Quote from: -E.[...] One thing that I find very helpful is talking about what I see as the likely consequences of an action before it occurs...

In many cases this gives the PC's a chance to modify or abort the action -- or convince me that I'm wrong about my assumptions. Either way, if the actions play out the way I thought they would, at least everyone's on-board.[...]

You'd think so, yes. Yet players can get stubborn.

"I don't care, I'm doing it anyway."

For example, in my most recent session, the Mary Sue character and her friends had gone to the villain's room in his share flat and were searching it. They came across his Little Guy, his homunculus,


When they shone their torch on him, he screamed a high-pitched, piercing scream. Most of them covered their ears and closed their eyes in pain and rushed out of the room. Mary Sue threw the bed cover over him and stomped on him repeatedly, crushing him to bloody pulp. The villain chose this time to come home.

"No! My little guy! No!" He zapped Mary Sue with a flesh-rending magical blast. She didn't think much of this, and proceeded to beat the crap out of him. Next her warped her hand - made all her fingers stick together, turning her hand into something like a flipper. "Back off!" he threatened, "or next time, it'll be your mouth and nose sealed up!"

The other PCs were urging Mary Sue to stop. The players began discussing whether he was evil or not. After one player tried to make a point, Mary Sue's player said "I don't care what you say. My character believes he is evil and she wants to kill him."

Luckily for Mary Sue, the other characters dragged her off him. Otherwise, her mouth and nose would have been sealed up. A nasty end for a character with "Fear Stimulus: Asphixiation." Of course, they could prevent her death by cutting her sealed-up face open, but that is pretty nasty and will stay with a player.

Even when warned of in-game consequences - horrendous magical death for the character - and persuaded by other players who don't want the campaign to go that way (murder), still the player persisted.

"I don't care, I'm doing it anyway."

The point is, you're in a postion to do absolutely anything you like. If you really want to, you can find a way around the characters being busted. You can even do it plausibly.

So whatever happens to the characters next comes from you. Talking about consequences is kind of beside the point. You should decide what's most fun for your game and do it.

If what happens next in the game is simply whatever we all think is most fun, then consequences bear no relationship to actions. I've tried that, and found it creates passive players. "Everything we do leads to success" or "everything we do leads to failure" or "everything we do has no effect on what happens next, it comes out the same anyway" is just boring.

Part of this particular group of players' sense of fun is that there's some consistency and plausibility to the game world. They want a world where crime leads to jail; but the simple fact is that "crime" can be the act and thoughts of a moment. "Woops." The solution, then, is to give the players more time to think about the consequences of their actions, and more knowledge of the likely consequences, than the characters would have.

But if there's one stubborn Mary Sue there's not much anyone can do.

Quote from: JimBobOzThe other PCs were urging Mary Sue to stop. The players began discussing whether he was evil or not. After one player tried to make a point, Mary Sue's player said "I don't care what you say. My character believes he is evil and she wants to kill him."

A case of cognitive dissonance perhaps?  When an individual tries to hold two incompatible thoughts at the same time, despite evidence to the contrary.

As a player, I want to believe the bad guy is evil, because then I'm justified in stomping on him.  And that would be fun.  But as a character the evidence against the bad guy is slim.  Killing him is a violent, sickening action with no real grounds.

Oh, and JimBob, I'm very disappointed at your spelling of the word gaol

Quote from: Tyberious FunkA case of cognitive dissonance perhaps?  When an individual tries to hold two incompatible thoughts at the same time, despite evidence to the contrary.

More like "an excuse to do what I want to do, screw you guys!"

Quote from: Tyberious FunkAs a player, I want to believe the bad guy is evil, because then I'm justified in stomping on him.  And that would be fun.  But as a character the evidence against the bad guy is slim.  Killing him is a violent, sickening action with no real grounds.

No grounds? Sure there are! You had only the bad guy's testimony that he was not a bad guy! Maybe he lied to you, and was playing you like a cheap violin.

"I didn't really kill her. She was trying to kill me, shoot me in the back, and I used our magical bond to transfer the death to her, instead." Does your character honestly believe that nonsense?

It could be true, or not... but does your character believe it?

I loved playing that villain.

Quote from: JimBobOzNo grounds? Sure there are! You had only the bad guy's testimony that he was not a bad guy! Maybe he lied to you, and was playing you like a cheap violin.

