I cannot with my players... =_='

[Talakeal]

This sounds like a great super-villain origin story.

[Kaworu]

I had no idea that Poland was such an authoritarian jackbooted state that in the event of an obnoxious teenager simply spitting they would automatically prosecute to the full extent of the law.

Hm... this is somehow more complicated.

If a teenager violates the law (even in serious cases of, let's say, killing somebody), the family court, not criminal court, decides their fate. And usually the most severe punishment would be sending the teenager to something what we call "poprawczak" (kinda... "prison" for youngsters with cirminal history? It's not really a prison, but it is comparable). But, you leave poprawczak once you reach the age of maturity (18 yo). And in theory poprawczak is a place where you can understand your misbehaviour and work towards bettering yourself? But I have no idea if it works like that in practice, prisons should be like that too and, at least in Poland, it is not working?

But, of course, if you have, let's say, killed somebody, and you are 17 yo, the family court can decide that you will be treated as adult and then you might (a keyword) go to jail for, let's say, 25 years. It depends on the age of teenager and severity of the crime. But unless you, like, did something really bad while being almost an adult, you usually will go to "jail" only till you are legally an adult, and then you might start over.

However, in this case, Ed is superpowered. And I believe that if in Poland supers would walk among us, any trespassing by them would be treated much more severely. Because you cannot have superpowered criminals mixing with the general populace. It's too dangerous for public safety.

But yes, would it not be a supers game, the biggest consequence for Ed for spitting at an agent while being a teenager would be, I think, being under "control" (care?) of parole officer? Apologizing to the agent on paper? Maybe paying some fine?

But, since Ed HAS superpowers and apparently, cannot control himself... :/

If there was some sort of conviction for simple spitting because the petty-ass cop decided it was worth his time to do all the paperwork and then bring in the lawyers to get a conviction for it (and even that would take a trial)

Erms... in Poland, violating the dignity/bodily integrity of a police officer is a crime, not a transcession, so there is no need to fill any paperworks, really, it's automatically under care of a public procesutor? And there is not really a way to NOT involve court in that?

I mean, if the agent would be a "private person", then it would not necessarily end in court, and even if, the maximum punishment would be much lesser. He IS an agent, however, so...

But of course, you are not Polish, so you cannot know :-)

And of course, the punishemtn does NOT automatically have to be 3 years in prison. But, as I said, Ed has superpowers and I cannot imagine a court to treat a superpowered delinquent lightly...?

Also, I really haven't thought of using Provoke Someone. When I think of it now, it might work - outside of the fact that Ed's playerd didn't say explicitly what he wanted to achieve. And was not really "provoking", instead, he was "persuading". I mean, the "provoking" part kinda... didn't really make sense in this context?

But still, even if I could have avoided the original arrest somehow, I really planned for it to last only for a post. And, actually, there's been kinda, slow escalation of events

Stage 1: Agents appear, they are serious and ask questions, cause you are accused of something.
Stage 2: Agents didn't get the answers they wanted, so they arrested you.
Stage 3: Agents are in the interrogation room, they still didn't get the answers and you are still not cooperating.
Stage 4: You go to arrest-room, then.

I mean, in my opinion what happened wasn't really out of the blue, there was some logic and events players could react to - more than once. And because they acted like they did, now we have this and that. I mean, there's been some subtle red light coming from me, like, "this path is dangerous". And sadly, my players didn't heed me.

I wanna say, if I had been arrested, especially while being innocent, I would try to explain it calmly to the officers, cooperate with them, not spitting on them (!) and not resist arrest so much. If I been spitting, shouting, not cooperating and be, well, full of myself, I would probably not leave the arrest room for some months. I suppose?

Also, I just got an idea when reading Rynjin's post: TIME TRAVEL! :D :D :D :D :D

I can always send back-in-time a version of Ed from the future, after he got to jail, who wanna change his past! So he sends yet younger himself still back in time, so he can react differently, after learning his lesson! :D

And it fits, since this game is about barriers between worlds/realities/timelines who are falling apart :D Oh my, an excellent solution! :D

This sounds like a great super-villain origin story.

Yup! :D I even have the whole "final" post in which Ed gets to jail and I explain the consequences for him and his friends and family :D It's just... sooooo good in my head :D Too good to let it pass :D

Alternatively, I could send Ed back in time after x years to redo. But will my player really behave differently this time...? :(

[Batcathat]

I wanna say, if I had been arrested, especially while being innocent, I would try to explain it calmly to the officers, cooperate with them, not spitting on them (!) and not resist arrest so much. If I been spitting, shouting, not cooperating and be, well, full of myself, I would probably not leave the arrest room for some months. I suppose?

While staying calm would obviously be smarter than spitting on people, it leading to someone being kept for months seems extremely excessive. Yes, obviously the agents would be upset about it, maybe they'll treat you a bit roughly and keep you longer than necessary (but only, like, over night). Maybe you'll get a fine or some other light-ish punishment, but anything more than that seems very unlikely in anything short of a police state.

[Kaworu]

While staying calm would obviously be smarter than spitting on people, it leading to someone being kept for months seems extremely excessive. Yes, obviously the agents would be upset about it, maybe they'll treat you a bit roughly and keep you longer than necessary (but only, like, over night). Maybe you'll get a fine or some other light-ish punishment, but anything more than that seems very unlikely in anything short of a police state.

