Spawned off the "goggles they do nothing" thread, I thought this idea warranted discussion in its own thread.

Namely, the idea that the GM should step in and curtail stupid and disruptive actions by players, despite (or regardless) of IC reasoning.

The example given was a PC attempting to leap over a mile-wide chasm.  The GM informs the player that it's impossible.  The player wants to go ahead and try anyway.  The GM flat-out says, "No, that's stupid."

Honestly this is a new idea to me, which is why I wanted to open a thread for discussion.  I'd like to hear arguments for and against this sort of thing.

My playstyle has always been of the "you own your characters and you make your own decisions, the GM simply creates consequences" school of thought and hadn't honestly thought of trying a more intrusive style.

I think that players may balk at this sort of thing, because character control / ownership issues seem to be a sensitive area.  The PC is the only thing the players (usually, don't bring up weirdo games here, the discussion's about traditional RPG play) control is their character, so directly contravening that control could be iffy.

On the other hand, it seems like this would curtail a lot of game disrupting stupidity.  I can think of several times over the course of my gaming career where absolutely inane shit has thrown the game out of whack.  The most egregious example I can think of is when a GM's intricate Unknown Armies game was destroyed in a single session by a player who ripped off his own arm (he was a clockwork) on a casino floor in Las Vegas and started beating someone to death with it.  The resulting riots set the city ablaze before Sleepers or any other form of damage control could contain it, and wrecked all of his prepared plotting.

I generally let the players do what they want, but there are situations where a GM can be helpful in pointing out that they're ignoring part of the story or background because they're tired, the last session was some time ago or they're simply players...

But that's more a "do you really want to do that?" than a "you can't do that". Not that I don't say the latter quite a lot, but if the GM doesn't defend the snacks, who does?

Yeah, I'm not talking about warnings or advice.  For me, that's par for the course.  Mainly because the players don't have the advantages their characters do.

I'm talking about simply saying, "No, you don't do that."

I'd ask it her was just trying to get new character. If for some reason due to the characters background or current situation of the party, the character killing himself made sense, I would allow it. Like if him sacrificing to save the rest of the party.

If its just a totally stupid reason and it makes the game less fun for everyone, then I most of the time wouldn't. If it were a one time thing where the player didn't like the character, I would let them roll up another and work them into the story somehow.

in general, I let the players do what they want and just tell them what happens when they do it.

When I game, I'm there to have fun.  Stupid laws like "always say yes" or "always say no" are meaningless to me.

What is meaningful to me, is looking at, on a case by case basis in play, what I think will produce fun and keep the game going, and what I think is just stupid as hell, and shouldn't be allowed.

That's it.  That's how I decide whether to say "OK, go for it", or "OK, that's fucking stupid, knock it off."  

No is a perfectly acceptable answer, if it means keeping the game on course, and ensuring everyone is having fun.  The player who got curtailed will get over it, or he'll leave the game.  Everyone at the table though, will get pissed if the game basically bogs down because one player decided to be a jackass.

Quote from: RedFoxOn the other hand, it seems like this would curtail a lot of game disrupting stupidity.

One man's stupid is another man's heroics. I was playing a barbarian pre-gen the GM had provided.  Toward the end of a session I tripped and fell over the side of a bridge. The party's halfling managed to grab my hand before I fell and he was holding me up.  Thinking there was no way the little guy could hold up a big hulking brute many times his size and weight, and that I didn't want to take him down with me, I decided to let go and fall, killing myself but keeping him from falling after me.

GM: "No, that's stupid, no one would ever intentionally kill themselves."

He thought I wasn't happy with the pre-gen and was trying to kill him off, but even if that were the case, it was a totally appropriate response, and in line with the way I had played the barbarian up until then.

Bottom line, it's a Player Character, not a GM Character.  Anything that can be attempted in the game world should be fair game.  If someone continuously disrupts the game by doing stupid stuff, they should be booted from the game.

Quote from: TechnomancerBottom line, it's a Player Character, not a GM Character.  Anything that can be attempted in the game world should be fair game.  If someone continuously disrupts the game by doing stupid stuff, they should be booted from the game.

And that's it in a nutshell.

Quote from: TechnomancerOne man's stupid is another man's heroics. I was playing a barbarian pre-gen the GM had provided. Toward the end of a session I tripped and fell over the side of a bridge. The party's halfling managed to grab my hand before I fell and he was holding me up. Thinking there was no way the little guy could hold up a big hulking brute many times his size and weight, and that I didn't want to take him down with me, I decided to let go and fall, killing myself but keeping him from falling after me.

GM: "No, that's stupid, no one would ever intentionally kill themselves."

He thought I wasn't happy with the pre-gen and was trying to kill him off, but even if that were the case, it was a totally appropriate response, and in line with the way I had played the barbarian up until then.

