What if it IS what my character would do?

[OldTrees1]

Indeed. I do wonder how much of my rather relaxed "Just solve it IC" approach is due to me being lucky (or at least less unlucky than some) enough to play with the right people. I've certainly played with people who have their fair share of issues and annoying habits (and I have no illusions about how annoying I can be myself at times) but I don't think I've seen any disruptions close to some of the stuff I've read about here or over on RPG Horror stories (Disclaimer: Only go there if you have too much faith in humankind. Some stories are hilarious, some of them are just kind of disturbing and depressing).

Some luck some merit.

Well functioning groups often have some reasons why they are well functioning. Sometimes with reasons that would not work for every group but do work for some groups. Things like communication, flexibility, respect, valuing the others' enjoyment, etc.

Sometimes those are the result of luck, but some parts are caused by the group working with each other.

[NichG]

See, to me this all looks like " you play a way i dont like, and neither do some of the others . So stop playing your charicter that way or make a different one. Or leave. "

Disruptive also still seems to be "against the will of the group"

This comes across more as peer pressure to me.

More since not all games or game systems are lock stepped for a party. Some games have secrets, charicters with built in flaws that may be disruptive by design ( stormers from sla, horrowed in deadlands, a whole chunk of flaws in hero system and gurps and savage worlds.)

My point being, the why and type of game is super important too, not just the will of the party. Everything in game does not have to go smoothly. And to be honest player autonomy it not just vs the game master.

Well, ultimately any two or three players or the GM deciding to leave is enough to kill most games. And no one is obligated to play with anyone else. So the will of the group matters. If one player's behavior is going to make two others leave, and ideas of working it out have been summarily rejected, then either someone is leaving or the game isn't going forward. And in that case yes, if you play in a way that bothers everyone else, they can just not invite you back in the future whether you think you're justified or not

Since neither of those outcomes are desirable, when players disagree about something you find a compromise. And that does mean that no player has complete and total freedom to play literally anything they want how they want.

[kyoryu]

See, to me this all looks like " you play a way i dont like, and neither do some of the others . So stop playing your charicter that way or make a different one. Or leave. "

Disruptive also still seems to be "against the will of the group"

Well, yes.

If what one person is doing is making the whole group unhappy, and that person wants to do things with the group, they need to stop making the group unhappy. That's how social things work.

Things are rarely "okay" or "not okay". It's all based on whether or not the group as a whole thinks they're okay. What's okay in one group isn't okay in another, and vice versa. That's why the only real answer to "my GM does xyz" or "my GM doesn't do xyz" or "my player wants xyz" or "my player doesn't want xyz" followed "who's right?" is "well, depends on what the group as a whole thinks."

This comes across more as peer pressure to me.

Not really. It's a statement that the group doesn't want to do that, so if you want to do that, do it elsewhere. If a group is going to a horror movie and you don't like horror movies, you don't go to the horror movie with them. Or you do it anyway because you want to be with the group. Or you go to a comedy with a different group. You don't agree to go to a horror movie and then disrupt the movie.

Nobody should make you do anything. But at the same time, you don't get to make others do or tolerate things. You wanna play killer PvP RPG, but the group doesn't? They don't have the right to make you play carebear, and you don't have the right to make them play killer PvP. So play different games. Of course, there's more intermediate solutions ("okay, we'll do a PvP short campaign and then a carebear one"), but at the end of the day one person doesn't get to dictate what the group does.

Peer pressure would only be in place if there was additional pressure to do something you didn't want to. "Well, if you don't play this we're not friends" or crap like that.

More since not all games or game systems are lock stepped for a party. Some games have secrets, charicters with built in flaws that may be disruptive by design ( stormers from sla, horrowed in deadlands, a whole chunk of flaws in hero system and gurps and savage worlds.)

It's not disruptive if the group is into it.

My point being, the why and type of game is super important too, not just the will of the party. Everything in game does not have to go smoothly. And to be honest player autonomy it not just vs the game master.

