The first thing I will say is that we couldn't possibly know, because we are having to take your word for it, and part of the premise of you coming here and asking this question of us is that you doubt your own self-judgment. However, it sounds like you think perhaps you aren't being as even-handed as you should. Now, most gamers are self-loathing misanthropes so you might be completely wrong about this and you're doing fine, but let's do some analysis.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;1012456I've noticed as I GM more and more, I tend to kill power fantasy and preconceived notions

Is there a reason you included these two together? They are not natural buddies in any conceptual framework that I know of. Are they just two examples of things you do not like (in your players)?

QuoteBut 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.

These do not sound like the realistic consequences of the actions described. Guy who is supposed to be guarding the local black alley gambling den who throat-stabs every fool who mouths off to them isn't going to last long because he's creating a liability (lost revenue, bodies to dispose of) for his bosses. White knighting for a cause most often will end with you screaming at people who have no idea who you are or what you are talking about and assuming you are a tin-foil type nutjob. Getting tetanus from a lock because you try an pick it too many times? No. That makes no sense. What would happen is that you would get frustrated and waste time continuing to fail, then end.

It sounds like you are bringing OOC frustration on your part into the game world. You can do that if you want to, but I wouldn't suggest it. I would instead suggest envisioning your game world. It doesn't have to follow the exact rules of our world (especially if you are going for a more stylized genre, such as noir or 4-color comic book or something), but it should have rules. Now, put the characters into this world, and have the world react to their actions as it naturally, coherently would.

QuoteTrying 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.

This is a great example. What about this makes sense? Player A thinks their character (B) should try to seduce NPC C and use it as a means of gaining information. First off, why is this not a reasonable plan? Second, if it isn't, why is 'and you'll need to be rescued,' the logical consequence? Third, what even are you talking about, with the nonconsensual bathroom rendezvous and ending up dazed and confused? Who nonconsensually what? This seems to be a complete non-sequitur.

Regardless, it sounds like you are punishing the characters as retribution for the players... deciding on courses of actions which you deem inferior to how you think that they should be acting. The worst case scenario is that it isn't in fact you who have the mature ideas at all, and perfectly reasonable, mature, 20-something players are having to deal with failure-maturity GM (again, as I mentioned at the top, the rest of us have no way of knowing who is the 'in the right' person here). But even if not, and it is immature players with a frustrated-but-mature GM, there's the risk that you are just lashing out, instead of actually shaping behavior towards anything better.

So again, I think you should refocus on creating a world that is realistic, not conveniently punitive. If your players come up with plans that shouldn't work, then they shouldn't work, not they don't work, and they end up driving into the back of a truck full of manure, and get gangrene, and whatever else because you weren't impressed with their plan.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1012585Now, most gamers are self-loathing misanthropes

It's not myself I loathe.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;1012456...

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?

Uh what? These are some of the most fucked up examples of bad GM'ing I've ever heard.

Punishing a player for 'white knighting'? Good characters are going to stand up for their causes, that sounds IC. I can’t tell if you’re talking about players holding political opinions you disagree with in RL, I assume not as it is so absurd.

The lockpicking example is just...why not tell them they only get one chance to pick a lock? Talk about disportionate consequences.

And why would you punish a PC for trying to seduce a NPC? That is a perfectly legit RP tactic.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1012585This is a great example. What about this makes sense. Player A thinks their character (B) should try to seduce NPC C and use it as a means of gaining information. First off, why is this not a reasonable plan? Second, if it isn't, why is 'and you'll need to be rescued,' the logical consequence? Third, what even are you talking about, with the nonconsensual bathroom rendezvous and ending up dazed and confused? Who nonconsensually what? This seems to be a complete non-sequitur.

Yeah this was weird. It sounds like he is saying that since the PC hit on a character, the PC is then subjected to a prison rape scenario in the bathroom by the NPC later or something.

@Bren

If the DM can punish the players, then the players can punish the DM back.  

"Oh I got gangrene picking a lock? Well I guess instead, I'll track that last pickpocket back to the orphanage, bar the doors and urn it down."

Its just shitty.  Don't to it.  

However natural predictible consistant consequences are good, even harsh ones.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1012585The first thing I will say is that we couldn't possibly know, because we are having to take your word for it, and part of the premise of you coming here and asking this question of us is that you doubt your own self-judgment. However, it sounds like you think perhaps you aren't being as even-handed as you should. Now, most gamers are self-loathing misanthropes so you might be completely wrong about this and you're doing fine, but let's do some analysis.