Well, it kinda depends. If I would not be able to calmly explain that I am innocent, cause "I am so angry at you, I won't cooperate" and as such, I would not be able to prove my innocence and the case would went to a court, the court might decide that I will spend some time (usually 3 months which can be "elongated" as long as necessary) in arrest. In order to not escape the country when the court is proceeding my case. Even if I would be innocent, I could not go away as long as the court would be deciding what to do with me. Usually, only after the verdict of innocence (if one happens) I could go away from the arrest.

This is of course only in criminal cases, family and civil courts operate differently than criminal ones. And of course, you can demand money afterwards, if you spend, let's say, 2 years in arrest while being innocent. But also, we need to make sure that people who are accused of serious crimes will not just escape the country, so...

Of course, there are also criminal cases in which people are free as long as there is no verdict. It really depends.

[Batcathat]

Well, it kinda depends. If I would not be able to calmly explain that I am innocent, cause "I am so angry at you, I won't cooperate" and as such, I would not be able to prove my innocence and the case would went to a court, the court might decide that I will spend some time (usually 3 months which can be "elongated" as long as necessary) in arrest. In order to not escape the country when the court is proceeding my case. Even if I would be innocent, I could not go away as long as the court would be deciding what to do with me. Usually, only after the verdict of innocence (if one happens) I could go away from the arrest.

This is of course only in criminal cases, family and civil courts operate differently than criminal ones. And of course, you can demand money afterwards, if you spend, let's say, 2 years in arrest while being innocent. But also, we need to make sure that people who are accused of serious crimes will not just escape the country, so...

Of course, there are also criminal cases in which people are free as long as there is no verdict. It really depends.

So are you saying the months in jail would be because of the initial charges rather than the spitting? If so, you might be right (depending on what you're suspected of, of course). I thought the situation was that the spitting character was in extra trouble because of the spitting and general uncooperativeness, rather than whatever the initial charges were, but maybe I was mistaken?

[Kaworu]

Well... before the spitting (which put Ed in very bad light) they were accused of a few things, from such trivial ones like drinking while underaged, till more serious like "endangering civilian's lives and health with irresponsible use of power" to the most serious accusation of "parleying with inter-dimensional beings". And, could they calmly explain all this and behave themselves, everyone would realize that it was not like that. But right now, I think nobody will look at them as innocents and no matter what they will say, the court will not believe them. Especially since there is some "evidence" that the treaty they signed with inter-dimensional being weakened the walls between worlds...

[Kesnit]

For context, I am a criminal defense attorney (state level, not federal) in the US...

In my mind, I envisioned them talking gently and peacefully about things in the interviewing room and then going off.

Instead Ed SPITTED ON A FEDERAL AGENT (!!!) DURING THEIR ARRESTING OF THEM (!!!). Which is, I believe, a serious crime in both Poland and the US.

Can't speak for Poland, but it is a felony where I practice, carrying up to 5 years in prison, with a mandatory minimum sentence of 6 months incarceration. So yeah, it's not a joke.

And if I spitted on a policeman when he would be trying to arrest me, I would have serious legal troubles. For a reason.

I had a client charged with spitting on an officer a few years ago. It was on body worn camera and very clear. It did not go over well with the judge and my client got more than the 6 month minimum.

Reaction of both my players & their characters? "Oh, no big deal! Oh, why are you are cavilling so much? It was ONLY SPITTING (sic!). We have so many ideas for roleplaying scenes between our characters, but instead, we are being held in arrest! How come?!"

Because they committed a serious crime. But as others have said, this does not have to be the end of the game. It is possible to shift the plot to how the party will deal with incarceration.

This is one problem. But second is this: they "educate" me on American law.

Basically, I am a Pole. I live in Poland, just like my friends. I have never been to America and know this country only from movies (and since I do not really watch TV, this knowledge is really shallow). Especially, as a foreigner, I am not an expert on American law and this is a very exotic subject for me. I suppose that for most Americans the French law also would be, even if they would know French?

And my friends know American law better than me. Since this whole ordeal with "you are being sued for violating federal agent's dignity" the instructed me about:

1. The miranda rights (we do not have that in Poland and in Poland, arresting a person looks different than in US).

I find it VERY unlikely that your friends know much about what the Miranda rights really are - especially if they learned it all from watching American TV. The Miranda rights, what they mean, and when they apply are issues that are litigated to this day. (I did an appeal a few years ago on whether a statement made by my client should be suppressed because it was made before he was read his rights.)

2. Jurors in courts (again, we do not have that in Poland).

Although you don't say what your friends are trying to teach you, again, I find it unlikely they really know what they are talking about.

It is my opinion that they focus much more on my lack of knowledge of American law than on roleplaying their characters

Clearly, your game is not set in America, so American law does not apply. Heck, laws in the US don't always cross state boundaries, need not mention international ones! (By that I mean what is legal in one state could be illegal in another, or a serious crime in one state and minor in another.)

This, in fact, reminds me of a situation in which GM know setting to a lesser extend than his players.

You automatically know more than your players because you know and set up the world. And again, I really doubt your players know that much about US law.

