AsenRG

To me, it's never been a question of Legend OR RQ6/Mythras, not anymore than it is a question of Mythras OR the BGB, Bloodlust, RQG, Maelstrom Domesday, Unknown Armies 2e and Revolution d100, for example. I'm going to run a mix of them all in the end, anyway, possibly mixed with other d100 systems as well.

Speaking of which, are the Legend Stormbringer supplements no longer available, or is it just me who can't find them on RPGNow?

When you're prepping an adventure (for your own use, not for publication), how do you approach it?

Do you write everything up like the (excellent) descriptions in something like Snake Pipe Hollow?

Sometimes, not often.

Or do you just make a few notes?

Yes.

How complete are the stat blocks you use when you prep?

Complete enough that I never wonder what an NPC has to roll.

What do you consider essential, and what is just extra work?

Knowing how the setting works, and who the NPCs are, including their plans. The rest is extra work.

Sandbox?

Basically, yes, though to me, that's the same as Situation;).

Storyline/Plot?

No, unless the NPCs having plans and pre-determined relationships counts as a plot.

Or Just Situation?

See "Sandbox";).

Do you tend to make maps, or use a flowchart, or just have events and wing the physical locations?

No maps except those I find with Google.

Flowcharts see limited use. But mostly, physical locations are described according to what I think makes sense IC. OOC reasons don't come into play.

Do you write up separate NPC lists (especially combat lists)? Et cetera.

Yes, but as I use simplified NPC tracking method, a score NPCs easily fit on half a page. That's complete with major Passions.

Just curious about how much variation there is in peoples' approaches.

Well, the variation is simply enormous:D! I know full well many people prepare in quite different manners.

And with that, I can officially use RQ6 for modern campaigns, or worlds where guns are part of the setting. For some reason, I keep wondering what stats I should give to a flamewand;).

Either way, congratulation to the Design Mechanism crew for the outstanding job!

Well since BRP at its core was always tweaked to the specific game it was serving (CoC, Stormbringer, Superworld, etc.), I think it is deeply entrenched in the community's mind that there is no 'one true basic set of rules' to play with (as there is for GURPS, HERO, Savage World or D&D). Sure all of these other systems are tweakable (some highly tweakable) but none of them have a basic rulebook that is a collection of options.

(snipped)

Wait, what, GURPS 4e basic set isn't a rulebook to pick options from? Because that's how I remember it worked last time I ran it;D!

BTW, Savage Worlds also has options to pick from in the corebook, so I guess this difference applies mostly to D&D and maybe HERO;).

This thread keeps reminding me how long it has been since I last used a GMing screen;).

I also study martial arts with a slight preference for modern and historical European ones, and try to apply that to RPGs, although I'm not on the HEMA forums;).

As for my experience with various systems, TRoS and MRQ2/Legend are among the best takes on the armed combat subject, indeed, closely followed by ORE, "classical" BRP, GURPS and Savage worlds. Surprisingly, the new LotW would do a good job for historical combat, and with the right group, the small RPG Enemy Gods by John Wick and even some FATE games would work;D!

In my view the main problem is that the use of social skills suffers

from an "overlap" of game mechanics and roleplaying, character ac-

tions and player actions.

In a roleplaying combat the player does not swing a sword or use

a bow, he has to rely on the game mechanics for all of his charac-

ter's actions. But in the use of social skills the player usually acts

for his character, he chooses the arguments and does the talking,

and so on. A bad dice result with a combat skill only means that

the character has failed, but a bad dice result in a social skill can

feel like the player has failed, because he roleplayed the social si-

tuation.

In other words, a roleplaying combat decision by game mechanics

cannot contradict or devalue what the player has done, because

the player did not fight. But a social conflict decision by game me-

chanics can contradict or devalue the player's roleplaying effort -

or at least the player can (mis)understand it that way - because

the player did roleplay the situation.

Just my thoughts, of course.

Let me focus on the bolded parts.

