PDA

View Full Version : Gamers with problem tables: What if the point *is* the sociopathic power fantasy??



Gavinfoxx
2012-07-03, 06:11 PM
Gamers with problem tables: What if the point *is* the sociopathic power fantasy??

So I have noticed a theme with various threads where players are talking about problem dms, or dms are talking about problem players... especially threads talking about, 'how do I get the players from acting out and making their characters hideously evil?'

It seems that the entire reason that many of these problem players (or even problem DMs) play these games seems to not be to actually play a game... but more to act out some kind of masturbatory power fantasy, where they get to play out all of their psychopathic, sociopathic, ultra-violent, anti-social, anti-authority or anti-anyone-else power fantasies.

Naturally, that idea immediately disgusted me...

But then a thought struck me.

Is that really that bad?

I mean, zoom out a bit. If someone has those sorts of power fantasies... isn't a pen and paper roleplaying game near the Socratic ideal of the perfect place to act those out? Without harming anyone, I mean. You don't want people with these fantasies actually doing something to end up on the news, right? A Pen and paper roleplaying game is easy to make an ideal 'safe, sane, and consensual' fantasy. What if the entire point was, instead of dumping these players or DMs or whatever, to instead try and figure out a way where they can do this sort of thing and harm none?

This sort of game would look dramatically different than a standard game, of course, having entirely different goals and conceptions... and, of course, it would depend on if the person running it is the one with the power fantasy ("You all are slaves! Roll Endurance to do the backbreaking work!"), or the players ("I slaughter all the men and rape all the women!"), but... for the people having problems which post on these forums all the time... is there any way to make this sort of game not nauseatingly disturbing? Is it theoretically possible for a sane person, the sort that comes to these forums complaining about these problem players or problem dms, to have fun in such a game, with these conceits?? Is there a system that works best for this?

I'm really interested in the responses this generates!




Also, see:

http://www.housepetscomic.com/2012/04/16/wizard-needs-sleep-badly/

Talakeal
2012-07-03, 06:29 PM
I am pretty sure this is exactly the mindset which FATAL was designed for.

The problem is that while everyone has socially unacceptable fantasies, it is pretty hard to find a group which shares particular sociopathic fantasies. Everyone has a different line; for example criminals who prey upon children are looked down upon even by other criminals.

Also, most players are extremely embarrassed about such fantasies, and would be uncomfortable admitting them in a group. Even the most deranged of problem players usually puts up a semi acceptable pretense for their behavior; for example "I am boiling the baby orcs because they will grow up to be evil, not because I enjoy torturing babies".

Gavinfoxx
2012-07-03, 06:35 PM
Well, based on your best guess -- what seem to be the goals of this type for REAL for your particular problem players? Could you go through the list of Problem Player A, Problem Player B, Problem Player C? Are they really that incompatible?

Eldonauran
2012-07-03, 07:00 PM
:smallconfused: Isn't that why we roleplay? To take a step outside of our 'normal' and become something else for a time?

I thought this was self evident. For myself, at least, I take on different roles to ultimately find out 'who' I really am, what drives me and what makes me go 'squick!'

Jack of Spades
2012-07-03, 07:10 PM
Want to have fun with wanna-be sociopaths? Outgun or outsmart them, then punish them. This is especially effective if you can manage it as a fellow player through Xanatos Chess or the like. Show them exactly why that kind of behavior doesn't fly in the real world, and why most logical people with sociopathic urges learn to suppress them.

Or, if they are just being sociopaths because they find it fun instead of for some kind of wish fulfillment, then one can generally shock them straight. This is, of course, hard to do in a fantasy world, but if you can manage to get people invested enough to shock and horrify them then the rewards are all that much more sweet.

The final option is to be complicit. One can make a campaign around horrible, evil acts. The important thing is to set boundaries. Generally, that will mean sex crimes are immediately out. Racism, torture, and extreme violence are more easily incorporated into 'off-screen' time or even 'on-screen' time. In fact, those three things are often assumptions in various settings (the Imperium in Warhammer 40K is built around all 3). Another thing a group would need to consider is children. Most games will immediately toss this in the off-limits bin, but other groups may not. Sociopaths can have a place in Evil campaigns or in horror games, as long as everyone is agreed on what the boundaries of the 'on-screen' and 'off-screen' content is.

As for the bulk of your post, I will disagree that RPGs are a good outlet for that kind of behavior, if only because the games involve other people who can be affected by your actions. If you really just want to hurt people, go play The Sims or something. The point is, even if you're not being a horrifying person in the real world, the fact that you're describing your actions in real life can still have an effect.

dps
2012-07-03, 07:15 PM
Is that really that bad?

