TheRPGSite

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;1012456Do others do this?

I don't.

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

I hope not.

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

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

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

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

By the time I hit thirty, things had changed.

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

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

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

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

It sounds like you are punishing your players.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By the time I hit thirty, things had changed.

This.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 :D 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. :D

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 :D 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 :D 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!) :p, 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. :D

[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 :D - and they respect each other, too.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;1012645Hah 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.

I'm guessing it was a male player with promiscuous female NPC, and you took against him for this reason. Whereas female players get treated differently/better?

If you're not comfortable with male player/female PC, better tell them upfront. Or if they have to play non-promiscuous female PCs only, tell them.

This is still a male-dominated hobby and some dudes just get weird around women

Are you sure that doesn't include you? It sounds rather like you behaving weirdly to male players when female players are around.  Possibly some kind of mild white knighting reflex. I don't have enough info to know what's happening but it does sound as if something strange is going on. I see this now and then with younger male players, one guy hated that another guy played a promiscuous female bard whereas the female players had no problem with it.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;1012656I'm not asking for advice. I'm asking if others have had similar experiences.

Not since I got out of college.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;1012645Hah 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.

What do you mean by White Knighting? I mean it seems like you're kind of White Knighting in some respects. Its okay to use sex to lure someone off to murder them (apparently without 'dire consequences') but its skeevy and sketchy to screw someone to get close to them or get information, which does happen in the real world not to mention fiction?

Hell, its a pretty common action as far as women playing women in my experience at least as is playing 'promiscuous' characters that are at least willing to use sex to get what they want, both male and female.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;1012656I'm asking if others have had similar experiences.

Not in the last thirty years. Before then, yeah, but we outgrew it.

Quote from: S'mon;1012670I'm guessing it was a male player with promiscuous female NPC, and you took against him for this reason. Whereas female players get treated differently/better?

If you're not comfortable with male player/female PC, better tell them upfront. Or if they have to play non-promiscuous female PCs only, tell them.

This is still a male-dominated hobby and some dudes just get weird around women

Are you sure that doesn't include you? It sounds rather like you behaving weirdly to male players when female players are around.  Possibly some kind of mild white knighting reflex. I don't have enough info to know what's happening but it does sound as if something strange is going on. I see this now and then with younger male players, one guy hated that another guy played a promiscuous female bard whereas the female players had no problem with it.

It reminds me a little of something happens in a Shadowrun game I was in years ago. I was playing a female character and she and her brother had been orphaned at an early age. As part of her background I mention that they'd had some lean hard years during which she'd done things she wasn't proud off to survive including prostitution. Nothing luridly detailed or explicit just a note in her background that I thought was fitting and suitably "dark urban' future the GM got really weird about it, claiming that she'd have to have all number of issues, problems and diseases, etc. When he'd introduced any number of essentially 'Happy Hooker" stereotypes in the game previously.

Later, another PC (female played by a male) was trying to relax after a run had gone really sideways and she'd almost died. She met with a guy described as a friendly accquaintance, they talked for awhile then retired to privacy and hooked up, mostly as a stress relief and a need for companionship on her part. Again the gm got weird and suddenly she had a reputation as a 'slut' and was scorned by just about everyone for being this terrible person that engaged in consensual sex... or something.

Quote from: Nexus;1012720It reminds me a little of something happens in a Shadowrun game I was in years ago. I was playing a female character and she and her brother had been orphaned at an early age. As part of her background I mention that they'd had some lean hard years during which she'd done things she wasn't proud off to survive including prostitution. Nothing luridly detailed or explicit just a note in her background that I thought was fitting and suitably "dark urban' future the GM got really weird about it, claiming that she'd have to have all number of issues, problems and diseases, etc. When he'd introduced any number of essentially 'Happy Hooker" stereotypes in the game previously.

Later, another PC (female played by a male) was trying to relax after a run had gone really sideways and she'd almost died. She met with a guy described as a friendly accquaintance, they talked for awhile then retired to privacy and hooked up, mostly as a stress relief and a need for companionship on her part. Again the gm got weird and suddenly she had a reputation as a 'slut' and was scorned by just about everyone for being this terrible person that engaged in consensual sex... or something.

My female PCs are never promiscuous, but I've had enough bad experiences that my rule of thumb is only to play a female PC if the GM is female. The usual issue is that my PC gets ignored/treated as an NPC sidekick to the male PCs.

Quote from: S'mon;1012723My female PCs are never promiscuous, but I've had enough bad experiences that my rule of thumb is only to play a female PC if the GM is female. The usual issue is that my PC gets ignored/treated as an NPC sidekick to the male PCs.

Which is ironic, because that's the actual realism of many jobs/working places for girls.

Quote from: joriandrake;1012725Which is ironic, because that's the actual realism of many jobs/working places for girls.

Yeah... and indeed I have occasionally seen a male GM treat a female player's PC that way, too.

Quote from: S'mon;1012723My female PCs are never promiscuous, but I've had enough bad experiences that my rule of thumb is only to play a female PC if the GM is female. The usual issue is that my PC gets ignored/treated as an NPC sidekick to the male PCs.

Neither of those PCs in those cases was promiscuous unless you define it as "Have had sex outside of marriage at some points in their life". The second had a fairly normal sex life for a healthy adult woman her age, the first was essentially asexual for the most part. I've had players, male and female, play promiscuous characters though.  Being attractive and sexy seems to be an equally opportunity fantasy, IME.