I swear to God, if he will start instructing the judge how US courts should work and why his rights are violated, cause I, as GM, am not a doctor of American law... *angry noises*

Ooo... Oooo.. I am a doctor of American law! Can I join the game long enough to play the judge in Ed's trial???

It's hard to talk of this without leaning too heavily into real life, which is forbidden by forum rules. But most jurisdictions would NOT jail someone for spitting on an agent.

I beg to differ, and I am speaking from real world experience. I've had a client incarcerated for spitting on an officer.

You have to do something really bad to get thrown in jail at the first offence.

And spitting on an officer is serious. 6 months mandatory incarceration serious.

I had no idea that Poland was such an authoritarian jackbooted state that in the event of an obnoxious teenager simply spitting they would automatically prosecute to the full extent of the law.

I don't recall the OP saying either the PC or the player is a teen.

Having said that, I am imagining one of our juvenile court judges presiding over a teen who spit on an officer. It isn't a pretty sight - and the judge I'm thinking of is the fairest judge I have ever been in front of!

simple spitting because the petty-ass cop decided it was worth his time to do all the paperwork

Do you really think a cop is going to let someone who committed a felony and spit on them off because they were too lazy to do some paperwork?

[icefractal]

I don't think the PCs being in deep **** is implausible - it's very plausible. But that doesn't mean it would be fun for the players, or a good direction to take the game in.

Like, you seem to be coming from the "neutral GM" perspective - "I do what makes sense by in-world logic, and if that's not what the players want to happen, they should take IC action to make something different happen."

Well personally, I wouldn't play PbtA with a neutral GM, because it doesn't give me enough player-facing levers. I'd play 3.x or PF1 with a neutral GM, or several other systems, but not one where "ability to do basic tasks" was up to GM interpretation. For games like that (which I'd include PbtA in), the GM really needs to be in the players' corner (not the same as the PCs' corner), and prioritize what would make an enjoyable game over what would logically follow.

[Rynjin]

@Kesnit: Things that have been established over the course of this thread, as I understand them.

-The game is set in the US.

-The PCs are juveniles; the entire inciting incident is due to "Ed" mistakenly using an ability only available to adult characters (?) that he did not have access to due to his character's current age.

-The PCs were detained, and due to this mistake in the rules, it was determined that the player's attempt at persuasion failed, and that the PC came off as a "spoiled brat" who "thinks he's equal to the police" (???).

-The PCs as a group are immediately arrested and dragged off for interrogation after this.

-One PC (Ed) spits in the cop's face during the arrest.

-Everyone is now being held without bail not just until interrogation is over, but until the entire trial is completed. This could apparently take years.

I'm not a legal expert (unlike you), but that last bit seems most key. I'm PRETTY sure you can't just arrest teens like that and hold them for years befor ethey're even convicted here in the US. Maybe I'm worng.

The situation as it currently stands, to me, is that Kaworu has very effectively derailed his own campaign to the point that it is simpler (in his eyes) to shut it down rather than continue.

I feel like even if the player's arguments are not 100% based in legal fact (and IMO there's a kernel there to work with), it's close enough, and a good reason to latch onto so the game doesn't just...end.

[Kesnit]

-The game is set in the US.

-The PCs are juveniles; the entire inciting incident is due to "Ed" mistakenly using an ability only available to adult characters (?) that he did not have access to due to his character's current age.

OK. I saw where the OP said the PC used an ability he didn't actually have, but missed that it was because it's only available for adults and they are kids.

If the PC is a juvenile, what I said about mandatory minimums isn't applicable. It is still a felony, but the kid would not get an adult sentence (unless there was some other reason the kid would be tried as an adult). It would still almost certainly lead to a sentence more than "a few hours of community service." Probably some time in detention (a month or so) and supervised probation for maybe a year. The exact details would be dependent on the kid's age and previous contacts with the juvenile justice system.

-The PCs were detained, and due to this mistake in the rules, it was determined that the player's attempt at persuasion failed, and that the PC came off as a "spoiled brat" who "thinks he's equal to the police" (???).

Not the best solution for a ret-con, but OK.

-The PCs as a group are immediately arrested and dragged off for interrogation after this.

Do we know what led the police to the group in the first place?

-Everyone is now being held without bail not just until interrogation is over, but until the entire trial is completed. This could apparently take years.

A month or less, actually. There are laws that say how fast people have to go to trial, and the limits are shorter for juveniles. It varies by jurisdiction, but where I practice, a detained juvenile has to be brought to trial within 21 days. (There are exceptions to that, but they mostly apply either to very serious crimes - on the level of robbery or murder - or if the defendant is the one pushing the trial back.)

The situation as it currently stands, to me, is that Kaworu has very effectively derailed his own campaign to the point that it is simpler (in his eyes) to shut it down rather than continue.

It may be best then to do the trial and fast forward past any active incarceration time and deal in-game with the long-term consequences. (i.e. as a felon, Ed can't have a firearm. He has to report to a probation officer for a year or so.)

My reading of it is that the players are balking at being arrested and how it was done. To be honest, that is pretty real life. I can't tell you how many times I've had a client tell me their arrest was done wrong because the officers didn't read them their Miranda rights. (They don't have to if they aren't going to question you.)

