Quote from: JesterRaiin;880904Out of curiosity: are your players unconstrained by any form of laws/government? I mean, I understand it's fantasy, but what the redhair speaks about doesn't struck me as particularly challenging/complicated elements of any civilization, no matter whether it's fantasy or not.

I pulled JesterRaiin's comment from a different thread because I want to talk about the sort of topic his question (not to me) raises.  Particularly because I find it relevant to my own gaming experiences.

Insofar as I have a reputation as a GM (I don't that I'm aware of...) I am considered something of a softy. I'm interested in things like character development over the course of the game, world building and so forth, and I've found it makes my game more fun (for me) if my players survive more than a few sessions.

Also, it keeps the cops from locking me up as some sort of menace to society.


But I also make some effort to keep the player Characters alive.   When I can I try to plan encounters that are not 'easy, of course, but also that are not overly lethal, and I'm willing to adjust on the fly to tone down the lethality. I don't mind wounded and crippled... characters... but dead ones no longer contribute to the on going, fuck it... call it narrative... of that campaign.

Why start with that?

Well, because part of the reason I GM (a small part, I must confess), is that I got tired of playing in games where the PCs had some sort of 'god mode cheat' going for them... Shadowrun games where the 'runners could spend weeks at the scene of the crime if necessary without reinforcements or police or what have you showing up, games where the Cleric of the Good and Holy God of Goodness could slaughter the patrons of the local tavern for spilling wine on his best vestments without worrying about torch mobs, stern letters or an angry patron god.

I'm not thinking of any one specific incident, so my examples are necessarily specious.

So when I GM, I work very hard to build a working environment for my players, where actions have consequences, where there are good and bad ways to handle circumstances, and good and bad places to engage in a bit of the old ultra violence.

Of course, by nature Player Characters almost always are operating outside of normal society. Why? Because who wants to play and RPG about being a barista?

No one.

So by default the characters are going to engage in activities that should, ultimately, draw down negative consequences upon their far too unworthy heads. Compounding the issue is the play-space, the table, is so far removed from the imaginary action that creating a sense of urgency... and sustaining it... commensurate with their actions is demanding. Players laugh and joke, eat snakes and take bathroom breaks while their characters are trying to disarm a bomb ticking down to the final seconds.  Its unavoidable.

The big issue at least for me, has been to balance the potential consequences of (say) criminal actions versus the fun of playing an outcast,a criminal murderhobo.  I want my players to have the freedom to enjoy their character's often anti-social behaviors while still creating the tension inherent in performing those actions in a  world where they are not acceptable.  Especially since, as I noted above, I'm not exactly eager to slaughter my player's characters session after session until they get it right.

I don't exactly have a lot of techniques to share, I sort of adjust things ad hoc as I go and hope for the best, while encouraging my players verbally to think of their characters position in the world.  

Which is part of the reason I figured and frank and open forum of discussion on the topic was called for.

Quote from: Spike;880912Insofar as I have a reputation as a GM (I don't that I'm aware of...) I am considered something of a softy. I'm interested in things like character development over the course of the game, world building and so forth, and I've found it makes my game more fun (for me) if my players survive more than a few sessions.

Also, it keeps the cops from locking me up as some sort of menace to society.

I saw what you did there.

QuotePlayers laugh and joke, eat snakes and take bathroom breaks while their characters are trying to disarm a bomb ticking down to the final seconds.  Its unavoidable.

It does sound like you have some tough players. Or really bad convenience store food.

Regarding your topic of concern, I think it is, as you say, a balancing act. And how much leeway the PCs should expect to get depends a lot on the setting or genre. If you are playing a game that emulates the tone and style of the first couple of seasons of the TV Show Supernatural, then generally the assumption is that the authorities never connect up fingerprints, DNA, video footage, and witness statements from the various [strike]crime scenes[/strike] adventure locations with the PCs. In turn the PCs pay for things in cash, use fake IDs, and makes some effort to stay off the grid. Similarly if you are playing tights wearing superheroes it is often assumed that building smashing encounters between heroes and villains don't result in so many deaths of innocent bystanders that the authorities try to stamp out both villains and vigilantes post haste and when all those apartment and office buildings get rebuilt and who foots the bill is also hand waved away.

