Genre vs Realism

[Lady Chaomii]

I won't explain my actual dilemma because it involves extreme paraphilia. One of my friends pointed out that if met with a certain situation, his character would resort to acts of heavy gore and mutilation. Luckily said friend is NOT in this particular game, but it does raise an important question. What happens when real world logic threatens the integrity of the narative and genre? Your game could be about rainbows, and grassy hills with lots of bunnies; but suddenly the bad tempered barbarian PC feels the need to pull out his knife and stab the annoying gnome in the chest 27 times, because that's what he'd do in the real world. Never mind that it completely murders the mood (Heh).

What do you do in this situation? Do you throttle what the players can and can't do? Disallow them to from attacking non-hostile NPCs? What if the actions are not only logical, but would be to the PCs advantage. Perhaps the gnome is keeping a quest item on his body and won't give it to the party unless they play his games. Perhaps Pinocchio the high level wizard was eaten by a wale, so blasting it's brains out from the inside and ruining my childhood in the process would be the most suitable course of action.

What happens when the only thing stopping the PCs from ruining the setting is trust? What happens if the only thing keeping the integrity of the genre is the genre itself?

 

[Argyle King]

This is the type of question which makes me feel as though system matters.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Before starting a campaign, discuss. In my current campaign, evil characters are not allowed, so "Mr. Stabby's" character sheet would be handed over, and the player given a new, more appropriate PC to play.

 

[Corathon]

IMC, the PCs can try to do anything that they want, but there are always consequences. Behave like a good guy and you'll start to get a reputation as a good guy. People will treat you accordingly. Murder hapless gnomes and the law will be after you.

I guess that the actions of the PCs set the mood for me. And the mood doesn't need to stay the same for the whole campaign either.

 

[Bedrockgames]

This is very much about expectations and checking to see if everyone is on the same page. More important tham genre or mood; what were the players expectations? If the barbarian stabbing the gnome goes against those, then you probably need to go over the kind of game that is being run.

 

[Umbran]

What happens when the only thing stopping the PCs from ruining the setting is trust?

Sometimes you just let it happen - the setting is only important so long as it is giving the players fun. If destroying the setting conceits *is* the fun at hand, maybe you just roll with it.

Other times, wrecking the setting may seem like the thing to do of the moment, but it will cost the enjoyment of everyone in the long run, such that the GM perhaps ought to ask the player to desist. I think what to do is often as simple as that - ask them to please reconsider the action.

This is a point on which "metagaming" is not an evil. Players should realize that they are playing a game, and remember that there are some unwritten rules that they shouldn't violate. "I do it because it is in-character," is not an excuse for what is otherwise bad behavior.

 

[Gold Roger]

Genre is trump.

However, that means that everybody needs to be on the same page about the genre being played, what actually constitutes the genre and that everybody actually wants to play that way.

This includes the DM, by the way, if he says he's running one genre, he's commiting himself to that. I once got myself a bit into trouble by offering the players a choice of game, they chose the "kind indiana jones" option and after some time acted completely out of sync with my expectations. Only much later did I realise the game as I ran it wasn't like Indiana Jones at all. Well, you live and learn.

If the three above seem cleared up and one player acts out of genre, he might want to sit out that game. If it's most players, there might be bigger issues at work.