|
A bit perplexed, but...
How widespread is the problem of players not expecting or even being put out and offended by realistic/sane reactions and consequences to bat@#$% insane behavior?
Whether it's "guy who threatens everybody to get his way", "guy who does puppet shows with decapitated heads", "Wears Ear Necklace In The City", "Mr. Take A Shot At The King", or "Kill 11 Guards and Expects To Get Off Easy In Court", some players seem to expect the NPC populace to roll over in accordance with their whims. And it's not just evil characters either.
I've never had to put up with it on either side of the screen, but these stories keep cropping up. It has me wondering just how prevalent these attitudes are.
Have you had to deal with it on either side of the screen? Did the player in question ever adapt?
|
I'm planning to toss in a Paladin adversary somewhat soon. My PC's, admittedly accidentally, burnt down most of a town in an inferno, and in my previous campaign, I devoted 2 to 3 months of games involving time-travel, hidden temples, and seafaring only to have the final villain turn out to be an illegitimate son of one of PC's who bedded every woman in sight. Just have fun with it, and incorporate something equally ridiculous.
I played in a game with a guy who played his character like that, the rest of the group got tried of his BS so we killed his character and turned his head in for the bounty.
When he started to act the same way with his next character we killed it.
After 3 characters he quit the group because we wern't letting him have any fun.
Players complain. It happens. I deal with it whenever I DM, and (I admit) do a far amount of it when I play. It is impossible for the players to now EXACTLY what the DM feels should be the approbriate response in a social situation, and vise versa. As for specifics.....
I once ran a game where the party were rengades. They weren't evil or anything, just in need of staying out of the spot light. They fail, hard. One of their party got into 3 street fights in a 5 minute span. The rogue was caught stealing from a nobleman. They whole party got into a bar fight. This caused them to not only complain when I made the town guard come by the next day and escort them out of town after making them pay for damages, but also when the higher up authorities finally took notice of all that they'd been doing and come down on them. Most of the party got killed, because they fought against the arrest, and they blamed me. It was a difficult situation, to be sure, but one that they brought upon themselves. The only way I shut them up was to explain about 6 ways they could have gotten themselves out of it.
|
|
I recently had a PC shoot an NPC necromancer in the face (even though he was defending one of the other PCs at the time <the NPC believed the PCs were bandits, and the woman he was defending was one of the PCs, hilarious misunderstanding>) In any case, the Necromancer managed to survive, and thanks to some fast talking from the PC rogue didn't kill the Inquisitor that shot him.
Later on he was surprised when the NPC said: "Tell the Inquisitor not expect such civility from me in the future."
He said: "What did I do?"
Me...: "You shot him... IN THE FACE!"
He said: "So what? He survived."
Me...: "*sigh*..."
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
It depends on how genre-savvy your PCs are. There's quite a lot of mayhem in fantasy and heroic fiction. If you weren't expected to fight the city watchmen, they wouldn't have stats.
Having said that, it sounds like the OP isn't just dealing with the usual amount of genre violence. Puppet shows with severed heads? Actually, that kind of desecration of the dead *is* evil. So is wantonly killing guards. If somebody does that sort of stuff, frogmarch their alignment down to evil, where it belongs.
|
|
A lot of this a problem of player metagaming. The players know that their characters are very likely more powerful than a run-of-the-mill town guardsman or local tavern bouncer.
The typical trigger is an NPC saying something to challenge the party, such as a guardsman saying, "you best be on your best behavior while in town," or a bouncer brandishing a club and reminding them that the tavern owner doesn't care for troublemakers.
In my experience, it begins with one player who seizes on that statement as justification to push the situation. Using the bar bouncer as the example:
- A rogue decides to start picking the pockets of everyone in the tavern, including the bouncer. Inevitably, the PC eventually rolls low enough to be spotted.
- An arcane caster (or psion) who decides to pull the "jedi mind trick" either for fun or to teach the bouncer a lesson; usually resulting in the NPC engaging in extremely inappropriate behavior
- A fighter/martial character decides to start a bar brawl, just to prove to the NPC that he will not be bullied.
- A cleric who decides the NPC has insulted his faith, and begins making loud threats toward the vile heathen.
I think it is a control issue. Players sometimes want to exercise more control over the story than just reacting to what the GM describes, so they push events in such a way that the GM is forced to react to them instead.
