Quote from: Svenhelgrim on January 13, 2021, 08:48:59 AM
"I'm justplaying my character."

So am I.  And my character effing hates your character.

Exactly. My character would not partner with someone who was this much of an asshat, so...see ya.

Although...sometimes in real life we do have to work with people we despise.

I expect a low-level but continuous amount of friction between PCs.  I explicitly ask players to build their characters with that in mind.  It makes the game fun for me and for most of the players that enjoy my type of games, too.  However, we also expect the player to respect the limits, which aren't embedded into any kind of process or rule but rather a little effort paying attention to knowing approximately where the lines are drawn and usually staying away from the edge.  Not every player has to do this (and certainly not every character or all the time) but every player has to be ready to at least tolerate it out of the rest of the group.

Specifically, we enjoy the kinds of events where a paladin talks a holier than thou game and the thief likes to needle him about it with comments and unimportant actions.  It doesn't escalate beyond that because the players don't allow it to escalate beyond that.  If someone else wants to play peacemaker, great.  If another wants to play the naive type unaware of the simmering conflict, great.  Sure, that's terribly unrealistic.  We don't care.  If a player can't understand that distinction, then they are unlikely to be a good fit for our group (for several reasons). 

I've had kids play that were in the age 10-13 range that could get it.  A supposed adult ought to be able to.

The label is very non-specific. There are some clear-cut cases of problem players, but there is also a wide grey area.

Quote from: Joey2k on January 13, 2021, 01:25:03 PM
Exactly. My character would not partner with someone who was this much of an asshat, so...see ya.

Although...sometimes in real life we do have to work with people we despise.

Some posters are picturing a psycho asshole PC as the problem, but I've also frequently seen problems with the Paladin PC or equivalent -- where their lawful good stance clashes with how all the other players want to play things.

It's really a matter of preference. I've sometimes had games where the PCs were all nice people - clean-cut superheroes, paladins, etc. However, I've also had a lot of fun in some games where the PCs are darker - they're criminal opportunists, shadowrunners, violent wandering mercenaries, etc. Both historically and in fiction, characters considered "adventurers" are often violent assholes - and internal conflicts among them is common. It's a question of what the GM and players prefer.

Quote from: VisionStorm on January 13, 2021, 09:03:20 AM
I experienced this sort of thing a bunch of times back in the day. My reaction was to say that the guards were also in character when they ran the character down for being a murdering psychopath who was resisting arrest.

Sometimes that fits. But also, I've seen a lot of inconsistency from GMs in this.

Village: "Please protect us, heroes! We are defenseless against the orcs and need your help."

(PCs misbehave)

Village: "We'll send out our crack guards and track you down, outlaws!"

A central premise of a lot of RPG adventures is that there is *not* a strong lawful authority to handle problems - that's why the PCs are needed to spring into action, instead of just calling the police. I think this sort of conflict is often better handled by talking to the players out-of-game, rather than having intentionally un-fun in-game action to punish the players.

Quote from: sureshot on January 13, 2021, 08:22:56 AM

Given that the upcoming new 5E D&D book not only has the so called "Wheelchair of Representation" as well as wheelchair accessibly designed dungeon (no not kidding ) I can see this only getting worse.

Which book is this? Most of what I've heard conjecture-wise is that it will be a Dragonlance setting book. I find it difficult to see where that sort of nonsense will actually fit! Ugh.

Quote from: Dropbear on January 13, 2021, 05:55:53 PM
Which book is this? Most of what I've heard conjecture-wise is that it will be a Dragonlance setting book. I find it difficult to see where that sort of nonsense will actually fit! Ugh.

The Candlekeep Mysteries book, I think.

Quote from: jhkim on January 13, 2021, 02:12:14 PM
Sometimes that fits. But also, I've seen a lot of inconsistency from GMs in this.

Village: "Please protect us, heroes! We are defenseless against the orcs and need your help."

(PCs misbehave)

Village: "We'll send out our crack guards and track you down, outlaws!"

A central premise of a lot of RPG adventures is that there is *not* a strong lawful authority to handle problems - that's why the PCs are needed to spring into action, instead of just calling the police. I think this sort of conflict is often better handled by talking to the players out-of-game, rather than having intentionally un-fun in-game action to punish the players.

This can be fun if done right.  A PC burns down half the town.  Then the next adventure is about trying to get away from the new adventurers hired by the town.  Alternately, the PCs could be be the ones hunting down the previous hires.

Quote from: Mishihari on January 13, 2021, 07:22:07 PM

Quote from: jhkim on January 13, 2021, 02:12:14 PM
Sometimes that fits. But also, I've seen a lot of inconsistency from GMs in this.

