Why do players do the things they do? I've got a fairly good group of players right now, but even they fall into a few rather extreme trends. The first trend I've noticed is that they tend to go for extreme overreactions, especially in anything that might become violent. A few examples:

1) The PCs find a freighter idling on the ground near the site of what has, so far, been a non-violent adventure site. They elect to 'disable it' just to be sure it can't become a threat later or be used as an escape route for anyone that might become a threat later.

2) The characters are involved in a brawl where non-lethal punches and kicks are flying. One PC (of six) goes down and suddenly this is seen as a green light to start pulling blasters - not to threaten, but to begin gunning down every opponent on lethal setting.

Applying logical outcomes to behavior like this will usually involve dead PCs in a short time, and that's likely not too satisfying, but letting the PCs act like total psychos (they're getting worse right now, not better) isn't either.

Why not?

It also depends on their past experiences. In the case of the starship, if enough of them have played under a killer GM that would put the screws to them for not disabling what (to the PCs) was an innocuous trap, then they are going to be paranoid in future sessions, even if under a different and more benevolent GM. I've heard a couple stories of players in a Star Wars game run by GM Chris of the Order 66 (who is about as benevolent a GM as you can get without him being a total doormat) do things that didn't make sense because they'd been trained to expect the GM to try and kill them at any given moment.

In the brawl example, the fact that you've dropped one of their own means that to the PCs, things just got real and that to them, you're "playing for keeps," even if it was just fisticuffs, especially if it was Wound damage that took the PC down, since that takes longer to recover from than Strain damage.

But in the end, players are prone to doing oddball things. I liked the notion put forth in the WFRP 2nd edition game that the PCs were generally deemed to not be in their right minds, as they were wandering about the Empire (and other lands) actively looking for danger where a sensible person would generally stay safe at home and out of harm's way. Probably part of why Imperial nobility looked at Bretonnian nobles as being a bit loopy, as the latter had a long-standing practice of "give your noble-born son some mail armor, a horse, a lance, and then let them loose to go find trouble for a while without any real supervision."

So by choosing to go gallivanting across the galaxy in a cargo hauler, the PCs in your average EotE game are already a bit off. The PCs in your average Age of Rebellion game are even more so, since they've opted to join up with the underdogs in a Civil War that by all rights the Rebellion has zero chance of actually winning; the top brass in RotJ even admitted that the Emperor being on the second (and presumably vulnerable) Death Star was a major stroke of luck for them, and it was a lucky chain of events that allowed them to win the day anyway.

In the brawl example, the fact that you've dropped one of their own means that to the PCs, things just got real and that to them, you're "playing for keeps," even if it was just fisticuffs, especially if it was Wound damage that took the PC down, since that takes longer to recover from than Strain damage.

The PC that went down - to strain damage - was the guy that started the brawl. When he lost the fight, his PC buddies decided to create a bloodbath. I see this kind of thing too often (though, thankfully not as much with my current group), and it really comes down to the players hate to lose at anything, no matter what.

I knew one player that would gladly have used WMDs at the drop of a hat rather than risk any loss to his character. Considering that the game was Rogue Trader, he had that option...

Perhaps it's worth speaking with the players about why their characters react in certain situations the way they do? See whether it's a trait of character or whether it's a reaction of the player - if it's the latter, and the players are trying to pre-emptively react to things out of past gaming experiences, then they're metagaming: something that I disdain greatly.

If there's a genuine, IC reason for why characters react in a daft way, then I let it slide: perhaps the PC that first drew his blaster was itching for a fight, was exceptionally angry beforehand, had something to prove, or just really didn't like the person he turned his weapon on; but if the PCs had no reason to expect that there was a hostile force in a downed freighter, or anywhere near it that might use it to escape, then it's metagaming.

Applying logical outcomes to behavior like this will usually involve dead PCs in a short time, and that's likely not too satisfying, but letting the PCs act like total psychos (they're getting worse right now, not better) isn't either.

