Burning Questions: How Do You Deal With Ludicrous Players?

Hello and welcome to another edition of Burning Questions. Today’s query: "In Dungeons and Dragons, how do you deal with players who constantly find ways of wrecking all of your planning as a DM with ludicrous actions no sane character would take?"

Hello and welcome to another edition of Burning Questions. Today’s query: "In Dungeons and Dragons, how do you deal with players who constantly find ways of wrecking all of your planning as a DM with ludicrous actions no sane character would take?"


The Short Answer

Regularly communicate with your players and attempt to resolve issues diplomatically.

The Long Answer

This has the potential to be great fun or render the game tedious. My DM style relies heavily upon improvisation and backup plans, but sometimes it's rather difficult to deal with the unpredictable and insane actions of an errant party.

When this type of thing pops up, I have a few ways of handling it. First, I’ll consider the character’s actions and determine whether it’s in-character for the PC to perform those actions. If it isn’t, then per the rules of the game, an alignment change may be in order. This can have adverse consequences on the character. For instance, a lawful good paladin decides to kill a blacksmith over the cost of a sword. This evil action is enough to throw the paladin from the grace of his/her deity and set them on a completely different path.

An alignment change doesn’t have to be a negative thing—it can be a new creative outlet for the player and their character and even drive the story into unknown territory.

Another great way I’ve found to handle this is to make it a part of the game or use it as a role-playing opportunity. Sometimes a character’s actions may be conducive to setting up an encounter in a different way or providing some additional plot elements to the story. If the rogue is engaging in outlandish behavior, they could be under the influence of a spell or some sort of magic item. It can be rolled into the character and create interesting elements of the game.

This is also an opportunity to take that player aside and ask them if their character would actually behave in such a way. If not, then ask them if playing that character is right for them.

This is tricky territory, because ultimately, players can—and likely will—do whatever they like in the name of fun. When that becomes disruptive, it's the game referee's job to get the game back on track, preferably in a mutually inclusive, friendly manner.

If it gets really out of hand, then an outside-the-game-discussion needs to happen. One thing I would rarely do is halt the game because the players did something unexpected, because that’s part of the appeal of D&D for me. Sometimes, though, the game has to end and everyone goes home.

This is a bit of an experiment and we’d love to know what our readers think about this topic in the comments. We’ll be back with another RPG Burning Question soon. Feel free to submit your own!

This article was contributed by David J. Buck (Nostalgia Ward) as part of EN World's Columnist (ENWC) program. When he isn’t learning to play or writing about RPGs, he can be found on Patreon or Twitter. We are always on the lookout for freelance columnists! If you have a pitch, please contact us!
 

log in or register to remove this ad

David J. Buck

David J. Buck

Koloth

First Post
In most cases, it is only ludicrous if the action fails miserably. Many of the better fiction tales involve heroes doing what most would call stupid things and achieving astounding results. If your players are doing the same thing, what's wrong with that? IMO, some of the most forgettable sessions involve PCs mindlessly following Act 3, Scenes 2-5 from Book 2 of Adventure Path Quest for the Goblin's Princess and the most fondly remembered are when the PCs did something from well beyond the left field wall.
 



These sorts of players do tend to hate there being consequences for their actions, I’ve found. They like when stuff happens as a result, but not when it’s a net negative. Derailing the adventure to get chased by the city guard? By their book, awesome! Getting captured by the city guard and fined or imprisoned, then that’s not fair!

In my experience, most of these players have already chosen CN as their alignment, and will use that as a deflector for any alignment concerns.

No, when I think about the players that acted like a bunch of cartoons doing stuff “for the lulz,” none of them are at my tables anymore. Because if that’s not the kind of game you’re running, then (not to sound to pessimistic), there’s always going to be a serious disconnect in tone that will damage the fun of the table.

Now, don’t get me wrong, this isn’t about the PCs doing something unexpected, or coming up with a crazy solution. It’s about the characters that ultimately have no existence other than as an extension of the player, to amuse that player.

Consequences.

And maybe finding some saner players.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

pming

Legend
Hiya!

Huh. IMNSHO, the DM in that Quara article was both "seeing it from the wrong point of view" as well as just plain "doing it wrong" (DM'ing).

The Player that managed to get his PC all the way up to the top of the tower and get the bad guy was awesome! Plain and simple. He had the skills, he took the risks, and he made the rolls. That's a GREAT story!

The problem is that it wasn't the DM's story. And he didn't seem to like that so..."The Player wrecked my game!".

So...uh, yeah. We, as DM's, should all be so "unlucky" as to have a player or players that think and play like that! :)

What is a more "ludicrous player" problem is the player that gets bored with something and then deliberately starts doing thing completely out of character or just outright messed up. You know the ones...the one who figures his druid is getting bored with being in the city for so long and decides "At about 2am I get up. I'm going to go cast [spell] all over the town square and post a sign that says "This Square has been reclaimed by nature! STAY OUT!". I'll also summon a couple bears to guard it and cast some trap spells for fun, just on the outside". THAT is the 'bad' kind of player.

^_^

Paul L. Ming
 

Stacie GmrGrl

Adventurer
Depends on Intention behind the gonzo and implied table agreements and setting and game implications.

If the purpose is to cause griefing then its just never cool, ever. If its a player doing whacked out things to test or push the DMs buttons, again not cool. It it ruins the enjoyment of even one other player to the point that player feels like leaving the group, then its not cool to do.

This is why real Session 0's matter.Why conversation matters, and why it might be important to have social agreements talked over and made before any game starts.
 

Warpiglet

Adventurer
I find it acceptable when it is malleable and not omnipresent. Example: a good friend makes names that are double entendres and usually has a funny character portrait to match.

In the course of play, he plays it straight and the name recedes into the background. At appropriate times we might comment or laugh at the name or a situation that makes the name's other meaning unintentionally relevant.

If it made a serious campaign totally change its tone, then no, that is too much.
 

marroon69

Explorer
Consequences....the best answer yet. Remember the world does have to suffer them...let them do what they want and then make sure they understand the effect of their actions. As for ruining the GM's story....well in my opinion that is just plain wrong. Everyone at the table should be an active participant in the story.
 

David Brideau

First Post
In my experience, most of these players have already chosen CN as their alignment, and will use that as a deflector for any alignment concerns.

That happened in my game recently. My response was to tell everyone in my current game and future games I DM that I'm house-ruling that Alignment is out. I forgot how much I hated Alignment until my player reminded me.

It's a delicate balance, bringing up consequences that brings real risk for the player, and not be so punitive about it that they don't come back for more.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top