Village: "Please protect us, heroes! We are defenseless against the orcs and need your help."

(PCs misbehave)

Village: "We'll send out our crack guards and track you down, outlaws!"

A central premise of a lot of RPG adventures is that there is *not* a strong lawful authority to handle problems - that's why the PCs are needed to spring into action, instead of just calling the police. I think this sort of conflict is often better handled by talking to the players out-of-game, rather than having intentionally un-fun in-game action to punish the players.

This can be fun if done right.  A PC burns down half the town.  Then the next adventure is about trying to get away from the new adventurers hired by the town.  Alternately, the PCs could be be the ones hunting down the previous hires.

This is why I really like a reputation mechanic of some kind.

Even if the PCs get away, word gets around...

Quote from: Jaeger on January 13, 2021, 07:28:27 PM
This is why I really like a reputation mechanic of some kind.

Even if the PCs get away, word gets around...

I call it Renown in my system, but its one of the standard rewards for adventuring. By default it only provides bonuses (to persuade and deceit if someone values that type of renown; to intimidation if they oppose that type of renown), but it does act as a good GM guide for how NPCs will behave.

When someone who has Renown 4 with local outlaws rolls into town, people are going to be nervous (and easily intimidated), but are probably also going to covertly send someone running to fetch the guy with Renown 3 in Code of Justice who passed through town a day or two before.

Quote from: Thornhammer on January 13, 2021, 07:16:33 PM

Quote from: Dropbear on January 13, 2021, 05:55:53 PM
Which book is this? Most of what I%u2019ve heard conjecture-wise is that it will be a Dragonlance setting book. I find it difficult to see where that sort of nonsense will actually fit! Ugh.

The Candlekeep Mysteries book, I think.

Sad but true:
https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2021/01/dd-candlekeep-features-wotcs-first-wheelchair-accessible-dungeon.html.

Must be great because Matt Mercer say's so........

Quote from: robh on January 14, 2021, 06:23:39 AM

Quote from: Thornhammer on January 13, 2021, 07:16:33 PM

Quote from: Dropbear on January 13, 2021, 05:55:53 PM
Which book is this? Most of what I%u2019ve heard conjecture-wise is that it will be a Dragonlance setting book. I find it difficult to see where that sort of nonsense will actually fit! Ugh.

The Candlekeep Mysteries book, I think.

Sad but true:
https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2021/01/dd-candlekeep-features-wotcs-first-wheelchair-accessible-dungeon.html.

Must be great because Matt Mercer say's so........

Greetings!

*SIGH* See, this is all such pandering nonsense. As a *person*, I like and accept disabled people just like anyone else--based on their merits and how they behave, and so on. Cool people are cool people, and are always welcome at my game table.

What does THAT have anything to do with "Wheelchair Accessible Fucking Dungeons" Why does the game world, and anything and anyone IN THE GAME WORLD so much as give a fuck about disabled people? Disabled people are extremely likely to either live a quiet, uneventful life mostly impoverished and dependent upon charity--either their family or the local temple--or otherwise, they get quickly killed and eaten the fuck up by monsters.

This idea that disabled people--in the fucking game--are somehow going to be these kind of "super hero" characters...geesus. No, they're not. They are crippled, and are fortunate to just get by. They aren't going to be out "fighting" a damned thing. Lots of disabled people face challenges in performing normal, mundane, ordinary activities. Getting out of bed, going to the kitchen, going to the bathroom, showering, just preparing a meal, going to the store, all can be hugely time-consuming, frustrating things, exasperating in their pain, and difficulty in merely participating in tasks involving minimal self upkeep. Give me a fucking break. Being disabled doesn't mean your life is over, obviously, but for the vast majority it is extremel extra difficult when compared to non disabled people--and they are fortunate to just maintain themselves. The idea of them "fighting" and "going on adventures into dungeons" is just mind bogglingly stupid.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Just you wait until "I used to be an adventurer like you, but took an arrow to the knee" is branded as ableist supremacy propaganda.

Quote from: theOutlander on January 14, 2021, 07:34:26 AM
Just you wait until "I used to be an adventurer like you, but took an arrow to the knee" is branded as ableist supremacy propaganda.

It's already begun. I lurked on the Paizo boards a couple of months back and one of the players pulled a shit fit because he expected most of the posters to agree with his point. He wanted to play a Wizard who could not use his hands due to missing one arm or both and wanted to use his feet to cast the spells. Moving them instead of his arms at NO penalty. As soon as someone said he would be at a disability "your all being Ableist!" came into play and I think he was rude and obnoxious about it that he was banned or given a warning. So beyond being a bunch of people that suffer Archnophobia we now have a bunch of mentally ill gamers with no disability wanting to play quadriplegics with no penalty. Why would anyone who actually suffers from a disability for example being in a wheelchair want to keep that same condition when magic can cure it in game. Hell the person who created the so called "wheelchair of representation" likely suffers from mental illness as she can walk and move fine except self-identifies as being wheelchair disabled. While continually going to medical providers to get certified as such and they keep kicking her out of their offices.

