QuoteOn the first choice, why does this disrupt the rest of the group? They can try to stop him within the game if it does. So what if the action changes the course of the evening? The possibility of abrupt changes is why tabletop play is so great.

It depends on the kind of game you, and the rest of your group, want to play.

For some players, the "I can do *anything* quality of RPGs is a major part of the appeal".  For them, this is not disruptive.

For other players it's the creation of an imaginative, immersive world -- like something out of their favourite fantasy novel (eg. Lord of the Rings). Having characters in that world who behave counter to their established personalities / theme of the game is disruptive for these players.

Quote from: StuartAs the GM, do you:

* Put Joe's enjoyment first, even though it disrupts the rest of the group -- allow Joe's character to attack the Inn Keeper and potentially have the evening's game move away from "heroic fantasy" to something else.

* Let Joe's character conduct the arbitrary out of character / theme action, but try to "train" Joe by punishing him for this action.  Killing his character, or imposing some sort of lasting penalty (eg. lost items, hp, stats, etc).  Perhaps rewarding the other players for "good" behaviour (eg. xp, items, etc)

* Put the enjoyment of the rest of the group first.  Tell Joe he can't have his character attack the Inn Keeper for in-game reasons (Alignment, Int, Wis, Chr), and possibly tell Joe to smarten up and play the game the way the rest of the players want to (out of game reasons).

This is a bit of a red herring – you allow only three choices you have as GM. This discounts others and leaves you to make your point based on the lack of other alternatives.

In my experiences, the moment the Player announces that's what his character wants to do, I would go to "bullet time." Since it's a surprise to everyone (I'm sure), I would let the character stand up from the table, and narrate it as such. "You see Spasmo push his chair back and stand up from the table. Roll for initiative."

From that point forward, I would allow the group to role-play out, within the rules of the game, what would happen.  It might start out with another character saying "Spasmo, what the hell are you doing, this guy is telling us something important." And flow from there. If it would disrupt the group, I would expect them to try to stop Spasmo.  If they don't care, it's not disruptive, let him stab away. In Theory, how do the other characters know if Spasmo is suddenly under some spell that is causing him to act this way? Could be a entirely knew adventure and the mysterious man was a decoy.

And then, as others mentioned, I would let play flow from there. A fight ensues as the bouncers and family pile on Spasmo.  The mysterius man with the mission (and the potential for loot) bolts. Maybe it was all a setup.  In fact, long-term you could have the characters get a bad reputation and make it difficult to find rewarding ($) work.

Your response assumes many things I would not assume.

QuoteThis is a bit of a red herring – you allow only three choices you have as GM. This discounts others and leaves you to make your point based on the lack of other alternatives.

I'm sure there could be other ways of handling it... but you described the first option fairly accurately: "allow Joe's character to attack the Inn Keeper and potentially have the evening's game move away from "heroic fantasy" to something else."

The idea that the players have absolute control over their characters and can take any action they choose at any time -- is that from the rules of a specific game?  I know it's not an uncommon point of view, but I'm wondering where it came from originally.  Is it from one of the earlier version of D&D?  I'd be really interested in reading it if someone knows the source.

For anyone who thinks the GM should *never* over rule what a player wants their character to do - - are there any exceptions to that?  Using out of character info?  Anachronistic behaviour / language?  Creepy weirdo behaviour?

I'm thinking about the GMing advice you'd give to a first time group of players -- like 10 year olds.  I figure anyone here already knows how they like to play.

Quote from: beejazzNot play with douchebags?

This is my answer.  The most important question is why is Joe stabbing the innkeeper in the eye?  Is he suspecting that he's working for the bad guys?  Is he wanting to explore his character becoming unstable?  I trust my players and I trust that if Joe wants to stab the innkeeper he has a damn good reason and I'm more than willing to see where he's going with it.  If he's doing it to be a dick, or to disrupt the game, or because he's unhappy or not having fun, then that is an out of game problem, and I don't deal with out of game problems in game.

QuoteThe idea that the players have absolute control over their characters and can take any action they choose at any time -- is that from the rules of a specific game? I know it's not an uncommon point of view, but I'm wondering where it came from originally. Is it from one of the earlier version of D&D? I'd be really interested in reading it if someone knows the source.

I don't know for certain, but from the earliest days of gaming it was assumed that the players played their characters and the GM played everything else.

QuoteFor anyone who thinks the GM should *never* over rule what a player wants their character to do - - are there any exceptions to that? Using out of character info? Anachronistic behaviour / language? Creepy weirdo behaviour?

No.  Not using OOC info or out of genre behaviour can be encouraged through XP or metagame mechanics.  Creepy weirdo behaviour is dealt with by a boot to the ass.  "LOL I'm gonna rape the elf chick" does not result in me telling him that no his character does not and going on with the game.  It results most likely in me telling him to leave.

