If my players had their way, their characters would all constantly eat, sleep and bathe in full plate armour.

How the fuck do you deal with that, or with any of the other countless things that make no fucking sense that players try to do to get a one-up on their situation, stuff that if the character actually had to live through it would be unbelievably fucking annoying?

Like: "I have my sword drawn ALL the time"; "I'm CONSTANTLY checking for traps"; "My character wouldn't actually have been drinking and eating at the Grand Feast that I was guest of honour to, so I shouldn't have to make a check for the poison", and my personal favourite: "My PC in this sci-fi game where we're not closely monitoring wealth earns 2000credits a month, right? and my costs of living are what, 1000 credits? Ok, that means that after a year I have 12000 credits to buy weapons and explosives with because my character would NEVER spend any extra money on anything, ever".

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditHow the fuck do you deal with that, or with any of the other countless things that make no fucking sense that players try to do to get a one-up on their situation, stuff that if the character actually had to live through it would be unbelievably fucking annoying?

Well, I usually don't facet that shit. When I do, however, I usually ask something like: 'Well, do you really want things to work that way from now on? Bear in mind, this is going to be the same for everyone. Do you want your foes to sleep in armor?'
 
It usually ends any bullshit. If that doesn't work, I simply say 'No'.

Well, I just let them do it but give realistic effects.

"Okay, sleeping in chain means that when you awake in the dew-sodden misty morning, it's rusting. So either you spend an hour cleaning it down with oil or after a few weeks it'll seize up, giving -1 to dexterity while worn. Also I probably wouldn't wear rusty armour to that talk with Baron Jay, he mightn't give you the job, if you don't even know how to care for your own gear, then you can't be much of a warrior. And you've lost three fatigue from a poor sleep, metal armour's not very cosy."

"No spending on other stuff? That's okay. Now you are known as Humourless Harry, and have a reputation as a miserable bugger. Apart from the party, you have no friends or associates. After the first twelve times you refused to go out with them, they stopped inviting you. Of course this will affect your social skill use if anyone's heard of you..."

I don't narrate it all like that, but I make it all come up in play. I forget nothing. It all comes back to them. All of it.

They soon learn.

Quote"I have my sword drawn ALL the time"

"The authorities want to have a few words with you."

Quote"I'm CONSTANTLY checking for traps"

Lay off the traps.

Quote"My character wouldn't actually have been drinking and eating at the Grand Feast that I was guest of honour to, so I shouldn't have to make a check for the poison"

"Not eating at a banquet? Better have some good explanation for that."

Also, lay off the poison.

Quote"My PC in this sci-fi game where we're not closely monitoring wealth earns 2000credits a month, right? and my costs of living are what, 1000 credits? Ok, that means that after a year I have 12000 credits to buy weapons and explosives with because my character would NEVER spend any extra money on anything, ever"

This is always a problem if you do not monitor wealth and are not using an abstract system. Personally, I like the abstract system fix, because no game I've ever seen accounts for everything the characters might need to spend money on.




In general, there are two ways to address these sorts of problems:

(a) The GM  takes on the job of being 'reality filter'. "Of course you ate at the fucking banquet." "No, you cannot walk around the city with your sword drawn." etc.

(b) The group commits to minimum standards. When you say your character is wearing armour to the bathroom, everybody at the table gives you the hairy eyeball.


There is also:

(c) Address the problem at the GM level. If you want to simulate 'realistic' behaviour, you as GM must portray the world in a way that does not reward the unrealistic behaviour. No bushwhacking of PCs whenever they remove their armour or put down their weapons.

Ideally, your players won't be such dicks all of the time, so you won't have to prod them constantly.
 
For a Cyberpunk2020 game I was going to run (still will if I can ever get a tabletop group together) I'm implementing an indirect cost of living mechanic tied to the characters 'Special Ability' skill. Basically, if your character doesnt spend money on maintaining their ability, that ability starts to drop through lack of use, failure to keep up with latest tech, maintain social contacts and informants etc etc. I'm implementing it partly as a foil to players who want to munch-out, partly as a realism measure and mostly because I want to see if it works

Quote from: RPGPunditIf my players had their way, their characters would all constantly eat, sleep and bathe in full plate armour.

How the fuck do you deal with that

I'd tell my players fine, sure, you can do that. After a few sleepless nights, once the sores started to actually break through the skin and the leather straps actually started to rot and chafe, I'd start imposting quite harsh penalties on the characters.

My players don't do that though.

Quoteor with any of the other countless things that make no fucking sense that players try to do to get a one-up on their situation, stuff that if the character actually had to live through it would be unbelievably fucking annoying?

Same way.

QuoteLike: "I have my sword drawn ALL the time";

I'd impose fatigue penalties, you'd get a tired arm. I'd be lenient on characters in a dungeon with, say, a dagger drawn or a short sword drawn, but the bigger the weapon the more I'd say that if you carry it all day you'll suffer in a fight.

My players don't do this though.

