Post/Author/DateTime	Post
catsclaw 01-08-07, 04:42 PM	I had a problem come up over the weekend. I was playing at a table of five running through a mod, and we came across an unholy altar. We killed the guardians, then started to move deeper into the dungeon, when one of players announced he dropped trou and urinated over the altar. None of the other players wanted him to do it, either as characters or players. We argued over it for about 15 minutes, when finally the player yelled "You know what? I'm doing it. If you want to stop me, you're gonna have to roll an attack." It would have been trivial to stop him without harming him -- one of the characters even had a merciful weapon -- but there doesn't seem to be any way in LG to prevent disruptive players from doing disruptive things, and hiding behind the "no inter-party combat" rules in LG. I've been in other tables where players insisted on playing their characters in ways designed to hinder the party and provoke the other characters (executing prisoners in front of paladins, for example) and taunting the party because they couldn't prevent it. The easiest ways of avoiding these things is to refuse to play with such players, I know. But what do you do if you're stuck in a game, and your character is faced with such a situation?
LGMoses 01-08-07, 04:44 PM	next time he does that tell him to make a will save....
Samwise 01-08-07, 06:18 PM	You accept that you made a mistake and played with someone you shouldn't, do what you can to minimize the damage to your chances of success, and finish the adventure. After that, you refuse to ever play with that person again. And, if your region has an active email group, you make a nice in-character post explaining just why you won't be doing so anymore, avoiding any spoilers of course. In general, most encounters like that allow you to separate yourself from the person. The altar might be cursed, but since only he defiled it, only he will be cursed. If you are dealing with a patron or others, just say he showed up in response to the same call for help you did, you don't agree with him, and you don't support him, and he should get the boot while you don't. If the behavior is bad enough, you can, as a last resort, simply walk away from the table. You will lost out on xp, gp, and other rewards, but if enough people leave with you, so will the offending player. One thing to note though, if the person crosses the line from from in-character offensive to generally offensive, there are RPGA rules against that. Vulgarity or generally crude or inappropriate speech is against the RPGA Guidelines, and the DM can warn him then remove him from the table. He has to file a report, but you don't have to tolerate behavior like that.
clannagh 01-08-07, 07:45 PM	Although its very tempting to have some avatar of the diety in question pop up and smite him ... LG Dm's are a little limited in what they can actually do in that regard. Generally the best you can manage is arrest them if they are in town. Younger players seem to have some idea that if they are mid high level adventurers they can take on anything the local constabularly can muster so its good to dissuade that attitude early. Overall though its best to invoke the rules about disruptive play and also the fact that LG is pretty much a PG13 environment regardlessof who is actually sitting at the table. Behaviour of the type you mentioned in one of my games would definitely inspire an email to triad from me just so it was down on record.
pedr 01-08-07, 08:05 PM	Although it's pretty wordy and boring (unless you're a lawyer-type like me who likes wordy boring documents :D) it's worth glancing over the RPGA General Rules. Someone who is incredibly disruptive ought to be reported to the RPGA. Someone who is 'just' disruptive ought to be cautioned that what they're doing is disruptive and that more serious repurcussions could follow if they stop. However, I don't call the behaviour in the OP 'disruptive'. It's a roleplaying game, and sometimes the characters are going to want to do different things. The way I read the Living Greyhawk rules, attacking for non-lethal damage, grappling etc are not banned in Living Greyhawk (though some judges might disagree).
The_Jester 01-08-07, 10:19 PM	I've seen players do things like that all the time in home games. When I was 14. Groan, roll your eyes, and possible tell him to grow up or ask him to leave the table and come back when he's ready to act like a grown up. Unless he actually was thirteen in which case you just groan and roll your eyes. There's no rule that says you have to play with someone. You don't have to let him at your tables and you don't have to invite him to the gamedays. Warn him if he does it again he won't be invited back.
pedr 01-08-07, 11:51 PM	Well except that there is a rule that says that you have to play with someone... well, not precisely, but you can't exclude RPGA members from RPGA gamedays and conventions. I guess that's why the rules are there - so that people who should be excluded are, and there is some accountability. Remember that the senior GM is a representative of the RPGA and ought to act as such. Home events are different - they're private and you can invite anyone you like. The venue in which you play might exercise its rights to exclude someone as well - but if they don't you can't just turn away people you don't like. According to the rules, anyway.