Here are a few techniques I've used and seen used to help with the balancing act.

Stop the action before allowing the PC to "slaughter the patrons of the local tavern" to clarify whether (a) the PC is actually attempting this, (b) the PC is threatening to do this, or (c) the player is making an out of game comment.

• If it is (c) you might laugh and move on or suggest that player try to keep their comments in character.
• If (b) have other NPCs react to the comment – scream in terror, flee, plead for their lives, or prepare for combat as appropriate. Also ask the other players how their PCs react to this comment.
• If (c) remind the player that such behavior is considered evil in his society (assuming of course that it is so considered) and ask "So are you actually doing that?" If they are, ask the other players how their PCs react.

Include, highlight, and use NPCs as witnesses, commentators, or even fans of the PCs. This helps remind the "Cleric of the Good and Holy God of Goodness" who is contemplating whether or not to "slaughter the patrons of the local tavern for spilling wine on his best vestments" that there are witnesses outside the Barnesville tavern, the patrons have families and friends, and that the reputation the Cleric creates exists and persists. So when the Cleric travels to the next village and everyone heads for the hills to hide out from the "Bane of Barnesville" that acts as a reminder, even without the torches and pitchforks that the deeds men do live after them. Someone on a thread suggested having NPC fans become copycats of the PC. Watching their biggest fan trying to slaughter the patrons of the next tavern for spilling wine on his vestments may look very different to the player.

Some systems include mechanics that can facilitate tracking or representing the consequences of behavior, especially aberrant social behavior.

• In Pendragon actions and behaviors change traits and traits are tracked and at high or low levels are worthy of comment and noticed by all. So a cruel or vengeful action increases the trait of Cruelty or Vengeful. An extreme score in either is remarkable which effectively gives the character a reputation, so they may now be known as Galaheald the Cruel.

• WEG Star Wars uses Dark Side Points which provide mechanical means of representing the consequences of behavior. And if the point total gets too high and the player rolls too low, the PC turns to the Dark Side, is removed from play, and becomes an NPC villain.

• Call of Cthulhu has Credit Rating which is a stand in for societal reputation. It can be used to influence officials to help you or to get loans from the bank or facilitate money transfers in distant regions, so having a good Credit Rating can be an advantage. But if the investigator is constantly hanging out with seedy characters, having run-ins with the police, getting arrested, and generally running about town yelling about winged horrors while waving a shotgun, it is reasonable for the character's Credit Rating to decrease as society realizes that the investigator is just not really fitting in with polite society.

• Flashing Blades uses Social Rank which is a measure of social status and position in society. Violating societal mores can result in a decrease in Social Rank while notable and praiseworthy successes can raise it. Flashing Blades even introduced another metric in High Seas supplement called the Ruthlessness Rating that was used for pirate captains and tracked their villainies. It could be used to get a ship to surrender without a fight or to cow a crew to force them to your will or to prevent a mutiny.

• Other systems may also have usable mechanics, e.g. I believe Unknown Armies has some mechanic that might be apt and WoD included Humanity which may reflect behavior out of line with traditional human mores.

To return to the idea of NPCs, an NPC can be used not just to highlight the bad deeds of the PCs, but also their heroic deeds. Having NPCs who thank the heroes or remind other people of the heroes past good deeds can be surprisingly effective at reinforcing heroic behavior as it reminds the player and their PC why they are playing a hero. (Assuming of course that they are playing a hero.)

I am interested in this topic too. Back in the 80s when I ran a Robot Warriors campaign the PCs were in the military. The rule book had a system of "Brownie Points" which reflected how well thought of the PCs were. If you did well on missions you gained BPs, if you did poorly you got zero or lost some. The BPs could in turn be spent on getting the PCs out of trouble, increasing the odds of getting a medal or even receiving a promotion. It worked out well.

