair, that's the one point I agree with. No one player should have fun at the expense of the whole. Now, I don't agree that playing the same archetype game after game after game will kill the fun (or more accurately, if it kills the fun in the game, you're the one having issues, not the group), but someone consistently* doing something that diminished enjoyment for others is not right.

* Consistently as in week in, week out. There will be games that focus on one character, that are designed to exploits the background and push that character's buttons, but this is the nature of good GMing, building your games to your audience and not be a continual state of affairs.

I will also respecfully disagree with what you write, especially the "are putting their own enjoyement above everyone else" statement.

To be fair, that's the one point I agree with. No one player should have fun at the expense of the whole. Now, I don't agree that playing the same archetype game after game after game will kill the fun (or more accurately, if it kills the fun in the game, you're the one having issues, not the group), but someone consistently* doing something that diminished enjoyment for others is not right.

* Consistently as in week in, week out. There will be games that focus on one character, that are designed to exploits the background and push that character's buttons, but this is the nature of good GMing, building your games to your audience and not be a continual state of affairs.

In this particular case I think he disagrees with the scenario being a case of these two example players putting their fun over the fun of others as opposed to just generally disagreeing that players should't be putting their own fun ahead of that of the group. But otherwise, I am right there with you on the group fun being the key factor in any game.

I think it is unfair of Steve and Ed to always play the same thing. When others ask to play "the rogue" Steve says go right ahead, but still plays "the rogue", not all games handle that all that well which makes for extra work on the person running the game.

And it's fair to say that you can dictate what I play? That's a load of crap.

Steve and Ed are putting their own enjoyment above everyone else.

How so?

Yes, at episode zero, everyone should come together and develop a certain level of character synergy and make sure that the concepts fit with what the campaign ultimately will be. But to proclaim that someone cant play what they like because you might get offended? That's the height of arrogance, and as a GM I would show you the door so fast, your mountain dew wouldn't have time to warm up.

I don't think it is a load of crap. If you don't like the rules of my table, then don't play. I am not forcing you to.

How so? The group a couple years back when making characters said(since Steve is always late) "Well Steve will be playing the roguish type and Ed will be the Arrogant Noble so who wants to lay what else." That is when I put a stop to it. I found that to be the height of arrogance on their part and why in the hell as a GM was I allowing a player to dictate how the group plays.

1. If you don't like the rules of my table, then don't play. I am not forcing you to.

If there is ever a question about me GMing refer to rule #1

I think it is unfair of Steve and Ed to always play the same thing. When others ask to play "the rogue" Steve says go right ahead, but still plays "the rogue", not all games handle that all that well which makes for extra work on the person running the game.

And it's fair to say that you can dictate what I play? That's a load of crap.

Steve and Ed are putting their own enjoyment above everyone else.

How so?

Yes, at episode zero, everyone should come together and develop a certain level of character synergy and make sure that the concepts fit with what the campaign ultimately will be. But to proclaim that someone cant play what they like because you might get offended? That's the height of arrogance, and as a GM I would show you the door so fast, your mountain dew wouldn't have time to warm up.

I don't think it is a load of crap. If you don't like the rules of my table, then don't play. I am not forcing you to.

How so? The group a couple years back when making characters said(since Steve is always late) "Well Steve will be playing the roguish type and Ed will be the Arrogant Noble so who wants to lay what else." That is when I put a stop to it. I found that to be the height of arrogance on their part and why in the hell as a GM was I allowing a player to dictate how the group plays.

1. If you don't like the rules of my table, then don't play. I am not forcing you to.

If there is ever a question about me GMing refer to rule #1

Again, I am going to maybe chalk this up to a poor example but what you've stated doesn't in anyway demonstrate either person dictating how others play. Now, if their statement was more like: I wanted to play an arrogant noble this time around but Steve is coming and I know he is going to play that and GM won't let us have two arrogant nobles. That is a little different, though I would question why that would be such a big problem... but whatever. Your example states only that two particular people will play two particular types of characters and not that this in any way stops others from playing or doing what they want to do.

That being said, as I stated previously, if I were at the table and you dictated to me that I couldn't play a character type because I did so too often with no decent reasoning beyond that, I would most absolutely thank you for the invitation but I would spend my time elsewhere.. where I am able to play what I enjoy. Again, there are some valid reasons out there why it might be needed for me to consider playing something else for the group as a whole to have fun... like we're playing Wrath of Ashardalon and Jeff wants to try out the Rogue tonight. In EotE there's very little good reason that could be presented but perhaps there is. If your reason is that it irritates you that I always play the same character, well... I am sorry.. but worry about your character and your choices and don't make mine for me.

