I think those are good suggestions, Warthur. The reason I think they are good is because I've already done them

I already wrote an email saying, hmmm, seems to be some trouble, looks like you might be going to jail, what are your plans? I've done this sort of thing before. Also, I make it known that in my campaign journal are hints about the events of the coming session, things revealed that perhaps weren't clear in the most recent game session. My experience is they don't read it, I guess I'm not an exciting writer  

As to "confirmation step"...

• When they planned to go to Seaton's place the first time I asked them, what for, etc. Encouraged them to think about it in detail.
• When they decided to wipe away the prints on the murder weapon, I pointed out that'd remove the murderer's prints, too.
• When they talked to the detective, he warned them not to do anything more, that they could jeopordise the case, and that B&E was still B&E whoever the victim was, etc.
• When they decided to chase after Seaton in the street, I pointed out that it was quiet now, but at 8am, people would be coming along soon; and Seaton had after all just walked out of an open bakery with his breakfast.
• When they started smacking him over, I pointed out that they had only circumstantial evidence, he might actually be totally innocent, and they were beating an unarmed man in an alley quite close to a main street.

Also, in general I make sure that everyone gets to comment on everyone's actions. If a character could realistically just do the thing, okay. But if a character realistically could be interfered with by another, no. So for example when they swiped Seaton's journal, it went,

GM (me): "Okay so after hiding out for a bit and seeing the cop car come and go, what do you do?"
Edward's player: "We'll go to the uni library, get a discussion room and coffee, and sit down and read his journal together."
GM (me): "Okay, Edward has the journal and is doing that. Is everyone else going with him?"
(Players all agree, journal is read, everyone's disgusted at Seaton)
Erica's player: "I think Erica should send the journal to her friend at the newspapers."
Other players: "What? No way, that's crazy!"
Erica's player: "I'm asking you out-of-game, as players. In-game, my character can do what she likes, you can't stop her. If she wants to send the journal in the post, she can."
GM (me): "Ah no, it's not like that. You went into the house together, and everyone saw Edward (PC) pick up the journal. Then you all went off together to read this journal over coffee. So you're all there together. If you want Erica to send the journal without consulting the others, tell me how."
Erica's player: "Well, I get up from the table and pick up the journal -"
Cadel's player: "Where are you going, Erica?"
Erica's player: "... Oh alright, have it your way, guys, what will we do?"

She could have just said she was going to photocopy the thing and left them to chat about it while really sending it away with a courier, it's what I would have done

Whereas when Cadel was the first to smack over Seaton, he just stepped forward and did it - he moved too fast for anyone to stop him.

So I try to use a realistic approach, if someone wants to go Lone Ranger they need to roleplay it out, and I err on the side of letting the group decide what to do, rather than just one player alone. My reasoning is as with player discussions during character combats - the depth and breadth of character knowledge about the situation, about tactics and so on, is best simulated by player discussion. No one person can be as smart as their character all the time; but the group as a whole can be with a discussion.

As to "consequences of their actions," in general that's a good principle, that specific example, not good practice. There must be sometimes unexpected consequences, that's part of the fun of the game.

It's true that not everyone has the same assumptions about any game world. Unfortunately, you can never spell them all out. For example, the player whose character called the media and later wanted to sue for wrongful arrest had, and insists on still, this strange idea that, "the police have to read you your rights before cuffing you!" This is such a strange idea, present in no book or movie I've ever heard of, that I couldn't possibly have anticipated it. Nor can I do much when I explain, "well, no - not in reality, and not in this game world," and the player continues to insist.

There's "shared assumptions", and then there's "Crazy Player."

In general, though, those nitpicks aside, your advice is very sound. Naturally I think this since it's stuff I already do! But you have to draw the line somewhere, this is an rpg, not chess...

Sounds like you've been very patient: if all of these techniques are firing blanks, I'd have washed my hands of the PCs long before. (I'm particularly dumbfounded by the player who kept insisting that the police can't handcuff you until they've read you your rights after you said that that's the way things work in the gameworld.) If players are aware of what they're doing and are blithely butting heads against the gameworld's reality, even after it's explained to them, then I don't see that the PCs deserve any more protection than they've already received.