Quote"I'm CONSTANTLY checking for traps";

Searching for traps takes time. Like, a lot of time, to search properly. If you're willing to travel everywhere in 10' chunks and ten minute sections of time (or whatever, depending on the game) then thats fine. Don't expect the wider world to wait for you, you'll be beaten to your goal by someone less anally retentive.

My players don't do that either.

Quote"My character wouldn't actually have been drinking and eating at the Grand Feast that I was guest of honour to, so I shouldn't have to make a check for the poison"

Guest of honour in a feast laid by the characters mortal enemies? Fair enough. Otherwise get rid of those players and get new ones.

Quoteand my personal favourite: "My PC in this sci-fi game where we're not closely monitoring wealth earns 2000credits a month, right? and my costs of living are what, 1000 credits? Ok, that means that after a year I have 12000 credits to buy weapons and explosives with because my character would NEVER spend any extra money on anything, ever".

Depends rather on whether those living expenses included entertainment and suchlike. If not, the player needs a good telling.

Last time I played D&D with my group, they were all armored up and needed to rest ... so they promptly (and honestly!) looked up the rules for what that does to a body.  They discovered (roughly) that the rich cleric they'd been envying because he could afford to buy chain mail (while the rest of them had studded leather) was actually pretty screwed in the whole "sleeping in armor" thing.  He'd take noticeable penalties the next day if he tried it.

So he took off his uncomfortable armor, swearing to put it on first thing the next morning.  Everyone else dossed out in their comfy leather.  'course there was a night-time attack.  'course.

We came away from that with a new feeling about the different armors:  chain-mail is the armor that's really good protection when you have time to put it on, and studded leather is a good general-purpose armor that does yeoman's service in a wide variety of conditions, even when you're rousted out of bed to fight.

So, so far, my first response on sleeping in armor is "Read the rules, and apply them fully."

Next up:  Various armors tested in swamps and sucking mud!

Quote from: RPGPunditHow the fuck do you deal with that, or with any of the other countless things that make no fucking sense that players try to do to get a one-up on their situation, stuff that if the character actually had to live through it would be unbelievably fucking annoying?".

If you run a tightly focused game then players want to gain whatever advantage to help them get ahead in what the game focuses. Another point players involved in focused games tend to view of the rest of the world in terms of that focus.

1) The guest of honor poison bit results from the player viewing the external world as just another dungeon level.

2) The obsession with credits is because the character has been focused on BFGs (Big F**** Guns) and the like in his or her adventures.

My own solution has been to broaden the world the character move around in combined with the ability to make lasting changes to their own gain. For example in fantasy most of my campaign ends with the player becoming a duke, owning a castle, becoming the leader of a guild, or the head wizards, etc, etc. The same thing in my sci-fi games.  I give my players ways of advancing that is outside of the point/level system that the rpg is using.

This has several benefits. First and foremost more conflict generated because some NPCs are just not going to help or even actively oppose them. Conflict means adventure. Second is that because Players are dealing with other "people" on a social level they have to use more "civilized" skills to get the advancement they want.

"Gee, Bob I guess with your barbarian slaughtering half of the banquet hall you are just not going to get the mason's guild to build that castle for you."

Rob Conley

I do have some comments that don't really relate to the overall problem but to the individual "beefs" brought up.

I had 10 years of playing and boffer LARP that work very much like old style D&D games in terms of what we do during a events (dungeon crawls, etc). I seen a lot of people trying adapt to this situation (50+ players an event, 8 events a year) A world of high fantasy adventure, like D&D, generates a lot of paranoia. They check for traps, sleep in armor, keeps weapons ready because it ensures their survival.

Quote from: RPGPunditIf my players had their way, their characters would all constantly eat, sleep and bathe in full plate armour.

I don't know about the bathe part, but the rest is reasonable. Why? Because armor is FITTED. Not so much in the metal itself (although there are size ranges) but in how it is strapped together. The main problem of armor ISN'T comfort or mobility but weight. If you aren't strong enough you will get winded very easy. For big guys this is not an issue.

However the reality is that you will stink. Understand there are few types of armor that you where without sometype of undergarment (gambeson, etc) This will become sweat soaked. If you can do periodic changes of your undergarment you can wear armor for comfort for a long period time including sleeping in them.

Finally if you are in a secure location, your castle, an inn room that can be secured, etc.You will definitely get it off for the same reason you take off your clothes and shower after a long camping trip. While is not uncomfortable wearing armor it isn't as comformatable as being in your regular clothes.

Again because armor is FITTED is not as bad as people think. The negative view comes from people trying to wear stuff that has never been fitted to them. Note that most of the fitting comes from the straps not the shape of the armor itself.

Quote from: RPGPunditLike: "I have my sword drawn ALL the time";

Aside being a social faux paus in many situations swords are nicely avaliable sitting in their scabbard. In LARPS most players come into the tavern or other places where they socializing and just toss their weapons to handy place near them. Most keep in a place that is handy to them. Boffer swords don't have scabbards but if it was real sword it will be the sword with the belt and scabbard. Maces, polearms, and other non-sheathed weapons are just put in a handy place.