But, if you are GM it is your prerogative to define the rules of the table and it is the player's choice if they remain at that table or not. I'm not going to say you can't make these rules. Just that I feel they are unfair. You are free to feel otherwise.

1. If you don't like the rules of my table, then don't play. I am not forcing you to.

If there is ever a question about me GMing refer to rule #1

I always find funny to read that kind of sentence from a GM. You sound like it easy to find players. I guess some people are more Lucky than others for that.

I learn earlier in my GM career that if didn't want to be alone at my table or with only 1 player, I needed to make concession sometimes.

I let people play what they want, mostly because they won't be happy if they don't.

My personal view on GM-ing is to entertain people, and not to impose my will, or effort to create a personal opus, on others.

If making players do what you want them to is a GM's personal goal post for enjoying their time GM-ing, I would think that is a recipe for extreme disappointment personally.

I guess I'm just lucky to be imaginative enough that I can make a session/campaign fit what the PCs want to play for characters, as opposed to what I feel they should play.

I like using the polling tool on Google+ to actually throw selections at the group of things they would like to see included as a means to tailoring a session/campaign to their expectations.

1. If you don't like the rules of my table, then don't play. I am not forcing you to.

If there is ever a question about me GMing refer to rule #1

I always find funny to read that kind of sentence from a GM. You sound like it easy to find players. I guess some people are more Lucky than others for that.

I learn earlier in my GM career that if didn't want to be alone at my table or with only 1 player, I needed to make concession sometimes.

Never had the problem of lack of players.

I let people play what they want, mostly because they won't be happy if they don't.

My personal view on GM-ing is to entertain people, and not to impose my will, or effort to create a personal opus, on others.

If making players do what you want them to is a GM's personal goal post for enjoying their time GM-ing, I would think that is a recipe for extreme disappointment personally.

I guess I'm just lucky to be imaginative enough that I can make a session/campaign fit what the PCs want to play for characters, as opposed to what I feel they should play.

I like using the polling tool on Google+ to actually throw selections at the group of things they would like to see included as a means to tailoring a session/campaign to their expectations.

I as a Gm like to entertain people, but I also need to be entertained.

Perhaps that is the difference between us? I don't know.

I will say you seem to be conflating the issue a smidgen.

I'm not preening my feathers in satisfaction over my dominance of the players, refer to rule #1.

Again, I am going to maybe chalk this up to a poor example but what you've stated doesn't in anyway demonstrate either person dictating how others play. Now, if their statement was more like: I wanted to play an arrogant noble this time around but Steve is coming and I know he is going to play that and GM won't let us have two arrogant nobles. That is a little different, though I would question why that would be such a big problem... but whatever. Your example states only that two particular people will play two particular types of characters and not that this in any way stops others from playing or doing what they want to do.

That being said, as I stated previously, if I were at the table and you dictated to me that I couldn't play a character type because I did so too often with no decent reasoning beyond that, I would most absolutely thank you for the invitation but I would spend my time elsewhere.. where I am able to play what I enjoy. Again, there are some valid reasons out there why it might be needed for me to consider playing something else for the group as a whole to have fun... like we're playing Wrath of Ashardalon and Jeff wants to try out the Rogue tonight. In EotE there's very little good reason that could be presented but perhaps there is. If your reason is that it irritates you that I always play the same character, well... I am sorry.. but worry about your character and your choices and don't make mine for me.

But, if you are GM it is your prerogative to define the rules of the table and it is the player's choice if they remain at that table or not. I'm not going to say you can't make these rules. Just that I feel they are unfair. You are free to feel otherwise.

I game with people who don't like to step on each others toes(background-wise[noble,criminal,etc] and skill sets[class,archetypes]). They and I have no interest in playing a game with four Batmans and a Wonder Woman.

My question would be for you since you find these rules unfair, Is it unfair to the group if I run Operation Shadowpoint over and over again? I like it I find it enjoyable. Would you keep showing up session after session?

The group a couple years back when making characters said(since Steve is always late) "Well Steve will be playing the roguish type and Ed will be the Arrogant Noble so who wants to lay what else."

Yeah, I'm still not seeing a problem here. Big deal.

That is when I put a stop to it. I found that to be the height of arrogance on their part and why in the hell as a GM was I allowing a player to dictate how the group plays.

So you like to powertrip over what other people play? Because I cant think of any other reason you would micromanage to that level of detail.

If you don't like the rules of my table, then don't play. I am not forcing you to.

Thank god I'm not at your table.

Is it unfair to the group if I run Operation Shadowpoint over and over again?

