Quote from: jhkim;1010455Yeah, players often enjoy feeling like they're Conan, or Corwin (from Amber), or Han Solo, or the X-Men. As long as they feel like they are cool in this way, then they don't mind being chased by storm troopers or sentinel robots or similar, and other problems.

If I am GM, and the players want to be rebels, then I'll suggest things where they can be cool rebels like the above. Even if it's in a more restrictive social setting, there are choices for giving latitude for rebels. For example, in my Vinland game, a player wanted to play a fighting woman in a largely sexist society. I worked out with her a background where she was from a noble family, and her parents were unfairly exiled so she was motivated to righteous vengeance. The Vinlander society respected righteous vengeance, and gave her latitude out of respect for her parents and because she had unfairly grown up in exile.

Unfortunately, in a number of groups, I've seen it turn into the GM trying to put the players in their place, and fighting against them, rather than trying to find a way for everyone to have a good time.

I'll work with the players up to a point, but in the end I'm not going to be happy running a game where the parameters are roughly, "We constantly tweak the nose of the authorities, get challenged for it but not too much, and eventually everything works out."  It absolutely destroys my sense of the campaign world.  Rather, I'm usually running something where, "Live on the edge when it is important; you might get away with it.  Live on the edge all the time; eventually it catches up to you."  But mainly, I just don't enjoy the narrative of rebellion as an attitude, instead of rebelling against something specific, for reasons.  I don't enjoy it in literature or films or games.

Not playing with people who are obnoxious or offensive isn't a DM thing; it's a human thing. The player has just as much right to put a stop to a game if the DM is the one putting forward a bunch of crap.

Quote from: Larsdangly;1010464Not playing with people who are obnoxious or offensive isn't a DM thing; it's a human thing. The player has just as much right to put a stop to a game if the DM is the one putting forward a bunch of crap.

I agree with this but there are two caveats.
1) This is a player/GM problem and not a character problem.
2) There is a type of player whose idea of fun is pissing off everyone else at the game table.

Quote from: jeff37923;10104912) There is a type of player whose idea of fun is pissing off everyone else at the game table.

Very true. It's even more annoying when that type of dick is the GM, but that's also far easier to recognize and deal with.

Quote from: jeff37923;1010491I agree with this but there are two caveats.
1) This is a player/GM problem and not a character problem.
2) There is a type of player whose idea of fun is pissing off everyone else at the game table.

As Michael Caine said, "some men just want to watch the world burn."

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1010280Also, 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.

I remember one player like that and our DM asked him flat out: "Do you want to play in this game or not? Well?"

Luckily, the player wasn't a total fucktard so he got with the program. Otherwise:

[video=youtube;u1zvKTGL4Hg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1zvKTGL4Hg[/youtube]

Quote from: Voros;1010330Davethelost was joking.

I think there's definitely room for a Robin-Hood or Fafhrd and Grey Mouser like 'rebel' or rogue but some players try to play a meta-dowhateverthefuckIfeellikeatthemoment character.

I've always let the player run his PC however they want. I just won't mollycoddle them when that PC gets killed off in humiliating fashion either by monsters, NPCs or their own comrades who have simply had enough of their stupidity and bullshit.

AS long as you are not ruining everyone else's fun to satisfy your own rebellion complex, I am fine with it. As long as one understands that there will be consequences. Oh, and it also ought to make sense within context. So if your character has been established as aware of social conventions, and knows what kind of breach it is to flip off the king in his audience or whatever, don't suddenly decide to do so just because you're feeling like burning down the game. I think there was a Knights of the Dinner Table like that where the players couldn't make their players bow to the orc king even though they were trying to negotiate with him, and I always thought that was a case of the author pointing out what dips that group was.

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...

No. I use Associations in all my games now. The players create the Association to be a part of, so they are only rebelling against themselves. Never have a problem with that.

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...

Hey, that's my PC!

As a GM, I don't have any problems with that player UNLESS they crap when their anti-social PC's actions come to their logical result.

But I also kinda expect adventurers are rule-breakers in general.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1010559AS long as you are not ruining everyone else's fun to satisfy your own rebellion complex, I am fine with it.

Yeah there is that. It's not like the companions of the PC whose player has him take a dump (figuratively or literally) in the middle of the throne room are walking away without repercussions either.

That's the difference between a character who is being a rebel and a player who is being a rebel.

Quote from: Elfdart;1010530I remember one player like that and our DM asked him flat out: "Do you want to play in this game or not? Well?"

Luckily, the player wasn't a total fucktard so he got with the program. Otherwise:

[video=youtube;u1zvKTGL4Hg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1zvKTGL4Hg[/youtube]

So what do you do when you have only one player?

Quote from: Bren;1010874Yeah there is that. It's not like the companions of the PC whose player has him take a dump (figuratively or literally) in the middle of the throne room are walking away without repercussions either.

There is that.  Too many players seem unable to be able to tell the difference between "the character chafes under authority" and "I take a shit on the carpet in front of the throne while everyone watches."

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1010879There is that.  Too many players seem unable to be able to tell the difference between "the character chafes under authority" and "I take a shit on the carpet in front of the throne while everyone watches."

Honestly I don't know if it is unable to tell or just don't care about the difference. I strongly suspect that whatever it is, is abetted by the prevalence and tone of two things: the way a lot of folks played D&D where "adventurers" are never to be trifled with by the puny and mundane figures of authority and the many, many action movies produced since the 1980s with characters who are always pissing on authority figures with at most minimal repercussions and to the apparent delight of a large segment of the audience.

I recently rewatched Casablanca in a theater. Rick certainly chafes under authority, but he does almost all of his chafing with at least a modicum of discretion and a keen awareness of the potential consequences.