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

[Kaworu]

Hi people! I am STing for the first time in forever and I have a serious problem with my players.

We are playing a Masks: A New Generation campaign. My players and characters are: Diana, a Doomed played by G.; Dean, a Janus by O; and Ed, a Legacy by K.

Bacially, we have a hacker/psionics behind-the-screen enemy that they themselves wanted to introduce (as a language joke). And because he used his psionics and hacking skills to manipulate the mass opinion of them, agents of A.E.G.I.S went to them to talk with them. Because their problems were serious and they needed to take care of that. Like, they were accused of some crimes and the should explain themselves to the agents.

This is when complications began. K. used an adult move he didn't bought (and was veeeery suprised that he cannot make it... =_='). It was Persuade With Best Interest I think... or maybe Stand UP For Something? And since we are playing a PBF game, and they were some posts between the illegal move and my realization, I could not "back in time" the move. So, instead, I wrote basing on the material. Which in this case meant arresting them "spoiled brats who thinks they are equal to 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. And you can go to jail for that. And if I spitted on a policeman when he would be trying to arrest me, I would have serious legal troubles. For a reason.

So I wanted some consequences out of Ed. Cause this was clearly a criminal act. And a great humiliation for the agent in question.

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?!"

...

It is my serious belief that neither characters of my players, neither them fully understand what had happened and the gravity of their situation. But as a GM, I have to create a believable world. One, where action of characters have consequences and aren't happening in some kind of void.

So, my players do not understand what the fuzz is about. 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).
2. Jurors in courts (again, we do not have that in Poland).

...

It is my opinion that they focus much more on my lack of knowledge of American law than on roleplaying their characters in a way that would allow them to leave the headquearters of A.E.G.I.S without criminal conviction. And even when I explained to them that this session in not supposed to be a detailed simulation of American court systems and instead I need to create a believable and logic world, they did not understand... =_='

This, in fact, reminds me of a situation in which GM know setting to a lesser extend than his players. And in such a thing, the proper response is "my setting vary, deal with it". I just told them that my USA vary and there is nothing they can do. I am afraid they still will not understand... =_='

But really, I wonder if there is any reason in continuing this game. Do not get me wrong, I like the game. And I like my friends. BUT (!) their insistence that "nothing had happened" (excuse me? and battery (pol. "naruszenie nietykalności cielesnej", not sure how I should translate that, it is a highly legal term...)???) and their constant instructing me about American law and "how this should be different!" is taking away the joy of STing. In fact, I just have given Ed the last chance to behave properly and I have no idea what I will do, if he will not (which is very probable...). 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*

I really do not know what to do. I try to talk to them OOC, but they seem to not understand what is happening right now both in game and outside of it.

Any good advice? I could use some right now... :(

PS. I hope this is the right subforum for posting that...? I really do not know...? Sorry? :(

[MoiMagnus]

A somewhat general advice:

Whenever the PCs behave in a way that is "absurd" due to a player misunderstanding of the situation (here your vision of this universe's law vs yours), misunderstanding that the character shouldn't have (like the character is not a tourist with no knowledge of the local law), it's better to stop them from behaving this way, with retcon if needed. Sentences like "it's a criminal offence that might get your thrown in jail, do you confirm this action?" can really help.

The core issue is that when a player think they know something (like think they know how your court system works), they will behave as such. And it's very frustrating as a player to be "punished" and suffer negative consequences from actions that you were 100% sure that there would be none, or at least none significant. And this frustration can push them into a defensive position of trying to take control over your universe by "educating you" about how it should work.

And that's why preventing this absurd action from happening in the first place can really help. The players won't feel the need to defend their actions and their vision of how the universe should work if their is no threat of suffering negative consequences if they lose the argument.

[Alcore]

Advice? Perhaps new players?


On a more practical side; there has been a major disconnect between you culturally. Try to impress upon them that it is your setting and things might be different. (Important! Did you write down any of these differences before hand? Some things may see stupid or even redundant but building a small campaign world guide helps. Just keep it for the next supers game. Mutants and Masterminds doesn’t quite have a handy list but reading them helps generate material for any contemporary setting) Stay calm and diplomatic.



If they refuse to stop talking about law…
If they refuse to accept that your world is different…
If they refuse to just let it go…
If all your words are just ignored…
… get new players

[Kaworu]

Eh... as I said, spitting on a policeman/federal agent is a crime. Both in Poland and in US (I believe?). And that is really a common knowledge and I think my players know that. And I tried to reason with them, both OOC and IC with some NPC, who tried to explain why what they did was wrong and what can be the consequences of not admitting their guilt. And this was very, I would say, common sense argumentation. And my players are kind of deaf to that argumentation.

It's like... I am talking to a wall? And in fact I really do not know how to react.

And yes, I had given them some chances to at least try to control the damages, but it seems they do not wanna use that chances. So it is very hard to allow them to "escape" with their skin intact, if they are trudging and trudging deeper and deeper into the swamp, let's say... :/

But also I think I always had problems with communication and maybe (???) this is a part of this issue?

[Alcore]

Both in Poland and in US (I believe?).

It's like... I am talking to a wall? And in fact I really do not know how to react.

Yes… and the average American will be brought in kicking and screaming…
(At least the average American limited to those willing to spit on a police officer. Though I do believe the severity would be less here)

Yes… they are kicking and screaming… it’s a… normalish response.

[Kaworu]

You know... kicking and screaming might be "normal", but technically is not violating the dignity of the office? And spitting on a police officer is, like, offensive? It's violent? And I believe the dignity of the officer and his safety is protected under the law?

[At least in Poland, but from what I Googled similar laws are in the US too?]

Also, I think if we are all Polish, then treating American law as a fork of Polish one is... allowable? I mean, it's not the only solution and maybe not even the best, but given our shared cultural background, it's certainly some kind of solution?

Also, two more things:

1. I feel like the problem there is not a lack of knowledge. Is rather incompatible perspectives? And... I think it is very hard to "straighten" a crooked perspective? Much, much more than giving a piece of data to someone who is simply lacking that? And this is the "seed of the problem" here?

2. As to searching for a new group. Uh... it's more complicated than that. You see, before this whole issue, I was enjoying myself a lot. And, more importantly, all of the players all my very close friends and our relationship goes way beyond the gaming table. So, I would like to avoid any drastic solutions, for the sake of our friendship.