I'm broadly with you on the unexpected consequences, with the proviso that they should only be used if, in character, the PCs have no reason to expect those consequences. Unexpected consequences which come about because of behind-the-scenes NPC machinations, or hitherto-unexpected supernatural intervention, or the like are cool. Unexpected consequences which average people living in the gameworld should be able to expect? Not cool.

Quote from: WarthurSounds like you've been very patient: if all of these techniques are firing blanks, I'd have washed my hands of the PCs long before.

Like I said, the other option of saying, "that's it, you fucked it up, campaign over!" I think is pretty stupid and pointless. So I give quite a bit of slack, at least this early on...

Quote from: Warthur(I'm particularly dumbfounded by the player who kept insisting that the police can't handcuff you until they've read you your rights after you said that that's the way things work in the gameworld.)

Yes, I was dumbfounded by that, too. I just wonder where the hell it comes from. Surely a moment's thought would set it aside? "Hmmm, suppose some guy is shooting up a playground, will the cops read him his rights before disarming and cuffing him? No, that's not very practical, is it? Hmmm. And since your rights are just to remain silent, well... they probably don't have to tell you them unless they're talking to you, if they're just throwing you in the back of a police car, why bother... so I guess they only tell you about remaining silent when they're going to interrogate you. Hey, that's what the GM said, what a coincidence that what the GM said is also reasonable and logical!"

Quote from: WarthurUnexpected consequences which average people living in the gameworld should be able to expect? Not cool.

There's also the issue of time for the decision. Erica was calling the journalist... she and Edward were cuffed, two police were in the lobby. Raimundo flipped out and attacked one. Erica tried to help but ran into a vending machine by accident (matched failure on a Struggle check!) Raimundo disposed of both police officers #1 and #2 and then fled the scene. The two police officers outside #3 and #4, #3 came in while #4 pursued Raimundo.

Now Erica started thinking about calling the journalist. She hobbled over to  cop #2 lying there semi-conscious with his head bleeding on the tiles and got his handcuff keys. She undid her cuffs, retrieved her mobile phone and called her journalist friend. She got one sentence out before cop #3 pointed his pistol at her and told her to get down on the ground, covering her until the other cop, giving up on finding Raimundo - he had to return to help his fallen comrades, plus help his buddy guard the remaining two suspects until backup came.

So she didn't really have a long time to consider what she was doing. Realistically she didn't even have time or the opportunity to make the call at all - Aussie cops don't carry the keys to the cuffs on their persons, for obvious reasons, and a cop can walk fifteen yards quicker than she can crawl four yards over, find the keys on a semi-conscious and bleeding cop, uncuff herself behind her back, make a call and say a sentence. But I thought, okay, compromise - she has enough time to make the call, but only say one sentence, and she doesn't get to think deeply about whether or not to do it. Making players think quickly can be good, it builds excitement. Sometimes those quick decisions are imperfect ones.

I dunno, I'm not a perfect GM by far, but I don't think "rushing them" or "not giving them fair warning" are among my faults. My faults are in things like description, and in making them feel too pressured, so that they feel obliged to do things when sometimes it's better to do nothing, or at least to be cautious about it.

Probably that's a big contributor to their mess, me pushing them along. When you think the fate of everything is on your shoulders, you get crazy

Quote from: Dominus NoxWell, I guess the players thought "Nobels" meant "Above the law" which, in all fairness it often does.

As an alternative to having "the law" come down on some pompous asses like that, you could have had the comrades of the naval officer they'd murdered work to craft their doom.

Which was, in fact, how the plot started to play out, complicated further by the fact that the murderous noble's younger brother was also a member of the Imperial Navy.  I never got the chance to play the circumstances out to a final conclusion, but it did add a lot of glancing-over-the-shoulder to the rest of the campaign.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Nox.

!i!

Quote from: Levi KornelsenDepends on just how high-conspiracy your world is.

They get caught.  They're going to trial...

...And a talent-finder in the prosecutor's office offers them a deal, with the full understanding that they're a pack of scum-sucking psychopaths - exactly what he needs for this particular job.

