Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[Lanefan]

I said topics like this ought to be discussed, I did not say what form that discussion would take, so I don't see how you can say it would be too formalized.



So, I recognize that I am at a table (real or virtual, these days) with other real-world people. [...] They are busy. They have stress, and fears, and complications.

All of which I expect to have been left at the door when arriving at the game.

They are coming to a table with me to spend a few of their precious few hours of entertainment time. We are each using each other to enhance those precious hours of entertainment time.

Absolutely!

And doing something rash or gonzo is oftentimes far more entertaining - or directly leads to far more entertainment - than not doing so.

Mature adults can spend a half hour or an hour talking over expectations before starting a thing that's going to take dozens to hundreds of hours to complete.

Not for the first time, you speak as if the players are complete strangers before starting the campaign; which makes me ask whether gaming with strangers is your general background? (if yes, there's most of our differences right there; I generally only game with people I already know from out-of-game)

And, if you are gaming with folks who might have a problem with it, don't you want to know beforehand, so that you can choose to either not join the group or not have a character for whom this would be a notable point?

If I'm gaming with folks who might have that much of a problem with rash in-game actions my first concern would be they're taking it all just a bit too seriously, thus my response would be to do whatever I could to get them to lighten up.

In this case, "the point" may have been, "I cannot manage to use my words to state that this is boring the crap out of me, the player, and it has not been made clear to me that actions have consequences, so I will act out in-game." Yes, if that's the point of the action, I do want that defeated before we get to the table.

One thing to keep in mind is that it might be just the character who's bored, not the player. I've been in this situation many a time, where I-as-player am engaged enough with what's going on but if I'm playing a character with the attention span of a kitten I'm duty-bound to roleplay that; and so away we goooo.....

 

[prabe]

Not for the first time, you speak as if the players are complete strangers before starting the campaign; which makes me ask whether gaming with strangers is your general background? (if yes, there's most of our differences right there; I generally only game with people I already know from out-of-game)

Not speaking for @Umbran here--he can speak for himself--but I just started gaming in stores, for the specific purpose of gaming with new and different people, stepping a little bit outside my comfort zone. I know some of the people at the table really well, others a good deal less so.

One thing to keep in mind is that it might be just the character who's bored, not the player. I've been in this situation many a time, where I-as-player am engaged enough with what's going on but if I'm playing a character with the attention span of a kitten I'm duty-bound to roleplay that; and so away we goooo.....

There are exceptions, I'm sure, but I generally find that if a player is telling me his character is bored, he's rationalizing his behavior. I expect--and kinda prefer--that player goals and character goals align.

 

[Lanefan]

Yes, I’m all for facing the consequences. I think the best advice about playing that I’ve read in recent years is to play your PC like you’d drive a stolen car. I think that players are generally far too cautious with their characters in play.

That being said, I absolutely think that anytime a PC is doing something reckless or dangerous, that it’s the GM’s job to make that clear beforehand. The player should know about the scope or scale of potential consequences even if they character may not be aware.

My preference is that player knowledge = character knowledge.

That said, if the setting background has been laid down clearly enough during the campaign, any consequences should be at least vaguely predictable as to severity and scope, if not specifics.

I suppose that’s true. Generally speaking, I think that any activity that people spend hours actively doing is generally one they’re invested in, and so I kind of proceed with the expectation that the game matters to them.

I fine-tune this one step further: I proceed with the expectation that the game matters to them on the meta-level - as in, they want to come back next week - as opposed to whatever might happen within the fiction; interest in which predictably waxes and wanes for each player at different times depending on what's going on.

Sure, at times people can go overboard or can overreact to something that happens in the game, but I find if I proceed with the expectation that they do in fact care about the game, such instances are fewer and also less surprising.

Yeah, if players over-react that's a problem. If characters over-react, however, that's just part of the game.

 

[Lanefan]

This is a particular pet peeve of mine and one I too often encounter. I tend to place characters into the following broad categories.

• Instigators: Players who just like to stir the pot and sow chaos.
• The Anarchist: Players with a pathological dislike of any character in a game with some authority over their PC (it's not like they can tell their boss to go #%%# himself in real life).
• The Unliable: Players who think the role playing aspects don't really matter, believing the plot will plod along as planned regardless of their character's behavior (kind of like how it does in video games).

I will proudly plead guilty to being, at times and depending on situation, each of the first two. But I plead innocent of the third as defined, though I don't know what "Unliable" means.

 

[Umbran]

....I prefer when players are less cautious in the actions that they declare for their characters.

