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

Xaelvaen

Stuck in the 90s
This leads into an argument that can - and has, in the past - become an entire long thread on its own: dynamic encounters vs. static encounters; and is a DM cheating if she changes the parameters of an encounter on the fly while it's in process of being played out.

Put another way: should we design based on how we want our characters to feel, or should we design what we design and let the chips and feelings fall where they may?

For the record, I'm firmly in the second camp here - the encounter is what it is and it's up to the characters (via their players) to find a way to deal with it. Sometimes it'll be a pushover for them, sometimes it'll kill them dead if they don't run away, and most of the time it'll be somewhere between these.

And sometimes - more often than one might expect - the dice will take an on-paper easy encounter and make it deadly, or an on-paper tough encounter and make it trivial. So be it.

For my primary group, if I ever had a terribly easy encounter for them, I'd be booed out of my own house (where we play), so the best way for me to ensure this is a dynamic encounter based on which resources a player chooses to use when - but I've been with them for 15+ years, so that's just their thing - their style.

The rare times I get to just be a player, I honestly have no preference - if the GM wants to be dynamic or just have premade encounters, I won't overthink it - I'm just stoked to be focusing on my character and getting to unitask. I'm pretty easy going about it all, as long as the GM has his players in mind when he does the adventures.

The most marvelous thing about our hobby is the diversity in it all - the preferences (and opinions) we all have, and yet here we all are - sharing it. Cheers!
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Bigsta

Explorer
The whole framing of this post and many of the replies seems weird to me.

Players who wreck the game aren't a GM-ing problem - it's a social problem (like someone who tips over the boards at a boardgames club).

But the idea that players who declare actions for their PCs need to be policed by the GM (by reference to alignment, or the requirements of "the plot", or . . .) I find quite bizarre.

I felt like I was reading an article on the best DMing practices of 1986.
 

S'mon

Legend
I felt like I was reading an article on the best DMing practices of 1986.

Thanks to the OSR, GM advice stuff from the mid 1970s often reads quite normal these days, while stuff from ca 1986-1999 comes across as incredibly un-hip and old-fashioned.:)
 

pemerton

Legend
GM advice stuff from the mid 1970s often reads quite normal these days
I've deleted your "thanks to the OSR" - the best late 70s/early 80s advice (eg Gygax in the closing pages of his PHB; Lew Pulsipher in White Dwarf) is coherent advice intended to help people play a certain sort of game (ye olde classic dungeoneering).

Even if you're not into that sort of game (I'm not very much) it can still be helpful, if only for helping to make it clear how various subsystems of a game relate to that goal of play (and hence may be dispensable, if not actively in need of cutting, if the goal is different).

while stuff from ca 1986-1999 comes across as incredibly un-hip and old-fashioned.
With some exceptions (eg Over the Edge, Maelstrom Storytelling) it's not so much that it's un-hip as that it's bad!

As part of the whole "illusionistic turn", there is this hesitation to actualy talk about the game as a game that people play with certain goals or experiences in mind. The adivce to players in the 2nd ed AD&D PHB, for instance, would be more coherent and hence more usable if it came right out and said that the players job is to emote his/her PC (in a manner consistent with ability scores, race and alignment) while learning from the GM what is actually happening to that PC!
 


Arnwolf666

Adventurer
i try to be layed back and let players play the characters they want. but if i get a real seriously disruptive jerk player. well. i may just happen to roll really good on my 20 sided dice behind the DM screen against them. or maybe have their search checks fail to find magic items if they don’t share.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Otherwise, if it is being done because they want to "kill their PC" so they can create a new one, instead of wasting game time, we had a house rule that in such instances, why not "retire the PC", and then create a new one... traditionally 1st level or 5 levels below the average of the main group of PCs (to a max of 5th level).

So if the group's average is 8th, the max level a new PC can be created would be 3rd.

If the group's average is 13th, the max level a new PC can be created would be 5th.
That's certainly harsher than how I do it.

I usually have a "floor" level that rises as the party average rises...right now the parties are mostly in the 7th-9th range and the floor is 6th. If a player wants to retire a PC and roll up a new one it'll com ein at the floor level. But if they want to retire a PC and come in with another PC they already had in that world then it'll come in at whatever level it was, and if it's fallen behind due to being retired too long we'll "mini-dungeon" it up to speed - at slight risk of death, of course, just like any normal* dungeon.

* - I've got enough long-term stats now that I could work out some pretty accurate odds-per-adventure of death, level loss, major wealth loss, and also of unexpected level or xp gain, major wealth gain, and so forth. I've thus far just been too lazy to actually do this, and so I still just wing it. :)
 

S'mon

Legend
That's certainly harsher than how I do it.

