After reading the post on ironfistedness I started to think about things that I as a GM am fairly hard core about. I tend to be faily lax on as far as race/class combos go, but I am pretty tight fisted when in comes to evil in my games. Now, I'm not opposed to characters being evil, I've run games with characters who ranged from saints to the most vile of villians without a problem. I just don't like to portray evil as anything other than evil.
If a player wants to murder the bar tender, go for it, but the world will react in a logical way. The guards are going to treat the character as a murderer not to mention the family and friends who are going to have a personal beef with the character. If a character wants to use hard drugs in a game, fine, but don't be surprised when you character winds up addicted and suffers accordingly.
I am currently running a shadowrun game with a pretty hard bitten cast of characters. I really don't have a problem because even though they are doing some pretty horrible things, none of the players would be upset if the natural concequences of their actions catch up with them. Infact, most of them would be pretty upset with me if I tried to soft shoe around things.
I think my feeling on this issue stem first from an advesion to glorifying evil. As I said, I don't mind dealing with evil, I just want to deal with it in a serious manner. Secondly, some of the early game I ran tended to be nothing more than sociopathic binges or death and destuction. Sure, we were all pretty immature back then (14 or 15, can't remember) but that kind of play left a bit of a sour taste in my mouth.
Currently, I am running a Battletech game. On of the players (not a part of my regular group) is getting himself into trouble. Asside from the hard living (drugs and what not) he is starting to get himself wraped up with the local sydicate. So far, he hasn't had any serious problems. I admit that the game is taking place on Solaris 7, the drain for all kinds of scum in the battletech universe and that it's kind of in the spirit of the game to have a less than wholesome character. However, like in Cyberpunk, the game is just as much about bad things happening to you as you doing bad things to other people.
I haven't done anything to the character yet, but I am serriously considering it. I guess my question is, am I being to hard on him? Should I let him off easy or should I let him rot in the pit he has dug for himself? Am I taking this way to serriously and do I need to relax? Is Ironfistedness even a word?
honest opinions please
I'm suprised you let him go so far without consequences. I don't think you're being hard at all. I think the one constant in fantasy and real life is "do the crime, do the time".
I haven't done anything to the character yet, but I am serriously considering it. I guess my question is, am I being too hard on him? Should I let him off easy or should I let him rot in the pit he has dug for himself? Am I taking this way to serriously and do I need to relax? Is Ironfistedness even a word?
It depends on how you're running the game. Is the time between battles important, or is it just glossed over?
It sounds like he's working with you; eager to make trouble for his character. Give him what he's asking for... but remember that "reasonable consequences" often get in the way of the fun. (Don't lock him up, for example-- do you really want to cut the player out of sessions while his character is incarcerated?) Instead, have the PC get "offered" scummy jobs by the syndicate... and withhold the drug until he accomplishes it. (Or beat him when he refuses to take the job.) How he roleplays will tell you if he wanted it to be a quirk (harmless characterization) or a real part of the campaign.
Is Ironfistedness a word? I understood what you meant, so it is now! Webster, get over here!
I'm somewhat confused by your query, to tell the truth. You are firm on consequences for evil, which is good. You don't stand for immaturity trying to glorify it, but you are fine with someone doing it as part of an intentionally developed, mature roleplaying device. Also all good. This guy is doing evil things, you say. Well, then you certainly have license to crack down as much or little as you feel you want.
But there's something else here. You didn't really specify whether this player was being immature or not. I'm assuming he is, however, from what else you said. Then, what is your objective here? Do you want to teach him a lesson about the consequences of actions? In that case, you need to talk to him as well as carry out repurcussions. If you think he will handle it well, talk to him before his character's deeds catch up to him and tell him where he's headed. If you think he'd just be a flippant punk about it, go ahead and bring some hurt, then tell him why you did it.
Are you trying to cultivate him and bring him into your group? In that case, you may want to withold all in-game punishments at this point and just talk to him about what he's doing. Are you content to just leave him as a casual member of your table that is there sometimes and not others? In that case, do what you would to anyone else, and if he doesn't like it, he can come more often and learn the ways of the group, or find somewhere else. Unless, of course, he can't make it that often due to work or outside life. In this case, he might just be venting steam in your games. You should try to assess if this is the situation, and cut him some slack, if so.
Are you trying to run him off? Then go all out on him and do your worst.
Are you just wondering if you've been too hard all along? Well, I'd have to say from what I heard in your post, not only do you take a reasonable stance on controlling evil actions in your games, but your group of players likes they way you handle it, as well. So, no, you're not in error; to the contrary, you're spot on. So don't worry about treating this situation differently than any other. Just do what you normally do, and it should be fine.
|
Instead, have the PC get "offered" scummy jobs by the syndicate... and withhold the drug until he accomplishes it. (Or beat him when he refuses to take the job.) How he roleplays will tell you if he wanted it to be a quirk (harmless characterization) or a real part of the campaign.
I agree with delveg... It couldn't hurt to take him asside before a game and say 'I think you're doing a good job playing the character, but his lifestyle could have some repercussions. If you're cool with that, I am too; if not, you may start wanting to get the monkey off of Baked-Character-X's back before there are consequences." There could be some really interesting situations there... will the group need to scramble while he's cooked? Will the local syndicate start getting their hooks in him? Could be some good *very mature* stuff.