I agree with your general sentiment even though I haven't had to much issue with it (with the small exception of a PC immidiately torching the building they were in when they found a flame thrower...).

However, you don't need to immidiately send in the big guns. Try to tighten the nose little by little. The key thing to remember is that the players usually respond to what they consider negative penalties, wether those are bad dice from wounds or something else. You need to give the group negative penalties as a consequense for their actions. Start small. Setback dice when interacting with NPCs that have heard about their rampage. It has greater effect if have contacts that they know from before suddenly become fearful or refuse to help them out because they killed their cousin (or whatever).

If you send in SWAT teams the PCs will generally just create another blood bath. Instead play on their better nature. For instance, have them see the horrofied spouse of one of the victims they gunned down in the cantina brawl.

The important thing to remember is that every one lose if this become a passive aggressive competition between the GM and the players. If you feel this is a problem the first thing you should do is talk about it.

You can also keep the negative penalties out of game: you could - together with your group - come up with a xp reward system that rewards the game you want to play. The group could get extra XP for keeping things on the quiet and less XP if they create a mess that will have bounty hunters and law enforces looking for them.

If you send in SWAT teams the PCs will generally just create another blood bath. Instead play on their better nature. For instance, have them see the horrofied spouse of one of the victims they gunned down in the cantina brawl.

I love your post and agree with it, but I just had to comment on this part.

For some of my players, their 'better nature' is on par with Boba Fett. They reason that if a stone cold killer can get by on his own by never backing down, they can give it a shot too. Yes, it's an unfortunate case of them seeing the villain as a role model. It's only two of them that are that hardassed, but the others are morally indifferent, so that's not much help either.

Perhaps some players just see RPGs as a way to "cut loose" and act out in ways that conventional society frowns upon. For some folks, it's a way to vent their frustration at all the "little wrongs" that piled up in between sessions and blow off some steam by embracing the "let's go be bad guys" mantra to the fullest but in a way that won't result in some combination of fines, legal fees, and prison time.

Those are the types of players that in D&D would be playing the "dumb muscle" and simply want to bash in every door and skull they come across, the type of characters that make the popular media perception of Conan the Barbarian look downright sociable and erudite.

And it's not something you can really "fix" beyond simply not gaming with those types of players. Sucks if they're your friends, but there it is.

Something that's worth keeping in mind here is that EotE has an in-built mechanic that's perfect for dealing with players behaving in this way: Obligation.

Every time the PCs create a random bloodbath, stick the party with 5 or 10 points in an Obligation like "Wanted Killers". Eventually, the game will be taken up more and more by them getting jumped by another group of Bounty Hunters, or another local Lawman who recognises them. If you just send these NPCs in, the PCs will gun them down but no amount of blaster fire or lucky rolls can remove those Obligation points.

The PC will then, hopefully, start to learn how to work around the Obligation mechanic. They'll be looking for ways- none of which are openly violent- of reducing it. They'll also learn that they can't just kill people on a whim.

Possibly your players are the sort who'll actually interpret this as just finding ways to kill people without getting Obligation. With the Bar Fight example, instead of pulling guns there and then, they follow their enemies afterward and murder them in a less public venue. After all, if nobody saw them- or, better yet, they frame someone else- they won't get Obligation: Wanted Killers for it. Which is still roleplaying of a sort, and an improvement on the current situation you seem to have.

Remember- Obligation. The carrot and stick of EotE games. Make it work for you!

Players generally want to emulate their favorite heroes from movies and, increasingly, video games. Generally, if you ask yourself if a given player action would make sense if they were Boba Fett or Raiden from Metal Gear Rising, it will.

I have a situation with a fellow player in a 3.5 game where he's decided his character is somewhat crazy and fairly stupid (despite his intelligence score) and keeps doing dumb things that nearly get the party killed. Because he hasn't died yet he's decided his character basically can't be killed, and I think he's trying to see just how insane he can get and live to tell the tale. The worst part is he's bored with his character and doesn't really care if he dies or not, so he can bring in a different one, despite whatever consequences his actions might have on the rest of the party. The only reason the party hasn't killed him off is that most of the rest of us are good-aligned.