How is this rolling a die to swing a sword and describing how you're doing it less imaginary than saying the words of an imaginary person to another imaginary person?

Describing is an absolute requirement in my games, BTW, with no ways left around it.

Did he or she really roleplay the situation? Most players tend to play people more skilled in the social area than themselves, just like my swordsman is likely to be more skilled with a blade than me.

They'd probably fail to play out to the extent their character would. Even if he or she said the right words, he'd quite likely miss the right tempo, botch the pauses, and lack the practised body language* of the PC specialist. It is however well-known that non-verbal communication carries more info than the words!

As such, the player not only didn't roleplay it out, his or her performance was misleading without the die roll;).

Same as with combat, really, where most players couldn't describe it adequately.

So, combat and social conflict are actually the same situation, thus the game mechanics to handle them have to be at least somewhat similiar, and preferably use the same "engine" for skills, initiative and the like. One should also take in account that the player of a combat specialist often is or feels personally involved in physical conflict situations beyond what the game mechanics rule for the outcome of his character's actions. If these guys can rule their attachment in to accept the result of the dice, so can everyone!

These are just my thoughts as well.

*Strict character immersionists who have their voice and body language changing when playing a different character are an edge case here. Most people don't get to such levels of immersion, though. In fact, at least some of them feel more immersed during combats! Yes, I know such people, am I to allow them to just describe their actions and decide based on this?

I tend to agree with Rust's last post. Most combat and social scenes are quite different, and probably shouldn't be treated with 'combat-like' mechanics unless you are trying to simulate a formal Debate rather than a standard social situation.

Weird, than, that I regularly hear in martial arts schools "fighting is like a conversation", isn't it;D?

I feel that social rolls are best demonstrated by the player, and the verbal banter is one of the defining reasons that pnp rpgs stand out over computer game rpgs. I think that most social scenes are best role played, with perhaps a dice roll here and there, maybe receiving modifiers based on how the well the player is portraying the situation.

See above in this post for the reasons why I disagree.

For instance, we have a player whose character has great Persuade and Fast Talk skills. I don't ask her to simply roll Persuade, however, unless we are after a quick resolution. For most scenes I tend to get her to role play out a conversation with the NPCs, then ask her to make a Persuade/Fast Talk roll, granting modifiers based on how plausible the role playing scene is. Tends to be much more fun and colourful this way.

You don't "just roll Fast-talk" in any system, unless yes, you want a fast resolution and that's it:). Modifiers also exist, BTW.

However I do think there is merit in what others have said about having a more detailed mechanic for lengthy dramatic social situations such as a formal debate and I would like to see the Orate skill having a few combat-like mechanics to it.

Yes, not all social situations need to be roleplayed the same way. Often, you still use the simple roll with maybe a difficulty. But then, we often use that for unimportant fights as well, say when only pride is hurt.

So I guess it really depends on what social situations would be best being 'rule-played', and what would be best being 'role-played'.

There's no "rule-playing" being proposed in this thread. There are, however, people that tend to label this way any attempt at a more involved social mechanic, possibly as a reminder of the "roll-playing vs role-playing" fallacy;).

Hah! I was thinking about this earlier!

GM: "The orc hits, roll to dodge."

Player: "I fail"

GM: "The orc does 6 points of damage. You fall down dead!"

Player: "Foul! My character wouldn't do that! You're taking control of my character! My character dodged and the blow missed! I keep on fighting!"

...as opposed to...

GM: "The orc calls you a really insulting name in front of your friends. Roll to ignore."

Player: "I fail!"

Gm: "The insult does 6 points of bravery. You are intimidated and wet your pants in fear!"

...as opposed to...

GM: "You see a giant octopus-head monster rising from the water. Roll your sanity."

Player: "I fail!"

GM: "You lose 6 points of sanity. You go insane and try to kill yourself!"

Yeah, that's exactly it. If it wasn't for the force of habit, some players would probably want to ignore the combat system as well;).