[NichG]

Sounds like a good opportunity to transition to a vigilante/revolutionary/villain campaign.

Basically, you can ask the players OOC to constrain their characters and behaviors to a certain genre or premise, but that also implies that the world (as arbitrated by you) should be one in which following those constraints seems reasonable. E.g. if you strongly want the police to not be considered an enemy by the players, you have to do your part as well to make that not happen, otherwise there's a conflict of interest between your power to request the players constrain their responses, and your power to determine the scenario.

Or you can run the world neutrally, and when one of your players says that they think the justice system of that world is unjust, you just say 'your character has powers, so tell me what you're going to do next to change it', rather than arguing about the real world justice system.

So which do you feel is more important?

[Razade]

It seems to me you're not following some of the basic conventions of Masks, trying to apply real world laws and legal parity to how it'd be in the real world to the game. One of the central and core "understandings" of Masks: A New Generation is that the Players aren't being hunted down. This is directly from the "Setting Expectations" section.

You aren’t illegal or openly hunted yet. Your team might technically be illegal, depending on the specifics of how superhuman teams are treated in your version of Halcyon City. But even if you are, you aren’t yet hunted by the authorities. Adults are more than likely making overtures to your team, offering to sanction you or guide you and thereby provide you with whatever legal support you need. The actions you take over the course of play may lead you to a place where you’re actively pursued or captured, but that’s not the case at the start of play.

You defaulted, from what I can see to just...arresting them and then doubling down on it. People have already pointed out that that may be the logical thing but it's clearly not the fun thing. A lot of people are weighing in here, not knowing the actual system or the mechanics but the above quote is something you should probably circle back to. It sounds like everyone involved needs to re-read the core book, because Adult Moves are clearly marked as to when and how they're used.

[Reversefigure4]

And if as a player, especially in a superheroes game, a full jail sentence was the consequence for spitting I'd consider a fully appropriate and proportional response to be a "The system is corrupt, authoritarian, and oppressive. As the good guys we should bring it down."

That's my take away too, and it seems like there should have been a Session Zero establishing what sort of genre they were playing in.

By default, I'd say that teenage superheroes should either be dismiss and flip with authorities ("Screw the pigs, man!"); or if they are vigilante heroes, stay away from the cops altogether. Cops are side characters incapable of solving crimes themselves, which is why they need heroes. Masks is generally an upbeat game, too.

It's rare for superheroes to get arrested, period, because genre says that doesn't happen (even though heroes solve their problems with violence and thus routinely committ assault-esqe crimes). Also because it's hard for normal well trained agents to be able to physically handle a super powered individual to arrest them in the first place!

But in this particular game, the authorities will arrest you if they don't like your tone and you don't show enough respect. Spit on an agent and you're done - straight to jail. No mitigating circumstances for the good hero work you've done. No older hero stepping in to bail you out (literally and metaphorically). No negotiation, no plea deals, no bargains. No second chances. Cross the authorities and you're straight to jail.

There's nothing wrong with Dystopian Cops as a storyline, but players should be aware of it in Session Zero and know to either treat the cops with extreme respect and comply with every instruction, or stay away from the cops altogether and violently resist arrest and try to escape at all costs, or form an underground resistance to the all-powerful police.

[Kaworu]

Okay, so:

The game is Masks: A New Generation. This means that all PCs are teenagers. Thought this is obvious from the context, but apparently, it wasn't so. Sorry, my bad!

Also, I am not saying that what is happening is very enjoyable - both for me and the players. But, the point is, one of PC committed a serious crime. And his players is like "oh, no bid deal" and "boooo, why I cannot roleplay what I wanna? *sad pupper face*". I mean, I personally would not call this gaming-element that hard (I posted a new post and PC are kinda close to getting out of arrest... temporarily and if they will behave). But player of Ed started again his whining - can I call it whining? - like "this is totalitarian" and "it was only spitting, why are you like that?". Personally, I would call this whole set of discussions with him and his "logical" argumentation veeeeery draining. It's like we cannot really communicate, no matter what? And I do not think that my argumentation is illogical or hard to comprehend. Really!

The situation as it currently stands, to me, is that Kaworu has very effectively derailed his own campaign to the point that it is simpler (in his eyes) to shut it down rather than continue.

Actually, it is not like that? At least in my opinion? Basically, players find the current session-motifs not enjoyable. But for me, personally, talking with Ed player's about his... ym... "views" is what sets me off and makes me wanna end the game.

Basically, he has no good arguments, but repeats them time after time. And his perspective is very crooked. I just described a judge making some court proceedings, in, I believe, a neutral and logical fashion, and he was like "this judge is an *******, I am quitting". Like, wut?

We have very different opinions and ways of thinking, it seems to me. In fact, I consider most of what Ed's player is saying to be an illogical ignorance. Like, all he has to say is "my character is white and rich, they will do nothing to him! Especially because he is a son of a godness". I mean, if this would be only his RPing of Ed, I would understand, But when this kind of mindset is something the player himself have... it's very toxic and there is no possibility of communication.

And seriously, listening to endless ignorance on repeat for over a month... it's no fun. It is not a discussion when we have different views and arguments, but you can do, as an interlocutor, something with the arguments of other people. It's this kind of discussion when there is no reason to try to get your point across.

