|
Roleplaying as an excuse to be a dick is something I have dealt with.
My eventual response to this person was "look, I, and others here, are here to have fun. Your PC's behavior is preventing that, and that defeats the purpose of playing this game. We are all here to have fun, not be frustrated and make sure only you are having fun. You are not more important than everyone else, and neither are your feelings. If you can't have fun here, and respect the fact everyone else is trying too, then you don't need to be here."
That's the core of it.
Whether the player is a dickwad roleplayer, dickwad powergamer, or just a dickwad, there is no excuse.
"I am just having being silly" is not an excuse.
"I am just roleplaying what my PC would do" is not an excuse.
"That's how we do it in my other game" is not an excuse.
"This what we do in WoW" is not an excuse.
If you know your behavior is upsetting others, then you need to handle it, or quit, but not make excuses.
Well you dont KNOW its not a player fetish.
I know plenty of people who get off on the same things whether it's their table top character, a movie, they themselves doing it, it's the same behavior, and the same jollies.
the motivation for this player to be doing what he's doing is unclear (3rd game session, new player)
But this could go back to the whole "dont be a jerk" and "this is what my character would do" excuse.
That being said, sifting gold off the top isnt THAT big of a deal. Like I said, just about every thief in the party is automatically suspected of doing it, even when they aren't.
I've been a rogue in the party before who ha demanded first and second pick from the treasure in return for this kills. (and then slighted the third pick) We had a cleric in the SAME group who demanded first in the pick or no heals.
My rogue won, because there were never any picks unless I opened the chest.
I've also seen a wizard keep a +3 longsword because 'IT WAS HIS PICK" when he KNEW the fighter would want and need it.
It's treasure on the paper guys, all part of the game, if the doofus wants to blow it on imaginary whores, I say do it.
See where the roleplay takes you, you never know could always lead into new plot hooks and other things.
it's just a game bro.It's a social event where people gather to get together and have fun. People who pursue their own selfish desires at the expense of other people in any social gathering are engaging in impolite behavior. Whether it's a dinner party or "just a game bro".
Common dinner party games where players backstab each other:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomacy_(game)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mafia_(party_game)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassin_(game)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illuminati_(game)
(or any steve jackson game, really)
As I say, it's clear from the description that Alex is not doing this to "fulfill his own selfish desires," since his character isn't actually gaining anything from his acts. He's spending the ill gotten virtual gains on virtual booze and virtual women.
That's clear roleplaying.
I think you guys are the ones being the jerks here, to automatically throw Alex in the "Griefer" bucket. There is an ENORMOUS difference between skimming a few gold off the top of a kill so you can throw it at roleplaying, and Pearce tormenting Fat Neal on Community.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AX2UEWvTX-Y
And I disagree vehemently with your assessment that someone must be hacked off in this situation.
Then I suggest you take that up with the original posting GM who characterized the situation in exactly that way.
Or, alternatively, you could just read the title of the thread again I suppose.
|
it's just a game bro.It's a social event where people gather to get together and have fun. People who pursue their own selfish desires at the expense of other people in any social gathering are engaging in impolite behavior. Whether it's a dinner party or "just a game bro".Common dinner party games where players backstab each other:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomacy_(game)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mafia_(party_game)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassin_(game)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illuminati_(game)
(or any steve jackson game, really)As I say, it's clear from the description that Alex is not doing this to "fulfill his own selfish desires," since his character isn't actually gaining anything from his acts. He's spending the ill gotten virtual gains on virtual booze and virtual women.
That's clear roleplaying.
I think you guys are the ones being the jerks here, to automatically throw Alex in the "Griefer" bucket.
Maybe you didn't read the thread, but Andy IS actually pissing off the rest of the group, because his intentions of playing the game and the rest of the party's intentions are at complete odds with each other.
He's not roleplaying for the sake of roleplaying, he's roleplaying for the sake of his own enjoyment, and he doesn't give a damn how it affects the other five people he's sharing a table with.
it's just a game bro.It's a social event where people gather to get together and have fun. People who pursue their own selfish desires at the expense of other people in any social gathering are engaging in impolite behavior. Whether it's a dinner party or "just a game bro".Common dinner party games where players backstab each other:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomacy_(game)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mafia_(party_game)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassin_(game)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illuminati_(game)
(or any steve jackson game, really)As I say, it's clear from the description that Alex is not doing this to "fulfill his own selfish desires," since his character isn't actually gaining anything from his acts. He's spending the ill gotten virtual gains on virtual booze and virtual women.
That's clear roleplaying.
I think you guys are the ones being the jerks here, to automatically throw Alex in the "Griefer" bucket.
Well, I'll just cite the generally accepted standard that the first person to start calling their debate opponents names is losing the argument.
All of your examples are situations where the activity is clearly understood before the game begins as playing a game where "backstabbing" is possible and expected.
To claim that this situation is comparable is either disingenuous or demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of what we are actually debating.
And I disagree vehemently with your assessment that someone must be hacked off in this situation.
Then I suggest you take that up with the original posting GM who characterized the situation in exactly that way.
Or, alternatively, you could just read the title of the thread again I suppose.
