|
Would like some opinions on how to deal with a player conflict that arose during a scenario today.
It was the classic case of...
"I'm just playing my character"
vs.
"Why won't you cooperate?"
The PCs are given the explicit instructions of "Don't steal anything" in the mission briefing.
Scenario
Player A does not heed the guidelines extended in the mission briefing and uses the justification of "well if it isn't traced back to me then they won't know about it so no problem."
Rest of party is up in arms when Player A begins stealing saying "We were specifically told not to steal. Put that back dude. You're going to cost us our 2nd pp. You are going against our orders. That's not cooperating. Etc. Etc." (Incidentally, it didn't cost anyone else their 2nd PP because scenario guidelines specifically call out that the "don't steal" PP is individual, but the players don't know that during the game. The point is that the rest of the party felt there was both in character and metagame reasons that his character should be following along with the party and VC's wishes and that this was a both a clear violation of the cooperate part of "Explore, Report, Cooperate" and that Player A was being a jerk.)
In the end, he went against the wishes of the rest of the party and stole items and it really left a sour taste in the mouth of several players and put a damper on the whole rest of the session because they felt he was being a jerk. (Intentionally not following orders. Cooperating. Being a thief.)
At what point is intentionally going against the wishes of the party at large opposed to the cooperate portion of Explore, Report, Cooperate? How do you judge this falling into "don't be a jerk" guidelines? How far does "I'm just playing my character" get you?
Any tips on how to handle this at the table when the party begins fighting over it? Everyone had their say and in the end I made it clear to everyone that he has a right to do what he wants and he knows that there may be consequences for his actions and we moved on. But it definitely affected the mood of the session. Things were going great before that, and were more of a trudging state afterwards.
It's pretty much the usual story: if you want to fall back on "I am just playing my character" be prepared to suffer the consequences of your actions and choices.
|
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
How far does "I'm just playing my character" get you?
Not far.
"I'm just playing my character" is a shield that players hide behind to justify trollish behavior. Team players will find a way to make it work. To borrow a frequent forum bugaboo:
Paladin: "Ah, Baron Graverobber. I see Iomedae has seen fit to once again test my resolve with your presence."
Necromancer: "Lord Priggypants. I assume you will not be signing my death waiver to forfeit your remains."
Paladin: "You assume correctly. Shall we proceed? The scent of your risen abomination is interfering with my digestion."
Necromancer: "Gladly. Watch your step. You seem to be standing in a puddle of self-righteousness."
Further, a rogue who is an uncontrollable kleptomaniac from levels 1 to 12 iis not a character, he is a caricature. Real characters change and learn from their experiences. It's what makes them interesting.
If, after the mission briefing, a player says "well, my character will simply not be able to control himself when it comes to [not stealing/not killing the evil NPC/etc.]" the GM should kindly request the player choose a different character or consider having the character develop a bit in the course of play.
|
|
Clarification: The stealing was from a place, not from other PCs.
Naturally part of the situation will resolve itself over time via "Well I'm not going to waste my time playing with that guy" mentality which will spread if he continues playing like that.
My main question is whether Player A is in violation of the "Don't be a jerk" rule of PFS with this type of intentional ignoring of the briefing to the possible detriment of the entire group and if he needs to be coached outside the game as to why that is and how he should act to cooperate with the group in the future or whether this is a case of player dictates what action his character takes and everyone has to deal with the consequences regardless too bad so sad?
Or is there no good answer to this question because "Don't be a jerk" is open to endless variations of interpretation?
|
Player A does not heed the guidelines extended in the mission briefing and uses the justification of "well if it isn't traced back to me then they won't know about it so no problem."
Rest of party is up in arms when Player A begins stealing saying "We were specifically told not to steal. Put that back dude. You're going to cost us our 2nd pp. You are going against our orders.
It's a shame that an out-of-game concept was used as the complaint.
I think that you handled it well, possibly as well as it could have been.
One way would have been to briefly pause the game and check with the table that Player A was OK with accepting the consequences of the other characters reacting to his characters actions, and if not to reconsider his actions. It should never get to the stage of players attacking players over PP, however a table agreeing that it's OK for a character to be reported for theft is OK. No PvP doesn't always mean no CvC.
Whether that means that Player A would have to pay 'Body Retrieval' PP to get sprung from jail, or just a "Wilfully committed theft against orders of a VC — reported to the Decimvirate" annotation on the chronicle depends on how the game plays out.
|
At what point is intentionally going against the wishes of the party at large opposed to the cooperate portion of Explore, Report, Cooperate? How do you judge this falling into "don't be a jerk" guidelines? How far does "I'm just playing my character" get you?
It is going to vary greatly by location, players, etc.
From your description, the other players were getting upset. For me, that is the key point where the player has very likely crossed the "jerk" line.
If I was the GM, I'd have probably taken the player aside and asked him to tone it down, to cooperate. I'm lucky in that we have a quite cooperative bunch of players up here so I've never had to take it past that step.
I think (emphasis on think, not sure and its a LOT easier to say this than do it) that if the player refused at that point I'd flat out tell him he can NOT do that. In the full expectation that would cause the player to rage quit.
|
|
New rule: all Pathfinders are cursed so that if they betray the Society or their colleagues for personal gain, they disintigrate.
Team games require team players and team characters. In the OP's case, As Gm I would have stepped in and suggested that going against the group and the specific orders would result in getting booted from the Society, and let them make their choice. Nip it in the bud so the person doesn't get to ruin too many games before he reforms his behaviour.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
New rule: all Pathfinders are cursed so that if they betray the Society or their colleagues for personal gain, they disintigrate.
Team games require team players and team characters. In the OP's case, As Gm I would have stepped in and suggested that going against the group and the specific orders would result in getting booted from the Society, and let them make their choice. Nip it in the bud so the person doesn't get to ruin too many games before he reforms his behaviour.
Necromancer: Hey, Pally, help me shake down that orphan and donate their pocket change to the societies resurrection fund.
Paladin: NO! *disintegrates*
There is no rule to prevent jerkish behavior. More rules give jerks more tools.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
New rule: all Pathfinders are cursed so that if they betray the Society or their colleagues for personal gain, they disintigrate.
Team games require team players and team characters. In the OP's case, As Gm I would have stepped in and suggested that going against the group and the specific orders would result in getting booted from the Society, and let them make their choice. Nip it in the bud so the person doesn't get to ruin too many games before he reforms his behaviour.
That reminds me way too much of the 'moral guidelines' enforced on the writers of the old Dungeons and Dragons cartoon series, where anyone who raised an objection to the status quo had to be shown to come off badly.
It's possible to handle situations like this in a way more nuanced than ultra-black and infra-white.
|
|
New rule: all Pathfinders are cursed so that if they betray the Society or their colleagues for personal gain, they disintegrate.
Necromancer: Hey, Pally, help me shake down that orphan and donate their pocket change to the societies resurrection fund.
Paladin: NO! *disintegrates*
There is no rule to prevent jerkish behavior. More rules give jerks more tools.
Clarified for you. Also forgot the sarcasm tag, apparently.
This is a reason why we have GMs - to deal with these situations. If someone is playing a solo game, the GM and other players don't have to sit there and allow it to ruin the game for everyone. If someone is going to break Society rules for fun, at the expense of the other players, it's no different than the CN barbarian who charges before (or during) another player's negotiation attempt and doesn't allow non-combat discussion to happen. It's jerk behavior, and the GM needs to stop it.