The mechanics exist to serve the group. Things can go "not smoothly" if the group is okay with that. If they're not, then the group as a whole decides how things go. And if one person can't deal with it, then they should do something else.

Otherwise, what? Because one person wants to do something and the game has rules for it, the whole group has to go along with it? That makes no sense.

And when I say "the group decides" I don't mean by rule, I mean by definition - because if the group ain't into it, they'll quit, and there's no group.

Indeed. I do wonder how much of my rather relaxed "Just solve it IC" approach is due to me being lucky (or at least less unlucky than some) enough to play with the right people. I've certainly played with people who have their fair share of issues and annoying habits (and I have no illusions about how annoying I can be myself at times) but I don't think I've seen any disruptions close to some of the stuff I've read about here or over on RPG Horror stories (Disclaimer: Only go there if you have too much faith in humankind. Some stories are hilarious, some of them are just kind of disturbing and depressing).

I think it's less "luck" and more a matter of playing in a circle that's small enough and cohesive enough that the implicit social contract and understanding are strong enough to smooth out any differences. Like a lot of this stuff gets scoffed at by people that have been playing their house game for decades. Because their group knows what "playing an RPG" means, they know where the lines are, and any newcomers either get brought into line or get explicitly or implicitly pushed out.

[Tanarii]

I think it's less "luck" and more a matter of playing in a circle that's small enough and cohesive enough that the implicit social contract and understanding are strong enough to smooth out any differences. Like a lot of this stuff gets scoffed at by people that have been playing their house game for decades. Because their group knows what "playing an RPG" means, they know where the lines are, and any newcomers either get brought into line or get explicitly or implicitly pushed out.

Having run games out of game stores, it's very easy to get problem players, for a variety of reasons. Often they don't realize they're being a problem.

Also SO MANY WALKING STEREOTYPES! 😂

My personal "problem player" trait is I have trouble stopping talking too much, including interjecting constantly.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Having run games out of game stores, it's very easy to get problem players, for a variety of reasons. Often they don't realize they're being a problem.

Also SO MANY WALKING STEREOTYPES! 😂

My personal "problem player" trait is I have trouble stopping talking too much, including interjecting constantly.

I've gotten incredibly lucky over the last few years as a DM. I've had one problem player, who lasted about 1/3 of a session before people (not just me) went "dude, no, this is not a comedy routine" and he left. I had one group that was going to be a problem as a whole, but I bailed after one session. And that was one where the group was unified, but I just hated the style they wanted.

And I've mainly played with new players, strangers, and/or teenagers. Usually some combination of those.

Although, thinking about it, there was that one guy at a shared-world (multi-DM thing) who tried to charge people (in-character) for healing. And defended it out of character. So I guess there was that one guy.

[Rynjin]

I only play with friends (at least as far as live games, PbP is a different deal), after the gaming group that introduced me to gaming hammered home that playing with even acquaintances is a bad idea.

[Quertus]

Who is "correct" doesn't actually matter. What matters is what the group wants, and if everybody in the group is having "fun".

And, again, the answer is the same. Find the person whose behavior is disruptive, tell them that it's disruptive, and what needs to be changed. Have a discussion, be nice, and offer to solve the problem together... but make it clear that the behavior can't continue.

Where did I say I was resistant to having a same page conversation? Of course you do that. My only resistance is to the idea that why the player is engaging in disruptive behavior matters. It really doesn't. It can help suggest a path forward, but that's a secondary consideration. At a primary level, if you're being disruptive, stop being disruptive. Where that comes from doesn't matter.

And that's why "it's what my character would do" is irrelevant at best, and it's not an excuse. And talking about it doesn't really address the issue. In some cases, after further discussion, it might suggest a solution, but generally not. "It's what my character would do" focuses the conversation on the wrong thing.

It doesn't matter who is right and who is wrong - what matters is who is hurting, and what we can do to fix it.

I can get behind that as a reasonable paradigm.