If he chooses the route of OC GM Intervention to solve the issue, then yes, he's choosing between hacking off two different groups. I am merely trying to point out that there's another option, and both groups will end up getting what they want (plus some fun stories along the way) if he lets it play out properly and does a good job of GMing it.
But nobody seems to be listening to the scenario I've presented, because they're too busy running around waving their arms yelling "ALEX IS A GRIEFER! GRIEFER!!!" based on no prior information, no understanding of his personal character, no actual instances of griefing, and about a paragraph of text on a discussion forum.
You tell me, who's more mature?
And I disagree vehemently with your assessment that someone must be hacked off in this situation.
Then I suggest you take that up with the original posting GM who characterized the situation in exactly that way.
Or, alternatively, you could just read the title of the thread again I suppose.
If he chooses the route of OC GM Intervention to solve the issue, then yes, he's choosing between hacking off two different groups. I am merely trying to point out that there's another option, and both groups will end up getting what they want (plus some fun stories along the way) if he lets it play out properly and does a good job of GMing it.
But nobody seems to be listening to the scenario I've presented, because they're too busy running around waving their arms yelling "ALEX IS A GRIEFER! GRIEFER!!!" based on no prior information, no understanding of his personal character, no actual instances of griefing, and about a paragraph of text on a discussion forum.
You tell me, who's more mature?
I can't speak for everyone beej, but as for me, I'm trying to do exactly what the OP asked for. Advise him on a course of action to deal with a potential problem with his gaming group.
I'm not really into theory-crafting how this, that or some other thing MIGHT POSSIBLY be OK, in certain circumstances with certain player personalities and game play proclivities.
I'm just sticking with the original request which was "how do I deal with a situation where one player is threatening the peaceful enjoyment of my entire group."
If you want to start a post about theorycrafting potential ways to play wonderful games where everyone PvPs and backstabs each other for fun and profit, knock yourself out. That's another thread though. This one is about one player threatening the fun of an entire group of gamers.
@beej67:
Maybe I missed something, but what, or who are you defending?
Letting it play out in-game solves everything. As it usually does, honestly.
What you need to do before the next game, is ask everyone for their perception skills, ask Andy privately for his SOH skill, and go ahead and pre-roll for the next half a dozen times Andy tries this. Sooner or later he'll get caught. Write out notes to the other players on index cards saying "what they saw," and pass those notes out as necessary based on the rolls. Alternately, SMS text them when they catch him.
In fact, once Andy sees you asking for their perception skills, he'll probably figure out what you're doing, and he might think twice before trying it.
Doing not only the SOH secretly, but the perception secretly, will give the other PCs the option to discuss what to do about Andy behind his back without an immediate combat confrontation arising. Even, in point of fact, murdering Andy's PC in his sleep. Or manacling his PC and dropping him off in jail. Whatever.
Allow in-game consequences to punish in-game actions.
All that will work itself out once they catch him. He's a fighter for cripes sake, he's going to get caught. And when the Four catch him, they're highly likely to eliminate his PC from the party in some form or fashion. Then Andy is going to have to roll up a new character, which isn't a bad idea anyway since half his problem is probably that fighters are boring and he doesn't have a strong character concept. Then his new PC has to try to join the group. Given their previous experiences, they'll probably cast Detect Chaos on his new PC, and if he tests positive they won't let him in the group. Then he's got to make another character if he wants to keep playing, one that won't steal by rule. (alignment)
This all shakes out in the in-play dynamic, if you allow the in-play dynamic to take its course and you do so fairly to all parties.
...but everyone's so fixated on accusing Andy of being a terrible person that they haven't thought about how the scenario is almost assuredly going to unfold. I'd say EbolaZa1re has got a much greater chance of ticking someone off by GM Intervention than he does by simply doing his best to adjudicate the situation and allow it to come to completion.
The only reason he might need to step in and use GM Fiat is if Andy's PC escapes and starts stalking the PC group or something silly and much more obviously griefing. In which case, make him make a survival roll. He fails it because he's a fighter, and fighter's skills suck, and he gets jumped by a pack of hungry wolves.
EDIT: Sorry, I said "Alex" above, I meant "Andy."
|
|
And I disagree vehemently with your assessment that someone must be hacked off in this situation.
Then I suggest you take that up with the original posting GM who characterized the situation in exactly that way.
Or, alternatively, you could just read the title of the thread again I suppose.
If he chooses the route of OC GM Intervention to solve the issue, then yes, he's choosing between hacking off two different groups. I am merely trying to point out that there's another option, and both groups will end up getting what they want (plus some fun stories along the way) if he lets it play out properly and does a good job of GMing it.
But nobody seems to be listening to the scenario I've presented, because they're too busy running around waving their arms yelling "ALEX IS A GRIEFER! GRIEFER!!!" based on no prior information, no understanding of his personal character, no actual instances of griefing, and about a paragraph of text on a discussion forum.
You tell me, who's more mature?
I can't speak for everyone beej, but as for me, I'm trying to do exactly what the OP asked for. Advise him on a course of action to deal with a potential problem with his gaming group.
I'm not really into theory-crafting how this, that or some other thing MIGHT POSSIBLY be OK, in certain circumstances with certain player personalities and game play proclivities.