I don't think anyone is suggesting the GM should stop your character's heroic sacrifice. There's a VERY big difference between what you describe and a situation in which a GM should say: "No, that's stupid, no one would ever intentionally kill themselves."  If it makes SENSE as part of the story developed through the game -- then it's not stupid.

So you had a GM that made a bad call.  The advice that GMs should keep their games under control by avoiding ridiculous player actions is still a good one.  

QuoteBottom line, it's a Player Character, not a GM Character. Anything that can be attempted in the game world should be fair game. If someone continuously disrupts the game by doing stupid stuff, they should be booted from the game.

This "kick them out of the game" stuff is basically the same thing as telling them "no, you can't do that".  The only difference is you don't do ANYTHING for a while, until you get fed up, and THEN you do it in the extreme -- by kicking them out of the group.  IMHO, that's not a good way to deal with problems, in games, or out of them.

Much easier to just say -- "No, your character is a human, so they can't fly, burrow through the earth, or randomly decide to leap off a cliff.  The survival instinct in humans is very strong."  I think it would also be a good idea for a useful, non-disempowered GM to additionally say -- "No, you guys are playing the heroes in this world.  You can be an anti-hero if you want, but you can't randomly attack people for no reason.  Then you'd be a villain, and I get to control the villains."

Please keep in mind -- this is very likely NOT talking about anything that would affect you or your group.

Quote from: GrimGentAnd that's it in a nutshell.

If you were designing or playing a game in which the most important aspect was ensuring maximum player empowerment to have their character's do *anything* they wanted, including random, nonsensical acts, murder, mayhem, suicide, or anything else the player's could imagine -- then this is not good advice at all.

This is only good advice for a certain type of game -- one in which you want the characters to behave in a generally "normal" fashion, or possibly "normal + heroic" fashion.

Quote from: StuartIf you were designing or playing a game in which the most important aspect was ensuring maximum player empowerment to have their character's do *anything* they wanted, including random, nonsensical acts, murder, mayhem, suicide, or anything else the player's could imagine -- then this is not good advice at all.

have you been reading uncle Ron's coolaid again?

Most people don't want to go buy a Forgie game that only one person wants to play in order to accomadate that one person.

Quote from: Mcrowhave you been reading uncle Ron's coolaid again?

Ah, the koolaid point.

http://headrush.typepad.com/creating_passionate_users/2005/08/physics_of_pass.html

Quote from: Levi KornelsenAh, the koolaid point.

http://headrush.typepad.com/creating_passionate_users/2005/08/physics_of_pass.html

:grumpy:
Damn, straight!

Quote from: StuartI don't think anyone is suggesting the GM should stop your character's heroic sacrifice. There's a VERY big difference between what you describe and a situation in which a GM should say: "No, that's stupid, no one would ever intentionally kill themselves."  If it makes SENSE as part of the story developed through the game -- then it's not stupid.

So you had a GM that made a bad call.  The advice that GMs should keep their games under control by avoiding ridiculous player actions is still a good one.

Only so long as the GM has a reasonable notion of what does and does not qualify as "ridiculous", and - as the heroic sacrifice example shows - sometimes people slip up.

This, like many other OOC disruption issues, is where I actually think group consensus works better. If all the players said "Oh, come on man, let the guy kill himself if he wants!" would you really say "No, screw you guys"?

Quote from: WarthurOnly so long as the GM has a reasonable notion of what does and does not qualify as "ridiculous", and - as the heroic sacrifice example shows - sometimes people slip up.

This, like many other OOC disruption issues, is where I actually think group consensus works better. If all the players said "Oh, come on man, let the guy kill himself if he wants!" would you really say "No, screw you guys"?

I have to say, I'm leaning toward embracing that sort of viewpoint (one where the GM simply outlaws certain actions from even being attempted).  Particularly because if anyone has objections they will be raised at such a strong-arm tactic.

At which point one can bring up the issue of whether or not the action will help or hurt the game in the long term for everybody.

Certain actions will certainly pass muster, whereas others will not.

QuoteOnly so long as the GM has a reasonable notion of what does and does not qualify as "ridiculous", and - as the heroic sacrifice example shows - sometimes people slip up.

This, like many other OOC disruption issues, is where I actually think group consensus works better. If all the players said "Oh, come on man, let the guy kill himself if he wants!" would you really say "No, screw you guys"?

Agreed.  Being reasonable and fair would be traits a good GM should possess.

If everyone else at the table said "Oh, come on man" to whatever scenario, either the GM should consider going along with it.  Or if it's something really distasteful to them (eg. Murder / Mayhem / Misogyny) they should still have the right to say "No, screw you guys" -- which is what consensus means.  If the GM doesn't agree with all the players, it's not consensus.