The point is, when there are no obvious consequences to their actions, players start to think they can get away with anything.

If you send in SWAT teams the PCs will generally just create another blood bath. Instead play on their better nature. For instance, have them see the horrofied spouse of one of the victims they gunned down in the cantina brawl.

I love your post and agree with it, but I just had to comment on this part.

For some of my players, their 'better nature' is on par with Boba Fett. They reason that if a stone cold killer can get by on his own by never backing down, they can give it a shot too. Yes, it's an unfortunate case of them seeing the villain as a role model. It's only two of them that are that hardassed, but the others are morally indifferent, so that's not much help either.

I have a situation with a fellow player in a 3.5 game where he's decided his character is somewhat crazy and fairly stupid (despite his intelligence score) and keeps doing dumb things that nearly get the party killed. Because he hasn't died yet he's decided his character basically can't be killed, and I think he's trying to see just how insane he can get and live to tell the tale. The worst part is he's bored with his character and doesn't really care if he dies or not, so he can bring in a different one, despite whatever consequences his actions might have on the rest of the party. The only reason the party hasn't killed him off is that most of the rest of us are good-aligned.

The point is, when there are no obvious consequences to their actions, players start to think they can get away with anything.

To me this sounds very much of a case of different expectations. When I am about to start a longer campaign (it's generally not necessary for one-shots or short adventures) I always have a heart to heart with the group. We discuss what I call the "social contract" of the game.

Players generally want to emulate their favorite heroes from movies and, increasingly, video games. Generally, if you ask yourself if a given player action would make sense if they were Boba Fett or Raiden from Metal Gear Rising, it will.

I think this is a good point. If the players want to play stone cold killers (it's cool!) then [EDIT] that's enough reason to let them [/EDIT] - unless of course that's not the game you want to GM. In which case I again give you answer 1a - talk it out.

Generally the advice in my first post that you liked is useful when you need to "fine tune" a campaign. If there's a major difference of opinions on what the game should be all about, wether the differences are unspoken or not, you really do need to have a sit down.

Below is a more in-depth discussion on what I mean by "social contract" that's from a discussion we had for a completely different rpg that we wanted to play in a long running campaign.

And btw, this is not meant as a "block-of-text-of-truth-wisdom". It is just meant as an example of what I'm talking about. I think most players and GMs do this with various effect and emphasise. I should also note that the below is very, very detailed. Probably unnecessary so and is only really needed when preparing for a long running campaign with a group of players who do not know each other very well.

Do you have a good idea on how to structure the "template" discussion? On the one hand we could throw around movies, pictures and the like on what kind of feeling we all like, but on the other hand there actually is a fair amount of original fiction behind the game and perhaps that's enough. Perhaps we should keep picking out parts of that which we find especially interesting? Or are there more structured ways of going about it that you want to try?

I think Björn's questions from earlier in the thread would be a great place to start. As far as the location question that I added to the list, I'm going to assume Boston unless anyone has serious objections.

Beyond that, well... Björn, would you be willing to answer Willard's questions and direct that discussion somewhat? I've never really planned out this sort of stuff prior to a campaign before, instead taking a general approach of "do whatever you want and I'll find a way to make it work", so I think you'd be a better person to oversee that.

Right, well, this is not something that I do everytime I sit down to play with a new group and while many games have some sort of in-built "group template" generation mechanic there's no real universal way of doing this. In short, let's keep it basic, concrete and leave the final decisions until we can meet and have some face time.

Try to look at it as a way of giving the campaign focus and drive. The theme, template, mood, level or whatever-you-want-to-call-it of the campaign should be able to tell you what sort of character you should think about creating and what your character should be doing in case you are ever asking yourself that question during a session.