I'm just sticking with the original request which was "how do I deal with a situation where one player is threatening the peaceful enjoyment of my entire group."
If you want to start a post about theorycrafting potential ways to play wonderful games where everyone PvPs and backstabs each other for fun and profit, knock yourself out. That's another thread though. This one is about one player threatening the fun of an entire group of gamers.
100% this.
Everything the OP has said points to Andy (it's Andy by the way, which if you'd read the OP's post you'd probably know) being a thoroughly poor fit for this game, who is actively trying to subvert the game for his own means. He's bored playing his character, so his fantastic plan is to steal from his friends, as if this will change the fact that now he is getting enjoyment from screwing his friend's characters.
It is highly unlikely that Pathfinder is the right fit for him.
|
In the end, Andy is doing something silly for his character to do, since he's going to get caught. And in the end, the other players having the ability to punish Andy's character will be fun for them.
Not necessarily. I like to play PF cooperatively and if I caught a character somehow hurting the party (like by skimming loot) I'd be very upset, especially if I as a player was not aware that this was happening. I don't want to punish other PCs. I have been in a similar situation and it was very stressful dealing with the uncooperative PC because I didn't want to punish them, didn't want there to be a reason to punish them, and felt that the other player/PC was taking advantage of the party's reluctance to punish them.
It was great fun for most only a hissy fit from a player who won't be back cause when she turned and attacked him he got mad and tore up his sheets like he was a 2 yr old.
While that player did overreact, the fact is that he wasn't having fun and probably felt betrayed.
He's also a world of warcraft player, so I think he's more used to that realm of loot spreading, he also said he really enjoyed the PvP aspect of WoW... so I think he's looking for that same aspect. Whereas everyone else looks at is as a social experience.
And this is a problem. If he's feeling competitive and the other players a looking for something social and assume that the other PCs can be trusted, there are very likely to be hurt feelings in this particular group.
I don't think that he's a bad person or even a bad player, but if he's not playing the same kind of game that the other players are, and they don't know about it, there could be hurt feelings.
|
|
Letting it play out in-game solves everything. As it usually does, honestly.
This is not true of all groups.
I have seen in-game problem-solving fail, whilst out-of-game problem solving always solves the problem, one way or another.
This actually how it works out in many groups, as I have heard.
You, and your group may work different, and there is likely others, but you cannot assume that it is true of all others.
You walk into a discussion about how this is a bad thing and then try to cover your argument that it's not okay to play rogues as anything but dickass thieves as "it's just a game bro." You're being judged for not only completely missing the point, but trying to argue that you somehow haven't missed the point.
I never said It wasn't ok to not play a rogue. I LOVE rogues. Especailly the kind that does what ever they want. This is a game. a ROLE PLAYING GAME. if you are hurting a player for actually role playing then your the true douchebag. You as a GM should be encourging the role play between other PCs. not hammer the "theif".
In this game, if you're going to have your character act like a douchebag, you better okay it with your buddies first. I'm playing in another PbP game where everyone has arisen as undead, and I made everyone aware that my once-happy-go-lucky mercenary has become dickass warmonger who intends to becomea graveknight, and was going to be like that for the whole game. I then proceeded to make sure that they were okay with that before I decided to go through with that, and so far it's going beautifully. Tons of great RP is happening, and not a single hard feeling to go around.
So far I'm playing a cleric that worships Urgathoa and is partying with an all good party with a paladin. No qualms, I help the party and the party helps me. and I think the paladin has a secret crush on my death cleric.
But if I had sat down and said "this is the jerkass murderhobo character I am going to play, and I don't give a damn what any of you think about it," I would be doing it wrong. And that is pretty much what you suggested.
That's for about every person that plays, but that also depends on your play group to buddy.
100% this.
Everything the OP has said points to Andy (it's Andy by the way, which if you'd read the OP's post you'd probably know) being a thoroughly poor fit for this game, who is actively trying to subvert the game for his own means. He's bored playing his character, so his fantastic plan is to steal from his friends, as if this will change the fact that now he is getting enjoyment from screwing his friend's characters.
It is highly unlikely that Pathfinder is the right fit for him.
1) Don't you think you're leaping to quite a lofty conclusion based on a couple of lines of text, and exactly zero instances of his PC doing anything of the sort so far?
2) Since it's clear he doesn't intend to actually gain anything from his PC's actions, don't you think it might be possible that he is, in fact, roleplaying and not "intentionally subverting the game?"
3) Presuming you're right, what's your solution? Have EbolaZa1re kick him out? Don't you think that might in fact cause much worse hurt feelings than letting Andy's PC get caught and punished by the other PCs fairly and completely within the confines of the game world and game rules?
I don't understand how anyone could think that kicking Andy out of the gaming group would be better than letting his PC get caught for doing something dumb.
|
Personal experience has shown me plenty of examples of simply letting things play out destroying games and wrecking groups when those things were dysfunctional at the root.
A player willing to insert uninvited antagonism is by no means guaranteed to deal well with the consequences of his behavior being thrown back at him. Nor is it guaranteed that the game will weather the ensuing drama.
OP is right to be concerned, and those suggesting defusing the situation before it starts have likely seen plenty of reasons to nip that in the bud when one player decides to play a different game from what everyone else thought they were playing.
