In the game I started last night one player has decided that his character is basically just an A**hole. He berated the other characters and generally insulted them throughout the whole game non-stop. There wasn't really a single piece of dialogue from him addressed to the other PCs that wasn't super insulting and rude. The other two players were timid in playing their characters even though I encouraged them to respond and assured them of a safe space to do so, but they would not respond to the character. Because of the archetypes, backgrounds, nature of the characters I do not believe they would actually just allow the verbal abuse to continue unchecked. In other games I have played with these guys this dynamic has occurred, and even though the players all get along in real life and there is no conflict, the other two players just act unrealistically patient.

So taking a mechanic from L5R, I announced that from now on if the character is being verbally abused, the character will face one of two situations:

• They can choose to just ignore the person and take a Strain hit. Passive Aggression or Revenge is their prerogative.

Or

• They will be asked to make a Cool or Discipline check and if they fail they must have an outburst. This can be a verbal retort, or an attack. Passive Aggressive responses will only be possible if the character makes the check.

This will also help the other player to make the choice to use abrasive dialogue one that is a sparsely used seasoning instead of the character just being constantly anti-social--which I feel will not make the characters staying together at all possible. This is a sandbox game with no overarching story, and the characters basically are together at this point because of geography and common enemies. If the group splinters then c'est la vie, I'm not going to artificially hold them together unless some really cool story element comes up and makes it happen, not me railroading them to be together. I even told the players, "hey if you guys end up in a fight against each other I don't really care, this is your game to drive. "

I thought I would share this because I wanted to see if anyone has had similar situations in their game and see what your solution was. I don't want to devalue the one guy's character concept by just telling him to basically shut up, and I don't want to have an NPC be the enforcer here because I feel that will just allow the other two players to be dependent upon NPCs to be their spine. I would be ok with the whole thing just resolving as it has if the two other characters were built as pushovers, but the players built characters who face danger and contentious situations, and there was no mention of, "oh and by the way I am immune to verbal abuse because of X," or "I'm a pacifist," or "I am deaf."

Because there are talents that allow you to inflict Strain through chewing someone out, I felt this was an appropriate use of the mechanic. Do you agree?

You wont tell the ******* what to do but will tell the other two?

Yep. Looks like the bully is being rewarded, while the victims are being punished.

I think a better option is the other two aren't allowed to pass any Boost or upgrades to the @$$hole at all unless they call him a name. In addition, they aren't allowed to render medical aid to him if he's incapacitated unless they write @$$hole on his forehead in permanent marker backwards, and steal from his unconscious body........

We did have a similair situation at my table. Our GM set us down and said he was tired of our **** ooc. Because he felt there was no natural reason for our characters to hang together. We had a talk about what our characters goals were and what we had in common. After that things meshed better, and then one of us died, which solved the main point of contention.

Now we sort of manage to keep together, despite having a light sider and a dark sider together. But they sort of get along because the dark sider has sort of adopted the light sider as some kind of pet they would do anything for.

Edit: drunken spelling corrections, some errors may still persist due to non-sober status.

Is there an actual legitimate in-game reason why the other two are even keeping the jerk around? Or do they just feel obliged to because "We're all PC's in a roleplaying game?"

When you ask a player like that why their character is being such a jerk, they most often reply with "That's what my character would do" or some variant. In these situations, I like to remind the other players that their characters are allowed to 'do what they would do' also; even if that means telling the offending character "We've discussed it and have decided that you'll be getting off of this ship when we make planetfall. Please start packing up your things."

3 hours ago, Vorzakk said:

Is there an actual legitimate in-game reason why the other two are even keeping the jerk around? Or do they just feel obliged to because "We're all PC's in a roleplaying game?"

When you ask a player like that why their character is being such a jerk, they most often reply with "That's what my character would do" or some variant. In these situations, I like to remind the other players that their characters are allowed to 'do what they would do' also; even if that means telling the offending character "We've discussed it and have decided that you'll be getting off of this ship when we make planetfall. Please start packing up your things."

Yeah I started the game in the mission and they were sort of forced to be together for the bulk of the session just through circumstance. I didn't make them do that, but they either tried to enforce their own version of PC Unity, or they thought they needed each other to survive, which they did.

I agree wholeheartedly that the PC in question will face a different reaction from NPCs if he talks to them that way, but the character was really only around the other PCs for most of the game and the player felt this was his character's personality. I think characters like Jayne from Firefly and The Hound from GoT have spawned this idea of the jerk hero. I don't remember recreational jack-off characters being a thing in the old days of D&D when it would be a quick and ugly death for someone.

6 hours ago, Nytwyng said:

Yep. Looks like the bully is being rewarded, while the victims are being punished.

Well no one has been punished yet, but the thing is that the bully character is doing what he is doing for character reasons. The other two are doing what they are doing for ooc reasons. Also I regret using that title because while the character is a bully so far, the player is a super nice guy whom everyone at the table gets along with well. So it isn't like there is bleed and the character and the player are both being A-holes lol.

So as I said in the OP I know of a couple of talents that allow characters to deliver strain damage to other characters for essentially dressing them down. I figure if this guy is going to use relational aggression against the party, he should be doing damage that could affect the party in mechanical ways. The party is less effective because they don't like each other, which I think is just as valid as the party is less effective because Bob the Pilot has a debt to Jabba that triggered and now everyone has a lower Strain Threshold for the session.

7 hours ago, korjik said:

You wont tell the ******* what to do but will tell the other two?

Yes correct. The Bully Character is basically acting in accordance with the personality the player described in generation. I feel it is within his agency to choose to be unpleasant. The other two characters are acting like they are selective in what they respond to as far as emotional input according to what is convenient for the player. Now if they had made some comment in the moment indicating internal dialogue as to why they ignore it and why it isn't an issue for them then ok, different story. But keep n mind I have seen this behavior before in those two players and addressed it ooc in a direct manner, but to no effect.

Yeah, you're probably stuck with two nice players who don't want to cause trouble and an **** who blames the characteristics he chose to justify being an ****. (And yes, friends can be arses too!)

7 hours ago, Archlyte said:

Well no one has been punished yet, but the thing is that the bully character is doing what he is doing for character reasons. The other two are doing what they are doing for ooc reasons. Also I regret using that title because while the character is a bully so far, the player is a super nice guy whom everyone at the table gets along with well. So it isn't like there is bleed and the character and the player are both being A-holes lol.

So as I said in the OP I know of a couple of talents that allow characters to deliver strain damage to other characters for essentially dressing them down. I figure if this guy is going to use relational aggression against the party, he should be doing damage that could affect the party in mechanical ways. The party is less effective because they don't like each other, which I think is just as valid as the party is less effective because Bob the Pilot has a debt to Jabba that triggered and now everyone has a lower Strain Threshold for the session.

So, more succinctly, the bully is being rewarded and the victims are being punished.

Way to go? I guess?

If everyone's having fun then there's no problem. If not, no amount of IC rules is going to fix an OOC problem.

6 hours ago, Nytwyng said:

So, more succinctly, the bully is being rewarded and the victims are being punished.

Way to go? I guess?

Thank you for the feedback on this because I think you're on to something. So I'm break it down because to be honest your post is making me think about this and that's a good thing So the Bully (B) and the two Passive players (P1, P2) are the subjects. B is performing to character and while this is a irritating performance, it is in character. P1 and P2 are choosing to not have a reaction to B because they don't want the confrontation. Keep in mind that P1 and P2 are both singly perfectly capable of beating B in a fight on their own, and together they could absolutely trounce him unless the dice just kill them. I also forgot to mention earlier that there is a reason for B to dislike P1 and P2 based on their species, so he has a minor prejudice.

My Target Behavior that I want to extinguish is the P1+P2 passive response to B being a jerk. They could respond in a passive aggressive manner or ignore and soak like they have, but I want them to have to show that the character is affected by this somehow, and since they aren't doing it I am going to give them Strain damage to represent the stress of their hostile work environment. If they feel their characters would leave the party there is nothing stopping that from happening and I will deal with that outcome accordingly.

What I don't want to do is force a player to stop playing a concept that he is actually faithfully playing. I feel that the B Player is actually doing something other than the usual go along to get along, and since the game is emergent I don't want to ham-hand it.

If P1 and P2 would just respond to the B character by telling him to F himself, shoot him in the face, punch him, lock him in a closet, then I think the effect the B player is going for would be realized (as he has told me in private that he just wants the scenes to have something other than polite assent, he isn't trying to get the other players to be afraid of his character). But P1 and P2 are basically breaking SoD by just doing everything but responding, even to the point of their characters suffering degradation and looking like worms in the face of B's language directed at them.

Now, outside of play I checked in with P1 and P2 and made sure that they understand that no one is going to be mad if they respond, and that I will control it if need be (and they have told me they believe me when I say I can handle it). Since I have issued this kind of declaration in the past to the P1 and P2 characters when in other games they were super passive when their character's would not be, I felt I needed to implement a mechanical solution. P1 actually thanked me for doing that, because he said it would help him to act out the scenes the way he thinks they would go. That was kind of interesting to me that he would feel that way but ok.

B now also loses out a bit though when he uses too much abusive dialogue or actions, because he effectively lowers the party's Strain by lowering the morale of the unit. I do feel at times because none of the other players have been pushing back on him he has used his gimmick a bit more than I want to see, so metering it a bit seems like a good way to go. Having it be from an external group-accepted rule instead of just fiat seems like a fair way to do it because they all feel the effect, not just the abused characters. The B Player is aware of this and didn't balk, and I think it represents a realistic side-effect of having the PCs not being cohesive.

So to address what I think may be your concern, the P1 and P2 players are probably much more passive than you yourself would be in the same situation. I have tried using big boy rules with them a few times and haven't had any movement. I want to address 2 things: overuse of the irascible dialogue, and P1 P2 extreme passivity for meta reasons.

24 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

I feel that the B Player is actually doing something other than the usual go along to get along, and since the game is emergent I don't want to ham-hand it.

Nothing more ham-handed than player micro-management and in-game penalizing.

29 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

B now also loses out a bit though when he uses too much abusive dialogue or actions, because he effectively lowers the party's Strain by lowering the morale of the unit.

Holy criss-crossed-analysis, Batman! Stepping inside this glass cathedral for a moment: I can't see that B, in character, would give a hoot about that. Only B's player might, but then that would be meta-gaming...

27 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

I want to address 2 things: overuse of the irascible dialogue, and P1 P2 extreme passivity for meta reasons.

Have you considered that P1 and P2 aren't really interested in this kind of overbearing pseudo-thespianism?

After reading this thread, I have to say, I don't think the bully is "B".

All of this, though, is centering around how you want their characters to respond. If they (their characters) are choosing to ignore his behavior and proceed with their other actions as normal, that’s their decision to make.

If you, as the GM, wish to dictate how the characters behave, why are you playing a group game rather than just writing a story?

3 minutes ago, whafrog said:

Nothing more ham-handed than player micro-management and in-game penalizing.

Holy criss-crossed-analysis, Batman! Stepping inside this glass cathedral for a moment: I can't see that B, in character, would give a hoot about that. Only B's player might, but then that would be meta-gaming...

Have you considered that P1 and P2 aren't really interested in this kind of overbearing pseudo-thespianism?

After reading this thread, I have to say, I don't think the bully is "B".

Because I beat up babies and run over old women in my off time too, of course my moves are always predicated on the desire to crush the will of other people stupid enough to play in may games. I get that this is a forum and part of the fun is the back and forth, but the formula is getting a bit stale don't you think? Try remembering that none of this is taking place in the setting of people role-playing in a concentration camp yo. I don't believe there is zero metagaming going on at your table or anyone else's, and since it can't be eradicated it might as well be directed. I await the police to arrive for crimes against role-playing.

7 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

All of this, though, is centering around how you want their characters to respond. If they (their characters) are choosing to ignore his behavior and proceed with their other actions as normal, that’s their decision to make.

If you, as the GM, wish to dictate how the characters behave, why are you playing a group game rather than just writing a story?

I'll just respond to your version of the situation instead of the real one since you seem to want to paint me in a certain light. So the game is just my way of getting the people around the table to do what I want, and I invite people to the game so I can just tell them what to do for hours on end. Nope, Nope, Nope, do it this way. I said the game was a sandbox and was emergent but since I always lie, you can bet I actually plot out a big story and I don't allow the players to do anything but what is along that path. I also play their characters for them at a near total ratio so that they will always do what I want and not anything else. I don't allow food or drink at the game, and in general I will resort to physical force if they oppose me, because I don't take any lip from them. I also have to have them chained up in my basement because if they would they would run to you or whafrog to play in a real game if they were able to escape.

The capital offense of the crimes I have listed here is something I am aware of, and I am sure that if FFG had realized what I would do with this game they would have decided it was better to never make it in the first place and avoid these tragedies that will certainly bring about a Sartre-like re-evaluation of reality and the fact that God must surely be dead.

What "formula"?

In this case, I think you've forgotten that your job includes the word "Game" and not just "Mastering".

And here we have, once again, the “poor little me” victim act.

Dude, you described the situation (“Player A is acting this way, Players B and C are responding in this manner, which I disagree with, so here are the condequences I plan to give them.”) Then you asked for feedback.

And, as seems to be the pattern, you’re not only unprepared for anyone to see the situation from a different angle, but play the victim, claim personal attacks, and bring the melodrama when it happens.

There’s a common denominator here.

5 minutes ago, whafrog said:

What "formula"?

In this case, I think you've forgotten that your job includes the word "Game" and not just "Mastering".

Oh, there’s a formula all right. Just not the one he’s claiming.

1 minute ago, Archlyte said:

So the game is just my way of getting the people around the table to do what I want, and I invite people to the game so I can just tell them what to do for hours on end.

Now you're jumping the shark. You started this thread to discuss how to penalize someone's PCs for the player not behaving the way you want. Is that not correct? In what way is that inaccurate?

If that is accurate, then there are grounds for disagreement and discussion. If not, then you need to clarify. Getting defensive about it through some sarcastic and outrageous misrepresentation of the opposition's point just destroys your credibility. FWIW, it just reinforces my opinion, since if that's how you handle disagreement, it doesn't bode well for P1 and P2...

Archlyte, it isnt your place to tell players how to play their characters. You can ask them why they are being passive about the bullying, and explain that you think they should do something about it, but to give a mechanical penalty because you dont think they are running their characters right is wrong.

Quite frankly, you are going about this completely wrong. You should be telling the bully that he needs to change his character because he is being the backside of a donkey. If you think it is irritating, then the players probably like it even less, them being the direct target. It doesnt matter if it is in character or not. Making everyone miserable is wrong no matter how 'in character' it may be.

But even this is still completely wrong. You should be asking your players if they have a problem with the bully before you do anything else. IF they dont have a problem with the bully then there is not a problem to fix in the first place. It may be that they think he is a blowhard and a **** and just ignore his foolishness cause he is good at his job. Then again, even if they do have a problem with bully, they are the ones who should be fixing this problem, not you

I agree with the general sentiment here. There doesn't need to be an in-game fix here, just a nice old-fashioned chat with the players. Talk to them individually if that's more comfortable, but find out if the passive players actually do have a problem with the in-character bullying that's going on. If they do, approach the player of the bully character. If they don't, let it go. The players are having a good time in that instance, and the bullying is just part of that PC's personality.

One caveat: It may be that the bullying is driving you nuts, and you deserve to have fun, too. If that's the case, just approach the bully's player and ask him to tone it down for your sake. There's no shame in this. Personally, I have a problem with players going all murder-hobo, for instance, and don't want to GM for such players. You have the right to make expectations for the table. Just do it diplomatically, not through in-game penalties.

On 2017-12-02 at 9:25 PM, Archlyte said:

In the game I started last night one player has decided that his character is basically just an A**hole.

This is your problem. While it is admirable that the player stays consistantly in character, it's your job to make sure the character is suitable for the group and campaign. If the character is disruptive, tell the player to tone it down. If the player retorts that he's only playing his character, tell him to tone his character down.

Remember that while Jayne and the Hound are audience favourites, other characters at best barely tolerate them and more often loathe them.

I hate to stifle player creativity but I need PCs that I can sympathize with, at least on some level, both as GM and a player.

On ‎12‎/‎3‎/‎2017 at 2:01 PM, korjik said:

Archlyte, it isnt your place to tell players how to play their characters. You can ask them why they are being passive about the bullying, and explain that you think they should do something about it, but to give a mechanical penalty because you dont think they are running their characters right is wrong.

Quite frankly, you are going about this completely wrong. You should be telling the bully that he needs to change his character because he is being the backside of a donkey. If you think it is irritating, then the players probably like it even less, them being the direct target. It doesnt matter if it is in character or not. Making everyone miserable is wrong no matter how 'in character' it may be.

But even this is still completely wrong. You should be asking your players if they have a problem with the bully before you do anything else. IF they dont have a problem with the bully then there is not a problem to fix in the first place. It may be that they think he is a blowhard and a **** and just ignore his foolishness cause he is good at his job. Then again, even if they do have a problem with bully, they are the ones who should be fixing this problem, not you

I don't know why a player playing a character who was designed to be a jerk at the start of the campaign is wrong, but the players who are making their characters look like doormats simply for meta convenience is ok and should be coddled. They are actually changing the character of their avatars by allowing this guy to really go unchecked in his verbal assaults on them, and for no other reason than the players are being timid. I don't think all in-game dialogue has to be pleasant, and enforcing some sort of artificial peace in the dialogue could have the unintended consequence of stifling any contention between the characters. I'm not fixing it, I am just giving them a consequence for not fixing it.

Should I argue about where we land the ship, or will the GM come down on me for being mean?

Instead, since the game allows for you to actually lose Strain for Stress and Emotional pressure, I am simulating that by saying that the player can sit there and soak the insults, but just like in real life, it's going to wear on your nerves.

Pretty surprised with the tough talking that some of the Posters do here that they have these safe space type games where the GM heavy handedly enforces that in-game dialogue is nice at all times. Especially considering that those same posters are some of the guys who are fine with graphic violence, sex, and drug culture in their games.