Madfox11 01-09-07, 12:25 PM	However, I don't call the behaviour in the OP 'disruptive'. It's a roleplaying game, and sometimes the characters are going to want to do different things. The way I read the Living Greyhawk rules, attacking for non-lethal damage, grappling etc are not banned in Living Greyhawk (though some judges might disagree). And possible derail the adventure even further by spending time on a fight that should not have happened and even costs additional resources? It is really difficult to give any generic advice on how to deal with the situation, since each disruptive player and action requires a different approach. One thing you should always do though is to warn your DM in private the other player's behavior is irritating you immensely. Not all DMs have a high Sense Motive so to speak, and belief it or not, some players actually love such IC discussions and inter-party conflict. The DM is in a much better position to do something about it than the player. It also pays to chat with the player, although I know of examples where things actually became worse. More often than not though, I simply ignore the player and just play with the cards that dealt. I just remember his face, and never play with him again ;) Luckily, I rarely met such players (there are a couple of local players who can become disruptive if you let them, but if you keep a tight lease on them so to speak they can be really fun at the table).
Alpha_Nerd 01-09-07, 12:28 PM	Normally I let them have their fun but make it not really affect anything. In this example I would say something like "Congratulations you desecrated the altar, what is everyone else doing?" You know what I'm saying? Let them figure out that urinating on the altar isn't going to get them the attention they want and it's just hurting everyone else and do it without confrontation, as it's something RPGA dislikes.
LachlarlanIII 01-09-07, 12:59 PM	What is the issue again? You argued for 15 minutes about an in-game action that didn't actually affect any of your characters? Most of the people I game with would have ignored the action and gotten on with the mod. Then again, altars to evil deities are desecrated in the BK all the time.
catsclaw 01-09-07, 01:19 PM	You argued for 15 minutes about an in-game action that didn't actually affect any of your characters?I didn't know it wouldn't affect my character. And it wasn't just the action which bothered me, but the attitude on the part of the player that *he* was going to do what *he* wanted, no matter what any of us thought, because he was protected by the rules from any retribution we were likely to foist upon him.
budleiser 01-09-07, 01:23 PM	I thought it is legal to non-lethal other PCs? You could have jumped him till he was unconscious, tied him up and dragged him along.
CrystalBlue 01-09-07, 01:26 PM	Situations like this do actually have rules in the RPGA rules book. In fact, there's questions about things like this on the Master's Test, such as what to do with a disruptive player, how to deal with cheating, ect. You don't have to put up with it at all. The DM is well within his right to eject that player from the table, without an AR, and write him up. And that's what should be done.
Mithreinmaethor 01-09-07, 03:28 PM	All of this discussion about someone wizzing on an evil altar. I dont see how anyone can see that as being disruptive. If the other players in the party dont agree with his actions just turn and walk away and continue on with the mod. Some of you are wound a little tight sometimes
LachlarlanIII 01-09-07, 03:30 PM	I didn't know it wouldn't affect my character. And it wasn't just the action which bothered me, but the attitude on the part of the player that *he* was going to do what *he* wanted, no matter what any of us thought, because he was protected by the rules from any retribution we were likely to foist upon him. It wasn't the character being disruptive then. It was the player.