Maybe.  But that's hardly grounds for killing him.  That's grounds for handing him over to the police.  Letting justice have it's course.  We're adventurers... not vigilantes.  

Errr... at least, I think that's what we are.  :rolleyes:

Is it? I haven't been able to tell just what you guys are!

But hey, that happens in every group - it takes a few sessions to sort out what you're about, what your style will be.

Some players reckon they can get a shortcut on that by fast-forwarding or rewinding, but unfortunately it doesn't work that way. To figure out who you are and where you're going, you just have to play it out.

Quote from: JimBobOzIf what happens next in the game is simply whatever we all think is most fun, then consequences bear no relationship to actions. I've tried that, and found it creates passive players. "Everything we do leads to success" or "everything we do leads to failure" or "everything we do has no effect on what happens next, it comes out the same anyway" is just boring.

I didn't say 'what we all think'. I said 'what you think'. You have to run the thing, and you're not running PtA.

It's about having fun (right?). If you send them to prison, you need to make that fun in some way. If you don't, same deal. You have to make it up and run it, and maybe you have to deal with people saying "This sucks."

You fast-forward over something if you can't make it interesting. Not 'so the characters escape the consequences of their actions.' That's just putting an extra layer into your decision-making that doesn't need to be there.

I can't speak to your issue with your player, but it sounds to me like you maybe should boot him.

Quote from: JimBobOzLuckily for Mary Sue, the other characters dragged her off him. Otherwise, her mouth and nose would have been sealed up. A nasty end for a character with "Fear Stimulus: Asphixiation." Of course, they could prevent her death by cutting her sealed-up face open, but that is pretty nasty and will stay with a player.

Even when warned of in-game consequences - horrendous magical death for the character - and persuaded by other players who don't want the campaign to go that way (murder), still the player persisted.

On the one hand, as I said, I don't know your player, so maybe there is something wrong here.  But whenever you say things to show that she is in the wrong, it sounds perfectly normal to me.  

Wanting to not play out time in jail?  Sounds pretty reasonable -- something I would suggest as a player.  Ditto for skipping over time in the hospital.  

Stomp an unnatural monstrosity into a pulp?  Perhaps not a cool, reasoned response -- but perfectly understandable and matches stuff many of my PCs have done.  

Attacking the sorcerer responsible for the monstrosity, after he has blasted you?  Also seems normal to me.  

Continuing despite threats of death?  Again, check.  I mean, it's pretty darn usual for PCs to face threats of death.  It's a adventure game, damnit.  If I'm fighting what I think is an evil sorcerer and a murderer, I expect him to threaten me, and it's unlikely to get me to back down.  I would expect that following his orders is quite possibly more likely to get killed than not.  

Doing something the other PCs don't agree with?  Well, opinions differ on this one, but it's pretty common for me.  I don't like loner characters, but I like characters with strong convictions.  I usually prefer to role-play out intra-party conflicts as action rather than have everyone adventure by committee.  


Actually, a lot of this very closely matches what happened to me in a horror campaign years ago -- the Ripper Game.  My character, Inspector Grimmond, came upon a laboratory filled with unnatural horrors, including a fetus in a jar which turned and blinked at him.  He cracked and smashed up the place, over the objections of the other PC there.  

Later, in a different adventure, he was personally threatened with horrible death by a villain.  He refused to back down -- taking the threats as a sign that he was causing problems for the villain, which was exactly his intent.  He was later captured and tortured, and had starving rats chew up the lower half of his body before he was rescued.  

And indeed, Grimmond was something of a contentious point with the GM, similar to your complaints.  Similarly, last year there was a thread about our HarnMaster party on the Harn GM forum: "Reining in the party".  I see it as mainly a GMing problem myself - the claims about our HarnMaster party were in my opinion totally off-base.

Quote from: jhkimOn the one hand, as I said, I don't know your player, so maybe there is something wrong here.  But whenever you say things to show that she is in the wrong, it sounds perfectly normal to me.  

I didn't say that her character's actions were wrong, I said that her character's actions had forseeable consequences, and that she didn't want to suffer these. She did not dispute the likely consequences when warned of them, only when suffering them.

I am happy for a character to shoot themselves in the foot; but if warned that this will make them limp a long time, they should not complain about limping, or argue vociferously about it.