I mean, zoom out a bit. If someone has those sorts of power fantasies... isn't a pen and paper roleplaying game near the Socratic ideal of the perfect place to act those out? Without harming anyone, I mean. You don't want people with these fantasies actually doing something to end up on the news, right? A Pen and paper roleplaying game is easy to make an ideal 'safe, sane, and consensual' fantasy. What if the entire point was, instead of dumping these players or DMs or whatever, to instead try and figure out a way where they can do this sort of thing and harm none?

This sort of game would look dramatically different than a standard game, of course, having entirely different goals and conceptions... and, of course, it would depend on if the person running it is the one with the power fantasy ("You all are slaves! Roll Endurance to do the backbreaking work!"), or the players ("I slaughter all the men and rape all the women!"), but... for the people having problems which post on these forums all the time... is there any way to make this sort of game not nauseatingly disturbing? Is it theoretically possible for a sane person, the sort that comes to these forums complaining about these problem players or problem dms, to have fun in such a game, with these conceits?? Is there a system that works best for this?


Theoretically possible? Sure. In practice, though, part of the problem is that anti-social behaviour within a game often isn't just in-character, it exists OOC as well. By that I don't mean that a player whose character engages in, say, mass rape in-game is actually going to rape any of his fellow players IRL, but rather that the in-game behaviour is done to deliberately lessen the enjoyment that the other players are getting from the game. (Note that I am saying that this is often true, not that it is always true.)

To illustrate: Many years ago, I was wanting to join a campaign that my brother and some of his friends had just started. I wanted to play a CG character, but they were hesitant to let me, because all the other party members were LG. Well, the DM asked me to sit in and observe a session without playing and see if I would be playing the only non-LG character in the party. (Keep in mind that this was very early DnD, and there was at the time a sort of understanding that all members of a gaming party should be of the same alignment, preferably LG.) The party captured an orc during a raid, and one of the party members decided to torture it by, well, sexually mutilating it. This wasn't being done to try and get information, but solely for kicks. This isn't what I would have considered LG behaviour, and I decided that I didn't want to join a campaign where things like that were considered OK for LG characters to do. However, that was just how things worked in that campaign--the player wasn't doing it to upset me or any of the other members of his party. I wouldn't have had any problem with his character doing that if they had been playing Evil characters.

QuidEst
2012-07-03, 07:36 PM
Fireball doesn't have a lot of friendly options, and Fleshworm Infestation (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/f/fleshworm-infestation) doesn't have any. There are far more wicked options available for sneak attacking than there are virtuous ones. Evil clerics get to control undead, good ones just get bonus damage against them. Some people just want those options.

I think the people who need it as an outlet are people who have a problem. People who think it's more fun if they can drop a fictional fireball anywhere rather than waiting for bad fictional people to show up are fine. Authors write villains and get into their villains' heads, and people are rarely worried about them.

Personally, I have a rather balanced mix of good, evil, and neutral characters for roleplays. Evil characters are fun because they often scheme, plot, have hidden agendas, and present a lot of options that good characters don't. Good characters are fun because they're generally less of a stretch and get to lay the smack-down on the villains. Neutral characters get a nice balance of the two.

kyoryu
2012-07-03, 07:45 PM
In my experience all players hate being told "no" either in or out of character and all of the big problems that come up in game are a result of it.

If you have an NPC tell them not to do something, even if it is a perfectly reasonable request, they will get mad at the NPC and mark them as an "uppity enemy who needs to be punished". If a quest giver says "You can have your pick of the dragon's treasure, but the archenstone is mine," the PCs will hate him, if a friendly farmer says "You can stay the night with me, but don't touch my daughter" they will hate him.

That's crazy. I've never played with players like that.

I did play with a group where the "good" characters were putting evil characters heads on pikes. But it was okay, because they were on the side of "good". I stopped playing with them, because I didn't want to partake in sociopathic power fantasies.

I don't know if there's necessarily anything *wrong* with them. I just don't want anything to do with them. Being in groups like that disturbs me, and I don't find it enjoyable in the least.

Anarion
2012-07-03, 07:53 PM
I think it could be fine, in the same way that God of War was by and large a gruesome combat simulator on the Xbox. If the players seem to exult in just being powerful and doing all sorts of violent, destructive, but somewhat cool looking stuff, they can do that. If the DM is on board, then go to town and just let them take over the world.

My problem with this kind of play (and I do have a problem with it) is that it's kind of boring. I wouldn't want to be part of any such group because I think it sacrifices realism, conflict, and interesting storytelling. And for me, once I realize that if I do something crazy in game and it won't lead to my character's predictable death, all the tension is gone and I don't care anymore. I get the same way in videogames: god mode is great for about 5 minutes, then I get bored and turn it off or start a different game (except for 100% chameleon in Eldar Scrolls IV: Oblivion where I just wanted to shut those blasted gates as fast as possible and get on with it).


In my experience all players hate being told "no" either in or out of character and all of the big problems that come up in game are a result of it.