It's not that he's playing a team-stealing thief. It's that he hasn't talked about it with his fellow players.
Letting it play out in-game solves everything. As it usually does, honestly.This is not true of all groups.
I have seen in-game problem-solving fail, whilst out-of-game problem solving always solves the problem, one way or another.
This actually how it works out in many groups, as I have heard.
You, and your group may work different, and there is likely others, but you cannot assume that it is true of all others.
Indeed BBT. As I said some 60 comments ago, I've played this game for decades with many different groups of players, ranging in age from pre-teen to senior citizen. I've encountered the behavior the OP described dozens of times in several different groups.
In the vast majority of cases I have personally encountered, this situation has created problems, including at least once where it broke up an entire gaming group and ended a friendship. "Just a game" indeed.
There have been a few cases where this went well and everyone had fun with it. So I am pretty much advising the OP on a course of action based on what I personally view as an overwhelming preponderance of evidence that this will end badly for his group too.
However, I do agree that there is a slight chance it might end up well. But for that to happen the player in question needs to be up front and honest with all of the other players about what he is attempting.
So I've not only advised "don't do it". I've also advised "but if you decide to anyway, at least do it this way."
I don't believe I have called the player in question any names or said he is a bad person or bad gamer. I do believe that from what we have been presented here, he is making poor decisions about playing the game.
|
|
I never said It wasn't ok to not play a rogue. I LOVE rogues. Especailly the kind that does what ever they want. This is a game. a ROLE PLAYING GAME. if you are hurting a player for actually role playing then your the true douchebag. You as a GM should be encourging the role play between other PCs. not hammer the "theif".You walk into a discussion about how this is a bad thing and then try to cover your argument that it's not okay to play rogues as anything but dickass thieves as "it's just a game bro." You're being judged for not only completely missing the point, but trying to argue that you somehow haven't missed the point.
Do you even understand what is being said, here?
There is no "hammering the thief." There is saying "no, you can't do that" or telling him to discuss it with the party. But if he was at my table, and started doing this stuff, it would not be pretty. I, as a DM, would have told him to discuss it with the group. And if he chose not to, arguing that he's allowed to do it because "it's just a game, bro," I'd have him leave my table, likely permanently.
Roleplaying is not an excuse to be a jerk, in OR out of character, unless it's specifically been okay'd with everyone involved. Every example people have brought up so far ends up with at least one person feeling betrayed, hurt or otherwise unhappy. That's all I feel needs to be said about it.
didn't tasslehoff always swipe stuff from the group? Wasn't it just handwaved off like "silly kender can't help himself?"
|
|
100% this.
Everything the OP has said points to Andy (it's Andy by the way, which if you'd read the OP's post you'd probably know) being a thoroughly poor fit for this game, who is actively trying to subvert the game for his own means. He's bored playing his character, so his fantastic plan is to steal from his friends, as if this will change the fact that now he is getting enjoyment from screwing his friend's characters.
It is highly unlikely that Pathfinder is the right fit for him.
1) Don't you think you're leaping to quite a lofty conclusion based on a couple of lines of text, and exactly zero instances of his PC doing anything of the sort so far?
2) Since it's clear he doesn't intend to actually gain anything from his PC's actions, don't you think it might be possible that he is, in fact, roleplaying and not "intentionally subverting the game?"
3) Presuming you're right, what's your solution? Have EbolaZa1re kick him out? Don't you think that might in fact cause much worse hurt feelings than letting Andy's PC get caught and punished by the other PCs fairly and completely within the confines of the game world and game rules?
I don't understand how anyone could think that kicking Andy out of the gaming group would be better than letting his PC get caught for doing something dumb.
"No, but you can discuss it with the party" is the solution to this problem. The player is trying to have his character pull one over the rest of the party because he's bored. That's not conducive to good feelings and fun times.
I never said Andy should be removed, just that it's likely he will be leaving sooner or later, because it appears this game is not about what he's looking for.
You can shoehorn in PvP and party conflict all you like, but don't act like those things are the norm.
I'm bored is also an issue. It's kind of a passive-agressive play to me, for me and about me, or Ill do annoying stuff, so the center better be me or else.
The bored motivation is a bit annoying... eat chips or something. I get bored a lot. Usually to find out I havent been listening and then "wait what's going on? how did you let them get away with that?!" oh right... I was eating chips...
Sounds like you guys just don't like certain play styles. that's how you lose friends. or you just thought you knew someone when you clearly didn't. I'ma say it and still say it. It's a game. I do what I need to for the group and the group does the same. I may do it in an extreme way but at least I can get the job done proudly. if you can't handle the fact that Pathfinder is a game...then sir you need help.
|
|
Sounds like you guys just don't like certain play styles. that's how you lose friends. or you just thought you knew someone when you clearly didn't. I'ma say it and still say it. It's a game. I do what I need to for the group and the group does the same. I may do it in an extreme way but at least I can get the job done proudly. if you can't handle the fact that Pathfinder is a game...then sir you need help.
The point remains that "it's a game" does not give you the right to be a douchebag to other people under the guise of "lol it's just my character."