One example I often give is the potential problems that crop up if one player sits down to play a casual game of taking names and kicking down doors while another player expects to have to plan ahead, investigate from the shadows and explore his characters. Unless they have talked about their expectations before hand it is likely that each player will feel that the other player is ruining the game - not taking it serious or taking it too serious as the case may be.

I like to call this talk of expectations the social contract. Just as there is a social contract were we expect players to show up on time, not throw candy on eachother or talk on the phone throughout the session the social game contract would telling us that in this game we try to get experience X and leave experience Y for another time.

Now, establishing this social contract is easier said than done. Especially through a forum but I am sure we can hash out a few ideas and establish some facts that we later can decide on when we meet up. Since epic or gritty or many other game words mean different things to different people we should try to be concrete and give examples.

The place where the game takes place in-game is important since it sets the mood and frames the story. In our case we have decided on Boston. This means that while every character does not necessarily have to have been born in Boston each character needs some reason to stick around in the city. To help out with this I'll put up part of the background after this post.

So far we've spoken about how gritty or epic we want the story to be. Sebastian wants his story epic where his character mows down squads of mooks with a casual flick of the wrist (he mentioned the lobby scene from Matrix wich is a good concrete example). I said I wanted it more gritty and I guess a decent example of this would be the same scene from Matrix only that going in like that would get a large portion of our group killed. Basically I want it to be a good idea to scout a location before hand, put a sniper on the roof and plan escape routes. Not for every combat but at least the "boss" fight.

There's a bunch of Savage Worlds mechanics and edges that can help adjust the game to become more or less epic or gritty.

I guess what it comes down to is plan or no plan - do you want to have to plan our moves before hand and use "real-world" tactics or not?

Generally the difference between gritt and epic also signifies how much detail or grain the story will have. More gritt usually means you need to worry about having enough money, wounds becoming infected, police stopping you in the street if you carry around a big gun and that sort of thing. Epic means you heal wounds fast without any real problems, don't need to worry about buying ammo for your guns and can tell the police to get lost without any real fear of getting caught.

Essentially gritt means more resource management and "real-world" problems. I like this and while I don't want the game to bog down to much I think it's cool if we have to worry about weapons licenses, being caught by police if we start a shoot-out in a bar.

Next up is the genre which is closely related to what exactly it is our characters are expected to actually do:

We could play..

...police officers combating drugs, gangs, criminal syndicates. More gritt means we might also have to worry about budget cuts, politics and bureaucracy.

...criminals trying to climb the hierarchy in the syndicate, killing rivals and making deals on the side.

...intelligence (or counter-intelligence) agents/spies that work for the government.

...mercenaries/trouble-shooters taking assignments but not working for any one employer. More gritt would mean having to worry about paying rent, food, repair weapons and get transportation and ammo for our BFGs.

While it might be going a bit over board for extra credits we could also try to talk about a more general and abstract theme.

This would be some, generally a bit more philosophical, questions that we think it would be cool to explore as we play. A game of police can become very different if the theme is " How far would I go to put criminals behind bars? " or " Isn't it really the people in power who are the most corrupt and criminal? .

An example of this that I think many are familiar with is Ghost in the Shell. It is not very gritty, while they do plan a little they generally go in shooting and do not really need to worry about their ammo or being wounded. The genre is agents in a special investigation unit (Section 9) and the theme is " What is it that makes us human? ".

So with all that said (sorry if I got a bit long winded, I am sure this is not completely new to you) everyone, including Dave (and that wants too) should answer the following questions. The examples I've given above are just examples so feel free to add your own. I should also add that even after deciding on a particual genre or theme it is perfectly fine, even expected, to occasionally take the campaign somewhere else. Like a campaign about police officers suddenly finding themselves in a warzone. Especially if it's a long campaign and the players want to freshen up things a little.

1. How gritty or epic do you want the game to be?

2. Which genre do you want to play?

3. Is there a specific theme you want the campaign to explore?

4. Is there something else, not mentioned above, that you think is important to discuss to get a really great campaign going?