Quote from: Nexus;1012735Neither of those PCs in those cases was promiscuous unless you define it as "Have had sex outside of marriage at some points in their life". The second had a fairly normal sex life for a healthy adult woman her age, the first was essentially asexual for the most part. I've had players, male and female, play promiscuous characters though.  Being attractive and sexy seems to be an equally opportunity fantasy, IME.

also true

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;1012645Hah 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...

Still not clear on the situation at the table, you used the term 'seduce' which suggests consensual flirting and sex to me not 'creepy stalker.' Seems to me that how you describe the situation is potentially close to a 'rolling to failure' situation. (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/38798/roleplaying-games/gm-dont-list-2-rolling-to-failure)

But the ultimate result sounds dramatic and fun. As estar noted you should be careful of reducing every NPC to a schemer out to screw over the players as not only is it not believable, essentially a form of meta-gaming, but it also can stop the game world from being any fun to the players and encourages them to murderhobo since no one is ever going to actually help them.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;1012456I've noticed as I GM more and more, I tend to kill power fantasy and preconceived notions pretty quickly and empower players who use their character's skillset to great effect or in unorthodox ways.

Care to share examples of actually empowering players?

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

We don't know you, so yes, all of this is possible:).

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

All well and good, provided you are fair about what would gonna go well.

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

You mean they couldn't fight him off or even dodge and run (or, alternatively, they couldn't see him approach)? OK, yeah, a non-combatant should try this stuff with a violent individual.

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

Why? Because you hate white knighting, or because the NPCs hated it?

QuoteTrying 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.

Why didn't you just tell him "you get no roll"?

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.

Why? Because you didn't appreciate the attempt, or because you had decided the NPC is the type that would use "date drugs"?

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

Yes.
But some do it for a better reason than others. Hence me asking you about your reasons;).

Seems like heavy handed aggressive GMing.   Certainly not my cup of tea.  As a player, I would bow out of that campaign pretty fast.

I remember not that long ago I had a Gnome in a 5e campaign and revealed the location of a place which angered some faction.

IN BETWEEN SESSIONS my character was arrested and imprisoned with no chance to avoid or any say in it. just like that.
So I just said fine, run it as an NPC as I won't be playing in that campaign again.  

Nice guy, but crap DM imo.

The OP's description of his games reminds me of my early 20s with asshole referees and players who just wanted to burn the world.  We did it for a while and then got it out of our systems.

Like the Boot Hill game where the PCs formed the "Drinkwater Gang" to play a "Wild Bunch" style of outlaws until they all got killed.  So when they needed a distraction to rob the bank, they put six cases of dynamite under the one-room schoolhouse and detonated them at 9:15 Tuesday morning.

Quote from: Headless;1012596If the DM can punish the players, then the players can punish the DM back.

Sure. Everybody can punish everybody. That's a fact. It's also rude, stupid, and immature. Most people outgrow such behavior.
   

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;1012656I'm not asking for advice. I'm asking if others have had similar experiences.

You and your group have hit a low I have thankfully never experienced.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1012796Like the Boot Hill game where the PCs formed the "Drinkwater Gang" to play a "Wild Bunch" style of outlaws until they all got killed.  So when they needed a distraction to rob the bank, they put six cases of dynamite under the one-room schoolhouse and detonated them at 9:15 Tuesday morning.

I would never run a PC who would do that...



...9:15AM is way too early in the day to be messing about with dynamite.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;1012456I've noticed as I GM more and more, I tend to kill power fantasy and preconceived notions pretty quickly and empower players who use their character's skillset to great effect or in unorthodox ways.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That stuff goes on when both the GM and players are still trying to understand what it is they're supposed to be doing in a tabletop game.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;1012456Or I could just be an asshole, plain and simple.

You do post here! :)

I agree PC actions should provoke NPC reactions, and depending on the NPC, the reaction might be...troublesome for the PC.

That's a good thing.

Quote from: Bren;1012826...9:15AM is way too early in the day to be messing about with dynamite.

Well, he did say that they were the 'Drinkwater Gang,' so y'know, no hangovers. :D


To the OP-- yes, sorry, we did mistake this for you asking for advice, rather than asking if others did this. I would say of course it has happened at times. No one is perfect, and all of us in my circles who have sat behind the screen have undoubtedly gotten annoyed with someone's gaming actions and decided to 'teach them a lesson' or whatever. But, as a general rule, our theoretically adhered-to best behavior is to try to create a world with internally consistent sets of consequences for actions. And that's what we shoot for. On our good days, that's how it pans out.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;1012645You're right, I should elucidate.
...

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.

You have still not explained what the Player or Character did that was wrong. They tried to 'sex NPCs?' -- as in pick up someone in a bar? That's... well, looking for one night stands is kinda sorta pathetic/vaguely sketchy in real life, doing so vicariously through one's character in a TTRPG is downright sad unless you're doing it as a lark. But again, what is the untoward behavior of the PC in this situation that you felt the need to punish?

QuoteIf 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).

Okay, so still not clear where the creepy stalker route comes in, but at least we're getting somewhere. So what has happened in the game is that players have seduced NPCs with important information, instead of sleeping with them mickey-finning them and digging through their desk drawer (instead of other drawers) looking for vital info? So that's acceptable behavior apparently (which IRL it isn't, of course, but I'm assuming the alternative they otherwise would use would be general burglary or violence), but what this person did where you retributed with getting them in trouble wasn't? So what was it that they were trying to do?