Quote from: jhkimDoing something the other PCs don't agree with?  Well, opinions differ on this one, but it's pretty common for me.  I don't like loner characters, but I like characters with strong convictions.  I usually prefer to role-play out intra-party conflicts as action rather than have everyone adventure by committee.  

I generally agree with this. I merely mentioned it because it's a regular thing. My instinct is that some players have their characters act against the wishes or interests of the character party or game group not because "it's in-character," but simply to be contrary; some people establish identity merely by opposition.

This particular player will often say "well this is what I want to do, and you guys can't stop me," when in fact the other characters are very much in a position to stop her character.
   "I take the journal and send it to the press, you guys can't stop me."
"Well hang on a minute. You're all sitting there reading it together, you get up and go to take it away, guys, do you say anything to that?"
"Sure. Where are you going with that interesting journal we were just now reading and discussing?"
"They can't stop me! They don't know what I'm doing!"
"Well, they see your character get up with the journal in hand, so..."
etc

Players can do what they like with their characters in my campaigns. But there'll be common-sense consequences. "You stomped on his homunculus, he's upset," and so on.

I don't expect that I, as GM, will have right of veto over what the player wants to do with their character, or that I should get to tell them what's right and proper for their character. By the same token, I don't expect that players will have right of veto over what happens in the game world, nor should they tell me what's right and proper for it.

"Hey, that was wrongful arrest! The cops have to read us our rights before cuffing us!"
"That's not the law in this fictional town. They read you your rights once they're going to interview you."
"But that's wrong! The law is wrong! In the US it's different, it's wrong here."
"You may consider the law wrong, but that's what it is in this fictional town in the game world."
"I tell my solicitor I want to sue for wrongful arrest!"
"Your solicitor advises that you've no chance of a successful suit, costs would be awarded against you. Plus the suit wouldn't happen until the campaign was over, so it'll have no in-game effect."
"I don't care, I sue!"
"So you're arguing over a point you know will have no effect on the game?"
"I sue!"

It's a player who's trying to tell me what the game world is like, who's trying to impose that over the objections of the GM and the rest of the group. I see this as exactly equivalent to my saying, "well, I don't think your character would stomp the homunculus, so you can't do it."

Just as we don't run a player's character by game group committee, so too with the game world and NPCs.

If the player were arguing to make the game world more interesting, I'd be delighted; but the player's simply arguing to make the game world more in her character's favour. She is, essentially, a rules-light munchkin. Or perhaps trying to be both GM and player, I don't know.

Quote from: JimBobOzI didn't say that her character's actions were wrong, I said that her character's actions had forseeable consequences, and that she didn't want to suffer these. She did not dispute the likely consequences when warned of them, only when suffering them.

I am happy for a character to shoot themselves in the foot; but if warned that this will make them limp a long time, they should not complain about limping, or argue vociferously about it.

OK, see, here's the communication problem in the thread.  In your prior post, you didn't mention anything about her out-of-game complaints -- you only cited her character actions that I mentioned.  

You do give some examples in this post.  

From what you say about the journal incident, it sounds to me like the other players were clearly having their PCs act on the metagame information, i.e. that their PCs could automatically tell her character was up to something based on what she said out-of-character about her intentions.  However, you started this by jumping from her broad out-of-character statement to declaring as GM what her character does in front of the others.  I would think you could have asked instead.  (i.e. "How do you intend to leave with the journal?")  

On the lawsuit, I don't see what your deal was.  It sounds like you're trying to tell her that her character shouldn't sue, and she's insisting that she does.  After saying what the solicitor's advice is, your answer should be, "OK, you sue."  

Now, this doesn't mean that she's not being a jerk -- but trying to boss her around isn't going to make her less of a jerk, it makes things worse.  Reading in a bit from the tone you ascribe to her, it sounds like she feels that she is being bossed and expected to stick to the party line.  i.e. She feels that she has to argue to do what she wants.

Quote from: jhkimOK, see, here's the communication problem in the thread.  In your prior post, you didn't mention anything about her out-of-game complaints -- you only cited her character actions that I mentioned.  

That's because a character is an expression of a player; a disruptive player will often use their character to disrupt things. That way, they get to say, "but I'm just acting in character! Shouldn't I get extra xp for good roleplaying?" So to a degree, the player's out-of-game comments and actions are irrelevant. Looking at them in-character, we know a troublemaker when we see one.