Generally players will do something STOOOPID. And it is up to the Gm to be their conscious and be the voice of reason and common sense.

My players once found a rental aircar and were thinking of turning it in for the deposit, or a finders fee. I had the player make a simple intellect roll and with a few successes I explain the difficulty of doing so without proper ID, or the difficulty of finding a chop shop that would be willing to help you hawk it.

You also need to let them know the repercussions of doing so. and if they have a habit of disabling idling frieghters, turn the tables on them, or have traps set up to prevent them from disabling it. Not to mention the ship they might disable could be needed to complete the adventure.

Talk it out with them and I agree use obligation. Its the best thing for these situations.

One of my best friends is that guy. Even when playing a good guy he's usually the first to say lets mutilate the bodies. Give them reasons not too. Obligation is a great way. Hey who wants 15 points of bounty? Pull a blaster in a black sun cantina. Dont wait for it to be rolled either. Send that bounty hunter after them. Boba Fett wasn't the best because he was fast and deadly, he was the best because he was smart. The PC's still tooling around in the same ship? I bet you money a competent bounty hunter knows how to disable that ship.

Or even less drastic is the PCs are banned from that cantina, the police are called and they are slapped with fines rather than jail time. (Jail time kills a campaign, fines create story). Their ship will be impounded until then. It could be that the local gun runner or outlaw tech they go to gets word of their bloody reputation and stops helping them. If they force the tech to help maybe their gun just accidentally blows up.

The best thing is to talk it out though. Say outright, you guys are supposed to be heros, please stop obliderating every person you come across. Or give yourself a dark side point everytime they do something like that. One that DOES NOT flip back to them once used and let them know this.

I agree with Bladerunner; talk it out with the players. That's what I did. I simply sat down with my group a while back (it was just me and two others at the time, and now I've been able to add two new guys), I used a word I was given here and called them a couple of murder hobos, and they've played (mostly) sane ever since. Just talk to them, say you don't want to play a violent, murder everything game, and tell them that if they don't shape up, then you might not want to play the game anymore. Of course, not playing should be a last resort, and telling them should be as well, but at least say that you're tired of them slaughtering about and that they'll be punished for this, and eventually say you're really fed up if need be.

About ten years ago, as a player, I needed the GM to talk to the players about the game. Up until then, every time the PCs were captured, it was the end of a campaign as the PCs died in captivity or trying to escape. When the 181st disabled our starfighters and we were caught in an ISD's tractor beams I needed the GM to say, "In this adventure you are going to be captured. In every Star Wars film the characters are captured. In every Indiana Jones movie, Indy is captured. It is part of the genre, and it doesn't mean the end of the game."

For me as a GM, part of the key to getting players to act like their player characters is having NPCs call them on their behavior.

• During negotiations, rule that what players say, characters say, unless they are telepathic.
• Use NPCs that will straight up tell the PCs that they are not behaving as professionals.
• Have NPCs be willing to walk away from negotiations.
• When hiring for missions, say what level of carnage is appropriate, and what won't be tolerated.
• Reward Obligation (Wanted/Debt/Blackmail) based on behavior in game.

About ten years ago, as a player, I needed the GM to talk to the players about the game. Up until then, every time the PCs were captured, it was the end of a campaign as the PCs died in captivity or trying to escape. When the 181st disabled our starfighters and we were caught in an ISD's tractor beams I needed the GM to say, "In this adventure you are going to be captured. In every Star Wars film the characters are captured. In every Indiana Jones movie, Indy is captured. It is part of the genre, and it doesn't mean the end of the game."

For me as a GM, part of the key to getting players to act like their player characters is having NPCs call them on their behavior.

• During negotiations, rule that what players say, characters say, unless they are telepathic.
• Use NPCs that will straight up tell the PCs that they are not behaving as professionals.
• Have NPCs be willing to walk away from negotiations.
• When hiring for missions, say what level of carnage is appropriate, and what won't be tolerated.
• Reward Obligation (Wanted/Debt/Blackmail) based on behavior in game.

