Savage Wombat
Hero
Much as I empathize, wholeheartedly, with the thread topic and responses to it - why has no one stood up to defend the rights of the players against the nigh-omnipotent DM? Why should he tell them who they should be afraid of?
PCs that are too big for their britches...do they live or die?
Stormonu
Legend
I don't think we are saying <Cartman>Respect My Authority</Cartman> so much as the PCs should realize that there are bigger fish than they are. A lot of PCs bully NPCs because they know they can defeat them (4 vs. 1, more PC hp, spells, magic items, etc.) But when the DM puts that unknown back in - do you really think you can take him? Are you sure you want to find out? It keeps PCs from acting in a metagame way where they "know" they always can defeat their opponent if they just bum rush him because he's an "appropriate CR", and all the good NPCs are wimps who won't ever hurt the PCs regardless how much abuse they heap on them.
Even my example - the killer king, wasn't an encounter purposely designed to kill a PC. They party had accumulated a reputation as troublemakers and the local populace had asked the king to deal with them; his "dealing" with them was to send them on a dangerous quest somewhere far from his own lands - lands he himself had taken by force (not inheritance). The PC screwed up big time by disrespecting someone who'd already forged a kingdom by his own sword and was already half-ready to throw them in the dungeons. Unlike the mayor, who'd never hefted a sword and the militia who'd only practiced swordplay with sticks, the king was a real warrior - the player's folly had consequences.
Oryan77
Adventurer
It isn't about telling players who they should be afraid of. It's about throwing them a bone so they don't mouth off to the wrong person and get themselves killed. I mean, if your PC is just an idiot, then so be it. I don't want an NPC that wasn't meant to be battled to kill them because they childishly insulted him. I'd just like to see players do two things for a change:
#1 - Use common sense.
#2 - Roleplay appropriately and maturely with some witty banter back and forth.
Like I said, if it was Hellboy insulting a guy in a smart*** way because it fits his personality and he knows he can take him, that is one thing. But I can't count the amount of times I've had a PC insult a BBEG that could mop the floor with them. Killing them with a save or die attack always seems to ruin the fun of the game, so I rarely do that.
And with this particular group, it is bleeding over to sort of disrespecting the important allied NPCs. They don't insult the ally NPC, but they do shticks in front of serious NPCs that I would compare to being like Harry & Lloyd from Dumb & Dumber. It makes it hard for me to stay in character and figure out how this NPC would respond to such idiocy. It also makes the game less enjoyable to me since it comes off as lame rather than amusing. But again, I seem to be the only one at the table bothered by it. It's unfortunate that I'm the DM.
Quickleaf
Legend
Well, lets not bring save or die into thisOryan77 said:
However, if the villain they're mouthing off to is that much more powerful, maybe he SHOULD wipe the floor with them. Honestly, the way you've been describing your table dynamic sounds like you are capitulating the players too much.Now, for allied NPCs, use a different approach. Make the allies earn the players' respect by actually helping the PCs out with information, influence, little treasures, healing, etc. Once the NPCs start to be useful (rather than window dressing quest givers), it's likely the players will naturally be more useful.
I hate to reduce things to STICK (villains) & CARROT (allies), but for your particular players that may be exactly what's called for.
You are a player, too, and your enjoyment is just as important as any other player's. Situations like yours are usually best dealt with directly: tell them that their behavior and play style is making the game more of a chore than fun for you. Maybe you can reach a compromise, or maybe one of the others will step up to GM for a bit so you can recharge on the other side of the screen.
If I've just set up the PCs for a big fight scene with a villain (it's usually pretty clear that's what's happening), then I don't expect them to treat the villain with respect. Why would they? He's about to try to kill them anyway. Maybe he can succeed, maybe he can't, but either way they have no reason to make nice. If the villain feels the need to chat, I expect him to do it while fighting. There's nothing like D&D to show up why villainous monologues are silly. If I ever start one, I can count on the entire party declaring "I waste him with my crossbow!" or the equivalent, which is exactly what any sensible person would do.
My PCs do sometimes encounter creatures and NPCs that can wipe the floor with them, and in those instances they are well advised to be polite. Mouthing off to the ancient red dragon will get a reply along these lines:
"Ah, a comedian. Do you know what would improve your jokes, comedian? Making them while on fire. Shall we see if you can?"
Back down, and the dragon will make fun of you and needle you for the rest of the encounter, but it'll let you live. Crack another joke, and the next words out of my mouth are "Roll initiative." And I will pull no punches, at least to the person who was mouthing off. (If dealing with new players, I might pause briefly to ask out of character, "Why exactly are you picking a fight with the ancient red?" in case they're operating on assumptions like "The DM would never have a monster we couldn't beat" or "We're going to end up fighting it anyway." However, if the player insists on fighting, then a fight there will be... albeit a short one.)
Likewise, if you insult the king, you get an impromptu fight scene with his elite bodyguard that probably ends with you in a dungeon, facing execution (but the party members who were polite can get you off if they're willing to plead your case). Fortunately, it usually only takes one example before the lesson sticks--but you do have to be willing to follow through.