trollbill 01-09-07, 03:52 PM	All of this discussion about someone wizzing on an evil altar. I dont see how anyone can see that as being disruptive. If the other players in the party dont agree with his actions just turn and walk away and continue on with the mod. Some of you are wound a little tight sometimes It's not a small deal if the player's believed those actions might summon an angry evil diety for an instant TPK, which I think was the primary problem. While it likely would not, I doubt any of them wanted to take that chance. No one likes someone else's stupidity getting them killed. That's where the tried and true military solution known as, 'Fragging,' comes from. LG doesn't allow this solution, however. Hence the thread.
gomeztoo 01-09-07, 03:59 PM	For the record: any attack on a PC, be it nonlethal, a spell, etc, falls within the rules that you cannot attack another PC, and may potentially get your character pulled. In theory. In practice, most players/DMs I know wouldn't really pull the rules with a non-lethal grappling match (provided the table agrees). It is hard to predict this, though, so it is wise to check with the players and DM. However, because of this rule, you need be careful with interparty conflict, especially if it could place PCs against each other ina a melee situaton.
pedr 01-09-07, 04:20 PM	A character that purposefully attacks other PCs is immediately removed from play. See the FAQ in Chapter Nine for more details. Q: Can I attack another character to inflict permanent harm or death if he is being controlled by the DM? A: Only if it is unavoidable. If the character is under the DM’s control then you may defend yourself as needed but you still may not kill the character unless you cannot avoid it (DM discretion here). The character is being manipulated and is still a fellow party member and killing it is an evil act. On the other hand, as soon as you freely attack another character to cause serious physical harm while not defending yourself, your character is removed from the campaign. Obviously there are times in which you may inadvertently hurt another character through your actions. The intent behind the actions is what is important here and can only be judged on a case-by-case basis by the DM at the table. There is significant table variation on the precise meaning of these provisions. My interpretation is that anything which deliberately causes lethal damage to another PC, except for including PCs in area of effect spells with the consent of the PCs damaged, comes under the 'absolutely prohibited and you lose your character' clause. Anything else, I think, doesn't meet the bar set by the LGCS of "freely attack[ing] another character to cause serious physical harm," and is allowed under the rules. Other DMs have different views, so Gomeztoo is right - make sure you know the ground rules before you begin!
vvincent 01-09-07, 05:26 PM	Not entirely true. While the convention has to be open to people - a convention organizer can, in fact, refuse to accept an individual - especially if there is payment involved. Just as a business can refuse someone as a customer, so too can a convention organizer refuse a player (who is his customer) from admittance to his convention. I have personally seen convention organizers ban people from their conventions due to bad behavior and the like. Vernon L. Vincent Verbobonc Triad Well except that there is a rule that says that you have to play with someone... well, not precisely, but you can't exclude RPGA members from RPGA gamedays and conventions. I guess that's why the rules are there - so that people who should be excluded are, and there is some accountability. Remember that the senior GM is a representative of the RPGA and ought to act as such. Home events are different - they're private and you can invite anyone you like. The venue in which you play might exercise its rights to exclude someone as well - but if they don't you can't just turn away people you don't like. According to the rules, anyway.
danhenneke 01-09-07, 10:22 PM	It's not a small deal if the player's believed those actions might summon an angry evil diety for an instant TPK, which I think was the primary problem. If I were worried about this possibablity, then I would leave the area, and start praying to my god to protect me from this blasted fool's actions. If I were the DM, I would not attack a PC who argued against the action then took appropiate steps to remove himself from the fallout area. If however, the PC stayed in the area after the fact and ingored the signs of impending doom, you know, torch light turns blood red, altar starts shaking, moans from nowhere, etc, then, those PCs as well as the dofus who, um, answered nature's call on the altar would be doomed. Alteratively, the alter's protected by shocking grasp. I don't know if I would react like :D or like :eek: .
