TheRPGSite

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

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

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

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


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

Why start with that?

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

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

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

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

No one.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I saw what you did there.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pretty much where I am, too.

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

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

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

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

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

"Consider playing other game."

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

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

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

And we switched to Paranoia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


And we switched to Paranoia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nicely done!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also nobility strongarming merchants into "loans and gifts," and ignoring debts come due at the threat of trumped up charges, was quite the norm from the history I've read about from Europe, Korea, Japan, China, India, etc. Taxation is just one many overt policy measure to raise funds (fees, tolls, duties, confiscations, penalties, marriages, privileges, indulgences, etc.). And this speaks nothing to covert means to attract less opprobrium.

It took millennia for merchants to turn this tide of order. We're just so entrenched in our modern view it seems almost natural that everyone else would go along with our thinking. Nationalism, rule of law also applying to rulers, sanctity of individual in their privacy and property, and so on are recent developments in human history, not existential truths from time immemorial.

Oftentimes the regional big bad just took your stuff and you had to sit there and take it with a smile. In a way it is like today, things haven't changed much except who gets to wear that mask now... :)

Quote from: Ravenswing;881116Heh, we've been commenting on each other's stuff for over a decade now on multiple forums; you're not wrong.

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

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

Yes, but imagine a PC who decides to play that game, or in other words, me coming to play:).
I'd name him Corleone, and people would start calling him "don" by themselves, out of respect;).

Quote from: Opaopajr;881179Also nobility strongarming merchants into "loans and gifts," and ignoring debts come due at the threat of trumped up charges, was quite the norm from the history I've read about from Europe, Korea, Japan, China, India, etc.

Loans and gifts were part of business. They still are, of course, how many politicians pay for their dinners with business officials:D?
But reneging on payments wasn't done as often as you seem to think. Not because this one merchant can do anything, but because if they did so often, other merchants suddenly started lacking funds to borrow you, having used them to sponsor fleets that keep not coming...:p
Taking funds by force was also to be avoided in most cases. If they did that, merchants just started finding alternative routes, taking their business elsewhere, and their taxes and gifts with them.
And yeah, it took some time for these trends to come into full swing, but Ravenswing agrees that the setting he's running is already at that stage, so there's no time one must wait;).

Quote from: AsenRG;881189Loans and gifts were part of business. They still are, of course, how many politicians pay for their dinners with business officials:D?

Depends on the business. The costs of violating FCPA for US companies can be quite high. Siemens and others have found that the anti-bribery laws in Europe aren't a total joke either. $1.6 billion is hardly a laughing matter to the Siemens shareholders.

Quote from: AsenRG;881189Loans and gifts were part of business. They still are, of course, how many politicians pay for their dinners with business officials:D?
But reneging on payments wasn't done as often as you seem to think. Not because this one merchant can do anything, but because if they did so often, other merchants suddenly started lacking funds to borrow you, having used them to sponsor fleets that keep not coming...:p
Taking funds by force was also to be avoided in most cases. If they did that, merchants just started finding alternative routes, taking their business elsewhere, and their taxes and gifts with them.
And yeah, it took some time for these trends to come into full swing, but Ravenswing agrees that the setting he's running is already at that stage, so there's no time one must wait;).

Doesn't correspond to what I've read. Korean nobility had a penchant for shaking down merchants with little to no repurcussions. Same with Polish and Russian nobility, and often using minority traders as scapegoats, like pogroms and the like, to get away with it. Similarly such protection extortion seemed par for the course in most Central Asia, Middle East, and India as the noble family line, clan, or caste liked it.

You can only take your business so far around on several trade routes... Geography and culture's a bitch.

Say what you like  but it sounds like you're working off of a post-Neoclassical mindset. Which would be off by several centuries from the assumed social/material tech level of most of D&D's (and most fantasy's) pseudo-medieval setting. But hey, if you want your feudalism to assume the Reformation, Mercantilism, and Declaration of the Rights of Man, be my guest.

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

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

I played in a Trail of Cthulhu / WoD campaign set in 1930s Shanghai a few years ago.  And BTW we were in Shanghai and my bodies and I all studied modern Chinese history (we started as humans and then...).  So, in all the Trail games my friend GMs there are historical figures.  In this Shanghai campaign (and in parallel only Trail campaigns we were in) there was Victor Sassoon, Sun Yatset/Zhong Shan, Chiang Kaishek/Jiang Jieshi, various real-life mobsters, Russian agents, etc.  These people never got killed by random murderhobos in real life.

My buddy keeps getting a hold of a gun.  And he does bad things with guns.  Like go to a mob clubhouse, demand entry, and shoots the doorman.  The REAL CLUBHOUSE was about 4km from where we were, is a historical building on a main street which we  visited before starting our game.  So... I did what the GM might have done but didn't do.  "haha no you don't really do that, right?".  No.  He did it.  And then guys with tommyguns came out and mow him down.  

Later, we are vampires (which sucks... I hate everything about Vampires). Same player get's a hold of some sort of heavy machine gun used to shoot down airplanes.  We are trying to meet a rival, ultra powerful older vampire out at a busy, multi-story club-space by a race track where Chiank Kai Shek and army people and what not are partying.  He insisted on opening up in the crowded area with the big gun.  "No... you understand the scene, right?  You are in (what is now) People's Square and..."  He fires.  The GM (through Vampire security) takes him down.  

I think the GM handled it the right way.  If people don't get it, the character dies.  Game logic is consistent.  Just have more characters pre-mades ready to roll.

Those are funny anecdotes because it's a little too common for comfort.

At this point I'll assume there's a Lesbian Stripper Ninja story out there that tried in an historical Japan game to rush Admiral Perry's boats by running on the ocean water with a dagger between her teeth, arms straight out along her sides, a la Naruto.