Taking a page from Unknown Armies canon, maybe this is the time to introduce Alex Abel, or someone very much like him.  A very powerful, very well-connected individual with a vested stake in the occult, and always on the lookout for others in similar circumstances who have nothing to lose.  He uses his influence to spring the characters with the understanding that he all but owns them now.  On top of getting them out of an unpleasant bind, it also opens new potential avenues to the occult underground...and new enemies they never knew they had.

!i!

I really like your players. If they are keen on the prison idea, I think you should go for it. Maybe not a long campaign but definitely a mini series They seem to be digging themselves deeper. May as well plunge all the way down...see where th rabbit hole takes them.

Regards,
David R

You like them? Why? Because they're crazy?

I'm a bit slow and it's the wee hours here so it's only just occurred to me: a major obstacle to a prison campaign is that one of the characters is female. That'd make day-to-day interactions difficult. And the player absolutely refuses to play male characters.

That player is also a package with their gaming spouse, also in the game, so if I lose one, I lose the other. That'd be Erica and Raimundo out. Which would kind of take the wind out of sails of the campaign, losing two of four players a few sessions in. I mean, I can get more players, but when it was basically those two who were the drivers behind the stuff that got them put in prison (Raimundo assaulted the cops, Erica was the one who called them about Lucinda's death, and who tossed Seaton in the skip bin), well...

Quote from: JimBobOzYou like them? Why? Because they're crazy?

I'm a bit slow and it's the wee hours here so it's only just occurred to me: a major obstacle to a prison campaign is that one of the characters is female. That'd make day-to-day interactions difficult. And the player absolutely refuses to play male characters.

No I like em' because they are the kind of folks that make my job so easy

I just thought of something. UA by way of the Prisoner. Slowly shift the campaign until they are in a Village -like enviroment. Then you have a mixed gender prison atmosphere that if done right,  would really freak them out.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: JimBobOzI expected violence, I just expected them to be more subtle about it.

You're new, right?

Quote from: David RISlowly shift the campaign until they are in a Village -like enviroment. Then you have a mixed gender prison atmosphere that if done right,  would really freak them out.

Oh.  Oh, my.  A prison for "their sort" run by a warden who understands their special needs.  They might find themselves wishing for more traditional correctional facilities.

!i!

OK, going back to the original assumptions here.  First of all, I'm pretty sure that police procedural (a la Law & Order) is simply not going to work with these players.  Maybe they're wrong about some stuff, but I suspect the more important thing is that they just don't care.  

From reading the session summary, if I were a player I would be pretty nonplussed about the police reaction they got at the start.  Having called the police to report the dead body and waited for them, when the police showed up they immediately drew guns on them and cuffed them.  The police then also started beating Edwards while he was handcuffed.  That was what prompted Raimundo resisting arrest and the subsequent violence.  Regardless of whether it was realistic or not for the police to behave that way, I think that made them pretty strongly uninterested in working with the police any more.  

Quote from: JimBobOzAnyway, they have fucked up big time, and it looks like the rest of the campaign will be less underground and more Oz, or if we're lucky, Prison Break. What do you do when the PCs really fuck themselves up? Some GMs like to teach their players a lesson, I don't, I like them to have fun. But I like to have fun, too, which means keeping the game world plausible and more or less sane. What do you reckon?

Well, Tony suggested a campaign on the run.  

It also seems possible to me for the charges against them to be dropped.  Personally, it seems to me that they already hate the cops who first showed up.  I would say that those cops were actually corrupt and they were involved with Edward Seaton's dad in trying to cover up the crime.  

I'd have the District Attorney (or whatever the Australian equivalent is) contact Erica and Edwards and privately explain that he has other evidence of corruption by Seaton and the other cops -- and further that he thinks they were covering up for Seaton's son, and wants their help in taking them down.  In return he'd bargain their charges down to fairly minimal.

As one of the players in the group, let me attempt to defend the situation.  As JimBob describes things, we acted pretty stupidly.  But it all makes more sense when you examine some of the key events individually;

1. Edward picked up the murder weapon.  Yup... that was me.  And it was a stupid thing to do, but at that point we didn't know it was a murder weapon (we didn't know there was a body and I didn't see the blood on the gun until it was too late).  As a player, I knew that a gun would definitely be bad news... but as a character, I was trying to play out natural curiosity.