However, until your stance takes into account how much pain you're causing the one you're asking to change, until it comes across as a discussion to find solutions rather than an ultimatum, I'm forced to (roughly) agree with @KaussH that this sounds too much like bullying for comfort.

Regardless, it's not the case that "That's how social things work" - at the very least, it's not the *only* paradigm for social interaction.

But, if you only see one paradigm for how social things work, then at least we've unpacked / discovered the hidden assumptions in your statements that were stumping me. So, progress.

So, where do we go from here?

Honestly, I lack the social skills / in depth knowledge of this facet of human psychology to dig deeply into the similarities and differences between a healthy version of what you've described and more toxic bullying behavior, or to detail the different ways that a social group *could* run.

I could try to fumble about, trying to describe the kinds of group dynamics that would find such tactics of discussing "why" useful. I could try to explain alternatives to your "one true way" that produce different results - especially ones I consider to produce better results.

Or we could just shrug, and go with, "it's complicated".

But at least I see the many places where we agree (the many things "it's what my character would do" isn't, and the importance of caring about the fun of others being likely chief among them), the hidden assumption that was causing our incongruous disagreement ("That's how social things work"), and the need for me to apologize for my unintentional mischaracterization of your stance (I mistakenly read you as being "resistant" to having a conversation to get on the same page because you devalued something that was outside your values, that was of no value to your paradigm. Apologies for conflating your reaction to the *tool* as being related to my *intended use* of said tool. It was a foolish mistake on my part.)

[NichG]

In response to never needing OOC and lucky groups...

I've had particular player pairs that could not sit at the same table. I've had players who get silently frustrated with things like level of difficulty or behavior of the party and bottle it up until they just suddenly quit. I've had players who create catastrophes and some times those led to funny stories the group laughs about, and other times led to OOC resentment. I've had a player in response to a campaign pitch 'make a character willing to join this spy agency' make a character that tried hard ball negotiation with the spy agency during their intro scene and almost 'died (failed to join the campaign) during chargen' because they misunderstood the leeway available.

I've been in a group where one of the players was actually socially manipulative and abusive towards the GM (think things like PM-ing other players privately to get them to gang up and spring things on him), players who tried to show dominance on each other or the group (well my AC is X and I could solo the party if you get in my way! types of brags), players who made a sequence of unpopular and disruptive decisions and when it got 'resolved' IC their next character was a revenge character designed to simultaneously want to hunt down and kill certain PCs while building to be indispensable in certain ways to avoid reprisal. I've been in a group where one of the players was using the game as catharsis when stuff was going on in their life and there was a different level of willingness of others at the table to deal with their destructive behaviors in order to try to help their friend, versus feeling that it imposed beyond what they were willing to tolerate.

I've been the guy who made a character whose personality in response to GM prompts about the importance of honor in the setting was such that, when faced with a GM hook of 'work with the villains to betray the party or die' where the GM expected me to go along for some reason I said 'okay, I'll die then'.

There's lots of situations that come up in tabletop gaming. A session zero doesn't make you immune to this stuff. What you think is IC conflict can be OOC conflict for the other person. Discussion and negotiation and updating things like expectations and boundaries are important tools. Always just playing it straight 'what happens happens' might be philosophically more pure, but it's very brittle. And there may exist issues that just haven't boiled over, but it doesn't necessarily mean everything is fine.

[kyoryu]

It doesn't matter who is right and who is wrong - what matters is who is hurting, and what we can do to fix it.

I can get behind that as a reasonable paradigm.

However, until your stance takes into account how much pain you're causing the one you're asking to change, until it comes across as a discussion to find solutions rather than an ultimatum, I'm forced to (roughly) agree with @KaussH that this sounds too much like bullying for comfort.

Nah, you're overthinking it.

There's two simple rules here.

1) You're not obligated to play with anyone
2) Nobody is obligated to play with you

(Presuming, of course, that people haven't made some kind of promise).

So, if you all agree to play with each other? Jolly cooperation!

But, if people then decide they don't want to, they don't have to. And they won't. Even if they don't kick you, people will start skipping, the game will fester and die a slow death.