If you have an NPC tell them not to do something, even if it is a perfectly reasonable request, they will get mad at the NPC and mark them as an "uppity enemy who needs to be punished". If a quest giver says "You can have your pick of the dragon's treasure, but the archenstone is mine," the PCs will hate him, if a friendly farmer says "You can stay the night with me, but don't touch my daughter" they will hate him.

Further, they hate being told no out of character. If I tell them they can't play a half fiendish balor they get mad. If I tell them they can't use two essentially identical feats from two different campaign settings with cumulative effects they get mad.

Finally, if something doesn't work out the way they expected, they get mad. If their invincible build has a weakness and the DM uses it, they get mad. If they come up with a dumbass plan that sounded good to them at the time (for example one time I had an NPC dive under a herd of trampling buffalo so he could stab them in the belly as they ran over him) doesn't work out like they hoped, they get mad. If they attack a god and fight out the god is immune to their weapon, they get mad. If they try and rob a town and find out the town actually has guards who can put up a decent fight, they get mad. If they try and take over a nation and find that they have attracted the attention of other world powers who try and intervene, they get mad.

You, specifically, have seriously got a problem with your players. In fact, I'd bet that if you did nothing but say yes and let them do exactly what they wanted, they would complain that your game was boring. Seriously, stop playing with those people.

Honest Tiefling
2012-07-03, 08:01 PM
I think a lot of players do this not because they have deep seated desires, but because they can.

The first reason is because DnD and similar games are games of killing people. If you find it find to dig around rulebooks and see what rules works well (or horrendously) together. If you can optimize underwater basket weaving, someone will do it. However, DnD has a lot less options for underwater basket weaving, through diplomacy can lead to hilarious hijinks. Sometimes, people play these builds. Which leads to point number two.

The second is the type to stab the Deckard Cain/Lord British types because he exists. He is there. What can be done with him? What am I NOT supposed to do with him, and how can I do it? Can I put weasels down his pants? Steal everything he owns? Start running around naked in front of him? This type of player probably isn't playing for the story unless they like really wacky ones. (Which is possible) but mostly plays for freedom to do really weird crap.

The Glyphstone
2012-07-03, 08:02 PM
That isn't a problem specific to my current players though, it has been a common trend I have noticed in virtually every player I have had for the past 20 years.

How many common links exist between those groups of players? Unless you've played with at least two different groups of people who've never even met each other, let alone shared a game table, it's more likely your 'current' group of the time is flavoring your future groups by means of like attracts like.

Gavinfoxx
2012-07-03, 08:03 PM
That isn't a problem specific to my current players though, it has been a common trend I have noticed in virtually every player I have had for the past 20 years.

Right, you specifically have consistently had insane players, the sort that the rest of us don't ever have, for the last 20 years.

Craft (Cheese)
2012-07-03, 08:05 PM
If you have an NPC tell them not to do something, even if it is a perfectly reasonable request, they will get mad at the NPC and mark them as an "uppity enemy who needs to be punished". If a quest giver says "You can have your pick of the dragon's treasure, but the archenstone is mine," the PCs will hate him, if a friendly farmer says "You can stay the night with me, but don't touch my daughter" they will hate him.

To be fair, I can sorta understand where they're coming from on this one: I'd never have gotten the idea to try to touch the farmer's daughter if he hadn't specifically told me not to! But I agree crying "Waaah, you're railroading!" in this situation is completely uncalled for.

Though it's been pretty much unanimously established that Talakeal's players are far from normal.

The Glyphstone
2012-07-03, 08:07 PM
To be fair, I can sorta understand where they're coming from on this one: I'd never have gotten the idea to try to touch the farmer's daughter if he hadn't specifically told me not to! But I agree crying "Waaah, you're railroading!" in this situation is completely uncalled for.

Though it's been pretty much unanimously established that Talakeal's players are far from normal.

I think normal has a court-enforced restraining order on Talakeal and his entire gaming community.

Stubbazubba
2012-07-03, 08:43 PM
Re: the OP.

I disagree that a TTRPG is a good place to live out sociopathic power fantasies. Video games are great, because they are not (typically) a social experience. But TTRPGs are definitively social, it is one of the key reasons they still exist alongside video games, and therefore social dynamics matter; so long as the player is mature enough to bottle up all that sociopathy OOC and actually be a fun, cool person while raping young girls IC, that's fine, but in my experience, most players who are itching to be a terrible person IC tend to bring some of those anti-social tendencies with them into table dynamics. A little bit of that is OK, not preferable, but OK; too much and I won't stand for it. I have a very low tolerance for problem players, I screen my players by asking them to write a little blurb from their char's perspective; power gamers won't touch a game like that, and I can largely see which ones can handle being evil or chaotic well.