Guess who's controlling that character? Yup, it's the player. And they made a very conscious decision to play that character as a douchebag. And if the rest of the party is not okay with that, then the player is doing it wrong.
If this concept doesn't make sense to you, then I am quite pleased that I never have to sit at your table, and that you will never sit at mine.
I never said Andy should be removed, just that it's likely he will be leaving sooner or later, because it appears this game is not about what he's looking for.You can shoehorn in PvP and party conflict all you like, but don't act like those things are the norm.
I may agree with that assessment of Andy, but I'm not sure I'd agree that allowing PvP and party conflict is any less normal than disallowing them. Most games I play in don't have any restriction against it, we just engage in full on PvP rarely. Taking stuff and not submitting it for party treasure happens more often but not in large quantities.
But, having read the OP, I'd like to remind everyone that we don't really know what EbolaZa1re's other players will think of a style of play that features more intraparty conflict. He thinks it would probably upset them, but without checking for sure, that information remains unknown.
But, having read the OP, I'd like to remind everyone that we don't really know what EbolaZa1re's other players will think of a style of play that features more intraparty conflict. He thinks it would probably upset them, but without checking for sure, that information remains unknown.
Correct. Thus my advice, and the advice of many others on this thread given multiple times that if the OP wants to go in that direction, engage the entire gaming group and let them know what is going on.
My guess is that it will STILL be a threat to disrupt the fun of the group, but at least that way it has a chance of working out.
|
|
I never said Andy should be removed, just that it's likely he will be leaving sooner or later, because it appears this game is not about what he's looking for.You can shoehorn in PvP and party conflict all you like, but don't act like those things are the norm.
I may agree with that assessment of Andy, but I'm not sure I'd agree that allowing PvP and party conflict is any less normal than disallowing them. Most games I play in don't have any restriction against it, we just engage in full on PvP rarely. Taking stuff and not submitting it for party treasure happens more often but not in large quantities.
But, having read the OP, I'd like to remind everyone that we don't really know what EbolaZa1re's other players will think of a style of play that features more intraparty conflict. He thinks it would probably upset them, but without checking for sure, that information remains unknown.
I worded that poorly. What I mean is that if you are going to try and force these things on your group, without it having been discussed ahead of time, and a unanimous decision reached of "yeah, we're totally cool with this," then it absolutely has no place in the game.
Killing or stealing from other people's characters when they had every reason to believe that you were not only working with aligned goals, but that your characters are actually companions and maybe even friends, is super bad.
|
|
Yeah, it's a game.
It's also an investment of time, money, and emotion.
People invest to have fun, relieve stress, and enjoy the social aspects of it.
When someone mocks your investment, shows little care for your fun, or comfort, then it's upsetting.
You invite others to share in your hobby, and you expect them to respect that.
So, it's a game, but it's not a game of "Go Fish", and it can last for weeks, months, or even years.
If you can't respect the fact that for many it is a very personal experience shared amongst friends, then maybe it's not the game for you.
The point remains that "it's a game" does not give you the right to be a douchebag to other people under the guise of "lol it's just my character."
I'm not convinced about the whole situation that's he's being a total douche bag. I'm convinced that he's been getting singled out because he's only doing it for fake boobs and beer. yeah he should pay for it, but from what I've seen you guys been just hammering him down like a No I hate you do this not that. Doesn't mean that I don't agree that the party should have an attempt to see him do these skimming but it seems to me like the play group seems to straight up hate this more then you guys seem to like him.
Guess who's controlling that character? Yup, it's the player. And they made a very conscious decision to play that character as a douchebag. And if the rest of the party is not okay with that, then the player is doing it wrong.
would you be a douche bag if you took oh say 15 gold from say 500 gold for beer? Nope. I do not see that as being a douche bag. Taking the whole loot to better yourself and kill everyone, yes. But if I was singled out repeatedly for something petty over someone whole clearly should be punished for it, heck yeah I'ma be a douche bag.
If this concept doesn't make sense to you, then I am quite pleased that I never have to sit at your table, and that you will never sit at mine.
Again people judge more then they should when someone says one thing that the other person doesn't want to here.
Indeed BBT. As I said some 60 comments ago, I've played this game for decades with many different groups of players, ranging in age from pre-teen to senior citizen. I've encountered the behavior the OP described dozens of times in several different groups.
In the vast majority of cases I have personally encountered, this situation has created problems, including at least once where it broke up an entire gaming group and ended a friendship. "Just a game" indeed.
There have been a few cases where this went well and everyone had fun with it. So I am pretty much advising the OP on a course of action based on what I personally view as an overwhelming preponderance of evidence that this will end badly for his group too.
However, I do agree that there is a slight chance it might end up well. But for that to happen the player in question needs to be up front and honest with all of the other players about what he is attempting.
So I've not only advised "don't do it". I've also advised "but if you decide to anyway, at least do it this way."
I don't believe I have called the player in question any names or said he is a bad person or bad gamer. I do believe that from what we have been presented here, he is making poor decisions about playing the game.