So if someone says "this is disrupting the game", you have a few choices:

1) Stop doing the thing
2) Try to talk to them and find a compromise (there may not be one)
3) Agree not to play with them

That's it.

And frankly it's not a matter of one side being right, or wrong. It's just a matter of not being compatible, at least as far as gaming. And that's okay.

If the group is one that prizes "that's what my character would do" over everything else, this situation is unlikely to show up for IC things, and so won't be an issue. But a lot of groups don't value that over everything else. So if you do, you will work in that group to the extent that what your character would do fits within the expected boundaries of the group. And if you repeatedly cross those, you'll be asked to leave.

"But," you say, "what if someone weaponizes this, and makes unreasonable demands?"

Then they are A Jerk, and you shouldn't play with them.

"But," you ask, "what if this person has out-of game leverage?"

Then they are Definitely A Jerk, and probably abusive, and you should figure out how to extricate yourself, because that relationship will not create good things.

Regardless, it's not the case that "That's how social things work" - at the very least, it's not the *only* paradigm for social interaction.

It... kind of is. But it's true at a meta level, and has many different expressions depending on the values of the group. Some of the more toxic ones show up as Geek Social Fallacies.

But, say that a group really does value What Your Character Would Do above everything else? Okay, cool. Now the person doing things for other reasons is disruptive, is taking away from the group, and may be asked to leave. And that is exactly the same thing, just for different values.

As an example, let's say a group is into hyper optimization, and somebody isn't into that, and makes suboptimal choices on a regular basis for "flavor". They're taking away from what the group wants, and will be asked to either shape up or leave.

OTOH, if a group is against optimization, and a hyper optimizer goes to it, they'll outshine everyone, and be asked to tone it down or leave.

Which group or player is right? Neither. They both just want different things, and the players aren't good fits for those groups (they should find the other group). That's still an expression of what I was talking about, and goes back to "nobody is obligated to play with you, and you're not obligated to play with anybody."

Honestly, I lack the social skills / in depth knowledge of this facet of human psychology to dig deeply into the similarities and differences between a healthy version of what you've described and more toxic bullying behavior, or to detail the different ways that a social group *could* run.

Mostly it boils down to "are they applying outside pressure to get you to stay involved in the game? Are they forcing you to do out of game things to be involved? Is not playing the game held against you for other reasons?"

[Quertus]

Nah, you're overthinking it.

That's… also possible.

Is it wrong to stop to think about *how* to think about whether one is overthinking something?

[kyoryu]

I know it’s tongue in cheek but it’s really as simple as “nobody is obligated to play with you, and you’re not obligated to play with anyone.”

[OldTrees1]

I know it’s tongue in cheek but it’s really as simple as “nobody is obligated to play with you, and you’re not obligated to play with anyone.”

Just like it really is as simple as "find out what the conflict actually is rather than make rash judgements". For groups that want to work together, resolving conflict requires actually asking about the underlying reasons to find the best solution.

Player A says Player B's character is being disruptive.
Player B says that their character is just doing what they would do.
Finding out why Player A thinks that there is a disruption and why Player B characterizes their character that way is crucial to finding out what resolution works best for the group going forward. That might be player A or player B leaving, or it might be a solution that works for both of them. However you can't know until you ask "why?".

That is why the reason behind Player A and Player B's conflict is relevant.

Part of the reason you got so much push back is your posts felt like "Player A is always right. The actual problem doesn't matter. Player B can change or leave." however that is an oversimplification that prompts corrective comments from other GMs.

[Duff]

Boundaries are things for session 0. Putting them in retroactively and unilaterally is just asking for trouble. If it really needs to be done, it should be done properly as you are in effect negotiating about the game you all want to play.

