Quote from: jhkim;881385What are you expecting that I should do to not allow it? Stand up and tell my GM, "That sucks - change it or else"?

Yes.
Or better yet. Point out that its more realistic if everyone is treated the same.

Quote from: estar;881360My technique is to insist on first person roleplaying.

That could work. I'm not sure my current group would all be on board for that. They seem to enjoy a certain amount of out of character joking. In addition, one player nearly always describes his PC in third person. As he has done this for over 40 years, he may not really want to make the effort to change and I might find it hard to enforce the change since I'm used to him doing that. Still it may be worth the effort to try putting in place a rule like that.

QuoteThe extra steps and difference in body language between 1st and 3rd person helps me a lot with clarifying what the players is actually doing. It not much difference but over the long haul it add up and makes the players think more of how to act as if they are there in the setting rather than treating their characters as throw away game pieces.

Body language cues do help. I've had some players who are very good at adding body language to their character portrayals. I like that when it happens. Unfortunately I'm playing over Skype now so I can't rely on body language since that may or may not be caught on camera and even if it is on camera, it is harder to notice due to the limited field of view and difference in peripheral vision.

QuoteHowever if something is that absurd or extreme for the situation I will just ask point blank "Is that what you intend to do?" If they answer yes then the action goes from there.

Agreed.

For me, it's a matter of setting, circumstance and degree.

The setting is vitally important. If you are playing in a setting where the rule of law is weak then you can get away with a lot. If you are playing in a draconian police state then you can normally get away with a little. Players should be able to get a feel of how the setting treats wrongdoers by what happens to NPCs. If the PCs see the slaughtered bodies of a group of NPCs and people shrug and say "Oh, that's Red Mick's bandits, they kill loads of people around here" then they know they are in a situation where criminals are not pursued, however, if the PCs are asked to join a posse who are going after Red Mick's bandits then they are in a setting where crimes are punished.

Circumstance is important. There is a difference between killing someone in self-defence and attacking someone in cold blood. Killing raiders as a caravan guard is different to sneaking up on a group of raiders and ambushing them before they attack the caravan. Planning a robbery to steal a diamond is different to picking the diamond up after a fleeing burglar has dropped it.

Degree is important in that killing a man in self-defence might be acceptable, but doing so thirty times in a row means the local law enforcement might keep an eye on you. Being in possession of a stolen bracelet is different to having a cave full of stolen treasure. Seducing a bigwig's daughter is different to being a serial rapist.

I like settings to be consistent. If law enforcement is normally achieved by a posse going after the criminals, then a PC committing a crime should be treated the same. If a clan feud happens then the PCs would be at the centre of it. A clever PC might be able to cover his tracks to the extent that the bumbling investigators don't catch him, or catch someone else instead. If the authorities put a lot more resources into catching the PCs than other criminals, this might be fair if the PCs have offended a VIP.

Quote from: estar;881365Because a lot of people are not self aware enough to recognized they are biased.

Look at this way, if a setting is a real place then logic demands that average law enforcement setup will be competent. Because if they weren't then the inhabitant would eventually tire of the situation and force a change by whatever means works in their culture.

You know that law enforcement forces didn't exist in many cultures, right?
Also, there are still places, even today, where, say, every third man dies of violence. Seems like they haven't tired yet.
So yes, change would eventually happen, but it might not happen within the timespan of the game:).

Quote from: jhkim;881385What are you expecting that I should do to not allow it? Stand up and tell my GM, "That sucks - change it or else"?

Frankly, I was assuming you're the GM:D.

QuoteIn practice, every game has problems - and some of them are a lot worse than this bias. GM's are always biased because humans are always biased, and arguing with them doesn't necessarily make things better.

When I notice bias in my own GMing, I try to correct it - but that doesn't mean I'm unbiased. When I'm playing and I see bias in my GMs, I'll sometimes give mild feedback, but for the most part, I'll stand by and support their calls because it's better for the game as a whole to support them rather than complain.

Or you could talk to the GM as a friend. I'm presuming that's the case, again, but it most often is;).

QuoteThe split that I cite is there for good reasons. (a) GMs often don't want the PCs to just be able to sit back and let NPCs solve the problem. (b) GMs often don't want PCs to run roughshod over the setting. (c) GMs usually want the setting to be consistent and their resolution unbiased.

