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.

I don't believe in blocking any action which lies within the constraints of the system and the setting, as long as the players will also accept that all in-game activities will naturally result in in-game consequences which they won't be able to control. A murderous servant of infernal powers is a valid choice for a PC, in other words, but a character like that won't be lacking in powerful enemies who might at any time try to punish him for his crimes. Always taking the game contract and the rest of the group into account, of course.

QuoteI don't believe in blocking any action which lies within the constraints of the system and the setting, as long as the players will also accept that all in-game activities will naturally result in in-game consequences which they won't be able to control. A murderous servant of infernal powers is a valid choice for a PC, in other words, but a character like that won't be lacking in powerful enemies who might at any time try to punish him for his crimes. Always taking the game contract and the rest of the group into account, of course.

If your group and/or GM has approved you playing a murderous servant of infernal power, that's one thing.  That's not going to be called as "out of scope" -- you were pre-approved to act like that.  If you are playing "the good party cleric" and suddenly decide you're going on a rampage through the town... that's something else.

I think you, GrimGent, prefer games that place the minimal limits on what you can do in the game.  That's great.

I prefer settings that rely on people behaving in established, "normal" or "normal + heroic" ways, and systems which do not allow players to suddenly decide to be demonically possessed.  That's ok too.

Quote from: StuartI prefer settings that rely on people behaving in established, "normal" or "normal + heroic" ways, and systems which do not allow players to suddenly decide to be demonically possessed.  That's ok too.

"Suddenly decide to be demonically possessed?" Nope, not unless that character has in the past learned occult knowledge or made dark pacts which would render that possible. However, if a player wants his scholarly PC to study forbidden lore and come to understand how such a thing could be done, that's feasible. Again, all attempted actions must be within the abilities of the characters.

Awesome.  We agree.

Quote from: GrimGent"Suddenly decide to be demonically possessed?" Nope, not unless that character has in the past learned occult knowledge or made dark pacts which would render that possible. However, if a player wants his scholarly PC to study forbidden lore and come to understand how such a thing could be done, that's feasible. Again, all attempted actions must be within the abilities of the characters.

Actually that's something he's been harping on that essentially means "acting outside the bounds of the stated premise."

i.e. Lawful Good Clerics going on baby-eating sprees or characters committing gloriously disruptive suicide because the player is bored and wants to make a new character.

Quote from: RedFoxActually that's something he's been harping on that essentially means "acting outside the bounds of the stated premise."

i.e. Lawful Good Clerics going on baby-eating sprees or characters committing gloriously disruptive suicide because the player is bored and wants to make a new character.

Well, committing suicide is within the power of just about any character, except under rather unusual circumstances. If it's only a matter of getting a new PC, though, I'd expect the player to bring it up between sessions.

As for baby-eating, isn't alignment derived from actions rather than the other way around? In other words, that cleric isn't going to be LG for very long.

Let's not waste all that agreeing with a slide into debating the laws of physics or philosophy.  We're talking abotu whether allowing the player to have their characters act in arbitrary, extreme, and non-human ways will make the game better, or worse, for the other people at the table.

QuoteWell, committing suicide is within the power of just about any character

Wait a flippin minute!  You're from Scandinavia aren't you?  

Based on all the Scandinavian cinema I watched in film school, I would give any player or character from a similar background carte blanche in having the character attempt seemingly random suicide.  Seriously.

Quote from: StuartWait a flippin minute!  You're from Scandinavia aren't you?

Culturally if not geographically. Finland isn't part of Scandinavia proper: together they form Fennoscandia. Add Iceland, and you have the Nordic Countries.

Quote from: StuartLet's not waste all that agreeing with a slide into debating the laws of physics or philosophy.  We're talking abotu whether allowing the player to have their characters act in arbitrary, extreme, and non-human ways will make the game better, or worse, for the other people at the table.

Where and when do you draw the line, and how should you (as GM) intervene?

Are we talking about the merely physically probable?  "Internal" stuff such as a character's state of mind?  What?

Quote from: StuartWe're talking abotu whether allowing the player to have their characters act in arbitrary, extreme, and non-human ways will make the game better, or worse, for the other people at the table.

Arbitrary? People can be that, often enough. Extreme? Many games even expect that from the PCs. Non-human? Only if the characters are not, in fact, human.

As long as there's a common understanding on what the players want out of the game, these things are not a problem.

Quote from: StuartWe're talking abotu whether allowing the player to have their characters act in arbitrary, extreme, and non-human ways will make the game better, or worse, for the other people at the table.

I thought you were talking about whether allowing the player to act in an arbitrary or extreme way with respect to their character was good or bad.

Quote from: StuartWait a flippin minute!  You're from Scandinavia aren't you?  

Based on all the Scandinavian cinema I watched in film school, I would give any player or character from a similar background carte blanche in having the character attempt seemingly random suicide.  Seriously.

That's true for the Scandinavian movies I know, too. Well, if you replace "suicide" with "intercourse".

Quote from: StuartIf 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.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

If one person says "Let's not do that", and everyone else says "Actually, let's" and that one person overrules them, that isn't a consensus, that's one person vetoing everyone else. To have a consensus you need to take everyone's opinions into consideration instead of riding roughshod over them.

Of course, you could argue that if the players go along with you vetoing them then there is a consensus - they and you have agreed that the matter will slide for now and the game can continue. But a) it's not a consensus the player group is likely to be happy with, and you may find yourself without players next week, and b) if the players all disagree with your ruling, it's unlikely that they're going to drop the matter so quickly.

As I said to a similar question on one of the many Monarda threads, if the player is told that trying to leap the chasm will kill them and they still want to do it there's a lot more going on then meets the eye. They may be tired of the character, tired of the game, convinced that you won't kill the character, testing you, or any of a number of other reasons. What you should be saying instead of "ok, you die" or "no, you're not allowed" is "what's up man? why the suicide?"