I was wondering if any other rule systems had the same or something equivalent and what GMs thought of it.

Quote from: Bren;880926It does sound like you have some tough players. Or really bad convenience store food.

I've been meaning to put in a line in my sig block. Somehow this computer I use, in the last two or three years, has taken to a near obsessive compulsive level the idea that it has to auto-correct my typing for me.

Never mind that it has no idea what it is doing. Never mind that too many common terms, such as 'Sci-Fi' are apparently not in its lexicon. No. It SIMPLY MUST fix my spelling. Badly.

So, you get snakes, because it jumped the gun on snacks and I didn't notice it this time.  Somehow the spell-checking function has made me less literate.

On the other hand, that is a fairly awesome 'correction', and I'm might have let it stand had I seen it.

Now to answer the actual post, at least in part:

As a GM I've really had more minor issues, like people pulling guns and other obvious, but comparatively minor, mayhem in very visible public places.  I always feel like I simply haven't set the damn scene clearly enough that the players always seem to assume they are alone in a small dark room with whichever NPCs are deserving of their mayhem.

Not that I haven't had a few players who felt like they had some special dispensation to commit murder and mayhem simply because the NPCs aren't real.

Damn you, Bren!  You already said most of what I'd want to say.

One thing I'd throw in is a SOP of mine: the PCs are never, ever the toughest folks in a region, and the monarch always has forces sufficient to kick their asses if need be.  It's my staunch belief that if the PCs get "too much" money, the rulers will simply tax it away, and that if they get too uppity, the rulers will simply stomp them.  If the Powers That Ostensibly Be are too weak to do either, then they're not the rulers after all.

Quote from: Doughdee222;880933I am interested in this topic too. Back in the 80s when I ran a Robot Warriors campaign the PCs were in the military. The rule book had a system of "Brownie Points" which reflected how well thought of the PCs were. If you did well on missions you gained BPs, if you did poorly you got zero or lost some. The BPs could in turn be spent on getting the PCs out of trouble, increasing the odds of getting a medal or even receiving a promotion. It worked out well.

I was wondering if any other rule systems had the same or something equivalent and what GMs thought of it.

My In Harm's Way military RPG series uses a Notice system where PCs get Notice Points for their actions - positive and negative - which is the only path to promotions. The more spectacular the action, the more points. Notice is the opinion of their superiors, and is givenin character in the form of mentions in dispatches, medals, citations, pats on the back, "attaboy"s, and the like.

Quote from: Spike;880967Now to answer the actual post, at least in part:

As a GM I've really had more minor issues, like people pulling guns and other obvious, but comparatively minor, mayhem in very visible public places.  I always feel like I simply haven't set the damn scene clearly enough that the players always seem to assume they are alone in a small dark room with whichever NPCs are deserving of their mayhem.

Not that I haven't had a few players who felt like they had some special dispensation to commit murder and mayhem simply because the NPCs aren't real.

In my Wednesday night IRC game Vanilla Volant, a tavern brawl resulted in three deaths, and simultaneously the murder of the local Duke's son was perpetrated by a PC upstairs. The last three weeks have been taken up by their surrender to authorities, their trial, and their punishments, presided over by the Duke himself.

Quote from: Ravenswing;880990Damn you, Bren!  You already said most of what I'd want to say.

One thing I'd throw in is a SOP of mine: the PCs are never, ever the toughest folks in a region, and the monarch always has forces sufficient to kick their asses if need be.  It's my staunch belief that if the PCs get "too much" money, the rulers will simply tax it away, and that if they get too uppity, the rulers will simply stomp them.  If the Powers That Ostensibly Be are too weak to do either, then they're not the rulers after all.

Pretty much where I am, too.

I appreciate funny absurd commentary, but usually after a chuckle or two I check with the player "do you actually do that?" So essentially I assume a healthy majority of Bren's option C. But occasionally you'll get players who persist, (or think they're calling my bluff?).

