On Friday night at Dreamation, I facilitated a game of The Extraordinary Adventures of Baron Munchausen. Let me build upon what I wrote in my LiveJournal:

Friday midnight was The Extraordinary Adventures of Baron Munchausen. If I have a regret all weekend, this was it. On the surface, it was *grand.* People had been asking me about it all through the weekend, checking to see how many people I could take. The description is so enticing, we had a number of folks I don't normally see in the RPG room come out to give it a try. All told, there were 13 players, plus myself. Thus, I explained the rules of the game very briefly, and--since I had brought 2 copies--split things up into 2 tables and joined the smaller of the tables myself (mistake #1). Things started off very well with my tale of how I came to learn that apes and men were cousins (and then actually married one). In retrospect, perhaps this veiled implication of bestiality opened to floodgates to what came later. Alexander Newman told us of the little dog he met on the moon that spoke French. Jeff Lower told us how he became th king of Mbolo-Mbeleland by accident, and a player whose name I never learned wowed us all with a story of how he lost a week of his life building his own prision under the sea and was subsequently rescued by sea monkeys. Then things got highly uncomfortable, and I didn't do a damned thing about it (mistake #2). There is MUCH matter there to be discussed, so I will move on with my con write-up and come back to the Munchausen game in an AP thread somewhere.

I agree in principle that out-of-game intervention is required to set players on the same track as regards social convention. In case of Münchausen, though, I'd be sorely attracted to challenging a villainous wretch like that into a duel for confessing to such attrocity! This inclination, I am sure, speaks more of the strong subject matter than the advisability of trying anything like that with the rules of the game, such as they are.

I've had several similar experience through the years - playing a lot of games like Dust Devils and My Life with Master at conventions is sure to bump into inappropriate weirdness if any of the players are prone to introducing such. I would categorize these situations into three boxes, perhaps:

• Sometimes people are just unfamiliar with a genre and go into inappropriate content by mistake. I try my hardest not to let anybody be left into a position where they need supreme genre knowledge to play well, but sometimes it happens regardless. To make this work requires willingness on the part of the clueless person to put matters on the table and take suggestions from others; if the game session can be used as a tool of learning regarding the genre, then play will also go well.
• Sometimes geek social fallacies take a man and twist him into a monster. Specifically, it seems surprisingly common, especially for an established group, that a person should get into a game with the express purpose of proving that it doesn't work. This can usually be worked with, like the above, by talking about it explicitly instead of going into the status game with the person in question. A variant of this is "top dog" behavior where a person exercises power to establish their identity as the keenest, coolest guy in the game; this is pretty usual with Finnish teenagers and immature student population who like to prove how tough they are by the level of uncaring attrocity they bring into the game.
• Sometimes I end up playing with people who have strident, monomaniac convictions that touch upon the matter of play. We all have beliefs and preferences, but I generally find that most people, most of the time, are well able to verbalize and compromise on their ideas, and get excited with the ideas of others as well; not so with this type of people. Such a player might, as a matter of gratification, try to intently overrun the game with his own agenda. Such a player might just as well get supremely uncomfortable when another player takes the game into opposition with his personal beliefs.

Now, the former kind of player I can deal with, but the latter is simply embarrassing for everybody involved. I should know, my brother is fragile in exactly this manner, prone to priorizing his own ideas over others and likely to twist his uncomfortableness in the game into a strange ball of anger that bursts forth suddenly or causes him to engage in some stress rituals. It is quite possible to game with a person who, from your viewpoint, holds strange and fragile ideas that should not be touched; you just need to know what works with him and what doesn't. Assuming that you have common ground at all, play is possible.

As you can see above - putting the first two cases aside - I tend to diagnose the most difficult kinds of play interruption as genuine social difficulties: roleplaying is a form of communication that requires not only a shared cultural basis, but also a willingness to respect and listen to the other person. A frame of comfort is required, one wherein all players can try to affect the direction of play without risking mockery or ostracism. When a player insists on being the top dog of shock value at the table, whatever the game (I know folks who are like this; perhaps this was the case with your game as well?), or breaks down in pieces when something relatively ordinary is brought into play by others, then that common frame of activity disappears.