... and then she drowned.

Of course. That sort of stuff only works in Destroyer pulps. :D

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

That doesn't make sense, and is annoying to the players.

In general, I try to set my game in places where legal enforcement is weak - so it is a wild-west-like place, or the PCs work in circles beyond normal law enforcement (sorcerers in the modern world, superheroes, etc.).

Typically, the PCs are pretty powerful, so in these settings, it's more common for leaders to try to co-opt them than try to fight them. i.e. "Here's your deputy badge."  Sometimes they are written in from the start as figures of authority - like being an established viking clan in the area, or members of the royal family (as in Amber).

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

That doesn't make sense, and is annoying to the players.

If it doesn't make sense, why would you allow it to work like that:)?

Quote from: Bren;880926Stop the action before allowing the PC to "slaughter the patrons of the local tavern" to clarify whether (a) the PC is actually attempting this, (b) the PC is threatening to do this, or (c) the player is making an out of game comment.

My technique is to insist on first person roleplaying. I had a couple of bad experiences with the third person style comments on what their PCs will do back in the day. Partly because of my hearing loss make it a challenge for me and partly because of our immaturity at the time.

I resolved by making my players state what they do as their character in first person. So if they say "I am going to have Able the Barbarian slaughter the patrons of the tavern." It doesn't count until they look at me (or another player in pvp situations) and say something like I stand up and annouce "I am going to slaughter you all." Then tell me who they are attacking and making a initiative or attack roll.

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

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

Quote from: AsenRG;881350If it doesn't make sense, why would you allow it to work like that:)?

Yeah, that's pretty puzzling.

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

Hence why I used random tables (preferably with a bell curve) occasionally to keep myself honest in regards to my personal bias.

Something like
2d6
3-5 incompetent law enforcement organization
6-9 average law enforcement organization
10-12 superior law enforcement organization
+1 for a major city.

Average meaning that the guards have no special equipment or tactics. So PCs with good equipment or supernatural abilities are going to have an edge in any confrontation. But guards are not fuck ups either.

Superior means that the guards as an organization are at least the equal of even the best equipped adventuring parties.

Quote from: AsenRG;881350If it doesn't make sense, why would you allow it to work like that:)?

Because a lot of people are not self aware enough to recognized they are biased.

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

But the law of averages means at any GIVEN time there will be some guards that incompetent, some that are superior but most are just average. Good enough to deal with the life of the area but probably unlikely able to deal with anything out of the norm.

Of course if the area deals with out of control adventuring parties on a regular basis than the "average" would be better able to deal with that compared to the "average" out of the way rural locale.


My opinion is that winds up as bell curve so if you concerned about bias then turn it into a multiple dice roll and roleplay accordingly.

Now where my personal bias comes into play here is the fact I believe the average law enforcement will be component to deal with ordinary problems. If that not your belief than it OK to interpret the 2d6 roll differently than how I would. But even then you have to admit that somewhere in your setting there are guard who are very good for their circumstances. If you feel that there is only a 5% chance of that then go with it. But doing the dice roll will make it appear far more fair to the players.

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

That doesn't make sense, and is annoying to the players.

Quote from: AsenRG;881350If it doesn't make sense, why would you allow it to work like that:)?

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

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

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


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

There is no single solution for these.

1) Having a random roll eliminates the inconsistency (c), but it means that in some cases, the PCs get to sit back and have the law handle the problem (a) - and in some cases, the PCs get away with murder (b).

2) My solution is to have fairly wild-west-like situations, where the PCs have some built-in authority. This allows more of (b) while dealing with (a) and (c).

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

That doesn't make sense, and is annoying to the players.

Um. I have never seen that in a session. NPCs commit crimes and someone is investigating if the PCs dont. They might call in the PCs. They might go their own route.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agreed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...

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

Damn. :hmm:

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

Mm, but you're missing a key distinction.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Spike;880912The big issue at least for me, has been to balance the potential consequences of (say) criminal actions versus the fun of playing an outcast,a criminal murderhobo.  I want my players to have the freedom to enjoy their character's often anti-social behaviors while still creating the tension inherent in performing those actions in a  world where they are not acceptable.  Especially since, as I noted above, I'm not exactly eager to slaughter my player's characters session after session until they get it right.

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

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


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

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

Here's what I tend to like:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or is this another substanceless rebuttal?

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

Lords of Olympus can help with that. It has a super-detailed set of descriptions of the Greek Gods.

Quote from: Spike;881944Are you disputing my characterization? If so, based on what facts?

Or is this another substanceless rebuttal?

Why would you have any doubts regarding the substancelessness of said "rebuttal";)?

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

No, I expect that after the game you will have an adult conversation on the subject with the referee.

Jesus, dude.

Quote from: Omega;881034TSR's Marvel Superheroes had the Karma system where it was both EXP and your general luck and general standing with how the populace viewed you.

You're thinking of Popularity for how the public perceives you.

Quote from: Bren;881195Depends on the business. The costs of violating FCPA for US companies can be quite high. Siemens and others have found that the anti-bribery laws in Europe aren't a total joke either. $1.6 billion is hardly a laughing matter to the Siemens shareholders.

You believe those actually get paid? At full price?

Quote from: Matt;887037You believe those actually get paid? At full price?

I assumed so. Siemens, for example,  is under Continental not Common Law which I'd expect would afford them less ability to legally delay paying. Do you have some information to the contrary?

Quote from: Bren;887048I assumed so. Siemens, for example,  is under Continental not Common Law which I'd expect would afford them less ability to legally delay paying. Do you have some information to the contrary?

If there's proof they weren't paid, I'd be interested in seeing it, and possibly having some words with my EP representative;).