Do we know what led the police to the group in the first place?

Accusation (untrue) of illegal pact with an interdimensional being (which is serious) plus accusation of Diana of endangering lives and health of civilians by inappropriate use of her powers. All dumb stuff that could be explained to agents in one post and they could go... has it been done correctly... =_='

A month or less, actually. There are laws that say how fast people have to go to trial, and the limits are shorter for juveniles. It varies by jurisdiction, but where I practice, a detained juvenile has to be brought to trial within 21 days. (There are exceptions to that, but they mostly apply either to very serious crimes - on the level of robbery or murder - or if the defendant is the one pushing the trial back.)

Actually, right now in the game there is a court proceeding that will decide if they can go out of arrest if they will pay a deposit or cannot (and how big the deposit shall be).

You aren’t illegal or openly hunted yet. Your team might technically be illegal, depending on the specifics of how superhuman teams are treated in your version of Halcyon City. But even if you are, you aren’t yet hunted by the authorities. Adults are more than likely making overtures to your team, offering to sanction you or guide you and thereby provide you with whatever legal support you need. The actions you take over the course of play may lead you to a place where you’re actively pursued or captured, but that’s not the case at the start of play.

Eh... Ed team was not illegal or hunted at the beginning of the game. And the interrogation would be short and without effect on the longer story if PCs could behave. But since Ed spitted (!) on a federal agent, thus committing a crime, he is illegal now.

I mean, I did not force Ed to break a law, did I?

But in this particular game, the authorities will arrest you if they don't like your tone and you don't show enough respect. Spit on an agent and you're done - straight to jail. No mitigating circumstances for the good hero work you've done. No older hero stepping in to bail you out (literally and metaphorically). No negotiation, no plea deals, no bargains. No second chances. Cross the authorities and you're straight to jail.

I... am not sure if you have read my posts?

There has been a escalation from my players, instead of deescalation. Over several posts with red flags. Even though, I believe, I suggested via my posts that there should be deescalation. What's more, Ed committed a serious crime.

But okay, I could work with that. However, even when I had given the PCs a lawyer to try to give them good advice on how to behave from now on and try to get them to understand how serious was their situation, it was like "mah! no big deal! Why are you like that?".

I mean...!

Okay, so, even after spitting on a federal agent, something could be gone in the game world. Like, apologizing and trying to achieve some kind of compromise in court, trying to logically explain why Ed did what he did (even though it was not logical in the first place), saying that this was just one-time error and his family (of other superheroes) is not like that and they have some achievement he will try to uphold.

But, is really "I am white and rich" a thing you can, as a GM, do anything with? I mean, had I seen a will to cooperate and deescalate, I could do something. But I hadn't seen the will. I even hadn't seen logical arguments!

As to the "jail" part - I just have given my players the last chance to behave properly, cause court now decides if they will leave the arrest after paying deposit or not. I truly, truly, truly hope, beyond words, that Ed will not go on a rant "I am white and rich and powerful, what can you do to me". Like, great Goodness in Heaven, please, let the character behave just the one time, so I can do something for him!

There's nothing wrong with Dystopian Cops as a storyline, but players should be aware of it in Session Zero and know to either treat the cops with extreme respect and comply with every instruction, or stay away from the cops altogether and violently resist arrest and try to escape at all costs, or form an underground resistance to the all-powerful police.

Ym... can you really call not violating a bodily integrity (or how it is called in English, I am not a native speaker) an "extreme respect"? Or not violating the criminal law? I mean, I get the idea that we are talking about two very different situations...?

[Talakeal]

The disconnect appears to be political in nature rather than just a clash of gaming styles, so I am not sure how much advice we can give without violating forum rules.

[Reversefigure4]

There has been a escalation from my players, instead of deescalation. Over several posts with red flags. Even though, I believe, I suggested via my posts that there should be deescalation. What's more, Ed committed a serious crime.

Serious enough to derail the entire campaign for a month, apparently, which I'm betting none of the players expected. This event was enough of a big deal to change the focus of the campaign from superheroics to Serious Law. (Usually, superhero trials just happen entirely off-screen!)

This couldn't have been resolved in 2 minutes with a few sentences from the GM? "It turns out spitting on the cops is a big deal. They arrest Ed and put him on trial. Thanks to the fact that he has a record for helping society as a superhero, his lawyer pleads it down to 200 hours of community service. Ed, it's two weeks later and you're picking up trash in a public park, when you see a tree catch fire. Looks like Dr Pyro is attacking again..." And the game is back on track.

Instead, you're in this bizarre diversion where the players keep saying to you "GM, is this really a big deal? Can't we just move on?"... and you keep doubling down with the next step of making the game into Serious Realistic Trial Procedure. Who is enjoying this? You don't seem to be. The players aren't. What's the point of continuing it?

[MoiMagnus]

(Usually, superhero trials just happen entirely off-screen!)

This couldn't have been resolved in 2 minutes with a few sentences from the GM? "It turns out spitting on the cops is a big deal. They arrest Ed and put him on trial. Thanks to the fact that he has a record for helping society as a superhero, his lawyer pleads it down to 200 hours of community service. Ed, it's two weeks later and you're picking up trash in a public park, when you see a tree catch fire. Looks like Dr Pyro is attacking again..." And the game is back on track.