Of course, while I have the above list to reference when considering similar situations I've witnessed, pinpointing a given case into one particular box is hellishly difficult, especially when I don't usually end up prodding any given person's play-style for an extended amount of time if they cause this kind of trouble. In the cases where I have played long-term with a difficult player who breaks genre convention like this I've usually come to categorize them in the third category: they are folks who simply are so fragile socially that they can't play in a flexible and socially skilled manner.

Hmm... I'm tempted to write about similar experiences of my own, but it seems I'm not really comfortable with publicizing other people's horridly inappropriate behaviours in-game. I feel that the reason for the behavior is in each case very personal to the player in question and figuring out what, exactly, is going on is not going to happen without dragging out all kinds of personal contextual data on the person at hand. Speaking of why somebody acts like that at the gaming table is necessarily a personal matter.

When Jeff told me about this one when I caught up to him on Saturday, I asked him if there were any ladies at the table, to which he responded with an emphatic "No."  I thought this was interesting, and inasmuch as this may not be a gender issue (in fact, it probably isn't), it's enough to make me wonder if the individual in question would have brought up rape (especially more than once) if there had been mixed company. 

I was over at the second table and can speak to it directly.  I echo Michael... this game was my only solid regret of the whole con.  We had two ladies and there was no actual rape (what a thing to say about Munchausen!), so maybe there's something in that, but the underlying phenomenon was if anything much worse at our table.  Subtler, but pervasive... elements of juvenilia - not ridiculous or outrageous, just dumb and anachronistic - and a clear failure to really catch the point of the game.

Swearing (in character at the table and in-character during storytold dialogue), especially modern swearing, was somehow the thing that most specifically got under my skin, but I think that's because it was concrete and identifiable, where the real problem was an underlying malaise without any clear handles.

This last resulted in us lacking even the "but surely you were deceiving your companions, Baron" feedback loop... because there was just nothing you could haul out and say no, this element by itself is totally out of line.  Rather, the line crept all over the place, starting poor and creeping worse.  The creep is where, I think, the lack of feedback mechanisms in the game really showed.  There was no good way, until all the tales were done or your own turn came up, to say "that really sucked, those themes just weren't appropriate in my opinion" to the participants.  Shy of, and again I echo Michael, stopping play and actually saying that, which in retrospect I possibly should have done but felt I lacked the authority to do so unilaterally.

Alas, though she is beautifully penned, this poor game is (IMO) overdue for a shakedown from the theory crowd to make its reward system actually serve the role of reinforcing the style of play upon which the game depends.  Be interesting to see someone take that on as a project... keep the basic play-structure the same, and keep the mechanics in the same very simple vein, but pen a game flow and rules logic which works robustly, even with less-than-optimal players.

- Eric

Eric,

I was also at the second table, and while there was some breaking of kayfabe (for which I am in part responsible), I had a great time, and thought that most of the stories were clever and funny.  I'm sorry if what my friends or I were doing was irritating you; I genuinely didn't pick up on that vibe at the table.  I confess I wasn't really thinking in terms of theme when I was telling a story or posing challenges.  I own a copy, squirreled away somewhere, and my local group has expressed interest in trying the game again, so I was wondering if you could expand on what the "point" of the game is, and what makes a thematically appropriate tale?  What would you have told us, if you'd decided to speak up at the table?

-Sam

Michael wrote: a player whose name I never learned

Eero wrote:
I agree in principle that out-of-game intervention is required to set players on the same track as regards social convention.[...]
I've had several similar experience through the years - playing a lot of games like Dust Devils and My Life with Master at conventions is sure to bump into inappropriate weirdness if any of the players are prone to introducing such. I would categorize these situations into three boxes, perhaps:
[...]

Michael,

Before diving into the unpleasantness, would you acknowledge your using constructive denial? As in, during the game insisting for example 'French poodles on the moon is exactly what a baron munchausen game is'? But now your out of the game you could say that really that isn't strictly true? But it's rather fun during the game to believe that is just what a baron game is?

It's possible to talk about the unpleasantness, but I think if we have to talk to each other in double talk about what the game 'really' is, talks will be fruitless.

Claudia wrote:
Until now it seems I've been lucky and my demos always proved pleasant and smooth, but if you have any suggestion for how to deal with the problems you mention, know I would be very interested in hearing about it (to be prepared if I ever meet those!).

Thank you so much Eero.
Your taking the time for such well thought advice was much appreciated.

Best!

