How Do I Have Consequences for Murderhoboism?

[Max_Killjoy]

Yes, it is reasonable not to make rolls over forgone conclusions. That is not what you're suggesting, though. You're suggesting more than skipping over making attack rolls. You're suggesting skipping over the entire scene.

And what you're doing with that is denying players the chance for characterization. And the example conversation you posted with you repeatedly cutting the players off mid-sentence and bulldozing over their own desires is particularly grating.

I once had a player who wanted to play out a sexual assault against someone who had no way to resist his character. I pretty much took the same approach as Jay R.

Me: "Really?"
P: "Yeah!"
Me: "Looking at your character, there's no way she can resist or get away or even kill herself to stop you. The crowds outsides are..." rolls dice, hoping... "too loud for anyone to hear her screaming."
P: "Great, so I start by..."
Me: "Fine, you do it, you have your way with her."
P: "OK, so I..."
Me: "It's done, you did it, you succeeded, refer to crass slang here. What next?"
P: "But..."
Me: "If you need to think about what you do next, I can move on to another character for now."


Depending on just how far the players are willing to go once they start killing town guards and shopkeepers to get their way, they're going to hit a moral event horizon and as the GM, I wouldn't play out their actions in detail.

[ArgentumRegio]

I am actually perfectly fine with murderhobos since most of my games are improv anyways, but I have issue with how to demonstrate that acting this way in just about every society is likely to not condone this behavior. See at level one if they murder random people, I can have the town guard come after them to demonstrate this.

But if Dave the Murderhobo 14th level Barbarian and his buddies come to town, ordinary guards ain't gonna cut it. However it feels cheap to have 20th level paladins appear out of the woodwork. So how should I demonstrate that doing crazy things can lead to consequences without creating ridiculous worlds in which a tiny village has 10th level fighter cops?

The PCs are not the FIRST characters to reach level 14. There are many even ahead of them in terms of level; these are scattered through the world but they are there. While the murdered person or the guard who confronts them initially may be low level (and likely is) they may have friends, or overlords who take murdering their subjects rather seriously.

Young persons, observing the murder of their relatives could swear an oath of vengence, make pacts with powerful patrons, bring chaos to the murderhobo's future.

When level is high, it can be overwhelmed by massively superior numbers; government often frowns on wanton murder and may take a stand.

[NichG]

All very true, and well detailed. My comments about challenges (and those too will arise as consequences, even if separate from your examples) was more a rejection of the idea that the PCs can ever guarantee their own superiority over all threats -- if the PCs can do something, someone else can do it too.

To me, the issue here is there's a sort of double standard which risks things spilling out into OOC. If we assume that before this rampant murderhoboism began, the campaign was following along lines in which some kind of tension placed the fate of X (city, country, world, etc) in the hands of the PCs and the PCs alone. That implies that as long as the PCs are breaking things up to and including X in scale, there actually aren't other threats ready to come to bear against those who threaten the peace. If suddenly they come out of the woodwork because they PCs are misbehaving, but didn't come out to help protect against whatever the PCs were originally supposed to deal with, then there's a dissonance.

To a player, that dissonance reads as 'whatever the DM says, really this is happening because they're ticked off that we played murderhobos'. That particular line goes to a few different places depending on various factors, but none of them are really good gaming.

That's not to say 'don't challenge the players', but do watch out for developing an instinct as DM to respond to anomalous behavior from the players by pushing back against it more strongly than when they do the expected. Instead, often a pull can be more effective and surprising to the players - rather than spend those extra cycles thinking about what could go wrong, thinking about what could go too right can be a way to avoid that trap.

[Koo Rehtorb]

I once had a player who wanted to play out a sexual assault against someone who had no way to resist his character. I pretty much took the same approach as Jay R.

Me: "Really?"
P: "Yeah!"
Me: "Looking at your character, there's no way she can resist or get away or even kill herself to stop you. The crowds outsides are..." rolls dice, hoping... "too loud for anyone to hear her screaming."
P: "Great, so I start by..."
Me: "Fine, you do it, you have your way with her."
P: "OK, so I..."
Me: "It's done, you did it, you succeeded, refer to crass slang here. What next?"
P: "But..."
Me: "If you need to think about what you do next, I can move on to another character for now."


Depending on just how far the players are willing to go once they start killing town guards and shopkeepers to get their way, they're going to hit a moral event horizon and as the GM, I wouldn't play out their actions in detail.

What you're doing here is avoiding the actual topic in a way that's probably bad for the group. If you're uncomfortable with something don't try to pass off playing it because there's "no challenge". Say "I'm uncomfortable playing this out in detail. Let's gloss over it and move on." Don't disguise it as the GM having the exclusive right to frame what scenes happen.

Apart from anything else, that gives no framework for players to request glossing over a scene they're uncomfortable with. Everyone has the right to request that the group moves past something uncomfortable for them, including the GM. This is not part of the GM's job.

[Gizmogidget]

To be honest, this sounds like a terrible idea to me that will end up frustrating both DM and players.

Basically, the players are telling you: "We'd like to play this!" and the DM telling them: "No, we're not gonna do that. No discussion, shut up, you don't get to have an opinion here.", in my book, that's not exactly a foundation for a game everyone will have fun with.

