D&D 5E "Punishing" Player Behavior

[FreeTheSlaves]

Thing is, if you enforce Good-only and all that happens is your players get bored with their own PCs, how does that help?

For me, that group above would be an easy party to DM in one respect: as I know they're going to self-destruct at some point, all I have to do is run adventures until that happens, and then when it does I can just sit back and referee the fights. Those still in the party afterwards will set the tone going forward, and I'll DM that.

If I enforce Good-only, and therefore certain players don't play, or these players get bored and leave. I am 100% fine with that.

I do not want/need/desire deleterious players.

What I can't stand are players who bring all manner of crank into the game and destroy it - ruining my effort and upsetting the players being genuine to the session 0 pitch.

You are welcome to these players and the exciting no-progress they bring.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

How did this group get past Session Zero?

I ask every player "Why would you work together - even trust your life - to that guy?", "And to that one?", "And that one?". PCs that just don't work together usually answer honestly that they already dislike the other PC. So, that needs to be fixed.

Also, it aligns the behavior of the PCs.

Personally, I don't care if the PCs are all a bit chaotic or evil. Of course, that has consequences, but if they want to go and kill the cultists because they want to be the high-priests of Tiamat themselves, then that's fine. As long as they have a goal as a party (and all players agree with it), they can be whatever they want.

That's a good question!

Well, they all had selected bonds to be against the Cult of the Dragon and had pretty much suffered failure when on their own. Each alignment by itself wasn't a problem, even the evil PC matched the bond of revenge.

I left it then to the players to build relationships with each other as they collectively suffered an attack from the CotD. But things fractured pretty much session 2 onwards when 2 characters argued over who wanted to die in a lop-sided duel.

Part of my session 0 was that I, the DM, didn't want to make this a heavy workload game what with my work & study. But adult players have been slow to pick up the slack.

Oh yeah, part of my session 0 pitch:

'You the player take your share of responsibility to make this game work.'

 

[Baldurs_Underdark]

[...]
Oh yeah, part of my session 0 pitch:

'You the player take your share of responsibility to make this game work.'

In my experience, that needs frequent reminders.

 

[Mort]

Fair enough. I guess we just have different experiences. I have heard the phrase twice (that I remember) in my time playing. They were:

• The 4e published drow campaign where the player waited until the very last session and then murdered his party. When asked why by the other players (they weren't really mad), he proceeded to lay out all the little clues and other actions he did. Then ended it with: "That is what my character would do."

Did all players agree beforehand that PvP was OK and that acting against other players fine - without being pressured to do SO? If yes, well OK, though honestly not my preference.

If not? Then this is horribly jerkish behavior. And, since the other players were surprised, it seems no consent to PvP was discussed or given.

The guy essentially ruined a successful campaign run by deciding to massively hog the spot light to be the last person standing. The fact that he planned it the entire time and threw in "little clues " along the way to essentially troll the party? Just wow, sorry this guy is NEVER getting invited back to a session if I'm the DM.

The "it's what my character would do..." end after pointing out these clues is the cherry on top the jerk top! "ha, ha you should have seen it coming..." is exactly what a jerk says to justify this kind of terrible behavior. Again, if the group had agreed the characters could /would possibly murder each other, will OK. But even from your short description, it sounds more like the guy was just unilaterally imposing his fun on the table - which is not great.

• The other was a male barbarian slapping women (including his wife's character who was playing) on the ass. After the hundredth time of his PC slapping an NPC, he saw a smack on the forehead from the DM. He stated: "That is what my barbarian character would do." And he was right. Then the DM said, oh I know and agree, but can we just say it is now implied that you will always do it. And he absolutely agreed because the joke had run its course. Then his wife's character started slapping other PC's butts, as in good job. Then, later, as our campaign ended on the last session, the DM had a whirlwind of NPCs he and she had slapped on the butt make a surprise appearance. And at the glowing "You saved the world" presentation, they all got to slap the PCs on the behind - as per tradition. It was funny for that particular table.

This seems to be joking around, and while not everyone's cup of tea - it seems the table didn't mind it /had fun with it. Also, this didn't generate conflict, so much as eye rolling. And the player wasn't being a jerk because he didn't continue after the joke had run its course or make anyone uncomfortable.

 

[jasper]

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.

Yes a criminal pc must face justice. But the dm should not send the Justice League because I stole a candy bar.

 

[Scott Christian]

Did all players agree beforehand that PvP was OK and that acting against other players fine - without being pressured to do SO? If yes, well OK, though honestly not my preference.

If not? Then this is horribly jerkish behavior. And, since the other players were surprised, it seems no consent to PvP was discussed or given.

The guy essentially ruined a successful campaign run by deciding to massively hog the spot light to be the last person standing. The fact that he planned it the entire time and threw in "little clues " along the way to essentially troll the party? Just wow, sorry this guy is NEVER getting invited back to a session if I'm the DM.

The "it's what my character would do..." end after pointing out these clues is the cherry on top the jerk top! "ha, ha you should have seen it coming..." is exactly what a jerk says to justify this kind of terrible behavior. Again, if the group had agreed the characters could /would possibly murder each other, will OK. But even from your short description, it sounds more like the guy was just unilaterally imposing his fun on the table - which is not great.

It was never discussed. Those D&D campaigns lasted 3-4 months. And, here is the key: We are all playing drow - in their traditional sense. The setting was Underdark. If you do not have one that is going to backstab the others, then you are pushing aside thousands of pages of lore. I would ask in any game: should you toss aside culture, traditions, and backstory - just to make sure there is no inner party conflict?