Remember kids, opiates and battlemechs don't mix!
I have run some pretty gritty, and not nice campaigns in the past, myself. The only thing that I would add if you are not concerned by your player's maturity level, and this is a serious character concept for him, is that the results derived from his actions should also reflect the values of the society in which he is operating.
There have been, and continue to be some pretty lawless places in real life. Having never run or played Battletech, I am not sure if this is such a place. If the authorities are either nonexistent or easily corrupted through bribes, there will likely be few government sactioned ramifications for what he does. Adding them might take it too far. For instance, if drugs are legal in that society, obviously, the cops, guard, militia or whatever shouldn't bother him. This might even extend to assaults or other actions, so long as the proper money changes hands with the right people. That is not to say that other people might not pay more to have it investigated, or take matters into their own hands. I guess all I am really saying is that look at the surrounding circumstances as well, and go from there.
|
|
One of the players (not a part of my regular group) is getting himself into trouble. Aside from the hard living (drugs and what not) he is starting to get himself wrapped up with the local syndicate. So far, he hasn't had any serious problems....
Another point to consider, is, what are his previous GMs/groups like?
If he's doing all the above because he's used to 'getting away with it', then he may not even register that there are any risks.
If so, having his character addicted or knee-capped may be a shock to him, and could lead to accusations of unfairness or favouritism. "You let Fred be a corporate assassin; why can't I be a racketeer?".
It's probably best to be up-front about what style your group is used to (assuming he isn't already aware). Encourage the other players to reminisce about the time their characters were sold out by the 'friendly' Mob boss, or were executed for their heinous crimes...if he still continues, then he can't say he's not had fair warning...
In my D&D game, I had a friend of a friend join for a one-off session; his prescence quickly egged on a regular player into silly, reckless behaviour, and they went off on a tangent to rob the rich district of town, for no good reason.
I wasn't happy that the game was getting side-tracked, but on the other hand, I didn't want to prevent players taking their own initiative, so I played it out, totally by the seat of my pants.
I winged the map, the room contents, and the inhabitants' actions, and allowed them to find some minor trinkets to make their trip worthwhile, hoping they would be satisfied.
They carried on.
I had the aged butler come wheezing by their hiding-place, had him take supper with a few maids in the pantry, to impress upon them that the house was still inhabited and active after dark.
They carried on.
The butler discovered them, so they knocked him out and tied him in a cupboard.
And carried on.
They tripped an alarm that set off a bright blue, spinning light on the roof, for the benefit of the militia, patrolling the streets. They had no idea, so carried on. Their lookout knew, but had no way to warn them, so he sloped off...
I had them challenged by one of the family, who raised a racket and came at them with a club. They beat him unconcious,
...and carried on.
The head of the household and a pair of his sons came out (all Expert 2), and a fight ensued, in which one PC was critted and dropped by a candlestick, and the other was beaten severely with a bedpan. This fight took a long time (lots of misses), in which they refused to retreat or give any ground.
The militia entered the house and ordered them to surrender, but it was to no avail. The concious thief leapt over the banisters and failed his Jump and Tumble checks, knocking himself to 0hp, the militia stood over him with weapons readied, and gave him a further chance to surrender.
He chose to jump to his feet and make a run for it.
2 AoO, plus 2 readied attacks, equalled one rogue at -20hp.
The thieves were taken to the temple of the Lawmakers, who interrogated the survivor (the guest player). Since he wasn't a native, wasn't a member of the local thieves' guild, and didn't really know the other PCs (who were unaware of this escapade), there was no further action.
The thief was taken to the roof of the temple next day, tried in front of the jeering crowd, found guilty, and ritually disembowelled, his entrails thrown to the hundreds of sacred ravens who roosted there. Even the dead character was tried (after being sewn back together), and an unseen servant used to jiggle his body about to give a semblance of life for the benefit of the onlookers, including the rest of the PCs, who had been wondering where the pair had got to.
There were no hard feelings, though I got the impression the guest-player was a bit shocked by the outcome. I think he expected to be jailed in a cell with a feeble lock, or saved with a daring rescue by the rest of the party, but they were the ones shouting loudest for him to be strung up...;-)
He didn't play in my game again, but I still see him, in other games up at the wargames club, including one where all the PCs were orcs & goblins, running amok...
The regular player told me he was OK with it, that I'd been fair, and it was an appropriate end. In fact, it has to go down as one of his more memorable deaths (his last having been squashed by a thrown horse).
I think I set a precedent that:
a) I don't fudge combat.
b) The people of the campaign world react appropriately to PC actions; you don't get special treatment because you're a 'PC'.
c) players take responsibility for their own actions; if you choose to avoid a way out, it's your own fault.
d) the laws of the city are harsh, and the public prefer it that way.
e) I established a baseline 'Lawful' outlook, that could be used as a guide by PCs for their own actions.
f) I introduced a recurring NPC and his organisation.
The regular player proved he was OK with the outcome by having his next PC befriend the executioner cleric (which I was glad of, since I hate out-of-character tit-for-tat vendettas). He was even, eventually, deputised by him, and took delight in reminding the others that he had a warrant, and they didn't...even long after they'd left his jurisdiction....