This right here, I don't mind the evilness I would just like to sensibly challenge them.

[Elvenoutrider]

In a world where superpowered people like the player characters exist, the local governments would have to have a contingency in place to deal with them. They might not be able to show up immediately but if the pcs start killing villagers, he lords and king will eventually get together to come up with a way to end the threat - they will hire other heroes to go kill them safe as any roving monster. In a high magic setting the villages could even have an alarm that signals a wizard that he needs to teleport in with 5 friends to deal with a high level threat.

Watch a superhero show and see how local governments deal with heroes and villains. You can see some inspiration

[Calthropstu]

When word of this adventuring group trouncing local police, murdering at will and making a mockery of the city guard, generally I would begin setting a trap. A 20th level character would likely become indirectly involved.

Have a 20th level caster throw a few divinations and some bindings. have them all set up in a town town the pcs are sure to go to. Use angels.

When the pcs walk into town now filled with nothing but angels disguised as humans and dogs(see hound archon), and they begin their assault, the angels will suddenly pummel the crap out of them.

As a side note however, I could easily wipe a 14th level party with a bunch of low level characters.

a 5th level mage supporting a cadre of 50 1st level warriors? Fire arrow, give each warrior a potion of true strike and you're looking at 1 dead barbarian.

[ShaneMRoth]

...
Pillage a defenseless village? Fine. That takes one sentence. You will not roll for every attack against peasants for the same reason you won't roll for each chop of the axe when cutting firewood.

...
You're suggesting skipping over the entire scene.

And what you're doing with that is denying players the chance for characterization. And the example conversation you posted with you repeatedly cutting the players off mid-sentence and bulldozing over their own desires is particularly grating.

I would also skip over the entire scene.

I don't see the opportunity for characterization to be had from pillaging a defenseless village.

I once had a player who wanted to play out a sexual assault against someone who had no way to resist his character. I pretty much took the same approach as Jay R.
...

What you're doing here is avoiding the actual topic in a way that's probably bad for the group.

... Don't disguise it as the GM having the exclusive right to frame what scenes happen.
...
This is not part of the GM's job.

I respectfully disagree.

Framing scenarios and encounters is the GM's job. It's more of a duty than a right, but the authority to frame scenes and encounters is vested in the GM... in role-playing games in general, and in D&D in specific.

No other single player is in a position to perform this function, and the function is necessary to keep a game from foundering.

For example, I believe that it's bad for the group to allow one player to suck all the oxygen out of the game room by letting him play out a sexual assault in pornographic detail.

Instead...

Me: "Yeah, you raped the defenseless girl. You raped the **** out of her, Anti-Hero. And... SCENE."

And, I too, would cut off the player in mid-sentence if he didn't take the hint. (Spoiler Alert: It's always a he.) I might even throw in a Sarcastic Slow Clap just to drive home the point that I, as the GM, am goddamn done with that particular encounter.

As to the notion of the players making a "unanimous" decision, I don't believe that it's "unanimous" if the GM votes no. Because, as GM, I consider myself a player, too.

I submit that what's bad for the group is for the GM to be treated sub-ordinate to the will of any one player, or even to the collective will of the other players present.

Having said that, I also don't believe that the GM's authority is absolute. That authority is founded on the trust of the players. And if the players lose their confidence in my ability to serve as GM, then my authority (that is, my ability to perform my duty) is lost.

If you don't trust your GM's judgment-- at all-- then the game was over before it even began.

Look hard enough and you will find a reason to distrust your GM, because all GMs are prone to making bad decisions from time to time.

When I'm serving as GM, I try to prevent the perfect from being the enemy of the good. And I consider it my duty (as opposed to my right) to preserve the narrative flow of the game. And I use my authority as GM to that end, and that includes framing scenes, scenarios, and encounters.

Time management is the most fundamental aspect of being a GM. There are players, and I mean good players, who will flog a personal agenda into the ground and consume the bulk of a game session on that agenda if the GM doesn't set boundaries and doesn't manage time.

...and... SCENE.

[Coidzor]

Matt Mercer had a nice little section on that before how to run an evil campaign.

Maybe talk to your group about letting off some steam by just intentionally setting out to be evil bastards for a while?

[JMAP94]

Well i mean, yeah at first theyd just be killing run of the mill guards left and right, but eventually the villagers would start complaining about what is essentially a group of genghis khans ravaging the countryside to the king and the level 20 paladins would probably be stationed in towns nearby to deal with what is essentially an invasion. you could even have dieties involved, maybe the count, realizing that his king cannot save his people from attacks, makes a deal with a demon idk. if your players are getting murderhoboy on your world, make a murder hobo campaign, and get murderhoboey on your players.

[Koo Rehtorb]

I would also skip over the entire scene.

I don't see the opportunity for characterization to be had from pillaging a defenseless village.

And just because you don't see it doesn't mean that the players don't see it. If they want to play it through, clearly they see something that interests them in the prospect.

Framing scenarios and encounters is the GM's job. It's more of a duty than a right, but the authority to frame scenes and encounters is vested in the GM... in role-playing games in general, and in D&D in specific.