Actually, there are quite a few such players, but let's not get into this;D!

What about an example of how the given stand-off might have worked out using such mechanics?

Sure, let me use a non-descript system. I'll assume the lawmen are a clear victor here.

Lawmen NPCs: "We don't want to hurt you, we just need you to put down those weapons. We don't question armed people, and we need you for questioning on a murder!"

PCs: "No way you're getting our weapons!"

Opposed rolls ensue, people on both sides are getting stressed and nervous. Finally, the lawmen triumph by at least a little.

"You know you're not helping your case here. Be more cooperative, neither of us wants to fight, but you gotta follow the procedure and hand those guns over! We're going to give them back, promise!"

He seems honest as well. Now, the PCs can't find a reason to oppose handling their weapons, other than admitting they're feeling guilty and nervous. At the same time, they know right isn't on their side and know these guys are just doing their jobs, not intending to mass-rape them in the cells! (That's assuming they're the kind that would care about not shooting people for just doing their job. If they aren't, they're just not sure whether they couldn't have avoided it). If they decide to shoot nevertheless, they get a -10- to -30 on their Fast-Draw, depending on how badly they failed the social conflict, and a subsequent -10 on their attack rolls. This alone would make many players far more likely to go along with the results!

Of course, the choice is still theirs.

OTOH, if they do come with the lawmen, they'd avoid this if they are unrightfully imprisoned and are trying to break out. Actually, the guards might well have the same penalties for resisting players' attempt to influence them if it turns out they were mislead by the boss!

"Hey, you lied to us (activating an Aspect or some such that says they were promised to be safe, if there's something like this in the system)!"

"The boss lied to us, too!"

"So how about setting it straight? Open this cell and let us go! Come on, we did disarm at your request, remember? We could have tried to run!"

"We would have shot!"

"We had weapons to shoot as well, is that what we get for entrusting them to you?"

With the same bonus they had as a penalty last time, this time, it's likely to go in favour of the players;).

As I see it, social mechanics work well once the players have agreed to

accept the results of the relevant rules for their characters, but are not

very helpful when a player insists that his character is beyond the reach

of normal human psychology and social behaviour. Therefore I think whi-

le good social mechanics can solve most problems like the stand off de-

scribed at the beginning of this thread for most players, they would fail

to solve the specific problem with this specific player.

Yes, no mechanic can solve a problem with a problem player. But then, if a player insists the PC is beyond psychology and social behaviour, what's the difference with insisting he's also beyond physiology and psychology during combat? As in, his PC keeps fighting through the pain, no matter how many rounds he's got into his body.

It can open new outcomes for less problem-prone players, though;).

Thinking of personality traits or alignments, in my view a trait or alignment

which includes "lawful" in its meaning should give a character a strong ten-

dency to obey the law and therefore a negative modifier for all actions in

disobedience of the law. For example, he may well hesitate to attack a re-

presentative of the law, reducing the likelihood of a quick and successful

attack. He can still do it, but in a "fair fight" he would be at a significant

disadvantage, which the player would know.

Screw alignments, they rate highly in the list of most stupid mechanics ever;D!

OTOH, your example is what the personality traits in some systems would do, not prohibiting the attack, but making it harder:).

Yeah, exactly my point. For some strange reason, some gamers think "social" should be treated differently than combat.

They have their own reasons, but IME, the most compelling one is that they like it that way. And yeah, I can't see a compelling reason for the differences either.

You mean this...?

I'm afraid I don't find it convincing, and don't think it really addresses the 'impasse' problem.

Because the problem is only solved if the players succeed at (a), i.e. make their Persuade/Whatever rolls. But that's obvious - in the example, we can presume they already tried that (and failed).

Maybe it doesn't address it for you. But frankly, I find your suggestion that PCs are unable to back down unless they succeed about as weird as the e-mail the OP got from his player.