I ran an Eberron campaign once where the PCs were investigating the theft of an item stolen from the Dezina Museum of Antiquities. After some careful sleuthing, the PCs eventually discovered that the item was sold to a wealthy dwarf living in the Mithral Tower District. The dwarf was a member of the Aurum, and had some pretty powerful connections. In fact, he was the one who orchestrated the theft in the first place.
Now when I wrote the adventure, I expected that the PCs would arrive a the dwarf's house, scope out the place, realize that there were some weak spots in the mansion's security wards, and exploit one of them. Instead, The PCs waltzed up to the front door, swords drawn, killed two warforged guards outside the dwarf's house, triggered a trap that summoned two water mephits, unleashed the wrath of a stained glass golem, and stumbled across a crypt thing the dwarf brought back from X'endrik.
Of course, all this ruckus alerted the Sharn Watch, who descended on the dwarf's mansion en-mass. The PCs escaped from the tower, but the Sharn Watch were now on alert and chasing them through town.
At this point, I had to stop the game because, quite frankly, I was pretty upset. I was upset because even though I had tried to give the players as many clues as I could that launching a full frontal assault on this dwarf's house was probably a bad idea, and even though they already had some run-ins with the law and should have known that the Sharn Watch would respond to their assault, the players went ahead and did it anyway. In fact, their actions upset me so much that even though I planned to have some safeguards in place to prevent the PCs from dying should they be teleported out of the mansion by the crypt thing, I instead decided to let them fall. "Serves them right," I thought. (I later recanted.)
So what's my point? My point is that when someone does something bat $#@% crazy in your campaign, you need to stop the game. Stopping the game gives you time to cool down and to think about what you're going to do next. If that means you have to stop the game for the night, then you need to stop the game for the night. Nobody wants to play with someone who is upset, and the last thing you should do as a DM is react out of frustration.
Once you've had time to cool down and think about what you're going to do next, come back to the table. If you have a paladin who you think should lose her paladin-hood for committing an evil act, then you should find a way to make it clear that you're not trying to punish the player. Instead, you want to do everything you can to make sure the player has options. For example, you could have a cleric cast atonement on the paladin so that she can atone for her sins. You could have an angel in the service of the player's deity demand that the character go on some sort of quest to regain her status. If the paladin is in the middle of a situation that makes it difficult for her to atone immediately, perhaps her god will forgive her for the time being, but expect that she do something soon after to atone for her behavior, lest she lose her powers.
In my game, I'm glad that I stopped the game when I did because it gave me some time to think about what I was going to do next. The PCs were wanted criminals now, with the Sharn Watch hot on their tails. What was I going to do about that? I knew about Fort Bones, and I relayed to the PCs that it was a place where people could go to get a fresh start. Should I start writing up possible adventures for a Fort Bones campaign? I also knew that there were rules in Sharn: City of Towers for legal debates. Was I going to place the PCs on trial? For that matter, what were the PCs going to do? Where were they going to go? They were just as clueless as I about what to do next. Giving them time to think about that issue was really helpful.
I ultimately decided that I didn't want to waste the energy on creating a whole new campaign. I therefore decided that if the PCs tried to make a run for Fort Bones, they would encounter a zelekhut with several class levels in ranger, charged with bringing them to justice. If the PCs surrendered, or were defeated by the zelekhut, then they could hire a barrister and plead their case before the Breland Courts (and likely receive a hefty fine). If they defeated the zelekhut (unlikely), well then, I would just have to wing it for a while until I could get some stuff written for the Fort Bones camapign.
Fortunately, I didn't have to do that. The PCs decided that the best course of action was to turn themselves in. They hired the best barrister they could find (I wrote up three different stat blocks for barristers, each one with different ranks in Bluff, Diplomacy, and Profession (barrister)) and they pleaded their case.
Since the players were the ones on trial, I decided to have them roll for the barrister. They rolled a 20. Because they rolled so high, I decided I would only fine them for the damages done to the dwarf's house. Other than that, the judge found them innocent of all wrongdoing. The item they were seeking was returned to the museum, and Morgrave University gave the PCs a substantial reward for their services.
Mr. Fishy has had a character assult the mayor of a town because
"I don't like him."
Another character asked for a detect evil to be cast on a party member who suggested the use of zone of truth and accepted the spell. After the cleric attack her for disappearing and reappearing with evidence that the mayor wasn't a villian[the unliked mayor]. That ended badly.
