Deal or No Deal?

[takasi]

What are some of your deal breakers when playing an RPG? What are some actions or series of actions that someone at the table has declared that caused other people (players or DMs) to stop or prevent the actions from occuring?

One category includes implausible actions. A player wants his character to jump off a 50 foot cliff, roundhouse kick a guy riding on a motorcycle below to knock him off, jack the bike and pull it around 180 degrees in a split second and head in the opposite direction, all on his turn. The first thing people do to stop this is point to the rules, but in many cases there are loop holes and areas open for interpretation, and in those cases some players are more willing to allow the improbable than others (even to the extent of bending the rules).

A second category of actions are really boring decisions. A character is only marginally injured or out of some type of resource that will recharge on a daily basis and decides it would be a good idea to hole up in a small dungeon room for 24 hours. Some players may move on, forcing the party to split or continue, or the game master might throw in some monsters or change the risk level of the game. This might not be in a dungeon, this could also happen when there's a lot of downtime and the players really don't seem motivated to do anything with their characters. Even the most hardcore simulationist ref might be influenced to concoct quests and hooks that force players to do something besides eat cheetos and bs out of character.

Another set of actions involve fairness and balance. While this can happen between players, it can also frequently happen between the game master and players. If a player summons a magic cloud and uses it to move to the edge and ready an action to move back when someone shoots, a gamist gm might get frustrated that the tactics he developed for the creatures he controlled is not working. In that case he may be tempted to arbitrarily summon additional monsters from beyond the fog of war to 'even the odds'.

I haven't ran a game in a few months (playing in a few for a change), so I've spent some time examining times I protested internally (and in some cases maybe even subconsciously) and I'm trying to think of ways I could have been more tolerant. I would love to hear any stories on make or break times and how you dealt with them, or why player tolerance has made the game better (or worse).

 

[Dice4Hire]

I play a lot of Yahoogroups, though I imagine this is equally valid on PBP sites.

What I have is a player who is frequently absent for days at a time, either through work school, or occasionally disinterest. The problem is when he/she comes back he/she insists on posting form the beginning of where he/she last posted, without reading what has happened since then (sometimes up to 10 days of real time.) As a result many actions he/she posted are no longer valid as that scene is over, or has evolved into a different way than his/her post takes account of. This can cause continuity problems, as when a discusion has broken down already, it is a lot harder to try and bring it back to an even keel.

In this case I have to negate posts, which is something I dislike doing.

 

[Bumbles]

dupe

 

[Bumbles]

Players who have to have long, involved, dialogs between them and the GM, going over minutiae such as while shopping, leaving the rest of us watching their theatrics for what seems like hours on end.

I know it happens sometimes without meaning, but there are some who force it.

Which is pretty close to your second category.

 

[SKyOdin]

I can't stand scenes involving torture or execution, particularly if it is the players who are performing said torture or execution. Killing prisoners, interrogating people and then killing them if they don't give good answers, and so on makes my stomach turn. If I was DMing and the players started to act like that, I would stop the campaign.

 

[jdrakeh]

One category includes implausible actions. A player wants his character to jump off a 50 foot cliff, roundhouse kick a guy riding on a motorcycle below to knock him off, jack the bike and pull it around 180 degrees in a split second and head in the opposite direction, all on his turn. The first thing people do to stop this is point to the rules, but in many cases there are loop holes and areas open for interpretation, and in those cases some players are more willing to allow the improbable than others (even to the extent of bending the rules).

Re: Implausible Actions

There are actually a great many games designed specifically to support this kind of action, from BESM to Wushu (and quite a few inbetween, to say nothing of 'supers' RPGs).

 

[kitsune9]

What are some of your deal breakers when playing an RPG? What are some actions or series of actions that someone at the table has declared that caused other people (players or DMs) to stop or prevent the actions from occuring?

One category includes implausible actions. A player wants his character to jump off a 50 foot cliff, roundhouse kick a guy riding on a motorcycle below to knock him off, jack the bike and pull it around 180 degrees in a split second and head in the opposite direction, all on his turn. The first thing people do to stop this is point to the rules, but in many cases there are loop holes and areas open for interpretation, and in those cases some players are more willing to allow the improbable than others (even to the extent of bending the rules).

