Topic: (Power) Players do and say the damndest things

[DangerMan]

Last night in a SW session, the PCs had just won a fight against a band of quaidu bandits and there was a few surviving NPCs badly wounded on the ground.

The player playing the min-maxed warrior monk turned to me (GM) and said:

"I know you want us to torture these guys, so that you get to give us information to move the plot along, so I'll kill them instaed.

...and so he did.

[bennis1980]

I introduced a karma system to one game because my players decided to interrogate most surviving "bad guy" they came across. Most of these NPCs were just pawns who were just trying to make a living (a bit like the henchmen in Austin Powers). My players would go to the nth degree to get the smallest bit of info, eg "I'm going to break one finger for every second you don't talk". WHAT!?! That's like one round - both hands!

This was in the early days, and they had a very black and white view of good and evil. I was trying to portray a gritty world were the lines were unclear.

So I secretly kept record of their good and bad deeds, and started bringing things that they did back to haunt them. Angry mobs would run them out of town on account of their noteriety. Arch villians would reperform cruel deeds on their loved ones. Detect evil spells would result in taint detected within the party.

The same players have since realised to take care how they behave in my world lest the gods become angry. :-D

[markc]

I introduced a karma system to one game because my players decided to interrogate most surviving "bad guy" they came across. Most of these NPCs were just pawns who were just trying to make a living (a bit like the henchmen in Austin Powers). My players would go to the nth degree to get the smallest bit of info, eg "I'm going to break one finger for every second you don't talk". WHAT!?! That's like one round - both hands!

This was in the early days, and they had a very black and white view of good and evil. I was trying to portray a gritty world were the lines were unclear.

So I secretly kept record of their good and bad deeds, and started bringing things that they did back to haunt them. Angry mobs would run them out of town on account of their noteriety. Arch villians would reperform cruel deeds on their loved ones. Detect evil spells would result in taint detected within the party.

The same players have since realised to take care how they behave in my world lest the gods become angry. :-D

 Very good way to do it.
MDC

[yammahoper]

Last night in a SW session, the PCs had just won a fight against a band of quaidu bandits and there was a few surviving NPCs badly wounded on the ground.

The player playing the min-maxed warrior monk turned to me (GM) and said:

"I know you want us to torture these guys, so that you get to give us information to move the plot along, so I'll kill them instaed.

...and so he did.

Next session the players would have seen one of my SM books in my pile of materials.  First fight I would introduce the monk to the hand grenade attack table.  Remember, no Adrenal Defence against area attacks/attacks that cannot be seen...the grenade table is nasty enough against AT 1 schmucks, but it's the shrapenal crits that I REALLY want to use.

[GrumpyOldFart]

I think either Castles & Ruins or Treasure Companion (C&R, I think) has a list with an "explosion" spell on it, and perhaps even an explosion crit table.

I know you want us to torture these guys, so that you get to give us information to move the plot along, so I'll kill them instaed.

"I know you don't want a plot, you just want to see if you can wreck my world setting and my scenario, so this session we'll keep it simple: You try to wreck my world, I'll try to kill you out before you do."

Most of my players being the kind of people they are, I wouldn't have to do a thing. Just say it, and the other players will kill him out for me.

 

Sometimes I'm too honest to make a really good GM.

[RandalThor]

"I know you want us to torture these guys, so that you get to give us information to move the plot along, so I'll kill them instaed.

That kind of playstyle would get a player kicked out of my game pretty-quickly.

[yammahoper]

"I know you want us to torture these guys, so that you get to give us information to move the plot along, so I'll kill them instaed.

That kind of playstyle would get a player kicked out of my game pretty-quickly.

Naw, let him keep coming back for the beat down, see how much he can take before he quits on his own, eith with a childish blow up or a passive agressive no call/no show.  I mean, WHY would you let go of a reason to bring out a Sniper Squad of Type V demons with ME 29 .50 cal  Barrets?  You haven't seen fun till you tell that player "238 hits and a E Ballistic Puncture Crit..."

Only truely dumb or immature players turn an rpg into a pissing contest.  The GM, by default, can't lose.  Certainly weed him out, but hey, he MIGHT learn before it gets there.  Might.

[Nortti]

Last night in a SW session, the PCs had just won a fight against a band of quaidu bandits and there was a few surviving NPCs badly wounded on the ground.

The player playing the min-maxed warrior monk turned to me (GM) and said:

"I know you want us to torture these guys, so that you get to give us information to move the plot along, so I'll kill them instaed.

...and so he did.

This kind of people would really tick me off. In that situation it must have been really difficult for GM to cope. You just try to arrange a game so that all can have a good time and this is what you get.

That karma system sounds good but I have adopted other methods.

I have been in situations where players have killed NPCs that could provide them vital information. Maybe thats why I have changed my adventures so that things wont bog down if this happens. PCs have strong personal reasons to get things done. I dont just hand them info, I make them think where they can get it. 

Another way is to let players do what ever. If someone wants to kill those with information then have them live regular life with nothing remarkable happening. Morning paper came and milkman left two bottles at the door - thats all for today. If they later want to try to get that information make them pay a heavy price in gold for a cleric that can commune with the dead. If they kill that cleric they will become wanted by the law and templars will attack them frequently. They might also be cursed and have some evil mark in their foreheads that all clerics/monks/holy persons can see. "What did you say, you were looking for a healer? Want to have your friend raised from the dead?"

