Good point. I think a lot of this acting out is really just bad role-playing or meta-gaming.

Similar to the 'I kill the merchant' behaviour that would render the PC a sociopath within the game world but really it is just the player attempting to exploit the unreality of the game, similar to the trolling that is endemic in MMOs.

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."

That's pretty easy to solve: I am pretty sure floridly insane people who offended feudal monarchs didn't live long.

I think it's part of an unfortunate tendency for many roleplayers to push everything to the maximum degree. Many games have players escalate to deadly violence at the drop of a hat, so escalating to deadly stupidity in the face of authority might seem perfectly reasonable too. Of course, that could just lead to the authority escalating to deadly violence if that's the way of the world, but the players may actually want that...

To quote Bill Hoyt, "Don't play with psychopaths."

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1010901To quote Bill Hoyt, "Don't play with psychopaths."

If at all possible, don't work for them either. Sadly, many of them are pretty damn good at hiding their worst qualities for a few weeks or even months and by then, you're already in too deep.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1010901To quote Bill Hoyt, "Don't play with psychopaths."

Or 12 year olds. I ran a few adventures in D&D for my friends' kids and it was a prime example of Short Attention Span Theater. There is the adult rebellion that I believe the OP is talking about and then there is the spastic fuckery of adolescence which is a whole different level.

Someone tells off the king is asking for a trip to the dungeon. Period. i don't care what the alignment of the king is.

Players who play their characters stupidly deserve the fate they earn for those characters. And disrespecting a king in a medieval setting is pretty much a death offense.

Quote from: jeff37923;1010918Or 12 year olds. I ran a few adventures in D&D for my friends' kids and it was a prime example of Short Attention Span Theater. There is the adult rebellion that I believe the OP is talking about and then there is the spastic fuckery of adolescence which is a whole different level.

Gronan's Third Law of Gaming:

"Anything that happened when you, or the referee, were 14, does not constitute a need to change the rules."

12 year olds are feral little beasts.  One doesn't blame them for this, though, any more than one blames the scorpion for being venomous.

Quote from: Larsdangly;1010891That's pretty easy to solve: I am pretty sure floridly insane people who offended feudal monarchs didn't live long.

Except when they are, say, a similarly powerful feudal monarch.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1010904If at all possible, don't work for them either. Sadly, many of them are pretty damn good at hiding their worst qualities for a few weeks or even months and by then, you're already in too deep.

Some folks are able to conceal their behavior well enough to successfully manage up. Sometimes very successfully. Which is helped if the folks above them have some issues of their own.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1010927Gronan's Third Law of Gaming:

"Anything that happened when you, or the referee, were 14, does not constitute a need to change the rules."

12 year olds are feral little beasts.  One doesn't blame them for this, though, any more than one blames the scorpion for being venomous.

Preach it Brother Gronan.  My library group players range in age from 9 to 16. I deserve combat pay.

I unfortunately remember the games we played at 14, and we were honestly better players than they are. Their claims of playing in multiple campaigns outside of the library group not withstanding. We had some understanding of cooperation, tactics, and actual roleplaying. Even if the roleplaying was often more like Monty Python and the Holy Grail than Excalibur.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1010927Gronan's Third Law of Gaming:

"Anything that happened when you, or the referee, were 14, does not constitute a need to change the rules."

12 year olds are feral little beasts.  One doesn't blame them for this, though, any more than one blames the scorpion for being venomous.

As long as they stay off my lawn.

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.

Quote from: DavetheLost;1010224Only if they can't take the natural consequences of their actions.

Quote from: Skarg;1010247No 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.

Yeah, this:).

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.

Amd that's a particularly egregious form of the same;).

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1010329I think they expect D&D to be a power fantasy where they get to have fun doing stuff they can't in real life. And then they get jailed.

They still get to do them with less consequences. "Make a new character" is not at all the same as either a prison conviction, or a bullet to the skull.

Whether I want to run a game for people who have uexplored issues with authority is another matter entirely. (As a rule of thumb, I don't).

Quote from: HappyDaze;1010899I think it's part of an unfortunate tendency for many roleplayers to push everything to the maximum degree. Many games have players escalate to deadly violence at the drop of a hat, so escalating to deadly stupidity in the face of authority might seem perfectly reasonable too. Of course, that could just lead to the authority escalating to deadly violence if that's the way of the world, but the players may actually want that...

And at that point, odds are that the ensuing TPK works for me as well:D.