--
Claudia

Callan wrote:
Michael,

Before diving into the unpleasantness, would you acknowledge your using constructive denial? As in, during the game insisting for example 'French poodles on the moon is exactly what a baron munchausen game is'? But now your out of the game you could say that really that isn't strictly true? But it's rather fun during the game to believe that is just what a baron game is?

It's possible to talk about the unpleasantness, but I think if we have to talk to each other in double talk about what the game 'really' is, talks will be fruitless.

Sam - that's very nicely asked, so I'm going to try and express an answer, even though I'm having a lot of difficulty pinning it down.  Bear with me.

I think there's definitely a hint when you mention that you weren't thinking in terms of theme.  (I presume you're using this in the more common sense of motifs and topic areas, rather than Ron's very constrained definition for Nar theory; I prefer the general term myself.)  To me, Baron Munchausen is all about theme and colour, and damn near nothing else.  If I had to capture the essential elements I was expecting, and not seeing...

1) The characters are presumptively not only aristocrats but aristocratic in their behaviour.  So for example if the Baron were to find himself in possession of a lady's underthings, it would be a necessary act to offset this potential failing in gentlemanly action by an apology or disclaimer of some kind... the more over-the-top and florid, the better.  Or for another example, a Lady would never, ever actually speak of a sexual act.  Indeed the closer to the forbidden territory and the scandalous the topic comes, I think the more necessary it is for the counterweighting courtesies to be overemphasized.  This seems like a subtle point but I'm not sure this is true; it is, however, something that one couldn't reasonably expect someone to pick up automatically.

It seems on the face of it like the Baron throws away the strictures of upright period-aristocrat behaviour, and one could come away with only that impression, without realizing that it's in between the lightly scandalous deeds and the overly courtly language that the actual aristocracy is being hoist on a two-pronged skewer.  We had transgressive Barons and Baronesses who would not have been wholly out of place in a light-weight Sorcerer game, without the counterweight at all.

Chalk this one up to a subtlety of the mode without which it lost balance and fell down.

2) The preposterous felt like it was largely out of reach for many of us (including me), remaining stuck at the level of the mildly absurd.  This is definitely a skill thing, and one of the elements one would expect to include in the final judgment calls.  So it's definitely not blameworthy, except inasmuch as it meant that what suffered wasn't a session which could have been great... it was a session which would have topped out at pretty good, even if all other flaws had been remedied.  I'm sure this contributed to the sour taste in my mouth, but it's inherent to a first play of a difficult game and I shouldn't place it in the same category.

3)  Several other missing motifs from the source could have been present, but weren't, which would have helped as well.  For example, the motif of the extraordinary companions (the fellow who could hear for miles, etc), which serves I think to spread the glory around and allow the Baron to profess humility even when he's boasting.  Again it's probably ignorance of the source, and it's also revealing how much of an effect these elements have in facilitating some of the underlying themes; not something you'd think of, 'til they weren't there.

4)  The table talk suffered from breaches of kayfabe (good phrasing), and from interjections which allowed the meta-level stuff (which was theoretically permissible as 'table talk', and thus by convention not subject to the same rules) to migrate their feel into the narratives.  Having the one influence the other is definitely an upshot of the fact that the table talk is, itself, in-character.  This is where the swearing bothered me... somewhat in its own right as a breach of character/theme, and moreso in that it intruded into the stories and dragged them downward as well.  There was no separate out-of-character voice in which to express them.  My own intuition says that therefore, this should have meant that either such a voice be cleanly separated ("okay, I just have to cut in and say this even though my Baron totally wouldn't... you were such a bitch to that poor Prince!") or not expressed until after.

All of these exacerbated by the fact that there is, quite simply, nothing else under the hood except motifs and colour.  They, and not the coins, constitute the real 'system' in Lumpley Principle terms.  In many ways it's definitely a Gamist game... "can you demonstrate skill at telling an original story which holds closely to the following elements?  Step up and try."  Which analysis suggests that Michael's intuition, that he needs to do substantially better briefing and mood-setting next time, is precisely correct.  In a very real sense, he didn't actually explain the rules.  Not his fault, especially with all these coin tricks pretending to be the real rules... but definitely something to remedy next time.

Does that help pin it down?

- Eric

Eric, that's excellent, and really speaks to why I was rather profoundly disappointed by BM as a game on the two occassions I played.