And success at ( doesn't matter. No matter how much Insight the players get into how little these Bad Guy Lawmen want to hurt them, they still won't want to surrender to them. For plenty of reasons: 1) They know they did it! And when the Lawmen find out...; 2) The Lawmen's Boss may later decide he DOES want to hurt them; 3) They totally lose control of their fate - and they're probably playing this game to have such control; 4) Shooting bad guys is what they want to do - why not these bad guys, now? So I don't believe the players would give up their weapons. The risk to them isn't reduced by Insight, and failing a Fast Talk (no matter how long a procedure is involved) isn't going to convince them either, IMHO.

That example isn't an example of the problem being solved at all...

Yeah, I find your reasons especially telling.

1) They didn't do it, actually. Someone else has.

2) So they always go about armed? Why not in bulletproof vests, too?

3) And weapons give them control over their fate? How about being overwhelmed despite being armed? Honestly, the expectation for "balanced" fights just needs to die.

4) "We play the game to shoot people, so why not these ones?" Honestly, is that what you're saying?

Didn't mean a 'convince the PCs there's only one option' railroad, just 'convince the players there's another viable option' - that would be enough. But in this case I reckon that'd be impossible, because frankly I agree with them that surrender was not viable.

Yeah, that's the root of our disagreement, really. I disagree with them;).

Yes, my bad. Of course I was not referring to "Forgetting KAP the game". Just as "clearing your minds of all influences it may have on your judgement, for the current discussion".

I certainly do not believe that Greg Stafford's intentions when writing Pendragon was that of suggesting that game variables (traits) should limit player freedom. Still, if you read the posts of two pages ago, it is very easy for people to think in terms of "social mechanics telling me what to do", just because this can sometimes happen in Pendragon.

Yeah, and I pointed out it's due to people not really knowing how social mechanics work in the first place;). In Pendragon, I've found mechanics give you incentives to act a certain way, but very rarely prescribe a certain way to act. Same thing with social mechanics, nobody can kill you with words, but they can dishearthen you and make you hesitate, giving penalties on your skill rolls if you later decide to escalate to a fight. This way, it doesn't become a "free roll to avoid a fight, because NPCs are bound by the results, but we fight anyway if we don't get our way" as some other posters seem to be suggesting;).

Also, I can point you to a well-known, widely accepted mechanic that limits player freedom quite a bit. It's called "hit points", and opponents affect it by winning a skill contest with PCs;D! For some reason, most people see nothing wrong with it, so why would it be different with social rolls?

To resolve bits of RP that've got intractable/boring for the players, I'd have thought a quick Fast Talk or Oratory or CHAx5 would be enough.

Sometimes they are. For something they're ready to negotiate 4 hours of real time? More involved is a better bet.

Succeed and they get away - Fail and, well... violence is always an option.

But with a more involved social conflict system... there's always another way;).

More involved 'Social Interaction' mechanics don't sound convincing to me. Basically just more fluff to cover up the bottom line when the players fail their rolls: the GM takes control of the characters away from the players. That's a bad thing.

I'm not asking how many involved systems for social interactions you know. I'd like to ask you whether you've read this thread, though.

See this quote?

(snipped)

Ditto. THERE IS NO MIND CONTROLLING OR FORCING PLAYERS TO CHANGE THEIR MINDS in a good social conflict mechanics. Forget Pendragon Traits, that is NOT a social conflict mechanics. Not at all.

So, frogspawner, who's taking control of what characters;D?

Yo fanboy...er I mean brutha. I got what you need to ease the dullness o' that 'ho' BRP. Lookit mah fine Aegis bitch ass! She cheap. She ride you long time, boy!

I think I figured it out why your current title says "Alephtar pimp";).

If it is "more objectivity" that you seek, why not play a computer game? You can't get more objective than software.

I think this argument deserves its own name. Probably "argumentum ad computergamum" will work;).

It may come as a surprise to you Rosen, but you can't actually have a "definate well- defined procedure" for every little thing in an RPG, or it would be infinite.