No doubt about it, it's great to get this right at the start. But new GMs and new groups can get this wrong easily and even veterans get it wrong sometimes.
And when that happens, it's better to fix things later than say "You should have said that at the start" and not fix a problem.
Though I will agree to "It needs to be done with a lighter touch when it's being added in afterward"

As to the IC/OOC conversation, I'm with those who think a player saying "It's what my character would do" is a sure sign that IC is failing. OOC conversation might be able "reset" enough that it can be resolved IC, but there definitely needs to be some clarification of what everyone expects of the game

[Jason]

I know it’s tongue in cheek but it’s really as simple as “nobody is obligated to play with you, and you’re not obligated to play with anyone.”

I will accept that basic philosophy with some caveats.

There are some groups where members are friends for other reasons than RPGs, and then they might very well be obligated to occasionally play RPGs where they aren't exactly compatible in their play styles with their friends in order to keep the friendship, even though they would prefer other activities. In such cases hopefully they will work out the incompatible play styles.

I can also imagine a group where you might enjoy playing with everyone except that one player, but the group supports his behavior. In that case you might be obligated to put up with the one player you're not compatible with in order to play with the rest of the group that you love playing with.

Social interaction almost always involves compromise of some sort, and RPGs are a social activity. You shouldn't let searching for the perfect idealized group that probably doesn't exist get in the way of playing with the groups that are actually available to you in real life.

[Tanarii]

Social interaction almost always involves compromise of some sort, and RPGs are a social activity.

Geeks are notorious for either being perfectly fine without social interaction, taking a my way or screw your guys I'm going home attitude to social interaction, or being oblivious to social interaction niceties.

But the important part is there are so many social interactions options in most parts of the modern world, you're always able to walk away from one, and choose another to interact with. (Or if you prefer, run away from one rather than fix it, and find others.)

[Batcathat]

Geeks are notorious for either being perfectly fine without social interaction, taking a my way or screw your guys I'm going home attitude to social interaction, or being oblivious to social interaction niceties.

The opposite problem is also fairly common and can probably contribute to playing with people despite having very different ideas of what the game should be.

(The fact that I'm a pretty textbook example of the counter-fallacy listed above might be another reason I haven't had to deal with that much OOC drama during my roleplaying, now that I think of it).

[Tanarii]

The opposite problem is also fairly common and can probably contribute to playing with people despite having very different ideas of what the game should be.

All of those except #1 can be summed up as a "me first attitude". Or if you prefer, "my wants are the only wants I consider". Not narcissism, but certainly very inwardly directed.
(To be clear, I mean the folks causing problems and staying in a community that displays the "fallacies")

That attitude is definitely not restricted to geeks, and geek culture isn't the only one to display these so-called fallacies. I operate within at two others that suffer from them, as well as having plenty of "me first" thinkers within the communities causing problems.

[Batcathat]

That attitude is definitely not restricted to geeks, and geek culture isn't the only one to display these so-called fallacies. I operate within at two others that suffer from them, as well as having plenty of "me first" thinkers within the communities causing problems.

Yes, obviously they show up in all sorts of social groups (so do the attitudes you mentioned in the post I replied to).

Personally, I feel like both "everybody need to adapt to me" and "I need to adapt to everyone" can both be problematic when taken too far. "Everybody before me" might sound nicer than "Me first", but I find them about equally annoying.

[Rater202]

Yes, obviously they show up in all sorts of social groups (so do the attitudes you mentioned in the post I replied to).

Personally, I feel like both "everybody need to adapt to me" and "I need to adapt to everyone" can both be problematic when taken too far. "Everybody before me" might sound nicer than "Me first", but I find them about equally annoying.

At the end of the day, they're both a refusal to compromise.

You're either giving up what you want at the first sign of stress or you're refusing to budge at all.

No effort is being made to find a solution that everyone can be happy, or at least equally unhappy, about. The only difference is who the jackass is.

"My way or the highway" makes you the jackass but if the rest of the table just expects ou to bend to their hims without giving anything themselves and builds their happiness and satisfaction off of your lack thereof, taking advantage of your tendency to cave, then they're the jackass.

[Jason]

Geeks are notorious for either being perfectly fine without social interaction, taking a my way or screw your guys I'm going home attitude to social interaction, or being oblivious to social interaction niceties.