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1012924Well, he did say that they were the 'Drinkwater Gang,' so y'know, no hangovers. :D


To the OP-- yes, sorry, we did mistake this for you asking for advice, rather than asking if others did this. I would say of course it has happened at times. No one is perfect, and all of us in my circles who have sat behind the screen have undoubtedly gotten annoyed with someone's gaming actions and decided to 'teach them a lesson' or whatever. But, as a general rule, our theoretically adhered-to best behavior is to try to create a world with internally consistent sets of consequences for actions. And that's what we shoot for. On our good days, that's how it pans out.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;1012645You're right, I should elucidate.
...

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.

You have still not explained what the Player or Character did that was wrong. They tried to 'sex NPCs?' -- as in pick up someone in a bar? That's... well, looking for one night stands is kinda sorta pathetic/vaguely sketchy in real life, doing so vicariously through one's character in a TTRPG is downright sad unless you're doing it as a lark. But again, what is the untoward behavior of the PC in this situation that you felt the need to punish?

QuoteIf 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).

Okay, so still not clear where the creepy stalker route comes in, but at least we're getting somewhere. So what has happened in the game is that players have seduced NPCs with important information, instead of sleeping with them mickey-finning them and digging through their desk drawer (instead of other drawers) looking for vital info? So that's acceptable behavior apparently (which IRL it isn't, of course, but I'm assuming the alternative they otherwise would use would be general burglary or violence), but what this person did where you retributed with getting them in trouble wasn't? So what was it that they were trying to do?

The OP examples all sound like GM over-reaction, to me.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;1012456Smart-mouthing a hired blade in a back alley entrance to a gambling den: knife through the throat.

I think the correct logical response is a mental state in the NPC - however the NPC reacts to the smart-mouthing, which would take into account the whole situation. NPC deciding to murder the PC on the spot would be an extreme reaction probably only appropriate for a reckless psychopath, and would need to be gamed out, giving the PC an appropriate chance to notice the NPC's reaction (psychology vs. acting), and the attempted maneuver (perception, tactics, awareness), and then the actual attack resolution.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;1012456White knighting for a cause (especially OOC): feathered and tarred (usually socio-politically but sometimes quite literally).

I'm not sure what this one even refers to, but again I just play out logical reactions as fairly and objectively as I can, and this sounds like the GM is making a punishment happen because some behavior was somehow OOC, so no.

QuoteTrying 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.

This is an insanely bad GM move in my book. Either find or invent some rules that can handle this basic situation appropriately, or make an appropriate ruling. Ruling that they get a cut and require amputation (without appropriately small chances that that would happen, and actually rolling that) makes you a nightmare GM.

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.

(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).

So you relate to GM'ing as making things happen, for OOC reasons that include GM preference for whether the players are being creative in how they use their PC skills or not, and also in picking horrible punishing outcomes, making them happen, and judging what your players are willing to take and fudging the odds and making deus ex machina rescues when you think you may have "gone too far" for the sensibilities of the players. That sounds atrocious to me. The gameplay is evidently about sizing up the GM's tastes and catering to them, and being prepared for weird forced consequences.


P.S.: I read later posts by the OP and see that he says he was using appropriate rolls and the players were being stupid and inappropriate. Ok, so there is a point where stupid and inappropriate moves do quite reasonably lead to very bad consequences. However I tend to apply another filter before that point, when appropriate: If the player suggests something stupid or inappropriate, I consider the PC - if I think the PC would tend not to be that stupid or would have observed and considered things the player seems to be ignoring, then I mention those things to the player and ask them to reconsider. If they persist in being awful, I judge whether their PC really does the stupid thing, or whether they're being so incompetent as a player that I'm not going to have the PC do that, and/or rule that they're incompetent to play that PC. The "now I drop off the rescued slave kids to sell them as sex slaves" would be an example of that unless the PC is a demented psychopath, for example.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1012924Well, he did say that they were the 'Drinkwater Gang,' so y'know, no hangovers. :D

You got me there.

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

By the time I hit thirty, things had changed.

This is good, providing perspective and self-/forgiveness of one's past indiscretions.

So finish the advice! What should we expect at 30s, 40s, 50s, and beyond! :D

One gets increasingly tired as each decade passes.

Quote from: Opaopajr;1013020So finish the advice! What should we expect at 30s, 40s, 50s, and beyond! :D

Less hair on the top and more everywhere else.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;1012859That stuff goes on when both the GM and players are still trying to understand what it is they're supposed to be doing in a tabletop game.

Admittedly, that seems most likely.
Then again, maybe he's just got players that made stupid enough plans to merit such treatment;).

Quote from: Skarg;1012987P.S.: I read later posts by the OP and see that he says he was using appropriate rolls and the players were being stupid and inappropriate. Ok, so there is a point where stupid and inappropriate moves do quite reasonably lead to very bad consequences. However I tend to apply another filter before that point, when appropriate: If the player suggests something stupid or inappropriate, I consider the PC - if I think the PC would tend not to be that stupid or would have observed and considered things the player seems to be ignoring, then I mention those things to the player and ask them to reconsider. If they persist in being awful, I judge whether their PC really does the stupid thing, or whether they're being so incompetent as a player that I'm not going to have the PC do that, and/or rule that they're incompetent to play that PC. The "now I drop off the rescued slave kids to sell them as sex slaves" would be an example of that unless the PC is a demented psychopath, for example.

I have been known to ask players "Are you sure you want to do that? It doesn't seem like a very good idea." Sometimes they say "yes" and go ahead and do it anyway, but at least it is then clearly their choice, not the DM being a dick and trying to screw them.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1012924They tried to 'sex NPCs?' -- as in pick up someone in a bar? That's... well, looking for one night stands is kinda sorta pathetic/vaguely sketchy in real life,

It is?

Quote from: Nexus;1013137It is?

Yes.  

The mating dance is best done in long term committed relationships preferably marriage.

Quote from: DavetheLost;1013081I have been known to ask players "Are you sure you want to do that? It doesn't seem like a very good idea." Sometimes they say "yes" and go ahead and do it anyway, but at least it is then clearly their choice, not the DM being a dick and trying to screw them.

Nowadays I try to remember to ask them what they are trying to accomplish by that thing they want to do that seems to me to be obviously unproductive, odd, crazy, suicidal, or some combination of the four. When I do that I often find that it isn't that the player(s) and I have different ideas of what constitutes a good or a bad idea it is that the player(s) have a very different view of the situation than I have as the GM. Sometimes that's because I didn't communicate the situation well. Sometimes that's because they weren't paying attention or because they forgot something important.

Quote from: Headless;1013154Yes.  

The mating dance is best done in long term committed relationships preferably marriage.

Indeed, pre-martial sex is a crime against the sacred institution of marriage.





























;)

Quote from: Nexus;1013137It is?

Meh. I went back and forth on saying such a thing. Certainly I was much more discussing getting one's character laid in-game for vicarious thrill. And even that... y'know, I play silly elf games to be the hero, who am I to judge someone else's wish fulfillment. But your 'it is?' just highlights the main point... I can't figure out what the OP thought his character was doing in this situation that he felt the need to retribute against them (regardless of whether retribution is the right response) with the spiked drink and needing to be rescued etc. etc. etc., or why he insists that their behavior was sketchy.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1013235Meh. I went back and forth on saying such a thing. Certainly I was much more discussing getting one's character laid in-game for vicarious thrill. And even that... y'know, I play silly elf games to be the hero, who am I to judge someone else's wish fulfillment. But your 'it is?' just highlights the main point... I can't figure out what the OP thought his character was doing in this situation that he felt the need to retribute against them (regardless of whether retribution is the right response) with the spiked drink and needing to be rescued etc. etc. etc., or why he insists that their behavior was sketchy.

I'm puzzled by the overall situation too. The response seemed overly harsh but maybe there were more details and circumstances driving things. It did strike me as weird that using sex  (I guess?) to lure someone off to slit their throat in the toilet was easier to get away with and more approved of than (what seemed like) using sex to get close to them and gather information. Or just hooking up during some semi downtime?

This is one of the cases where I have no idea who is being sarcastic on the internet.
Except Voros, thank you for that smiley to make it clear.

Quote from: Bren;1013029One gets increasingly tired as each decade passes.

Fucking Ay, you got that right.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1012924Well, he did say that they were the 'Drinkwater Gang,' so y'know, no hangovers. :D

Heh.  Actually, they got the name after their first caper where a bank robbery attempt wound up with them killing every man, woman, child, and puppydog in the town of Drinkwater, Texas.

Wow, lotta replies! Thanks guys, trying to respond to them all now.

Quote from: DavetheLost;1012648If 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.

This is too idealistic for my tastes experience. Plus, I don't have to: my regs happily play bouncer for me and I love em' for it. I guide softly first offense, firmly explicate in front of everyone second, there's no third time. I'm running the equiv of a Tier 2 faction in Hunter at the club.

At my home games, it's much more casual since we know each other well and a long time so no-one does this in the first place. Different environments.

Quote from: Headless;1012657Are 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.

You've been really lucky then and it's almost 100% by accident. You really need a griefer in your life. Once this happens, I guarantee your opinions on the hobby and players of it will change drastically. This is not a bad thing: it's the equiv of being dosed with political realism theory.

Quote from: Itachi;1012660Nah, 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.

Everyone is having fun. They wouldn't come back and pay week after week if they weren't, hah hah. If some of us are grabbing Starbucks afterwards, they'll tell me both good and bad and I'll feedback them too and we end up having better games for it. Something I'm quite thankful for. They've told me I'm way too easy on Paradox rolls time and time again, hah hah.

Quote from: S'mon;1012669Definitely not - and I GM a lot publicly for strangers (I'm an Alpha Geek too!) :p, 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. :D

[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 :D - and they respect each other, too.

ALPHA GEEKS! HWOARAH!

We're finishing up our second Mage Chronicle pretty much now it's EOY. The fucked-upness comes from them trying to turn people inside out with Life and Space magic or trying to cause forced ODs in junkie dens with Spirit magic or changing neon signs lighting with Forces to read "THE COCK" instead of The Courteous Rake (that's what I get for coming up with fancy names for Silver Ladder clubhouses again...).

That has happened twice before at mine. It's not pleasant but when people pay to play a quality game of NWOD and you've got more than one table to manage, you gotta have some member QA and an escalation policy. It's why I liken my club to Tier 2 Hunter Compacts because to take it next level, you've gotta introduce "organization" to it. It's worked out well so that's what matters.

Quote from: S'mon;1012670I'm guessing it was a male player with promiscuous female NPC, and you took against him for this reason. Whereas female players get treated differently/better?

If you're not comfortable with male player/female PC, better tell them upfront. Or if they have to play non-promiscuous female PCs only, tell them.

This is still a male-dominated hobby and some dudes just get weird around women

Are you sure that doesn't include you? It sounds rather like you behaving weirdly to male players when female players are around.  Possibly some kind of mild white knighting reflex. I don't have enough info to know what's happening but it does sound as if something strange is going on. I see this now and then with younger male players, one guy hated that another guy played a promiscuous female bard whereas the female players had no problem with it.

Nah, I get weird when female players start using male PCs as rape machines because that was their idea of Neutral Evil (I hate that I can say this happened but... it happened. I still allow Evil characters at my table, though). I've had female players play female PCs and have them strip on a regular for infiltration missions or even when relaxing (this happened in an Only War game I did years back because the PC had a major Mutation called Phase which enabled them to go Incorporeal and back in a flash). These are separate players, by the way (quickly banned the former, latter has played in several of my games and has made them all the better for it).

Quote from: Nexus;1012700What do you mean by White Knighting? I mean it seems like you're kind of White Knighting in some respects. Its okay to use sex to lure someone off to murder them (apparently without 'dire consequences') but its skeevy and sketchy to screw someone to get close to them or get information, which does happen in the real world not to mention fiction?

Hell, its a pretty common action as far as women playing women in my experience at least as is playing 'promiscuous' characters that are at least willing to use sex to get what they want, both male and female.

Two separate instances. Throat slitting one was female player with male PC. Second was female-female.

White Knighting mention isn't that. It's playing a peacemaker to death (and then almost to literal death of the PC as a result) or not understanding when "it's a wrap, bud". Essentially, I tell em' to go watch some GOT, especially Tyrion Varrys, Ned, Theon or Jon (etc...) scenes so they get the point.

IME, there's two types. Those who feel they need to be extra/"cute" to fit in (so they try it every other chance they get) or those who don't give a fuck and this is their character. The first is straight extra and it gets annoying quick (and I, or most times another female player, goes to talk to them/chats in a separate window with them privately about it as you do), the second is legitly roleplaying the character. I've mostly had the second and they have been some of my best players ever -- added to the game immeasurably.

On the male side, it's just straight creepers (I ban them from the outset or they leave themselves after a sesh or two) or its guys who've never been told it's not ok.

Quote from: Nexus;1012720It reminds me a little of something happens in a Shadowrun game I was in years ago. I was playing a female character and she and her brother had been orphaned at an early age. As part of her background I mention that they'd had some lean hard years during which she'd done things she wasn't proud off to survive including prostitution. Nothing luridly detailed or explicit just a note in her background that I thought was fitting and suitably "dark urban' future the GM got really weird about it, claiming that she'd have to have all number of issues, problems and diseases, etc. When he'd introduced any number of essentially 'Happy Hooker" stereotypes in the game previously.

Later, another PC (female played by a male) was trying to relax after a run had gone really sideways and she'd almost died. She met with a guy described as a friendly accquaintance, they talked for awhile then retired to privacy and hooked up, mostly as a stress relief and a need for companionship on her part. Again the gm got weird and suddenly she had a reputation as a 'slut' and was scorned by just about everyone for being this terrible person that engaged in consensual sex... or something.

Well, that's just... bizzare. Fuck that GM, I hope I neverdo anything like that.

Quote from: joriandrake;1012725Which is ironic, because that's the actual realism of many jobs/working places for girls.

Yep.

Strangely, my bandit lord (who was female) NPC was praised exclusively by my female players. I didn't understand why at first (because she is a bit of sadist, brutal killer, merciless and condones the rape of men and women who can't protect themselves or fight). Then they told me over drinks she was "strong", "really well done", "I can see her" and "is my spirit animal". Guess I just try to make believable characters.

Quote from: S'mon;1012731Yeah... and indeed I have occasionally seen a male GM treat a female player's PC that way, too.

Never understood that.

Quote from: Nexus;1012735Neither of those PCs in those cases was promiscuous unless you define it as "Have had sex outside of marriage at some points in their life". The second had a fairly normal sex life for a healthy adult woman her age, the first was essentially asexual for the most part. I've had players, male and female, play promiscuous characters though.  Being attractive and sexy seems to be an equally opportunity fantasy, IME.

We have several actors/performers/occasional models and some people who are just genetically blessed (not to toot my own horn *wink*) who are regs at the club so some of us get to be attractive and sexy in real-life too. Don't know why WOD attracts these types, it just does. Funny thing is, my deputy said I'd be a great Daeva -- we'd be Daevas together!

Quote from: Voros;1012765Still not clear on the situation at the table, you used the term 'seduce' which suggests consensual flirting and sex to me not 'creepy stalker.' Seems to me that how you describe the situation is potentially close to a 'rolling to failure' situation. (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/38798/roleplaying-games/gm-dont-list-2-rolling-to-failure)

But the ultimate result sounds dramatic and fun. As estar noted you should be careful of reducing every NPC to a schemer out to screw over the players as not only is it not believable, essentially a form of meta-gaming, but it also can stop the game world from being any fun to the players and encourages them to murderhobo since no one is ever going to actually help them.

Thanks dude. That's all I'm trying to do at the end of the day. And my harsh reaction seem to fit the bill so I keep chugging along with em'.

Some of my players actively turn the NPCs against them, even when the other players are just about tearing their hair out to get them to stop. This is happened in most every game I've ever done across formats. I gladly consequenceiate them.

Quote from: AsenRG;1012773Care to share examples of actually empowering players?


We don't know you, so yes, all of this is possible:).


All well and good, provided you are fair about what would gonna go well.


You mean they couldn't fight him off or even dodge and run (or, alternatively, they couldn't see him approach)? OK, yeah, a non-combatant should try this stuff with a violent individual.


Why? Because you hate white knighting, or because the NPCs hated it?


Why didn't you just tell him "you get no roll"?


Why? Because you didn't appreciate the attempt, or because you had decided the NPC is the type that would use "date drugs"?


Yes.
But some do it for a better reason than others. Hence me asking you about your reasons;).

My crafting players always end up creating OP-as-fuck weapons and other stuff for the other players. Usually, players are shitted on for crafting when I've played instead of GM'd. I don't think that's ok. So I just let them run amok and they end up creating greek fire grenades, nerve toxins, cart-mounted balistae and the equiv of Hellboy's Baby. Oh, it fucks up my encounter balance, but I totally let em' go for it because why the fuck not?

I'm definitely an asshole. Seems to work for me, hah hah.

They walked right up close to the tough and did that shit. I auto-crit'd them but left them alive. I just simply said they were so busy being this dude, they crit'd themselves by means of stupid.

[video=youtube;jS6kAKj8R9o]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jS6kAKj8R9o[/youtube]

As above to other reply, it's when they don't know to give in. Since my worlds are pretty stark, they get educated real quick (but I give em' a save or two because benefit of the doubt and shit).

Yep, that NPC was a drink spiker. That's why I had them have social (but phys too) "wingmen" incase of interruption because birds of a feather and all that...

Thanks for asking my reasons, hah hah.

Quote from: danskmacabre;1012777Seems like heavy handed aggressive GMing.   Certainly not my cup of tea.  As a player, I would bow out of that campaign pretty fast.

I remember not that long ago I had a Gnome in a 5e campaign and revealed the location of a place which angered some faction.

IN BETWEEN SESSIONS my character was arrested and imprisoned with no chance to avoid or any say in it. just like that.
So I just said fine, run it as an NPC as I won't be playing in that campaign again.  

Nice guy, but crap DM imo.

That sounds shit. I've never done that before and can't say I've ever been tempted. I've actually been too nice about town guards and police in my games before when the rogue PCs really should have been executed in the street (the face-slicing incident comes to mind).

Quote from: Bren;1012826Sure. Everybody can punish everybody. That's a fact. It's also rude, stupid, and immature. Most people outgrow such behavior.
   
You and your group have hit a low I have thankfully never experienced.

Not really. I noclip and god mode bullshit away that doesn't entertain my table or disrupts the game. Sulkers know where to go at my table.

Good to know our lows are better than your highs.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;1012859That stuff goes on when both the GM and players are still trying to understand what it is they're supposed to be doing in a tabletop game.

Nah, it's what happens when you've got a confident GM and confident players. Soldering on is a big part of maturity, I've yet to see other groups do this. I've overheard heated args at Dragonmeet and my players (mix of members and con goers) and I just rolled our eyes. I've played in many other games, arguments over trivial shit like tactical usage of APC usage or +1 chambering bullets in pistols come to mind.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1012924To the OP-- yes, sorry, we did mistake this for you asking for advice, rather than asking if others did this. I would say of course it has happened at times. No one is perfect, and all of us in my circles who have sat behind the screen have undoubtedly gotten annoyed with someone's gaming actions and decided to 'teach them a lesson' or whatever. But, as a general rule, our theoretically adhered-to best behavior is to try to create a world with internally consistent sets of consequences for actions. And that's what we shoot for. On our good days, that's how it pans out.




You have still not explained what the Player or Character did that was wrong. They tried to 'sex NPCs?' -- as in pick up someone in a bar? That's... well, looking for one night stands is kinda sorta pathetic/vaguely sketchy in real life, doing so vicariously through one's character in a TTRPG is downright sad unless you're doing it as a lark. But again, what is the untoward behavior of the PC in this situation that you felt the need to punish?



Okay, so still not clear where the creepy stalker route comes in, but at least we're getting somewhere. So what has happened in the game is that players have seduced NPCs with important information, instead of sleeping with them mickey-finning them and digging through their desk drawer (instead of other drawers) looking for vital info? So that's acceptable behavior apparently (which IRL it isn't, of course, but I'm assuming the alternative they otherwise would use would be general burglary or violence), but what this person did where you retributed with getting them in trouble wasn't? So what was it that they were trying to do?

"vicariously". That's the word Willie. That's the perfect word. And that's what I cannot do because it disrupts every game I've ever done every time.

Quote from: AsenRG;1013075Admittedly, that seems most likely.
Then again, maybe he's just got players that made stupid enough plans to merit such treatment;).