That's a good point. Superhero RPGs tend to work pretty well by skipping ahead a few months to the next part which is actually relevant. In general, Superhero RPGs tend to reproduce a style of storytelling that frequently deal with coherence issues, so skipping plot holes rather than digging into them is a smart decision.

[LeSwordfish]

Serious enough to derail the entire campaign for a month, apparently, which I'm betting none of the players expected. This event was enough of a big deal to change the focus of the campaign from superheroics to Serious Law. (Usually, superhero trials just happen entirely off-screen!)

This couldn't have been resolved in 2 minutes with a few sentences from the GM? "It turns out spitting on the cops is a big deal. They arrest Ed and put him on trial. Thanks to the fact that he has a record for helping society as a superhero, his lawyer pleads it down to 200 hours of community service. Ed, it's two weeks later and you're picking up trash in a public park, when you see a tree catch fire. Looks like Dr Pyro is attacking again..." And the game is back on track.

Instead, you're in this bizarre diversion where the players keep saying to you "GM, is this really a big deal? Can't we just move on?"... and you keep doubling down with the next step of making the game into Serious Realistic Trial Procedure. Who is enjoying this? You don't seem to be. The players aren't. What's the point of continuing it?

This exactly. Ditch the idea of there being Serious Consequences for this immediately and by whatever means necessary, and then have a conversation about what you and players would expect in future - "if you do a crime there will be punishments for that" is not normal for the superhero genre and if you want to treat that as a rule of the narrative the players need to know.

[NichG]

Okay, so:

The game is Masks: A New Generation. This means that all PCs are teenagers. Thought this is obvious from the context, but apparently, it wasn't so. Sorry, my bad!

Also, I am not saying that what is happening is very enjoyable - both for me and the players. But, the point is, one of PC committed a serious crime. And his players is like "oh, no bid deal" and "boooo, why I cannot roleplay what I wanna? *sad pupper face*". I mean, I personally would not call this gaming-element that hard (I posted a new post and PC are kinda close to getting out of arrest... temporarily and if they will behave). But player of Ed started again his whining - can I call it whining? - like "this is totalitarian" and "it was only spitting, why are you like that?". Personally, I would call this whole set of discussions with him and his "logical" argumentation veeeeery draining. It's like we cannot really communicate, no matter what? And I do not think that my argumentation is illogical or hard to comprehend. Really!

Actually, it is not like that? At least in my opinion? Basically, players find the current session-motifs not enjoyable. But for me, personally, talking with Ed player's about his... ym... "views" is what sets me off and makes me wanna end the game.

Basically, he has no good arguments, but repeats them time after time. And his perspective is very crooked. I just described a judge making some court proceedings, in, I believe, a neutral and logical fashion, and he was like "this judge is an *******, I am quitting". Like, wut?

We have very different opinions and ways of thinking, it seems to me. In fact, I consider most of what Ed's player is saying to be an illogical ignorance. Like, all he has to say is "my character is white and rich, they will do nothing to him! Especially because he is a son of a godness". I mean, if this would be only his RPing of Ed, I would understand, But when this kind of mindset is something the player himself have... it's very toxic and there is no possibility of communication.

And seriously, listening to endless ignorance on repeat for over a month... it's no fun. It is not a discussion when we have different views and arguments, but you can do, as an interlocutor, something with the arguments of other people. It's this kind of discussion when there is no reason to try to get your point across.

Eh, I think you should be careful not to confuse the in-game choices of characters with positions of authority, and your own personal authority at the table. Ed's player can hate your cops, its not your job to convince him that 'no, no, this is normal and good'. If he ends up wanting Ed to turn against the government of the setting and try to overthrow it because he thinks its authoritarian, well, that's the story then. Once you start to turn this into an OOC conversation, it stops being about 'this character did this thing to your character' and becomes about what you believe and what he believes, and you shouldn't need to be in agreement on that point in order to be able to run a game for him...

[Theoboldi]

Eh, I think you should be careful not to confuse the in-game choices of characters with positions of authority, and your own personal authority at the table. Ed's player can hate your cops, its not your job to convince him that 'no, no, this is normal and good'. If he ends up wanting Ed to turn against the government of the setting and try to overthrow it because he thinks its authoritarian, well, that's the story then. Once you start to turn this into an OOC conversation, it stops being about 'this character did this thing to your character' and becomes about what you believe and what he believes, and you shouldn't need to be in agreement on that point in order to be able to run a game for him...

That said, I think that if that's not the kind of story Kaworu wants to tell, or if he's uncomfortable with taking the campaign in that direction or having player characters with these attitudes, he should also not feel like he's obligated to run that.

That however, must too be adressed out of character, as its a matter of personal beliefs and enjoyment. It's important to lead a conversation about what kind of game both people would be happy with continuing to play.

[NichG]

That said, I think that if that's not the kind of story Kaworu wants to tell, or if he's uncomfortable with taking the campaign in that direction or having player characters with these attitudes, he should also not feel like he's obligated to run that.

That however, must too be adressed out of character, as its a matter of personal beliefs and enjoyment. It's important to lead a conversation about what kind of game both people would be happy with continuing to play.