. . . . that's not even close to the same thing.

I learn earlier in my GM career that if didn't want to be alone at my table or with only 1 player, I needed to make concession sometimes.

I find that "My way or the Highway" makes for a very poor GM policy.

Again, I am going to maybe chalk this up to a poor example but what you've stated doesn't in anyway demonstrate either person dictating how others play. Now, if their statement was more like: I wanted to play an arrogant noble this time around but Steve is coming and I know he is going to play that and GM won't let us have two arrogant nobles. That is a little different, though I would question why that would be such a big problem... but whatever. Your example states only that two particular people will play two particular types of characters and not that this in any way stops others from playing or doing what they want to do.

That being said, as I stated previously, if I were at the table and you dictated to me that I couldn't play a character type because I did so too often with no decent reasoning beyond that, I would most absolutely thank you for the invitation but I would spend my time elsewhere.. where I am able to play what I enjoy. Again, there are some valid reasons out there why it might be needed for me to consider playing something else for the group as a whole to have fun... like we're playing Wrath of Ashardalon and Jeff wants to try out the Rogue tonight. In EotE there's very little good reason that could be presented but perhaps there is. If your reason is that it irritates you that I always play the same character, well... I am sorry.. but worry about your character and your choices and don't make mine for me.

But, if you are GM it is your prerogative to define the rules of the table and it is the player's choice if they remain at that table or not. I'm not going to say you can't make these rules. Just that I feel they are unfair. You are free to feel otherwise.

I game with people who don't like to step on each others toes(background-wise[noble,criminal,etc] and skill sets[class,archetypes]). They and I have no interest in playing a game with four Batmans and a Wonder Woman.

My question would be for you since you find these rules unfair, Is it unfair to the group if I run Operation Shadowpoint over and over again? I like it I find it enjoyable. Would you keep showing up session after session?

Honestly, it's not worth dragging this on over and over. You have your opinion and you are welcome to it. I will still not agree that it's right to force someone to play something they don't enjoy but it's not my game, and I don't have to play in it so it doesn't matter. You and your group do what works for you.

#1: I tire of having to game with Steve*, you know the player who plays the same character, no matter the system or genre. That's not limited to always playing the "rogue", it's also Ed* roleplaying the same attitude(arrogant butthead). Really, really bugs the poo outta me. A hobby about using your imagination...and you play the same thing over and over again? Really?

IMO, this says to me that maybe you’d probably just be better off gaming without Steve* and Ed*.

Maybe going the “deeper immersion” route would be a way to get them to take themselves out of the game, but if not — then what?

Why not just tell them that there’s a certain gaming style you want to see in your players, and that doesn’t fit with what they’re providing.

Then it’s their choice to comprehend that they’re bringing down the game for everyone else and then to man up and get better at their game, or to step back and find a different game that may work better for them.

I don't know. I try to let my players play whatever they want. As a GM I find a balanced group boring. If the group wants to have certain roles and some players want to make their characters with each others input I don't stop it from happening, but I will not make any effort to balance what roles are in a group. If the group organically made a party of 5 pilots I would run a rogue squadron type game. I try to roll with the punches and allow my players the freedom to make a character they can feel vested in. I find the game is better suited to telling a dynamic story and that I can only succeed in doing so with the partnership of my players. I am after all helping them to tell their story. Make no mistake the players are the heroes in the story and it is as much their story to tell as yours.

Just my opinion.

Honestly, it's not worth dragging this on over and over. You have your opinion and you are welcome to it. I will still not agree that it's right to force someone to play something they don't enjoy but it's not my game, and I don't have to play in it so it doesn't matter. You and your group do what works for you.

How ironic.

The GM is forced to bring new, new, new every week, lest the players feel like the game is stale. But whoa, whoa, whoa the GM has no right whatsoever of demanding the player bring something new to a campaign.

Alternatively if you find your players are creating stale characters that you are getting tired of perhaps they should GM while you have a turn at playing. Also get some new blood into the group, invite new players in for a whirl and let your other two sit out for a while. If your really looking for a creative spin with unique characters and heavy on imagination try GM a game for a younger audience.

#1: I tire of having to game with Steve*, you know the player who plays the same character, no matter the system or genre. That's not limited to always playing the "rogue", it's also Ed* roleplaying the same attitude(arrogant butthead). Really, really bugs the poo outta me. A hobby about using your imagination...and you play the same thing over and over again? Really?

IMO, this says to me that maybe you’d probably just be better off gaming without Steve* and Ed*.

Maybe going the “deeper immersion” route would be a way to get them to take themselves out of the game, but if not — then what?

