Can I shoot that?

[Creamsteak]

The wording on this thread seems to be extremely off. I have been asked this question before by fresh players, and the default is no. If players all shoot at everything, chances are that they will eventually fall to luck when they never have a truely safe spot. The larger the group they anger, the more compelled the group is to go after them.

If luck goes their way, and they evade 4 armies for 20 years of IC adventuring, then they deserve to be allowed their privilige, but I doubt they can make it past 4 without a safe place to recover.

 

[megamania]

Let the party do wnat they want, and let them deal with the consequences.

EXACTLY!

 

[Bluewolf]

Re: Expulsions of PCs

Quote:

Originally posted by Agback
6) After three sessions, sack any player who has not got the message.

Originally posted by Crothian re: Agback post
That's a little on the extreme side. I wouldn't get rid of any player who wasn't casuing a problem, and I doubt this fits that criteria.



I would have to side with Crothian on this matter as I think expulsion of a PC is a little too extreme for my liking. I suppose all I really need to do is introduce high-level NPCs to prevent them from doing random acts of violence. I could simply right the high level NPCs off with the fact that the town has called for backup from a far lager neighbouring town.

Currently the PCs are in a small town and are nearly the same level as the top dogs. Which is making things rather difficult.

 

[Arnwyn]

None of the above (okay, I did vote "plot deaths", only because my players and I are all friends, and I made it quite clear that I *am* an iron-fisted DM).

My response, though (as it is to virtually any player/character question), would be: "Why?"

Asking "why?" always gets the player talking, and allows you to better understand what they're thinking/planning/etc. This will allow you to more clearly see what type of gamer that player is, and what type of game he/she really wants (in fact, much easier than simply asking straight-out).

Result? Discuss. They tell you what they want, you tell them what you want - and then compromise on what type of game you should be running to best suit everyone's tastes.

[If they want to be nasty, fine. Then, as other posters so eloquently put it, they will deal with the consequences.]

 

[Mercule]

Re: Re: Can I shoot that?

6) After three sessions, sack any player who has not got the message.

Nah. I wouldn't kick them out. I'd wait for the other players to do it. After about 5 TPKs because of "guilt by association" and the actions of one player, even the most benevolent group will start lynching.

Kicking them out makes me "a mean/anal/iron" DM. Letting the mob do it, drives home the "bad player, no cookie" idea.

Besides, even if they don't get lynched, at least I have some fun with one PC for whom I never have to feel guilty about not fudging the dice.

 

[kengar]

A Skunk was badgered; the results were strong.

Hey Crothian? Ralf the Dog from The Muppet Movie?

 

[ced1106]

Why do PCs attempt to kill everything in their wake?

What's the context? In a dungeon or wilderness, they go kill things. In a village or city, they don't. I usually run low-level games. Low levels are a great crutch -- if the players get cocky, in comes the 6th level cleric with the Hold spells.

OTOH, As a GM, your objective is to have game that's fun for yourself and the players. If the players just want to kill things, that's the type of game that will make them happy. See "Robin Law's Guide to Good Gamemastering".


Cedric.
aka. Washu! ^O^

 

[Stalker0]

Dealing out consequences for a character's bad behavior is imo the best way to handle it.

Many roleplayers are like children, they think they can do whatever they want. Until you discipline them, they will continue to think that.

I think the suggestions above are excellent and make it believable. If the world changes to reflect teh character's bad behavior, that will make the game more real for them. And if the party wants to continue bad behavior and try to undermine the world, then let them. Their alignments will most likely shift to evil, and there adventures will be spent trying to get around the world alive.

 

[Fenes 2]

My response is: Talk to the players, find out what they want, make clear what kind of game you want to run. If you and the players disagree on too many points, better find another group. I am not too fond of in-game solutions, I prefer to talk differences out. Too often, in-game solutions lead to adverse effects - the players try to beat the odds just to spite the DM, or blame all problems on the DM.

 

[Deadguy]

I am grateful that I've encountered relatively few 'casual killer' players. When I have, I have talked with them, and what I found was that generally their view of a campaign world is little different to a CRPG. They game to have fun, and fun equates to freedom to do whatever they want. Fortunately I have always persuaded them to move on to other games: there are plenty of the 'beer-and-pretzels'-type game out there, in which they'll feel a lot happier.