 

Is there a reason you included these two together? They are not natural buddies in any conceptual framework that I know of. Are they just two examples of things you do not like (in your players)?



These do not sound like the realistic consequences of the actions described. Guy who is supposed to be guarding the local black alley gambling den who throat-stabs every fool who mouths off to them isn't going to last long because he's creating a liability (lost revenue, bodies to dispose of) for his bosses. White knighting for a cause most often will end with you screaming at people who have no idea who you are or what you are talking about and assuming you are a tin-foil type nutjob. Getting tetanus from a lock because you try an pick it too many times? No. That makes no sense. What would happen is that you would get frustrated and waste time continuing to fail, then end.

It sounds like you are bringing OOC frustration on your part into the game world. You can do that if you want to, but I wouldn't suggest it. I would instead suggest envisioning your game world. It doesn't have to follow the exact rules of our world (especially if you are going for a more stylized genre, such as noir or 4-color comic book or something), but it should have rules. Now, put the characters into this world, and have the world react to their actions as it naturally, coherently would.



This is a great example. What about this makes sense? Player A thinks their character (B) should try to seduce NPC C and use it as a means of gaining information. First off, why is this not a reasonable plan? Second, if it isn't, why is 'and you'll need to be rescued,' the logical consequence? Third, what even are you talking about, with the nonconsensual bathroom rendezvous and ending up dazed and confused? Who nonconsensually what? This seems to be a complete non-sequitur.

Regardless, it sounds like you are punishing the characters as retribution for the players... deciding on courses of actions which you deem inferior to how you think that they should be acting. The worst case scenario is that it isn't in fact you who have the mature ideas at all, and perfectly reasonable, mature, 20-something players are having to deal with failure-maturity GM (again, as I mentioned at the top, the rest of us have no way of knowing who is the 'in the right' person here). But even if not, and it is immature players with a frustrated-but-mature GM, there's the risk that you are just lashing out, instead of actually shaping behavior towards anything better.

So again, I think you should refocus on creating a world that is realistic, not conveniently punitive. If your players come up with plans that shouldn't work, then they shouldn't work, not they don't work, and they end up driving into the back of a truck full of manure, and get gangrene, and whatever else because you weren't impressed with their plan.

Yes, good post, all good points. This is a long way of saying "Don't Be a Dick".

The responses on here have been great. Making it clear off the jump, I'm never pissed off at my players ever. They can do annoying shit but anyone who's really doing too much gets kicked out by my players, not myself. Some of them will just stop interacting with you, only doing so if needed out of respect for me. My players across my many groups are the best filter I could have ever asked for.

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?

Nah, my players are great because they don't sulk or get edgy, they just keep it movin'. Then they come up with some really cunning shit that I'm just like "gotdamm!" and I just straight award them ALLLL the XPs!

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

You'd think I would. But it's funny, I've been told several times by other players off-table as we're packing up when I've had to do stuff like this that they were cheering for me when I did it because them and a few others were getting pissed off with a given player's antics.

Only reason this is coming up is because I got sent this the other day from one of my most regular players about how I (apparently) respond when this bullshit occurs at my table.

[video=youtube;cXCMz340CRg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXCMz340CRg[/youtube]

Quote from: joriandrake;1012485I 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.

I don't care if they want to seduce NPCs. I do care if they're skeezing out their character in a seriously sketchy joint in a way that just. would. not. happen. Not without dire consequences (which I avert before it gets there).

Quote from: Headless;1012495You 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.

When I punish my players, I tend to "pit" them. If they survive the encounter, I award them a fuckton of XP. They get the hint and don't do it again. I've had to do this more than once in the past -- it's been successful.

As above, never angry myself. I've had to have 1-to-1s which are quite formal with offending players, usually after having a heart-to-heart with a player who'd been upset or legit angry with that player and seeing it was that serious.

Door was old and used a type of lock that's guard has rusted away meaning top part of fingers was exposed to jagged mechanisms. PC failed their perception, got told a vague-ish "the lock just looks rusted and maybe dangerous but you can't put your finger on why" (lightly paraphrasing here).

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. 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?

Tone, probably.

Larger the group, the more chance for someone to try and pull some bullshit. At least in my experience, that is.

Quote from: DavetheLost;1012518You 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.

Pimping out your PC is gross. If they research their intended, fine.