Why not just tell them that there’s a certain gaming style you want to see in your players, and that doesn’t fit with what they’re providing.

Then it’s their choice to comprehend that they’re bringing down the game for everyone else and then to man up and get better at their game, or to step back and find a different game that may work better for them.

I only game with Steve biweekly. I don't run games with Steve anymore. I only see Ed infrequently at PFS.

I don't know. I try to let my players play whatever they want. As a GM I find a balanced group boring. If the group wants to have certain roles and some players want to make their characters with each others input I don't stop it from happening, but I will not make any effort to balance what roles are in a group. If the group organically made a party of 5 pilots I would run a rogue squadron type game. I try to roll with the punches and allow my players the freedom to make a character they can feel vested in. I find the game is better suited to telling a dynamic story and that I can only succeed in doing so with the partnership of my players. I am after all helping them to tell their story. Make no mistake the players are the heroes in the story and it is as much their story to tell as yours.

Just my opinion.

If I have no desire to run "a rogue squadron type game" I will have no vested interest in it. That is me being honest with myself. I don't run campaigns I have no interest in.

I also don't pull punches, if a system/genre has something particular to it, it will be there regardless of the group makeup.

This is veering into yet another pointless pissing match.

I think the OP is fine with suggesting people try something new in character make up, but I wouldn't require it. The game has, or will have, a 100ish specs, there just isn't any reason to pigeon hole people's character concepts imo.

If no one has played a Force user yet in the EoE campaign, and the direction is the new campaign will be light side-centric, that by itself will nudge PCs in a direction enough. Any spec can be a Force user, so coupled with the Force, even the kinds of builds people have played before will end up playing different with its inclusion.

Sometimes you have to look at your group objectivley and see what the mood is and know what will and will not work. I have a couple of players that really want political game and are happy turning a session into improve acting (to various degrees of success). I personally like heavy RP and deep immersion. However I have another couple of players that want to beat things with the biggest possible stick available and could care less of about inhabiting the head space of their characters. Neither group of my players is right or wrong. We like different things no harm in that. There have been times where the story I was writing for the game turned into a political story. Factions alligning against each other courting the support of the pcs. I made the pitch for those games very clear in that they would be heavy RP, combat lite stories. A few players decided this was not for them. No hard feelings no arguments. Everyone at the table new they were welcome to come over for beers and watch football. For a game sessions they found something else to do while this story wrapped up and someone else came to the table with a different flavor of game. I think as a GM you have a right to shake things up occasionally. The key is to do it repectfully. If you want to run a deeply immersive Force and Destiny game do it. If Steve and Ed don't want to play it that is ok too. Like I said in my last post it looks like 2/3 of your gaming group wants to give this a shot. So do it. Don't do it to spite Steve and Ed don't do it to prove a point. Do it because most of your table wants to. If somone plays the same character type and you want to see the table mix it up throw the idea out there and let the players talk it over see how they feel about it. Don't "rule" the table with an iron fist. Tyranny incited rebellon afterall. All my players are intelligent adults with the ability to discuss things in a civil manner if I think there is a problem at the table I mention it and let them talk it out. Sometimes they settle things sometimes I find out there was not a problem at all.

I'd just let people play what they wanted to play. If a guy is quiet and doesn't RP a whole lot, he could run a character that is the silent type. Give him an RP reason, or better yet hwork with him to come up with one for why he doesn't talk. Maybe he's a wookie that can only cummunicate to the rest of the group through another character, or a former slave that had his tongue cut out by a Hutt, or maybe he's just the Boba Fett type that only speaks when he has something important to say.

I'd never try to dictate the kind of character someone wants to run anyway, that's their responsibility and contribution to the story as a player. The way skills are set up in this game makes that less of an issue than in other games anyway. Odds are that even if all your players decided to play as smugglers or whatever that they wouldn't stat them out identically and would have a fair spread of skills.

I've always believed that a GM's job is to be flexible and work with his/her players, not dictate to them. Having said that, it's never a bad idea to encourage players to explore outside of their comfort zone, I just wouldn't push it if they are resistant to the idea.

I like the concept you've laid out here for your campaign. I think being a little less rigid would probably help you all enjoy the game more though.

Personally I would not run a role playing that wasn't immersed role playing. If they want to play a game about rolling dice and just attacks or skills then grab a monopoly game and call it a day.

Only alternative is run two games. One for the role players and one for the dice rollers.

