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
However... there is a way in which "out of the box" thinking can start merging back into griefing and other disruptive behavior. For example, if the players are trying to exploit RAW in a way that is pretty clearly against RAI. Players who do this can often be very disruptive and end up provoking a rules lawyer type argument. One skill DMs need to learn and groups need to work to reinforce is handling questions like that in an efficient manner, for instance the DM saying "OK, that works this time, but we'll try to sort it out between sessions" or something like that.

Can you give me a specific example of this? I ask not argumentatively, I add, but only in that I've not had to deal with rules lawyers in a very long time because my table has a strict 'confront after the session' policy, even when I DM at the FLGS, so I'm curious how this impacts live play, or if others don't use that policy and why? Especially since the induction of 5E and its emphasis on 'rulings' I'd imagine that rules lawyers have lost a lot of their bluster, or is my conception of this misguided?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

CezarJ

First Post
Reason with the "problem" players. If you can't reason with them, think about spending time differently with them (if you want to keep staying friends)
 

RobertBrus

Explorer
Puppeteers versus roleplayers

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.

Great way to put it. An extension of the player like a puppet in their hand that has no character (inner life) whatsoever. If you won't role-play (pretend to be someone else), why are you playing an RPG? Go play Chess or Bridge.
 

Jay Verkuilen

Grand Master of Artificial Flowers
Can you give me a specific example of this? I ask not argumentatively, I add, but only in that I've not had to deal with rules lawyers in a very long time because my table has a strict 'confront after the session' policy, even when I DM at the FLGS, so I'm curious how this impacts live play, or if others don't use that policy and why? Especially since the induction of 5E and its emphasis on 'rulings' I'd imagine that rules lawyers have lost a lot of their bluster, or is my conception of this misguided?

I don't think "rulings not rules" really helps. Rules lawyering has been around since the early days of the game, after all. What 3.X and 4E tried to do in somewhat different ways was provide so many rules that the DM could basically look up the answer. This failed because, well, the burden was high and there was still no way for every last thing to be delineated. Furthermore, there were still unexpected interactions floating around.

But if you want an example of how being a really good out of the box player can be tough on the DM, though, someone I've played with for many years can pull this. To be clear he's a longtime friend of mine and is a great player and DM, but he has an absolutely uncanny ability to find exploits in the rules that leveraged his character's power, often by making another PC way better than anticipated. One guy we used to play with would get really flustered when that happened but I know it threw me more than once, too. So I usually say "OK, let that fly but we'll think about it later" rather than get into any issue.

One thing I do a lot of is plan my encounters a bit dynamically, though. If it's looking really easy, some reinforcements will show up, usually some minion types that can take pressure off a big bad and to refresh the pool of lesser combatants. If the fight is really tough, I'll just not have those reinforcements show up.
 

Right, for some of these players, a character is just a piece they move around the board, trying to achieve whatever their particular victory condition is.

Don't get me wrong, there are certainly varying degrees of RP, and some people come to the game just to kill monsters and get loot. If you're having fun and not bothering people, it's not my style, but so be it. It's when your moving your piece around the metaphorical board game stomps all over other people's fun that it's a problem (like, for example, the guy that sabotages RP encounters to get back to combat).

If you won't role-play (pretend to be someone else), why are you playing an RPG? Go play Chess or Bridge.
 

Heh, that sounds hilarious and awesome.

I've seen Galavant. Pretty funny stuff. The lead actor was also in the excellent Frankenstein's Army, where horrible things happen to him.

On this note, we ran a Galavant inspired campaign after the first season (link included in case people weren't aware of it). It's a musical tv series set in a fantasy genre that absolutely cracked us up.

No one was allowed to play an actual 'Bard' in that we were all musically inclined and occasionally had to belt out into song (as was the nature of the world), even the baddies did it too - a truly hilarious campaign I will treasure for ages to come.
 

Xaelvaen

Stuck in the 90s
I don't think "rulings not rules" really helps. Rules lawyering has been around since the early days of the game, after all. What 3.X and 4E tried to do in somewhat different ways was provide so many rules that the DM could basically look up the answer. This failed because, well, the burden was high and there was still no way for every last thing to be delineated. Furthermore, there were still unexpected interactions floating around.

But if you want an example of how being a really good out of the box player can be tough on the DM, though, someone I've played with for many years can pull this. To be clear he's a longtime friend of mine and is a great player and DM, but he has an absolutely uncanny ability to find exploits in the rules that leveraged his character's power, often by making another PC way better than anticipated. One guy we used to play with would get really flustered when that happened but I know it threw me more than once, too. So I usually say "OK, let that fly but we'll think about it later" rather than get into any issue.

One thing I do a lot of is plan my encounters a bit dynamically, though. If it's looking really easy, some reinforcements will show up, usually some minion types that can take pressure off a big bad and to refresh the pool of lesser combatants. If the fight is really tough, I'll just not have those reinforcements show up.

Understand what you're getting at now. I can see how DMs who aren't used to a specific player, or that specific type of play will have a lot of trouble adapting, for sure.

Yeah, I absolutely employ the "dynamic encounter" approach myself, making situation difficulty not based on any sort of initial design, but how I want the characters to feel after the encounter is said and done. I use the reinforcements tactic myself, and consumables too (bad guys have some healing potions when necessary, or spell scrolls laying about). If they don't need to use the consumables, they didn't exist of course so there's no extra treasure to worry over doling out - never so much as to make a fight obnoxious or endless either, then again pretty hard for potions to do that with action economy anyway.
 

Jay Verkuilen

Grand Master of Artificial Flowers
Understand what you're getting at now. I can see how DMs who aren't used to a specific player, or that specific type of play will have a lot of trouble adapting, for sure.

I can very easily descend into DM vs. player if not handled well by both player and DM. The search for exploits and exceptions was one reason I really disliked DMing 4E. I never really developed a feel for it the way I had for other editions.


Yeah, I absolutely employ the "dynamic encounter" approach myself, making situation difficulty not based on any sort of initial design, but how I want the characters to feel after the encounter is said and done. I use the reinforcements tactic myself, and consumables too (bad guys have some healing potions when necessary, or spell scrolls laying about). If they don't need to use the consumables, they didn't exist of course so there's no extra treasure to worry over doling out.

You can even hand out the consumables. Consumables like some healing potions or the like are great treasures to give out because the don't fundamentally alter PC abilities in the way that more permanent or charged items do and they can help mitigate the "five minute workday" issue, too.
 

Xaelvaen

Stuck in the 90s
You can even hand out the consumables. Consumables like some healing potions or the like are great treasures to give out because the don't fundamentally alter PC abilities in the way that more permanent or charged items do and they can help mitigate the "five minute workday" issue, too.

Sometimes I do, depending on how much they're getting beat up, and how much healing there is in the party already. My long-term group prefers much grittier D&D play, so we have to use custom healing rules for long rests as is (healing to full hit points just doesn't cut it with these guys and gals), and thus I have to be very cautious with just how many potions and scrolls float about. But yeah, solid advice all around.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Yeah, I absolutely employ the "dynamic encounter" approach myself, making situation difficulty not based on any sort of initial design, but how I want the characters to feel after the encounter is said and done. I use the reinforcements tactic myself, and consumables too (bad guys have some healing potions when necessary, or spell scrolls laying about). If they don't need to use the consumables, they didn't exist of course so there's no extra treasure to worry over doling out - never so much as to make a fight obnoxious or endless either, then again pretty hard for potions to do that with action economy anyway.
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.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top