Not having read the book, how clear are these elements presented?

I'm speculating that they are probably present in the presentation of the text, but not made explicit such that the reader has to interpret that presentation as part of the rules rather than ignoring it as the usual fictional fluff found in many games.

Would it be possible to create a list of these motifs that is at once succinct enough to be employable as a "cheat sheet" for teaching the game but yet inclusive enough to really get the point across?  Has someone already done such a thing?

Hello,

I thought I'd add a bit from a different angle, although I do not want to derail the points made by Eero and Eric. This is already a rich thread based on a few posts, and I'm hoping to get yet another weave or facet into it. It's GNS stuff, and it's composed of a few parts.

The first part comes from playing the game Once Upon a Time a lot, which now that I think of it had a big influence on a lot of us sometime in the late 1990s. It may even have had a role in generating Endgame mechanics in RPG design. There are two points I can draw from playing it so much that I think are relevant here.

1. The game underwent a major revision in the second edition, which is the only one I played - namely, the addition of Ending cards. This is huge. I cannot even imagine what it would have been like to play without them, because I think the game would degenerate into pure struggle for control. "Look, we made an SIS, and now it's a free-for-all of derails, subversions, and interruptions until it's over."

2. The second edition still yielded a card-game equivalent of the incompatibility of Gamist and Narrativist goals. The former subordinated the thematic punch of the developing story to who could lock down the ending, as we competed for that in terms of rules and cards. In this case, merely laying down the Ending card by the rules did the job, even if the narration that bridged the gap to the ending was a bit lame in thematic/plausibility terms. That didn't matter much because that particular narration is pro forma. By contrast, the latter subordinated the "who wins" question to whoever could line up the best run-up to their ending, in terms of plausibility and thematic punch. That meant that one didn't play an Ending card although it was possible, because the current components in action didn't line up to make that Ending "work" in a satisfying way. Winning still existed, but winning without a good narration for the Ending card was actually losing, or more accurately, a bit of a betrayal.

My experiences convinced me that the game was not fun unless either of these goals was explicitly in action for the whole group, by about halfway through the game. If one of them were firing well, though, then the game was endlessly entertaining.

The second part concerns most of the early Hogshead games, including Munchausen and reaching its peak probably with Pantheon. I find them all to be broken much in the same way as the first edition of Once Upon a Time, and also problematic in the same way as the second edition. The aesthetic seems to be, "compete for how the story goes," with currency as a method for both contribution and interruption. It's prone to a lot of bullying, and when the rules don't permit the bullying (i.e. you have the counters or whatever to stand them off), to a lot of subversion and devaluing of what others have already said. Instead of story creation, it's about story control, and I think lends itself to the worst excesses of what I described as Prima Donna play in my Narrativism essay, or if you shift it to the Gamist end of things, to the unpleasant excesses of the Hard Core play I describe in that essay). It may be that the designers had only ever expressed Narrativist goals using those tactics, and therefore to make a "story game," simply translated those tactics into rules.

(Robin's design of Rune does a better job, I think, of formalizing Hard Core Gamist play into rules without it becoming simply a breaking-down of the social power elements of play. Pantheon, in my judgment after playing it, collapses into "yes it does no it doesn't" based on tokens and points.)

3. What if one doesn't want to play it Gamist and instead as a kind of celebration of the source material? Which is, I think, where you and a couple other people at the table were coming from, Michael. Also, Eric, it seems to me that your interpretation of the game comes from that angle too. Well, my take on that is that the rules are grinning viciously at you, right from the page, when you try it. They are built to empower anyone who wants to give your genre-fun a giant wedgie, right over your head like in Dilbert. That person has the rules on their side, and thus they got your "gee the Baron is fun, let's be fun together" goal right here (with gesture).

I think that the Hogshead community of the mid-90s brought maximum innovation to maximum incoherence (in the GNS sense), and I stand by that now. The game doesn't offer a goal in terms of Creative Agenda, so people tend to project onto it whichever one they're inclined toward based on some aspect of the text (G = rules to compete for story control, N = "make a story" in a kind of naive interpretation, and S = enjoy Baron Munchausen color and light theme as a fixed entity). But the system is Gamist with the red dial of competition turned way up, and since it's Gamist over the SIS itself, it pops the competition up to the Social Contract level above that.