But yes, I think I might end the game prematurely with "Ed went to jail, end of the story". I mean, I cannot really violate the logic of the game world, can I? :/

[KorvinStarmast]

It is my opinion that they focus much more on my lack of knowledge of American law than on roleplaying their characters in a way that would allow them to leave the headquearters of A.E.G.I.S without criminal conviction. And even when I explained to them that this session in not supposed to be a detailed simulation of American court systems and instead I need to create a believable and logic world, they did not understand... =_='

Seems a strange hill for them to die on.

But really, I wonder if there is any reason in continuing this game.

I'd recommend against it; it sounds like they want to argue more than they want to play. I have found that if that form of argument carries from one session to the next, rather than being left at the session where it crops up (yeah, arguments happen), then it's time to step back since your desire is to play, not argue.

And ask one of them to be the ST.

[Tawmis]

A somewhat general advice:
Whenever the PCs behave in a way that is "absurd" due to a player misunderstanding of the situation (here your vision of this universe's law vs yours), misunderstanding that the character shouldn't have (like the character is not a tourist with no knowledge of the local law), it's better to stop them from behaving this way, with retcon if needed. Sentences like "it's a criminal offence that might get your thrown in jail, do you confirm this action?" can really help.
The core issue is that when a player think they know something (like think they know how your court system works), they will behave as such. And it's very frustrating as a player to be "punished" and suffer negative consequences from actions that you were 100% sure that there would be none, or at least none significant. And this frustration can push them into a defensive position of trying to take control over your universe by "educating you" about how it should work.
And that's why preventing this absurd action from happening in the first place can really help. The players won't feel the need to defend their actions and their vision of how the universe should work if their is no threat of suffering negative consequences if they lose the argument.

I wouldn't stop them - I'd make them aware.
For example after they spit on the officer's face - I'd say, "Just so you're aware - taking such an action will have consequences to your character. If you want to proceed, we can - otherwise, we can retcon it since you may not have been aware."
If they proceed, then punish the character accordingly (they go to jail, for example, and now have legal problems - need money for a lawyer, etc).

Otherwise, they will keep walking all over you and not respect the game.

[icefractal]

I'm going to take a different tack here - based on what's in the OP, you messed up. So did your players, but it stems from how you presented the situation.

Ok, so initially a player tries being reasonable / diplomatic. And fails because they don't have the adult move (incidentally, it seemed like you switched their result from "success" to "failure" because of that - shouldn't it instead have been switched from "success at the move they don't have" to "success at the nearest move they do have?").

But anyway, that's fine, it's fitting the genre of angsty teens who can't communicate well. And so the players lean into that, get aggressive with the cops - and that's bad too? So what are they supposed to do then?

It seems like you have a scenario where the players best option is to act meek, plead ineffectively, and hope for mercy. Because reasonable talking won't work, neither will going aggro, and I doubt they have the ability to run away.

How far into the campaign is this happening? Have the players had much chance to be more in-control and the ones driving the action before this? Has the trust that your actions are to make a great story and "be a fan of the characters" - not just a power trip - been built up? If that that trust is not there yet, I'm not surprised they balked.


My advice? Retcon. It seems like the consistency of the game world is important to you and having the police ignore the spitting for no reason would be too nonsensical. And I understand that, I prefer a strong-consistency style too. So instead:
1) Bring up with the group, OOC, that miscommunication happened and as a result the game seems stuck in a direction that you don't think will be fun for you or them.
2) Discuss what kind of tone / genre you're going for in the game and see if they agree. Come to a consensus on it. Yes, you can run whatever game you want, but the players don't have to play, so it's in everyone's best interests to reach an agreement if you want to play together.
3) Redo the session to be more in line with that discussion.

[Composer99]

So I want to highlight a few specific lines that stand out to me...

And since we are playing a PBF game, and they were some posts between the illegal move and my realization, I could not "back in time" the move.

But as a GM, I have to create a believable world. One, where action of characters have consequences and aren't happening in some kind of void.

And even when I explained to them that this session in not supposed to be a detailed simulation of American court systems and instead I need to create a believable and logic world, they did not understand... =_='

Okay, so...

(1) I do not see how the fact that you noticed an error several posts later makes it impossible to undo. You and the players could absolutely retcon the move if you wanted. This is not a competitive game where undoing a mistake is unfair to the other competitive players. It's a cooperative game where I would like to think you and the players are working together to have fun and engaging gameplay, based on what each of you find fun and engaging in an RPG.

(2) Frankly, your job as ST/GM does not oblige you in any way to create a "believable"[*] world at the expense of running the game in the way you and the players have agreed on. If you like and prefer to to run games that way, we'll and good - at which point you then have to reckon with the players having a different idea of what is believable - but it is not a hard rule of being a GM. ([*] quote marks used to indicate direct quote rather than sarcasm)

(3) There is nothing wrong with players playing an RPG to enjoy a consequence-free escapist power fantasy. If that's not the kind of game you want to run, well and good, but if it's the kind of game your players want to play, it's time for a talk.

(4) Masks is a supers RPG. Coming to grips with the consequences of your actions is a genre convention, but being humiliated by ordinary cops generally isn't. To my mind if you're running a superhero game it's more important to play to genre. Find consequences that are interesting and fit the scope of the game. Not "I spit on a cop and now I'm getting arrested", but more like "I tried to stop this big time crook I'm not ready to deal with and now a ferry boat is cut in half and how do I keep it together or save the lives of everyone on it?"

All in all I think you and your players need to think about what you find fun or engaging about running or playing rpgs and then talk about those things and, as icefractal suggested, come to an agreement about how your superhero game will go.

[Rynjin]

Seems a strange hill for them to die on. I'd recommend against it; it sounds like they want to argue more than they want to play. I have found that if that form of argument carries from one session to the next, rather than being left at the session where it crops up (yeah, arguments happen), then it's time to step back since your desire is to play, not argue.

And ask one of them to be the ST.

Typically when an argument carries from one session to the next, it is an important issue to the group in question, yes.

In this case, due to a misunderstanding (both of rules and very different culture), a player is losing their character. It is udnerstandable that they would be upset at this, especially given the context that...makes zero sense to me.

