So does this mean if I'm in a position of ic leadership and the 'rulebreaker' archetypes are around I can demand they never do any of that because it is super not fun for me to deal with?
Or do I let them play their character, suck it up and deal with the fact that it is fucking miserable to have Jack the Rebel run off against orders in every single scene because fine. That's 'his fun.' and then hope he actually can live up to his word (because every person like this I have personally witnessed insists they like consequences and fallout) of dealing with the repercussions?
We've had discussions here about how unfun these types are. Part of why is because they want to evade all responsibility for their actions.
This is coming back to a point I've asked before and never gotten a clear answer on: whose fun is more important? Do people playing leader PCs just have to give up on their enjoyment being considered as the 'price' they pay for being a leader?
Or should people be expected to actually deal with the fall out of their actions? Because yes, even if it's 'off camera' people will complain because 'I don't want to have to rp that my character got in trouble!' I've tried that before. They got an @mail about okay here's what would have happened and here's your PCs punishment (which was in that case literally just a change in who they partnered with and the open end that they could work towards having their original partner back)..... It resulted in complaints to staff (who did shrug it off but not without a lot of drama) of 'my character never makes mistakes! I'm being targeted for no reason!'
So yeah. The idea of someone being able to play a rebel and rule breaker but refuse any fallout because 'my character never looks bad' is bullshit imo.