This is not including that time another player of mine gave a bunch of street children over to a harem of prostitutes... who were already established to groom and turn them out as one of their recruitment methods... having just rescued them from a child slave ring the same night.

Oh my God, the fucking OOC WAR that ensued after that...

Quote from: Simlasa;1012538I'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.

It's funny how even having two levels of hierarchy of GMs at my club (myself, then my deputies), as just an example, radically changes the behavior of certain players at my games. They don't want to be sent to me because of their behavior, it becomes very formal, very quickly. That really floored me when I realized it.

Quote from: jeff37923;1012563It 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.

^

This guy gets it.

Quote from: estar;1012566Sure, 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.

This is one of those things that works out because a lot of players really do respond to this and then get cunning about how they act in the game world. It's great. They stop doing stupid shit and start acting like GOT. It's amazing, it's really cool.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1012585The first thing I will say is that we couldn't possibly know, because we are having to take your word for it, and part of the premise of you coming here and asking this question of us is that you doubt your own self-judgment. However, it sounds like you think perhaps you aren't being as even-handed as you should. Now, most gamers are self-loathing misanthropes so you might be completely wrong about this and you're doing fine, but let's do some analysis.

 

Is there a reason you included these two together? They are not natural buddies in any conceptual framework that I know of. Are they just two examples of things you do not like (in your players)?



These do not sound like the realistic consequences of the actions described. Guy who is supposed to be guarding the local black alley gambling den who throat-stabs every fool who mouths off to them isn't going to last long because he's creating a liability (lost revenue, bodies to dispose of) for his bosses. White knighting for a cause most often will end with you screaming at people who have no idea who you are or what you are talking about and assuming you are a tin-foil type nutjob. Getting tetanus from a lock because you try an pick it too many times? No. That makes no sense. What would happen is that you would get frustrated and waste time continuing to fail, then end.

It sounds like you are bringing OOC frustration on your part into the game world. You can do that if you want to, but I wouldn't suggest it. I would instead suggest envisioning your game world. It doesn't have to follow the exact rules of our world (especially if you are going for a more stylized genre, such as noir or 4-color comic book or something), but it should have rules. Now, put the characters into this world, and have the world react to their actions as it naturally, coherently would.



This is a great example. What about this makes sense? Player A thinks their character (B) should try to seduce NPC C and use it as a means of gaining information. First off, why is this not a reasonable plan? Second, if it isn't, why is 'and you'll need to be rescued,' the logical consequence? Third, what even are you talking about, with the nonconsensual bathroom rendezvous and ending up dazed and confused? Who nonconsensually what? This seems to be a complete non-sequitur.

Regardless, it sounds like you are punishing the characters as retribution for the players... deciding on courses of actions which you deem inferior to how you think that they should be acting. The worst case scenario is that it isn't in fact you who have the mature ideas at all, and perfectly reasonable, mature, 20-something players are having to deal with failure-maturity GM (again, as I mentioned at the top, the rest of us have no way of knowing who is the 'in the right' person here). But even if not, and it is immature players with a frustrated-but-mature GM, there's the risk that you are just lashing out, instead of actually shaping behavior towards anything better.

So again, I think you should refocus on creating a world that is realistic, not conveniently punitive. If your players come up with plans that shouldn't work, then they shouldn't work, not they don't work, and they end up driving into the back of a truck full of manure, and get gangrene, and whatever else because you weren't impressed with their plan.

Thank you for your considered response Willie. I'm not being facetious in the slightest with this thread, I am genuinely curious about who else has these shared experiences as myself.

I constantly question myself. I think that's part of just trying to hone your craft, regardless if it's GM'ing or whatever else. I do so less these days but the questions I do ask are deeper, more resonant with experiences from other areas of my life. I think it's been very helpful in helping me to predict people's behavior or the outcome of a series of actions or policies.

I think I run quite dark and brutal worlds in general. Some influence from WOD, definitely. It's funny though, I was running Black Dog style before I'd even heard Black Dog was a thing. Stuff like the child slave ring example above do exist in my games and I let my players handle it as they wish, I'm not gonna tell them they're wrong but I will tell them they're fucked-up. So my NPCs responses are informed by that. I make sure to give my players saves each time though, usually of the "you realise this is a bad idea" kind before they actually roll for the action.