UMiskatonic 01-09-07, 10:29 PM	I wouldn't need to deal with it in game. Why would you constrain yourself with game mechanics when the problem is that someone has been been rude to you? The real problem is that, out-of-game, this person is not contributing to the shared fun of the group. In fact, they are preventing it. Just explain to that person that you don't think that's appropriate. Be polite, and return the focus to the adventure. "You know, I think it would be more fun for everyone if we got back to the evil cult/dragon/whatever" If it's a huge problem, talk to the DM, con organizer, or whomever. I can imagine occasions where my $4 slot fee wasn't worth putting up with someone's rudeness.
rockchops 01-10-07, 12:41 AM	If a players degenerate into OOC arguments and become disruptive, in perhaps a minor way, one non-confrontational method would be to exclude the players marginal Role-Play experience points that many modules set aside. Explain to them that it would be in their best interest to stay in character if they wanted their RP exp, and that if role playing their character still leads to undesireable inter-party annoyances, that they ought to consider making a character concept that more closely aligns with the cooperative adventuring spirit of Living Greyhawk. If they want to be a show-offish, childish jester, and a loner, they might be better off creating a character in WoW or something ;)
Bogjob 01-10-07, 07:27 AM	I don't see the action as disruptive, childish maybe, but it is a roleplaying game and unless they breach RPGA rules the only thing you can do about it is to not play with that character any more. Remember nowhere does it say that a party has to get along. It has to be said that I haven't had many problems like this as a DM or a player as our group of 20 or so play home games and have known each other for years.
Sieylianna 01-10-07, 08:04 AM	There is significant table variation on the precise meaning of these provisions. My interpretation is that anything which deliberately causes lethal damage to another PC, except for including PCs in area of effect spells with the consent of the PCs damaged, comes under the 'absolutely prohibited and you lose your character' clause. Anything else, I think, doesn't meet the bar set by the LGCS of "freely attack[ing] another character to cause serious physical harm," and is allowed under the rules. I've never seen a problem with including PCs in the area of damaging spells, with or without their consent. Some players are just stupid and if you tell them you're going to nuke the bad guy and they get in the way, oh well. Now, if they were down and bleeding out, that would be another story. Ed
nony2klerch 01-10-07, 08:28 AM	I've never seen a problem with including PCs in the area of damaging spells, with or without their consent. Some players are just stupid and if you tell them you're going to nuke the bad guy and they get in the way, oh well. Now, if they were down and bleeding out, that would be another story. Ed So speaks one of the players responsible for the "massacre at Grayington":rolleyes:
paigeoliver 01-10-07, 08:56 AM	If the characters are really doing things that are highly offensive to the other characters and players then there is an in game solution. Ditch the character right then and there. Don't allow them to follow you, leave them behind using whatever means necessary. This is possible in nearly all sorts of adventures. When they complain just say that it is just what your character would do. Ways to ditch other players. Most players don't have mounts for some reason or another, if the disruptive player has no mount then get everyone else mounted and ride off without them. Block them from following you into complexes with long lasting spells. Return to your employer and tell them that you are unable to work with this person and that they are endangering the success of the mission. If not on an official mission complain to the police that the character keeps following you around, even to the point of trying to enter into private buildings and hotel rooms.
trollbill 01-10-07, 09:51 AM	I've never seen a problem with including PCs in the area of damaging spells, with or without their consent. Some players are just stupid and if you tell them you're going to nuke the bad guy and they get in the way, oh well. Now, if they were down and bleeding out, that would be another story. Ed Given that the player was told where you were going to drop the nuke, and then deliberately moved his character into the nuke area, one could interpret this as being a non-verbal agreement to being nuked. Which would mean you are still within the rules.