I'm not belittling your experience, but I've got 30 years of gaming under my belt as well, including not only tabletop but extensive full-immersion LARP experience, about half of it as a GM. And I think outing the guy "out of play" to the other players as his PC tries to skim a few gold is the absolute wrong thing to do, because it puts the other players in a situation where they have to pretend they're not seeing what he's doing if they don't make their rolls. That's a nightmare to adjudicate, because then if they do catch him later, Andy will perceive it as being unfair, that they took their out-of-game knowledge and applied it in-game. (what was often termed in LARPs, where this issue is dealt with all the time, as "Metagaming") If you just make sure that the other four players are given the exact same treatment within the rules as Andy, specifically that when they become aware of his theft the GM lets them know privately so their characters can act on that knowledge without Andy being tipped off, then the solution ends as it was certain to when it started - the Fighter failing a Slight of Hand check and paying the price for doing so. And what that price is shouldn't be in the GM's hands, it should be due to the minds of the characters who caught him. The characters in the story, being played by the players.
Are the characters forgiving? Wrathful? Do they disagree about how to handle the theft? Would my character be more forgiving of theft than I the player am? Less? I have this "alignment" written down on my sheet, does that inform how this character would act in this situation, as it's not the same as my personal views?
These sorts of things are what makes roleplaying interesting. These sorts of interactions are what Pathfinder has over Warhammer or MMOs. If all you're doing is playing this game as a strategy board game, there are much better games to play. The point of this game is to interact as a character instead of yourself, and in so doing learn about that character as he/she develops in front of you. That kind of experience is fun, and fantastic, and is the whole reason to do true RPGs instead of stuff from Games Workshop or Blizzard.
|
|
I don't understand how anyone could think that kicking Andy out of the gaming group would be better than letting his PC get caught for doing something dumb.
We've seen much testimony from experienced RPers on how destructive this can be.
But the OP's group is not experienced. They've had 3 sessions. They are finding out for themselves what role-playing is. What happens in these few sessions will define role-playing for them.
If they discover that role-playing is about being a jerk to your friends, their likely response won't be, 'let's play it out and see what happens!' No, their likely response will be, 'So this is what role-playing is all about? It's not fun. I'll never play this game again!'
If I were in the OP's shoes, I would choose to give the four 'innocents' the game they would enjoy, and the 'guilty' can go back to WoW.
And, yes, he is guilty. The idea that 'he's not stealing for personal gain, so don't judge him harshly' is prepostorous! IRL, if someone took your wallet and spent the money on booze and whores, would the judge let him go because 'he wasn't doing it for personal gain'? He wants to deprive the others of their share, without the other players or their characters knowing, with the collusion of the DM! This is not innocent behaviour, IC or OOC!
Tell 'Andy' in no uncertain terms that table-top RPGs are different than WoW, that if he wants that kind of game, then this table is not for him!
beej, in general I try to set expectations for the game boundaries before the game begins. And I like it when I am not the GM, if the GM does the same.
So if I want to run a game, or if I find myself in a game run by someone else, where stealing from party members, player vs player combat or general anti-social, anti-group cooperative behavior is expected, then I want to know that even before I roll up a character. Because that's going to affect what sort of character I roll up.
To have entered into a game with expectations of full player cooperation, and then discover after the fact that the GM has conspired with another player to allow that player to engage in anti-group cooperative behavior would rankle me. I believe it would rankle most players.
So my general rule of thumb is that if anti-group cooperative behavior is expected, that needs to be communicated before the game begins, and if it is not communicated, then it should not be introduced, unless everyone in the group knows it and is OK with it.
The OP in this situation can attempt to bring this up without "fingering" the Andy player. He can just call an out of character group meeting and say something like:
"I've been thinking about allowing players to interact with each other directly, including potentially allowing characters to intimidate each other, bluff each other, steal from each other, even attack each other if sufficient provocation exists. What do you guys think about that?"
Even so, there are enough other clues about Andy's behavior here that I am concerned about his suitability to play with the rest of this group. But that's being somewhat judgmental I admit.
It is my opinion that this sort of anti-group cooperative behavior is a serious issue and goes directly to the core behavioral assumptions that the group members make about each other. It can be handled such that games can be run without people tearing up character sheets or storming out of the room. I've done it both as a GM and a player. And it can be fun.
But it can also be very unfun.
Most of this thread has been people like me warning the OP about potential long-term bad results, and then being attacked by people accusing us of restricting game play or calling another player "badwrongfun" because they think we are being too cautious.
Maybe we are. But my experience, and the comments I read on forums like this one, is what I have to go by, and that all tells me that this is a potential minefield of hurt feelings and angry reactions.
That's pretty much the full extent of my participation and advice. Good luck to all.
I wouldn't kick anyone out, they all work together and real life trumps gaming stuff. I have had players that like to mess around with NPCs and stuff and generally be a dingus at the table and all you really have to do is give the baby their bottle.
Now don't shower them in gold or make it so they're more powerful than everyone else, but give them non game changing stuff that they can fiddle with. Andy mentioned he wanted to spend his money on booze and loose women (a noble pursuit), than why not give him a whore house? Come up with some plot line where... I dunno... one of his favorite prostitutes is in a lot of trouble and asks Andy for help. Toss in a monster pimp somewhere he can stab, than when he's done the prostitutes are like, "we're taking over the whore business, but you can do whatever you want without paying or talking about it excessively out of game."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand how anyone could think that kicking Andy out of the gaming group would be better than letting his PC get caught for doing something dumb.We've seen much testimony from experienced RPers on how destructive this can be.