I keep persistent those consequences in the timeline, even "jokey, disruptive" behavior. So destructive, absurd, suicidal behavior is retained as the local madman who was made an example of, and usually culled, to maintain stability. It makes for some great game history and even play hooks.

That and I never much gave credence to that bizarre player notion that by killing authority their PCs magically replace that authority. So that mercenary squad who kills the king doesn't magically become recognized as the new rulers. They're almost always seen as the new usurpers with every other holder of power now having casus belli to go at them.

Consequences makes the game more fun and vibrant, in my experience. I have no interest in killing the players quickly and casually, but I also have no real interest in holding punches if they persist in choosing to disregard setting. In fact there are fates worse than death, like debt and boredom, which are very real consequences I employ that can essentially retire a character.

"Great, you slaughtered a merchant for lack of a good discount, now the law throws you into an oubliette. You may want to roll up a new character. Or we can try out some of those new White Wolf pathos mechanics you're keen on."

"Consider playing other game."

I know it's bullshit of astronomical proportions and the instant proof of poor GMing to suggest it as some sort of magical panacea to all problems, but so it happens that there are certain conditions, where selecting other game, better suited to players' needs & expectations is worth it. Players "misbehaving" certainly falls into that category.

I didn't have that much experience with murderhobo style of play - the majority of people I've been playing with (on either side of GM's screen) behaved quite reasonably, meaning, they didn't consider excessive violence as the default way of interaction with the world around them.

Yet, there were times when for some unknown reason each new session was bloodier than the last one. Luckily enough players accepted the possibility to play other game (not without some hardships, and manipulation but they finally welcomed the idea).

And we switched to Paranoia.

For some time it was exactly as expected. Betrayals, backstabbing, "murderous by default" and so on and so forth. Yet, after some time players became fed up with the atmosphere. After all, amusing as it is, Paranoia isn't meant to be played for too long. So, after a two or three months of regular sessions, we got back to good, old AD&D and surprise, surprise, the amount of hack/slash/maim/burn was seriously limited in comparison to the past.

So, this would be my 5 cents of input: if everything else fails (like these excellent, earlier suggestions), consider switching (at least for a time being) to a game that not only encourages, but thrives on "crime". Paranoia is the most obvious choice. Both WoD: Vampire and AMBER (or Amber-based games) might be the correct choice. Games that deal with espionage are kind of relevant (Spycraft, perhaps Leverage). If not, perhaps it might be a time for indie games, like Everyone is John or Fiasco.

Point is: give it all to them, push to the extreme and hope for the best.

Quote from: Spike;880967Now to answer the actual post, at least in part:

As a GM I've really had more minor issues, like people pulling guns and other obvious, but comparatively minor, mayhem in very visible public places.  I always feel like I simply haven't set the damn scene clearly enough that the players always seem to assume they are alone in a small dark room with whichever NPCs are deserving of their mayhem.

And your players are never going to start accounting for witnesses until you start applying consequences for doing stupid shit in a public place. Why should they?

QuoteNot that I haven't had a few players who felt like they had some special dispensation to commit murder and mayhem simply because the NPCs aren't real.

If the NPCs aren't real, then neither are their PCs.
Either way, those players are in the root of the problem.

Quote from: Ravenswing;880990Damn you, Bren!  You already said most of what I'd want to say.

One thing I'd throw in is a SOP of mine: the PCs are never, ever the toughest folks in a region, and the monarch always has forces sufficient to kick their asses if need be.

Depending on what you mean by the first, I might agree or disagree. Sometimes, the PCs are the toughest fighters in a region. Someone has to be, after all:).

That said, the monarch usually can deal with that, unless the setting has superpowers, being a good fighter doesn't make you immortal.
If it does, the above statement might be literally untrue, of course:D!

But even then, the monarch can simply pay or otherwise nudge the second, third, fourth and fifth contenders for the title to find you and deal with you, all at once. Preferably by surprise:p.