Quote from: jeff37923;1010918Or 12 year olds. I ran a few adventures in D&D for my friends' kids and it was a prime example of Short Attention Span Theater. There is the adult rebellion that I believe the OP is talking about and then there is the spastic fuckery of adolescence which is a whole different level.

Regarding kids -

I've made a point to run kid-friendly games at my local conventions regularly since my son was old enough to play. So I've played with a lot of 12 years olds, and rarely had a problem. They do tend to chafe at being treated like underlings or peons.  However, I think a lot of people dislike this, and children are just more sensitive to it. A lot of the time, I see the character of a young player being overlooked or dismissed by adult players, rather than being treated as an equal. That's lousy role-playing on the part of the adults.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1010462I'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.

Quote from: Voros;1010887Good point. I think a lot of this acting out is really just bad role-playing or meta-gaming.

Similar to the 'I kill the merchant' behaviour that would render the PC a sociopath within the game world but really it is just the player attempting to exploit the unreality of the game, similar to the trolling that is endemic in MMOs.

I'm reading between the lines here some, but I've seen conflicts over this before between players and GM, and I've gone back and forth as to which side is more reasonable.  Out-of-character, the problem usually is that people often don't like being lower status - even if it's just in-character. GMs often don't like acting like cowed social inferiors to the PCs, even to be an NPC - and the same for players to NPCs.

On the bad GM side, I've seen scenarios where (say) there are bandits who come in and terrorize a village. The villagers ask the PCs for help, but the PCs proceed to abuse and exploit the villagers. The GM then sees the PCs as running amok, and has the villagers band together and act against the PCs. The same villagers who were unable to stand up to the bandits are able to punish the PCs.

My solution is (1) make clear that this is a game, and show how its fun to play in-character lower status; (2) prefer a setup where the PCs are often social superiors in interactions. For example, games like Pendragon, Amber, and Star Trek tend to have high status PCs.

Quote from: jhkim;1011288Out-of-character, the problem usually is that people often don't like being lower status - even if it's just in-character. GMs often don't like acting like cowed social inferiors to the PCs, even to be an NPC - and the same for players to NPCs.

As a GM I find using some sort of morale roll helps obviate my getting too wedded to a specific response or too personal about how the NPC feels and reacts.

QuoteOn the bad GM side, I've seen scenarios where (say) there are bandits who come in and terrorize a village. The villagers ask the PCs for help, but the PCs proceed to abuse and exploit the villagers. The GM then sees the PCs as running amok, and has the villagers band together and act against the PCs. The same villagers who were unable to stand up to the bandits are able to punish the PCs.

In general that does sound pretty lame. Though it's possible that the PCs behaved so much worse than bandits as to cause a reaction. Not very likely, but possible.

QuoteMy solution is (1) make clear that this is a game, and show how its fun to play in-character lower status; (2) prefer a setup where the PCs are often social superiors in interactions. For example, games like Pendragon, Amber, and Star Trek tend to have high status PCs.

But in settings like Pendragon or Star Trek the PCs are also socially inferior to multiple people because those are settings where giving and receiving orders is expected. Unless the group ignores that fact, which to my mind would make those game settings significantly less interesting, the players are still going to need to be able to handle being socially inferior or lower in rank than someone and there will be an expectation that the PC will follow orders given by their ranking superior. I don't see that, as the GM, can solve the problem of players who are unwilling or unable to role play their character being lower in rank than some NPC(s). Either the player is willing and able to do that or they shouldn't sign up to play games, like Pendragon and Star Trek where giving and receiving orders is a necessary expectation of the setting.

Quote from: jhkim;1011288Regarding kids -

I've made a point to run kid-friendly games at my local conventions regularly since my son was old enough to play. So I've played with a lot of 12 years olds, and rarely had a problem. They do tend to chafe at being treated like underlings or peons.  However, I think a lot of people dislike this, and children are just more sensitive to it. A lot of the time, I see the character of a young player being overlooked or dismissed by adult players, rather than being treated as an equal. That's lousy role-playing on the part of the adults.

I agree with your observation, however, when the kids characters' are meeting with the King in his throne room attended by his Royal Court and Guards and one of the pint-size Players decides he isn't getting enough of the spotlight and so has his character strip naked and start dancing around - I call that adolescent fuckery.

When there are kids mixed in with adults playing, things seem to go a lot smoother. When it is solely kids, things could very easily go off the rails in a weird way.