Mr. Fishy' s trollop got into a fight with another player [detect evil guy] and both left. Mr. Fishy ruled that detect evil did not and would not detect the player or the two NPC's as evil. Mr. Fishy even had one confess to what was happening.
There are players who have no home training and have a tantrum at the table. Then you don't get to run because they don't want to play. Mr. Fishy has little tolerence for bullshit and whiners because of stuff like that. That wasn't the first time a game was broken because of that player.
Mr. Fishy is still bitter.
...Mr. Fishy has little tolerence for b*&@~~#* and whiners because of stuff like that. That wasn't the first time a game was broken because of that player.
Mr. Fishy is still bitter.
{offers Mr. Fishy a warm piece of apple pie and a glass of milk}
No one likes to have their characters whomped on without a fair chance at victory, even if they deserve it or caused it through their own behavior.
Considering some of the more aggravating players I've encountered, it might be fair to say ESPECIALLY if they deserve it.
I had a gnoll player with a penchant for peeing on beggars and using them for target practice. She introduced herself to two of the other PCs by trying to kill them. There was a certain... lack of trust in that gnoll.
So I let the town guard handle it. Big chunks of her treasure went towards paying fines and buying her way into an assassin's guild. However since she kept killing everything but her marks the PCs ended up run out of a few towns and eventually she'd just be followed around by a cadre of guards to keep her from peeing on beggars.
She was a new player and I'm very used to all sorts of weird $^%* pulled by players. But eventually your epilogue ends up consisting of "indentured servitude until your children finish paying for your crimes" while other people get fun things like "king of the arena" or "tries to take over the world".
A lot of it is if a prior GM let them get away with that stuff.
One way to head off this is to have Arena combat of some sort where they don't die or face terrible injury because of ready healing. Then you beat the living snot out of them. They learn that they CAN get killed for being stupid, and will usually take it to heart.
One very extreme solution: Kill the whole frigging party---then tell them it was all actually a vision the cleric had from the Gods warning them of their behavior. It's cheesy to the extreme, but depending on the group, most will appreciate the do-over. This is not to be attempted on any group whose PLAYERS are armed.
Yea, many instance of not exactly shinning behavior from players before. Less so recently I must admit...
When I DM, adventurers are not exactly well perceived by local populace. Even when they don't cause trouble, chances are that trouble will soon follow. That's when trouble isn't already there, at a level that commoners cannot yet perceive. So when adventurers enter town, locals get low profile and happily turn them toward the nearest (yet not TOO near) "mission" just to get rid of them. By their very nature, adventurers = trouble.
I think the problem is some players see themselves as roughly like they're acting out a video game rather than participating in a cooperative, interactive story. (They may not even be video gamers, it's just the best analogy I can come up with.)
To them, they think the goal is to just kill the bad guys, gain XP, and progress the plot at the assigned key points to "see the end of the game." And indeed, in a lot of video games--either you can't even talk to an NPC let alone harass one or get a reaction out of one, or you CAN kill one, but as long as you still complete the quest, the game continues. Some games do indeed have guards come out and attack if NPCs are killed, but some players are one-track-minded enough to think: oh goody, more XP.
Players like this think: nothing bad can happen to me, because the story has to go on.
Particularly if they're thrown in to a fairly sandboxy world where the GM adapts to the player actions and plays out consequences with a fairly strong adherence to verisimilitude, they can be thrown for a loop. Sometimes a poor reaction is ego--how dare you do this to ME? I'm the HERO, I'm the PC, YOU CAN'T DO THAT. Sometimes it's truly not understanding what the GM role is or what the particular GM is planning, "But, but, if we get thrown in jail, the story can't continue! We won't 'see the end of the game'!"
I would also warrant you that the reason why some players behave this way is because some GMs LET THEM. If a GM has got a very linear adventure planned, he may not bother with realistic consequences so that he himself doesn't have to bother adapting to player action and just gets to play out the adventure without worrying about contemplating consequences. I'd say certain player and GM tendencies go hand in hand here.
I don't know how often it happens, but I imagine it is related to how experienced the player is and what kinds of experiences the player has had in the past (see previous paragraph).