So the players are accused of a crime they didn't commit.

A player then tries to talk their way out of a situation. Their attempt to do so is completely shut down by the GM because the police are, seemingly, corrupt and are willing to arrest a group of teenagers for attempting to explain themselves?

A player, understandably upset, spits on the officer.

The GM chooses to make a huge deal out of this for very little reason (from the player's perspective) and wants to charge a teen with assault and battery? Or "violating the dignity of a police officer", whatever the **** that means.

So now the player is railroaded into essentially losing his character permanently over what amounts to a failed Diplomacy check equivalent in this system. The GM refuses to discuss or compromise on this matter after the misunderstanding is clarified.

I would be more surprised if the argument DIDN'T persist between sessions, frankly, because this is absolutely the kind of thing that makes you second-guess whether you want to bother playing with this GM.

If the players in this group weren't already close friends, this is a scenario that usually ends with one player walking out of the game.

This is one of the CLASSIC new GM blunders, and should be a learning experience for OP. Learn to express yourself and the full context of a situation you have thrust the players into, instead of having to play on the defensive when you say one thing and a player hears another. Especially when there's a thick cultural, legal, and language barrier in the way that you were made fully aware of after the fact.

If the game exists in a dystopian version of the US where an officer can (legally) just arrest you with no cause, no warning, and no reading of your rights, that needs to be made clear up front so the players understand the context of the setting they're working in.

I find the hypocrisy of "I need to create a believable and logical world" combined with "...but I won't allow my players to correct me on a deep misunderstanding I possess about how the world works" very telling.

[TaiLiu]

There's definitely a communication issue here. It's possible that you and your players just want different kinds of games. The details are unimportant. Probably what you need to do is either pause or end the game, have a talk about what you want out of a game and what you find fun, and see if you're all compatible.

If the game exists in a dystopian version of the US where an officer can (legally) just arrest you with no cause, no warning, and no reading of your rights, that needs to be made clear up front so the players understand the context of the setting they're working in.

I mean, they totally can, though. Legally. So the OP's not wrong here. (But the wrongness or rightness isn't the point. The problem is that everyone has different expectations.)

[Rynjin]

I mean, they totally can, though. Legally. So the OP's not wrong here. (But the wrongness or rightness isn't the point. The problem is that everyone has different expectations.)

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.

[Kaworu]

Ok, so initially a player tries being reasonable / diplomatic. And fails because they don't have the adult move (incidentally, it seemed like you switched their result from "success" to "failure" because of that - shouldn't it instead have been switched from "success at the move they don't have" to "success at the nearest move they do have?").

Hm... in any other context, I could do it, yes. I mean, if the move they would take "illegally" would be Emphatize, I could always change that into Pierce The Mask. But since it was, em... Stand Up For Something or Persuade With Best Interest (I think the first one? I does not matter, really) there was no way to change that into the basic mechanics. Because there aren't really equivalent movements. And in PbtA, moves are everything, they shape what happens in the game, what are the responses of NPC, what can be done or what cannot be... I mean, it is pretty narrativist mechanics, but still, they are rules. And the most important one is this "roll dice to see what happens".

And in this case, there was not a way to roll them dices... =_='

And in context? Agents: "you have trouble, explain yourself!" Ed: "oh, I do not listen to you! You listen to me! Do what I tell you!". Kinda arresting the childish brat for misbehaving would be... logical, I would say?

As I say, when I have written this scene, I envisioned the solution "now we talk with you in A.E.G.I.S. rooms, now is the time for you to speak with some sense to us". I really couldn't envision Ed to violate the dignity of the office of federal agent... I mean, who does that?

But anyway, that's fine, it's fitting the genre of angsty teens who can't communicate well. And so the players lean into that, get aggressive with the cops - and that's bad too? So what are they supposed to do then?

Hm... not violate the law, maybe? And violating the dignity of agent on service is a serious legal trouble, I believe? I mean, what do you want me to do instead? Pretend that nothing happened, pretend that law does not exist and that Ed in now not a juvenile delinquent? What if violating more serious law would be also "fitting" with the game? Should I ignore that too? Where to put the impassable border and tell my players "no, sorry, you cannot do it. There are consequences"?

[quote]It seems like you have a scenario where the players best option is to act meek, plead ineffectively, and hope for mercy. Because reasonable talking won't work, neither will going aggro, and I doubt they have the ability to run away. [quote]

Reasonable talking? xD When they theird that, exactly? xD The problems is, they didn't do that, and that's why we have what we have currently.

I had a scenario where they should speak with some sense to the federal agents. Instead, they have offended the dignity of their office, they do not see what they did (like, totally) and the "explanations" they had given for their supposed crime were... well, ineffective. Like, literally "I am a SON OF a GODNESS and I am WHITE AND RICH, so what can you do to me? Better behave you cops or I won't save the world from my archenemy! It's me who's dealing the cards!".

Literally, I see no logic in their actions. Or at least things that would have helped to abbreviate the crisis.

How far into the campaign is this happening? Have the players had much chance to be more in-control and the ones driving the action before this? Has the trust that your actions are to make a great story and "be a fan of the characters" - not just a power trip - been built up? If that that trust is not there yet, I'm not surprised they balked.

Hm... pretty early in the campaign, I would say? Some folks had their first advance marked. We have fought one big villain (an elvish prince from another world with power over dreams), now we are set against the hacker/psionic, we have talked to love interest of Dean, with father of Ed and his mother, a godness of water, have appeared to Ed to give him his last legacy's powers... I would say that the game was going ok before that? And no, I am not set to punish my players and make their lives miserable. But I feel like every chance I put to them IC to at least try to control the damages was.... well, a missed chance. I really cannot do it ad infinitum, can I? I mean, at some points they should have just faces the consequences, I think?

My advice? Retcon. It seems like the consistency of the game world is important to you and having the police ignore the spitting for no reason would be too nonsensical. And I understand that, I prefer a strong-consistency style too. So instead:
1) Bring up with the group, OOC, that miscommunication happened and as a result the game seems stuck in a direction that you don't think will be fun for you or them.
2) Discuss what kind of tone / genre you're going for in the game and see if they agree. Come to a consensus on it. Yes, you can run whatever game you want, but the players don't have to play, so it's in everyone's best interests to reach an agreement if you want to play together.
3) Redo the session to be more in line with that discussion.