No other single player is in a position to perform this function, and the function is necessary to keep a game from foundering.

Of course no other single player is in a position to frame scenes. This is why it's the responsibility of the entire group. The GM can do it. Players can also do it. "Does anyone have a scene they want to get done now?" should be a frequent question in all groups and all games.

For example, I believe that it's bad for the group to allow one player to suck all the oxygen out of the game room by letting him play out a sexual assault in pornographic detail.

I don't disagree (With the caveat of there potentially being some weird outlier group that's all totally on board with it. I don't judge.) What I disagree with is it being the responsibility of the GM to shepherd the sweet innocent group around these pitfalls. If some weirdo wants to play out rape scenes everyone in the group is allowed to object to it. This is not the GM's job. This is the job of a group of presumably mature adults engaging in a social activity together. The GM is not in charge of the group. The one exception is if there is another reason beyond them being the GM why they should have a position of social authority. Like the GM being an adult GMing a group of literal children.

Edit - actually, probably the other exception is if you're playing a one-shot and you need to keep the group hyper focused because there's an extremely limited amount of time to get to a satisfying conclusion.

As to the notion of the players making a "unanimous" decision, I don't believe that it's "unanimous" if the GM votes no. Because, as GM, I consider myself a player, too.

I submit that what's bad for the group is for the GM to be treated sub-ordinate to the will of any one player, or even to the collective will of the other players present.

Yes! Exactly! The GM is a player too. It's not that no one has the right to frame scenes or object to offensive material. It's that everyone does, including the GM.

People need to not confuse "GM authority" with "people authority". If you use GM authority where people authority is appropriate then it sends all kinds of unfortunate messages.

[Max_Killjoy]

What you're doing here is avoiding the actual topic in a way that's probably bad for the group. If you're uncomfortable with something don't try to pass off playing it because there's "no challenge". Say "I'm uncomfortable playing this out in detail. Let's gloss over it and move on." Don't disguise it as the GM having the exclusive right to frame what scenes happen.

Apart from anything else, that gives no framework for players to request glossing over a scene they're uncomfortable with. Everyone has the right to request that the group moves past something uncomfortable for them, including the GM. This is not part of the GM's job.

Given my gut reaction, what I did was the least-bad immediate response.

But later...

Spoiler

Show

After some time to think about it, I decided that the NPC girl (yes, girl, like 15 or 16 as I recall) threw herself into the river in despair, and her spirit started haunting the town. When the PCs came back through the area, the priest PC was begged to deal with the angry spirit, and dutifully summoned her up to find out why she was haunting the town...

[Koo Rehtorb]

Given my gut reaction, what I did was the least-bad immediate response.

Sure. I don't think it was some horrible game ruining mistake or anything and I can absolutely appreciate how being put in an uncomfortable situation unexpected can throw people off their game. It happens all the time. I just think there was a slightly better way that it could have been handled is all.

Like I said earlier, if something is making you as a person uncomfortable then that's a player level problem. And people shouldn't use GM level solutions on player level problems.

[Cluedrew]

The scene skipping stuff seems passive aggressive in the most unhelpful way. If it is about getting them to stop murderhoboing (although I don't think it is) than ask them to and if they don't bow out of the game. Don't mix in and out of character like that.

[Agrippa]

The scene skipping stuff seems passive aggressive in the most unhelpful way. If it is about getting them to stop murderhoboing (although I don't think it is) than ask them to and if they don't bow out of the game. Don't mix in and out of character like that.

I think its about not wanting to have his players going into detail about raping and murdering defenseless non-combatants, which is perfectly understandable to me.

[ShaneMRoth]

And just because you don't see it doesn't mean that the players don't see it. If they want to play it through, clearly they see something that interests them in the prospect.

Those players need a different GM, then. I’m not that guy. I’m not going to pretend to be that guy.

... "Does anyone have a scene they want to get done now?" should be a frequent question in all groups and all games.

If you are hosting the home version of Who’s Line Is It Anyway? Perhaps. Not D&D.

... What I disagree with is it being the responsibility of the GM to shepherd the sweet innocent group around these pitfalls. If some weirdo wants to play out rape scenes everyone in the group is allowed to object to it.

This is a case of mistaking silence for consent.

For the record, if I’m a player and some other player wants to play out some rapey encounter and the GM facilitates that encounter? That’s the GM giving a green light to that player. There’s any number of things I might do if it made me uncomfortable. I might go so far as to roll my eyes, or excuse myself from the table for a few minutes to check my phone. I might talk about my discomfort to the GM between sessions. I might just stop attending without comment. I wouldn’t be comfortable interfering with the agency of that player in real time. I wouldn’t feel like it was my place, because it wouldn’t be my place.

As I see it, it is the GM’s job (and duty) to read the room and get a sense of how the players, as a group, are responding to what is happening at the table. And adjust accordingly.

... It's not that no one has the right to frame scenes or object to offensive material. It's that everyone does, including the GM.

It’s the GM’s job to set reasonable boundaries in real time at the table.

Players of D&D have their hands full just playing their individual characters. The GM has to be the advocate for the viability of the campaign as a whole.

People need to not confuse "GM authority" with "people authority". If you use GM authority where people authority is appropriate then it sends all kinds of unfortunate messages.

As I made clear in my last post, I consider “GM Authority” to spring directly from “people (player) authority”. If the GM doesn’t enjoy the trust of his players? He won’t be GM for very long.

...and SCENE.

[Max_Killjoy]

The scene skipping stuff seems passive aggressive in the most unhelpful way. If it is about getting them to stop murderhoboing (although I don't think it is) than ask them to and if they don't bow out of the game. Don't mix in and out of character like that.

In my case, I don't think there was anything passive about it...

I think its about not wanting to have his players going into detail about raping and murdering defenseless non-combatants, which is perfectly understandable to me.

Or having to describe the scene myself, or the NPC girl's reactions, or... ugh. Just... ugh.

[Koo Rehtorb]

If you are hosting the home version of Who’s Line Is It Anyway? Perhaps. Not D&D.

Literally every game other than the most tedious railroaded bull**** that moves from fight to fight involves players framing scenes.

"While we're in town I'm want to go visit my sister and have a conversation" is framing a scene.
"Let's open on us sitting around in the clinic discussing what we're going to do about Vlad Moustachio" is framing a scene.

The GM is often MORE responsible for framing scenes. But it is not his exclusive right.

This is a case of mistaking silence for consent.

For the record, if I’m a player and some other player wants to play out some rapey encounter and the GM facilitates that encounter? That’s the GM giving a green light to that player. There’s any number of things I might do if it made me uncomfortable. I might go so far as to roll my eyes, or excuse myself from the table for a few minutes to check my phone. I might talk about my discomfort to the GM between sessions. I might just stop attending without comment. I wouldn’t be comfortable interfering with the agency of that player in real time. I wouldn’t feel like it was my place, because it wouldn’t be my place.

As I see it, it is the GM’s job (and duty) to read the room and get a sense of how the players, as a group, are responding to what is happening at the table. And adjust accordingly.

Well, obviously I completely disagree with everything you just said. It is absolutely 100% your place to object to something that other people are doing that's making you uncomfortable while participating in a social activity together. In fact, I find the notion that it somehow isn't downright harmful.

Now, that isn't to say everyone feels comfortable speaking up. It's their right to do so, but some people aren't comfortable being that confrontational. It's still not the GM's job to read their mind and adjusting the social situation. It's a nice thing to do, but it's not their job. And guess what, it's a nice thing for everyone at the table to do. The GM has no more responsibility than anyone else there. It's like saying that if the banker in Monopoly notices that someone is making someone else uncomfortable by making a bunch of off-colour jokes it's their responsibility to correct their behaviour by refusing to give them money from the bank. It's absurd.

The GM is not your parent, teacher, boss, or parole officer. Unless they actually are, in which case congratulations on your atypical game.

[Cluedrew]

In my case, I don't think there was anything passive about it...

Perhaps in the literal sense of the word, but you didn't (in the transcript I read) address the problem directly either. This probably would have been either "I'm not narrating this." or "We are not having that in this campaign." depending on the tone and concept of the campaign.

I find that generally anything short of directly addressing the issue is ineffective. Of course I know very little of your particular situation so use the idea how you will.

[NichG]

The scene skipping stuff seems passive aggressive in the most unhelpful way. If it is about getting them to stop murderhoboing (although I don't think it is) than ask them to and if they don't bow out of the game. Don't mix in and out of character like that.

A player who is doing things which seem to actively be attempting to make others uncomfortable may be spoiling for a fight. Giving them a direct OOC confrontation about the behavior may play into that. Sometimes a passive approach is worth considering.

It depends on factors. If the player honestly doesn't realize that this would make others uncomfortable, sure, direct OOC conversation is the answer. But if their intent is to get a rise out of others at the table, that OOC conversation will go on circles without doing anything other than raising hostility at the table.

Before 'well, you should have it out and if that happens it's a reason to boot that player', sure, you can just do that. But if you want to keep the player for any particular reason, successfully making a point without making a fight is a useful thing to be able to do. Taking the fun out of being disruptive by making the disruption fail to get attention is a trick for that.

[Mr Beer]

Saying 'congrats, you raped the girl, no you don't get to describe it' is a perfectly reasonable way for a GM to handle the situation. It sends a pretty clear message to most adults, there's no need to have a big discussion about your feelings (rape is wrong mkay) if you don't want to.

EDIT

I care about enjoying my game time more than I value game immersion though, so I'd be more likely to just say 'no you can't do that' and when asked why I'd say 'because I'm not running a game where you get to rape people'. It's difficult to know exactly what I'd do because I don't play with the kind of people who get off on detailing out an act of aggravated sexual assault.

[daniel_ream]

The only appropriate response to a player wanting to "frame a scene" about their PC raping a teenage girl is "Get up, and walk away from this table. Now."

Actually, you can remove the words "a", "teenage" and "girl" from that sentence without loss of generality.

As for the OP, I'll point out again that gods exist in D&D, and have existed in every version of D&D, and have actively involved themselves in the affairs of mortals, sometimes personally, sometimes via intermediaries, since the beginning of the game.

If the PCs are getting a bit blase about level 20 paladins, see how they feel about the Archangel Michael dropping in for a chat.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Okay yes personally I would be more inclined towards "What the **** is wrong with you? Cut that out right now." as a response. A calm discussion about boundaries is more appropriate for less entirely objectionable content than a graphic rape scene. Fortunately I've never had to deal with that personally because I don't play with crazy people.

HOWEVER, the point stands, some sort of OOC response is what's called for in these situations, whatever it may be. Utilizing the game passive aggressively to replace that OOC response is not showing good judgement.

[Templarkommando]

There are a couple of things that come to mind for me. First, if you're talking about a gritty world, make it apparent to the party that they are doing evil. They need to see people that are suffering as a direct result of their actions. If your party claims to be good-aligned, this should be a definite way to sort of shepherd the party back on to the straight and narrow. This particular method isn't a real strong-arm tactic from the DMs bag of tricks, but at a meta-game level, it lets the party know that their actions for good or for ill are going to effect the campaign world. It's vaguely like Ebeneezer Scrooge seeing Tiny Tim in the Christmas Carol. For a more contemporary example, I'm reminded of the episode of Firefly called The Train Job where:

Spoiler: If you haven't seen Firefly read at your own risk.

Show

Mal and the crew steal a shipment full of pharmaceuticals that's on the way to a mining town. Now, they arranged beforehand to do this job for a bad guy, but they wanted the money for it. It's not until they get into town and see the plight of the people suffering from this disease that the medicine was supposed to cure that they realize that they have to return the medicine if they ever want to feel good about themselves and who they are again.

Another option is to go with a Columbo-type character. If you haven't seen Columbo and you like detective shows, it's worth a watch, but basically, you have a fellow that represents THE LAW that shows up and starts asking a bunch of uncomfortable questions. As he gets new evidence and becomes more acquainted with the case, his questions get more and more probing... more personal. Here's the thing - Columbo doesn't carry a gun. He's just this disorganized guy in a trench-coat that asks questions and snoops around. You could really cause worries for the party if he shows up at the scene of a crime they just caused, and he's trying to put two and two together. The problem for the party comes when they decide to do something where he can basically figure out what's going on, or if they decide to kill him, it calls down all sorts of heat from higher up the law-enforcement food chain. This is another less-than-strong-arm tactic in the DM's toolbox.

The next option is bounty hunters. At some point, the party attracts enough attention that someone offers a reward for their heads. Maybe the local government doesn't have enough cash to deal with this, but if you get a bunch of towns to pool their resources, or if they're ruled over by some noble that wants the problem dealt with while not getting their own hands dirty, bounty hunters are a good option. The thing about bounty hunters, is that they come in all sorts of numbers, shapes, and sizes - if you really want to tailor encounters to your party, you can send basically any size of party after the PCs with any race/class mix and special powers that you can think of depending on how egregious the party's violations are and who they've managed to annoy.

I typically like to avoid anything much stronger than that, just because I want to let my party know that there are consequences to their actions without destroying their play style, but you can crank things up a few more notches depending on what all is being done. For example, military special forces units could be an option. Dragons are possible - especially if the party manages to either A.)acquire treasure that a dragon wants, or B.) put their nose into a dragon's business. You can substitute basically any sentient monster in place of dragon in this case.


There are some meta-game options as well. This may be received well or not depending on your players. If you are wanting to run a heroic campaign, just lay that out to your players. "I want my campaign to be a story of the good guys against the bad guys. That's the kind of game I want to DM for. I can tolerate a little bit of shenanigans here and there, but I really can't stand the feeling that I'm basically the warden over the super-max prison and it's all I can do to keep the inmates from stabbing each other just to get a chocolate bar. I realize you want this game to be fun for you, but I want it to be fun for me too, and right now, I'm not having fun. Now, if we can adjust our play-style some, I'm willing to keep DMing, but if we can't, I'd like to suggest that maybe one of you try DMing instead of me. We can still be friends... it's not an earth-ending thing if I don't DM, I just don't want to administer the game if it's going to be like this."

[Max_Killjoy]

Saying 'congrats, you raped the girl, no you don't get to describe it' is a perfectly reasonable way for a GM to handle the situation. It sends a pretty clear message to most adults, there's no need to have a big discussion about your feelings (rape is wrong mkay) if you don't want to.

EDIT

I care about enjoying my game time more than I value game immersion though, so I'd be more likely to just say 'no you can't do that' and when asked why I'd say 'because I'm not running a game where you get to rape people'. It's difficult to know exactly what I'd do because I don't play with the kind of people who get off on detailing out an act of aggravated sexual assault.

I stopped gaming with him not long after that. I have no idea where that person is these days.

This happened a long time ago, like more than 20 years. I was trying to be "a good GM" (we'd had a GM who had a bad habit of telling players "your character wouldn't do that" multiple times a session) and more than a bit stunned at the turn of events.

[Delta]

Depending on just how far the players are willing to go once they start killing town guards and shopkeepers to get their way, they're going to hit a moral event horizon and as the GM, I wouldn't play out their actions in detail.

Absolutely in agreement here, I just don't think your case and OP's are quite in the same ballgame here. In your situation, yeah, saying "No, we're not gonna go into any detail on how you rape that girl" should be very self-explanatory and leave little room for debate, for obvious reasons.

But in general, I'd say it's always better to just take a step back and say to a player "That thing you like to do, you can do it but I don't want to play through this because <reasons>, so if you want to, we can just say your character does it, that's the result and move on, okay?" rather than impersonate the strict principal of RPG High and just tell him to shut up and play on, basically.

[ImNotTrevor]

Saying 'congrats, you raped the girl, no you don't get to describe it' is a perfectly reasonable way for a GM to handle the situation. It sends a pretty clear message to most adults, there's no need to have a big discussion about your feelings (rape is wrong mkay) if you don't want to.

EDIT

I care about enjoying my game time more than I value game immersion though, so I'd be more likely to just say 'no you can't do that' and when asked why I'd say 'because I'm not running a game where you get to rape people'. It's difficult to know exactly what I'd do because I don't play with the kind of people who get off on detailing out an act of aggravated sexual assault.

Saying 'congrats, you raped the girl, no you don't get to describe it' is a perfectly reasonable way for a GM to handle the situation. It sends a pretty clear message to most adults, there's no need to have a big discussion about your feelings (rape is wrong mkay) if you don't want to.

I don't see how saying "I'm not comfortable doing a rape scene, so we're gonna go ahead and skip that." Is a big discussion as opposed to a sentence you say.


For the purpose of avoiding such things in my own games (since I do play Apocalypse World, where most of the NPCs are ALSO murderhobos) I make it very clear that if someone says "Skip," (outside of obvioue context) we will just skip the scene, no questions asked. If they feel the need to explain exactly what it is in particular, they can. If not, they don't have to.

It's super simple stuff.

If players are doing dastardly BS you don't want to GM, refusing to do a particular scene or two is at best like putting duct tape on a leaking tire. It might work for a while but it is not an adequate solution. It's a problem of disparate expectations between the various players (GM included within the umbrella of Players) and that can only be solved by either getting the expectations aligned again, or conceding that expectations will not be able to align in this case and the game be halted at that point.

As for scene framing that's one that is kinda a mind-boggler to people who have been told the GM=God of the Table myth that D&D promotes (and which is plainly bad GM practice in and of itself) and so I'm not surprised there is opposition to the idea.

Part of it might also be that people aren't really sure what Scene Framing is. As an attrmpt to add clarity to the discussion:
Scene Framing is about determining what parts of the adventure/story/goings-on we get to interact with as players (GM included.)

While traditionally the GM gets to determine ALL scenes, it's a quick way to ensure that players are only permitted to be reactive. If you want players who are active participants, one of the quickest ways to do so is to give them some scene-framing ability. I have a few new players in my group who are new to tabletop in general (this is their first actual campaign) and already they are more active participants than any of my old D&D players because I purposefully reference scenes and allow for some scene framing if they ask, and I myself usually ask as we get close to wrapping up.

Just last session I asked if anyone had any scenes they wanted to do, one of my players said yes, and it lead to probably the most tense and dangerous situation that character has ever been in, because he happened to WANT to be in exactly the spot where I was hoping to lure that character into a trap later. But lo and behold, they wanted a scene there. And it was a great way to end the session. One that wouldn't have happened if I'd not asked.

The other great thing is that it teaches your players How to GM! Which as a perma-gm I am so glad for. I've got two players right now well on their way to becoming GMs and I'm super pleased about it.

So yeah... I'm firmly in favor of letting players frame some scenes.

[Max_Killjoy]

As for scene framing that's one that is kinda a mind-boggler to people who have been told the GM=God of the Table myth that D&D promotes (and which is plainly bad GM practice in and of itself) and so I'm not surprised there is opposition to the idea.

Part of it might also be that people aren't really sure what Scene Framing is. As an attrmpt to add clarity to the discussion:
Scene Framing is about determining what parts of the adventure/story/goings-on we get to interact with as players (GM included.)

While traditionally the GM gets to determine ALL scenes, it's a quick way to ensure that players are only permitted to be reactive. If you want players who are active participants, one of the quickest ways to do so is to give them some scene-framing ability. I have a few new players in my group who are new to tabletop in general (this is their first actual campaign) and already they are more active participants than any of my old D&D players because I purposefully reference scenes and allow for some scene framing if they ask, and I myself usually ask as we get close to wrapping up.

Just last session I asked if anyone had any scenes they wanted to do, one of my players said yes, and it lead to probably the most tense and dangerous situation that character has ever been in, because he happened to WANT to be in exactly the spot where I was hoping to lure that character into a trap later. But lo and behold, they wanted a scene there. And it was a great way to end the session. One that wouldn't have happened if I'd not asked.

The other great thing is that it teaches your players How to GM! Which as a perma-gm I am so glad for. I've got two players right now well on their way to becoming GMs and I'm super pleased about it.

So yeah... I'm firmly in favor of letting players frame some scenes.

Expressed that way, I see no issue with it. Back before there was any formal terminology for that sort of thing, we were doing it in Vampire and similar games all the time, very much character and player driven. We got so used to it that when I ran for a group half comprised of those players and half comprised of players used to the "GM drives the bus" style, it created a disconnect between players, and put a lot of work on my plate trying to bridge the gap and make sure the more passive players got involved. But without the formal expression of "scene framing", it comes down to nothing more contentious or controversial than "So what are your characters up to?" I think that aspect is foreign to some players because they've never been in a game that doesn't involve getting from A to B to accomplish X, bang bang bang. For its faults, Vampire was a GREAT game for breaking players out of that mindset, because it's usually stationary in location and more heavily involves character (internal and external), politics, intrigue, subterfuge, and social interaction.

Sadly, I also see the same term used to mean something else, and I think it's confusion with that usage that might be (part of?) the reason for backlash against the term when people see you use it here in this context and with the meaning you're using. Specifically, I've seen it used to mean something that sounds to a lot of players like a kinda of metagaming, and also that can be very detrimental to the sort of character-immersion and world-exploration goals that some (many?) players prioritize -- the idea that players have a hard-coded and specific ongoing role in deciding what's behind the next door, what the NPCs decide to do, etc.... a piece of the heavily-author-stance (to use terms I don't care for), cooperative-storytelling games.

(Sorry if I seem to be struggling here, I'm trying to word this as neutrally as possible and avoid terminology tangents and arguments...)

[ImNotTrevor]

Expressed that way, I see no issue with it. Back before there was any formal terminology for that sort of thing, we were doing it in Vampire and similar games all the time, very much character and player driven. We got so used to it that when I ran for a group half comprised of those players and half comprised of players used to the "GM drives the bus" style, it created a disconnect between players, and put a lot of work on my plate trying to bridge the gap and make sure the more passive players got involved. But without the formal expression of "scene framing", it comes down to nothing more contentious or controversial than "So what are your characters up to?" I think that aspect is foreign to some players because they've never been in a game that doesn't involve getting from A to B to accomplish X, bang bang bang. For its faults, Vampire was a GREAT game for breaking players out of that mindset, because it's usually stationary in location and more heavily involves character (internal and external), politics, intrigue, subterfuge, and social interaction.

Sadly, I also see the same term used to mean something else, and I think it's confusion with that usage that might be (part of?) the reason for backlash against the term when people see you use it here in this context and with the meaning you're using. Specifically, I've seen it used to mean something that sounds to a lot of players like a kinda of metagaming, and also that can be very detrimental to the sort of character-immersion and world-exploration goals that some (many?) players prioritize -- the idea that players have a hard-coded and specific ongoing role in deciding what's behind the next door, what the NPCs decide to do, etc.... a piece of the heavily-author-stance (to use terms I don't care for), cooperative-storytelling games.

(Sorry if I seem to be struggling here, I'm trying to word this as neutrally as possible and avoid terminology tangents and arguments...)

There are indeed some games that encourage scene framing of the sort that's a bit closer to "Everyone is the GM." Which is a great way to run a game if everyone is onboard and wants to play that game. I've played games like that before and they're loads of fun. (Provided, obviously, that everyone is ok with equal GM rank.)

They aren't "teh best gaym evar omg!!!1!!" But then again I have no games that sit in that place for me. I have games that are good for some things I might wanna play and some games that are good for others. But that's kinda tangential to the point.

I found two ways of defining Scene Framing for TRPGs in my searching. The first was pretty much a way for the GM to define no-touchy zones and keep the story on his railroad tracks. Which is no-bueno in my book but something something strokes and folks and differences therebetween.

That the PCs get to play the world is not exactly Scene Framing. For instance, if I ask "What does Jace's room look like?" While we're having a scene there, and Jace's player describes the room, then clearly we have a player framing the environment.

Some games give interesting ways for PCs to influence their environment mechanically. For instance in Stars Without Number there's a Luck save, used whenever there's some probability of chance that a thing might be, but the GM isn't sure if it is. For example, if you desperately need to find a ladder within this elevator shaft and the GM isn't really sure if the shaft would have one or not and hadn't considered that before, he can disclaim responsibility and make it a luck check. Essentially saying "I don't know, so lets see if you just happen to luck out and find a ladder in there."

In short, Scene Framing as Me and Koo are talking about it has to do with circumstances primarily for character interaction or seeking out their own goals. We do not mean players saying "There's two ogres in there."

[Quertus]

Spoiler: characterization

Show

I don't see the opportunity for characterization to be had from pillaging a defenseless village.

And just because you don't see it doesn't mean that the players don't see it. If they want to play it through, clearly they see something that interests them in the prospect.

Well, while I don't know if every enjoyable moment in an RPG inherently qualifies as characterization, I agree that the hubris of "if I don't see it, it couldn't possibly exist" should go on a list of "things not to do as GM". Or as a human being, for that matter.

Spoiler: framing scenarios

Show

QUOTE=ShaneMRoth;21748581]Framing scenarios and encounters is the GM's job. It's more of a duty than a right, but the authority to frame scenes and encounters is vested in the GM... in role-playing games in general, and in D&D in specific.

No other single player is in a position to perform this function, and the function is necessary to keep a game from foundering.[/QUOTE]

Of course no other single player is in a position to frame scenes. This is why it's the responsibility of the entire group. The GM can do it. Players can also do it. "Does anyone have a scene they want to get done now?" should be a frequent question in all groups and all games.



I don't disagree (With the caveat of there potentially being some weird outlier group that's all totally on board with it. I don't judge.) What I disagree with is it being the responsibility of the GM to shepherd the sweet innocent group around these pitfalls. If some weirdo wants to play out rape scenes everyone in the group is allowed to object to it. This is not the GM's job. This is the job of a group of presumably mature adults engaging in a social activity together. The GM is not in charge of the group. The one exception is if there is another reason beyond them being the GM why they should have a position of social authority. Like the GM being an adult GMing a group of literal children.

Yes! Exactly! The GM is a player too. It's not that no one has the right to frame scenes or object to offensive material. It's that everyone does, including the GM.

People need to not confuse "GM authority" with "people authority". If you use GM authority where people authority is appropriate then it sends all kinds of unfortunate messages.

If you are hosting the home version of Who’s Line Is It Anyway? Perhaps. Not D&D.

Literally every game other than the most tedious railroaded bull**** that moves from fight to fight involves players framing scenes.

"While we're in town I'm want to go visit my sister and have a conversation" is framing a scene.
"Let's open on us sitting around in the clinic discussing what we're going to do about Vlad Moustachio" is framing a scene.

The GM is often MORE responsible for framing scenes. But it is not his exclusive right.

As a GM, I often go around the table, asking each player what they are doing. Yes, even in D&D. But, at the same time, when the player says, "I jump to the moon", it's the GMs job to say "no", or, at least, "um... how?".

Spoiler: all evil needs to succeed is for good men to do nothing

Show

QUOTE=ShaneMRoth;21749330]This is a case of mistaking silence for consent.

For the record, if I’m a player and some other player wants to play out some rapey encounter and the GM facilitates that encounter? That’s the GM giving a green light to that player. There’s any number of things I might do if it made me uncomfortable. I might go so far as to roll my eyes, or excuse myself from the table for a few minutes to check my phone. I might talk about my discomfort to the GM between sessions. I might just stop attending without comment. I wouldn’t be comfortable interfering with the agency of that player in real time. I wouldn’t feel like it was my place, because it wouldn’t be my place.

As I see it, it is the GM’s job (and duty) to read the room and get a sense of how the players, as a group, are responding to what is happening at the table. And adjust accordingly.

It’s the GM’s job to set reasonable boundaries in real time at the table.

Players of D&D have their hands full just playing their individual characters. The GM has to be the advocate for the viability of the campaign as a whole.

As I made clear in my last post, I consider “GM Authority” to spring directly from “people (player) authority”. If the GM doesn’t enjoy the trust of his players? He won’t be GM for very long.

...and SCENE.[/QUOTE]

Well, obviously I completely disagree with everything you just said. It is absolutely 100% your place to object to something that other people are doing that's making you uncomfortable while participating in a social activity together. In fact, I find the notion that it somehow isn't downright harmful.

Now, that isn't to say everyone feels comfortable speaking up. It's their right to do so, but some people aren't comfortable being that confrontational. It's still not the GM's job to read their mind and adjusting the social situation. It's a nice thing to do, but it's not their job. And guess what, it's a nice thing for everyone at the table to do. The GM has no more responsibility than anyone else there. It's like saying that if the banker in Monopoly notices that someone is making someone else uncomfortable by making a bunch of off-colour jokes it's their responsibility to correct their behaviour by refusing to give them money from the bank. It's absurd.

The GM is not your parent, teacher, boss, or parole officer. Unless they actually are, in which case congratulations on your atypical game.

A player who is doing things which seem to actively be attempting to make others uncomfortable may be spoiling for a fight. Giving them a direct OOC confrontation about the behavior may play into that. Sometimes a passive approach is worth considering.

It depends on factors. If the player honestly doesn't realize that this would make others uncomfortable, sure, direct OOC conversation is the answer. But if their intent is to get a rise out of others at the table, that OOC conversation will go on circles without doing anything other than raising hostility at the table.

Before 'well, you should have it out and if that happens it's a reason to boot that player', sure, you can just do that. But if you want to keep the player for any particular reason, successfully making a point without making a fight is a useful thing to be able to do. Taking the fun out of being disruptive by making the disruption fail to get attention is a trick for that.

There is no test, that I'm aware of, to ensure that the person with the best social skills is the GM. The existence of rotating GMs, GMs being players in other people's games, etc, strongly suggests that this is not always the case. Pardon the slight touch of politics, but "from each according to their ability" has some definite merit here. If you see someone is uncomfortable - including yourself - and you have the courage and social skills to do something about it, you bloody well should do something about it*. That should also being on a list of things having to do with being a human being.

Now, I'm'a claim that the issue of "sometimes a passive approach is best" (and all the "maybes" that preceded it) is probably beyond my social skills. I do agree, though, that sometimes more "subtle" approach is more effective. So it's best to at least look and see if anyone else is trying anything before charging in, if you have the courage and attentiveness, but lack the finesse.

*and if you don't, it is, IMO, something you should consider working on. But I could be wrong.