But to elaborate....typically, RPG characters are in some way bold. They are often literally adventurers or heroes or criminals or some sort of other type of person who would often be bold and daring. They lead risky lives.

But very often they are not played so.

Oh, so... because you don't think they are roleplaying their characters "correctly"?

Firefighters walk into burning buildings. They are bold. They lead lives with a lot of risk. That risk is extremely calculated. A reckless firefighter is a dead firefighter... possibly several dead firefighters. I see no reason why that doesn't hold for heroes, criminals, or anyone else in a high-risk profession.

Now, if you opened the campaign with a Session Zero that said, "I want this to be a campaign with lots of poorly considered actions - high action, high drama, lots of consequences!" and the players then failed to meet that, then you might have a point. Lacking that, though, the character's behavior is the one thing the players get to control. I don't think it is appropriate for the GM to say, "You aren't playing your character correctly, they should behave differently."

 

[MGibster]

I will proudly plead guilty to being, at times and depending on situation, each of the first two. But I plead innocent of the third as defined, though I don't know what "Unliable" means.

It just means they're not liable for any of their actions. i.e. They can say what they want with impunity because there are no meaningful consequences.

 

[MGibster]

The problems with discussons as it pertains to role playing games is that there are so many darned variables. What game your group is playing, the campaign itself, and even the participants can radically influence what's appropriate. Actions which one might consider perfectly reasonable and prudent in Delta Green might appear overly cautious in Dungeons & Dragons. Groups which are heavily invested in characterization and role playing are probably not going to be amused by a player who does random stuff just for the lulz.

 

[Fenris-77]

Now, if you opened the campaign with a Session Zero that said, "I want this to be a campaign with lots of poorly considered actions - high action, high drama, lots of consequences!" and the players then failed to meet that, then you might have a point. Lacking that, though, the character's behavior is the one thing the players get to control. I don't think it is appropriate for the GM to say, "You aren't playing your character correctly, they should behave differently."

I think it's very possible to have high action and high drama without poorly considered actions. That's actually probably my favorite playstyle, so I'm actually quite sure it's possible. I would agree that session zero is the place to address genre expectations though, for sure. You can't say someone is doing it 'wrong' if they didn't agree to do it any particular way to begin with.

 

[Umbran]

All of which I expect to have been left at the door when arriving at the game.

Ah. I have found that to be, at best, a polite fiction. We are not from the planet Vulcan, and our ability to push aside our emotional contexts is limited. So, rather than deny, I accept, expect, and work with issues as they arise - which isn't all that often.

For example, I have one regular player who has PTSD. It is clinically impossible for them to, "leave it at the door".

And doing something rash or gonzo is oftentimes far more entertaining - or directly leads to far more entertainment - than not doing so.

I'm not arguing against doing rash and gonzo stuff. I'm arguing for being thoughtful of the people at the table.

You want to do something rash? Before you declare the action, look around the table. Will this make things suck for the other real-life people? If the answer is, "Likely, yes," then maybe you shouldn't do it. I think it is likely the players in the OP did not make this check.

It isn't hard. It isn't even deep. And, no, it isn't onerous or a major imposition.

Not for the first time, you speak as if the players are complete strangers before starting the campaign; which makes me ask whether gaming with strangers is your general background? (if yes, there's most of our differences right there; I generally only game with people I already know from out-of-game)

I have run sometimes with folks I don't know, but that's not my usual. My main groups tend to stick together for 5+ years. My current has been together (with one person leaving, one passing away, and one addition) for... 14 years now, I think? I check in with them at least once a year about how we are doing with table expectations, and what they want to see. I do a whole new Session Zero whenever we start a new campaign, because that typically includes some genre expectation changes.

Mature adults - they talk to each other.

If I'm gaming with folks who might have that much of a problem with rash in-game actions my first concern would be they're taking it all just a bit too seriously, thus my response would be to do whatever I could to get them to lighten up.

Again, with the "you are too X." Elsewhere it is "too cautious". Here it is "too serious". Again, I ask - too serious for what? The "too serious" line has an implicit expectation on your part about how the game "should" be played. It is not a priori any better than anyone else's.

Rather than say, "they are wrong". I say, "talk about it before you start." That's all. Rather than have an implicit expectation, have an explicit one.

 

[MGibster]

I'm not arguing against doing rash and gonzo stuff. I'm arguing for being thoughtful of the people at the table.

In a nutshell, I think this is the salient point we should all be taking away from this discussion. As with any other social activity, being considerate of others makes it more enjoyable.