That cuts both ways though. If one player says 'I will not tolerate showing any deference to authority', then you can't run a campaign with that person that requires them to show deference to authority. Arguing about whether its reasonable for authority to expect that deference in real life is missing the point. Whether or not its 'reasonable', its just not going to work.

[Theoboldi]

That cuts both ways though. If one player says 'I will not tolerate showing any deference to authority', then you can't run a campaign with that person that requires them to show deference to authority. Arguing about whether its reasonable for authority to expect that deference in real life is missing the point. Whether or not its 'reasonable', its just not going to work.

Right, I agree mostly on that. Obviously, if somebody is expressing some things that I personally find off-putting and I get the feeling they actually are like that, I would probably not play with them anymore.

But otherwise this should be kept to a discussion about what the people involved want and are comfortable with, not what is coherent necessarily. The fiction can be made to fit the preferences, even if it may require a small retcon. Or making it so the insulted officer was a secret shapeshifting alien monster all along. That's a comic thing, right?

[NichG]

Right, I agree mostly on that. Obviously, if somebody is expressing some things that I personally find off-putting and I get the feeling they actually are like that, I would probably not play with them anymore.

But otherwise this should be kept to a discussion about what the people involved want and are comfortable with, not what is coherent necessarily. The fiction can be made to fit the preferences, even if it may require a small retcon. Or making it so the insulted officer was a secret shapeshifting alien monster all along. That's a comic thing, right?

Sure, I guess my main point is about focusing on what's most important, realizing that maybe you can't have everything, and accepting the tradeoffs you need to make as a result. You could decide that the most important thing is the sense of realism, that your cops behave like you think cops should behave, that your justice system works the way a real justice system works, etc. But then recognize that maybe that means you can't really run games where the heroes interact a lot with the cops without stuff breaking down, or that you might end up having the genre fall off the cliff and flip over to villain or whatever. Or, you could decide that 'running a heroic game' is the most important thing, but then you need to resolve to be willing to sacrifice realism and/or to sacrifice which plotlines you use - if you want the heroes to feel good about the system they protect, maybe that does mean that the system has to give them preferential treatment even if that breaks realism/verisimilitude or your personal sense of 'what is just'. Or maybe it just means that someone keeps the cops away offscreen, and you don't try to run the 'suspected of a crime you didn't commit' plotline. Maybe you can have all of those things if you get the players to agree to it, but you're never going to convince this guy at your table OOC that the world that seems realistic to you should be realistic to them, and they'll basically play along while kind of disdaining it.

Basically, know when to let go, and what to let go of. 'Being right' doesn't matter if the game becomes miserable or disintegrates around you, and even if it's someone else's fault, well, that doesn't mean that you aren't put out too.

[icefractal]

There's also the factor that (IMO) when you add too much reality to superheroes, it becomes an entirely different genre.

And I'm not talking about physics. I'm talking about social structures and how people react to things. Without going into detail, the "powers that be" (governments, but also powerful enough corporations and individuals) have been plenty willing to do horrific things for much lower stakes than something like "the capabilities of Superman".

Like, if I got superpowers IRL ... I'd probably not do much with them, because I don't want to put that kind of target on myself or my family. But if I did - let's say whatever gave me powers also gave me a stronger sense of moral obligation and ensured that the target would be on me alone - then I would be secretive and paranoid AF. No public identity, no talking to media, the best case is that I get in, do what's needed, and get out, without anyone seeing me or even being 100% sure I was there. And also accepting that if I ever did face arrest, I would need to resist/flee, and therefore become a fugitive.

So if you want comic-book style superheroes, you need a comic-book style world.

[Talakeal]

Also, the idea that a player attempting to use a move that they don’t have resulting in a fumble is, imo, an absolutely terrible GM call to begin with.

[Theoboldi]

Basically, know when to let go, and what to let go of. 'Being right' doesn't matter if the game becomes miserable or disintegrates around you, and even if it's someone else's fault, well, that doesn't mean that you aren't put out too.

Yeah, I think I can agree with that. Genuinely, the only important thing is to find a mutually satisfactory solution.

(Even if I could go on a rant about how weird some players are about any sort of authority interacting with them in a less than fully supportive manner. I've seen some things, so I'm quite sympathetic to OP's viewpoint. >_>

That's a separate topic, though.)

Also, the idea that a player attempting to use a move that they don’t have resulting in a fumble is, imo, an absolutely terrible GM call to begin with.

It's not a great solution, but in this context I think it's a reasonable solution. Masks is after all a game about insecure teenagers dealing with responsibility and figuring themselves out as people in the face of what others expect of them.

The kind of advanced moves that we are talking about here are more mature and self-confident ways of approaching their problems that the characters are not really supposed to be mature enough to really utilize at the start of the game.

That doesn't mean that trying to do it anyways necessarily need to be met with a negative result, but the game does very deliberately not give mechanical support to success on something like this.

(I'll say this with the caveat that I've not personally played masks and it has been some time since I read it.)

[incrediblefrown]

so, the issue is that the character's mother is some flavor of divine figure, ala wonder woman or something, and both character and player think that should be enough to get them out of the situation without having to back down? you could always add her to the scene. if you don't want her to actually do something about the problem, have her call and actually say aloud that she doesn't have that kind of authority there, so the character in question doesn't continue to labor under that assumption. (while there may be genre precedent for her saying "i *won't* fix this for you, to teach you a lesson," i wouldn't in this case; it'll just make the argument worse.)