For the second part, I agree. It gets frustrating if players try to plot outside of game, i.e. one of them tries to give advice on another player while the original player is separated, or they say "go along with it" in the middle of an act. Try to limit these, but when they slip up, add a setback to a roll. Communication while separated is unallowed, but if you say go along with it outright, you can just say that they maybe give a more noticeable discreet gesture, then if they say they wink.

This helps with violent PCs sometimes, because they get more into it, but it's also a good idea to have realistic reactions. I don't believe severe punishment is overdoing it. If you blast down a friggin' freighter because you think it's a trap, you're getting shot too. To avoid this in the first place, try negotiating with them. If my players get too crazy, I'll go easy on them and spoon feed them logical explanations as to why the NPC did this and why the PCs shouldn't/wouldn't do that.

Why? Because they can. From the beginning RPGs have allowed for actions without consequences. Especially violent actions.

The Star Wars source material just expands this. Han murders Greedo in a bar and walks away. Obi-Wan murders at least one patron and maims another, sure the troopers show up looking for him, but no real consequences ensue. Why shouldn't the player characters do likewise?

Why? Because they can. From the beginning RPGs have allowed for actions without consequences. Especially violent actions.

The Star Wars source material just expands this. Han murders Greedo in a bar and walks away. Obi-Wan murders at least one patron and maims another, sure the troopers show up looking for him, but no real consequences ensue. Why shouldn't the player characters do likewise?

Your analogy is lacking.

Solo nor Kenobi did anything similar during the rest of the movies. It was more of a character defining scene rather than the cold blooded and oft occurring violence that players tend to fall back on.

And no, fighting Vader or legions of Stormtroopers isn't the same, imho.

I agree. I was somewhat exaggerating for effect. Certainly shooting all those Stormtroopers had consequences, more Stormtroopers showed up gunning for revenge.

I do think player characters do it mostly because they can get away with it. I find as a GM that when start introducing in game consequences the rate of murder hoboism declines. This can be anything from describing collateral damage, especially to children, to crime and punishment. Nothing like having your character arrested and put on trial for murder to send a message that shooting random people is not a good idea.

The players turn in that rental aircar they found idling to claim the deposit? Let them. Then have the angry renter find out who they were and decide to make them pay... If they always mutilate the corpses it won't be long before someone starts looking for who is doing that. Even the lawless Outer Rim people have a vested interest in maintaining some level of order. How long is a cantina going to stay in business if a gunfight breaks out every afternoon?

If it is really causing the game to not be fun, have a chat with the players and explain. So far I have been letting my players get away with a lot of mayhem because they are all having fun, the stuff getting blown up mostly belongs to the bad guys, and it makes GMing much easier for me not to have to worry about an actual plot.

In every one of my games, without exception, I've made clear to my players that actions have consequences. In Vampire, the wanton diablerie of elders might grant them a lower Generation and access to Disciplines they didn't know before, but there is always the chance that their aura will be viewed (Auspex isn't exactly the rarest of powers), and their transgressions noticed; and diablerie often results in terrible consequences, such as an enforced blood bond, extensive torture or punishment in terms of status/power reduction, or even Final Death.

For "heroes" in Star Wars, they find themselves suffering the same problems as other dark-minded characters: real 'heroes' emerge to challenge them, to end the wrongdoing that they're committing; bounty hunters are called when they idiotically kill someone who influence, or otherwise tick him off; and the fact that there is 'always a bigger fish' becomes realised all too soon.

I do not pull punches. I reward heroic actions and great RPing, and punish actions which are obviously idiotic or carry risk that isn't properly evaluated and tempered. This isn't me trying to railroad them, but rather make them think about what they're doing and why . In Vampire, a character diablerised his sire (yes, to use the same example), but had thought long and hard about it beforehand, planned for how it would be handled and accounted for risks; he, and his character, realised that what was about to happen came hand-in-hand with risk and potential consequence, and went for it anyways.