It will probably be a surprise to you, but you can do that in a game with rules as long as 3 pages. Want examples:)?

GMs are there for a purpose you know.

Yes, but it's not to invent games during play. There are enough in game events to track, you know;)!

WTF does that have to do with this topic? Put that spliff down and concentrate man!

Both social and physical conflicts are forms of conflict. And both can kill you.

Oh I see now; its about you pushing more product.

Am I pushing my product as well?

In the situation that Evilschemer mentioned, roleplaying and a skill roll are simple and effective procedures, in accordance with the BRP rules. If he wants to have some quick fix mechanic for that then fine, its his game.

And if his rules work, they're a good thing. Otherwise, he might be better served by some other rules.

That's assuming he has dealt with his problem player already, of course.

But I see it as a waste of a dramatic roleplaying opportunity for the players.

Are your combat rules there to supplement or to replace the combat descriptions? If the latter, I see it as a waste of dramatic roleplaying opportunity for the players as well. You don't stop roleplaying during combats, you know?

Well, at least I don't, haven't played with you;D!

I would like to point out that in first post I suggested a mechanic for quickly resolving intractable social conflicts that were boring to roleplay.

Then, in my second post, I essentially recanted my first post, suggesting instead that GMs, when faced with an intractable social conflict that no one is having fun roleplaying, should instead take a break and think of a third alternative that disrupts the conflict or causes it to come to a swift resolution. It's a twist on the classic "..and then, suddenly, ninjas attack!" trope in RPG story-telling.

Yeah, and people told you it's likely not to work with a problem player. No mechanic helps that, other than the social conflict mechanics in Real Life 1.0 the RPG;).

The alternative might work, but then the player is still essentially making you avoid a whole slew of situations. Are you fine with that?

A mechanic to solve sociall conflicts has NOTHING TO DO with the Pendragon Trait mechanics you quote. Solving non-violent conflicts involves whether you can sweet-talk/intimidate/persuade your NPC opponent, not whether your character would act in one way or not.

There is no "forcing the PCs to act" in a good social mechanics, it is only used to determine whether a bribe / intimidate works without the alpha player in the group actually trying to sweet-talk/intimidate the GM, which is what actually happens if you "roleplay it out" (see example above).

Really? I've also played Exalted, LotW, A Dirty World, FATE, Heroquest 2 and a couple other systems with social conflict mechanics. And I've played Pendragon, Unknown Armies, Artesia, CoC and Gumshoe, so maybe I have some idea about personality mechanics as well and how they differ from social conflict;).

Now, can you point me to where I said Pendragon's passions are a social conflict mechanics? Because what I said is the same players that dislike Pendragon are likely to dislike social conflict as well. That's simply my observation, and they raise similar objections. "But what if my character wouldn't do that?"

As you say, social conflict isn't about mind-control, so the answer is "then your PC wouldn't do it". At most, you can get some penalties for the nagging doubt inside your character's mind that maybe, just maybe, he or she is making a mistake (not in all systems, though).

But, largely thanks to Exalted IMO, social conflict is often viewed as mind-control (nevermind that charms are actually mind-control). So, the same players that hate Pendragon, are the most likely to object. And I used Pendragon as I figured Greg Stafford's games are most likely to be known around here;D!

If you lose a conflict about "trusting a NPC", this does not mean that you trust him if you do not want to trust him. This means that you are absolutely unable to show others that he is not to be trusted. You can still shoot him, if you wish, but this will CERTAINLY make you labeled as a criminal, while shooting him after winning the social conflict would probably make you a hero.