LachlarlanIII 01-10-07, 10:49 AM	Alteratively, the alter's protected by shocking grasp. I don't know if I would react like :D or like :eek: . Don't whiz on the electric fence! :D
cycloptic_squirrel 01-10-07, 05:34 PM	In general, if the action is a concern as a player, I'd say warn the guy of possible consequences (daemon, curse, etc.). If he proceeds anyway, I'd say let him play his character. Warn the DM as a player that you disagree with said action and follow it up with in character actions (apologizing, running away, healing, etc.). Hopefully this should prevent you from the worst consequences. If it bothers you because it's crude, I'd say just be a little more tolerant. This guy is trying to have fun too, it's just in a different manner. Anything over PG-13 is unacceptable if there are children at the table or if anyone objects. Anything below PG-13 and you're being a little sensitive and should be more careful which tables you play at. If it's an in character concern, I'd say that's great! Some of the best roleplaying is born of this conflict. As long as the players are mature and can tell the difference between player and character conflict, I'd say deal with it in game. In this case of the alter defilement I'd have a range of reactions depending on the character I'm playing. I could see one of my characters doing any of the following: Stand in shocked paralyzation Pray an apology Pray for protection Curse and continuing down the hall Ignore the act Join in Give a very long lecture on what is and is not acceptable in civilized company Make fun of the small size of the defilers 'anatomy' Wait patiently Shake my head and saying, "Dude, not cool" Flying tackle (I'd make a gut assessment of the DM first, most would tell you if a flying tackle would get your character removed). Break out a prestidigitation and deflect the stream so the character had just defiled himself while exclaiming, "Are you nuts!?! Don't do that!" Only a very foolish or offensive act would warrant ditching, and even then I'd try an find an in game reason not to. Again, if he's being respectful as a player, then he's just trying to have fun, like everyone else. Oerth is full of jerks, and your PC has to deal with them somehow. Solutions to some of the more antagonizing situations I can think of: The bard introduces the disruptive barbarian as an experiment in raccoon polymophization. (Careful, he's not housebroken yet!) After the adventure the paladin going to the town guard turning over the name, description, and other pertinent information of the PC who 'executed' the helpless, bound prisoner. Refuse all but the most basic healing (or spells) to whomever insults your religion or morals. Give the racist PC lots of hugs. If all else fails, insult their mom. Fair warning, most of the above are fairly antagonistic, and thus should be undertaken only with people who are comfortable with roleplaying. Don't overdo it, the characters still have to find a reason to adventure together. You should also give the player warning that your character would respond in such a way, and in certain cases, your character should warn the other character too. If the player doesn't seem to realize that your actions are in good fun, take five minutes and explain to them that their roleplaying forces such a roleplaying response from your character. If he's uncomfortable with this, suggest that you both tone down the roleplay this mod. Some abrasive character personalities are a blast to play, but also remember you don't always have to roleplay their disagreeable side full throttle. Maybe the uneducated barbarian reminds you of your uncle Clyde (the one who had that head injury) or maybe you think if you agree to play by the paladin's rules she might let you buy her an ale at the bar later. Such justifications don't need to be vocalized (they can be); but if you're the type who is loathe to break character even for one mod, you should be able to come up with some in character justification to get along with the guy who isn't comfortable with you roleplaying your anti-social character. Otherwise you're just a jerk.