My players have blown up a taco truck by using overpowered magic to fix an engine overheat failure. They killed several and injured a dozen others. Trust me when I say the response was very much realistic, hah hah. I didn't even do shit, they fucked up the roll!

The bathroom incident is infamous but it's not as bad as the vampire VIP club room incident.

(And that is yet ANOTHER player willingly going into there suspecting what it is, knowing this could go well left)

Quote from: Voros;1012593Uh what? These are some of the most fucked up examples of bad GM'ing I've ever heard.

Punishing a player for 'white knighting'? Good characters are going to stand up for their causes, that sounds IC. I can't tell if you're talking about players holding political opinions you disagree with in RL, I assume not as it is so absurd.

The lockpicking example is just...why not tell them they only get one chance to pick a lock? Talk about disportionate consequences.

And why would you punish a PC for trying to seduce a NPC? That is a perfectly legit RP tactic.

Thank you. I take the fucked-upness as a compliment. I am balling at the "disproportionate consequences" comment.

If you sound like Nigel Farage when he was addressing the EU in Belgium after Brexit, it's really not going to go well in settings where Blood Hunts are a thing.

Dodgy door, as above.

Pimping a PC is gross. Especially when you've got suspect behaviors elsewhere. It creeps out my female players.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1012595Yeah this was weird. It sounds like he is saying that since the PC hit on a character, the PC is then subjected to a prison rape scenario in the bathroom by the NPC later or something.

Oh shit! You just reminded me: I had a player once who lured an NPC into a bathroom cubicle, got high on coke with them, slit the NPC's throat, robbed the bastard, then took a piss in the adjacent urinal and just straight walked out... and didn't even wash their hands afterwards.

(this was when I realised That Girl is a thing and female players can do some of the MOST fucked-up shit you'll ever see at the table. I must admit, I had mad respeckt).

Quote from: Headless;1012596@Bren

If the DM can punish the players, then the players can punish the DM back.  

"Oh I got gangrene picking a lock? Well I guess instead, I'll track that last pickpocket back to the orphanage, bar the doors and urn it down."

Its just shitty.  Don't to it.  

However natural predictible consistant consequences are good, even harsh ones.

Not really. The most they can do is effectively bitch and whine and moan. And then they get thrown out by the eleven other players patiently waiting to get on with the game.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;1012628If you sound like Nigel Farage when he was addressing the EU...

Goddamnit o_O
I can't escape that turd even in an RP forum?
Please don't remind me of Brexit when I attempt to chill out.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;1012628I don't care if they want to seduce NPCs. I do care if they're skeezing out their character in a seriously sketchy joint in a way that just. would. not. happen. Not without dire consequences (which I avert before it gets there).

...

Pimping out your PC is gross. If they research their intended, fine.

...

Pimping a PC is gross. Especially when you've got suspect behaviors elsewhere. It creeps out my female players.

...

(this was when I realised That Girl is a thing and female players can do some of the MOST fucked-up shit you'll ever see at the table. I must admit, I had mad respeckt).

This seems... inconsistent to me.
First you say you don't mind player/character seduction RP in your games, then you call it 'pimping' and gross, although you say it is fine if they look up their target first (stalk?). Later, you again say it's gross and worry about personal reaction of your female players (which tbh is their personal problem which if they want can address ingame) and at the end you give an example of what gross stuff (which by the way is far worse than any NPC seduction/romancing) your female players do in your group and tell us how you respect them for that. I can't wrap my head around this.

Quote from: joriandrake;1012631Goddamnit o_O
I can't escape that turd even in an RP forum?
Please don't remind me of Brexit when I attempt to chill out.



This seems... inconsistent to me.
First you say you don't mind player/character seduction RP in your games, then you call it 'pimping' and gross, although you say it is fine if they look up their target first (stalk?). Later, you again say it's gross and worry about personal reaction of your female players (which tbh is their personal problem which if they want can address ingame) and at the end you give an example of what gross stuff (which by the way is far worse than any NPC seduction/romancing) your female players do in your group and tell us how you respect them for that. I can't wrap my head around this.

Hah hah, hey, the guy wanted clarity. I gave it to him.

You're right, I should elucidate. If I remember right, it was essentially four checks or so the guy made before it went bad. Perception checks, persuasion(seduce) checks, read lie check essentially. Failed check to check drink was spiked, succeeded to seduce, failed is NPC lying check and I did one more to check for "wingmen" on the NPCs side. Oh, and a resist drug one too. A couple other PCs on the other side of the dancefloor spied the PC being lured away from the bar kinda walking funny, failed first check to get through dancefloor relatively cleanly, made the second one and made a quick perception check to see any signs of their companion which they succeeded in. NPC gets nailed to wall literally with nails via Forces magic, PC rescued.