I've been playing with the same group now for awhile so it hasn't been a concern in a long time, but I do recall saying to some folks a long time ago something along the lines of:
"Look, just so we're clear: actions have consequences in my world. I'm good with adapting the story as I need to, so if you decide to attack some NPCs for fun, I WILL have you wanted by the guard and arrested; if you do something truly foolish, you will die if the dice fall that way, etc. And I'm happy to play things out from there, but just understand that's how it works. Anyone who doesn't like that doesn't have to join in."
And I've never really had problems since (and any encounters I have had with that kind of player have been fairly brief, fortunately).
If this is a repeated problem in someone else's group, while explaining the "actions have consequences" thing is important, if someone isn't just getting it and but they are a wanted player, then I would suggest being clear that: THE STORY WILL GO ON. You didn't "lose the game"; I am not punishing YOU, the player. I am happy to go in whatever direction the party goes--the story won't end." Etc. etc. etc.
Another thing that might help in some circumstances is giving out bonus XP or items (or hero points if using that variant) for good roleplaying and good problem solving frequently, and praise players who accept consequences and run with them. (Note, bonus XP should go to the party, so no one is feeling left out, but there are other ways to reward individuals.) If the problem player realizes that they don't have to have a belligerent PC to get XP and that what is acceptable at the table is just running with it and roleplaying well, they may stop trying to argue as much.
Now, if they're just shaking things up because they're a diva, then that's a whole other issue. They either need to be talked down or kicked out.
|
I'm very much in the camp of "reap what you sow."
To wit: the party tried to off the Mayor, in full view of a large number of noble guests, at the Mayor's house, during a party thrown in their honor. (Council of Thieves game.)
They failed, mostly because the Mayor and one of his guests were very tricksy rogue types.
They paid for that by losing a LARGE amount of influence with the people of Westcrown, and being hunted by bounty hunters for a while (Cleric died, Bard almost died).
And now, in Kingmaker, the party's druid has decided that Erastil just has to go, and is working very hard to achieve that end. She is currently being followed by a pack of wolves (~50-100 of them) all across the Greenbelt. The Champions of Erastil are also on her tail, not that the character is aware of that...
So, bad decisions which cause powerful enemies are a DM's treasure trove. They're basically handing you an antagonist, pre-designed with regards to personality, motivation, etc. Crunchy # bits are easy, after that.
The only thing I can think to say is that thank goodness none of my players are flaming idiotic nut jobs.
The only thing I can think to say is that thank goodness none of my players are flaming idiotic nut jobs.
....yet.....
The only thing I can think to say is that thank goodness none of my players are flaming idiotic nut jobs.
Mr. FIshy has extra...Mr. Fishy could sent a care package.
Have you had to deal with it on either side of the screen?
Never. Ever. And I can't imagine the type of person that would.
Wow... I continue to be thankful that I only game with friends, and not wackjob strangers.
The only thing I can think to say is that thank goodness none of my players are flaming idiotic nut jobs.
LOL! He said it better than I did.
The only thing I can think to say is that thank goodness none of my players are flaming idiotic nut jobs.LOL! He said it better than I did.
Heck, occasionally even good players go bad (temporarily). I think a certain amount of this comes from 'not really there' syndrome. Adventurers routinely deal with situations that the rest of us would simply run away from, and not even in terms of immediate physical danger.
I remember once when a group I was playing with found a room that was filled with chopped up body parts. There were five people in the party and the immediate response was:
1) Dive in and search for treasure
2) Search for treasure
3) Search for traps
4) Dive in and search for treasure
and
5) (my character) Turn around and wretch in horror.
Not saying I'm perfect, but I felt it the most rational response from my character.
I was even proud when I had a party member in a game I was running that REFUSED to touch sewage when the party was crawling through the sewers. Watching the player try to figure out how to be effective while staying relatively clean was a ton of fun.
It happens, but usually I let consequences fall where they should, even if things go off the track. Sometimes its fun to let the PCs rot in jail (off camera, of course) as the big baddie that they were supposed to stop ends up completing its evil scheme. And THEN letting them deal with the consequences. Heh.
|
In our game this week we were crawling through seeping sewage from a disaster 10 years ago. There was a general preservation spell laid on the area because the location had been a children's academy before a tragic earthquake. The parents wanted to preserve (a permanent area effect gentle repose like effect, it seems) the bodies and funerary displays forever.