Hm... I mean, we could delete a few pages of game session. This would be... a very problematic, but theoretically (well, "theoretically") we could do it. However, the lack of logic of my players and their understanding "why A, why B" seems to be a problem here. And there is a possibility that such things will happen in the future too. "Back-in-time'ing" session is some solution, but to miscommunication only. If my players have some... weird beliefs about how the game should work, using time machine is not really a solution, cause it is not really that time of problem?

Also, we are kinda deep into the territory now, and it would require a lot of work. Eh... would like to avoid that, being honest?

(1) I do not see how the fact that you noticed an error several posts later makes it impossible to undo. You and the players could absolutely retcon the move if you wanted. This is not a competitive game where undoing a mistake is unfair to the other competitive players. It's a cooperative game where I would like to think you and the players are working together to have fun and engaging gameplay, based on what each of you find fun and engaging in an RPG.

Okay, so:

My post:

Agents: we would like to talk with you. You are accused of some crimes

Post of K.:

Ed: Oh, you absolutely need to apologize to us! And give us PR support! And congratulate us! (there was more of this nonsense, and really, Ed was kinda... cheeky? If the move would be legal, there would be some basic for working with that, but since he didn't have it... arresting them seemed logical? And yup, I thought at the time it would literally last for my one post...)

And after this post, there were actions of other players. So we should delete all this. Okay, had I know what would happen later, I COULD revise the scene. But I didn't know, so I did not. And as I said, I expected the whole arrest thing to be really temporary. And the illegal move isn't really the source of problem here, I would say that the real troubles started later. A little bit later, but still.

[Also, I think I MIGHT be kinda irritated, cause I gave given my players PDF copies of the game (it's CC-licensed, so that's legal). And instead of using them, K. was just googling moves from some kind of Wiki (???) and didn't realize which ones he can use and which one he cannot. And I needed to give him a literal prinscreen (with some GIMP markings) for him to realize "why" is was impossible, eh... =_=' I mean, there is a literal cheatsheet? =_='

This might influence the direction of my next post. But it was also hard to come up with something different and seemed not only like the preferable course of action, but in fact the only one?

Also, he was kinda... "whining" for long, long time, how "he liked my original post" (with response to illegal move I then thought is ok) "much better than the current one". Like, long, long, loooooong time. I have no idea if he understands how mechanics of PbtA truly works...? It was kinda... pointless talking to him?]

(2) Frankly, your job as ST/GM does not oblige you in any way to create a "believable"[*] world at the expense of running the game in the way you and the players have agreed on. If you like and prefer to to run games that way, we'll and good - at which point you then have to reckon with the players having a different idea of what is believable - but it is not a hard rule of being a GM. ([*] quote marks used to indicate direct quote rather than sarcasm)

Well, we have agrred on playing the young superheroes. With this mechanics. And we did. Nowhere did I said that the characters can willingly commit any kind of criminal offense and not face consequences, cause "we are white and rich, what they will do to us?" (...?).

I mean, this is a superheroing game. And yes, I can bend the rules. But not break them outright. And I believe law is also some kind of rule, would you agree?

(3) There is nothing wrong with players playing an RPG to enjoy a consequence-free escapist power fantasy. If that's not the kind of game you want to run, well and good, but if it's the kind of game your players want to play, it's time for a talk.

Hm... I have nothing against players roleplaying powerful characters? And yes, RPG is kind of escapism. But I feel like at the same time I cannot just "shoot a blind eye" at characters, their actions and their consequences? I mean, yes, my players can do anything they wanna with their characters. But so I am free to react to that as a GM. And, basically, I see no reason to agree to PC breaking the law "cause they are PC, so they are a special case". I mean, what kind of setting consistency is that? And where to put an end to ignoring PC's dangerous and inappropriate behaviour? Because there has to be a red line and now we are just discussing where to put it, now if we should?

(4) Masks is a supers RPG. Coming to grips with the consequences of your actions is a genre convention, but being humiliated by ordinary cops generally isn't. To my mind if you're running a superhero game it's more important to play to genre. Find consequences that are interesting and fit the scope of the game. Not "I spit on a cop and now I'm getting arrested", but more like "I tried to stop this big time crook I'm not ready to deal with and now a ferry boat is cut in half and how do I keep it together or save the lives of everyone on it?"

Eh... it was not "an ordinary cop" It was an agent of a federal agency that deals with superpowered humans. Something like FBI, but much more important? So this is somehow more serious, I would say? And I do not think they were really humiliated, they just were stopped to question them in the next post. Have they behaved properly and given logical explanations and answers, they would be free the post after that. They didn't do any of those things, so now we have problems.

And seriously, if anything, it was the agent humiliated by Ed, not Ed by other people. Especially considering how many chances to cooperate with the law I have given my players...

In this case, due to a misunderstanding (both of rules and very different culture), a player is losing their character. It is udnerstandable that they would be upset at this, especially given the context that...makes zero sense to me.

So the players are accused of a crime they didn't commit.

A player then tries to talk their way out of a situation. Their attempt to do so is completely shut down by the GM because the police are, seemingly, corrupt and are willing to arrest a group of teenagers for attempting to explain themselves?

Hm... it was not exactly like that? I mean, they weren't really "accused". Not in a way "we will arrest you no matter what". When the agents appeared, they wanted to talk and to get some answers to their questions and the story getting explained.

Then Ed was kinda... full of himself and like "You have to apologise to us! You need to give us PR support! We won't tell you who Dean is! You need to do this and this and this!". Like, he was making demands? If a police ask you questions, can you avoid them and give them a list of requirements, so maybe you will cooperate after fulfilling them? I mean, it does not work like that, right?

Like, he was not really cooperating? Had he talked like "listen, this and this and this happened, we didn't do A and B, it's all lie because..." my reaction as GM would be different. But since, instead of explaining himself kindly and peacefully to them agents, he started making demands of them (and he is just a teenager, what can he really expect?) and I do not really think he explained everything and in a way he should, I needed to take some action.