JoshuaZ
2012-07-03, 08:55 PM
It really depends on the context. If in a game the players have agreed before hand that some degree of backstabbing is ok, that's one thing. And characters working together to destroy stuff is another thing also. Where this gets to be a problem is when different players want to do radically different things. If one player wants to be a happy paladin who heals the sick and avenges the wrong, and another character wants to play a sorcerer who throws fire at little children because it amuses them then things aren't going to work well.

And then there are the issues with how this connects with out of character issues. If a player gets upset that a the entire town guard is after them after they strung up the duke and burnt him alive in the marketplace, then yeah that's an issue. If someone wants to make a setting where the PCs are so ridiculously powerful (say a low magic setting where no NPCs are above fifth level and the PCs are all 15th level) then yeah you could do that. That's an ok idea for a campaign if everyone agrees to it beforehand.

Blind Orc
2012-07-03, 10:12 PM
I think most ppl who complain about problem player/dms etc tell fill their complaints from their point of view, which is a very biased point of view.

NichG
2012-07-03, 10:48 PM
I think this depends on everyone at the table being roughly on the same page (or at least compatible pages). That is, if you have a DM who likes running power fantasies for their players, players who like having power fantasies and participating in eachothers' power fantasies, etc, it could work.

But if you've got one player who wants a power fantasy, one player who wants meaningful social interactions, one player who wants challenges, one player who wants a good story, and a DM who wants to satisfy their players and also have fun, its not going to work. At that point, the DM has to try to balance what elements appear in the game to try to appeal to all of the players. When that happens, players who are intolerant of 'anything other than their fun' just need to adapt or leave, since they're the sticking points to having everyone have at least some fun.

I'm not sure who said it first (but I know it was some post on these forums), but the DM's job is not to be a social worker, therapist, or to help people with their problems. The DM's job is to make sure everyone at the table has fun, and if the DM discards the fun of other players to try to 'help' one player with their personal problems, he's being a DM (even if he's being a 'good person').

kyoryu
2012-07-04, 12:27 AM
I'd also like to point out that there's a difference between your average, run-of-the-mill power fantasies, and sociopathic power fantasies.

Power gaming is not necessarily sociopathic.

Seatbelt
2012-07-04, 12:35 AM
Socially unacceptable behavior is unacceptable whether you're acting it out in a fantasy world or not. If you need to take out your ultra violent fantasies in my game I'm probably not going to tolerate you in my game for very long. Or at some point I'll make a blanket statement saying "hey guys, this has been a problem with us doing this kind of thing and we need to work on not doing that kind of thing, because it slows down or otherwise hurts the game."

I get the concept of an outlet. That's cool. If your outlet is relatively begnign thats awesome. I have one player who, after joining my roleplaying game and occasionally doing things that make me uncomfortable, has become a much friendlier and outgoing person in the real world. He's still a little socially awkward and occasionally someone will step up and say "hey bro, don't do that to me anymore." But it's waaaay better than it used to be.


But if each session you're torturing someone gruesomely, or murdering orc babies, or being extremely graphically sexual or violent, you won't be at my table long.

Knaight
2012-07-04, 12:58 AM
Coming to the whole matter of sociopathic power fantasies - there are better ways to indulge them, that don't necessarily involve other people at all. Said methods are known as videogames, a subset of which should work fine. Sure, an RPG is much better than most other methods, but there is no reason not to take the containment a step further, with something truly single player.

At the very least, the sociopathic power fantasy indulging type can go find each other to game, and stop inflicting themselves on the rest of the gaming community. That is hardly an unreasonable request.

Reaver225
2012-07-04, 04:49 AM
Socially unacceptable behavior is unacceptable whether you're acting it out in a fantasy world or not.

...


But if each session you're torturing someone gruesomely, or murdering orc babies, or being extremely graphically sexual or violent, you won't be at my table long.Soooooo........ mercenary work, acting as hired killers, theft, trespassing, hunting wild animals, desecrating ancient sites, vigilante justice and other such actions ARE socially acceptable behaviour in your book?

Because the majority of that is not generally accepted in a non-fantasy world.

The Glyphstone
2012-07-04, 06:37 AM
Soooooo........ mercenary work, acting as hired killers, theft, trespassing, hunting wild animals, desecrating ancient sites, vigilante justice and other such actions ARE socially acceptable behaviour in your book?

Because the majority of that is not generally accepted in a non-fantasy world.

Minus the hired killers, that sounds a lot like what modern-day superheroes get up to on a regular basis, at least in terms of general societal havoc and carnage wrought in the pursuit of 'good' and 'justice'.

Jay R
2012-07-04, 08:16 AM
:smallconfused: Isn't that why we roleplay? To take a step outside of our 'normal' and become something else for a time?

There are people who play at being better than they are, and there are people who play at being worse than they really are.

These people should not play together.