I agree with the lack of solution to all three. I just fail to see either point (a) or point (b) as a problem;). And sometimes, randomness is consistent with reality.

Quote from: jhkim;881345The common problem I see is that if NPCs commit crimes, then it's up to the PCs to fix it - they can't rely on the nobles/police/whoever to deal with the bad guys. However, if the PCs commit crimes, then suddenly the law becomes effective and deals with them.

...

Decades of gaming, probably hundreds of sessions, dozens of discussions concerning probably every aspect of RPGing, and there are still things I didn't observe in spite of them being as obvious as ocean's wetness.

Damn. :hmm:

Quote from: jhkim;881345The common problem I see is that if NPCs commit crimes, then it's up to the PCs to fix it - they can't rely on the nobles/police/whoever to deal with the bad guys. However, if the PCs commit crimes, then suddenly the law becomes effective and deals with them.

Mm, but you're missing a key distinction.

In that classic "nail the criminal NPCs" scenario, the NPCs are almost always under the radar.  They're sneaky bad guys, or they've bribed the authorities for a free hand to operate, or they're preying on an underclass and the authorities don't give a damn.  Their murders -- when they're killers at all -- are seldom headline news: no massacres, no high-profile aristos with severed heads tied to the castle's portcullis, no brazen and bloody killings in market squares at high noon.  If the authorities want to do something but can't, it's usually for political reasons: the perps are too highly connected for them to dare.

The "classic" PC murderhobos are usually anything but.  Leaving a tavern full of dead bodies, waxing high profile people, they commit their crimes with almost complete disregard to any public opinion or consequences, and waltz down the avenue waving their bloody weapons.  As for political protectors ... who needs them, right?  They're all Xth level and the party leader has a Sword of Defenestration, bring it on, Chucky!

Authorities, down the ages, can and often do ignore the former.  So what if the bodies are piling up in Shanteytown?  Junkies, whores, furriners and thieves, the lot of them.  As long as the bodies stay on that side of Port Norfolk Bridge, that's just Decreasing the Surplus Population.  Right?

They can't ignore the latter, not in any situation short of complete civil anarchy.

Quote from: estar;881365Because a lot of people are not self aware enough to recognized they are biased.

Look at this way, if a setting is a real place then logic demands that average law enforcement setup will be competent. Because if they weren't then the inhabitant would eventually tire of the situation and force a change by whatever means works in their culture.

Well, historically law enforcement was normally by Hue & Cry - a citizen mob - not by police at all. Doesn't work too well in D&D editions that make normal people incredibly weak, and in any edition a citizen mob may hesitate to take on heavily armed adventurers - that sounds like a job for calling out the city guard or lord's retainers, military forces who would not normally act as regular police/watch in most places.

Quote from: Spike;880912The 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.

First, I would recommend reading The War Prayer by Mark Twain. It's really short. The lesson isn't about war specifically. Or the consequences of murderhoboism. The key point is that whenever a player states the desire for one thing to happen, the player, often unwittingly, is making a second silent request as well.

The silent request would be the consequences. I honor the silent request equally to the one verbalized by players. If I were to ease up on the consequences now and then, I'd also have to insist players not make certain choices now and then. And vice versa. So if I'm insisting the party not split up just to make my job easier, then I do have to ease up on consequences delivered on some party members that result from the choices of other party members. On the other hand, since I generally prefer to give players all the freedom in the world, in general I must not pull punches on consequences.


Now one way that's helped me figure out where the party fits into society is I view them as entrepreneurs. They apply special skills the general population doesn't have and face uncertainties most are unwilling to face. To what purpose? This is the question players must answer for their characters. I don't need a 10-page backstory or detailed character concept. I just need PCs to have all their game stats generated and then for the character to have some purpose. The character is not complete without it. The purpose can be just to gain lots of wealth and magic. That's fine. So long as they have one.

Once PCs have purposes, it's easier to evaluate the wisdom of each decision. They're more likely to be cooperative with others when they begin to evaluate the different ways they can be potentially helpful in achieving a goal. The PCs, no matter how different in purpose or "alignment" will also be far more reason to stick together.