Also, I am not sure if you are familiar with PbTA mechanics? Basically, there are mechanical elements that are activated by fiction and you roll dices to check what happens (so nobody know how the session will unfold before players will start playing). And the move K. wanted to use, he could not. And the move was supposed to push the plot forward, in one way or the other. And since there was no "close" move he could use instead, I have chosen to treat the move as a total failure (cause, there was really no other option, it seems to me? I mean, I still stand by this decision).

And when I look at this now... uh... first Ed made some demands of the agents instead of cooperating with them and explaining what really happened (they weren't really accused of anything at that time, there was some things that weren't clear to agents and they wanted some information before proceeding) then they all act like big children and not only do not explain (again!) what had happened, but feel like victims in a case when they have acted highly offensive (and illegally!). And the only line of defense I heard from both characters and players was "oh, we are white and rich, what can they do to us".

...?

I mean, I totally see no logic in that behaviour?

The GM chooses to make a huge deal out of this for very little reason (from the player's perspective) and wants to charge a teen with assault and battery? Or "violating the dignity of a police officer", whatever the **** that means.

I dunno for American law, but in Polish one, if you spit or a police officer or attack him physically during his service (even if it is "only" a slap) it is a crime. You can do to jail for up to 3 years. And it's a criminal offense, prosecuted ex officio. There is literally no way in Poland to physically attack a police officer (and spitting is treated as attack there, but the law is more about dignity of a person than physical damages they can suffer, actually) and do not face consequences.. And we all are Polish and we all are aware of that fact.

Here is the law:

Art. 222. [Violation of the bodily integrity of an officer]
§ 1.
Whoever violates the physical integrity of a public official or a person to help him foster him during or in connection with the performance of official duties,
is subject to a fine, restriction of liberty or imprisonment for up to 3 years.

So, at least from Polish perspective, attacking a policeman is not "whatever the **** is that". It's violation of criminal law, which every Polish person is aware. And as I said, I treat US law in my session as a fork of Polish one.

So now the player is railroaded into essentially losing his character permanently over what amounts to a failed Diplomacy check equivalent in this system. The GM refuses to discuss or compromise on this matter after the misunderstanding is clarified.

Eh... failed diplomacy check depends on the dices. This here was caused only by character's actions IC and nothing else? And as I said, I tried to work around this (as much as I could) but I would not achieve any kind of compromise or understanding that the characters has committed a criminal offense and is now in serious legal troubles.

This is one of the CLASSIC new GM blunders, and should be a learning experience for OP. Learn to express yourself and the full context of a situation you have thrust the players into, instead of having to play on the defensive when you say one thing and a player hears another. Especially when there's a thick cultural, legal, and language barrier in the way that you were made fully aware of after the fact.

I kinda do not know what you mean here? We are playing in Polish (which is our mother language), we share the same culture? Maybe my players expected more American law and I use more Polish one, but none of us is a lawyer and I never promised full legal simulation (in fact, the legal stuff that now came up wasn't required and is simply a consequence of the characters' behaviour). And I wouldn't really call "miscommunication" here a problem, rather lack of logic of my players? I tried, I really tried to explain to them everything, both IN and OOC, but they simply do not listen... and I think even when I have a reasonable NPC-lawyer trying to explain to them what is happening, what the consequences can be and what could be done, and they are like "oh, what do you want? We know better! NO BID DEAL!!!" (as I said, this is a criminal offense in Polish law, so yup, a big deal?) then... my hands drop?

If the game exists in a dystopian version of the US where an officer can (legally) just arrest you with no cause, no warning, and no reading of your rights, that needs to be made clear up front so the players understand the context of the setting they're working in.

The officers just went to talk. They did not got any kind of proper answers, and since they suspected PCs could commit a crime, they arrested them, Not to punish them, but to bring them into an interrogation room, cause maybe there they would be more talk-active?

And yup, not reading them their rights was kind of a blunder here. However, such thing exist ONLY in American law, and for sure not in Polish one. In Poland, when you get arrested you just get arrested. There is no spoken text that need to be heard in order for the arrest to be valid. And we are all Polish. In fact, I think America is the only place in the world that treats arrests the way it does. Kinda expecting that people from other cultural and language backgrounds will do everything exactly the way Americans do is... not so smart?

As I said, we all are Polish speakers and citizens. So I decided (maybe I should said so before? But also, I totally didn't expect this game to focus on court procedings...) that we will apply Polish legal order, with which we are all familiar. And no, none of us is an actual lawyers, so still, we treat this very lightly. This game was not supposed to be an exact simulation of any legal order. No game is, I believe, and maybe no game should be(?).

You know that there are different countries than US? And the law there is different? And even the basic of American law that are obvious to you as an American, can be confusing and not-so-obvious to foreigners? Because, I think, you right now treat American law as something universal, international and obvious, (translucent, even?) to every person in the world? Which is, simply, not the case?

I find the hypocrisy of "I need to create a believable and logical world" combined with "...but I won't allow my players to correct me on a deep misunderstanding I possess about how the world works" very telling.

...?

I would not call myself a hypocrite? The game is, well, just a game. And I am a GM. Would you call me a hypocrite if I would ST, I dunno, Quickstart for Eclipse Phase 2nd edition (and would ST only basing on that) and my players would read the corebook and know the word better than me? And then they would "correct" me, and I would just say "it's my session, my setting vary, deal with it".

You would not, right? And I see no reason to treat knowledge (or lack of) of a foreign legal order any different.

Okay, let's say you ST a game. And it turns out that your players find themselves at some point in France. And they have legal troubles. And one of the players is a professor of French law and he tells you how this should be done, with every little, academic detail. Is he technically right, or can you ignore him?

I mean, when you are a GM and your PC is a medical doctor, do you HAVE TO know medicine? All the laws of neurosurgery, if they are operating someones brain? Do you know Latin if a PC in Call of Cthulhu reads Necronomicon? So you can realistically roleplay the errors in translation? Do you know all the sciences if you roleplay a hard sci fi game? Quantum physics, limitation of quantum computer, higher mathematics and what can it do? Every chemical reaction, every piece of genetic code and what proteins information it does contain? Can you play sci-fi game without all this knowledge, or can you not? Not knowing all the scientific facts (like, the sum of humanity's knowledge) during a sci-fi games makes you a hypocrite, or not?