I stopped and looked at the DM as a thought struck me. "This means the sh-t will never decay either, doesn't it? This site will NEVER be anything other than raw fresh sewage?!?" It added a whole new dimension to the adventure. As a blunt and rather singleminded half orc cleric of Gorum, I would douse myself with create water whenever we crawled out of the sewage for a moment. The fastidious Chelaxian clerics were casting purify food and water in a constant state of disgust. I had my character cast create water in sympathy on the only non-cleric in the party, our half orc rogue (anyone else notice how Society characters are about 45% Clerics for healing, 45% rogues for skill points for missions, and then 10% something else? Yes, our party consisted of three clerics and rogue this week...).
It's easy for me to get wrapped up in the mechanics and forget the game world simulation aspects. It's good when I get a reminder!
I remember when I and a few other players during a particularly frustrating session (going to spare the details) basically went nuts. We burned down an inn and killed a whole crap load of people before being captured.
In our defense the inn was the thieves guild headquarters and the people we killed we thieves.
In the GM's defense the local lord had taken control of the thieve's guild and was using it to squeeze extra money out of the town and any travelers passing through.
While we did go nuts and do some bad crap, we did NOT b#&*$ and moan when we were captured by the guards and thrown in prison. We knew we had it coming.
|
|
goodstuff
Yeah, guess the disconnect with the game world and not buying into the setting is the primary source of the "lol random" examples of that behavior.
While we did go nuts and do some bad crap, we did NOT b#@@~ and moan when we were captured by the guards and thrown in prison. We knew we had it coming.
That alone disqualifies you from being persecuted in this thread. ;)
Just to stir the pot, I had an interesting situation during one session involving not player asshat-ery, but rather DM asshat-ery. The situations are similar, however, because mine involved a DM thinking that NPC actions would have no in-game consequences.
The basic premise behind the DM's campaign was that PCs were the game-world equivalent of tactical nuclear weapons. Various city-states, duchies, et cetera, employed adventurer types as deterrant forces which were never to be used in first strikes. What's more, PCs were expected to act with the utmost of restraint because they were so dangerous.
Thus, the DM felt compelled to have nearly every single NPC harrass, malign, mock, and cheat every PC on a regular basis. After a few hours of putting up with the DM reveling in his own cleverness by how he could make the PCs' lives miserable with impunity, I decided my 10th-level half-orc fighter had had enough.
My character decked a verbally abusive city guard.
The DM and the regular players in the campaign literally stopped gaming and gaped at me as if I'd just urinated on the gaming table. The DM then described how the city guardsmen were rushing to aid their downed comrade with their weapons at the ready, demanding that my character surrender.
My half-orc pointed out that he could slaughter everyone of the guards. (Metagamey, it was also 1E, which meant he'd get 10 attacks per round against the 0-level guards.) My half-orc then stated he was leaving town and that he'd gut and eat anyone who tried to stop him.
That was the first and last time I ever played with that group.
Mark L. Chance | Spes Magna Games
Yes, I have dealt with that kind of player. I think the best course is to have a discussion about expectations. If they want to play Toon, then someone else needs to run it.
5) (my character) Turn around and wretch in horror.
...then dive in and search for treasure? ;)
Just to stir the pot, I had an interesting situation during one session involving not player asshat-ery, but rather DM asshat-ery. The situations are similar, however, because mine involved a DM thinking that NPC actions would have no in-game consequences.
The basic premise behind the DM's campaign was that PCs were the game-world equivalent of tactical nuclear weapons. Various city-states, duchies, et cetera, employed adventurer types as deterrant forces which were never to be used in first strikes. What's more, PCs were expected to act with the utmost of restraint because they were so dangerous.
Thus, the DM felt compelled to have nearly every single NPC harrass, malign, mock, and cheat every PC on a regular basis. After a few hours of putting up with the DM reveling in his own cleverness by how he could make the PCs' lives miserable with impunity, I decided my 10th-level half-orc fighter had had enough.
My character decked a verbally abusive city guard.
The DM and the regular players in the campaign literally stopped gaming and gaped at me as if I'd just urinated on the gaming table. The DM then described how the city guardsmen were rushing to aid their downed comrade with their weapons at the ready, demanding that my character surrender.
My half-orc pointed out that he could slaughter everyone of the guards. (Metagamey, it was also 1E, which meant he'd get 10 attacks per round against the 0-level guards.) My half-orc then stated he was leaving town and that he'd gut and eat anyone who tried to stop him.
