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. :D
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.
Quote from: DavetheLost;1010237Of course in Star Wars the PCs are usually expected to be Rebels.
I'll get my hat...
I thought that's what Pundit was talking about rather than rebels without a cause kind of rebels. I find them less than interesting.
Quote from: Dumarest;1010291This reflects my experience.
I 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.
Davethelost 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.
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.
I wasn't talking about D&D, but sure, you could play it that way if you wanted to, just like any other game. Just turn law enforcement into Keystone Kops.
Why should it bug me? Players should have their characters do what they want. The DM has a different role from the players in most games, but I hate the idea that the tone and flow of the campaign are the DM's birth right and the players need to play along with whatever he or she expects. Everyone should do what they want, roll with the punches, and when something bad happens to you take the consequences without being a baby.
Quote from: Larsdangly;1010351Why should it bug me? Players should have their characters do what they want. The DM has a different role from the players in most games, but I hate the idea that the tone and flow of the campaign are the DM's birth right and the players need to play along with whatever he or she expects. Everyone should do what they want, roll with the punches, and when something bad happens to you take the consequences without being a baby.
That's fine to a point, but still, the GM gets to define his setting, and if there aren't samurai with kewl katanas that slice through any armor known to man, because hey that's kewl, he gets to say so.
Some people mistake "sandbox" for "players get what they want and go f* the GM."
Also, if the GM doesn't want to play out sex scenes, or rape, or torture, or anything else like that, he get's to say so.
But players get the ultimate veto. If they don't like what the GM is offering, they can go find or start a different game. And maybe Joe the GM will even play in it...
Frank
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...
Loner type? No. I just find them more suited to 1 on 1 games without a large party.
Total boors? No, but they have to deal with the consequences of their actions.
Guy who tells off authority figures? No, but the old saying, "The nail that stands the tallest gets hammered first." does indeed still apply. Authority figures tend to be a bit gruff when it comes to defiance of their authority.
Quote from: Larsdangly;1010351Why should it bug me? Players should have their characters do what they want. The DM has a different role from the players in most games, but I hate the idea that the tone and flow of the campaign are the DM's birth right and the players need to play along with whatever he or she expects. Everyone should do what they want, roll with the punches, and when something bad happens to you take the consequences without being a baby.
Do you prefer a collaborative style where the group creates the game/genre/setting together? Or do you mean an old school approach where the GM defines the setting but the PCs are free to do whatever they want within it? In the latter case the GM is still in charge of setting the parameters but those are "here is a sandbox, do what (adventurous stuff) you want" rather than "Here is your Quest".
Quote from: Larsdangly;1010351Why should it bug me? Players should have their characters do what they want. The DM has a different role from the players in most games, but I hate the idea that the tone and flow of the campaign are the DM's birth right and the players need to play along with whatever he or she expects. Everyone should do what they want, roll with the punches, and when something bad happens to you take the consequences without being a baby.
OK, how much work do you as a player, or your players if you are the GM, put into designing and running the campaign world? If The GM has a greater share of world building and design than
any individual player, or as usually, all the players combined, then guess what? You're damned sure the GM is expect to set the bulk of the tone and flow of the campaign. The GM is expected to do all the work setting up the world, designing and running adventures.
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.
Not necessarily; there are those who are happy for the attention-grabbing derail of the entire game that escalating consequences against further disruption brings.
Quote from: DavetheLost;1010406OK, how much work do you as a player, or your players if you are the GM, put into designing and running the campaign world? If The GM has a greater share of world building and design than any individual player, or as usually, all the players combined, then guess what? You're damned sure the GM is expect to set the bulk of the tone and flow of the campaign. The GM is expected to do all the work setting up the world, designing and running adventures.
I disagree. There is a natural asymmetry between the GM and players, but I think if that turns into GM power over the player's decisions and actions it makes a game not worth playing. In some respects it isn't even a game any more. Yes, the GM does more preparatory work. If that feels un fun or un fair, don't do it.