vvincent 01-10-07, 06:00 PM	I've had the type of player (if not necessarily the specific player in question) described by FleetFang and I've used tactics similar to the judge described by him. "Hmm - well, if you're not really interested in helping us/working for us/etc, that's fine. We'll find someone else who is..." After saying that a few times, following by getting out the ARs - the players have usually become far more flexible in their role-playing. I've never actually had to do what FleetFang's judge did. That said - I completely applaud him and support his actions. All too often - I see players treat their character's personality as an absolute, and facisticly defend their right to play an abrasive/ignorant/beligerant SOB without any consequences. I've have characters get lippy with nobility in our region - and because the mod didn't have that contingency written so the consequences for such behavior would be meted out - the DM let them get away with it. Heh - don't have that problem too much since we released our region's laws document. Not too many players want to get charged with sedition (104 TU penalty, forfeiture of all possessions, lost of a finger, etc). Why sedition? Because the noble felt you were defying his authority, and - by your example - inciting others to do so. Nobles can justify just about anything. On a semi-related tangent: the biggest problem with LG is that players don't expect consequences from their actions and choices. They want to make the stupidest, most ignorant choices - all in the name of role-playing - and then not have any consequences come from it. Guess what - I would support a DM stripping any character that got out of line with any authority figure - even if it wasn't in the mod. Why? Because people in authority have power. And you don't go flipping-off people with power because it comes back to bite you in the ass. Britt - how many people have survived dissing a Lesser Boneheart in the BK? Mind you - I'm exagerating the actions of a segment of the communty to make my point. Not every player is like this, nor do I see this all the time. However, I've seen it often enough to know it's more common than not. I think this is also why people see softball DMs. Because DMs are reluctant to give people consequences. Of course, there's the DM that treats players like competitors - which is bad as well. A DM is to be impartial. He's not someone that sugercoats everything - and he's not someone with an axe to grind. He's an impartial arbiter that runs the mod as written, doesn't add or subtract stuff because he feels like it, and does his best to follow the rules while making the experience as memorable and enjoyable as possible within the context of the situation. Sorry if this got off-topic. Vernon L. Vincent Verbobonc Triad
Sieylianna 01-10-07, 06:09 PM	So speaks one of the players responsible for the "massacre at Grayington":rolleyes: It wasn't me, it was Tokibis! And then he got me excommunicated. Ed PS: And I did try to convince the assembled clergy and nobles at the interactive that it was a bad idea to send adventurers to recover the Plar and the Bishop, but they didn't listen to me.
rockondon 01-10-07, 08:26 PM	where I live, if there's a dispute - we roll dice. bye bye dispute. and if someone does stuff against the will of the party and under the guise of roleplaying - that player, not the others, bears the consequences of his actions. Those consequences might be jail (bye bye TUs), an encounter (a combat set to challenge an entire party should be able to kill that lone player), disfavors, lousy access, etc - within the limits of the module of course. Perhaps the rest of the party will go on to finish the module and get all the access/gold/exp/favors. And when that lone guy says he wants to do something, sorry, the GM doesn't have time to run your one PC, he's got to deal with the group first - and maybe if you're lucky and when the other PCs are done the module he can give you the attention you so desperately crave, right after he hands you a blank AR. "I'm just roleplaying" is a lousy excuse to ruin other people's fun.
_m_ 01-10-07, 10:11 PM	It wasn't me, it was Tokibis! And then he got me excommunicated. Ed PS: And I did try to convince the assembled clergy and nobles at the interactive that it was a bad idea to send adventurers to recover the Plar and the Bishop, but they didn't listen to me. recover means 'bring their gear back, they're already (un)dead' doesnt it? well thats what it means in perenland at any rate.
catsclaw 01-10-07, 11:37 PM	... the biggest problem with LG is that players don't expect consequences from their actions and choices. They want to make the stupidest, most ignorant choices - all in the name of role-playing - and then not have any consequences come from it.Well, this is a problem -- if I'm at a con, 3 hours through a mod, and one of the characters decides to start mouthing off to the ogre we've just negotiated safe passage from, I'm limited in my reactions. Realistically, my character would beat them into unconsciousness, help prep a spit and a fire, and stick an apple in their mouth as a going away present for the ogre. I'm pretty sure this would get my character yanked at most tables. I can't even level my rapier at their throat and demand they start heading back to town, since I can't very well follow through if they try to call my bluff. And since some GM's interpret the "no interparty attacks" to include non-lethal combat and grappling, there's not much leeway. It's entirely in the hands of the GM. I'd hope the GM would simply have the ogre pound the mouthy player into the ground and leave the rest of the party alone. But if the GM knows there's a really rough combat encounter coming up, they may be unwilling to punish the others and set up a TPK by taking one of the players out.