That was the first and last time I ever played with that group.
Mark L. Chance | Spes Magna Games
Yeah, I talk trash to nukes all the time...that's like walking up to a SEAL and saying "You suck, Marines could kick your Azz"
...then dive in and search for treasure? ;)
5) (my character) Turn around and wretch in horror.
Actually, no. I refused. I also demanded that we properly dispose of the remains, at least by cremation after preventing vengeful undead with bless and consecration et al.
There was no real treasure, actually. Heh. And, in a NOTORIOUSLY low-powered and dangerous 2E game (a player had played for YEARS and finally reached the august height of 3rd level, and I believe there were maybe four magic items unevenly spread around a party of six or seven), my character, a bastard sword specialist, found a +1 bastard sword in the treasure of the BBEG. It was obviously (and the DM confirmed this) placed there for my properly and without greed, roleplaying the horror/disgust.
On an aside, when a game is that low-powered, little accomplishments like leveling up are earth shatteringly awesome.
Heck, occasionally even good players go bad (temporarily).
EVERY player will cross the line sooner or later, except that good players, once aware of their excess, will face the situation and its consequences (in character) rather than whine and/or explode in the face of everyone (in real life).
I had a player you lost her rangerhood, momentarily acting a bit too emotionally to remember she wasn't evil... But she assumed it and eventually repented.
The event became a turning point in the game and an opportunity to change patron deity.
It's all a matter of perspective and skill. One of my players is a clinical sociopath, WHO diagnostic criteria, and a perfectly average roleplayer. If I tell her no and why then she accepts that and doesn't press it. Turns out roleplaying is the only real treatment for sociopathy.
As a contrast, my roommate is a video game obsessed asshat who keeps insinuating himself into games, refuses to play unless it's combat, shanks everything he can get away with, only has one character archetype he's ever tried/played/put up with, and is making the game less fun for everyone. (Different person than the gnoll prev. described)
Guess which PC is treated like a sociopath?
Yeah, I talk trash to nukes all the time...that's like walking up to a SEAL and saying "You suck, Marines could kick your Azz"funny stuff
Mark L. Chance | Spes Magna Games
Actually that's like me walking up to a Marine and trying to kick them in the nads. Hell I lose arm wrestling matches to girls.
(specifically my girlfriend)
Is it sociopathic if your character died and when to the place that only people who piss off gods personally go and is then resurrected. The character was on a quest to recover a god artifact. Mr. Fishy saved the hell out of that world.
Mr. Fishy saved the hell out of that world.
humm, do you mean that you saved hell (from the world)?
or did you saved the world from hell?
or did you saved the "heck" out of that world, and left hell alone?
I'm confused :)
Ok, if you were evil in life you spend the after life in "Quakes Realm" hell. Mr. Fishy was sent to "Quake's Shadow" Quake the god of evil and destruction was afraid of Quakes Shadow. Mr. Fishy got sent to Quake's Shadow. Mr. Fishy was resurrected quickily but he was still there. So for the rest of the campaign Mr. Fishy wasn't taking any lip off any one.
At one point we were trying to buy a scroll from a Wizards college our wizard belonged to. The college staff refused and the wizard could not talk them into it because they hated him. So he threatened to break a staff of the magi. They called his bluff...so Mr. Fishy threaten to cut it in half, the explosion wouldn't be as bad but it would still kill Mr. Fishy, the wizard and the two NPC's that refused to sell to us. They called Mr. Fishy's bluff...Mr. Fishy wasn't bluffing.
Mr. Fishy's wizard started screaming "DO WHAT HE SAYS HE ISN'T BLUFFING!!!" and backing away from Mr. Fishy. We got the spells. Many horrible things later. [Took over a pirate ship/ turned over a simulacrum of the party to a nation that charged us with war crimes for a huge reward. Killed a Officer in an enemy army alone...twice.] Mr. Fishy helped save the world from the awakening of a demon god of the first age of the world. Mr. Fishy was the scourge of that game.
The moral of Mr. Fishy's tale is if you kill Mr. Fishy don't bring him back. Mr. Fishy will be mad. Awesome game by the way.
Mr. Fishy's DM still hates that character because every thing Mr. Fishy did was justifed. Mr. Fishy's character was terrified of going back to Quake's Shadow.
|
When I begin with a new group of Players or start a new urban campaign after lots of dungeon & wilderness, among the first bits of setting description I give is something to let the PCs know what's not allowed.