2. Raimundo attacked the police.  Yeah, that was stupid... but he was reacting to his rage stimulus.  Raimundo's player is normally a pretty sensible guy, so realistically, it was good roleplaying for him.  What proved to be unfortunate, is that he got some great dice rolls and was more successful than we expected.

3. Kidnapping Seaton.  Well, we dragged him into an alley to ask him some questions.  It wasn't our intention to start thumping him (see below), just get some answers.  Because, at this point we weren't entirely sure that it was Seaton.  He'd changed his appearance.  Think realistically how strange it must be to see someone one day, and then see them with a slightly different face the next day.  As a player, you know it's "magick", but as a character it's the sort of shit that freaks you out a bit.

4. Beating up Seaton.  Again, a bit stupid... but Cadel's rage stimulus is cruelty to animals and we found pictures of a tortured cat on Seaton's phone.  

Ok... so that explains a few of the key events.  Of course, there was still some stupidity that has no fair explanation.  I'm not sure why Erica stole Seaton's journal, despite knowing his father is a cop.  I'm also not sure why Erica tried to resist arrest at the same time Raimundo did.  Or why Cadel chose to run instead of accept being arrested.  But then, JimBob certainly emphasised on a few occasions that the local police were known for being corrupt and violent, so I suppose that create paranoia.

I suppose the biggest issue is that most of the players (myself included) are not used to playing in a modern setting.  With organised police that have access to forensic technology.  Beating up the bad guy is fair game in many campaigns.  In a day-to-day, realistic setting, that shit isn't going to fly.  

More importantly though, at key points in the game, one of the players has pushed their own agenda a bit.  It's damn hard when one of the players declares "I'm doing XXX", and the rest of the group thinks "What the hell???"  There are only so many times when you can tell them to stop and think about their actions.

In gurps, there's a written rule for GMs that says "If the players really ask for trouble, LET THEM HAVE IT!!!

Quote from: Tyberious FunkAs one of the players in the group, let me attempt to defend the situation.  As JimBob describes things, we acted pretty stupidly.  But it all makes more sense when you examine some of the key events individually

That's absolutely true. Honestly, it's not until after the sessions that I look back and go "wooah, did they really...?!" The individual more or less reasonable decision are the ingredients which mix up into a big Crazy Cake.

Quote from: Tyberious Funk]Edward picked up the murder weapon.

That wasn't stupid, it was normal human curiosity. The problem was not putting prints on the murder weapon, the problem was choosing a middle path. For self-preservation without conscience, biff the thing down a hole somewhere. For "justice", hand it over to the cops immediately. To get yourself in trouble, hide it for a while, then clean it of everyone's prints - including the murderer's.

I've found in game after game that if the PCs commit to a particular course of action, and follow it through thoroughly, then they succeed and achieve their aims. If they choose first one course and then another, back and forth, then it's a mess. I know, it's how I screwed up and wasted that long one-on-one campaign, Outbackalypse. I didn't stick to a single course of action.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkRaimundo attacked the police.  Yeah, that was stupid... but he was reacting to his rage stimulus.  Raimundo's player is normally a pretty sensible guy, so realistically, it was good roleplaying for him.  What proved to be unfortunate, is that he got some great dice rolls and was more successful than we expected.

Yes, I think that the player expected to get a few punches in, not hurt the cops much, then be beaten down. There really are some times when good dice rolls are bad for your character

Quote from: Tyberious FunkKidnapping Seaton.  Well, we dragged him into an alley to ask him some questions.  It wasn't our intention to start thumping him (see below), just get some answers.

That's why I said I thought everyone just got carried away with the moment. I guess that's why they talk about "violence spiralling out of control." Violence begets more violence. For example, if the two waitresses Cadel distracted had looked down the alleyway, what would the party have done?

Quote from: Tyberious FunkThink realistically how strange it must be to see someone one day, and then see them with a slightly different face the next day.  As a player, you know it's "magick", but as a character it's the sort of shit that freaks you out a bit.

Absolutely. I'm glad that was roleplayed out.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkBeating up Seaton.  Again, a bit stupid... but Cadel's rage stimulus is cruelty to animals and we found pictures of a tortured cat on Seaton's phone.  