No, I suppose? Does the lack of knowledge is a big, impossible to bypass problem, or you just use your common sense and guesstimate and go further, not leaning above every single detail, academic or scientific? Is the game supposed to be a game and we assume some things (maybe incorrectly, maybe a lot of times) or are we making a detailed, perfect, scientifically accurate simulation of our world?

...?

Well, I hope that next time, when you are ST and you player is playing a neurosurgeon, you know all the laws of medicine, pharmacology and medical practice. Otherwise, you will not allow for your players to, em... "to correct you on a deep misunderstanding you possess about how the world works". Because now knowing every single detail is a "deep misunderstanding" and doing so is "being a hypocrite".

Okay, so I "am' a hypocrite. Cause as a Polish person, I do not know American law (terrific, isn't it?!) But by extension, as a non-scientist, I cannot play any sci-fi RPG. I do not know classical languages (or psychiatry) so I cannot play Call of Cthulhu. I am not a doctor of medicine, so no medics would be allowed as PC in my games. Etc. This is what you wanna argue? Is that really a hypocrisy?

...

Sorry, but I kinda have no words. By this logics, we should never play Eclipse Phase, cause we do not know how the sciences will develop in 100 years and as such, we cannot make this simulation 100% credible. Yes?

[King of Nowhere]

But yes, I think I might end the game prematurely with "Ed went to jail, end of the story". I mean, I cannot really violate the logic of the game world, can I? :/

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.

[KorvinStarmast]

But yes, I think I might end the game prematurely with "Ed went to jail, end of the story". I mean, I cannot really violate the logic of the game world, can I? :/

There's a lot of room to work there, since you seem to be doing a modest amount of emulation in your scenario. The real world has inconsistencies and imperfections, cops who are sympathetic rather than authoritarian, officials and teachers and shop keepers who are not 100% rational - I am not sure if your concern about the sanctity of the game world's logic needs to trump the play. While failure needs to be an option if there is to be any meaning to success, how is success measured?

You know the players pretty well: how do you think they will react to Ed went to jail, end of story - will they see it as failure, will they see it as the logical consequence of various actions and decisions in play, or will they see it as something else? If you couch that in terms of the story reaching its rational conclusion, what then? Will you all switch to a different game? Will someone else be the ST for the next game? What is your vision of what the group does next?

For example, what if Ed's parents bail him out of jail and he is charged with some crime (misdemeanor?)
What if, when Ed is brought into the station, the desk sergeant, or the lieutenant on duty, doesn't put him in the jail but instead writes him a citation and a summons, since his jail is full of drunk and disorderly sorts who just got hauled in due to a huge brawl at a bar in a different neighborhood? This opens up some night court, juvenile court, or big argument with his parents when he gets home and he's got a court date.

There are a number of ways that the world can present a different set of decision points for the police as a whole.

So now the player is railroaded into essentially losing his character permanently over what amounts to a failed Diplomacy check equivalent in this system.

Or an attack/assault. If you go spitting on people, which is not a diplomatic way to engage with someone, be they a difficult person or otherwise. I don't think that persuasion is the mechanic involved.

Most RPGs work on "actions have consequences" as a means of making player choices both meaningful and entertaining.

That the players and the ST have a different mental map of the game world is certainly one of the issues here.

[Rynjin]

I don't have time to respond to everything ATM, but my impression from the description of the situation was that the player in question was American, which is why they immediately jumped to the HS legal system as the core of their argument, mea culpa. I'll respond to the rest later.

Or an attack/assault. If you go spitting on people, which is not a diplomatic way to engage with someone, be they a difficult person or otherwise. I don't think that persuasion is the mechanic involved.

Most RPGs work on "actions have consequences" as a means of making player choices both meaningful and entertaining.

The spitting happened after the unlawful arrest. At the point you're being taken prisoner illegally it's safe to say diplomatic relations have broken down already.

[KorvinStarmast]

The spitting happened after the unlawful arrest. At the point you're being taken prisoner illegally it's safe to say diplomatic relations have broken down already.

Whether an unrest is unlawful or not is usually determined after the fact, but we are drifting into RL stuff here that threatens to derail the thread, so I'll just stop.

[Xervous]

I’ll echo the importance of retcon here as well as the importance of clarifying the consequences of hazardous actions before they are resolved. The player appears to be arguing about the laws because they have been given no other option for averting this unexpected and uninvited outcome.

[Batcathat]

I’ll echo the importance of retcon here as well as the importance of clarifying the consequences of hazardous actions before they are resolved. The player appears to be arguing about the laws because they have been given no other option for averting this unexpected and uninvited outcome.

I'm not sure if getting in trouble over spitting on a federal agent in the middle of being arrested really count as an unexpected outcome.

That said, I don't think it would mean very serious trouble in most countries. So assuming their other issues (being falsely accused of some crimes and whatnot) are cleared up, it seems reasonable that they would get away with something like a fine.

Depending on how the false accusations were handled, I could also see the agents letting them off with a warning purely for PR reasons. Basically, if they push the issue it might get out that they basically got tricked into arresting people, which would arguably be more humiliating than being spat on.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm not sure if getting in trouble over spitting on a federal agent in the middle of being arrested really count as an unexpected outcome.

Indeed, the disagreement at the table seems to be in the severity of the reaction.

Depending on how the false accusations were handled,

It seems to me that trying to expose the falsity of the accusations opens up a whole sub arc of the plot - which could be really cool to play out. But since the outcome was not expected, in terms of severity of the world reacting to their choice, the player went into OOC PvP mode with the ST due to the above mentioned (by numerous posters) difference of a mental map of how the world works.

[Kaworu]

Hi people ;-)

I see there was some kind of confusion. So let me begin with the most basic facts:

1. I am Polish. I live in Poland my whole life. Polish is my native language.
2. The same can be told about my friends/players.
3. None of us was ever in America, even for a day.
4. We play in Polish on a Polish forum.

And as such, I do not really "know" USA. Instead, I have some kind of impression of the country. Some things in this impression are probably less or more true, some probably aren't. This includes also impressions of USA of my friends.

And, of course, would I be STing for Americans and they would inform me "law is different in US, please, change that" I would! Really! But since I am playing with other Poles, kinda treating "America" in the game (at least in case of American law, which really none of us truly understands) as copy of Poland is... okay, I would say? I mean, we know SOMETHING (not much, I am afraid, just the basics) about law and court proceedings in Poland, but much, much less about such things beyond the Atlantic ocean. So... I believe it is acceptable?