In our case, things could have been handled this way: the guards want the PCs to surrender their weapons. The PCs then attempt to argue with them with two goals:

a) persuade the guards that it would be dishonourable to surrender weapons and let them go with them voluntarily (Persuade/Orate/Etiquette/Status/Whatever)

determine if this is a trick to slaughter them once they are tied up (Insight)

If the party succeeds in a), the problem is solved: no disarming (it's the guards' problems now, as their boss will probably get angry). If the party succeeds in , most players would agree to lay down their weapons, as the risk is reduced. If the party tries a) but fails, they still have the option to fight: however, your average player is much more likely to give up violence as an option once he has been given a fair, objective chance to talk himself out of trouble. There is no perceived railroading if you surrender after a failed try to persuade the guards, if you roll the dice for a conflict. If all you do is roleplaying it out, how can you know the GM did not simply determine the guards would not let you go in any case?

Note that this would not work with the "problem player". But there is no way you can handle a player who says "I will disrupt your campaign if you try and disarm my PC". Nothing can work with such a player. And I doubt that not including plausible situations in your game because of problem players is a solution. Like Pete, I would rather rule the problem player out, not the situation.

Yes, that's my experience with it as well, so we're actually not in disagreement;). And it's also why I've noticed the existence of such clear procedures makes trigger-happy players less likely to resort to violence.

In synthesis, I fail to see why "simply sticking to a well-defined procedural mechanics based on statement of intent and subsequent die rolls" is considered good for combat and "boring roll-playing" for social conflicts.

FWIW, I'm with you here.

It IS a rules problem. Because BRP lacks a well-defined resolution method for these pre-fight situations where intimidation is more important than actual might. This means that the GM has no real way to enforce a plausible outcome and must resort to the OD&D-esque resolution method of "roleplaying it out", which has a 90%+ chance of resulting in one of these unpleasant outcomes:

- a player trying to bully the GM (see above)

- the GM forcing the players to act contrary to their inclination

- a player bullying an NPC (involuntarily) in such a way that there is no plausible outcome but violence, forcing the player to either break suspension of disbelief or risk an involuntary TPK

Please note that BRP includes the skills necessary to handle these situations (Persuade, Insight, etc.), but lacks the procedures. This is instead easy to solve in Aegis or HeroQuest, and in each and every system that includes non-violent conflict rules. Dogs in the Vineyard has a good system for handling this, as it allows verbal conflicts to escalate in violence if the outcome of persuasion/intimidation is not satisfactory for you, without even having the need to initiate a new conflict.

While I agree with this, see again this line.

A mechanical solution is good unless your group is one of those that would hate Pendragon because of the Passions.

So, a mechanic might solve the problem, or the players might just hate the mechanic.

This simply means you can't skip the "talk to the group" part, at least not without risking to have your decision making the problem worse;).

Unfortunately, this thread somehow became about the incident that inspired my thinking about stand-offs, not how to handle intractable non-violent (but with the implication of possible violence) stand-offs more in general. I didn't really mean to talk about the original incident, but somehow it became the focus.

A better hypothetical stand-off might also be two guys with holstered guns, both paranoid that the other guy might shoot him in the back, waiting to go through a door one at a time. Each guy saying "You first", "No, after you", "I insist", "No, by all means", "I said you first", "age before beauty", etc.

Neither guy wants to actually pull a gun and shoot the other, but neither one trusts the other NOT to pull a gun and shoot him.

This kind of intractable stand-off becomes BORING quickly! And the GM has the weaker hand. Either I continue arguing about who goes first forever, which is un-fun (and it's part of the gm's responsibility to make sure everyone's having fun), or I just give in and go through the door first. No player will ever willingly go through the door first if they are paranoid about the other guy. So my first post was a mechanical way of ending the argument and determining who the hell goes through the door first.

I already commented on the problem. Talk with the group and see how they feel about it and whether they all back the e-mail writer, then work from there. You can even tell us what they said in this thread, and we could be more useful then:).

But if you feel you gto the weaker hand, change the deck;D! By which I mean not the group, stop assuming that only the GM is responsible, or even more responsible, for having a fun time! If they chose to discuss, it's because they find it fun, as far as I'm concerned, so there is no problem to begin with;)! If they don't find it fun, they should have opted for another solution, like running away, or buying everybody a round of drinks to talk then and there, or anything appropriate!