The hard fact is that as a GM it is necessary to think of all kind of possible evil actions that people can take. Even if PCs would play it nice the regular outlaws, rogues and highwaymen could act in a lot of bad ways. People that seem honest to the outside may be rotten to the core. Not to mention the evil cults, serial killers, beasts, shape-changers. You have think of what kind of controls your gaming world needs against threats. In a dangerous world with strange things happening normal people cannot be very trusty. There must be ways to detect threats and at least limit the harm that they cause.

[jdale]

I have to wonder about the player's motivation. Actively spiteful and disruptive for the sake of being disruptive? That's one explanation. Another would be lack of interest in the current plotline. I don't think that's necessarily the best way to express that desire for something different, but it's a possible motivation and, if that's the issue, it's worth thinking about why the plot is not working for them. And whether that can be corrected in a way that is still entertaining for the other players.

A third explanation is simply objecting to the use of torture as the means of getting information. Torture as a method of easily getting all the info is kind of cliche as a story element these days, but it didn't get that way until our government started doing it and we felt a need to justify it for them. It used to be that when you saw torture in fiction, it was done by the bad guys, and it never worked because the good guys wouldn't give in. I think the change is unfortunate.

(In our game we question the bad guys, but we have a mentalist, so torture is really unnecessary in any case.)

I don't know which of those is at issue here, but I wouldn't jump to the conclusion it is the first.

[Thom @ ICE]

My own personal point of view would be, the character did it... now how did that impact the game?  Was there another bandit who witnessed this and yet got away?  Was someone watching this battle from a distance?  What is going to happen next? 

If the player continues to act in ways to ruin the plotline, then pull them aside and ask what's going on.... but if the emphasis is that their character is doing those things because it fits their personality - then it is up to you to figure out what happens next...  If that character's actions are such that other players get annoyed - have them roleplay it out.

This could open all new doors for your campaign and PC interaction both with NPCs and each other.

[rdanhenry]

Given that first level spells will get someone talking far more reliably and simply than torture, it'd have to be quite the low-magic Rolemaster world for anyone to think torture was a worthwhile interrogation technique. Even lacking that, most lower echelon guys are going to be willing to trade some information in exchange for spared lives and medical care.

Torture is really effective: if you want to hear what the victim thinks you want to hear. If you want something approximating the truth, there are better ways in the real world and far better ways if you have access to some low level spells in Rolemaster (Okay, you don't have a Mentalist. You have an Essence caster? Charm Kind is only 2nd level.)

[rdanhenry]

Frankly, if I were another player in that game, I'd have been very annoyed. It's one thing to play your character as a psychotic killer; I can play my character's reaction to that. But to metagame "spite the GM" -- first, it's my game that's being derailed as well, and second, I do not want to be in the blast radius when the smiting comes. Never just antagonize the GM. He has the most pluses. Every time.

[Nortti]

Yeah, how about the other players? Did they just accept everything this one guy does? Is he some kind of boss in the group?

It seems like that guy just wanted to get GM in a difficult situation on purpose. Whatever his motivation is it is just bad behavior. But sometimes people (PCs and NPCs) can behave bad and gameworld must have an answer to it.

[naphta23]

Like the Aes Sedai say: "Do what you want and pay the price."

If a character wants to torture somebody, that would result in consequences. In my opinion, torturing somebody messes with the soul; the most people cannot cope with torturing someone without very good reasons or dire consequences to their own psyche. Or they are sadists or psychopaths.

As a GM you could rule that such actions influences the PC's sanity. Same with killing helpless people who already surrendered.

Karma is just another way of presenting the bill after the party. What comes around, comes around, as they say.

If the other PCs do not react to such a behaviour, then the NPCs will. It only takes some time and they learn what twisted characters those killers and torturers are, if you ask me.

I do not know about you, but I would assume that monk orders have ethics & certain beliefs and would react pretty unamused if one of their pupils and members runs around abusing his powers and the training, giving the monk order a quite messed up reputation.

But in this case the problem is not the PC, but rather the player. If he wants to run around and mess up with the other players and the GM, disrupting the gameflow, he ... well, he disrupts the gameflow. He consciously and willingly endangers the fun of the group, including the GM. Perhaps he had a bad day or an unsolved resentment, which would explain but not excuse such behaviour. If he was just being a spoilsport and a partypooper, because he thought this would be fun, then he has a lot to learn - maybe somewhere else, where he does not disturb the group. I am sure he knows how to close the door from the outside. 

*edit*
If the player did not enjoy the adventure, common courtesy dictates a respectul approach. Respectful to the GM and to the other players. He could have communicated his dissatisfaction in another way, if you ask me.

[Cory Magel]

Back in our DnD days we needed to get some very important info from a foe 'leader' of a group we'd just defeated.  Over the course of the 'interrogation' the GM determined we'd finally killed him at some point.  But, being the Cleric, I said "I resurrect him so we can start over."  The GM's reaction was just classic.  Had this, genuinely, horrified look on his face as he blurted out "You don't!?!?"

We got the info we needed.  I can imagine what that might have resulted in if we were actually paying attention to religious 'rules' back then.

[Turbs]

I would personally have teh bandits leader/benefactor set a trap for the PC.

Then when he is caught strap him to the torture chair, bright lights in the face, the whole nine yards.

when the PC fails his escape attampts a few time bring in the head honcho.
have him hold up a picture of one of the dead men the PC executed and deliver the line
"Do you remember my son?"
"I could torture you for information on the whereabouts of your troublesome friends but instead Im going to give you the same choice you gave to him..... None."   

 ...BANG...