Here's what I tend to like:

* Detailed realism-oriented tactical map & counter combat systems with lots of crunchy rules taking the situation and what people are doing into account, and give results which include at least some chance for permanent maiming and death for every thing that really would have that chance, such as a bullet or axe hitting someone without enough protection to keep it from causing a serious wound. Serious wounds generally have effects other than HP reduction, and healing them takes at least days of rest. So avoiding fights, using tactics and avoiding taking serious wounds is the way to avoid being killed or taken out of action - no attacking everything and soaking up blows which get magicked away.

* Enough weight to the abilities of exceptional characters that someone with exceptional skill and experience can do things and survive experiences, usually, that non-exceptional characters usually won't, but still with some appropriate room for unexpected results. Also, doing reasonable or very clever things that makes sense adds a layer of effectiveness and certainty, while doing unreasonable or very unwise things, or facing particularly strong or cleverly applied opposition, can turn the tables.

* Cause & Effect & Consequences apply as expected to all characters, with occasional exceptions due to rare luck/misfortune or unusual circumstances.

* PCs and interestingly exceptional NPCs may have exceptional abilities to resist consequences, but I try to have sensible established reasons for all these things, so that the game is really an exercise in what their exceptional abilities allow in a rational world, and not just an artificial hand-waving of cause & effect without reason for the sake of having a happy story.

* No GM control-freak over-representing reactions to PC actions.

* Generous appropriate GM "generousity" when it makes sense. e.g.: If the PC's have authority or even just look formidable, most NPC's are going to respect or at least fear that, and not interfere with them. In many low-tech settings, someone with serious weapons is effectively part of the ruling class to most people. If the PC's are very competent at something and aren't acting the fool in other ways, they'll tend to have the respect of people who know their abilities and aren't jerks.

* In-character reminders and responses when a player starts behaving inappropriately.

Quote from: jhkim;881345The common problem I see is that if NPCs commit crimes, then it's up to the PCs to fix it - they can't rely on the nobles/police/whoever to deal with the bad guys. However, if the PCs commit crimes, then suddenly the law becomes effective and deals with them.

and

Quote from: jhkim;881385What are you expecting that I should do to not allow it? Stand up and tell my GM, "That sucks - change it or else"?

Ah, from the first post it sounded as though you were the GM. From the second post it sounds as though you were burned by a GM's decision.

It happens, I'd just let it go and don't assume in future that the NPC law enforcers are always going to be useless.

Sometimes, PCs assist in solving crimes because, well, they are PCs and it makes an interesting scenario. The mistake is believing that law enforcers cannot do their job without the aid of PCs.

Quote from: jhkim;881385What are you expecting that I should do to not allow it? Stand up and tell my GM, "That sucks - change it or else"?

It should have been obvious here that the 'you' in question is the GM.

Nice to see the thread humming along without me...

It does occur to me that one of the... contributing threads... to my 'problem' is that I keep running my players around in settings that are highly developed, at least early in the adventure.   I got no problems with murderhoboing in the wilder spaces of the various settings, which all players eventually get to.

Putting that in mind, combined with my recent extra-gaming interest, I had a thought that maybe I should start out my next campaign (currently in very loose planning stages of 'get the band back together!'), in something very like mycenaean greece, where its all 'rule by the strong' and the law is predicated very much on the familial vengeance and personal strength.  One of those 'everyone is a murderhobo' settings, more or less.

Well if your grasp of Mycenaean Greece is anything like your grasp of Greek gods... Then your players might want to consider finding a new GM. :rolleyes:

Quote from: Spike;881826Putting that in mind, combined with my recent extra-gaming interest, I had a thought that maybe I should start out my next campaign (currently in very loose planning stages of 'get the band back together!'), in something very like mycenaean greece, where its all 'rule by the strong' and the law is predicated very much on the familial vengeance and personal strength.  One of those 'everyone is a murderhobo' settings, more or less.

That's exactly what I did with my Ghinarian Hills Wilderlands campaigns - each village its own micro-state ruled by a Mycenean type Lord. Add a couple large dungeons (Thracia & Dyson's Delve) near the starting town, and it worked perfectly. Great murderhoboing, but also good for politics & intrigue.

Quote from: Omega;881900Well if your grasp of Mycenaean Greece is anything like your grasp of Greek gods... Then your players might want to consider finding a new GM. :rolleyes:

Are you disputing my characterization? If so, based on what facts?

Or is this another substanceless rebuttal?