A mechanical solution is good unless your group is one of those that would hate Pendragon because of the Passions.

BTW, inspired by the example but more general, when you resist people with authority for a long time, they tend to assume you're challenging their authority, so escalation should always be on the list!

To any potential GMs, the offer still stands;)!

Yeah, I'd like any news as well, and especially to hear that it's not put on the backburner in favour of the Far West or some other game;)!

The discussion concerns secret societies by now, but we're still looking for another GM;).

Otherwise, I'd run it, of course. But I really prefer playing:D!

Read it again, no weapons were drawn. All weapons were holstered. Everyone was calm.

The setting is a fantasy-sci-fi-western setting, so the "authorities" was the local baron in charge of a small western town, equivalent to a town mayor with a gang of henchmen (Brian Dennehey in Silverado, Gene Hackman in the Quick and the Dead). The murder victim was an associate of the "town boss". The PCs were lying to cover for their buddy, who was nowhere to be seen. But, essentially, a wild west "Town Boss" and his henchmen telling some suspicious dudes "Surrender your weapons and come with me. I'd like to talk to you privately."

The PC response was "We'll come with you to talk privately, but we won't surrender our weapons."

NPC response, "That's unacceptable. Surrender your weapons, come on, let's go."

PC, "You'll have to kill me first."

NPC, "I don't want to kill you."

PC, "And I don't want to kill you."

Etc. etc.

Did they really say this one? Because it implies they could kill the baron, in front of his men.

At this point, violence would have shifted to "logical choice" for the NPC in question, at least in my games.

It's certainly kosher for me that some players wouldn't want the characters to be captured alive. Some characters might not allow it, either, even if the player doesn't mind.

When a player like this plays with a GM that thinks it's not a big deal, it's just a clash of expectations. So you should talk it out.

You may not have been railroading just prior to this event, but your player clearly thinks you were railroading: "...never, ever put the PCs in a situation where NPCs will take their toys...keep writing in to the story that... please feel free to write in to your "script" ..."

So if you aren't railroading, there's clearly some disconnect here between you and your player that needs to be resolved.

It might be worth pointing out to him that you didn't script that event at all - that, in fact, he authored it through his actions.

(snipped)

Either way, by holding the game hostage, he's putting you in the exact same position he told you not to put his character into - and that really is a standoff!

And that's the issue that needs to be resolved, IMO.

This is certainly true. On the other hand, the tension - and therefore much of

the fun - in a roleplaying game is usually based upon the idea that characters

have to take risks to achieve their goals. These risks have to be real to make

a success meaningful and valuable, otherwise the story becomes a kind of bun-

gee jumping, with a fake risk leading to a meaningless fake success.

So, if you want a plausible, challenging and rewarding setting, I am afraid you

will at least occasionally have to introduce the consequences of a miscalcula-

ted risk, even if this means to have the entire party killed. In my view the si-

tuation you described would have been such an occasion.

Armed people resisting disarmament and interrogation by the authorities in a

murder case take a suicidally high risk. It depends on your setting's "plausibi-

lity level" whether the characters have a chance to survive such a stupid be-

haviour, but under normal circumstances they would be dealt with by a SWAT

team, with almost zero chance to get out of this unharmed and little chance

to survive a firefight.

In other words, I would have killed the characters. While it may reduce the

fun in the short run, to me it would seem necessary to keep the setting plau-

sible, and through this to support the future fun with this setting.

BTW, that would have been my response, although most games I play allow for incapacitation without death and given modern medical response and average dicerolls, most of the PCs that didn't get a sniper round would have waken up in hospital;).

If it wasn't for the time continuum distortions between the US and the real world (Down Under pun) I'ld consider some involvement actually.

As another player in this game, I should point out that I'm in Bulgaria, Europe. The time distortion between me and the US is also significant;).

Luckily, it's a Play by Post game, and I've played with enough Australians before to know it's usually not a problem:).