QuoteI'm thinking about the GMing advice you'd give to a first time group of players -- like 10 year olds. I figure anyone here already knows how they like to play.

I don't make that assumption, and maybe its why we're seeing things differently.  I don't assume that anyone who has been playing for years knows everything they like and everything they don't.  I don't, and am always eager to hear how others do it.  I'm assuming adult players who trust and get along with each other.  If you don't have that, your game is going into the shitter no matter what rules you use.

Quote from: StuartI'm sure there could be other ways of handling it... but you described the first option fairly accurately: "allow Joe's character to attack the Inn Keeper and potentially have the evening's game move away from "heroic fantasy" to something else."

I beg your pardon, but I did no such thing. And your little emoticon won't change that. I said nothing about putting Joe's fun first. I didn't even allow Joe to attack the inn keeper. Go back and read it again and see if you can see what I did provide; role-playing opportunities for the entire group. If I'm GM, my job is to facilitate the action, not direct it. My job is to provide a backdrop in which the characters swim, not tell them they can't do X because I don't believe the character would. And please explain to me: How are the other options that might flow from the result of the other players not having their characters try to stop Spasmo not heroic fantasy - just because they don't go to the Dark Tower, but to the dungeons of the Evil Wizard who is attempting to control their friend?

About the only situation I would violate this approach would be in a "heroic fantasy" game if a player states something like "I pull out my AK-47." Even then, I wouldn't say he can't because his character wouldn't do that. I would point out that AK-47's aren't available, so that's impossible. But that's not what you're really pushing, is it? That these situations are somehow comparable?

Now if Joe continues to do things that are obviously out of the stream of what the other players desire from the "evening of high fantasy," and it becomes disruptive, that's another story. It might result in taking the player aside and discussing the situation. This isn't even counting the peer pressure that would come about first. But now we're getting back into the "don't play with douchebags" issue; apples and oranges.

QuoteI beg your pardon, but I did no such thing. And your little emoticon won't change that.

:sorry:

Generally I will not control PCs, if I wanted to do that I would play one myself.

I will not control one because I think the player is playing him out of line with his sheet, instead I play with people I trust to rp properly.  I will not control a PC to reflect fear, torture or so on.  Instead I will trust my players to play out being scared or whatever.

But, I have on one occasion said "no, you don't do that", which for me is a cardinal GMing sin.  We had a guy in the group who just did random stuff that he thought would be funny, we wanted to give him a chance to develop rather than just turf him and on this occasion he did something utterly random that would have resulted in an obvious TPK with no evident way to avoid that outcome.  Rather than end a then fun campaign, I said no he did not do that and it is the only time I can recall doing anything like that.  If it had happened again, we'd have chucked him because the veto was to stop someone being an idiot and the better solution for that is to teach someone better or eject them from the group.

Otherwise, as far as I'm concerned the player plays their character.  Even with mind control, I just tell the PC (not that it comes up very often at all) that they are being controlled to rp appropriately.

The answer to this as to many things is to play with decent people.

I went home on my lunch-hour and dug out my copy of the 1st Edition AD&D Dungeon Master's guide. I thought I'd see if it had anything relevant to this discussion.  It does.

Players are required to select an alignment for their character and roleplay based on that alignment.  If they take action(s) that would result in a change of alignment they lose 1 level of experience, related XP, and any hit points from that level.  If they go on to take actions that result in another alignment change, then they lose another level.  The rules state that a character who lets their alignment change seemingly at random is "doomed to oblivion".  The rules also say that a character can change to a "nearby" alignment (eg. LG > NG; LG > LN) but could not change more than that.  I think that means they couldn't go from LG > CE -- which suggests the DM would say "no you can't do that". (I read the bit on "nearby" alignments rather quickly, and the 1st edition rules are admittedly not the most well organized )

So, clearly then the DM is expected to limit the actions the player's characters can take, both indirectly (punishment) and directly (no, you can't do that).  It's worth noting that many campaigns don't allow Evil player characters, so an alignment change to "Evil" would result in a PC becomming an NPC.

So in the example of Joe wanting his character to attack the Inn Keeper, the DM should say:

"Joe, you remember the rules about Alignment Change, right?"

to which Joe would *probably* say:  "Oh yeah, never mind."  Otherwise Joe's character would lose 1 level and depending on the campaign switch from PC to NPC.

Man -- I'm really finding that the early editions of D&D are some of the best references for designing an RPG!

Quote from: StuartI went home on my lunch-hour and dug out my copy of the 1st Edition AD&D Dungeon Master's guide. I thought I'd see if it had anything relevant to this discussion.  It does....