All this results because it isn't practical to sit down, eat or socialize with weapons strapped to you. The flip side of this that loose weapons had a habit of being stolen in LARPS. Most players who are part of a group place the weapons in the center of wherever they are sitting at so somebody can watch them.

Quote from: RPGPundit"I'm CONSTANTLY checking for traps";

1) Hidden traps make people paranoid they will check constantly if they have been hurt enough times by traps.
2) Hidden traps are a lot harder to make than D&D style games say. I know they are part of the genre but in reality, most hidden traps can be detected by taking common sense precautions. (poking ahead of you with a pole, etc) In places where they have cunning stonework traps you going to just have to resign yourself to players checking every 10'.
3) In the LARPS the obvious traps are some of the more difficult. Because they are setup to guard something. They are usually rigged in a way that they will destroy or cut off access to what they are guarding. This forces players to deal with disarming them.
4) Most hidden traps are on chests, boxes, etc. The default mode for most groups is to check them for traps. Then disarm them so that the contents are not destroyed.

RPGS have different types of players. LARPS has a type of players we call a trap fiend. This is a person who LOVES constructing and disarming traps. Also traps in boffer larps are one of the areas that are made as physical as possible (with safety in mind). A pit trap will be constructed with a two inch drop on the mechanism, etc.

The only way I found to defeat this attitude is to cut down on the number of traps in the game.


Enjoy
Rob Conley

I've run into this issue as well, this time at a larp event. I think the real issue was metagaming knowledge, but we were at a party and punch was served. Naturally, since it was a party I indulged, drinking plenty of punch and eating one of everything.

Well, someone drugged the punch. The call from the DM rang out, "which ones of you drank the punch?". And, of course, I'm just about the only person to raise their hand. 12 people around a punch bowl, and I'm the only one drinking it. It must have been a lame party.

Quote from: RPGPunditIf my players had their way, their characters would all constantly eat, sleep and bathe in full plate armour. [...] Like: "I have my sword drawn ALL the time";

Fatigue penalties that get increasingly worse.  Entirely justified on realism grounds.

Quote from: RPGPundit"I'm CONSTANTLY checking for traps";

Make doing so take a lot of time.  In fact, ask for rolls constantly so that the players can feel the time that they are wasting, rather than abstracting it and making the passage of lots of time painless for them.

Quote from: RPGPundit"My character wouldn't actually have been drinking and eating at the Grand Feast that I was guest of honour to, so I shouldn't have to make a check for the poison",

Do they have some reason to expect to be poisoned?

Quote from: RPGPunditand my personal favourite: "My PC in this sci-fi game where we're not closely monitoring wealth earns 2000credits a month, right? and my costs of living are what, 1000 credits? Ok, that means that after a year I have 12000 credits to buy weapons and explosives with because my character would NEVER spend any extra money on anything, ever".

That's why I hate wealth abstraction systems.  But the solution here is to make the cost of living variable (e.g., 900 + (1d6 X 100) credits) instead of fixed.

Quote from: John MorrowFatigue penalties that get increasingly worse.  Entirely justified on realism grounds.

How so?

Wow, I like this kind of threads : they remind me how lucky I am with my players. It's been a long time since I last had to deal with this kind of dickery.
I don't think it can be solved by in-game methods. Here, we have a kind of  agreement called the 'Présomption de non-connerie' (presumption of non-moronity) : should unexpected events happen, It will be considered that the characters have been taking reasonable precautions, are carrying appropriate gear etc. The specifics are discussed on a case by case basis, but disagreements are rare. Of course, it goes both ways : if it can be reasonably said that the characters have been taken with their pants down, then so be it.
Usually most groups understand that's in not in their best interests to have the GM switch in anal-retentive mode.

Quote from: WeeklyWow, I like this kind of threads : they remind me how lucky I am with my players. It's been a long time since I last had to deal with this kind of dickery.
I don't think it can be solved by in-game methods. Here, we have a kind of  agreement called the 'Présomption de non-connerie' (presumption of non-moronity) : should unexpected events happen, It will be considered that the characters have been taking reasonable precautions, are carrying appropriate gear etc. The specifics are discussed on a case by case basis, but disagreements are rare. Of course, it goes both ways : if it can be reasonably said that the characters have been taken with their pants down, then so be it.
Usually most groups understand that's in not in their best interests to have the GM switch in anal-retentive mode.

That's generally how I approach it. My personal Rule Zero to players and myself is "Don't be a dick!" which seems to cover things nicely.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceThat's generally how I approach it. My personal Rule Zero to players and myself is "Don't be a dick!" which seems to cover things nicely.

-clash

and if that fails, an incredulous look and "are you shitting me?" or "are you fucking serious?" tends to nip such inanity in the bud.  

since we've gotten older, such incidents have become quite rare, thankfully