So, when the 1st level PCs walk into Waterdeep I have them see, among a few other things that set the proper tone, the public hanging of a couple sailors that got drunk and, in a fight at the seedy tavern, accidently killed a peasant. (The other brawlers, including a Noble, are in Waterdeep prison for a few days).
PCs see some folks getting hanged because they got drunk and in a bar fight killed a no-name begger -- they get the idea.
If, however, in the heat of a moment where the PCs don't know whom to trust, one of the Players says he's attacking the suspicious barkeeper, I'll usually feign surprise and say something like, "Oh man, your gonna kill the peasant?! Wow, um, okay... well, AC 10 and he's got 3 HP -- you're +17 To Hit, just don't roll a 1 and he's dead." And at the very least the other Players will talk him out of it if he doesn't change his mind.
What's more important for ME in that situation is to make sure I'm not turtling my Players. I have to look at how the game is unfolding and see if I need to throw the guys a bone and ease up a bit. It's not fun being a frustrated Player.
----------------------------------
Recently, I screwed this up.
I was doing a one-shot -- where you don't have the luxury of doing a campaign intro -- and I didn't give any tone or setting info on the Free City of Greyhawk. When the PCs were approached by the city guards investigating an accusation from the NPC bad guy, the PCs were gonna run away -- thus not gaining the info they would have got at the Guard HQ.
I had oopsed big time as it was critical info -- I had figured that once the police asked them to "come down to the station and get things settled" that they would -- they were innocent, of course -- the NPC who accused them was guilty; they knew that. I had not considered a contingency upon the PCs running from the law. And a hint on how being a fugitive might suck didn't help.
(I actually blundered further by making it really hard to run away -- almost like railroading them to the police but let them go after I saw they wanted to run)
So they ran away and I scrambled my brain trying to find a way to get them the critical info another way.
The moral, never listen to Mr. Fishy.
No wait, the real moral is Philadelphia has Pierre Robert's Boys In Blue and MMR Rocks.
No wait, what was the question?
If, however, in the heat of a moment where the PCs don't know whom to trust, one of the Players says he's attacking the suspicious barkeeper, I'll usually feign surprise and say something like, "Oh man, your gonna kill the peasant?! Wow, um, okay... well, AC 10 and he's got 3 HP -- you're +17 To Hit, just don't roll a 1 and he's dead." And at the very least the other Players will talk him out of it if he doesn't change his mind.
I would never do that.
I'm not saying that's wrong, just that it's interesting to see different ways of handling things. I don't break out of character except to set the scene or to move NPCs around. I tend to run games as though they're a novel; I'm the narrator and the wall between author and reader comes down as little as humanly possible.
So in the same situation, I'd make the PC deal with the consequences of his/her actions and/or an NPC would pop up and say, "Hey, call the guard! This guy's about to murder Joe!"
But then, I don't run campaigns with evil or chaotic neutral characters either.
|
|
I would never do that.
I get what you're saying and it looks like, with your style of Never Break Character -- a really cool style to have -- I'd agree.
Me, I'm not so talented at staying in character. Or rather, I'm not so talented at being in certain characters. Yeah, some tropes I can do well but some I just can't pull of. Hey, I never said I was perfect (No, don't go looking for examples -- just trust me ;)
I've found that I'm much better at describing how a certain NPC comes across: ." That kind of stuff. Or, ."
For me, this kind of approach is more successful. That's not to say I never get in character, though.
Regarding game consequences, I absolutely agree with you EXCEPT in the rare cases where the consequence could ruin the game -- that is, ruin the fun. If I think the group I have would enjoy struggling through half a session trying to get out of jail, absolutely, I'll throw the bastards in jail if the PCs do something illegal.
On the other hand, if I think struggling through HALF THE SESSION just to get out of this stupid city's jail and get the game going again is gonna SUCK, I'm gonna pause and see if the Players are thinking about the ramifications of their decisions.
One of my players is a clinical sociopath, WHO diagnostic criteria, and a perfectly average roleplayer.
I think the OP meant psychopaths.
One of my players is a clinical sociopath, WHO diagnostic criteria, and a perfectly average roleplayer.I think the OP meant psychopaths.