QuoteIt's my staunch belief that if the PCs get "too much" money, the rulers will simply tax it away,

Didn't work that way for the merchant class, in either Europe or Edo Japan;). Which is where I think your setting's development is at (though I might be wrong, I haven't purposefully tracked your setting comments).

Quote from: Doughdee222;880933I am interested in this topic too. Back in the 80s when I ran a Robot Warriors campaign the PCs were in the military. The rule book had a system of "Brownie Points" which reflected how well thought of the PCs were. If you did well on missions you gained BPs, if you did poorly you got zero or lost some. The BPs could in turn be spent on getting the PCs out of trouble, increasing the odds of getting a medal or even receiving a promotion. It worked out well.

I was wondering if any other rule systems had the same or something equivalent and what GMs thought of it.

TSR's Marvel Superheroes had the Karma system where it was both EXP and your general luck and general standing with how the populace viewed you.

D&D in various iterations had a few modules that played around with the idea of negative actions impacting CHA checks, or even imposing the need for CHA checks when dealing with NPCs. The more bad things a player or group did. The worse the checks and reactions got. In BX for example short-changing or mistreating henchmen, retainers and mercenaries could quickly get you penalties to reaction rolls when hiring or negotiating as circumstance allowed.

Quote from: JesterRaiin;881023"Consider playing other game."


And we switched to Paranoia.

For some time it was exactly as expected. Betrayals, backstabbing, "murderous by default" and so on and so forth. Yet, after some time players became fed up with the atmosphere. After all, amusing as it is, Paranoia isn't meant to be played for too long. So, after a two or three months of regular sessions, we got back to good, old AD&D and surprise, surprise, the amount of hack/slash/maim/burn was seriously limited in comparison to the past.

So, this would be my 5 cents of input: if everything else fails (like these excellent, earlier suggestions), consider switching (at least for a time being) to a game that not only encourages, but thrives on "crime". Paranoia is the most obvious choice. Both WoD: Vampire and AMBER (or Amber-based games) might be the correct choice. Games that deal with espionage are kind of relevant (Spycraft, perhaps Leverage). If not, perhaps it might be a time for indie games, like Everyone is John or Fiasco.

Point is: give it all to them, push to the extreme and hope for the best.

There's a story I believe I've told on this forum a few times in the distant past.  I was running a D&D game with a large group (8 or so players), mostly younger, fresh out of high school, and mixed genders.  

Long story short, more than half the group decided that they were going to play a very juvenile 'sexy time' D&D, rather than adventure, locking their characters in hotel rooms for days of gnomish kama sutra and so forth.  

My solution was to buy the Book of Erotic Fantasy, which was still fairly new and available at the local... was it a Waldenbooks? I think it was.  Curiously, having rules for all those shenanigans was an instant buzz kill, and the game resumed a more normal style of play.

Quote from: Spike;881100Curiously, having rules for all those shenanigans was an instant buzz kill, and the game resumed a more normal style of play.

Nicely done!

There's a possibility that we've accidentally discovered some kind of "overload" rule. ;]

Just joking. Still, I'm positive that plenty of GMs often refuse to take the risk and try similar solution out of fear they will unleash uncontrollable hell. I wonder whether something like that actually happened.

Quote from: AsenRG;881033Didn't work that way for the merchant class, in either Europe or Edo Japan;). Which is where I think your setting's development is at (though I might be wrong, I haven't purposefully tracked your setting comments).

Heh, we've been commenting on each other's stuff for over a decade now on multiple forums; you're not wrong.

But it's two different cases.  An entrenched merchant class is used to the trappings and ways of power; it's part of their survival to be sensitive to it.  Merchants of high enough profile to be noticed by the rulers know how to play the game; merchants of low enough profile often know how to cheat and get away with it.

PCs don't.  They're often of lower class, they often are upstarts and foreigners, and they spend their times doing things other than maintaining contacts, memorizing laws and buffing up their political cred.  Mostly, they don't have the patience to play that game, and campaigns are seldom about it.