Immoral player characters in RPGs

[PsyzhranV2]

Not really, no.

I presume the salient point is their second paragraph?

This idea of the GM as a "big boss" of the game that does everything him or herself while infantilizing players as opposed to actively engaging and finding ways to share responsibility with them is massively outdated and it needs to go.

 

[Maxperson]

I presume the salient point is their second paragraph?

I got it. I just don't necessarily agree with it. While I'm not saying the DM is the big, bad, boss, players will often see themselves as exact equals and set the DM up higher, just by virtue of his different position. In my decades of experience, players will resent another player saying something, where they wouldn't resent it or would resent it much less if the DM said something. Further, the fastest way to make someone really defensive and make sure that they aren't listening due to the defensiveness, is to confront and trap him as a group.

The DM is most often going to be the best one to speak to the disruptive player about his behavior, preferably outside of the game away from the other players.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

I got it. I just don't necessarily agree with it. While I'm not saying the DM is the big, bad, boss, players will often see themselves as exact equals and set the DM up higher, just by virtue of his different position. In my decades of experience, players will resent another player saying something, where they wouldn't resent it or would resent it much less if the DM said something. Further, the fastest way to make someone really defensive and make sure that they aren't listening due to the defensiveness, is to confront and trap him as a group.

The DM is most often going to be the best one to speak to the disruptive player about his behavior, preferably outside of the game away from the other players.

Implementing safety tools at the table and ensuring their use is respected might help with those situations.

 

[Lanefan]

This is what session 0 is all about. My group normally doesn't have much (if any) PC conflict, but we did institute a rule that if a player is about to unilaterally take an action that is detrimental to the group, any player can call a time out to discuss it before it's implemented. If the majority of the players present feels it's bad enough of an idea, the action is vetoed.

Sorry, but ... yuck.

So much for spontaniety. So much for playing free-thinking and-or low-wisdom characters. Never mind that allowing players to meta-veto the in-character actions of another player's PC sounds to me like the perfect set-up for a roaring (and probably group-shattering) argument.

 

[pemerton]

To answer the specific question being raised, I'd say it depends on the game being played and how much authority is being extended to the GM (how much GM fiat is expected of them, are action resolutions primarily player or GM facing, etc.), but I also feel that focusing on that specific aspect, rather than the issue of there being mismatched expectations between the different members of the group, is missing the forest for the trees. Rather, I'd focus on the issue of making sure group expectations or clear and all on the same page, as well as the implementation of safety tools for the table to act as a check against play breaking down for whatever reason. Gonna plug the TTRPG Safety Toolkit for this reason.

The GM does not have a job other than facilitating games. How they choose to do that is up to them, but should also involve negotiation of such with players. Any or all players can take on this type of responsibility just as much as a GM can.

This idea of the GM as a "big boss" of the game that does everything him or herself while infantilizing players as opposed to actively engaging and finding ways to share responsibility with them is massively outdated and it needs to go.

I am playing in a group of people who mostly have known one another for a very long time (30+ years in several cases), so the "policing" of expectations is much more through ordinary informal social processes among a group of friends rather than formal allocations of responsibility or formal safety tools.

I'm generally sympathetic to the idea of diffused responsibility among participants. But I can see how the dynamics of relatively traditional RPGing - in which the GM has a sort of "chairing" role and a "everybody looks to the GM when no one is quite sure what happens next" role - can foist a particular function up the GM even if that is not a formal or "big boss" expectation.

 

[Lanefan]

The thing that bothers me about all this is that the player who - in character - got on with it and made something happen in the game is more and more being characterized and denigrated as "disruptive" as the thread goes on.

To me, players like that who stir the pot and cause in-character trouble* are pure gold!

* - as opposed to and clearly distinct from at-the-table trouble; and if in-character trouble leads to at-the-table trouble all that tells me is people are taking the whole thing way too seriously.

 

[pemerton]

The thing that bothers me about all this is that the player who - in character - got on with it and made something happen in the game is more and more being characterized and denigrated as "disruptive" as the thread goes on.

Are you playing in the games those posters are posting about?

If not, why worry that their tables adopt a different normative stance from yours?

 

[Shiroiken]

Sorry, but ... yuck.

So much for spontaniety. So much for playing free-thinking and-or low-wisdom characters. Never mind that allowing players to meta-veto the in-character actions of another player's PC sounds to me like the perfect set-up for a roaring (and probably group-shattering) argument.

Eh, it's never actually been used once we implemented it. A player decided to go edge-lord and assassinate a chieftain they were negotiating with. It completely undid the rewards from their previous adventure and almost got the entire party executed. Afterwards the player basically said "F you" to everyone who was mad about it, which caused some inter-party friction, leading to the rule. I think just having the rule keeps everyone's inner edge-lord at bay.

 

[Umbran]

This idea of the GM as a "big boss" of the game that does everything him or herself while infantilizing players

Good grief. Having one person with somewhat more authority does not "infantilize" anyone. I'd thank you to not overstate the point. because it gets in the way of having actual conversation.

 

[Lanefan]

Eh, it's never actually been used once we implemented it. A player decided to go edge-lord and assassinate a chieftain they were negotiating with. It completely undid the rewards from their previous adventure and almost got the entire party executed. Afterwards the player basically said "F you" to everyone who was mad about it, which caused some inter-party friction, leading to the rule. I think just having the rule keeps everyone's inner edge-lord at bay.

I'd just let the inter-party friction play out to its conclusion as long as it stayed in character, even if it meant the PCs threw down on each other. If it becomes at-the-table friction that's different, of course, and here it's almost table by table: a group of long-time friends will sort it out, while a group of strangers at a game store might need some sharp words from the GM about not taking it so seriously.