Geeks may claim what ever they want, but nobody is really fine without social interaction. Different people have different tolerances and needs, but no human can do completely without it and remain mentally healthy.

But the important part is there are so many social interactions options in most parts of the modern world, you're always able to walk away from one, and choose another to interact with. (Or if you prefer, run away from one rather than fix it, and find others.)

Commitment to a relationship is necessary for growth. Refuse to make any commitments or accept any obligations or responsibilities and you stunt your relationships.

In gaming, if I agree to be a participant of a particular game and campaign at a scheduled weekly time then I have made a commitment and accepted an obligation to show up and participate. Part of that commitment is the unspoken agreement to be a team player, as nearly all RPGs involve a team seeking to accomplish a goal together*. If I violate or abuse that unspoken "team player" agreement I can be justly penalized for it by the group, including by being excluded from future games, just as if I had never shown up to a session or was always late.

*Paranoia being a notable exception, but Paranoia games never last very long as a result.

[Frogreaver]

I find the key to playing such characters with flaws is to frame your actions such that your intent is clear but don’t immediately jump to doing the thing, instead give your friends a chance to talk you out of your intended course of action or otherwise interfere with it. They won’t always succeed but giving them the opportunity makes for a much more fun and dynamic game.

Also don’t fool around when someone else’s pc life is on the line.

I find the problem with most players playing such characters is that they do neither of these things.

[NichG]

I will accept that basic philosophy with some caveats.

There are some groups where members are friends for other reasons than RPGs, and then they might very well be obligated to occasionally play RPGs where they aren't exactly compatible in their play styles with their friends in order to keep the friendship, even though they would prefer other activities. In such cases hopefully they will work out the incompatible play styles.

I can also imagine a group where you might enjoy playing with everyone except that one player, but the group supports his behavior. In that case you might be obligated to put up with the one player you're not compatible with in order to play with the rest of the group that you love playing with.

Social interaction almost always involves compromise of some sort, and RPGs are a social activity. You shouldn't let searching for the perfect idealized group that probably doesn't exist get in the way of playing with the groups that are actually available to you in real life.

I think framing the second example as an obligation is a mistake. If there are positives and negatives for being involved with something and the positives still outweigh the negatives for you and there's no better options, that just means that it still makes sense to suffer those negatives for the sake of the positives because that's the best choice you have available.

But framing as obligation would mean that even if the negatives outweigh the positives you do it anyhow because you ethically have to/are supposed to/previously promised to/are being forced to. So the friends case could be an obligation (though even there, if a friendship is consistently dragging you down rather than raising both you and your friends up...), but not so much the 'this group has plusses and minuses' thing.

If you frame something like gaming as an obligation, it can prevent you from evaluating 'would I actually be happier not gaming in this case?' e.g. are the positives really still outweighing the negatives?

My way or the highway isn't the way to resolve most conflicts, but having everyone understand that they aren't entitled to the existence of the game or membership in it can curb a lot of kinds of misbehavior even if no one actually has to use that ultimatum.

[icefractal]

I find the key to playing such characters with flaws is to frame your actions such that your intent is clear but don’t immediately jump to doing the thing, instead give your friends a chance to talk you out of your intended course of action or otherwise interfere with it. They won’t always succeed but giving them the opportunity makes for a much more fun and dynamic game.

That's true - in a lot of cases, it's really just "my character has to attempt to do this thing to remain at all consistent", but they don't have to succeed at it.

Preemptive warning is also better than acting after the fact - "If you kill that guy, I don't see our characters remaining allies - is that your intent?"
Then they can change the action, accept the results, or discuss a compromise. It's easier to do that before committing to the action and having things happen which are awkward to roll back.

[Talakeal]

No, if necessary, you kick them out. If it's coming to that, it's probably not one incident. When they're gone, run the character as an NPC, or adjust the monsters, or have the party be smart about what they tackle if they ahve that freedom.