I cut them a fair bit of slack on excessive familiarity, though. Yeah, the king probably should take offense to not being treated with the formality due his position, but as long as the PCs aren't insulting him, I let them get away with it.
My PCs do sometimes encounter creatures and NPCs that can wipe the floor with them, and in those instances they are well advised to be polite. Mouthing off to the ancient red dragon will get a reply along these lines:
"Ah, a comedian. Do you know what would improve your jokes, comedian? Making them while on fire. Shall we see if you can?"
Back down, and the dragon will make fun of you and needle you for the rest of the encounter, but it'll let you live. Crack another joke, and the next words out of my mouth are "Roll initiative." And I will pull no punches, at least to the person who was mouthing off. (If dealing with new players, I might pause briefly to ask out of character, "Why exactly are you picking a fight with the ancient red?" in case they're operating on assumptions like "The DM would never have a monster we couldn't beat" or "We're going to end up fighting it anyway." However, if the player insists on fighting, then a fight there will be... albeit a short one.)
Likewise, if you insult the king, you get an impromptu fight scene with his elite bodyguard that probably ends with you in a dungeon, facing execution (but the party members who were polite can get you off if they're willing to plead your case). Fortunately, it usually only takes one example before the lesson sticks--but you do have to be willing to follow through.
I cut them a fair bit of slack on excessive familiarity, though. Yeah, the king probably should take offense to not being treated with the formality due his position, but as long as the PCs aren't insulting him, I let them get away with it.
Last edited:
Reynard's point above about political power is well heeded. "Let's see if a month in the stocks will teach you some respect." "Guards! To the dungeons with this one." etc... are all good, "believable/realistic" ways to handle this sort of thing. They don't have to be "the BBEG raises her finger and calmly casts Disintegrate. Save roll please." to be badass or feared or simply worthy of basic, common sense kinds of respect in the game world.
As to the "the player has a right" bs, others seem to have responded to this well enough. I'd just add exactly what I did above, it's about respect...in the game world...as much as, if not moreso for me, the meta-game.
If you're playing a mouthy malcontent, then fine. Have your snide or hopefully witty quips and comebacks. "Comic Book", for lack of a better term, or "Action Movie" dialogue can be fun and add to the scene. The Paladin staring the archvillain in the face with a scowl and proclaiming "We'll never kneel to the likes of you!" is great, flavorful and likely in character from a PC or player perspective. The paladin [not the player!] really might not be afraid of the villain. The thief halfling cowering in the rear ranks and adding "Well, maybe we could kneel a little." is similarly so. The player just being boastful or crude, a la, "How 'bout you kneel and suck my..." is, generally, not (unless the PC is crude all of the time) in character. And that, I think, is where the objections are coming in.
No one is saying what a player can or can't have their character do/say whatever you want...but then you, as the player, should be prepared to accept the in game consequences of your actions! The player, absolutely, has a right to play their PC as they see fit. And the DM, absolutely, has the right to take that play and have the game world respond accordingly. That's D&D.
As to the "the player has a right" bs, others seem to have responded to this well enough. I'd just add exactly what I did above, it's about respect...in the game world...as much as, if not moreso for me, the meta-game.
If you're playing a mouthy malcontent, then fine. Have your snide or hopefully witty quips and comebacks. "Comic Book", for lack of a better term, or "Action Movie" dialogue can be fun and add to the scene. The Paladin staring the archvillain in the face with a scowl and proclaiming "We'll never kneel to the likes of you!" is great, flavorful and likely in character from a PC or player perspective. The paladin [not the player!] really might not be afraid of the villain. The thief halfling cowering in the rear ranks and adding "Well, maybe we could kneel a little." is similarly so. The player just being boastful or crude, a la, "How 'bout you kneel and suck my..." is, generally, not (unless the PC is crude all of the time) in character. And that, I think, is where the objections are coming in.
No one is saying what a player can or can't have their character do/say whatever you want...but then you, as the player, should be prepared to accept the in game consequences of your actions! The player, absolutely, has a right to play their PC as they see fit. And the DM, absolutely, has the right to take that play and have the game world respond accordingly. That's D&D.
Oryan77
Adventurer
Well, 75% of the players are new to the group. It's always hard to keep new players around since everyone has different gaming styles and there needs to be some adjustments between players/DM in order to come to an understanding and game well together. So I have been letting things slide a lot in order to not wipe out a PC within the first few sessions just because the player didn't realize my DMing style. This thread is making me realize though that I think it is about time to take off the gloves. Plus, it might also get the campaign style more on track to my liking (less slapstick behavior). I just worry that newer players will take offense to what I do or say and then drop out of the game. We all know how bad gamers take things so personally. Heck, Enworld is full of people that take things too personally.
After reading the latest replies and giving it some thought, I'm wondering if the new players might not realize that I am one of the DMs that will throw encounters at them that are extremely difficult/impossible and not meant to be fought. I know a lot of players approach D&D as if everything encountered is supposed to be fair and balanced according to their level. That's just unrealistic to me and not the way that I run a campaign world. So I might need to mention it again next session so players will have a better chance of not screwing themselves over by picking on the wrong NPCs.