Also, Rynjin:

I am sorry. When I was responding to your post, I was kinda "sharp" (like, a knife can be sharp? And you can bleed because of a sharp knife?). Now I better understand your perspective and how you acted on that. And were you right, this kind of post would be totally ok. The truth was different, but from what you thought of me at that time, this response was ok. Really.

So I wanna say that I am sorry. I hope I was not offensive? :( One million apologies, seriously!

Also, thank you all. Thanks to talking with you, I realized that ending this session (even on a sad note "Ed went to jail") is not the end of the world. And maybe I will do it, maybe not, I will see. But, certainly, I can and this will be not something as bad as I have thought.

Plus, my friendship with my players will not end, and we could play some more in the future ;-) Maybe I will ST for them Fate? ;-)

So thank you, I would not have this perspective if I had not talked with you about that. Thankies! :D

[Grod_The_Giant]

But as a GM, I have to create a believable world. One, where action of characters have consequences and aren't happening in some kind of void.

Not exactly-- your job as GM is to create an ENJOYABLE world, where everyone (including yourself) has fun. Logical consequences are usually part of the process, yes, but if internal setting logic would create a dull or frustrating outcome, they should absolutely be overruled.

That doesn't mean there should be NO consequences, just that they should be interesting ones. "You go to jail" usually isn't an interesting consequence.

[KorvinStarmast]

That doesn't mean there should be NO consequences, just that they should be interesting ones. "You go to jail" usually isn't an interesting consequence.

I disagree; it opens up new avenues and choices for all of the players as they try to get that PC out of jail ... raise bail money ... contact parents/lawyers to get assistance ... call the Newspaper and get a reporter down there ... organize a small protest outside of the police station (and use the phone cam to try to spread it virally)... seems to me that there's a failure in imagination going on to a certain level.

[neonchameleon]

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. And you can go to jail for that. 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 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.

This does not mean there would (or should) be no consequences. But unless there were already charges being pressed or some sort of aggravation (e.g. it was made with a coronavirus or other disease threat or the super had acid spit) the consequences would almost certainly be sub-legal ones. When I say sub-legal ones, the guy who spat is first going to be fitted with a spit-hood as part of the arrest and treated more roughly, and then is going to be put in the worst cell. Whether that's the one with the broken toilet, the one with the broken air conditioning, the one with the really obnoxious pipes, or simply the one with the drunk who shat himself stinking the place up I don't know but it would be notably more unpleasant than everyone else's experience, and pointedly so right up to being let go a few hours later than everyone else. And that's before whatever his boss/supervisor has to say.

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) I would expect the outcome to be some sort of community service. If he enjoys spitting so much he can clean something up. Probably removing litter from wasteland wearing a high-vis orange vest - where other people can see his sentence and interact with him. Which makes for more rather than less interest at the game. A straight up jail sentence is probably pretty unrealistic - and is effectively equivalent to a PC death sentence if you don't want the PCs to go right outside the law and be seen as villains.

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."

[Grod_The_Giant]

I disagree; it opens up new avenues and choices for all of the players as they try to get that PC out of jail ... raise bail money ... contact parents/lawyers to get assistance ... call the Newspaper and get a reporter down there ... organize a small protest outside of the police station (and use the phone cam to try to spread it virally)... seems to me that there's a failure in imagination going on to a certain level.

I mean, yes, you can spin a story out of anything, but...

A) That leaves that one PC twiddling their thumbs in jail while everyone else works to clear their name. Even if you come up with stuff for the jailed PC to do, even if said story intersects regularly with the rest of the group's, there's such a hard line between "imprisoned" and "at large" that you're effectively running two separate games for god knows how long.

B) Whatever ongoing plot the party was already pursuing gets shut down for however long it takes to free their buddy.

C) The new direction forced on the campaign is likely to conflict with the original premise of the game. If I signed up for an "angsty high-school superheroes" game, I'd feel kind of robbed if I had to stop and spend a month playing lawyer/investigative reporter/criminal justice crusader/whatever.


(If I sound overly harsh, it's probably because all this actually happened to me once, with the added fun caviat of the actual arrest happening during a session we knew I wasn't going to be available. My character wound up in prison and the game sidetracked for weeks while everyone tried to figure out legal codes and come up with a winning trial strategy. It was... not the best experience, and I'm pretty sure it's to blame for the game dying before we ever got to trial).


Edit:

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.

There's also this. I'd expect consequences for spitting on a cop, but I'd expect them to be "he smacks my head off the roof while putting me in the car" or "unnecessary tasing," not...

... well, okay, I can imagine police escalating things in reveng, but that's a forum-rule-violating hornet's nest best avoided.

[icefractal]

Also, he was kinda... "whining" for long, long time, how "he liked my original post" (with response to illegal move I then thought is ok) "much better than the current one". Like, long, long, loooooong time. I have no idea if he understands how mechanics of PbtA truly works...? It was kinda... pointless talking to him?]

...

Also, I am not sure if you are familiar with PbTA mechanics? Basically, there are mechanical elements that are activated by fiction and you roll dices to check what happens (so nobody know how the session will unfold before players will start playing). And the move K. wanted to use, he could not. And the move was supposed to push the plot forward, in one way or the other. And since there was no "close" move he could use instead, I have chosen to treat the move as a total failure (cause, there was really no other option, it seems to me? I mean, I still stand by this decision).

I think maybe you need to clarify what happened, because the picture is vague. Is this correct?

PC: *makes argument / demand for the agents to back off / assist, rolls success*
DM: *based on that, has the agents partially or totally agree*
<several more posts>
DM: *realizes that the specific move was invalid*
DM: *has the agents arrest everyone instead, changing the result to total failure*

Thing is - the way you described his demands, it sounds perfectly fitting for the move "Provoke Someone" - possible more fitting than for the adult move. Now what that means depends on the players' initial roll:
On a 10+, Provoke Someone does cause them to do what you wanted.
On a 7-9, it might, or they could instead stumble in several ways.