Ya, I know. But pointing out the difference between sociopathy and psychopathy is like getting people to admit the difference between schizophrenia and multiple personalities. They just look at you funny. Turns out there's a way to attempt to educate people while throwing your hands up in I'm-surrounded-by-the-uneducated "ugh" and that's to smile, nod, point out their failings, and not care.
Yes I've lost the ability to care that people don't know the difference between sociopathy and psychopathy. Three years as a psychology major talking to people who do nothing but give you the blank looks of the willfully, willingly, blissfully ignorant will do that. [/rant]
...sorry...
One of my players is a clinical sociopath, WHO diagnostic criteria, and a perfectly average roleplayer.I think the OP meant psychopaths.Ya, I know. But pointing out the difference between sociopathy and psychopathy is like getting people to admit the difference between schizophrenia and multiple personalities. They just look at you funny. Turns out there's a way to attempt to educate people while throwing your hands up in I'm-surrounded-by-the-uneducated "ugh" and that's to smile, nod, point out their failings, and not care.
Yes I've lost the ability to care that people don't know the difference between sociopathy and psychopathy. Three years as a psychology major talking to people who do nothing but give you the blank looks of the willfully, willingly, blissfully ignorant will do that. [/rant]
...sorry...
At the end of the day, unless you're dealing with someone who has the diagnosis, it really and truly does not matter. Much like how we've twisted the meaning of the words awesome and dumb.
|
|
At the end of the day, unless you're dealing with someone who has the diagnosis, it really and truly does not matter. Much like how we've twisted the meaning of the words awesome and dumb.One of my players is a clinical sociopath, WHO diagnostic criteria, and a perfectly average roleplayer.I think the OP meant psychopaths.Ya, I know. But pointing out the difference between sociopathy and psychopathy is like getting people to admit the difference between schizophrenia and multiple personalities. They just look at you funny. Turns out there's a way to attempt to educate people while throwing your hands up in I'm-surrounded-by-the-uneducated "ugh" and that's to smile, nod, point out their failings, and not care.
Yes I've lost the ability to care that people don't know the difference between sociopathy and psychopathy. Three years as a psychology major talking to people who do nothing but give you the blank looks of the willfully, willingly, blissfully ignorant will do that. [/rant]
...sorry...
And inflammable.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Ok, first two Con stories.
Story one
*Making puppet motions* "You've been a bad bad boy...
"You're using her head on a stick as a puppet?"
*still making puppet motions* "Yes, yes I am." I think I disturbed Monte.
Story 2
Me: *draws rapier* Now you are going to tell us what you know, or I will kill you.
Gnome: I won't tell you anything.
Other player: What's your bluff modifier?
Me: Depends, what's the circumstance bonus for not bluffing? IC: Last chance.
Gnome: Death first!
Me: *shrug* OK. *mimes lunging with the rapier.*
There's shocked silence at the table for about 10 seconds, and then people immediately start declaring actions.
Keith: Um, we're going to call that a surprise round, Matt roll damage for a Coup de Grace...
I still have my copy of Sharn signed with 'The Gnome had to die!' ;-)
Anyway, both those actions were 'sociopathic' but the second one fit in character (the first was me having fun at a one shot). I'm 'simulationist' enough to consider the consequences of my actions. I think it's the natural result of 'Role playing' No one ever claims it's 'unfair' that the town treats them as heroes for slaying the maiden eating dragon. Why should they complain when the town treats them as heels for killing the mayor everyone loves?
And inflammable.At the end of the day, unless you're dealing with someone who has the diagnosis, it really and truly does not matter. Much like how we've twisted the meaning of the words awesome and dumb.One of my players is a clinical sociopath, WHO diagnostic criteria, and a perfectly average roleplayer.I think the OP meant psychopaths.Ya, I know. But pointing out the difference between sociopathy and psychopathy is like getting people to admit the difference between schizophrenia and multiple personalities. They just look at you funny. Turns out there's a way to attempt to educate people while throwing your hands up in I'm-surrounded-by-the-uneducated "ugh" and that's to smile, nod, point out their failings, and not care.
Yes I've lost the ability to care that people don't know the difference between sociopathy and psychopathy. Three years as a psychology major talking to people who do nothing but give you the blank looks of the willfully, willingly, blissfully ignorant will do that. [/rant]
...sorry...
Yeah, I don't know how people messed that up.
As a player of a sociopath - is there any other way to respond? :P