Quote from: jhkimFrom what you say about the journal incident, it sounds to me like the other players were clearly having their PCs act on the metagame information, i.e. that their PCs could automatically tell her character was up to something based on what she said out-of-character about her intentions.

To a degree. However, three things.

Firstly, her character had engaged in erratic behaviour already. She launched herself at the cops to attack them, then stopped and just sat there. She once refused to confront a physical threat, saying, "I'm just a girl," but then was the first to physically threaten an NPC. Her character was erratic, unpredictable, inconsistent and impulsive. So if she got up taking away a piece of evidence which could possibly clear the party of involvement in someone's murder, well then it was reasonable that the other characters would say, "where are you going with that?"

Secondly, in general it was a reasonable thing for them to question. Again, it's a piece of evidence which could possibly clear them. If someone gets up from the table with that in hand, it's reasonable that others can say, "where are you going with that?"

Thirdly, the player had begun the out-of-game discussion, saying, "Guys, I want to send this journal away, but I'm only asking you out of character, as players - your characters can't stop me." When they protested that it was a bad idea, she said, "well I don't care I'll do it anyway." So the player had already begun the out-of-game discussion. I alow these from time-to-time, as often they're quicker ways of making group decisions than roleplaying it all out.

By contrast, after the party had beaten up the villain and tossed him in the rubbish bin, and the game group were debating what to do next, I was saying, "so, you're standing at the end of the alley where you've left behind a beaten-up guy who's still moaning, discussing what to do... people are passing by as shops open up..."

Sometimes things are better dealt with in out-of-character chatter, sometimes better dealt with in-character. It's very hard to decide which and when as these situations jump up suddenly, I'm sure I often get it wrong.

Quote from: jhkimHowever, you started this by jumping from her broad out-of-character statement to declaring as GM what her character does in front of the others.  I would think you could have asked instead.  (i.e. "How do you intend to leave with the journal?")  

I did. I asked her what her character was doing, "well, I get up from the table, and just walk off with the book." Earlier I just gave you all the abridged version, it's not an exact transcript of the session, as I didn't expect it to be analysed line-by-line

Quote from: jhkimOn the lawsuit, I don't see what your deal was.  It sounds like you're trying to tell her that her character shouldn't sue, and she's insisting that she does.  After saying what the solicitor's advice is, your answer should be, "OK, you sue."  

It's because the issue was nothing to do with a lawsuit in-game. The issue was that the player has a particular conception of the game world, and is trying to impose that on the group. This is something that comes up frequently with this player, regardless of setting. This player's conception of the game world is invariably one which favours her character.

In any activity with more than one person, conflicts will arise. You have to distinguish between the symptoms of the conflicts - "I don't care, I'll sue anyway!" - and the causes of the conflicts - "I want the world to be as I say it is." I was trying to address the root cause.

Tyberious Funk recently pointed us to a wikipedia article on the five bases of power,
   Legitimate Power
    Legitimate Power refers to power of an individual because of the relative position and duties of the holder of the position within an organization. Legitimate Power is formal authority delegated to the holder of the position.

Referent Power
    Referent Power means the power or ability of individuals to persuade and influence others. It's based on the charisma and interpersonal skills of the power holder. Here the person under power desires to identify with these personal qualities, and gains satisfaction from being an accepted follower.

Expert Power
    Expert Power is an individual's power deriving from the skills or expertise of the person and the organization's needs for those skills and expertise. Unlike the others, this type of power is usually highly specific and limited to the particular area in which the expert is trained and qualified.

Reward Power
    Reward Power depends upon the ability of the power wielder to confer valued material rewards, it refers to the degree to which the individual can give others a reward of some kind such as benefits, time off, desired gifts, promotions or increases in pay or responsibility.

Coercive Power
    Coercive Power means the application of negative influences onto employees. It might refer to the ability to demote or to withhold other rewards. It's the desire for valued rewards or the fear of having them withheld that ensures the obedience of those under power. Coercive Power tends to be the least effective form of power as it builds resentment and resistance within the targets of Coercive Power.
We can see that in most game groups, the GM is thought of as having all five kinds of power, though the "coercive power" is limited by the fact that roleplaying is a voluntary social activity - get too bossy and nasty and no-one will game with you. In many groups, some player may have "referent power." So what we've seen in my group is that one player has tried to use "referent power" to assert "expert power" and ensure control over "reward power."