Synovia
2012-07-04, 08:36 AM
It seems that the entire reason that many of these problem players (or even problem DMs) play these games seems to not be to actually play a game... but more to act out some kind of masturbatory power fantasy, where they get to play out all of their psychopathic, sociopathic, ultra-violent, anti-social, pro-authority or pro-good ...

Oh look, its a paladin.

Synovia
2012-07-04, 08:40 AM
That isn't a problem specific to my current players though, it has been a common trend I have noticed in virtually every player I have had for the past 20 years.

Then, like we've said in previous threads, you're the common point, and the problem. You're doing something to provoke this.

Frenth Alunril
2012-07-04, 08:53 AM
In my experience all players hate being told "no" either in or out of character and all of the big problems that come up in game are a result of it.

If you have an NPC tell them not to do something, even if it is a perfectly reasonable request, they will get mad at the NPC and mark them as an "uppity enemy who needs to be punished". If a quest giver says "You can have your pick of the dragon's treasure, but the archenstone is mine," the PCs will hate him, if a friendly farmer says "You can stay the night with me, but don't touch my daughter" they will hate him.

Further, they hate being told no out of character. If I tell them they can't play a half fiendish balor they get mad. If I tell them they can't use two essentially identical feats from two different campaign settings with cumulative effects they get mad.

Finally, if something doesn't work out the way they expected, they get mad. If their invincible build has a weakness and the DM uses it, they get mad. If they come up with a dumbass plan that sounded good to them at the time (for example one time I had an NPC dive under a herd of trampling buffalo so he could stab them in the belly as they ran over him) doesn't work out like they hoped, they get mad. If they attack a god and fight out the god is immune to their weapon, they get mad. If they try and rob a town and find out the town actually has guards who can put up a decent fight, they get mad. If they try and take over a nation and find that they have attracted the attention of other world powers who try and intervene, they get mad.

This is something I have learned to build on. I let my players do anything, of course that comes with the stipulation that I get to do anything as well. As part of my current adventure, my players have been informed, one thoroughly, and the rest by the one, about a place they are not to go to.

Now, in this instance the npc told one player specifically, and the rest learned only "no" so naturally, I set the wheels in motion, and now I have the power to blame their blasted defiance on the players themselves. Granted, only one player actually knows why they shouldn't go back there, but when I set it up, the whole plan was to test defiance.

Make them get angry at each other and not you, that is how you deal with psychopaths.

Reaver225
2012-07-04, 09:03 AM
Minus the hired killers, that sounds a lot like what modern-day superheroes get up to on a regular basis, at least in terms of general societal havoc and carnage wrought in the pursuit of 'good' and 'justice'.If we talk about socially acceptable behavior in other escapist media, there are some heroes/superheroes who do go ahead and torture and murder gruesomely (the Punisher, Jack Bauer, The Authority etc), and there are definitely villains who tread on dead babies for pavements and so on. Does the presence of these heroes and villains mean that it is socially acceptable for the protagonists of a story to do such things, or is it socially unacceptable to do one (havoc and carnage in the name of justice) and not the other (cold blooded murder, torture and other such atrocities) when in real life both would be frowned upon (I have yet to hear of a place where massive collateral damage would be socially acceptable to everyone in real life, for example)?

I understand not all games wish to have evil parts in them, and that is perfectly fine as what the DM says, goes. However, to say that "you can't torture or murder 'innocents'because it's socially unacceptable in real life but you can provoke and kill sentients, pillage and loot (despite them not being a very socially acceptable thing to do in real life)" is highly inconsistent.

The Glyphstone
2012-07-04, 10:49 AM
Then, like we've said in previous threads, you're the common point, and the problem. You're doing something to provoke this.

You should go check out his other thread. No matter how bad the DM is, when a player pulls a knife and starts carving up said DM's furniture out of malicious boredom, that's not a DM being a bad DM, that's a DM running a game for a barely restrained psychopath.

kyoryu
2012-07-04, 11:28 AM
If we talk about socially acceptable behavior in other escapist media, there are some heroes/superheroes who do go ahead and torture and murder gruesomely (the Punisher, Jack Bauer, The Authority etc), and there are definitely villains who tread on dead babies for pavements and so on. Does the presence of these heroes and villains mean that it is socially acceptable for the protagonists of a story to do such things, or is it socially unacceptable to do one (havoc and carnage in the name of justice) and not the other (cold blooded murder, torture and other such atrocities) when in real life both would be frowned upon (I have yet to hear of a place where massive collateral damage would be socially acceptable to everyone in real life, for example)?

And the examples that you cite (of "good" guys, anyway) are typically considered "interesting" because they play fast and loose with what is "acceptable" in *the name of good*, and as such raise interesting moral dilemmas. Much hand-wringing is usually to be had, if not by the character, then certainly by those around him.