A second category of actions are really boring decisions. A character is only marginally injured or out of some type of resource that will recharge on a daily basis and decides it would be a good idea to hole up in a small dungeon room for 24 hours. Some players may move on, forcing the party to split or continue, or the game master might throw in some monsters or change the risk level of the game. This might not be in a dungeon, this could also happen when there's a lot of downtime and the players really don't seem motivated to do anything with their characters. Even the most hardcore simulationist ref might be influenced to concoct quests and hooks that force players to do something besides eat cheetos and bs out of character.

Another set of actions involve fairness and balance. While this can happen between players, it can also frequently happen between the game master and players. If a player summons a magic cloud and uses it to move to the edge and ready an action to move back when someone shoots, a gamist gm might get frustrated that the tactics he developed for the creatures he controlled is not working. In that case he may be tempted to arbitrarily summon additional monsters from beyond the fog of war to 'even the odds'.

I haven't ran a game in a few months (playing in a few for a change), so I've spent some time examining times I protested internally (and in some cases maybe even subconsciously) and I'm trying to think of ways I could have been more tolerant. I would love to hear any stories on make or break times and how you dealt with them, or why player tolerance has made the game better (or worse).

Implausible actions don't bother me if the rules allow it. I can suspend belief for it.

Boring decisions like the one you described above, my group doesn't do.

Fairness and balance is kind of touch and go. I want to give an exciting encounter so I'm guilty of adding more monsters into the mix when it seemed the PC's were having an easy time of it.

 

[ExploderWizard]

As jdrakeh pointed out, implausability can only be defined within the framework of a given game.

Boring decisions are a function of group dynamics. If a group is used to playing with a tough, unforgiving DM that punishes them for not resting every chance that they can get then such boring decisions are kind of forced as a survival tactic.

If there is a lot of downtime at the table with little actually happening then either the DM, the players, or both may not be engaged in the game events. At that point, an open group discussion on why this is happening is in order.

Players coming up with suprising techniques to overcome challenges is part of the fun of the game. A good DM should not punish clever thinking because it's an indication that the players are into the game and engaged. Squashing the effects of such efforts just enforces a feeling of "why bother" among the players and cause them to go into "autopilot" mode never thinking outside the box .

 

[Hussar]

I agree with Bumbles. Mindless role play that does nothing to advance the plot, or explore the setting, bores me to tears. I'm groovy with it for a bit. I'm not such an attention whore that I need the spotlight all the time. But, when it starts taking over sessions, well, life's too short for being bored at the table.

The absentee player thing blows me away too. We have a standing rule in our online games. Three strikes and you're out. Three unexcused absenses and I retire the character. It takes all of ten seconds to post on our boards or email me, and I have real difficulty believing that three times a player is incapable of getting to a computer in order to say, "Hey, sorry, busy this week."

PC to PC romance is also something that makes me very uncomfortable. Well, actually, I have no problem with two in game PC's being romantically involved, so long as I'm not one of them. It just weirds me out. I don't like it.

 

[maddman75]

Players who have to have long, involved, dialogs between them and the GM, going over minutiae such as while shopping, leaving the rest of us watching their theatrics for what seems like hours on end.

I know it happens sometimes without meaning, but there are some who force it.

Which is pretty close to your second category.

As a GM, I deal with this two ways.

First, I don't have scenes that aren't important. If there's no conflict to be introduced, explored, or resolved, I cut to the next scene. Now this isn't to say that I'll keep a PC from talking to someone, but I'll make sure to figure out a way to involve some conflict of something that is going on.

Second, is bouncing. Sure, you can talk to the clerk at the store, though he's likely to say something interesting or something interesting will happen. But you're not hogging the spotlight for half an hour, I'm going to be bouncing to the other characters to see what they're up to.

I can't stand scenes involving torture or execution, particularly if it is the players who are performing said torture or execution. Killing prisoners, interrogating people and then killing them if they don't give good answers, and so on makes my stomach turn. If I was DMing and the players started to act like that, I would stop the campaign.

My way of dealing with this is to let players know that Torture Doesn't Work*. That is, once you go to breaking bones and cutting flesh, the poor victim is going to confess to starting the Chicago fire, kidnapping Jimmy Hoffa, and being the shooter on the grassy knoll. In other words, you aren't getting anything useful out of them. Threatening such might be a good tactics, but really doing it and you get no where.

If you do it any way, then you're going to get sucked to the dark side.

A no-no on my list is rape. At most, it might be referred to obliquily. But no, I don't want to hear about it nor have characters do it or have it done to them.


*Not getting political or interested in a discussion about real world stuff. Just a statement of how things work in my fictional worlds.