I dunno, Michael ... it seems to me that the game itself, for all its textual enjoyment of Baron Munchausen color, is built to hose anyone who actually wants to bring that enjoyment into the actual practice of play. Even if the participants all decide to do nothing but that, they'll accomplish it by ignoring the available options of the rules.

Best, Ron

Ron - I think your conclusion there is spot on.  Maximum incoherence with maximum style.  Which is where I'd really like to see someone re-craft it to explicitly support a proper CA.  Hell, one could probably re-craft Munchausen three times... once to support each side of the GNS triangle.  Now that would be a fascinating tutorial/exemplar on GNS.  Here's the exact same game done three subtly different ways, each of which is fun in a totally different way.

Ralph - this is one of those games where even the 'rules' are presented in-character.  The real rules, the colour etc., drips pretty heavily, and IIRC there's no real "game fiction" distinction for people to steer around.  Some of the motifs are less likely to be present - for instance, I don't know how well the text actually brings in the extraordinary companions motif - but really a full read of the game does feel like it would successfully communicate the goals as long as the rules weren't obscuring them the way they do.  So your speculation is correct except that the text is well-done in that it's never "fluff" to steer around... if you steered around the fluff you wouldn't get anything at all.  It's quite simply the body of the work.

Now, at the con, we didn't do a full read of the rules; I'm quite sure I had the strongest familiarity with the game at our table, and I lost my copy more than five years ago.  So nobody had that osmosis treatment for the real rules, and that's something we could have opted to fix with a little more prep.  A list of motifs like you describe might be doable, I dunno... it would have to be a well-steered group project between several people who had familiarity not only with the game, but also the movie and the source folktales (and preferably the body of folk lit surrounding them as well - there's snippets of Koschei the Deathless and all sorts of other stuff in there).  I wouldn't trust one person to spot all the elements and weight them appropriately.  You'd definitely need to triage it down into "Required", "Recommended" and "Optional", and would I think be a bigger project than just re-tasking the game text and keeping the colour-via-reading approach (but making it explicit).

Who's up for actually taking up the challenge of reinterpreting Munchausen into G, N, and S variants, with proper support for each?  I'm told the game can still be had for reasonable prices on EBay and so forth.

- Eric

Only if you promise never to use the abomination "GNS triangle" ever, ever again. That crept into things sometime in 2000, got shot down instantly, yet tries to crawl out of its crypt again every so often.

If you promise, then I'll be glad to host a discussion at GenCon dedicated to coherent versions of Baron Munchausen.

Best, Ron

Done - to me it was just an off-the-cuff metaphor placed because the sentence would have been flat and inexpressive without it.

Next time I'll use something else when I need sentence flavour.  Say, "GNS Martian Tripod."  Though probably not in a discussion of Munchausen, I hope.

Hi Eric,

Harlequin wrote: To me, Baron Munchausen is all about theme and colour, and damn near nothing else.  If I had to capture the essential elements I was expecting, and not seeing...

Mmm... I don't think that's entirely accurate, Callan.  The intended read of the sentence you quote is that I shouldn't have to isolate those elements myself - they are the rules of the game we were playing!  And yet because of the way it's written it's difficult for me to even articulate those rules independent of the game text itself.

But at the table, the essential adversity, if you will, of trying to take on the elements and wrest them into story form, was still understood.  It didn't devolve because there was excessive competition directly between the players.  It devolved because those elements weren't being grasped, and because they were being masked by the sub-optimal "rules" of the apparent mechanics. 

(You could make a good case for the proposition that Hogshead even recognized, to some extent, the need for a feedback mechanism, and tried to answer that with the "challenges" mechanism.  It's just a poorly designed mechanism in that it (a) depends on fast thinking, (b) is severely constrained in that it can only add facts, not rule them out, and (c) can be negated/ignored at a minimal - arguably even beneficial - cost.  So in short, as Michael described at his table, it doesn't work for this purpose.  For the nominal purpose of gamist interplay, throwing each other monkeywrenches, it's much more appropriately set up.)

- Eric

Hey, all.  This is my first post on the Forge, so, hello.  I'm just going to jump into this discussion.

First, a few disclaimers:

1) I have never actually played a single instance of Baron Munchausen.