I need to wear glasses  the whole day except to sleep for everything else. Why the fuck would I want to play a blind or visually impaired character when I live it 24 fucking 7 365 days a year.

Quote from: robh on January 13, 2021, 08:06:09 AM

Quote from: Torque2100 on January 13, 2021, 07:31:14 AM
.......You play your character, your character doesn't play you.......

Absolutely, the issue is with the player. 
As already said Thieves and Paladins seem to attract a certain disruptive element. Both classes have scope for causing friction within a party and as a GM you need to be wary of whether a given player is capable of playing the role. This friction is a necessary element of the classes but there is a fine balance between disrupting and damaging party cohesion.

I don't think that it's so much that Thief/Paladin makes a character disruptive NEARLY as much as that players who want to be disruptive gravitate to classes such as Thief or Paladin.

It's like Chaotic Neutral. A normal player has no problem playing a Chaotic Neutral character. HOWEVER - a player choosing to play a Chaotic Neutral character is often a red flag, as they picked that so that they have an excuse to do whatever wackiness they want to.

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper on January 14, 2021, 08:59:45 AM
It's like Chaotic Neutral. A normal player has no problem playing a Chaotic Neutral character. HOWEVER - a player choosing to play a Chaotic Neutral character is often a red flag, as they picked that so that they have an excuse to do whatever wackiness they want to.

I tried playing a Chaotic Neutral warlock in 3e once because alignment requirements were either Chaotic or Evil and the rest of the party was decidedly neutral on the good/evil scale so I figured it would rock the boat too much to play a good PC.

Didn't matter... based on my actions over the first three sessions the DM ruled my alignment was Chaotic Good and the rest of the party would just have to deal with having a guy who tries to do the right thing all the time in the party. It mostly worked out, but it was very amusing having this dark broody figure wielding chaos magic as the party's morality pet.

Quote from: sureshot on January 14, 2021, 08:24:15 AM

Quote from: theOutlander on January 14, 2021, 07:34:26 AM
Just you wait until "I used to be an adventurer like you, but took an arrow to the knee" is branded as ableist supremacy propaganda.

It's already begun. I lurked on the Paizo boards a couple of months back and one of the players pulled a shit fit because he expected most of the posters to agree with his point. He wanted to play a Wizard who could not use his hands due to missing one arm or both and wanted to use his feet to cast the spells. Moving them instead of his arms at NO penalty. As soon as someone said he would be at a disability "your all being Ableist!" came into play and I think he was rude and obnoxious about it that he was banned or given a warning. So beyond being a bunch of people that suffer Archnophobia we now have a bunch of mentally ill gamers with no disability wanting to play quadriplegics with no penalty. Why would anyone who actually suffers from a disability for example being in a wheelchair want to keep that same condition when magic can cure it in game. Hell the person who created the so called "wheelchair of representation" likely suffers from mental illness as she can walk and move fine except self-identifies as being wheelchair disabled. While continually going to medical providers to get certified as such and they keep kicking her out of their offices.

I need to wear glasses  the whole day except to sleep for everything else. Why the fuck would I want to play a blind or visually impaired character when I live it 24 fucking 7 365 days a year.

Greetings!

Well said, Sureshot! These people that "Champion" such REEEing "inclusiveness" are mentally deranged morons. This whole ideology of victimhood and "representation" is corrosive to our hobby. It is interesting that you mention your vision limitations. I sympathize entirely. My own vision is most definitely not what it was when I was younger. I had a player in one of my groups that his character--a Fighter--lost his left eye in combat, having been chewed on by a dragon. His character lost depth perception, and suffered severe penalties to any ranged weapon use. However, he devoted himself even moreso to mastering his sword and hand to hand combat, and he adopted wearing a black eye patch, which while covering his mangled and lost eye, did not entirely cover the long, jagged scars of teeth marks down the left side of his face, which gave him a definite demeanor that was intimidating, and obviously also a bit rakish, dangerous, and heroic. I gave his character the benefit of a bonus to Charisma checks when seeking to be intimidating, and also when forming first impressions, especially with other warriors and soldiers, and also women. *Laughing* All in all, while a stroke of misfortune brought disfigurement and a disability to his character, he took it in stride and made the best of it. All in the spirit of good fun, and heroism. The whole victimhood mentality is just boggling.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK