Spawned off the "goggles they do nothing" thread, I thought this idea warranted discussion in its own thread.
Namely, the idea that the GM should step in and curtail stupid and disruptive actions by players, despite (or regardless) of IC reasoning.
The example given was a PC attempting to leap over a mile-wide chasm. The GM informs the player that it's impossible. The player wants to go ahead and try anyway. The GM flat-out says, "No, that's stupid."
Honestly this is a new idea to me, which is why I wanted to open a thread for discussion. I'd like to hear arguments for and against this sort of thing.
My playstyle has always been of the "you own your characters and you make your own decisions, the GM simply creates consequences" school of thought and hadn't honestly thought of trying a more intrusive style.
I think that players may balk at this sort of thing, because character control / ownership issues seem to be a sensitive area. The PC is the only thing the players (usually, don't bring up weirdo games here, the discussion's about traditional RPG play) control is their character, so directly contravening that control could be iffy.
On the other hand, it seems like this would curtail a lot of game disrupting stupidity. I can think of several times over the course of my gaming career where absolutely inane shit has thrown the game out of whack. The most egregious example I can think of is when a GM's intricate Unknown Armies game was destroyed in a single session by a player who ripped off his own arm (he was a clockwork) on a casino floor in Las Vegas and started beating someone to death with it. The resulting riots set the city ablaze before Sleepers or any other form of damage control could contain it, and wrecked all of his prepared plotting.
I generally let the players do what they want, but there are situations where a GM can be helpful in pointing out that they're ignoring part of the story or background because they're tired, the last session was some time ago or they're simply players...
But that's more a "do you really want to do that?" than a "you can't do that". Not that I don't say the latter quite a lot, but if the GM doesn't defend the snacks, who does?
Yeah, I'm not talking about warnings or advice. For me, that's par for the course. Mainly because the players don't have the advantages their characters do.
I'm talking about simply saying, "No, you don't do that."
I'd ask it her was just trying to get new character. If for some reason due to the characters background or current situation of the party, the character killing himself made sense, I would allow it. Like if him sacrificing to save the rest of the party.
If its just a totally stupid reason and it makes the game less fun for everyone, then I most of the time wouldn't. If it were a one time thing where the player didn't like the character, I would let them roll up another and work them into the story somehow.
in general, I let the players do what they want and just tell them what happens when they do it.
When I game, I'm there to have fun. Stupid laws like "always say yes" or "always say no" are meaningless to me.
What is meaningful to me, is looking at, on a case by case basis in play, what I think will produce fun and keep the game going, and what I think is just stupid as hell, and shouldn't be allowed.
That's it. That's how I decide whether to say "OK, go for it", or "OK, that's fucking stupid, knock it off."
No is a perfectly acceptable answer, if it means keeping the game on course, and ensuring everyone is having fun. The player who got curtailed will get over it, or he'll leave the game. Everyone at the table though, will get pissed if the game basically bogs down because one player decided to be a jackass.
Quote from: RedFoxOn the other hand, it seems like this would curtail a lot of game disrupting stupidity.
One man's stupid is another man's heroics. I was playing a barbarian pre-gen the GM had provided. Toward the end of a session I tripped and fell over the side of a bridge. The party's
halfling managed to grab my hand before I fell and he was holding me up. Thinking there was no way the little guy could hold up a big hulking brute many times his size and weight, and that I didn't want to take him down with me, I decided to let go and fall, killing myself but keeping him from falling after me.
GM: "No, that's stupid, no one would ever intentionally kill themselves."
He thought I wasn't happy with the pre-gen and was trying to kill him off, but even if that were the case, it was a totally appropriate response, and in line with the way I had played the barbarian up until then.
Bottom line, it's a Player Character, not a GM Character. Anything that can be attempted in the game world should be fair game. If someone continuously disrupts the game by doing stupid stuff, they should be booted from the game.
Quote from: TechnomancerBottom line, it's a Player Character, not a GM Character. Anything that can be attempted in the game world should be fair game. If someone continuously disrupts the game by doing stupid stuff, they should be booted from the game.
And that's it in a nutshell.
Quote from: TechnomancerOne man's stupid is another man's heroics. I was playing a barbarian pre-gen the GM had provided. Toward the end of a session I tripped and fell over the side of a bridge. The party's halfling managed to grab my hand before I fell and he was holding me up. Thinking there was no way the little guy could hold up a big hulking brute many times his size and weight, and that I didn't want to take him down with me, I decided to let go and fall, killing myself but keeping him from falling after me.
GM: "No, that's stupid, no one would ever intentionally kill themselves."
He thought I wasn't happy with the pre-gen and was trying to kill him off, but even if that were the case, it was a totally appropriate response, and in line with the way I had played the barbarian up until then.
I don't think anyone is suggesting the GM should stop your character's heroic sacrifice. There's a VERY big difference between what you describe and a situation in which a GM should say: "No, that's stupid, no one would ever intentionally kill themselves." If it makes SENSE as part of the story developed through the game -- then it's not stupid.
So you had a GM that made a bad call. The advice that GMs should keep their games under control by avoiding ridiculous player actions is still a good one.
QuoteBottom line, it's a Player Character, not a GM Character. Anything that can be attempted in the game world should be fair game. If someone continuously disrupts the game by doing stupid stuff, they should be booted from the game.
This "kick them out of the game" stuff is basically the same thing as telling them "no, you can't do that". The only difference is you don't do ANYTHING for a while, until you get fed up, and THEN you do it in the extreme -- by kicking them out of the group. IMHO, that's not a good way to deal with problems, in games, or out of them.
Much easier to just say -- "No, your character is a human, so they can't fly, burrow through the earth, or randomly decide to leap off a cliff. The survival instinct in humans is very strong." I think it would also be a good idea for a useful, non-disempowered GM to additionally say -- "No, you guys are playing the heroes in this world. You can be an anti-hero if you want, but you can't randomly attack people for no reason. Then you'd be a villain, and I get to control the villains."
Please keep in mind -- this is very likely NOT talking about anything that would affect you or your group.
Quote from: GrimGentAnd that's it in a nutshell.
If you were designing or playing a game in which the most important aspect was ensuring maximum player empowerment to have their character's do *anything* they wanted, including random, nonsensical acts, murder, mayhem, suicide, or anything else the player's could imagine -- then this is not good advice at all.
This is only good advice for a certain type of game -- one in which you want the characters to behave in a generally "normal" fashion, or possibly "normal + heroic" fashion.
Quote from: StuartIf you were designing or playing a game in which the most important aspect was ensuring maximum player empowerment to have their character's do *anything* they wanted, including random, nonsensical acts, murder, mayhem, suicide, or anything else the player's could imagine -- then this is not good advice at all.
have you been reading uncle Ron's coolaid again?
Most people don't want to go buy a Forgie game that only one person wants to play in order to accomadate that one person.
Quote from: Mcrowhave you been reading uncle Ron's coolaid again?
Ah, the koolaid point.
http://headrush.typepad.com/creating_passionate_users/2005/08/physics_of_pass.html
Quote from: Levi KornelsenAh, the koolaid point.
http://headrush.typepad.com/creating_passionate_users/2005/08/physics_of_pass.html
:grumpy:
Damn, straight!
Quote from: StuartI don't think anyone is suggesting the GM should stop your character's heroic sacrifice. There's a VERY big difference between what you describe and a situation in which a GM should say: "No, that's stupid, no one would ever intentionally kill themselves." If it makes SENSE as part of the story developed through the game -- then it's not stupid.
So you had a GM that made a bad call. The advice that GMs should keep their games under control by avoiding ridiculous player actions is still a good one.
Only so long as the GM has a reasonable notion of what does and does not qualify as "ridiculous", and - as the heroic sacrifice example shows - sometimes people slip up.
This, like many other OOC disruption issues, is where I actually think group consensus works better. If all the players said "Oh, come on man, let the guy kill himself if he wants!" would you really say "No, screw you guys"?
Quote from: WarthurOnly so long as the GM has a reasonable notion of what does and does not qualify as "ridiculous", and - as the heroic sacrifice example shows - sometimes people slip up.
This, like many other OOC disruption issues, is where I actually think group consensus works better. If all the players said "Oh, come on man, let the guy kill himself if he wants!" would you really say "No, screw you guys"?
I have to say, I'm leaning toward embracing that sort of viewpoint (one where the GM simply outlaws certain actions from even being attempted). Particularly because if anyone has objections they
will be raised at such a strong-arm tactic.
At which point one can bring up the issue of whether or not the action will help or hurt the game in the long term for everybody.
Certain actions will certainly pass muster, whereas others will not.
QuoteOnly so long as the GM has a reasonable notion of what does and does not qualify as "ridiculous", and - as the heroic sacrifice example shows - sometimes people slip up.
This, like many other OOC disruption issues, is where I actually think group consensus works better. If all the players said "Oh, come on man, let the guy kill himself if he wants!" would you really say "No, screw you guys"?
Agreed. Being reasonable and fair would be traits a good GM should possess.
If everyone else at the table said "Oh, come on man" to whatever scenario, either the GM should consider going along with it. Or if it's something really distasteful to them (eg. Murder / Mayhem / Misogyny) they should still have the right to say "No, screw you guys" -- which is what consensus means. If the GM doesn't agree with all the players, it's not consensus.
Quote from: StuartIf you were designing or playing a game in which the most important aspect was ensuring maximum player empowerment to have their character's do *anything* they wanted, including random, nonsensical acts, murder, mayhem, suicide, or anything else the player's could imagine -- then this is not good advice at all.
I don't believe in blocking any action which lies within the constraints of the system and the setting, as long as the players will also accept that all in-game activities will naturally result in in-game consequences which they won't be able to control. A murderous servant of infernal powers is a valid choice for a PC, in other words, but a character like that won't be lacking in powerful enemies who might at any time try to punish him for his crimes. Always taking the game contract and the rest of the group into account, of course.
QuoteI don't believe in blocking any action which lies within the constraints of the system and the setting, as long as the players will also accept that all in-game activities will naturally result in in-game consequences which they won't be able to control. A murderous servant of infernal powers is a valid choice for a PC, in other words, but a character like that won't be lacking in powerful enemies who might at any time try to punish him for his crimes. Always taking the game contract and the rest of the group into account, of course.
If your group and/or GM has approved you playing a murderous servant of infernal power, that's one thing. That's not going to be called as "out of scope" -- you were pre-approved to act like that. If you are playing "the good party cleric" and suddenly decide you're going on a rampage through the town... that's something else.
I think you, GrimGent, prefer games that place the minimal limits on what you can do in the game. That's great.
I prefer settings that rely on people behaving in established, "normal" or "normal + heroic" ways, and systems which do not allow players to suddenly decide to be demonically possessed. That's ok too.
Quote from: StuartI prefer settings that rely on people behaving in established, "normal" or "normal + heroic" ways, and systems which do not allow players to suddenly decide to be demonically possessed. That's ok too.
"Suddenly decide to be demonically possessed?" Nope, not unless that character has in the past learned occult knowledge or made dark pacts which would render that possible. However, if a player wants his scholarly PC to study forbidden lore and come to understand how such a thing could be done, that's feasible. Again, all attempted actions must be within the abilities of the characters.
Awesome. We agree. :)
Quote from: GrimGent"Suddenly decide to be demonically possessed?" Nope, not unless that character has in the past learned occult knowledge or made dark pacts which would render that possible. However, if a player wants his scholarly PC to study forbidden lore and come to understand how such a thing could be done, that's feasible. Again, all attempted actions must be within the abilities of the characters.
Actually that's something he's been harping on that essentially means "acting outside the bounds of the stated premise."
i.e. Lawful Good Clerics going on baby-eating sprees or characters committing gloriously disruptive suicide because the player is bored and wants to make a new character.
Quote from: RedFoxActually that's something he's been harping on that essentially means "acting outside the bounds of the stated premise."
i.e. Lawful Good Clerics going on baby-eating sprees or characters committing gloriously disruptive suicide because the player is bored and wants to make a new character.
Well, committing suicide
is within the power of just about any character, except under rather unusual circumstances. If it's only a matter of getting a new PC, though, I'd expect the player to bring it up between sessions.
As for baby-eating, isn't alignment derived from actions rather than the other way around? In other words, that cleric isn't going to be LG for very long.
Let's not waste all that agreeing with a slide into debating the laws of physics or philosophy. We're talking abotu whether allowing the player to have their characters act in arbitrary, extreme, and non-human ways will make the game better, or worse, for the other people at the table.
QuoteWell, committing suicide is within the power of just about any character
Wait a flippin minute! You're from Scandinavia aren't you?
Based on all the Scandinavian cinema I watched in film school, I would give any player or character from a similar background carte blanche in having the character attempt seemingly random suicide. Seriously. :(
Quote from: StuartWait a flippin minute! You're from Scandinavia aren't you?
Culturally if not geographically. Finland isn't part of Scandinavia proper: together they form Fennoscandia. Add Iceland, and you have the Nordic Countries.
Quote from: StuartLet's not waste all that agreeing with a slide into debating the laws of physics or philosophy. We're talking abotu whether allowing the player to have their characters act in arbitrary, extreme, and non-human ways will make the game better, or worse, for the other people at the table.
Where and when do you draw the line, and how should you (as GM) intervene?
Are we talking about the merely physically probable? "Internal" stuff such as a character's state of mind? What?
Quote from: StuartWe're talking abotu whether allowing the player to have their characters act in arbitrary, extreme, and non-human ways will make the game better, or worse, for the other people at the table.
Arbitrary? People can be that, often enough. Extreme? Many games even expect that from the PCs. Non-human? Only if the characters are not, in fact, human.
As long as there's a common understanding on what the players want out of the game, these things are not a problem.
Quote from: StuartWe're talking abotu whether allowing the player to have their characters act in arbitrary, extreme, and non-human ways will make the game better, or worse, for the other people at the table.
I thought you were talking about whether allowing the player to act in an arbitrary or extreme way with respect to their character was good or bad.
Quote from: StuartWait a flippin minute! You're from Scandinavia aren't you?
Based on all the Scandinavian cinema I watched in film school, I would give any player or character from a similar background carte blanche in having the character attempt seemingly random suicide. Seriously. :(
That's true for the Scandinavian movies I know, too. Well, if you replace "suicide" with "intercourse".
Quote from: StuartIf everyone else at the table said "Oh, come on man" to whatever scenario, either the GM should consider going along with it. Or if it's something really distasteful to them (eg. Murder / Mayhem / Misogyny) they should still have the right to say "No, screw you guys" -- which is what consensus means. If the GM doesn't agree with all the players, it's not consensus.
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
If one person says "Let's not do that", and everyone else says "Actually, let's" and that one person overrules them, that isn't a consensus, that's one person vetoing everyone else. To have a consensus you need to take everyone's opinions into consideration instead of riding roughshod over them.
Of course, you could argue that if the players go along with you vetoing them then there is a consensus - they and you have agreed that the matter will slide for now and the game can continue. But a) it's not a consensus the player group is likely to be happy with, and you may find yourself without players next week, and b) if the players all disagree with your ruling, it's unlikely that they're going to drop the matter so quickly.