But the OP's group is not experienced. They've had 3 sessions. They are finding out for themselves what role-playing is. What happens in these few sessions will define role-playing for them.
If they discover that role-playing is about being a jerk to your friends, their likely response won't be, 'let's play it out and see what happens!' No, their likely response will be, 'So this is what role-playing is all about? It's not fun. I'll never play this game again!'
If Andy's PC stabbed them all to death in their sleep, I would expect this reaction. If Andy's PC stole all their belongings and ran off while he was keeping watch, I would expect this reaction. Those are things that "griefers," meaning people who gain pleasure out of other's grief, do. It's possible that Andy is a griefer, but I don't know, and I don't see any indication that that's the case.
What is much more likely, for a group of inexperienced gamers new to roleplaying, is this. Andy tries his little thing. The GM has already make perception rolls in advance, and two of the four other players make their perception check. Their phones ding during loot divy, and they receive SMS text messages from the GM saying,
"You don't have to act on this information yet, but you saw Andy's PC steal some treasure out of the pocket of the dead orc."
Now if this is my fourth game ever playing table top RPGs, I'm immediately intrigued. I'm looking at other people's eyes. Someone else's phone dings. Maybe they go get more Mt Dew from the kitchen, and I follow them. We talk about what we saw. We hatch a plan. When Andy's PC goes to sleep, we talk to the other two PCs, and we tie Andy's PC up. Andy's PC wakes up.
The GM steps in, and politely reminds everyone to play their characters and do what their characters would do, and don't take any hard feelings.
The next half hour, hour, maybe more, of the gaming session is pure, true, roleplaying. The kind of roleplaying you do at therapy sessions or acting classes, where the four stand over the bound gagged AndyPC and talk about what they want to do about this problem. Maybe they ungag him and interrogate him, or demand an explanation, or whatever. And make no mistake, this very scenario is what Andy the Player is probably most interested in, because there's no g&%##*n way the Fighter with crap skills was going to pull this off for long.
And then depending on how the conversation goes, they either untie him and let him continue with the party, or they hang him upside down along the roadside and break camp. Whatever.
That's a memorable, fun, gaming session. Nobody's "bored," that's for sure. And they've got plenty to talk about at work on Monday.
Tell 'Andy' in no uncertain terms that table-top RPGs are different than WoW, that if he wants that kind of game, then this table is not for him!
I wasn't aware any of the above scenario could happen in WOW. In fact, the very lack of the above scenario is what drives people to play real RPGs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've never played with a Kender character in the party. After looking them up and reading about them, I'm pretty sure I don't want to.
I don't understand how anyone could think that kicking Andy out of the gaming group would be better than letting his PC get caught for doing something dumb.We've seen much testimony from experienced RPers on how destructive this can be.
But the OP's group is not experienced. They've had 3 sessions. They are finding out for themselves what role-playing is. What happens in these few sessions will define role-playing for them.
If they discover that role-playing is about being a jerk to your friends, their likely response won't be, 'let's play it out and see what happens!' No, their likely response will be, 'So this is what role-playing is all about? It's not fun. I'll never play this game again!'
If Andy's PC stabbed them all to death in their sleep, I would expect this reaction. If Andy's PC stole all their belongings and ran off while he was keeping watch, I would expect this reaction. Those are things that "griefers," meaning people who gain pleasure out of other's grief, do. It's possible that Andy is a griefer, but I don't know, and I don't see any indication that that's the case.
What is much more likely, for a group of inexperienced gamers new to roleplaying, is this. Andy tries his little thing. The GM has already make perception rolls in advance, and two of the four other players make their perception check. Their phones ding during loot divy, and they receive SMS text messages from the GM saying,
"You don't have to act on this information yet, but you saw Andy's PC steal some treasure out of the pocket of the dead orc."
Now if this is my fourth game ever playing table top RPGs, I'm immediately intrigued. I'm looking at other people's eyes. Someone else's phone dings. Maybe they go get more Mt Dew from the kitchen, and I follow them. We talk about what we saw. We hatch a plan. When Andy's PC goes to sleep, we talk to the other two PCs, and we tie Andy's PC up. Andy's PC...
I agree with just everything you say. get the other PC's involved with a new way instead of just killing the Andy. From what I've learned when playing a table top RPG, never bring real life and physics into a game. Doesn't work most of the time (depending on wording and rules).
Totally in agreement with you @beej67! That's the kind of game I like to play too and the kind I usually am a part of. If the players can handle it in-character w/o meta-gaming this is a great scenario. It just takes people with a good imagination and mature attitude to play it out so that it doesn't snowball into a flame fest and a bunch of drama.
It all comes down to what the OP wants his game to be like, he will never know how his players will react with their characters (all being so new) if he doesn't experiment and see what kinds of intrigue whether it be intra-party or inter-party they are faced with. If the OP's friend is just playing it out to be a Richard then he needs to probably find another person who wants to RP and have fun at the table, if the OP's friend is interested in adding another element of intrigue or excitement into the game via in-character role-playing that's just plain awesome to me.
beej, in general I try to set expectations for the game boundaries before the game begins. And I like it when I am not the GM, if the GM does the same.
