D&D 5E "Punishing" Player Behavior

[delericho]

I'm another advocate of discussing acceptable behaviours in Session Zero. Thereafter, anything* that falls within the agreed boundaries is fair game, and has logical consequences. Stepping across the lines that have been agreed isn't allowed - if the party agrees "no PvP", then your character can't do it. Sorry.

* With the obvious exception that if we stumble upon some real-world trauma, or even simply discomfort, then we need to stop immediately.

One other thing: I no longer allow secret actions at my table. The player characters are the protagonists of the story, but the players are also the audience. So if you want your rogue to steal from his buddy the fighter, you have to declare that action out loud in front of the group. (The player of the fighter, who is oblivious to all of this, is expected to act accordingly.) I've found that doing that cuts out pretty much all of the worst behaviours.

 

[Li Shenron]

I don't think it's about punishing but about representing the effects of PC's actions and the reactions of the rest of the fantasy world in a reasonable way.

Acting like a murderhobo and expecting no pushback is not fundamentally different from pretending your heroic PC should be able to snap the villains without encounting resistance. If you just want to satisfy some repressed desire of yours, you don't need me to run the game.

If, on the other hand, the players are genuinely interested in role-playing something else than heroes, I expect them to be also interested in the challenges of it.

PvP is a very different matter. I veto it completely (meaning that I don't even need to narrate the consequences, I flat out rule that your PC isn't doing it) because I know it leads to nothing good.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

And I'd just as soon as not foster sociopathic behavior in any games that I run. Especially for new players. If the tone that I set at the table isnt fun because they want to be murder hobos or sociopaths? I'm perfectly fine NOT playing with those people.

 

[CleverNickName]

And when your players want to play crooks? Or a mix?

If the players would rather be crooks than heroes, I wouldn't try to stop them. But I would ask one of them to step up and be the DM for a while. The game is supposed to be fun for the DM also, and I don't enjoy running non-heroic D&D games.

 

[Lanefan]

The "I'm just playing my character" brings up to me an approach to role-playing I try to encourage (to various degrees of success, and the degree to which some players were unable to follow me there has led to parting ways):

If you come upon a situation where the rest of the party wants to (or doesn't want to) do something or you want to do something they don't agree with and you defensively want to react to it by saying "I'm just playing my character," try working backwards. Start with assuming that your character will (or won't) do it (depending on which breaks the deadlock) and then figure out the reasoning necessary to keep that choice "in character" to the most degree. If that can't work for some reason (the rest of the party wants to sacrifice an innocent child to keep a demon at bay but you're playing an LG paladin or something), then the discussion should move OOC to find a way the characters can move forward without dissolving the party.

I completely and rather vehemently disagree.

If dissolving the party is what would happen next then that's what should happen next. If the Paladin would draw her sword and use violence to defend the child from the party, then that's what she should do.

Trying to finagle OOC workarounds like you suggest is a gross violation of the integrity of roleplaying those characters true to what they are.

I am not saying conflict and disagreement needs to always be avoided - but when it becomes a cluster of acrimony or a way too long argument at the table, find a way through, so we can keep playing.

Sometimes that "way through" involves one or more PCs leaving the party, or getting killed by the party, or whatever. So be it.

Edit to Add: For some players the argument is the playing, but I have a limited tolerance for that style - esp. if it happens too often. The last 3E game I ran had too much of that (endless in-character arguing) and I wasn't all that disappointed when that game had to end - but at least they weren't arguing over murder-hobo-ism but rather minute in-character political differences and motivations for choosing adventures to go on.

I've been in some immensely entertaining games where this was the case, and others were doing the arguing. Also some immensely dull ones, ditto. It depends who's arguing, and over what, and why; and how entertaining they can make it.

 

[Lanefan]

And I'd just as soon as not foster sociopathic behavior in any games that I run. Especially for new players. If the tone that I set at the table isnt fun because they want to be murder hobos or sociopaths? I'm perfectly fine NOT playing with those people.

People play the game in order to do things they can't do in real life. This sometimes includes doing unpleasant things they can't do in real life. Not a problem, as long as it stays in character.

 

[Kurotowa]

A DM should never set out to punish a player. Punishing players just creates an antagonistic relationship and motivates them to try to get around the punishment and do what they want through cleverness or power gaming. Do you want players who deliberately try to wreck the campaign? DM punishments are how you get that.

Note, though, that this is not the same as saying that actions shouldn't have consequences. They absolutely must! But those consequences should either be a natural reaction in the narrative or an out-of-character sidebar about behavior and expectations. A blatant hand-of-god by the DM to punish the player is artificial and disruptive. The NPCs not giving a PC a free pass just because they're a PC is not the same thing. And believe me, most players can tell the difference. The ones who can't, well, they're the ones who need a stronger OOC line of communication.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

People play the game in order to do things they can't do in real life. This sometimes includes doing unpleasant things they can't do in real life. Not a problem, as long as it stays in character.

I'm okay with that sort of thing to a point. But I've had my fill of sociopaths early on in my gaming years, if casual murder and assault is someone's thing and especially if they don't expect consequences? That's a problem. and those are people that I don't want to game with much less be around.

 

[Ixal]

I wonder what kind of campaigns people are playing when the game world reacting to the actions of the PCs (also known as consequences) is seen as something exceptional or even passive aggressive. Of course a criminal PC must face consequences if he gets caught to keep the game believable.

 

[Scott Christian]

I'm okay with that sort of thing to a point. But I've had my fill of sociopaths early on in my gaming years, if casual murder and assault is someone's thing and especially if they don't expect consequences? That's a problem. and those are people that I don't want to game with much less be around.

I keep hearing this from people and just feel so lucky. I have never once, in all my years of gaming in many states with many groups, ran into real life sociopaths playing D&D. Maybe an immature person here or there, but never a true mean one. I am lucky.