Simpi 01-10-07, 11:42 PM	where I live, if there's a dispute - we roll dice. bye bye dispute. and if someone does stuff against the will of the party and under the guise of roleplaying - that player, not the others, bears the consequences of his actions. So you are saying that in modules where people can work for various factions, everybody should sort of agree on the preferred faction through democracy and not do what their characters want (= serve their own faction) because someone might not have "fun"? Sampo Haarlaa Naerie Triad
rockondon 01-11-07, 01:28 AM	So you are saying that in modules where people can work for various factions, everybody should sort of agree on the preferred faction through democracy and not do what their characters want (= serve their own faction) because someone might not have "fun"? Absolutely. When my in-game character wants to do A, and someone else wants to do B, my in-game character is quite happy relying on democracy or blind luck to resolve disputes. Flipping a gold piece and calling heads/tails or the toss of a bone die are great ways to do this. Lets face it, guys (that is, male characters) don't want to argue. My female cleric though, yeah she'll keep arguing til she gets her way.
gomeztoo 01-11-07, 03:28 AM	I have a number of characters that can be steadfast over certain issues (all of them female, btw - my male PC doesn't argue unless it involves food). However there is a differenc between a PC that doesn't wish to give in, and a player that doesn't. I am generally happy enough to give in to party democarcy when choices are made. There was one time (in Cloud of Darkness) where I didn't - if push had come to shove, my PC would have gone on alone. But generally, I am fine if my PCs are bullied, dragged off, ignored, or otherwise 'forced' to follow the party's decision. Though they'll sulk or yap for days on end about it being a bad choice (especially my Joramy druid, who argues over everything), etc. Now sometimes, PCs are forced to take sides. In " Blood Money", there was an end battle with the Scarlet Brotherhood, Tritherion, Ahlissa and (iirc) Almorians. PCs had previously chosen a certain faction, and where supposed to aid theirs. But what do you do when those factions attack innocents, or partymembers? I considered this a bad move - it actively forced PCs in combat with each other. While my PC was fighting the Tritherionites (who were attacking people I was supposed to protect), other PCs sought to trip/grapple my PC, because they were to aid their faction. It was a very uncomfortable situation. This doesn't have anything to do with PCs/players being disruptive though... but it can cause strife within a party, especially when players don't know what goes on, if they can't see past a PCs actions, or find themselves incapable (or don't desire) to deal with it IC and/or OOC. We need to communicate more in such cases.
Madfox11 01-11-07, 08:02 AM	A DM can do a lot to prevent such uncomfortable situations through the way he presents the scene and by taking the discusion out of character. It is not a home game, and especially when you are playing with strangers it is best to treat it OOC as a democracy or at the very least openly discuss what the players' and DM's (and not the characters) stance is on such conflicts. As a player I don't mind other characters going on an individual tangent, but at the very least I expact the player to discuss it with us out of character. When your character wanted to hand over the baby to Rary Gomeztoo, I was not angry about that you tried, I was angry that you tried without making sure the other players understood what you were doing (especially since their characters could see your character doing it)* ;) The real irony being that by discussing it, you actually managed to convince the majority of the party, while if you had pressed on, they would have stopped you out of principal (as two other players told me after the game). * A clear example where the DM was just as much at fault as the player btw, he should have made sure everybody on the table was paying attention to each other at the time...
gomeztoo 01-11-07, 10:01 AM	That was a moment where I got a bit carried away... The mission was important to the PC, and I got a bit too eager to carry it out... (I actually visited GenCon for that specific scenario). I would not have minded if she had been restrained from carrying it out, but I should have been more clear. That's one reason why I said we should learn to communicate better.
