D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[Vaalingrade]

I see what you're saying and recognize the difference between player and character, but my take on it is that what happens in character stays in character - you can play the biggest jerkface of a character the world has ever known but that doesn't have to reflect on you-as-its-player provided you-as-player aren't a jerk when out of character.

I've been at tables that had to talk people down from being too intense or obnoxious in-character.

Along the lines of 'please stop, this is making the game less fun to come to each week'.

 

[Oofta]

Depends. If one is in fact looking to wind up a campaign then having the potential for a hard end state is very useful.

Yes, which means - and I'm paraphrasing @Clint_L here from another thread - don't make threats you're not prepared to deliver.

If the world is at stake and they mess it up then the world ends, or enters a cataclysm, or whatever; and maybe remains playable afterwards but is vastly different: it becomes some sort of post-apocalyptic setting. So be it. If I put that threat on the table it means I'm willing and ready to see it through if that's how things end up going. In other words, calling my bluff is a very poor strategy.

That happened to me at one point. The PCs failed to stop Loki from escaping prison (there were several choices and failures along the way) so the Ragnarok war started. The next campaign started up after the gods had been at war for close to a century and 75% of the population has been wiped out. Good times.

Ultimately the end of the world was averted because Fenris never escaped, which had kind of been my contingency plan, but repercussions from the god war are still a major part of my ongoing campaigns.

Once the PCs gather enough resources to make revival effects an option, I'm fine with those resources being used. But low-level types often simply can't afford revival effects, and so...

...there's a lot of this, as the wheat slowly rises from the chaff.

I think failure can make the game a lot more interesting. Also reinforces that the PCs actions matter. If they can't fail or failure has no consequence then winning the day doesn't mean much either.

 

[Mort]

I see what you're saying and recognize the difference between player and character, but my take on it is that what happens in character stays in character - you can play the biggest jerkface of a character the world has ever known but that doesn't have to reflect on you-as-its-player provided you-as-player aren't a jerk when out of character.

I've seen this many a time.

My concern is when that formula gets flipped around; when someone who is wonderful in real life gets flayed for playing a complete jerk of a character.

In short: the ability and willingness to roleplay a jerk does not in itself make a player a jerk.

I much prefer it when players bring characters that add to the fun of the table. I mean why are you bringing in a character who's schtick is to be disruptive and get in the way of everyone else?

 

[Lanefan]

There's no special protection. But as a DM why should I allow any behavior even if it destroys the enjoyment of the game for me?

Everyone has limits whether they admit them or not. If I'm playing a druid that shapeshifts into a monkey, I can't imagine any group putting up with my extreme roleplaying as I jump up on the table and start throwing feces at fellow players. Hopefully the extreme roleplaying example won't happen in the first place but if it did I can rest pretty safe knowing that the perpetrator wouldn't be part of the group any longer.

But - assuming this sometimes-monkey PC had already established a pattern of pure chaos in its actions - would you allow the monkey-PC to throw feces at the party if all the player did was speak, declaring that as the character's next action in the fiction while sitting there calmly at the table?

If yes, we're good. If no, that's where the conflict comes.

This idea that DMs should allow any behavior at their table is just foreign to me. It's also BS. Everybody has limits.

Unless you're LARPing, there's a huge difference between behavior at the table and behavior in the fiction.

One has limits via social norms, laws of the land, personal preferences/tastes, and so on.

The other largely does not.

An example: a teetotal player who objects to others drinking at the table is one thing, and so maybe we don't drink at the table; but that player still has no right to object to my character drinking like a fish in the fiction nor to my hamming this up a bit as a player.

 

[Vaalingrade]

An example: a teetotal player who objects to others drinking at the table is one thing, and so maybe we don't drink at the table; but that player still has no right to object to my character drinking like a fish in the fiction nor to my hamming this up a bit as a player.

Buuut...

If one of my friends is a recovering alcoholic who is struggling to stay on the wagon, maybe I'll choose to not to make a character that will cause drinking to come up every session,

 

[Oofta]

But - assuming this sometimes-monkey PC had already established a pattern of pure chaos in its actions - would you allow the monkey-PC to throw feces at the party if all the player did was speak, declaring that as the character's next action in the fiction while sitting there calmly at the table?

Not at the party. Literally the player jumping up on the table throwing feces at other players. In character might actually be kind of funny. Admittedly this is a hyperbolic example, all I'm saying is that everyone has some line they will not cross. Or at least I would assume so.

As long as the DM is up front about what their expectations of behavior are, I don't see an issue.

 

[Lanefan]

I much prefer it when players bring characters that add to the fun of the table. I mean why are you bringing in a character who's schtick is to be disruptive and get in the way of everyone else?

Because - and I've seen this many a time also - those characters can and do add to the fun of the table.