I had already come up with an in-game scenario where some ally npcs remark to a couple of PCs about how they are surprised by the way they spoke to a recent BBEG. I intended to have these guys warn them of how their actions could put everyone in jeopardy, and that planewalkers don't live long if they don't pick their battles and watch their tongues while traveling the planes. The question is, do you think conveying this via roleplaying would get the message across to a player, or do I need to be blunt about it and just bring it up out-of-game at the beginning of the session?
Quickleaf
Legend
[MENTION=18701]Oryan77[/MENTION]
Generally I always consider [MENTION=467]Reynard[/MENTION]'s advice of "talk to your players" the Rule Zero of DMing. You should always do it, even if it gets overlooked a lot or is hard with certain personalities. For me, it is a given that whenmy group composition changes as significantly as yours has (75% new players!) I am going to take at least 20 minutes at the start of a session to ask about their expectations and experience gaming.
Sometimes talking with new players - particularly those new to the hobby - can leave confused looks about genre expectations, social contract, and all that jazz. Because they have nothing to base their opinion on. Generally, however, I think it's a good idea and you might be surprised by what you learn.
For example, their behavior could be passive aggressive because they're used to NPCs being fodder or betraying them (due toyourDMing or a previous DM).
Or they might have vastly differ genre expectations than PLANESCAPE and in the face of struggling to grasp it default toslapstick.
Or maybe it's a multiplier effect of the players after a long day at work, so changing the day you game could work better.
Or maybe the sheer Evil of your BBEG has raised uncomfortable emotions and they're using humor and ad-mouthing as a way to avoid being real about their roleplaying.
Or maybe they are just shy about roleplaying and are waiting for someone (DM, hint hint) to step up the play acting to show them it's ok not to be so self-conscious.
Or maybe they prefer a beer n pretzels style dungeon crawl, when you want Shakespeare.
I don't know, it's your group, you should find out (if you don't know already).
Generally I always consider [MENTION=467]Reynard[/MENTION]'s advice of "talk to your players" the Rule Zero of DMing. You should always do it, even if it gets overlooked a lot or is hard with certain personalities. For me, it is a given that whenmy group composition changes as significantly as yours has (75% new players!) I am going to take at least 20 minutes at the start of a session to ask about their expectations and experience gaming.
Sometimes talking with new players - particularly those new to the hobby - can leave confused looks about genre expectations, social contract, and all that jazz. Because they have nothing to base their opinion on. Generally, however, I think it's a good idea and you might be surprised by what you learn.
For example, their behavior could be passive aggressive because they're used to NPCs being fodder or betraying them (due toyourDMing or a previous DM).
Or they might have vastly differ genre expectations than PLANESCAPE and in the face of struggling to grasp it default toslapstick.
Or maybe it's a multiplier effect of the players after a long day at work, so changing the day you game could work better.
Or maybe the sheer Evil of your BBEG has raised uncomfortable emotions and they're using humor and ad-mouthing as a way to avoid being real about their roleplaying.
Or maybe they are just shy about roleplaying and are waiting for someone (DM, hint hint) to step up the play acting to show them it's ok not to be so self-conscious.
Or maybe they prefer a beer n pretzels style dungeon crawl, when you want Shakespeare.
I don't know, it's your group, you should find out (if you don't know already).
Last edited:
Quickleaf
Legend
I don't think that's it at all. The OP is a considerate and experienced DM from everything I've gathered of his other posts and the OP. It is pretty clear that his players are over the top. It is not a question of "player rights" or "DM rights". It is a question of genre expectations.
Is this the kind of campaign where PCs can call the King (or the High Priest of Orcus) whatever you want without consequence? Is this the kind of campaign when a villain opens his mouth, the PCs are expectd to go for the throat immediately, or shut him up by belittling him?
IME players like that are coming from a place where, in the game, all they respect is force of arms. And if that's the case, you can either hope that lots of patience and many sessions of "Enlightened DMing" convinces them there is more to roleplaying than that...or you can use the tried, true, and fast method of "Hit them with the Stick." By which I don't mean rocks fall, PCs die, break the rules asshat DMing; but I do mean designing killer encounters/scenarios which smart play should avoid and stupid play will lead to.
It's doesn't make the DM a rat bastard, a bad friend, or mean he is trampling over "player rights." What it means is the DM is following thru on the promise of the game setting, creating logical consequences, and giving the player's choices meaningful choices. For a player to embrace such when it is to the benefit of his character and to reject it when it is to his character's detriment goes against the spirit of the game.
EDIT: I encountered this sort of different genre expectation / "player entitlement" on several occasions in 4th edition. As much as I like that system, I think it was partially to blame by encouraging encounters to fall within a manageable challenge bandwidth. Following the DMG guidelines made the game too easy, to put it bluntly. PCs could be assuredly victory in most scenarios, and even in the hard scenarios could be expected to emerge victorious with minimal losses. I forget if you play 4e [MENTION=18701]Oryan77[/MENTION] but this could have something to do with your current issue...the players learning complacency (and being slapstick) because they aren't challenged enough.
Last edited:
