On ‎12‎/‎3‎/‎2017 at 2:28 PM, SavageBob said:

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.

I'll admit that I feel the player does it too much, but part of the reason he does is that he is looking for the others to check him and they don't. Really all they would have to do is tell him to shut up (his words not mine) and that would have an effect. Like I said this is a pattern that has emerged over several games of differing types with these two passive players, and I am tired of it. The same behavior, across several different characters each and through different games and settings really does allow me to identify it as player meta behavior.

20 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

I'll admit that I feel the player does it too much, but part of the reason he does is that he is looking for the others to check him and they don't. Really all they would have to do is tell him to shut up (his words not mine) and that would have an effect. Like I said this is a pattern that has emerged over several games of differing types with these two passive players, and I am tired of it. The same behavior, across several different characters each and through different games and settings really does allow me to identify it as player meta behavior.

Yeah, in that case, it sounds like it's driving you nuts, and you deserve to enjoy the game, too. I'd just ask the bully player to tone it down for your sake.

38 minutes ago, SavageBob said:

Yeah, in that case, it sounds like it's driving you nuts, and you deserve to enjoy the game, too. I'd just ask the bully player to tone it down for your sake.

The funny thing is that the Player (who is not a bully) was actually in favor of the Strain solution (As was at least one of the two passive players) as he has had similar problems with these two when he had them as players. I definitely could solve this by fiat, but I feel that's unwarranted because it would just be sanitizing the play space. I feel that by making these verbal aggressions actually cost something (like they would in reality) all would be influenced appropriately or make the decision to push on. Ok so I took some Strain because I chose to not respond. It still bothered me that this guy was a jerk, but I still chose to soak it and not respond outwardly. I just don't see the big crime there in modelling real psychology.

If people were able to offload social stress that efficiently and with no side effects there would be a lot less conflict in the world. But people respond biochemically and psychologically to aggression both physical and verbal. Verbal communication is a physical manifestation so that is also just plain aggression. Before most fist fights you will sees one or more of the combatants yelling or being verbally abusive and the receiver of that experiences a physiological ramp up to fight readiness with adrenalin and brain activity shunted away from cognitive function.

Thank you for your polite response, I didn't take any Strain in reading it lol

If Player A wants to play a jerk and everyone knows it’s just the character, fine. If Players B and C have decided that their characters aren’t going to engage his at that level, and go on about their business, that is also fine .

The loudmouth jerk that the rest of the group finds otherwise useful and reliable, so they just ignore his/her outbursts is a staple of group/team adventure fiction - Jayne Cobb from Firefly has been mentioned (he even sold out Simon and River, but remained a trusted member of the crew. The Hound from Game of Thrones, Spike from Buffy and Angel, Guy Gardner from Justice League and Green Lantern comics, Damian (Robin) Wayne from Batman comics, Rocket Raccoon...even outside adventure settings, you have examples like Noah “Puck” Puckerman and Santana Lopez in Glee, heck, even Lucy van Pelt in Peanuts. There is no logical reason these characters should remain part of their respective groups or be tolerated by the other members. But they are, because it adds variety to the group dynamic.

In your case, you have chosen to impose punitive measures to Players B and C because you disagree with their choices in playing their characters. Not surprising, really, considering that 1”x1” piece of the vast Star Wars canvas that you confine your games to. Do you punish your players for making other decisions that you wouldn’t make in their place?

I think there’s irony to be found in your surprise that Players B and C will just sit idly by while being berated, while expecting them to sit idly by and be punished for their RP decisions.

55 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

surprise that Players B and C will just sit idly by while being berated, while expecting them to sit idly by and be punished for their RP decisions.

I'm actually surprised they still show up if it's really going like it's been portrayed. It demonstrates to me that they might just be the sort of quality players to keep around.

On 12/2/2017 at 0:25 PM, Archlyte said:

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.

Take a third option. Tell him to knock that S off and play well with the others.

For some reason I'm reminded of Ghostbusters, the original. How Vinkman was an a**hole and Egon and Spangler basically just ignored him. Sure he was supposed to be a loveable jerk, but a lot of the times, he was just a bitter, vindictive prick. And for the most part, the other two wouldn't rise to his baiting in the way you seem to want your players to do. Perhaps your players are playing their PC's like that. They have to suffer this a**hole due to work constraints, but otherwise have very little in common with him, and don't really interact with him much in any real constructive way.

Another wonderful example, Ferret!

11 hours ago, Desslok said:

Take a third option. Tell him to knock that S off and play well with the others.

lol yeah this seems to be the consensus. When I told the player that on the forums his behavior was reviled he was super confused. "Am I just only supposed to play nice characters?" I guess so, I said.

19 hours ago, themensch said:

I'm actually surprised they still show up if it's really going like it's been portrayed. It demonstrates to me that they might just be the sort of quality players to keep around.

Yeah they are willing to go through stuff and not have it simply be the same old same old. I have talked with all of them about character arcs and I think the Bully Character was made to have an arc where he later begins to respect those other characters through their experiences and seeing the error of his ways. In the meantime the other two are just ham n egging it a bit. I think the act of posting must have this effect of making it look like I have a hopeless dilemma I need people to solve for me and that the problem is dire, so some posters react as if it is a more dramatic situation than it is. Thanks for a moderated response.

16 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

Yeah they are willing to go through stuff and not have it simply be the same old same old. I have talked with all of them about character arcs and I think the Bully Character was made to have an arc where he later begins to respect those other characters through their experiences and seeing the error of his ways. In the meantime the other two are just ham n egging it a bit. I think the act of posting must have this effect of making it look like I have a hopeless dilemma I need people to solve for me and that the problem is dire, so some posters react as if it is a more dramatic situation than it is. Thanks for a moderated response.

Did they state that their arc would involve putting an old curmudgeon in his place in response for his bullying ways? Or that a part of their archetype was not putting up with his crap? Or that their characters think that they're going to stick together a long time and not just do one quick and necessary job?

Most people can tough it out and bite their tongue for a short, or even long, while if they need to. If the task at hand is important enough you can even work with someone you hate.

Talk openly with all of your players about this. Ask them why their characters let him get away with it, what arcs they have planned for their characters and how this might work with the other characters. You could find that they have their own ideas for how these experiances might further their development and values.

23 hours ago, Archlyte said:

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.

I am not sure what "right" or "wrong" has anything do with anything here. I think you simply might be missing the point that the two players in question who are apparently "metagaming" and "playing out of character" by not responding to verbal abuse are simply not interested in interpersonal conflicts with the other player, especially in something that is supposed to be their hobby.

36 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

lol yeah this seems to be the consensus. When I told the player that on the forums his behavior was reviled he was super confused. "Am I just only supposed to play nice characters?" I guess so, I said.

The problem with playing as*holes, is that it's very easy for the in-character behavior to bleed over into out-of-character. I actually meant to ask if the player of the Bully has a tendency to dominate conversations and overwhelm people (the other two players in particular) in normal settings. Basically if he's just using this character to act as a thin veil to allow him to act like a jerk and it be ok because it's "in character". I've known people who act like that, and they are super disruptive at a table.

The other issue is how often he's being an a**hole. Examples of similar characters have been given above, but the way you describe him is that everything he says is like this. And the pop culture examples of such characters aren't always like that 24/7. Jane from Firefly for example, had his soft/friendly side. Sure he would make little smarta** comments now and then, and sometimes get really in someones face, but he would also sit and watch over Kaylie while she was having her surgery done, because he cared about her and wanted to make sure she was ok. He would also play that game of...whatever-ball they were playing in the hangar, allowing a crew member to get on his shoulders to score the goal. He also was able to have a simple, normal conversation with the crew . He wasn't 24/7 Dooshbag (yes I know it's not spelled that way, but I'm dodging the filter).

It's a well known part of storytelling, that if you are going to have the abrasive jerk as part of your main cast, you have to do a few things.

1. Have the person have moments of humanity and civility, to offset their jerkish behavior.

2. Minimize the amount of dialogue they have (you'll notice for the most part Jane is a silent support character, he'll make a quip or two in a scene, but then he sort of just fades into the background, and the other characters ignore what he said, and discuss the actual issue.) Obviously this is difficult since this isn't a scripted thing, but it's something that helps keep a character from being obnoxious and grating.

Now, my real question, is how are the other players reacting to him? Do they seem bothered by it? In or out of character?

Because the simple reality is that a lot of gamers don't have the best social skills, and they RP to try and relax from the stresses of reality. And finding themselves having to basically confront a friend they are obligated to hang out with, can be stressful for a lot of people. If everyone's fine with it, great, but when this type of behavior pops up at my table, the last thing I'm usually worried about is "Gosh, the other players just aren't reacting negatively enough to satisfy my expectations." It's usually more "Ah ****, here they go again, I need to nip this in the bud now before OOC friction bleeds into this."

58 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

lol yeah this seems to be the consensus. When I told the player that on the forums his behavior was reviled he was super confused. "Am I just only supposed to play nice characters?" I guess so, I said.

His behavior should be reviled. I mean seriously, are bullies something we actually venerate in real life?

I know you came here looking for advice, and I guess the only advice I can give is you "You are playing in a game I would never want to play in, as I don't feel there is anything 'fun' or 'interesting' in roleplaying a group dynamic where one character is verbally abusive to other characters in the party." Its just not my cup of tea. I play RPGs to have fun and escape reality, not live it.

1 hour ago, Archlyte said:

lol yeah this seems to be the consensus. When I told the player that on the forums his behavior was reviled he was super confused. "Am I just only supposed to play nice characters?" I guess so, I said.

Talk about missing the point. Like any communal effort--game, storytelling, politics, business--the most important part is to have a working dynamic within the group. You're here asking these questions because you don't have a working dynamic: primarily because one member of your group thinks intra-group conflict is "in character"; and secondarily because you're treating "in character" as the holy grail of RPGs.

And doesn't this group conflict stuff violate the Star Wars No-No List anyway? Sure, in the movies the characters argued, but they never abused each other to the point of no-return, which is what it sounds like "B" is doing. Does he have to play a "nice character"? Not remotely. That's not even the question. But he should point his bad-guy tendencies outside the group.

2 hours ago, Archlyte said:

lol yeah this seems to be the consensus. When I told the player that on the forums his behavior was reviled he was super confused. "Am I just only supposed to play nice characters?" I guess so, I said.

Did you provide him context for that feedback, or just tell him, “The people on the boards are attacking me again, and now they’re attacking you, too?” Did you tell him that just as many people said that, as long as everyone knows and accepts that’s just the character, then fine...that what we take issue with is your punishing the other two players for not doing what you think they should do with their characters?

I think, given your history of belittling players (and characters) that you only know of second- or third-hand for making choices you disagree with, your choice to punish players for effectively shrugging at Player A’s behavior and choosing to get on with the job isn’t surprising.

2 hours ago, Archlyte said:

Yeah they are willing to go through stuff and not have it simply be the same old same old. I have talked with all of them about character arcs and I think the Bully Character was made to have an arc where he later begins to respect those other characters through their experiences and seeing the error of his ways. In the meantime the other two are just ham n egging it a bit. I think the act of posting must have this effect of making it look like I have a hopeless dilemma I need people to solve for me and that the problem is dire, so some posters react as if it is a more dramatic situation than it is. Thanks for a moderated response.

You posted because you want to punish the other two players for their character choices. How is that not a problem?

No...the act of posting, between your astoundingly tight restrictions on what you do and don’t allow, your insults to other players who don’t see things your way, and now stating your intent to punish players for not responding the way you want them to just makes it look like the metagamer with a need to control things isn’t any of the players.

2 hours ago, Archlyte said:

... I think the Bully Character was made to have an arc where he later begins to respect those other characters through their experiences and seeing the error of his ways. In the meantime the other two are just ham n egging it a bit.

Question: If the Bully character's concept is to have an arc of becoming less a--holish, has this been discussed with the other Players? It might be is unreasonable for a character to come up with a character concept that relies on other characters actions without getting their buy-in first. Example: I want a character who starts out as a ruthless cold hearted b-stard but who gets called out on his murderous ways and reforms. What if the other players don't call him on it? That not a failing of RP of other characters, that is a failing of character concept.

Perhaps an actual example will help. In my current game I have a player who is a BH/Assassin who is somewhat selfish and sees violence/murder as the typical solution. The other two players lean more towards "good guys" with one of them being a semi-pacifist. You know what happens when the Assassin always suggests murder as the solution to every problem and the pacifist sheepishly doesn't want to go along with that? The other two ignore it in character, brushing it off. OOC everyone laughs, and then they do whatever is reasonable for the situation (which sometimes actually IS murder). Why? Because we are all playing together and we don't let one person's character concept define everything. RP isn't the end goal; we're just there to have fun. Together.

6 hours ago, ThreeAM said:

Question: If the Bully character's concept is to have an arc of becoming less a--holish, has this been discussed with the other Players? It might be is unreasonable for a character to come up with a character concept that relies on other characters actions without getting their buy-in first. Example: I want a character who starts out as a ruthless cold hearted b-stard but who gets called out on his murderous ways and reforms. What if the other players don't call him on it? That not a failing of RP of other characters, that is a failing of character concept.

Perhaps an actual example will help. In my current game I have a player who is a BH/Assassin who is somewhat selfish and sees violence/murder as the typical solution. The other two players lean more towards "good guys" with one of them being a semi-pacifist. You know what happens when the Assassin always suggests murder as the solution to every problem and the pacifist sheepishly doesn't want to go along with that? The other two ignore it in character, brushing it off. OOC everyone laughs, and then they do whatever is reasonable for the situation (which sometimes actually IS murder). Why? Because we are all playing together and we don't let one person's character concept define everything. RP isn't the end goal; we're just there to have fun. Together.

I don't see anything wrong with that example and I think that's a fine way to do it, but I also don't see anything wrong with the character being portrayed as whatever he is and not having to rely on the other PCs to choose a concept they like for his character. Also, the two other players never bothered to ask anyone about the other characters in the group, nor did they object at any time to the behavior of the unpleasant character. But there is no way in **** that character can simply abuse them without a side effect in my mind. Whether they decide to space him, beat him up, have a sit-down with him, or whatever else they do except ignore this character who berates them. Ignoring him is the player saying "I don't want to deal with this," and while they can choose to do that, the character cannot without some explanation. Now if the Player says I use my meditative tradition and maintain focus on what is at hand, then perhaps a Discipline roll is in order. Also the player could simply say, I ignore this loud-mouth and go about my business, and I would allow the Discipline check and probably make it pretty easy, but characters who are 100% in charge of the emotions isn't really something I think is gonna happen save for Jedi and Droids, of which these two are neither.

Thank you for your post though as I think you make some good points. I felt more swayed by your argument than others I have read.

4 hours ago, Archlyte said:

... But there is no way in **** that character can simply abuse them without a side effect in my mind. Whether they decide to space him, beat him up, have a sit-down with him, or whatever else they do except ignore this character who berates them. Ignoring him is the player saying "I don't want to deal with this," and while they can choose to do that, the character cannot without some explanation.

Sometimes people want to RP their characters, and sometimes they don't. They get to decide what to respond to, they don't have to explain their decisions.

One of my players (Chiss) has a Lost Grandfather involved in smuggling. I have twice now had an NPC inquire with that Player about their family name and dropped hints that the NPC might "know stuff" about their grandfather. The player choose not to pursue it both times. Would their character likely pursue it? Certainly! but the Player just does not seem interested; so I dropped it and moved on. Meh, I'll let them pursue what they want.

If you want to encourage RP, do not implement negative re-enforcement with things like setbacks, strain, etc, for NOT Role Playing. If you force them into a situation to "role play or else be burdened with negative consequences" they will resent being forced into it, and will just do it half-as*ed to avoid the negative, and it wont be enjoyable for anyone. Positive re-enforcement is the only type of behavior modification that is effective. In my game anytime some acts in an expertly Role Played fashion I give them an extra Light side Destiny point and disappears after use so it doesn't turn dark side; others GM's give out a 1-2xp bump. In combat if someone describes in great detail what they are doing or just something really cool I may give them a boost die. It's a reward to encourage RP, but no one is forced to do it.

6 hours ago, ThreeAM said:

Sometimes people want to RP their characters, and sometimes they don't. They get to decide what to respond to, they don't have to explain their decisions.

One of my players (Chiss) has a Lost Grandfather involved in smuggling. I have twice now had an NPC inquire with that Player about their family name and dropped hints that the NPC might "know stuff" about their grandfather. The player choose not to pursue it both times. Would their character likely pursue it? Certainly! but the Player just does not seem interested; so I dropped it and moved on. Meh, I'll let them pursue what they want.

If you want to encourage RP, do not implement negative re-enforcement with things like setbacks, strain, etc, for NOT Role Playing. If you force them into a situation to "role play or else be burdened with negative consequences" they will resent being forced into it, and will just do it half-as*ed to avoid the negative, and it wont be enjoyable for anyone. Positive re-enforcement is the only type of behavior modification that is effective . In my game anytime some acts in an expertly Role Played fashion I give them an extra Light side Destiny point and disappears after use so it doesn't turn dark side; others GM's give out a 1-2xp bump. In combat if someone describes in great detail what they are doing or just something really cool I may give them a boost die. It's a reward to encourage RP, but no one is forced to do it.

Ok this statement that I highlighted above is important. Positive Reinforcement is adding something to get a response, and by giving a Strain Consequence I am doing that. Now if you meant the colloquial "Positive" to mean pleasant reinforcement then that is also incorrect. In more than a decade of professionally shaping behavior I can tell you with all humble sincerity that only both will work if you have a person who is caught in homeostasis, as the contrast is what makes it effective. You need both the carrot and the stick. The judgment of how to use each and in what proportion is a unique situation that applies to the context and the individual.

Since this is a game and not an important behavioral problem, everything is turned way down on the intensity, but the same principles still apply. Don't make the mistake that some of these guys make in assuming that my friends are sitting there plotting my death each session because I am a oppressive jerk. I assure you that in reality we are all great friends who have a good time together. They have told me in the past that they want to have games that are not just the usual game they get from other GMs, and that they want to have a different experience. I understand that you would not run your session this way, and I respect that completely.

As for the No One is Forced to do it part, I imagine there are situations in the game though where you do use fiat correct? I imagine that not everything is up for debate in an egalitarian manner. Would that be a correct assumption? When and where you draw the line will be different for each GM each game and with each player. I have a few that I have to corral, as the others have in the past been restless when I was too passive or permissive. Thanks again for your post. I enjoy your thoughts and consider them carefully.

19 hours ago, Magnus Arcanus said:

I am not sure what "right" or "wrong" has anything do with anything here. I think you simply might be missing the point that the two players in question who are apparently "metagaming" and "playing out of character" by not responding to verbal abuse are simply not interested in interpersonal conflicts with the other player, especially in something that is supposed to be their hobby.

Well I don't know how else to respond to the preceding criticism that prompted my statement, but don't make the mistake as seeing it as a capital issue. Nobody died from being told not to meta the situation, and conflict is a healthy part of interaction as long as it is handled appropriately. I think these internet discussions have a tendency to veer into really extreme examples even when they are mild things in reality. Thank you for your post though as I think you make a good point that it shouldn't be forced confrontations between actual players. If there was that much bleed going on between the characters and the players I would shut the whole situation down.

This seems to be a very simple, common problem really, with an equally common, simple solution:

Are you all having fun?

• Yes: Carry on
• No: Talk about it like adults

Someone really needs to decide if they want their players to be free to make their own choices without coercion or railroading, or if they’re going to punish the players for making their own decisions and coerce them into doing what the GM wants.

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/264869-roleplaying-is-all-about-telling-the-story-a-common-misconception/?do=findComment&comment=3114003

7 hours ago, Archlyte said:

Since this is a game and not an important behavioral problem, everything is turned way down on the intensity, but the same principles still apply.

Can't disagree more. Never mind "turned way down", why is your machine turned on at all? I would never treat my friends like "clients" who need "shaping". It's just creepy.