As I said to a similar question on one of the many Monarda threads, if the player is told that trying to leap the chasm will kill them and they still want to do it there's a lot more going on then meets the eye. They may be tired of the character, tired of the game, convinced that you won't kill the character, testing you, or any of a number of other reasons. What you should be saying instead of "ok, you die" or "no, you're not allowed" is "what's up man? why the suicide?"
QuoteWhere and when do you draw the line, and how should you (as GM) intervene?
I think before the players sit down to start playing the game, they need to have reached an agreement on what the scope of action characters in the game can perform. This could be stated explicitly in the rulebook, or it could be something the players discuss and agree on.
This will be very different in a game of: D&D, Vampire, Nobilis, Marvel Superheroes, Ghost Busters, etc. etc. It will also be different if you're gaming with 10 year olds, 30 year olds, "the guys", a tournament, etc etc
I think it's a judgement call, and it depends on the circumstances. What works for me and my group might not work for yours.
But I think the rulebook should
* explicitly state what's out of scope -or-
* recommend the group discusses this before playing
as well as saying
* the final call is with the GM -but-
* a good GM listens to the rest of the group and tries to make sure everyone is having a good time
Quote from: StuartI think before the players sit down to start playing the game, they need to have reached an agreement on what the scope of action characters in the game can perform. This could be stated explicitly in the rulebook, or it could be something the players discuss and agree on.
Something to be considered in the play contract, then.
I think you're pulling too tight on the reins. In 20+ years I've never had things go crazy enough to need to lay out strictures beforehand. A simple "why are you doing that" has sufficed in every single instance except one. In that instance "go away" was required, and a set of "you can'ts" written out ahead of time would have changed that.
edit: A play contract? What the hell? Are there really groups out there so dysfunctional that you need a contract, and so insecure they can't dream of losing a player unless they have something to point to that says "see, we said that BS wouldn't fly"?
QuoteI don't think that word means what you think it means.
Apparently not. :)
I didn't realise it seems to have more than one meaning. I meant the group comes to a decision everyone agrees with, rather than "majority rules". At my work people frequently say "consensus" meaning the second. I don't know if that's a widespread misunderstanding... a regionalism... I dunno.
Anyway, I meant "everone agrees". If the player who wants to "slaughter the innocents" upsets someone at the table (another player or the GM) then it's not right to make them suffer through that.
QuoteIn 20+ years I've never had things go crazy enough to need to lay out strictures beforehand.
You may know your group well enough to forgo the discussion. It's really advice for when things start going off the rails. If your game never does, then you're obviously...um... on the right track. (heh)
Quoteedit: A play contract? What the hell? Are there really groups out there so dysfunctional that you need a contract, and so insecure they can't dream of losing a player unless they have something to point to that says "see, we said that BS wouldn't fly"
When did you start playing RPGs? I was 9.
Quote from: James McMurrayedit: A play contract? What the hell? Are there really groups out there so dysfunctional that you need a contract, and so insecure they can't dream of losing a player unless they have something to point to that says "see, we said that BS wouldn't fly"?
It's basically an agreement on what everyone expects from the game and how it should deal with issues like sex and violence. That way, you don't have to worry about your PC falling into the grubby hands of devil-worshipping cannibalistic serial rapist midgets at some point, if that sort of thing makes you uncomfortable.
Quote from: Levi KornelsenAh, the koolaid point.
http://headrush.typepad.com/creating_passionate_users/2005/08/physics_of_pass.html
Yes!
And can you please explain to ObliviousLB that the forges main inovation is in branding and that it almost certainly means large numbers of people are going to hate it?
As a passionate user you are going to be really, profoundly irritating. Its just life.
(http://www.cs.uni.edu/~wallingf/blog-images/dilbert-091004.jpg)
Quote from: Erik BoielleAnd can you please explain to ObliviousLB that the forges main inovation is in branding and that it almost certainly means large numbers of people are going to hate it?
"Indie branding" is not - even remotely - a new thing.
It's comparatively new to RPGs, but it's been around for quite a while.