So if I want to run a game, or if I find myself in a game run by someone else, where stealing from party members, player vs player combat or general anti-social, anti-group cooperative behavior is expected, then I want to know that even before I roll up a character. Because that's going to affect what sort of character I roll up.
I completely agree for the case of Evil parties and/or PVP. I do the same thing.
To have entered into a game with expectations of full player cooperation, and then discover after the fact that the GM has conspired with another player to allow that player to engage in anti-group cooperative behavior would rankle me. I believe it would rankle most players.
If the GM were working with Andy on some scheme to cheat the other players out of loot without rolls, then I would agree with you.
I don't perceive the GM as conspiring at all, in my suggestion. In fact, by collecting the group's perception skills and rolling them behind the screen, while also rolling Andy's SOH roll behind the screen, the GM is facilitating Andy getting caught much more than he's conspiring against the other four.
"I've been thinking about allowing players to interact with each other directly, including potentially allowing characters to intimidate each other, bluff each other, steal from each other, even attack each other if sufficient provocation exists. What do you guys think about that?"
That's a reasonable approach, and in my opinion vastly preferable to telling all the other players that Andy's PC is stealing but they can't act on that knowledge unless they make a check, as some others have indicated above. But please note that Andy hasn't suggested doing anything you've listed there. He's suggested skimming from kills before the divy. That's not black and white at all like you make it out to be.
This whole thing reminds me of the thread about whether crafters must provide half cost items to the rest of the party, and whether or not they can "skim" 5% via Hedge Magician. As you can guess, I fell on the side of "sure." Others were vehement that even charging another PC 50% to craft was evil if it cost you 45%. I just don't understand that line of thought, and this seems like the same mentality dressed up in different clothes.
There are only a few game design decisions made by Gary Gygax that were as poorly conceived and have had as much negative game play impact as his decision to call the sneaky skill monkey class "Thief" in the first releases of D&D. It has caused an entire gaming community to adopt assumptions that do nothing but create in-game problems while the player snarks "but they used to be called 'thieves' buddy!"
Umm, err, that was probably my fault. Sorry. My excuse is that it was a very long time ago.
I'm not belittling your experience, but I've got 30 years of gaming under my belt as well, including not only tabletop but extensive full-immersion LARP experience, about half of it as a GM. And I think outing the guy "out of play" to the other players as his PC tries to skim a few gold is the absolute wrong thing to do, because it puts the other players in a situation where they have to pretend they're not seeing what he's doing if they don't make their rolls. That's a nightmare to adjudicate, because then if they do catch him later, Andy will perceive it as being unfair, that they took their out-of-game knowledge and applied it in-game. (what was often termed in LARPs, where this issue is dealt with all the time, as...
Newbie! (I kid, I kid!)
You make a good point, but again, this is not something that can or should be solved IC. The DM should just sit down with Andy and ask him to stop. Maybe later. Definitely not now.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The idea that having levels in any particular class totally determines how your character must be played, or what behavior is simply expected is a false one.
Unless you have something like the Paladin's Code, you can choose how your PC behaves, no matter the class.
That's right, the speaker of truth, despiser of theft, defender of the weak, all around nice guy, can have nothing but Rogue levels.
Totally shocking to some, but totally true.
Also, I would like to note, the problem player in question is not a Rogue, but a Fighter.
The idea that having levels in any particular class totally determines how your character must be played, or what behavior is simply expected is a false one.
Unless you have something like the Paladin's Code, you can choose how your PC behaves, no matter the class.
That's right, the speaker of truth, despiser of theft, defender of the weak, all around nice guy, can have nothing but Rogue levels.
Totally shocking to some, but totally true.
Also, I would like to note, the problem player in question is not a Rogue, but a Fighter.
z(^-^)-b that guy agrees also
|
|
z(^-^)-b that guy agrees alsoThe idea that having levels in any particular class totally determines how your character must be played, or what behavior is simply expected is a false one.
Unless you have something like the Paladin's Code, you can choose how your PC behaves, no matter the class.
That's right, the speaker of truth, despiser of theft, defender of the weak, all around nice guy, can have nothing but Rogue levels.
Totally shocking to some, but totally true.
Also, I would like to note, the problem player in question is not a Rogue, but a Fighter.
He's also saying the same thing I said. Do you even have a point to make at this juncture?
well a DM can 'outlaw' stealing from the group in the same way he can 'outlaw' PvP.
Perhaps it's just best to do so. Tell the character he cant steal from the group.
Perhaps this means the player is more bored.
But you can suggest rather, in story, that he can run up gambling debts and tabs with the madam etc. that the party has to bail him out of (thus getting his extra coin for wenching anyway) and he can still RP his slovenly fun.
"Hey ugly girls need a way to earn money too! I'm just helping her feed her kids!"
|
|
On occasion, I will game with a player who notices I am playing a certain class, and simply cannot wrap their heads around the fact that I am not playing in the manner they believe all players must play the class.
I once played a light armored, stealthy, Shuriken throwing PC, who had nothing but Cleric levels.
Blew the guy's mind.