In my current game, one player (who was and still is a fine fellow IRL) ran this low-Charisma Thief; whose in-character schtick was that he simply couldn't utter two sentences without gravely offending everyone in the room. And the player played this brilliantly! Out of character we'd often be rolling on the floor with laughter at the crazy things that came out of this guy's mouth, even while in-character the PCs had to scramble to fix the messes he'd caused (and occasionally slap him upside the head for good measure).

His best moment came when the party, with help from some local soldiers, had rescued some prisoners/slaves and captured their captors. In the space of less than half an in-game hour during the mop-up process this Thief managed to insult the rescuees, their ex-captors, the soldiers, and the party all to the point where they wanted to kill him; and a four-way brawl erupted over a) who could get to him first and b) whether the insults came from him or another group. Meanwhile he quietly sneaked away under all the confusion...and everyone at the table laughed ourselves silly. (side note: it's hard to DM seriously when you can't stop laughing)

The one thing with this Thief was that he'd also insult his fellow party members on a regular and ongoing basis, leading to his being tossed out of various parties (a.k.a. "leaving by mutual consent") when he wore out his welcome. The player left the game quite some time ago (unrelated to any of this) but that character is still out there somewhere.

 

[Mort]

An example: a teetotal player who objects to others drinking at the table is one thing, and so maybe we don't drink at the table;

A while back a player asked to join my regular group, seemed like a nice guy (at least via email etc.)

But then I found out he was 18. Multiple people like to drink during the game (which is in person).

Those people felt uncomfortable drinking around an 18 year old (drinking age in the US is 21), so we had to tell him sorry, maybe in a couple of years.

but that player still has no right to object to my character drinking like a fish in the fiction nor to my hamming this up a bit as a player.

Sure, but what if the teetotaler brings in a character who hates anyone drinking in front of him. And to add to it, he reacts violently if he sees alcohol consumption. His PC then attacks your PC because "it's what his character would do..."

Point is some character traits/behaviors are near guaranteed to cause strife at the table and should probably be avoided as character concepts/motivations.

 

[Lanefan]

A while back a player asked to join my regular group, seemed like a nice guy (at least via email etc.)

But then I found out he was 18. Multiple people like to drink during the game (which is in person).

Those people felt uncomfortable drinking around an 18 year old (drinking age in the US is 21), so we had to tell him sorry, maybe in a couple of years.

Fair enough; though I thought the US drinking age had come down to 19 in many states.

Sure, but what if the teetotaler brings in a character who hates anyone drinking in front of him. And to add to it, he reacts violently if he sees alcohol consumption. His PC then attacks your PC because "it's what his character would do..."

Then so be it: they throw down and fight in character. One will win, the other will lose (and maybe even die), and something of a tone will be set; augmented by whichever side the other party members find themselves taking.

Point is some character traits/behaviors are near guaranteed to cause strife at the table and should probably be avoided as character concepts/motivations.

That's my overarching point: strife in the party doesn't and shouldn't mean strife at the table.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You just stated:


How is the DM in your statement being deliberately rude? When has anyone ever said anything about a rude DM other than to acknowledge that if a DM is rude I won't continue playing at that table?

I was not speaking of any specific DM. I was speaking of the argument--made repeatedly in this thread and elsewhere--that the DM always has, and should have, "absolute" and "unilateral" power. Those words have been used repeatedly and very intentionally, and when asked if people really do mean "absolute" and "unilateral," several folks (IIRC including you) have explicitly said yes, that is exactly what they mean. For the DM's power to be "absolute" and "unilateral," the players have three options: learn to like anything which might bother them, be silent about their concerns, or drop the nuclear option and leave the table. Those are the only player responses when the DM's power is "absolute" and "unilateral."

Why does the DM need "absolute" and "unilateral" power? Why is it the only acceptable state of affairs is one that DEMANDS players put up, shut up, or nuke from orbit?

Seems really, really condescending and dismissive of people who don't allow evil PCs. Everybody has limits on how they will engage with others at the game table and what makes the game not enjoyable for them.

Then you must have completely misread what I said, because I have made clear, in this thread and others, that I don't run games for evil PCs.

Would be incredibly weird to be condescending to MYSELF.

Or are you saying that my extreme RPer monkey scenario would be allowed at your table? If the answer is "no", which I assume it is because I acknowledge that it's an extreme example, then you also draw the line somewhere. Where different people draw the line is up to them.

No. I'm saying that FOR GOD'S SAKE, there must be SOMETHING we can do that is better than "players must put up, shut up, or drop a nuke from orbit" with regard to this stuff!

There must be something else we can do to address actually realistic, rather than farcical, questionable player requests or (mis)behaviors that doesn't give absolute, perfect, 100%, unlimited and unconstrained support to DM questionable requests or (mis)behaviors, such that the only player responses are meek submission, festering silence, or explosive separation.