My players have burnt down entire warehouses (heavily guarded, I might add) which have led to city blocks burning, all because I wouldn't "let them win" (i.e., they decided fighting the guards out front head-on who had archer cover AND THEN sneaking into warehouse was the correct order of operations).

Quote from: DavetheLost;1013081I have been known to ask players "Are you sure you want to do that? It doesn't seem like a very good idea." Sometimes they say "yes" and go ahead and do it anyway, but at least it is then clearly their choice, not the DM being a dick and trying to screw them.

As above, I usually give em' the chance unless it's really stupid.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1013235Meh. I went back and forth on saying such a thing. Certainly I was much more discussing getting one's character laid in-game for vicarious thrill. And even that... y'know, I play silly elf games to be the hero, who am I to judge someone else's wish fulfillment. But your 'it is?' just highlights the main point... I can't figure out what the OP thought his character was doing in this situation that he felt the need to retribute against them (regardless of whether retribution is the right response) with the spiked drink and needing to be rescued etc. etc. etc., or why he insists that their behavior was sketchy.

As above, it comes down to a player problem essentially. But, thankfully, it was sorted.

Quote from: Nexus;1013238I'm puzzled by the overall situation too. The response seemed overly harsh but maybe there were more details and circumstances driving things. It did strike me as weird that using sex  (I guess?) to lure someone off to slit their throat in the toilet was easier to get away with and more approved of than (what seemed like) using sex to get close to them and gather information. Or just hooking up during some semi downtime?

There was a shootout outside the bathroom for unrelated reasons shortly afterwards so there wasn't time or reason to hit em' with consequences.

I've had PC Hunters and NPC Werewolves hook up in-game as you do (totally player-led, there even ended up being a vote over supernatural relationships within the Cell as a result). I don't care about the bonking, could do with more sex in my club games honestly given our demographic. It's the player's pattern of behavior that changes the dynamic of ok-ness.

... "is my spirit animal"

This made me lol for some reason, and which isn't typical in my case.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;1013353Good to know our lows are better than your highs.

I guess it is opposite day again and nobody told me.

" dedicated World of Darkness club in London!"

Okay, I got it, the OP is trolling us to provide a venue for boasting about how his gaming group is all edgy an' shit.

Ah, twentysomethings.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1013369" dedicated World of Darkness club in London!"

....edited for content....

Ah, twentysomethings.

If I am correct the OP is running a public (pay to play?) role playing club in a major city.  Specialising in World of Darkness.  

So the default tone is going to be alot more dark and fucked up than normal. But its the public part that is important.  He has to play with losers and griefs the rest of us never invite to our private tables.  

I played a Vampire Larp for a while.  Their were losers Dbags, creeps, socaly malformed and some generally pathetic individuals.  Some creepy skeesy ones too.  

There were also some really cool people and I had a lot of fun.

But there is a reason gamers have a certian reputation. It might take specific tools to deal with those kinds of players.  The rest of us just as those players to leave.

Quote from: Headless;1013412But there is a reason gamers have a certian reputation. It might take specific tools to deal with those kinds of players.

For some reason, when it comes to jerkass players, system REALLY matters. Apparently WoD attracts a high proportion of jerks. For some reason 3e D&D/Pathfinder does too, whereas with 4e & 5e D&D I've hardly ever had any issues (in fact with 5e I have never once had an annoying tabletop player, in 4e I recall a guy who played one session with another DM). Over at Dragonsfoot you see it with the old editions too - all the jerks seem to be in the 1e AD&D forum, not Classic 2e OD&D et al.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;1013353My crafting players always end up creating OP-as-fuck weapons and other stuff for the other players. Usually, players are shitted on for crafting when I've played instead of GM'd. I don't think that's ok. So I just let them run amok and they end up creating greek fire grenades, nerve toxins, cart-mounted balistae and the equiv of Hellboy's Baby. Oh, it fucks up my encounter balance, but I totally let em' go for it because why the fuck not?

OK, got what you mean:).
Though I've got to ask...encounter balance? Aren't you running WoD?

QuoteI'm definitely an asshole. Seems to work for me, hah hah.

Well, as long as you're not an asshole to us, it's fine;).
The people in your life can, supposedly, take care of any other issues.

QuoteThey walked right up close to the tough and did that shit. I auto-crit'd them but left them alive. I just simply said they were so busy being this dude, they crit'd themselves by means of stupid.

Still don't get it. Them being in range and him being tough doesn't mean they can't outtough him;).

QuoteAs above to other reply, it's when they don't know to give in. Since my worlds are pretty stark, they get educated real quick (but I give em' a save or two because benefit of the doubt and shit).

When they don't know to give in?

QuoteYep, that NPC was a drink spiker. That's why I had them have social (but phys too) "wingmen" incase of interruption because birds of a feather and all that...

Ah well, hope your players would think of the same from now on.

QuoteThanks for asking my reasons, hah hah.

No need to thank me, I was just trying to give you a better answer to your question.

QuoteMy players have burnt down entire warehouses (heavily guarded, I might add) which have led to city blocks burning, all because I wouldn't "let them win" (i.e., they decided fighting the guards out front head-on who had archer cover AND THEN sneaking into warehouse was the correct order of operations).

Well, if they could do it, they could do it. Why the firefighters were that bad, though?

Quote from: Headless;1013412If I am correct the OP is running a public (pay to play?) role playing club in a major city.  Specialising in World of Darkness.  