[TaiLiu]

Sort of, but I really didn't want to get into all that since I'm pretty sure it's a topic that isn't kosher to go SUPER in-depth about here.

Suffice to say it's not the default assumption, and incidents to the contrary, while distressingly common, are the results of more...creative interpretation of the letter of the law over the spirit than anything else.

Sure, that's reasonable.

Who is enjoying this? You don't seem to be. The players aren't. What's the point of continuing it?

That however, must too be adressed out of character, as its a matter of personal beliefs and enjoyment. It's important to lead a conversation about what kind of game both people would be happy with continuing to play.

These are the key points. It's not about who's right or wrong.

[Reversefigure4]

Superheroes and authority go together differently depending on what genre you're in.

I find it's usually a spectrum that looks a bit like this:

1. Superfriendly - Superheroes actively outrank the cops and have authority to do as they please. The cops actively help and aid the heroes, and never arrest or question their actions.
2. Vigilantes - Superheroes work outside the police force, but not opposed to them. The cops politely ignore the question of whether they should be arresting these masked vigilantes (officially, yes they should) and mostly just let the supers go about their business, recognising their value. Superheroes have no need to oppose the police or fight them (at least until they're framed by some sort of shapechanger, but things go back to normal when this plot is exposed) They may or may not provide them with official information, but meetings between cops and superheroes, often via the Bat-Signal, are standard things.
3. Suspicious vigilantes - The cops are opposed to superheroes, and will actively attempt to arrest them on site. Cops are smart enough to attempt to arrest villains first and superheroes second, but superheroes do not officially interact with the police and leave crime scenes when they hear sirens. Getting arrested is a big, big deal, because heroes will be unmasked. Heroes will violently (but non-lethally) resist arrest.
4. Hunted Heroes - the heroes are police enemies, either because the cops are heavily corrupt or because superheroes are very unwanted by authorities. Police will arrest or shoot on sight. In very grimdark setting, police will actively priorities shooting or arresting the hero over catching villains or saving civilians.

Here's the trick, though... all of these are the "right" way to do it. None of them are more valid than the other, it's just a question of what sort of game you're running. Ideally, you sort this out at Session Zero so everybody's on the same page. If not, you sort it out when it comes up in gameplay. If it's a Hunted Heroes setting and a player brainfarts and swings down to talk to a cop, the GM should stop and remind them the cops will start shooting at them - not merely cut to shooting at them! If the PCs start assaulting cops in a friendly setting, the GM should stop and ask them what they think they're doing and why. It doesn't matter in the slightest what the 'real world law' says, because real world law doesn't account for the idea of guys in tights with laser eyes who volunteer to stop crime.

There's no problem here that couldn't have been solved with putting both people on the same page before the 'criminal' actions even take place. "Guys, you have no authority to reach an interdimensional treaty with these strange beings". "Guys, having done that anyway, AEGIS agents show up your door to arrest you. If they arrest you, you'll be heading for trial, so you probably need to escape." "Guys, having been arrested by the authorities, your only real choice is to comply and hope they take mercy on you."

'Government agents show up, arrest you, and refuse to release you' seems like exactly the sort of thing to move the campaign into a Resist-The-Government supers campaign. At this point I'm surprised the players are still submitting to this trial? Hasn't anyone tried punching their way out yet? If I were playing, I'd be asking the GM where this is going, given I didn't sign up for a Fight-The-Government campaign, but I might be up for one if that seems to be where we're heading. What sort of game are we playing here? Let's get on the same page.

[Beleriphon]

Not how it works, actually.
It's hard to talk of this without leaning too heavily into real life, which is forbidden by forum rules. But most jurisdictions would NOT jail someone for spitting on an agent. It's not how the legal system works. You have to do something really bad to get thrown in jail at the first offence.
So, chances are Ed would be put on parole. Or sentenced to a few hours per week of social work.
So, Ed could be given a stern talking-to, and he may be sentenced to assist the elderly in a clinic on saturdays.
Of course, consequences would be worse if he keeps misbehaving.

I'm not going to be specific, but in most jurisdictions the police can arrest and hold you for a relatively limited time frame (24 hours in most Commonwealth jurisdictions) without charge. What happens because of that is a different question entire. It can range from nothing, to the police department being sued, to other police or similar agencies investigating the first department.

Generally, if you spit on a cop you're getting arrested for assaulting a police officer. Whether that sticks or a judge agrees is a different issue.

Erms... in Poland, violating the dignity/bodily integrity of a police officer is a crime, not a transcession, so there is no need to fill any paperworks, really, it's automatically under care of a public procesutor? And there is not really a way to NOT involve court in that?

There's a hiccup here. I'm not going to try to discuss the finer points of juvenile delinquency laws in Poland, but there is always paper work. A cop just can't drag somebody into a local police station and leave them there without paperwork, at least if they plan on having them officially charges with a crime. A cop can always choose not to arrest somebody as well. It's one of the underpinning tenets of modern policing: that the individual police officer has the discretion to not do something they otherwise are allowed to do.