That is the new thinking though; my githyanki plunderer can be in a party with a githzerai Buddhist style monk who is in the party with the lawful good dragonborn paladin who is in the party with chaotic orc from the Tribe of Many Arrows who is in the party with the halfling clepto thief and everyone should still get along - for the sake of the table.

Let me give you a hypothetical: It's a traditional setting. Forgotten Realms. A rogue steals from a dwarven clan. Nothing big, but some gems and a nicely forged thing-a-ma-jig. The rogue does this because he is following his flaw straight from the PHB: "It's not stealing if I need it more than someone else." The dwarf in the group finds out about this. It was stolen from someone in his clan that he had in his backstory. Someone, because he is playing the dwarf as described in the PHB, will defend his clan at all cost. What should happen? Should they ditch the lore, the backstory, the ideals and flaws they wrote for themselves? Should the DM have to check in session zero everyone's bonds, ideals, flaws, personalities, alignment, and backstories to make sure everything will remain nice? Should the dwarf be allowed to try and beat the tar out of the rogue? What if the dwarf gets his clan to have the rogue arrested, and now the PC has to sit in a prison smacking rocks for the next month? (Could be handled with a cutscene, but sometimes not.)

For the record: the players at that drow table consider that to be one of the greatest RP moments they have ever seen. They still talk about it with fondness. No one was upset or hurt in real life. Maybe because we are all over the age of 20 or maybe because we all have a lot of experience. I don't know. But I do know, no one was upset.

This seems to be joking around, and while not everyone's cup of tea - it seems the table didn't mind it /had fun with it. Also, this didn't generate conflict, so much as eye rolling. And the player wasn't being a jerk because he didn't continue after the joke had run its course or make anyone uncomfortable.

Yes, everyone, including the DM, was fine with it. Jokes get old. There doesn't need to be some social contract to explain this. It also needs to be recognized that jokes can come back and be funny, even after they get old. It's all in the timing.
But the most important fact should be that it was okay for this table. For another table, it might not have been. And that is okay.

 

[el-remmen]

Groups I've been a part of, both as player and as DM have had PvP fist-fights to hash out disagreements and that was fine and had some cool dramatic "Let them fight" moments before the party fully bonded and achieved great things - so it is not that I think any behavior like that is always disruptive - it depends on the tone of the game and the preferences of the players. That said, rather than leaving that to some kind of assumed agreement that is not discussed, these days I like to take a moment to discuss OOC (both before the campaign begins but also occasionally throughout) to make sure everyone is one the same page.

 

[Mort]

It was never discussed. Those D&D campaigns lasted 3-4 months. And, here is the key: We are all playing drow - in their traditional sense. The setting was Underdark. If you do not have one that is going to backstab the others, then you are pushing aside thousands of pages of lore. I would ask in any game: should you toss aside culture, traditions, and backstory - just to make sure there is no inner party conflict?

To me - express player buy-in is key, Just because you are playing "traditional drow" does not mean backstabbing is allowed. If the DM states "OK guys, you're all Drow, EVIL Drow - that means PvP etc. is not only allowed but expected..." and all the players are cool with that, than awesome. I find it best not to assume players are cool with conflict until they tell me they are cool with conflict. Backstory, tradition, culture absolutely does NOT trump player preference. You can absolutely run a fun Drow campaign without PvP - it's not even that hard. But again if players are cool with, and buy in to the concept of PvP and conflict - cool, could be fun.

Let me give you a hypothetical: It's a traditional setting. Forgotten Realms. A rogue steals from a dwarven clan. Nothing big, but some gems and a nicely forged thing-a-ma-jig. The rogue does this because he is following his flaw straight from the PHB: "It's not stealing if I need it more than someone else." The dwarf in the group finds out about this. It was stolen from someone in his clan that he had in his backstory. Someone, because he is playing the dwarf as described in the PHB, will defend his clan at all cost. What should happen? Should they ditch the lore, the backstory, the ideals and flaws they wrote for themselves? Should the DM have to check in session zero everyone's bonds, ideals, flaws, personalities, alignment, and backstories to make sure everything will remain nice? Should the dwarf be allowed to try and beat the tar out of the rogue? What if the dwarf gets his clan to have the rogue arrested, and now the PC has to sit in a prison smacking rocks for the next month? (Could be handled with a cutscene, but sometimes not.)

This is why session 0 is important. Players who's goals/ideals are in conflict can be fun players are cool with it. If one or both players are not cool with that - you have a big problem. Lore, backstory etc. are NOT more important than player cohesion. It's not hard to avoid a backstory that doesn't mess with other players.

For the record: the players at that drow table consider that to be one of the greatest RP moments they have ever seen. They still talk about it with fondness. No one was upset or hurt in real life. Maybe because we are all over the age of 20 or maybe because we all have a lot of experience. I don't know. But I do know, no one was upset.

Ok, sure.

But to me: going out in a blaze of glory (TPK) memorable,

finishing the campaign all alive - memorable.

Bob poisoning everyone's celebratory dinner and murdering the rest of the party? Possibly funny depending on group, but without player buy in - no that's not ok. You should not just assume that players are ok with another player murdering them in their sleep (or similar circumstances) - consent needs to be explicit.

 

[Campbell]

I think the real world relationships at the table matter way more than fidelity to the fiction. If I'm considering doing something in character that I think might lead to real world fallout I'll do quick aside. I'll even do it for particularly brash decisions "Mind if I get stupid?"

 

[Oofta]

Yes a criminal pc must face justice. But the dm should not send the Justice League because I stole a candy bar.

What about 3 musketeers? Maybe have everyone just snicker at you? A big hammer appears out of nowhere and your PC goes crunch? You get hunt down by a chocolate bunny? So many options!