2) I don't own the game.  I read through it in my local game store and for whatever reason, decided not to buy it for $8, got home, decided I was an utter idiot, went back for it, only to find it had disappeared.  It's probably one of the coolest games I've ever heard of, up there in a pantheon of cool games I've never played, like that card game that's about telling fairy tales (is that Once Upon a Time?) and Lacuna (though I'm trying to arrange a game using the First Attempt), and the Wuthering Heights RPG, which is somewhat similar to Munchausen, except it's free online and themed differently.  As you can tell, the games that excite me most are storytelling (narrativist?) games.

3) I've never seen the movie, though I'm passing familiar with its historical forbear and the general tone/feel of the movie.  I'm a big Terry Gilliam fan, by the way, but somehow Munchausen escaped me.

Next, a few thoughts.  Eero, I like your comments about using GM power constructively - being authoritative (even autocratic?) if the situation calls for it. 

Look, this is all undercut by my never having played the game, so feel free to correct me if I'm reaching.  But I've thought a lot about both the game and how I'd like to play it. 

The central activity of the game to me seems to be yarning, followed closely by cooperative storytelling (restricted/moderated by a handful of rules).  For me, because of my education (university), background (immigrant), birthplace (India), and upbringing (American), any Munchausen game would have to incorporate a certain amount of irony - players in a post-colonial era playing aristocrats who presumably believe in a colonial system; or due to the 'tone' of the game, playing presumably western European aristocrats from the 18th century, though I can see a space for Russian, Transylvanian, Indian, Turkish characters...  I believe that Munchausen has place for sexuality (even in a strictly period interpretation, whether your character is male or female) and for varying tones (doesn't everybody get to tell a story, and vote for the best at the end?) and for swearing.  I can envision a range of imagined behavior for 18th century aristocrats, Munchausen-esque or not.  Your interpretation might well clash with mine: I might be thinking Hellfire Club and you a delicate drawing room denizen.

For example, Harlequin, your comments about "the point of the game" and "modern swearing" are quite interesting to me and involve, to my understanding, a certain amount of ambiguity.  The "point of the game" is a shifty thing, even in a game with a really strict focus.  Also, "modern swearing?"  Most swearing is pretty ancient.  And if the specific phrase isn't, there's plenty of historical equivalents that say pretty much the same thing.  I'm trying not to get into specific examples here, but a glance over 18th century "Dictionaries of the Vulgar Tongue" and the like can prove that foul language hasn't changed that much.

What I understand from the original post is that a problem player had his character rape, murder, and pillage, and that was so mood destroying that it negatively colored the entire experience for the original poster and possibly for everybody else at the table.  Had I been involved in the game, it would seem to me that a western European aristocrat adventuring in an 18th century world, outrageous and fantastical though it may be, might have no problem raping, murdering, or pillaging anybody who did not fit the description of Western European or aristocratic.

That said, had I been the problem player and had I started off with some dark and gory description of me as a white overlord raping and pillaging my way through some African nation, and the other players interjected, I probably would have gotten the message and adjusted my story.  It sounds like - I'm just guessing here - your problem player was using the game to act out some personal fantasy, unaware of the concept of distance between player and character, and also wasn't aware that his story was thoroughly unpalatable to everybody else.

It doesn't sound like this dilemma is specific to Munchausen.  I've had lots of D&D players who prefer to play for their own peculiar enjoyment rather than the minimum "a good time was had by all" goal.  As a GM, I like to try and accommodate all my players' playing styles, as long as it doesn't ruin anybody else's experience.  Of course it makes things easier if you start with a group of players that all have a similar bunch of expectations, but sometimes this is impossible, like in pick-up games.

Had I been running the game - and I can't remember if Munchausen has a provision for any kind of GM figure - I would have subtly implied to the player that his style of play was making almost everybody else uncomfortable, and if that didn't work, I would have just straight out told him.  It sounds like a rather simple (though anxiety-laden) conflict of expectations, and possibly not being clear enough or vocal enough to the problem player exacerbated the issue. Going over a brief set of "house rules" before the game might have helped (for example - no swearing, sexuality must be danced around/delicately narrated, stick to the tone of the movie).

There's a lot that goes unstated in your description of your experience.  One is exactly how disruptive your problem player was.  I can imagine everything in a range from mildly disruptive all the way to carpet-bombing the SIS with misogynist, violent fantasies.

Anyway, like Eero said, another way to deal with it would be to declare a duel!  It would be an in-character way of displaying disapproval with the story.