But even more generally, PbtA is not supposed to be Simon Says. If a player made a mistake and used a move they couldn't, then figure out together what move would make sense and roll that (or keep the original roll and apply it to that, either is fine).

[KorvinStarmast]

I mean, yes, you can spin a story out of anything

Which is the whole freaking point of RPGs.

As Sergeant Helka once advised: Lighten up, Francis

If your PC is temporarily inconvenienced, it's no big deal. It's a part of the game.
Ever been turned to stone?
Ever been held?
Ever been paralyzed?
Ever been charmed?

Yeah, you don't rage quit over that unless you are a problem player, so why rage quit over a different unexpected obstacle? RPGs too hard? (Obviously, for Grod, the answer to that is no)
That rhetorical question is posed to those who throw tantrums over unexpected outcomes during the course of an RPG, which seems to be a part of what is operating in the OP's problem statement.

[Rynjin]

Also, Rynjin:

I am sorry. When I was responding to your post, I was kinda "sharp" (like, a knife can be sharp? And you can bleed because of a sharp knife?). Now I better understand your perspective and how you acted on that. And were you right, this kind of post would be totally ok. The truth was different, but from what you thought of me at that time, this response was ok. Really.

So I wanna say that I am sorry. I hope I was not offensive? :( One million apologies, seriously!

I also have a pretty abrasive posting style (as displayed in this thread as well), so it'd be kind of hypocritical of me to hold it against you. =p

Also, thank you all. Thanks to talking with you, I realized that ending this session (even on a sad note "Ed went to jail") is not the end of the world. And maybe I will do it, maybe not, I will see. But, certainly, I can and this will be not something as bad as I have thought.

Plus, my friendship with my players will not end, and we could play some more in the future ;-) Maybe I will ST for them Fate? ;-)

So thank you, I would not have this perspective if I had not talked with you about that. Thankies! :D

I don't think you should end the game, but a re-examining of what's happening in the game and how it should be approached is important, I think. This is the most important takeaway:

is not the end of the world...Plus, my friendship with my players will not end, and we could play some more in the future ;-)

The most important thing for a game IMO is everyone is having fun, and everyone stays friends. Everything else is pretty well secondary to that. I think it's worth being a little flexible when it comes to interpreting players' actions, asking them to clarify what they meant to do, how they're interpreting a scene like this, and so on in order to facilitate that main goal.

It is, indeed, not the end of the world if things might need to be reversed back and slowed down a little bit when new information is introduced to a scenario.

To go back to one of your earlier examples, if I'm setting a game in France, I definitely don't think I need to be an expert on French culture and history. But I do expect to do enough research to make it seem real, and if I DID have an expert in French law at the table who wanted to add some input to a courtroom scene, I would think it's important to listen to them if they try to explain that what I'm doing is incorrect if it's going to lead to a big shift in the campaign. If a small change in perspective can lead to a big change in what's happening, I think it's worth taking that into account.

A big part of GMing (or "STing" for the system you're running, though I've never found Storyteller abbreviations to roll off the tongue very well) is being flexible and rolling with the punches, and a big part of storytelling in general is knowing when "rule of cool" for lack of a better term might trump actual reality.

[Razade]

Hi people! I am STing for the first time in forever and I have a serious problem with my players.

We are playing a Masks: A New Generation campaign. My players and characters are: Diana, a Doomed played by G.; Dean, a Janus by O; and Ed, a Legacy by K.

Bacially, we have a hacker/psionics behind-the-screen enemy that they themselves wanted to introduce (as a language joke). And because he used his psionics and hacking skills to manipulate the mass opinion of them, agents of A.E.G.I.S went to them to talk with them. Because their problems were serious and they needed to take care of that. Like, they were accused of some crimes and the should explain themselves to the agents.

This is when complications began. K. used an adult move he didn't bought (and was veeeery suprised that he cannot make it... =_='). It was Persuade With Best Interest I think... or maybe Stand UP For Something? And since we are playing a PBF game, and they were some posts between the illegal move and my realization, I could not "back in time" the move. So, instead, I wrote basing on the material. Which in this case meant arresting them "spoiled brats who thinks they are equal to 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. And you can go to jail for that. And if I spitted on a policeman when he would be trying to arrest me, I would have serious legal troubles. For a reason.

So I wanted some consequences out of Ed. Cause this was clearly a criminal act. And a great humiliation for the agent in question.

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?!"

...

It is my serious belief that neither characters of my players, neither them fully understand what had happened and the gravity of their situation. But as a GM, I have to create a believable world. One, where action of characters have consequences and aren't happening in some kind of void.

So, my players do not understand what the fuzz is about. 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).
2. Jurors in courts (again, we do not have that in Poland).

...

It is my opinion that they focus much more on my lack of knowledge of American law than on roleplaying their characters in a way that would allow them to leave the headquearters of A.E.G.I.S without criminal conviction. And even when I explained to them that this session in not supposed to be a detailed simulation of American court systems and instead I need to create a believable and logic world, they did not understand... =_='

This, in fact, reminds me of a situation in which GM know setting to a lesser extend than his players. And in such a thing, the proper response is "my setting vary, deal with it". I just told them that my USA vary and there is nothing they can do. I am afraid they still will not understand... =_='

But really, I wonder if there is any reason in continuing this game. Do not get me wrong, I like the game. And I like my friends. BUT (!) their insistence that "nothing had happened" (excuse me? and battery (pol. "naruszenie nietykalności cielesnej", not sure how I should translate that, it is a highly legal term...)???) and their constant instructing me about American law and "how this should be different!" is taking away the joy of STing. In fact, I just have given Ed the last chance to behave properly and I have no idea what I will do, if he will not (which is very probable...). 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*

I really do not know what to do. I try to talk to them OOC, but they seem to not understand what is happening right now both in game and outside of it.

Any good advice? I could use some right now... :(

PS. I hope this is the right subforum for posting that...? I really do not know...? Sorry? :(

It sounds like some misunderstandings with the system (and lack of system knowledge because it's pretty clear in the core book what Adult moves are and how you can use them), and them being argumentative in general. Also, they don't know American Law as well as they think they do but we can't really get into that here.

You should remind your players that in Masks, one of the assumptions is that the characters are heroes. They're not activating very heroic. I'd even argue that mind controlling people for the purposes they did is a downright villainous act.