That was one of many parts of AD&D that I've never seen anyone use -  that something is in AD&D does not automatically mean that it's the right way to roleplay.  I've seen several players decide to change their alignment based on the course of the campaign - it would have been stupid to penalize them for actually thinking about their character's morality instead of just following the alignment rules.

Quote from: StuartSo, clearly then the DM is expected to limit the actions the player's characters can take, both indirectly (punishment) and directly (no, you can't do that).  It's worth noting that many campaigns don't allow Evil player characters, so an alignment change to "Evil" would result in a PC becomming an NPC.

So in the example of Joe wanting his character to attack the Inn Keeper, the DM should say:

"Joe, you remember the rules about Alignment Change, right?"

to which Joe would *probably* say:  "Oh yeah, never mind."  Otherwise Joe's character would lose 1 level and depending on the campaign switch from PC to NPC.

Please note the subtle difference I'm about to try to communicate. Not withstanding ignoring the alignment change rule (my experience is similar), the DM is not stopping the player, the rules are. the DM might choose to enforce the rules (perhaps through a preemptive warning) or not, but if he does he's enforcing the rules. He's not stepping on the player's right to control the character, just enforcing the consequences of that decision according to the rules

Hope that was clear, I'm having trouble communicating today.

Hell, the rules aren't even stopping the guy from doing what he wants, they're just making it painful if he can't choose an outlook or his character and stick with it. You're always slide up and down the alignment tree all you want to.

QuoteThe rules also say that a character can change to a "nearby" alignment (eg. LG > NG; LG > LN) but could not change more than that.

This meant on a per change basis. If a guy starts LG he can eventually be CE, but he'll pass through a bunch of other alignments to get there, losing quite a few levels in the process.

Quote from: Nicephorusthat something is in AD&D does not automatically mean that it's the right way to roleplay.  

QFT.  I don't paticularly care that the 1e DMG recommended something.

All that is meaningless without a reliable consistant method of determining what actions are 'good' and what actions are 'evil', which D&D lacks.  The single paragrpah descriptions that vary from edition to edition are so vague as to be useless.  For instance, is it good or evil to kill an orc baby?  To torture someone who is holding valuable information?  Is it the means or the ends that determine the morality of an action?

And penalizing characters for not following what boils down to the DM's gut reaction to these questions is not exactly what I'd call stellar game design.

QuotePlease note the subtle difference I'm about to try to communicate. Not withstanding ignoring the alignment change rule (my experience is similar), the DM is not stopping the player, the rules are. the DM might choose to enforce the rules (perhaps through a preemptive warning) or not, but if he does he's enforcing the rules. He's not stepping on the player's right to control the character, just enforcing the consequences of that decision according to the rules

Hope that was clear, I'm having trouble communicating today.

Ok, I think I'm with you. It's not on the whim of the DM -- it's something predictable that the players are aware of from the rule book.  The players must establish their character's "personality" (aka Alignment) and then stay consistent to that during the game.  The DM is just enforcing the rules -- not arbitrarily taking over the player's characters to railroad them into the course of action the DM would prefer.

Personally, I like the rule that if a PC's alignment changes to "Evil" they become an NPC.  I'm pretty sure we used that when I was first playing D&D (20+ years ago!!!) It's straight forward, and keeps the focus of a heroic fantasy game... well... heroic.

Incidentally, I'm interested in this because I'm working on the rules for my own RPG and favour this aproach, particulalry for new/young players.

QuoteThis meant on a per change basis. If a guy starts LG he can eventually be CE, but he'll pass through a bunch of other alignments to get there, losing quite a few levels in the process.

Yes!  That makes sense now.  So LG to CE might be... what... 4 levels?  Wow -- that's a pretty strong incentive.

Quotethat something is in AD&D does not automatically mean that it's the right way to roleplay.

Please check over in the RPGs: Wargames and Theatre Sports thread for my thoughts on the wide range of games that come under the RPG umbrella.

I don't think there is one "right way" to roleplay.  There are rules that work for some games and don't work for others.  The Alignment system is definitely at the boardgame / war game end of the spectrum, while things like "say yes..." are at the Theatre Sports end of the spectrum.

QuoteFor instance, is it good or evil to kill an orc baby? To torture someone who is holding valuable information? Is it the means or the ends that determine the morality of an action?

And penalizing characters for not following what boils down to the DM's gut reaction to these questions is not exactly what I'd call stellar game design.

Some games are about idealized "Good" vs "Evil" while other games are about more gritty realism where everyone and everything is a shade of grey.

In the first type of game:  Torture is evil (or at least "Neutral, heh), and there ARE NO baby orcs.