The point here is not that those engaged in this type of play usually do so in the face of a greater evil, or that they're doing it to create interesting dramatic scenes raising moral dilemmas. I don't think that anyone has *much* of a problem with that.

What we're talking about is people going out and describing torture and the like just for sheer giggles.


I understand not all games wish to have evil parts in them, and that is perfectly fine as what the DM says, goes. However, to say that "you can't torture or murder 'innocents'because it's socially unacceptable in real life but you can provoke and kill sentients, pillage and loot (despite them not being a very socially acceptable thing to do in real life)" is highly inconsistent.

Even in western societies, killing is considered acceptable if done in self-defense. In most RPGs, the killing of sentients (whom are often portrayed as being inherently evil) is given at the minimum a veneer of "if we don't, they'll kill the innocent townsfolks" or "they're minions of an evil empire."

I've seen very few games that are predicated on "let's go murder the innocent tribe of goblins that isn't doing anything to anybody". In fact, in games where I've seen the "innocent tribe of goblins", it's almost always been to set up those who want to eradicate them as the bad guys.


Oh look, its a paladin.

There's varying degrees of anti-authority. You can have an anti-authority fantasy about wandering off in the wilderness away from anything that looks like authority. We're not talking about that.

We're talking about people whose "anti-authority" fantasies involve murdering anyone that appears to be an authority, for no other reason than the fact that they're an authority.


Then, like we've said in previous threads, you're the common point, and the problem. You're doing something to provoke this.

Obviously. He should just man up and realize that graphic descriptions of torture and having players carve up your furniture is just the way it's supposed to be, and the fun of the game.

(BTW, I'm going to take a wild guess here and presume that you prefer "evil" games? I put evil in quotes as evil doesn't have to mean "run around following every violent, sadistic urge you have")

Reaver225
2012-07-04, 12:47 PM
And the examples that you cite (of "good" guys, anyway) are typically considered "interesting" because they play fast and loose with what is "acceptable" in *the name of good*, and as such raise interesting moral dilemmas. Much hand-wringing is usually to be had, if not by the character, then certainly by those around him.

What we're talking about is people going out and describing torture and the like just for sheer giggles.Now, see, there are a lot of games where evil acts can be carried out by evil people and NOT be a gigglefest of torture porn or other things that would make your skin crawl. Some where it's practically mandated. World of Darkness: Vampire: the Masquerade, for example - it'd be a hard pressed vampire NOT to do quite a bit of things against normal social acceptable actions. Changeling: The Lost, is hard to play without a lot of shades of grey. Even the standard L5R setting has the general setting with the vast majority of the population continually oppressed and no real way for the players to change that in any significant way, even their player characters unaware there CAN be something significantly wrong with this.

D&D, being more prevalent here perhaps, has clear lines between Good and Evil and its morality axis. However, there can be plenty of entertaining tales and campaigns done by Evil parties, which involve elements of acting, well, Evil. And, let's face it, it can be entertaining to play a game where one can pull a "victory" for you from truly diabolical plots and puppetmastery of both NPCs and PCs alike. And that pretty much IS a power fantasy, and possibly a sociopathic one, at the same time as being a potentially being an entertaining story. It can be just as refreshing to see your character struggle and fail and have their schemes collapse about them as everyone ever has to unite just to bring them down.

If this involves systemic betrayal and butchery of entire worlds for a monopoly of rare trade goods in Rogue Trader or enslavement of an entire plane to make mineral deposits from the bodies of dead elementals in D&D or even sorcerers burning down orphanages for kicks and giggles - and this is 1: what all the players are enjoying, 2: the DM is ok with this and optionally 3: this is (or is now) an Evil party (where alignments apply) if everyone is having fun then THAT IS WHAT IS FUN and so they're doing it right.

However, if it's just one person doing it and they are opposed to it, then it's a conflict between personalities, and they should be told to shape up. If all the players are doing it and the DM doesn't want to do it, the DM should be aware that something is wrong with the game, and should inform his or her players this isn't what they had in mind, and should either inform them that they aren't comfortable doing so, or check to make sure everyone is ok with the way the game is going.

If the player puts down "Good" in their character sheet and starts eating babies, there should be repercussions, both from the DM and the other characters, and if the player continues to run contrary to the group then he/she's a problem. If all the players are Evil and are acting Evil, and the DM is ok with running an Evil game, then... that's fine! As long as everyone agrees to it.


Even in western societies, killing is considered acceptable if done in self-defense. In most RPGs, the killing of sentients (whom are often portrayed as being inherently evil) is given at the minimum a veneer of "if we don't, they'll kill the innocent townsfolks" or "they're minions of an evil empire."