I usually have a "floor" level that rises as the party average rises...

I use 'floor level' too. But I found it was very disruptive to my sandbox campaign setting to have new high level PCs appear out of nowhere, so I now cap start level at 8th, which is about the top of what can be considered mid-level IMC. This also tends to encourage gaming in the 5-10 'sweet spot', which suits me well, and treats high level PCs as an earned achievement for successful play.
 

aramis erak

Legend
Isn't it the primary function of good players to come up with ideas that wreck the DM's best laid plans to make life 'challenging' or 'uncomfortable' for their PCs? Some might saying successfully wrecking the DMs nefarious plans for the PCs is the whole point of the game.

No. The point of RPGs in general is to have an interesting story emerge that's fun for all involved. When players go out of their way to make the GM's job harder, they literally are sucking the fun out of it for the GM, and often the other players. IRL, people like KODT's Sara would tend to find a new group, rather than stick it out with Brian and Dave.

The Ludicrous players I've encountered usually have multiple of...
  • little interest in the story unfolding at present
  • little interest in story continuity in general
  • little interest in in-character interaction
  • doesn't worry about remaining "in-character", or hasn't defined what the character's "in-character" traits are
  • a push your luck attitude
  • some lack of social skills, usually from immaturity
The common alternate reasons
  • The player is smarter/more socially adept/wiser than the PC, and overplays the difference
  • Powergamer looking to munchkin


Note: None of these are "no interest."
A few are simply folk who get their enjoyment from making others suffer — sadists of a mild form, in a non-sexual way — but those are the exception.

The thing is, many who are prone to the ludicrous actions don't do so when the story is actually engaging them; it's when they get bored that they start the stupid.

Little interest in in-character interaction can be a problem in and of itself, but ludicrous actions are often a veiled request for, "Lets go back to a tactical scene," or "lets go to a puzzle scene."

Little interest in story continuity, and little character definition both tend to be indicative of a minis-wargamer RPG style: Just enough story to explain the battles. It's a valid way to RPG, even fun, at times, for me... but it's not why *I* RPG. And, the MWG style RPGer tends to be willing to try all sorts of disruptive actions to win the tactical. A whole group of them works just fine - but can be a lot of work for the GM.

A lack of social skills — player, not character — often results in the character lacking the same social skills, even if the sheet suggests they should. It's the same issue as D with the Brain Damage trying to play a smart character - he cannot do it without GM cooperation. Essentially, any time the character should know better than D, D needs to make an int check (called for by the GM); any time D is at a loss for what the smart choice is, he can ask for an int check to get candid GM advice.

Often, RP-focused players overdo the stupid when trying to play stupid characters; it's humorous to a point, and annoying after that. No, your int 8 fighter is NOT a sufferer from mental retardation, and is not a 5 year old in a 20 yo body.

And munchkins, when not finding ways to boost the character sheet, often try to do so by treating the GM as a push your luck game: How far will he let me go?
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
The Ludicrous players I've encountered usually have multiple of...
  • little interest in the story unfolding at present
  • little interest in story continuity in general
  • little interest in in-character interaction
  • doesn't worry about remaining "in-character", or hasn't defined what the character's "in-character" traits are
  • a push your luck attitude
  • some lack of social skills, usually from immaturity

"Little interest in the story unfolding at present" is sometimes going to be a fact of life - not every player is going to be interested in every story told or created within a campaign - and so while waiting for that story to play itself out in hopes that something more interesting will follow they're either going to back away and play on their phones or they're going to do something to spice things up. Of these I far prefer the latter.

"Little interest in in-character interaction" and "doesn't worry about remaining in-character" sound like the flip side of "it's what my character would do" - so for staying in-character the gonzo player is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

"A push your luck attitude" - there's two definitions of this, one good, the other bad. The bad one is the one you note - metagamely pushing your luck against the GM to see how far you can go. The good one, and one I'll never complain about, is pushing your luck against the game world and the dice - trying the gonzo long-shot stunts and swashbuckles just to see if you can pull it off.

There's also the question of just how seriously any given player takes the game as a whole. DMs almost always take it seriously, or else they wouldn't be DMing. But players vary widely: some take it too seriously and can't separate their PC from their own selves (the red flag here is if something negative happens to the PC in-game and the player takes personal offense with the DM out-of-game); others don't care in the least and don't know what's going on in-game from one hour to the next; with the vast majority scattered along a spectrum in between these extremes.

The rest of the list are valid issues.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top