"Hey guys [referent], that's ridiculous because our law isn't like that [expert], so really we shouldn't have been arrested, even though we were violent to the cops [attempt to grab reward, and avoid coercion]."

Basically, this player wants the power of the GM (deciding what the game world is like), while having only the responsibility of a player (not having to go to the trouble of preparing the game).

That's just the way this person is. Once, she asked us how to do a resume, since it's done differently in Australia, a country she was new to. We had in our group a person who's been on interview panels, and taken part in discussions about who to hire. My spouse as an interpreter has also taken part in these sorts of discussions. So those are two people who are well-qualified to advise on what sort of resume impresses, and what sort doesn't. She asked for their advice, acknowledged that it was right for Australia, then said, "But I don't want to do that, so I won't."

I can understand not wanting input or advice on your life, and so rejecting it when it's given; but I can't understand asking for advice, then rejecting it outright and entirely. I can only assume that as with the "villain's journal" situation, she was asking for advice hoping to be told what she already believed in. "Please reinforce what I already think."

So we're talking about a person who insists on their own point of view and course of action regardless, even after explicitly asking for advice.

Quote from: jhkimtrying to boss her around isn't going to make her less of a jerk, it makes things worse.  Reading in a bit from the tone you ascribe to her, it sounds like she feels that she is being bossed and expected to stick to the party line.  i.e. She feels that she has to argue to do what she wants.

Certainly.

I'm aware of what makes things worse. What will make them better? droog's already suggested booting her out. However, I always search for other solutions before doing that. I'm sure I'm not the first GM with a stupidly stubborn player bellowing "I know my rights!" Other people must have dealt with this better than I know how to.

I've tried bringing the subject up, but I just get, "I don't care, I'm doing it anyway." Some people just have trouble understanding they're in a game group.

I really can't stand the "my character will do this disruptive thing, because it's in character" shctick.

Who made that character?  Who decided what was in character and what wasn't?  It's not some revelation from Heaven, it's a fictional construct created by the player.  Next time create a fictional construct that won't disrupt the bloody game.

Quote from: jhkimNow, this doesn't mean that she's not being a jerk -- but trying to boss her around isn't going to make her less of a jerk, it makes things worse. Reading in a bit from the tone you ascribe to her, it sounds like she feels that she is being bossed and expected to stick to the party line. i.e. She feels that she has to argue to do what she wants.

Quote from: JimBobOzCertainly.

I'm aware of what makes things worse. What will make them better? droog's already suggested booting her out. However, I always search for other solutions before doing that. I'm sure I'm not the first GM with a stupidly stubborn player bellowing "I know my rights!" Other people must have dealt with this better than I know how to.

I've tried bringing the subject up, but I just get, "I don't care, I'm doing it anyway." Some people just have trouble understanding they're in a game group.

Bear in mind again that I have limited information here, but since you ask, here's what I'm picturing.  

It sounds to me like she's relatively new to role-playing, and she feels that whenever she brings up an idea, it is shot down by the group -- including you as well as the other players.  This is fairly common in newbies in games of any sort, in my experience -- including board games and card games.  Mind you, their ideas often are bad, but it's still not fun for them to be bossed.  Some just sit through this, but others will rebel in frustration and insist on pushing on with their ideas.  Usually, they don't want to always win, they just want to be able to play for themselves and be judged fairly, rather than be told what to do.  

My suggestion is that if you want to keep her in your group (which maybe you don't -- but I'm saying if), as GM you should to give her a space where she is right.  You shouldn't turn over the whole world, obviously.  However, there needs to be some small but still important section of the game where her ideas have merit and she has authority.  It could be one major NPC who takes her side -- a fan, perhaps, and/or someone in love with her.  The important thing is that there be some confirmation of her ideas, rather than everyone putting her ideas down.  If you could work it in, one idea might be to introduce a woman sorcerer who befriends her and helps her.  Only later she would find out that this is the rival that cursed her to drown, and feels guilty about it.

Thank you, Kyle...

Nice to see that you're more than content to talk about your players behind their backs to the world at large rather than discussing it with the people at the table, and to present one sided arguments that have you coming off smelling like roses.

Truly charming.

Regards,
Ben.