I've noticed as I GM more and more, I tend to kill power fantasy and preconceived notions pretty quickly and empower players who use their character's skillset to great effect or in unorthodox ways.

Maybe this is because I'm getting older (I say that being in my mid 20's). Maybe it's because I've gotten to a point where I'm now teaching others how to GM effectively (not sure whether that'd be called Mastery but whatever). Maybe it's because I've dealt with shitheads many times over within this hobby. Or I could just be an asshole, plain and simple.

But whatever it is, I tend to enact severe consequences on PCs doing shit which "isn't gonna go well".

Smart-mouthing a hired blade in a back alley entrance to a gambling den: knife through the throat.

White knighting for a cause (especially OOC): feathered and tarred (usually socio-politically but sometimes quite literally).

Trying to pick that lock for the umpteenth time: get a rusty metal cut to the fingers requiring amputation without medical attention in the immediate future.

Trying to seduce a particular NPC in a club so you can "pump" them for information: better hope your fellow PCs rescue you in-time from the non-consensual bathroom rendezvous you're about to end up in somehow all dazed and confused.

(I have never seen a player turn so white after pulling that last one, bar one other instance I can think of. It worked out ok, though -- I was being really generous with the save rolls, I admit. I woulda' had a cokehead interrupt before anything happened, I'm not quite that callous... yet. They never did that douchebag crap ever again).

Do others do this? Is this a thing with other GMs?

All character actions have consequences. I've found that if you let players get away with stupid shit in character, then only more stupid shit will happen and the game goes to Hell.

Consequences are good, but if you take it overboard won't they just become paranoid and grind the game to a halt as they refuse to do anything even slightly risky?

Err... it sounds like you enjoy being a dick GM? :confused:

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;1012456Do others do this?

I don't.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;1012456Is this a thing with other GMs?

I hope not.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1012461Consequences are good, but if you take it overboard won't they just become paranoid and grind the game to a halt as they refuse to do anything even slightly risky?

Yep. It's like overdoing it with traps in D&D. Sure, it might seem like a good idea at first, but in the long run it can really hurt gameplay.

Quote from: S'mon;1012466Err... it sounds like you enjoy being a dick GM? :confused:

With asswipe players.  It's often the next step after teenage gaming, because 14 year old boys are feral little beasts.  In players at or just after college age I've noticed that power fantasies tend to be crude, primitive, and violent, and referee responses tend to be similar.

By the time I hit thirty, things had changed.

I think I know where you're coming from, but a bard/charismatic character will always try to talk their way through things, or focus on seducing.
A wizard will probably (almost) always focus on their power (magical) fantasy while a noble born char is likely to have aspirations for grander titles, lands, influence, ect (an other form of power fantasy).
'White knighting' over a certain issue might be a proper reason for a character, maybe even a core characteristic (like religion or oath for a knight, or slavery for an ex-slave)

As for the lockpicking... where I played before usually you have two attempts, one in every case, and if things aren't broken/jammed/ect on failure you get another try if the character itself thinks it has a chance or gets aid from a nother source (second player helps, or gets different tools/lockpicks). Similar handling of traps, although it is less likely to just try again if failed the first time.

As far I can read from this comment you have some personal issues with certain roleplaying / character types. While English isn't my primarly language the comment feels somewhat cranky/harsh.

You don't get to punish your players.  Ever.  

It sounds like you are punishing your players.  

I might be wrong, maybe you are just making sure actions have natural consequences.  But what you wrote sounds punitive to me.  Again might be wrong.  

Are you angry when handing out these consequences?  Are you tired of their bull shit?  

Lock picking example either 2 tries then no or each try takes an order of magnitude longer to try.  Or maybe it is rusty but you have to establish that before hand.  You don't get to change things because your players aren't doing what you want them to.

Seems rather over-the-top and punitive the way you're writing about it, but maybe it's just the tone you chose for your post. Most players should learn to adapt to the game world's mores and modes without needing punitive measures, else why keep inviting them to your table?

You seem overly punitive.
Just say "You took two tries at the lock and didn't get it. Try again when you level up, you're not gonna get it now."

Mouth off to a hired blade? Maybe he puts his hand on his sword hilt and drawls "Smile when you say that..."

Seduce an NPC to pump them for information? If the seduction attempt works, and they don't always, then the PC and the NPC have a little assignation. How much information is gained during teh pillow talk depends in part on what the NPC actually knows.

Natural consequences are different to punitive consequences.  I have two PCs in y game trapped in a dead-end by a massive stone blcok. They tricggered a trap and a the block started coming down Indian Jones style. They had ample opportunities to go back the way the came, they even briefly jammed the block in place with an iron bar, then they removed it. They chose to go into the empty, dead-end room. Then got upset when they were trapped there.  I asked them what they were doing and described the block getting lower at eight feet, six feet, five feet, two feet... That is natural consequences. Punitive consequences would have been "you triggered a trap, a massive stone block descends and squishes you to jelly".  It was their choice that resulted in their characters' likely demise.

I'm all in favor of consequences for the PCs actions... good and bad... but I don't aim to punish, just to play the world in a way that seems plausible and consistent. If do I find myself wanting to punish it usually means I've got an issue with a Player and I should deal with it somehow out of game.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1012483With asswipe players.  It's often the next step after teenage gaming, because 14 year old boys are feral little beasts.  In players at or just after college age I've noticed that power fantasies tend to be crude, primitive, and violent, and referee responses tend to be similar.

By the time I hit thirty, things had changed.

This.

Quote from: Headless;1012495You don't get to punish your players.  Ever.

Actually you can. It's rude and kind of immature, but then so are more than a few gamers. The good ones grow out of it. Eventually.

Quote from: Dumarest;1012506Seems rather over-the-top and punitive the way you're writing about it, but maybe it's just the tone you chose for your post.

Let's all hope for the best, shall we? /put-on-a-happy-face

It tends to be a player problem. I had the same player in two different games who just couldn't stop screwing around. This was the guy in Traveller who took a sample of the most dangerously addictive drug known to humanity and had his character shove it in his ass. This was also the guy who in Star Wars when asked to quietly go intimidate and strongarm some patrons to pay their bar tabs in exchange for some information, began to stalk and murder these patrons - for their unpaid bar tabs.

There is silly behavior and then there is unnecessary behavior that not only has severe consequences to the character, but also disrupts the adventure itself and endangers the group.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1012461Consequences are good, but if you take it overboard won't they just become paranoid and grind the game to a halt as they refuse to do anything even slightly risky?

Sure, which is why you must make sure that not every NPCs is an asshole.

I use some simple random tables to aid me in this.

Also be aware that the definition of what constitute being an asshole is different from group to group. For example my current Thursday crew are not exactly good, but they are not exactly evil either. In the present day of my campaign (40 years after what I right in the supplement) Viridistan is run by the good guys (thanks to several PC groups over the years). This stress the players because they know they will be busted on half the shit they are done if the authorities found out. Recently they sailed south to Lenap which as one of the old Ghinorian colonies is dominated by the religion of Mitra, the Goddess of Honor and Justice. But it is corrupt as hell (think 15th century Papacy level of corruption). Right away PCs were hit up for some hefty bribes.

You know what. They loved it. Most of the time they want just explore dungeons and fight but they did nothing but roleplayed  with various NPCs. While there was definitely some folks to avoid overall the party felt they found their place.

This is why I try to paint my setting, the Majestic Wilderlands, as a complete picture like our own world. The variety ensures there is some niche that party will fit into.