I've seen very few games that are predicated on "let's go murder the innocent tribe of goblins that isn't doing anything to anybody". In fact, in games where I've seen the "innocent tribe of goblins", it's almost always been to set up those who want to eradicate them as the bad guys.In my most recent game, our tribe of savages has been ostensibly in a feud against a group of elves, who have recently reappeared on our lands. As it turned out, this was a different set of elves who were related but not actually the aggressors - they'd been geas'd by a demon/god thing to scout us out. And we'd been killing an awful lot of them just for looking around and looking like our old enemies.

Most were killed in battle, but some of them were outright murdered after being taken prisoner - not particularly gruesomely, but throats were slit, and so on. In modern day, our characters would be hauled up for murder on several counts, and it's certainly not a particularly heroic thing to do. But our characters shrugged it off with perhaps a wistful "oops, I guess." We're playing Neutral savages who only hold loyalty to our tribe, and could hardly care less about the outside world except for some small exceptions.

There's also cannibalism, desecrating dead bodies as ritual to scare our enemies, and use of poison and shamanic drugs.

Yet most of the players are enjoying it (admittedly one left for it being a bit boring) and the DM seems to be having fun, too. Despite our characters doing acts that are immoral, we're having fun. Are we having fun wrong, people?

kyoryu
2012-07-04, 01:34 PM
The "having fun wrong" is a neat strawman. But it is, of course, a strawman.

I'd define a "sociopathic power fantasy" as a game where the primary purpose is to act out extreme acts of depravity with no consequences, with either little motivation, or where the motivation is expressly designed to facilitate such acts. IOW, if the game is expressly set up to facilitate pretend acts that would be considered sociopathic in life, with no consequences, then yeah, I'd classify it as such.

It's also *entirely* possible to have power games that aren't sociopathic power fantasy games, and evil games that aren't SPFG. Heck, V:tM was pretty much explicitly designed to be Evil Without Sociopathic, given that loss of Humanity would end your character. Even games like Rogue Trader as you've described are often set in a grey/grey morality universe where there pretty much *are* no "good" choices, and survival often requires stepping over moral boundaries.

So no, you're not having fun "wrong". That's a strawman. Even if what you're doing is something I'd classify as a "sociopathic power fantasy game," if that's what you enjoy, then so be it. And I certainly don't know enough about your game specifically to even say that, so I'm not entirely sure why you seem to be so defensive.

Heck, if you enjoy playing games about torturing puppies, then I guess whatever floats your boat.

But that doesn't mean I'll enjoy it, and it sure doesn't mean that *I'm* wrong for wanting to steer very clear of it.

Synovia
2012-07-04, 01:49 PM
You should go check out his other thread. No matter how bad the DM is, when a player pulls a knife and starts carving up said DM's furniture out of malicious boredom, that's not a DM being a bad DM, that's a DM running a game for a barely restrained psychopath.

I agree. But when the DM proceeds to continue to allow that player to play in further sessions, and does nothing about it, and continues to allow his players to walk all over him, and disrespect him, its a sign of a bad DM, and a human being who needs to grow a spine.

Synovia
2012-07-04, 01:54 PM
Obviously. He should just man up and realize that graphic descriptions of torture and having players carve up your furniture is just the way it's supposed to be, and the fun of the game.

(BTW, I'm going to take a wild guess here and presume that you prefer "evil" games? I put evil in quotes as evil doesn't have to mean "run around following every violent, sadistic urge you have")

Awesome. Awesome strawman. Awesome.

I never said he should accept these players.

As I've said repeatedly, he needs to man up and GET RID OF THESE PLAYERS. Then he needs to sit down and realize that hes part of the problem.

He's reported several times that his average player is bored and uninterested. That means hes doing a poor job either planning his campaign, or a bad job gearing his campaign to his players.

He's reported several times that he's had a series of players who have been destructive within the campaign, and that its not just the same guys over and over again. That means hes doing a poor job setting boundaries and establishing consequences.

kyoryu
2012-07-04, 01:54 PM
Awesome. Awesome strawman. Awesome.

I never said he should accept these players.

As I've said repeatedly, he needs to man up and GET RID OF THESE PLAYERS. Then he needs to sit down and realize that hes part of the problem.

He's reported several times that his average player is bored and uninterested. That means hes doing a poor job either planning his campaign, or a bad job gearing his campaign to his players.

He's reported several times that he's had a series of players who have been destructive within the campaign, and that its not just the same guys over and over again. That means hes doing a poor job setting boundaries and establishing consequences.

Okay, my apologies for misunderstanding your point. And I agree.

Reaver225
2012-07-04, 03:52 PM
So no, you're not having fun "wrong". That's a strawman. Even if what you're doing is something I'd classify as a "sociopathic power fantasy game," if that's what you enjoy, then so be it. And I certainly don't know enough about your game specifically to even say that, so I'm not entirely sure why you seem to be so defensive.
Oh, certainly. My original post was to question Seatbelt, a page back, why he (or she) chose only to have "socially acceptable actions" at his gaming table, when pretty much most of tabletop gaming consists of socially unacceptable actions in real life and socially acceptable actions to read about in fiction. Apart from probably the aforementioned giggling at people's suffering. That's just creepy.