Erica had already hurt him, slamming him to the ground. And once Cadel had a go, so did everyone else. No-one else had a rage stimulus kick in at that time. *Punch* "Who killed her? Was it you?!"

Quote from: Tyberious FunkI'm not sure why Erica stole Seaton's journal, despite knowing his father is a cop.  I'm also not sure why Erica tried to resist arrest at the same time Raimundo did.  Or why Cadel chose to run instead of accept being arrested.

I thought it was fair enough to swipe his journal. It's the sort of thing people are unlikely to complain to the police about the theft of, especially if it has such dark thoughts in it, and it could provide a lot of information. I couldn't really fault it.

I assumed that Erica was just acting in the "party spirit", I just don't know why she stopped. I could understand attacking the cops, I could understand just submitting to them - but attacking them, and then when Raimundo had success, submitting? Again, choosing one course of action and then another was worse than just sticking to any one course of action.  

Cadel ran because he had a chance to get away. They didn't know his name, and things were turning violent. He could escape the whole interrogation and any chance of being incriminated in any way. I couldn't really fault that, either.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkBut then, JimBob certainly emphasised on a few occasions that the local police were known for being corrupt and violent, so I suppose that create paranoia.

Absolutely. But you can respond in a number of ways to that confrontation: fight, flight, posture and submit. Which is wisest, well who knows. But again, sticking to one works fine. Raimundo stuck to fighting, and would have got away free if he hadn't been dobbed in by Erica's slip-up. Edward stuck to submitting, and got away without a charge. Cadel stuck to flight, and the cops don't even know who he is, they've only a vague description of him.

The only one who really got into trouble was Erica, who chopped and changed what she was doing. First she was co-operating fully - calling the cops, giving her name and address. Then she was fighting. Then she was submitting. Then later she was posturing (threatening lawsuits). As a result she's the only one who, entirely by her own actions, is known to the police by name and facing charges.

Fight, flight, posture, submit - all these work if you stick to them. Of course, you can always be sold out by the people in your party, but for the things you can control, choose a course and stick to it and you'll come out okay.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkI suppose the biggest issue is that most of the players (myself included) are not used to playing in a modern setting.  With organised police that have access to forensic technology.  Beating up the bad guy is fair game in many campaigns.  In a day-to-day, realistic setting, that shit isn't going to fly.  

Well, as I said, the place is violent enough that an extra scream or two in the night will pass unnoticed. But if you draw attention to yourself... say, by calling the media, or by talking to the homicide detective investigating about the main suspect and then going and beating up the main suspect...

Quote from: Tyberious FunkMore importantly though, at key points in the game, one of the players has pushed their own agenda a bit.  It's damn hard when one of the players declares "I'm doing XXX", and the rest of the group thinks "What the hell???"  There are only so many times when you can tell them to stop and think about their actions.

You can always just leave 'em swinging out in the wind by themselves!

Quote from: JimBobOzThe only one who really got into trouble was Erica, who chopped and changed what she was doing. First she was co-operating fully - calling the cops, giving her name and address. Then she was fighting. Then she was submitting. Then later she was posturing (threatening lawsuits). As a result she's the only one who, entirely by her own actions, is known to the police by name and facing charges.

Fight, flight, posture, submit - all these work if you stick to them.

I understand that this is your judgement, but remember that this is true in this campaign only because you have decided that it is.  

I don't think that this is something that everyone is going to agree on as a general course of action.  For example, if someone in real life were to ask me, I'd advise them quite differently.  That is, if they had resisted arrest at first because they were cuffed and beaten for something they didn't do, I wouldn't tell them "OK, then you should keep trying to cover up and avoid the police -- that'll get you off."  I'd tell them to calmly get a good friend and go in to contact someone higher up in the police and turn themselves in.  

What this depends on is that I have some hope that the police actually recognize and give some weight to efforts to cooperate with them.  i.e. The extent of cooperation offered helps mitigate and convince them not to press charges.  

In this case, I would think that Erica has a damn good case -- given that she called the cops and gave her name, was held at gunpoint and cuffed for her troubles, and only resisted arrest after the police started beating her friend.