Quote from: ffilz;1010366That's fine to a point, but still, the GM gets to define his setting, and if there aren't samurai with kewl katanas that slice through any armor known to man, because hey that's kewl, he gets to say so.
Some people mistake "sandbox" for "players get what they want and go f* the GM."
Also, if the GM doesn't want to play out sex scenes, or rape, or torture, or anything else like that, he get's to say so.
But players get the ultimate veto. If they don't like what the GM is offering, they can go find or start a different game. And maybe Joe the GM will even play in it...
Frank
The 'kewl powerzz' thing is a totally different issue. The GM is free to define what mechanics are in play (though I would say this should be done within reason and with consent of the players). If a player wants to buy a katana and act like it has magic powers, that's his or her right. It is the GM's right to enforce rules that make it perform just like any other sword. That isn't even a conflict; it's just a player having a character imagine something that isn't quite true.
Quote from: Larsdangly;1010421The 'kewl powerzz' thing is a totally different issue. The GM is free to define what mechanics are in play (though I would say this should be done within reason and with consent of the players). If a player wants to buy a katana and act like it has magic powers, that's his or her right. It is the GM's right to enforce rules that make it perform just like any other sword. That isn't even a conflict; it's just a player having a character imagine something that isn't quite true.
Sure, color and mechanics are separate, but the GM still gets to say "I'm running a game set in a fantasy version of medieval Europe" and request players name their characters reasonably, and not describe their equipment as samurai armor and katana.
QuoteI disagree. There is a natural asymmetry between the GM and players, but I think if that turns into GM power over the player's decisions and actions it makes a game not worth playing. In some respects it isn't even a game any more. Yes, the GM does more preparatory work. If that feels un fun or un fair, don't do it.
The GM still has a say in tone and direction of the campaign. He can say "No, I'm not going to run a game where the PCs rape an pillage through the towns I set up scenarios in."
The GM gets to present the game he wants to run. The players get to negotiate, and then decide if they want to play in it.
No one gets to force their play style on anyone. Everyone, GM and players alike, get to decide what they are signing up for and walk if what is presented is not what they want to play. Hopefully people generally able to put together a reasonable group of players and GM that can agree generally on what they want to play. THEN the players get to make decisions however they like within that framework, even push its boundaries, but they don't get to, after agreeing to parameters (from mechanical to color to tone), turn the apple cart over without expecting a response from the GM or other players. Nor can the GM turn the apple cart over on the players.
Frank
Definitely have had players who wanted to be able to tweaks the noses of the nobility and get away with it, even if it was inappropriate to the setting/context.
Also had a player who always wanted to play things on "hard mode" - making things harder for himself and the rest of the group with his antics: in our TOR game, he min-maxed the best warrior in the group...who was an ardent pacifist. In our B/X game, his character had an overwhelming sense of curiosity that led him to wander off and find danger at the most inopportune times, etc.
In both cases, the other players let them know that wasn't welcome. Work with your group or find another one.
Quote from: Larsdangly;1010419I disagree. There is a natural asymmetry between the GM and players, but I think if that turns into GM power over the player's decisions and actions it makes a game not worth playing. In some respects it isn't even a game any more. Yes, the GM does more preparatory work. If that feels un fun or un fair, don't do it.
Yeah, this is roughly my view. In general, I like to find something that is fun for both GM and players - and usually there is some choice where this is true. If the players feel cool and awesome, I think that's generally a good thing. As Ravenswing put it in another thread, about Conan -
Quote from: Ravenswing;1010299Oh aye. An amusing aspect that just came to mind is the number of times in such matters that Conan comes up: the sterling example of the ultimate free spirit, who takes no guff from no one ...
... and in how many Conan stories did the tale start with him being either in prison or on the run from the authorities after having mouthed off to the wrong person or ignored a law he thought was silly?
Yeah, 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.
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.
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.
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.