vvincent 01-11-07, 10:24 AM	But that's just it - the DMs are unwilling to punish the other players, and the abusive player knows it. Personally, I think DMs should treat tables like marine drill sergeants in boot camp. One person screws up and the whole table gets punished. I will admit that it can be very unfair to the rest of the table - but what do you want to be that they will quickly take action against the offending player? We gamers need to be more proactive at policing ourselves. If you know someone is disruptive - you have the power to resolve it. Don't play with that person. Use peer pressure to get them to change. The absolute worst thing you can do is tolerate it because it just encourages them to continue. And - to continue your example. You can only get to the next encounter if you get past the current encounter. If you screw up - you don't continue. Now - I do see a difference between the disruptive player and the character that has conflicting goals with other characters. But it's the player's job to work within the current system and find a way to make their character's choices work within the presented environment. Vernon L. Vincent Well, this is a problem -- if I'm at a con, 3 hours through a mod, and one of the characters decides to start mouthing off to the ogre we've just negotiated safe passage from, I'm limited in my reactions. Realistically, my character would beat them into unconsciousness, help prep a spit and a fire, and stick an apple in their mouth as a going away present for the ogre. I'm pretty sure this would get my character yanked at most tables. I can't even level my rapier at their throat and demand they start heading back to town, since I can't very well follow through if they try to call my bluff. And since some GM's interpret the "no interparty attacks" to include non-lethal combat and grappling, there's not much leeway. It's entirely in the hands of the GM. I'd hope the GM would simply have the ogre pound the mouthy player into the ground and leave the rest of the party alone. But if the GM knows there's a really rough combat encounter coming up, they may be unwilling to punish the others and set up a TPK by taking one of the players out.
Lomiat 01-14-07, 12:20 AM	But that's just it - the DMs are unwilling to punish the other players, and the abusive player knows it. Personally, I think DMs should treat tables like marine drill sergeants in boot camp. One person screws up and the whole table gets punished. I will admit that it can be very unfair to the rest of the table - but what do you want to be that they will quickly take action against the offending player? We gamers need to be more proactive at policing ourselves. If you know someone is disruptive - you have the power to resolve it. Don't play with that person. Use peer pressure to get them to change. The absolute worst thing you can do is tolerate it because it just encourages them to continue. And - to continue your example. You can only get to the next encounter if you get past the current encounter. If you screw up - you don't continue. Now - I do see a difference between the disruptive player and the character that has conflicting goals with other characters. But it's the player's job to work within the current system and find a way to make their character's choices work within the presented environment. Vernon L. Vincent One of the better instances of judging I've encountered was during a SHL mod wherein my character took offense at the way a particular NPC--whom my wizard already suspected of treacherous activities--was treating the party, so he cast a Mass Suggestion to get the 5 guards in the room to arrest the NPC for Treason. 4 out of 5 guards immediately agreed, but the 5th rolled a nat 20 and ran for back-up, screaming some preposterous business about an assassination attempt. Dozens of guards--innocent NPCs--ran into the room, and the DM faced us with the very real, and logical, issue of what to do from there. Some lawful and upstanding characters, who were heavily invested in the region's metaorgs, surrendered--well, in fact, everyone surrendered but my mage, who used Dim Door to escape. Everyone at the table was charged an extra 1 TU for the hearings while the Council of Lords discovered that it was my character who was solely responsible for the "assassination attempt." They were set free from that point, but my character, who was not charged the extra TU, became a Wanted elf. In the end, we missed an encounter and gained only a small fraction of the available XP and GP from the module, but you know what? I remember it. I can't say that about most of the 200+ other LG mods I've played, especially about the DM decisions that I've seen and respected. The other players were disappointed, I think, which is reasonable, but I actually had asked them OOC what they'd think about the decision. The consensus was something like, "I dunno." In character, I have to imagine my wizard looked from eye to eye to measure his companions and then--based on his astounding Sense Motive of -1--decided that they'd all be right behind him when he took action. Consequences are good. Even (possibly even *especially*) if it means an XP or GP hit. Those are immediately disappointing. It threw off my level advancement so that I wouldn't hit 12th until Year 7. But in the long run, you can play another mod to get that XP and GP; if you have to play another mod to get the sense of story that you missed... then why did you even play the mod in the first place?