If they're being jerks, and sabotaging the game, you kick them out right then. You tell them they're no longer welcome in the game, and to leave your....



WHERE DO YOU FIND THESE PEOPLE?

You didn't call the cops on someone over a game. YOU CALLED THE COPS ON THEM FOR TRESPASSING.

Ultimately though, these all boil down to taking control ofmthe character away from the player, and are out of character solutions that require DM collusion.

In character though, kicking someone out of the party rarely makes sense, especially mid adventure when it can easily get everyone killed. The world is under no obligations to adjust danger to party size or to provide an appropriate replacement character.


Actually, it was one of my old players who most of my friends wont associate with anymore, he has a long history of run ins with the law. The part that really pissed me off was when the cops got there he put on his salesmen face and pretended like I was the one who has emotional problems and escalates to violence over games. MaybeI should make a new horror story thread about it, but its still kimd of raw.

[The Glyphstone]

No, if necessary, you kick them out. If it's coming to that, it's probably not one incident. When they're gone, run the character as an NPC, or adjust the monsters, or have the party be smart about what they tackle if they ahve that freedom.

If they're being jerks, and sabotaging the game, you kick them out right then. You tell them they're no longer welcome in the game, and to leave your....



WHERE DO YOU FIND THESE PEOPLE?

You didn't call the cops on someone over a game. YOU CALLED THE COPS ON THEM FOR TRESPASSING.

There's a reason we have a sorta running not quite joke that Talakeal posts through a portal to Bizarro Gaming World, where the most outrageous behavior is normal and our normal is outrageous. They have like a dozen of these stories going back years.

[NichG]

Ultimately though, these all boil down to taking control ofmthe character away from the player, and are out of character solutions that require DM collusion.

In character though, kicking someone out of the party rarely makes sense, especially mid adventure when it can easily get everyone killed. The world is under no obligations to adjust danger to party size or to provide an appropriate replacement character.

This is a particular subset of games, not the way games have to be. I don't think I've run or played in a game in two decades where this would be the case.

[Talakeal]

This is a particular subset of games, not the way games have to be. I don't think I've run or played in a game in two decades where this would be the case.

What games are you playing? I am having trouble imagining one where this isn’t the case. Maybe something like Star Trek where you are part of a large well equipped organization with a rigid command structure comes close, but even then...

[Quertus]

That's true - in a lot of cases, it's really just "my character has to attempt to do this thing to remain at all consistent", but they don't have to succeed at it.

Preemptive warning is also better than acting after the fact - "If you kill that guy, I don't see our characters remaining allies - is that your intent?"
Then they can change the action, accept the results, or discuss a compromise. It's easier to do that before committing to the action and having things happen which are awkward to roll back.

I'm… generally not a fan of retcon, greatly preferring to spend hours in the middle of the session rules lawyering rather than moving forward, just to prevent having to retcon. But, even so, I find that using a retcon is better than disrupting the group.

Absolutely agree, though, that if anyone is perceptive and wise enough to catch it ahead of time, that that's a better scenario to be in.

[NichG]

What games are you playing? I am having trouble imagining one where this isn’t the case. Maybe something like Star Trek where you are part of a large well equipped organization with a rigid command structure comes close, but even then...

I tend to have a combat once per 3 or 4 sessions. Challenges have a lot more to do with figuring out what's going on and what decisions to make rather than finely tuned numbers checks. When combats occur, they're not pre-statted so there's flexibility in tuning to the party. Often if not always, combat can be avoided through compromise or negotiation or trickery or persuasion. Generally pacing is driven by what the party wants to take on, and often that means that difficulty is more about what the players feel up to (or incorrect evaluation of the challenge level) than pushing through some fixed gauntlet. Often consequences are more about what happens to objectives PCs care about than their own life of death, even to the extent of one campaign having literally immortal PCs whose 'deaths' would cause others to suffer in their stead, one afterlife campaign where the PCs were dead to begin with, and one campaign where PCs were spirits who could possess somewhat disposable hosts.

