My settings try to have coherent consequences. I then upfront state that the players are completely open to roleplay their characters as anti-social or delusional as they please. But they also tacitly agree to accepting my setting's coherent consequences in response.

Now I state to the rest of the table that as PC associates it is coherent to expect suspicion of guilt by association. I personally don't prevent PvP, but I do ask players to be considerate knowing that fact. If I do turn PvP off, I offer table democratic veto power. So they may choose to vote someone's PC out of the group, and thus the offending PC is "retired from play."

One of the big offenders is the metagame expectation that the world is populated with the system's equivalent of 0th lvl commoners. So just by metagame math skills you get the temptation of "messing with helpless ants." I have no interest in sabotaging my players, so that expectation is removed in all my tables. You won't be able to assume the power level of others; start a fight at your own risk.

I certainly agree with the setting creating consequences for these types of characters. Of course, it will also create consequences for people seen as comrades of these characters, meaning the rest of the party should have a strong motivation to keep the 'rebel' on a short leash.

Quote from: Opaopajr;1011329My settings try to have coherent consequences. I then upfront state that the players are completely open to roleplay their characters as anti-social or delusional as they please. But they also tacitly agree to accepting my setting's coherent consequences in response.

Now I state to the rest of the table that as PC associates it is coherent to expect suspicion of guilt by association. I personally don't prevent PvP, but I do ask players to be considerate knowing that fact. If I do turn PvP off, I offer table democratic veto power. So they may choose to vote someone's PC out of the group, and thus the offending PC is "retired from play."

One of the big offenders is the metagame expectation that the world is populated with the system's equivalent of 0th lvl commoners. So just by metagame math skills you get the temptation of "messing with helpless ants." I have no interest in sabotaging my players, so that expectation is removed in all my tables. You won't be able to assume the power level of others; start a fight at your own risk.

Do people actually ever vote anyone out? I find in practice that never actually gets used because people don't want to be the "bad guy" and kick someone out. So they just end up putting up with the problematic character while everyone is miserable.

And if there is PvP in this situation then often the person who started it throws a fit.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1012357Do people actually ever vote anyone out? I find in practice that never actually gets used because people don't want to be the "bad guy" and kick someone out. So they just end up putting up with the problematic character while everyone is miserable.

Yup. That is usually what happens, and why Consensus doesn't work as a system. The exception to this is when after multiple cases of putting up with an asshole who abuses the rest of the group, everyone spontaneously decides they've had enough and forms a mob.

But by that time you've soured the entire group.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1013186Yup. That is usually what happens, and why Consensus doesn't work as a system. The exception to this is when after multiple cases of putting up with an asshole who abuses the rest of the group, everyone spontaneously decides they've had enough and forms a mob.

But by that time you've soured the entire group.

And here, class, Pundy sums up in one brief message why acting like an adult and stating when something isn't fun for you is so important.

Quote from: jeff37923;1010877So what do you do when you have only one player?

Find more.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1012353I certainly agree with the setting creating consequences for these types of characters. Of course, it will also create consequences for people seen as comrades of these characters, meaning the rest of the party should have a strong motivation to keep the 'rebel' on a short leash.

Again, that only works if the "rebellious" player cares about anyone else. If the goal of their disruptive behaviour is simply to hog the spotlight (I've seen them before), no amount of consequences will make a difference. If the game turns into "how do we control rebellious player", they've won.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1012357Do people actually ever vote anyone out? I find in practice that never actually gets used because people don't want to be the "bad guy" and kick someone out. So they just end up putting up with the problematic character while everyone is miserable.

Yes, though it depends on the players and the other characters present and the situation. I've GM'd and played in groups where the players roleplay their characters' reactions to other PCs' behavior, and will respond to problems by dumping and/or killing problematic PCs. Often after discussion and roleplaying - the worst is when the problem PC is borderline and/or vacillates over the line and back again, so the PCs don't agree about what to do for a long time and it can still get annoying & time-wasting for a long time, but it's then satisfying when they do finally kill the dweeb, and it can build up more enthusiasm for dealing with problem PCs later.

As GM, I also like to have the NPCs react appropriately to the types of bad PC behavior that NPCs would notice and not stand for, which tends to encourage and accelerate other PCs to correct the problem PC before they lose their NPCs friends/allies, or their whole group starts getting hated for their association with the dork, etc.

QuoteAnd if there is PvP in this situation then often the person who started it throws a fit.

Well that sounds like a player with ... issues.

Quote from: Kiero;1014136Again, that only works if the "rebellious" player cares about anyone else. If the goal of their disruptive behaviour is simply to hog the spotlight (I've seen them before), no amount of consequences will make a difference. If the game turns into "how do we control rebellious player", they've won.

In my games, the players usually resolve this by having their characters kill his character. Or allow him to be killed by other people he pissed off.

After a few occasions of having to start back at level 1 while the rest of the party keeps advancing, the guilty party either smartens up fast and starts getting on board, or he quits the group.