So the default tone is going to be alot more dark and fucked up than normal. But its the public part that is important.  He has to play with losers and griefs the rest of us never invite to our private tables.  

I played a Vampire Larp for a while.  Their were losers Dbags, creeps, socaly malformed and some generally pathetic individuals.  Some creepy skeesy ones too.  

There were also some really cool people and I had a lot of fun.

But there is a reason gamers have a certian reputation. It might take specific tools to deal with those kinds of players.  The rest of us just as those players to leave.

OK, that's funny:).
Except I suspect you might be right. All the stories of convention play I hear tend to confirm that, at least.

Quote from: S'mon;1013425For some reason, when it comes to jerkass players, system REALLY matters. Apparently WoD attracts a high proportion of jerks. For some reason 3e D&D/Pathfinder does too, whereas with 4e & 5e D&D I've hardly ever had any issues (in fact with 5e I have never once had an annoying tabletop player, in 4e I recall a guy who played one session with another DM). Over at Dragonsfoot you see it with the old editions too - all the jerks seem to be in the 1e AD&D forum, not Classic 2e OD&D et al.

My observations confirm this, but until I have a working theory about the reasons, I'd prefer to think that both of us have been victims to statistical flukes:D!

Quote from: Bren;1013029One gets increasingly tired as each decade passes.

In all the ways one could read that, too.  On the plus side, it turns you into the kind of person up with which some things you will not put. :)

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1013767In all the ways one could read that, too.  On the plus side, it turns you into the kind of person up with which some things you will not put. :)

Then you get to find the kind of girl up with whom you want to shack.

Yes and yes indeed.

You make our futures seem sad and exhausting. :( The wisdom of ages is apparently disenchanted assertiveness.

What the Hell are we talking about again?

Quote from: Nexus;1013812What the Hell are we talking about again?

Memory is the first thing to go.  I forget the second.  Or did I get that backwards?  Either way, you are on your way.

Quote from: Opaopajr;1013810You make our futures seem sad and exhausting. :( The wisdom of ages is apparently disenchanted assertiveness.

Maybe.  But it's a lot more efficient than the younger cynical thrashing around.  Not necessarily any more effective, but certainly more efficient.  So we have that going for us.  People become more themselves, for better AND worse.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;1012456I've noticed as I GM more and more ... and empower players who use their character's skillset to great effect or in unorthodox ways.

I would be more impressed if you gave us examples of this end of it.  "I'm a bad-ass, killer, gritty-world with consequences, GM" is not actually an uncommon claim on the internet or in real life.

Quote from: Opaopajr;1013810You make our futures seem sad and exhausting. :( The wisdom of ages is apparently disenchanted assertiveness.

Get off their lawns!

Quote from: Opaopajr;1013810You make our futures seem sad and exhausting. :( The wisdom of ages is apparently disenchanted assertiveness.

I would just call it forthrightness and purposefulness. We've seen enough people tilt at windmills to limit our idealisms for things that matter. We are (for the most part, in my opinion, etc.) disenchanted with posturing, irony, image, those kind of things. As for exhausted, it's really not that much because of being old, but because of the things you have going on in your life. I'm not cycling 60 miles a day like I was in my 20s, but general daily activity doesn't tire me out that much more now--I just have a wife, dog, job worthy skills, both house to upkeep and househunting at the moment, prepping for the holidays (which are no longer buy gifts and show up at Mom and Dad's house, I'm running the thing), and so on and so forth.  

Quote from: Nexus;1013812What the Hell are we talking about again?

In theory, the OP asked us if the rest of us (as GMs) experienced the situation where we exacted retribution upon our player's characters because they made bad decisions. But for the most part we've been trying to suss out exactly what his example situations/bad decisions actually were, since he wasn't clear to start with and has been strangely resistant to being helpful in that regard. I still don't feel I got an explanation on what the 'sketchy' guy was trying to do which ended up with him getting drugged and in need of rescue, but my interest is waning.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1013871In theory, the OP asked us if the rest of us (as GMs) experienced the situation where we exacted retribution upon our player's characters because they made bad decisions. But for the most part we've been trying to suss out exactly what his example situations/bad decisions actually were, since he wasn't clear to start with and has been strangely resistant to being helpful in that regard. I still don't feel I got an explanation on what the 'sketchy' guy was trying to do which ended up with him getting drugged and in need of rescue, but my interest is waning.

I'll mostly agree with that, however given the lack of clear player bad behaviour, and the common denominator being the GM, I am still inclined to the view that either the GM was being a dick, or there was mildly(?) jerkish player behaviour combined with GM being a dick. GM claims other players support his approach; but OTOH has not been able/willing to explain how the players were actually being jerks at all.

Quote from: S'mon;1013958I'll mostly agree with that, however given the lack of clear player bad behaviour, and the common denominator being the GM, I am still inclined to the view that either the GM was being a dick, or there was mildly(?) jerkish player behaviour combined with GM being a dick. GM claims other players support his approach; but OTOH has not been able/willing to explain how the players were actually being jerks at all.

You moght be right.  

I still like my theroy that the GM has been gaming with characters from The Office, american or British version probably doesn't matter.  

If you had to play with those people evey week for years your 'natural consequences' might start to come swift and savage.

Consequences for in-character PC actions should be emulative to what should actually reasonably result from their actions. Not stuff that's intended to be punitive.