Do you have problems with players that insist on playing a PC that is centrally defined as one that breaks all the rules? The loner type, or the total boor, or the guy who tells off authority figures, etc...

Quote from: RPGPundit;1010206Do you have problems with players that insist on playing a PC that is centrally defined as one that breaks all the rules? The loner type, or the total boor, or the guy who tells off authority figures, etc...

Not really; it's only a problem if one player wants to be a rebel and the others don't. If the whole group are rebels that makes a fine campaign. One guy flipping off the king during the audience can be really annoying for the other players, esp if they feel they can't just boot the PC.

Conversely I wanted to run a pirates campaign but one player wasn't comfy playing a rulebreaker.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1010206Do you have problems with players that insist on playing a PC that is centrally defined as one that breaks all the rules? The loner type, or the total boor, or the guy who tells off authority figures, etc...

Not as long as the player doesn't mind his character being marginalized, ignored or subject to "Take this insolent varlet down to the Pit of Misery and teach him some manners!"

My longstanding POV, mind, is that these free-spirit types are almost invariably shocked, dismayed and ultimately angered if they're actually subjected to the consequences of being rulesbreakers.

Only if they can't take the natural consequences of their actions.

Of course in Star Wars the PCs are usually expected to be Rebels.  

I'll get my hat...

I have to admit that Victorian age games bring this up in me. I want to play the luddite, the working class hero, the revolutionist rather than the dandy dilettante, the big-game hunter or the gentleman of leisure.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1010206Do you have problems with players that insist on playing a PC that is centrally defined as one that breaks all the rules? The loner type, or the total boor, or the guy who tells off authority figures, etc...

Nope. But I play with a small group of 3-4 friends. When they do create a character that has authority issues or hates another PC species, it is not done as a disruption but as flavor. And the other players always compensate.

One will "sit on" the rebel while the diplomat talks to the bureaucrat or cop. Or the hated and hating characters use the conflict for funny word-fights or try and out do each other to prove the other wrong.

One player had a PC who was very selfish, but the other players learned they could bribe her to take part in adventures by providing armor or bling for her pet wolf. It was really fun and all done in-character and in the spirit of fun, not disruption, so we all enjoyed it.

Quote from: Dr. Ink'n'stain;1010238I have to admit that Victorian age games bring this up in me. I want to play the luddite, the working class hero, the revolutionist rather than the dandy dilettante, the big-game hunter or the gentleman of leisure.

Four of my current band of murderhobo players are currently playing the very Victorian Castle Falkenstein, at their request. They have been involved in two incedents causing the deaths of a fair number of people and are sweating bullets over the possibility of the authorities thinking they are to blame.  In one case they were, it was an adaptation of The Wicker Man... The other case was a banshee taking her revenge while they were present.

They certainly are not playing the high society, drawing room types.  They are much more working class, get their hands dirty. It is fun to watch them be awkwaed in Society. They are much more comfortable talking to the barman at the local pub.

It's also a bit of rebellion against the conceits of the game, which tends to assume more upper-crust respectable characters.

No I don't have problems with those types of PCs.

I don't have a rule that PCs can't be loners, though if the campaign situation involves a party or employer that wants members who aren't loners, that may be some sort of issue for them to work out.

I also don't have rules against obnoxious behavior, but the cultures and NPCs in my campaigns will have responses, and I don't offer any more PC immunity to those than I do to weapon attacks. Being a PC does not mean NPCs won't respond appropriately to an obnoxious tourist PC at the king's court, etc.

A total boor simply gets appropriate reactions from NPCs to his behavior, whatever that is.

A guy who tells off authority figures tends to get stronger and faster reactions than the boor, unless he has higher rank/status than they do.

What happens next is just played out.

I had some players kill a couple of gnomes they met in a dungeon. Upon returning to town they overheard a conversation in the blacksmith shop about how Snorri and Thorulf hadn't been seen in the last few days. One of the players pipes up 'Hey! Do you think that was those two gnomes we killed in the dungeon?"  They were not expecting what happened next, which was arrest, trial, and condemnation to the slave galleys.

 Like I said, natural consequences.  You can murde NPCs. I won't stop you. Do it in a dungeon and there probably won't even be an investigation, everybody knows dungeons are dangerous. Confess to the murder in public in the town, well then you're in trouble.

Want to play a loner go ahead. You may regret this when you find yourself alone and out matched, while the rest of the PCs are somewhere else.

Seldom have a problem with it.  We have a group that does a bit of that kind of thing for flavor, mainly, but rarely is it pushed too far.  When it is, the world responds.  It tends to be self-correcting in that environment.  I can't think of any cases in the last decade where someone caused trouble just to cause trouble.  We've had a few incidents where the players was looking to harmlessly stir things up, but pushed it too far.

Some referees and players WANT that kind of thing.  Others don't.  I don't.

I really hate the "if the referee says 'no X' I want to X" kind of players.

Also, it's fucking selfish.  If I say "You're all 14th century English" and somebody insists on playing a Japanese character, they are in effect making the game be all about them and their Japaneseness.  Well, fuck that shit.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1010280Some referees and players WANT that kind of thing.  Others don't.  I don't.

I really hate the "if the referee says 'no X' I want to X" kind of players.

Also, it's fucking selfish.  If I say "You're all 14th century English" and somebody insists on playing a Japanese character, they are in effect making the game be all about them and their Japaneseness.  Well, fuck that shit.

Yea, if you don't want to play the game I'm offering, you're not welcome at my table.

Read the bottom line of Gronan's signature...

Quote from: ffilz;1010282Yea, if you don't want to play the game I'm offering, you're not welcome at my table.

Read the bottom line of Gronan's signature...

I believe that the word "NO!", often pronounced /fuk u/ is under utilized in far too many GM's vocabularies.

If a player wants to play a Samurai in my 14th Century English campaign they will be told "No, that is not a possible character for this campaign."  If they persist, they can find a different game to join.

Players who try to create a game breaking character to disrupt my game with while "technically" staying within guidelines will find that I can always bring a bigger hammer.

Quote from: Ravenswing;1010219Not as long as the player doesn't mind his character being marginalized, ignored or subject to "Take this insolent varlet down to the Pit of Misery and teach him some manners!"

My longstanding POV, mind, is that these free-spirit types are almost invariably shocked, dismayed and ultimately angered if they're actually subjected to the consequences of being rulesbreakers.

This reflects my experience.