Even in the 'by the book, death is death, world is what it is' 1ed D&D campaign I was in, the obvious thing was not to take any risks or commit to any adventure where half the party dying would prevent you from getting out alive because you should expect that to happen anyhow. And in that game there were several cases of PvP of sorts actually saving the group rather than dooming it. We had a 'you don't have to outrun the bear' moment and a 'diseased hirelings are slowing us down in a place where random encounters will kill us, murder is the answer' moment.

[kyoryu]

Gonna respond to a bunch of things, since a bunch of people have said stuff and it all kinda interrelates.

FIRST OFF:

If someone is being a jerk, and weaponizing these basic things to get their way, then they are a jerk and you should consider not dealing with them. If you have to deal with them for whatever social reason, understand that you have to use different rules with them, and that they are creating dysfunctional dynamics in your peer groups.

I will put an asterisk wherever this is appropriate. I'll be doing it a lot, so if you think it should be somewhere and it's not, assume it's there, too.

This all assumes people are acting in good faith*. That's the basis of any healthy social interaction*.

So, yeah. There are costs to kicking people, and costs outside of the game, and social costs and impacts. This doesn't mean there's an obligation, as has been pointed out. And, usually*, people are loathe to kick people out of social groups* as there is almost always a social cost, even if it's just an activity of a social group. Frankly, geek culture is even more so in most cases.

So I do have a bias in that I assume that by the time a group has some variation of The Talk with a player, that it really is causing an issue*.

That said, by the time a group has the "hey, this is disruptive" conversation? Yeah, it's probably actually disrupting*. And it's really just a specialized form of the "hey, I don't like it when you do this" conversation*, and the only reasonable answer to that is "okay, I'll stop"*.

Like, in that conversation, why you did it doesn't matter much. It kinda does, because harming without intent is less bad than harming with intent, but then continuing to do the thing is just blatant disregard*.

At that point, the conversation needs to start with "okay, I'll stop"*. It can then continue with "hey, this is what's important to me... is it okay if I do <x> instead? Or is it okay if I do the thing but don't do <y> as part of it? Or now that I explained myself do you understand where I was coming from and are we good?" Those can be great follow-ups*, but really you just start with "okay, I'll stop"*.

Because the person is under no obligation to talk to you and deal with you, and if you annoy them enough they'll stop doing so, and because if somebody doesn't like something, why would you keep doing it with/to them?*

Same with groups.

When I say that it really is "if you do what the group doesn't like, they'll kick you out" I don't mean that as some universal rule of order. I mean it as a natural consequence of actions*. And unless someone is completely egregious, they'll almost always have allies in the group that won't want the offender to go, so for the group to go as far as kicking someone out they have to be pretty disruptive*.

Mostly*, people tolerate a reasonable amount of annoyance from their friends*. Gaming is no different*.

And that's really why you stop doing things the group asks you to*. Not because they'll kick you out*, or they're controlling you*, but because they're your friends and they told you they don't like it.* And good friends make those accommodations.*

And yes, said friends can make accomodations back*. But that's the second part of the conversation. It's a terrible idea to take a good faith request and respond with, effectively, "I don't wanna" or "you can't make me" or "that's not an option."* It does not generate good will.

If someone is stealing from the party in a game I'm in, and it's something the group doesn't want as part of the game? And it's causing a problem? Then I do expect the group to say "hey, knock it off." And I expect the person to knock it off. Not doing so indicates that they really don't care about anyone else in the group, or at least care less about the group than they care about doing whatever thing that it is they want to do. And that thing may not be objectively bad, but it clearly doesn't mesh with the group, so they should do it elsewhere.*

If they come back and say "okay, if you want, I won't steal. But that's really intrinsic to this character, so that'd mean making another character. What's the problem with stealing? If I agree to <x>, would that be okay?" I'd consider that. To be honest, I'd be a little wary, since I've seen that rules-lawyered too many times, but I'm going to respond to that a lot better than any variation of "I don't wanna stop!" including, yes, "it's what my character would do."