As for my own campaign, it's more of a demonstration that actions in context of a past age, especially in modern society, can be considered inappropriate. I'm fine with the consequences of helpless prisoners being executed in a neutral campaign - it made sense to the characters, and that's that.

However doing such things in a game doesn't immediately mean that this is an objectively bad place for the game to go, like the original poster, Gavinfoxx, has questioned. IF the DM is ok with it, then everything's fine. IF the DM does not like graphic evil acts, then they should be banned at the table, just like graphic erotic acts, or choosing Divine Metamagic with Persistent Spell, or having cohorts take cohorts - and the players should decide that this is ok or not, and play by those rules, or try to compromise, or leave.

It's a simple a matter as that: DM runs the game as they see fit but do listen to player feedback, players try and enjoy themselves while playing the game and doing what they see fit within the DM's rules. As long as that
is how it goes, you'll get a half-decent game.

But that doesn't mean I'll enjoy it, and it sure doesn't mean that *I'm* wrong for wanting to steer very clear of it.Definitely not. Everyone should try to be in agreement as to what they want out of a game up front.

kyoryu
2012-07-04, 08:02 PM
Pretty much agreed.

I'd also like to say that I"ve tried to make two points in this thread:

1) The actions of teh campaign aren't enough. A lot of it is context, why you go there, and how it's handled.

2) "Evil" doesn't have to mean "psychotic."

nedz
2012-07-04, 09:36 PM
Every gaming group has its own culture and morays.
What is fine at one table may well be *BadWrongFun* at another.
Actually this goes for individual players within groups, groups actually have a play style range.

I've played with groups where the players like being grossed out, but its not common. They tend to see it as an emotionally challenging role-play, or even as an experience.

I've also played in the occasional evil game: its not really my thing either, I prefer grey alignments. Even when these have been done with discretion I've seen people (even the DM) over-step the mark, simply because its very hard to draw boundaries. What one persons thinks is fine, even humorous, can easily cross another players red line.

Most of the problems I have seen occur because of play style variations within groups: usually when a player at one end of the groups style spectrum takes a turn at DMing.

As for the OP's thesis: unless you know your group really well I'd recommend you start with a very large group, and expect players to walk.

Sudain
2012-07-06, 02:25 PM
Thank you for this interesting thread.

I'm thinking it may be in order for my next game the players discuss the alignments and where their boundaries are. Even if they choose characters outside those collective boundaries they would be at least aware of them.

Tyndmyr
2012-07-06, 02:50 PM
Is that really that bad?

I mean, zoom out a bit. If someone has those sorts of power fantasies... isn't a pen and paper roleplaying game near the Socratic ideal of the perfect place to act those out?

Well, the point is to share a fantasy in a way that's fun for all concerned. If someone's posting complaints on the internet, that group is probably not doing that well. Roleplaying, as a medium for shared fantasies, requires an agreement between participants that books or movies do not, so a certain degree of shared goals is essential.

So, if you want a game where you are ludicrously evil, and punch every kitten in the face, and EVERYONE in your group is after the same...enjoy. But if not everyone is that way, consider moderating your behavior to closer match group norms...or find a group that better matches what you want.

CET
2012-07-06, 04:47 PM
In response to the OP:

Pushing the bounds of acceptability in the name of dark and interesting characters can work, and I've played some very memorable games that involved PCs doing things (mostly off-screen) that are sociopathic by any definition.

But, it has to be with the right group (I would say older gamers, who know each other well OOC). And the characters need to be more than unrestrained murder-hobos, they need to be interesting but (very) flawed characters.

For murder-hobos: videogames.

huttj509
2012-07-06, 06:07 PM
I'd say it's like the inclusion of sex in plots (or removing it to the point of "I spend the reward on ale and...well, more ale"). If the entire group is on the same page with expectations and boundaries, whatever floats yer boat.

The problem comes when different people have different expectations, and different boundaries. Especially if they react poorly to not achieving their expectations.

kyoryu
2012-07-07, 10:16 AM
I'd say it's like the inclusion of sex in plots (or removing it to the point of "I spend the reward on ale and...well, more ale"). If the entire group is on the same page with expectations and boundaries, whatever floats yer boat.

The problem comes when different people have different expectations, and different boundaries. Especially if they react poorly to not achieving their expectations.

I'm mostly on-board with this, but I'm not sure I totally agree. I think there are probably some ways that you can "roleplay" that are psychologically harmful. I think that any group that played the "child predator roleplaying game" would be a group that had serious issues, and I see little if any redeeming value to such a game. (assuming that the game was "played straight", that is).