I understand your two players and where they are coming from (Not being too talkative IRL and not being into RP'ing things out all that much.) I have felt that way in the past. What I have come to find out is that I enjoy playing something I know well. So, yeah, asking people to play something 'new' is just painful and constricting. Now, I am not against such things, so here is my suggestion:

Around OUR table, one-liners and catch-phrases from movies abound (especially the SW Trilogy). I know those well. Give me one of THOSE characters, and I know their temperaments and have no problems playing them out. (And, actually, I rather enjoy it more that way.) Can one of these guys play a Han Solo-type (hotshot pilot in it for the money)? Probably! How about an over-confident, naive kid from Hickville with big dreams (Luke)? A take-charge bureaucrat who isn't afraid to roll up her sleeves and get her hands dirty (Leia)? A suave gambler who cuts deals and has a thing for the ladies, but no love for the Empire (Lando)? I'd bet they could!!!

The beauty of playing a copy of one of those characters is that you know them so well and just ask What Would ___ Do? What other characters do they know from movie they like? How about "The Godfather"? LOTS of great personalities in that one. Mob movies are great! Pick any movie character they like and adopt it as their own. (As there is little-to-no character development in Episodes I, II, & III, avoid those for character adoption.) The difficult part with Jedi characters is that the prequel movies did nothing to inspire us, and that's where jedi were plentiful (plentifully bland, that is). All they did in the movies is hack and zap stuff. Perhaps they have played KOTOR, or a similar game. They can get an idea from there. Best thing to do is go with their favorite movie/comic/TV character and make it 'Rambo...but with a lightsaber'.

To the OP. All I have to say is this: We do this hobby to have fun. If you are not having fun then why are you doing this? If these guys that you are gaming with are not playing the game the way you want to play the game, is it silly of you to ask them to play it the way you want?

I want to play basketball. I have the basketball and court. you want to play soccer, but don't have any of the equipment... guess what we are playing then...

I'm sorry, but in this hobby, there are many ways to play these games, and none are the right or wrong way. There are only the mass agreed ways that the table agrees on. Some people love the heavy acting theatrical style, others want more of an RP tactile combat style. You have to find that balance for your group. It sounds like you can't find that balance. As the GM, you ultimately need to be the one that is happy. I know I would rather not game at all than game with a group where I am not having fun. I'm not saying I am a dictator at my table, I try to find a happy balance, but when it comes down to it, if I'm not happy, how can I make the group happy? If the players take their characters into an unexpected path and start acting in a way that was unforeseen and that i don't really like, like for example, we agreed to play basically good guys, but then after a few sessions they all go super evil killing everything and murder **** happy, or something else I don't want to run or tell stories about, what should I do? just bow down to the group? Let them do what they want? No. It's still my game. No, I'm old and I'm stubborn and crotchety.

It's your game, you run it how you want to. If they want to try to broaden their horizons great, if not, great. Some people just want to sit there and roll dice. If that is all they want to do, then let them sit this one out. I hear there are some games out there that use dice with twenty sides on them.

To the OP. All I have to say is this: We do this hobby to have fun. If you are not having fun then why are you doing this? If these guys that you are gaming with are not playing the game the way you want to play the game, is it silly of you to ask them to play it the way you want?

I want to play basketball. I have the basketball and court. you want to play soccer, but don't have any of the equipment... guess what we are playing then...

I'm sorry, but in this hobby, there are many ways to play these games, and none are the right or wrong way. There are only the mass agreed ways that the table agrees on. Some people love the heavy acting theatrical style, others want more of an RP tactile combat style. You have to find that balance for your group. It sounds like you can't find that balance. As the GM, you ultimately need to be the one that is happy. I know I would rather not game at all than game with a group where I am not having fun. I'm not saying I am a dictator at my table, I try to find a happy balance, but when it comes down to it, if I'm not happy, how can I make the group happy? If the players take their characters into an unexpected path and start acting in a way that was unforeseen and that i don't really like, like for example, we agreed to play basically good guys, but then after a few sessions they all go super evil killing everything and murder **** happy, or something else I don't want to run or tell stories about, what should I do? just bow down to the group? Let them do what they want? No. It's still my game. No, I'm old and I'm stubborn and crotchety.

It's your game, you run it how you want to. If they want to try to broaden their horizons great, if not, great. Some people just want to sit there and roll dice. If that is all they want to do, then let them sit this one out. I hear there are some games out there that use dice with twenty sides on them.

Sorry to tell you that truth but in this hobby, a GM without players is nothing more than a fanfiction writer. You can act as a god like GM if you want but if the players dont like it, they just dont play anymore. It's not your game, it's the one of everyone at the table.

To the OP: if these "problematic players" are your friends, then be a good friend and let them play like how they want to play. At the end everyone would be happy except maybe you but a GM must do some concessions for the game sometimes.