What I don't accept in my games is using a character as a piece of meat to sex NPCs. If every other solution is "I try to get him/her alone" (which is what it was) and the situations are getting progressively more sketchy (which they were), you can expect to get met with fierce consequences. This is what this dude would do all the time. Was too much.

If you're gonna go the creepy stalker route, own it. I've known people who joke about using Forbes and CEO magazine as to pick dates, so it is entirely within my capacity to know people do this in real-life. This has happened in my games and the players had their PCs make the appropriate checks to do so (they never end up sleeping with anyone, they usually do even more fucked-up shit like drug em' and then canvass their pad for the info they're looking for etc... that actually worked very well one time but they almost tripped the alarm trying to leave through the penthouse skylights).

Fortunately, the women I have in my games had had no qualms talking to me if they're bothered by something which I'm thankful for. This is still a male-dominated hobby and some dudes just get weird around women (which baffles the shit out of me). It's even worse when they're attractive, oh my god its cringe-worthy.

When I'm saying I've got respect for what that player had their PC do to that NPC, I'm just saying I respect they didn't give a fuck. Made it clear I thought this was fucked-up (to a point of laughing at the absurdity) but hey, World of Darkness brings that out in people I guess.

It all just boils down to patterns of behavior, players' personalities bringing down the game and, most importantly, PC actions which just make no sense or are stupid and then those same actions screwing over the other PCs. Do not act like Billy Badass if you haven't got the stats for it and, especially this, if you can't figure a decent reason why'd this would work for RP. Or expect an NPCs knife through your PCs throat and hope that I give you a save and don't just crit you.

If you don't like the IC behaviour of players have an OOC serious talk with them about you do and do not want to see at the game table.  Make it very clear where the lines are drawn.

By awarding them "a fuckton of EXP" for escaping bad situations by teh skin of their teeth, you are rewarding them for getting into those bad situations. You are not saying "don't do this again".

Seriously, have a talk with your players about what you do and do not want to see in the game. Have it out of character, with the lights on, like mature adults.

Remember you are soliciting advice from a bunch of guys whose dice are older than you.

Quote from: DavetheLost;1012652Remember you are soliciting advice from a bunch of guys whose dice are older than you.

I'm not asking for advice. I'm asking if others have had similar experiences. Some posters have taken to trying to give me what I'm sure is well-intentioned but unnecessary advice, a few others have experienced similar stuff like me and have responded themselves to it similarly to different degrees, the rest are just projecting fears or chastising or don't really have much to say. All good stuff.

End goal is just seeing if others employ harsh reactions in their games to solidify the consequences of in-game actions by PCs in their games. And why they do so. As simple as that.

Are you playing a Vampire game?  

One that is aboit discovering your inhumanity, and redeiming yourself.  I play vampire Larp for a while it was great, but there were players that pure griefers and dumb about it too.  I've never had to deal with griefers.  Harsh lessons might be the right thing.

Nah, that's not cool OP. You do a social activity to have consensual fun, not to impose your definition of fun on others. You're behaving like the asshole in the tuesday night ball game that keeps pushing and scolding friends to play hard etc. while people are there just to vent off a little. If you're not satisfied with the way this group plays, go find another one.

You could have a conversation with them to convince the group to try your style, that's cool and positive. But auto assiming your way is the best for the group is just wrong.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;1012628Thank you for your considered response Willie. I'm not being facetious in the slightest with this thread, I am genuinely curious about who else has these shared experiences as myself.

Definitely not - and I GM a lot publicly for strangers (I'm an Alpha Geek too!) , so it's not that. Maybe you get the bad players because you're running some kind of degenerate necrophiliac play-an-undead game, and I have Dungeons & Dragons.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2007[/ATTACH]

BTW I don't think my Meetup has ever sent a player "to see the Organiser" - if a player is annoying, GM boots them from the table. Likewise, I don't punish PCs with 'harsh consequences' PCs experience natural consequences. Annoying players get booted - though I don't think I've had to boot a player since 2010. Getting older may be a factor, I don't see 'shit tests' from young punks anymore. My players Respect Mah Authoritay - and they respect each other, too.