D&D 5E "Punishing" Player Behavior

[nevin]

Jumping in late here, so my apologies if this is missing some earlier context but... Hard disagree to the bolded part. There are some table rules that absolutely need to be established up front. It is not "silly at best" to set a rule that, for example, there will be no violence against children if that is indeed a trigger for one or more people at the table.

We are in agreement that the ultimate rule is that we are all aiming for a fun experience for everyone at the table. That said, if there is a subject matter that is not going to work for someone, then we can easily rule that out of our game whether or not that person shows up for a particular session. Are you saying the "no violence vs children" rule could be ignored if the player who wished to avoid it wasn't present for a session? How do you then answer them when they ask "what happened last session"? I mean... just no. Stick to the rules regardless of who is at the table that night.

It is not difficult to adhere to the table rules for a given campaign - and if those table rules don't suit someone's style of play, then discuss it and if an agreement can't be made, find another table. And, of course, we should strive to be emotionally aware of others at the table - and the hard rules exist to help keep us from accidently going too far and ruining someone else's night by missing some cues (which, for most people, would ruin their own night, too).

Yes, to your point, there will be some rules that evolve over the course of play. But coming out of the gate saying there are no hard rules in a campaign is, well, silly at best.

That's why I like Consequences instead of rules. Players that dont' like consequence's go away problem solved.

 

[Mort]

That's why I like Consequences instead of rules. Players that dont' like consequence's go away problem solved.

Problem is, consequences do not prevent an action from happening. If a player's character murders another player's character and does so in a way that would garner no in game consequences - what then? If you don't have a no PvP rule the player can, honestly, say he had no idea he did anything wrong/improper - and he'd be right.

 

[Scott Christian]

Jumping in late here, so my apologies if this is missing some earlier context but... Hard disagree to the bolded part. There are some table rules that absolutely need to be established up front. It is not "silly at best" to set a rule that, for example, there will be no violence against children if that is indeed a trigger for one or more people at the table.

I understand the concern, and maybe silly is not the best word. But it is the only word I can use to describe the vast array of context, which trumps everything.
I can say I am never going to read a book with child murder, but then read Night by Wiesel and suddenly have the child being hung as the most touching part of the story. The story set the context for it to be okay. And since, in an RPG, the story evolves over time, hard set rules need to be flexible.
I am not in disagreement. If the table says, no child violence, then it should try to be adhered to. But people still need to see the varying degrees of what it means. I mean, the DM can't pull out a rules contract a hundred pages long to narrow down the definition of child violence. Here are some examples:

• Is it okay for a character to have a backstory that lost a child to a terrible incident?
• Is it okay to set up an Indiana Jones style scene where the party rescues children having to work in a mine?
• Is it okay to have an NPC backstory of child abuse? Child neglect? Too tough of scolding?
• Is it okay for the big old blacksmith to smack his apprentice on the ear, knowing everything else he does is to help the kid?
• Is it okay to have a ship sink off the coast - it might have had some younger people on board?
• Is it okay for a planet to be destroyed? (It most certainly has children.)
• Is it okay to show a gang of young 10 year old street urchins that are ruffians and often have fist-a-cuffs with one another?
• Are the Lost Boys from Peter Pan okay? Is it okay to have one of Captain Hook's pirates damage (cut) one during a fight?

All these style questions could be asked for almost anything.

This is what I mean. The context will always change, and therefore the rule is silly. This doubles as true when one understands the story (if you are not railroading) can lead to areas unplanned. The context dictates whether that will trigger a person, not the act. And there is almost no way of knowing which context will.

 

[Mort]

I agree with you. They do tell you. And then it changes.
But you are assuming the players (and DM) knows what is going to happen. You are assuming they can predict or have some type of premonition into the future actions of others. A player can't suddenly state in the beginning or middle of a game that they are okay with Player B doing so and so later in the session. Most roleplaying games, especially D&D, do not work that way.

I again agree completely. Especially in your example. That wouldn't be good for any table that I have ever played at.

Again, I agree. I do not know who Adam is, but it does not change the fact that context rules - and context changes. Having a rule like no pvp or no stealing or no sex jokes all changes throughout the course of the game. It is dependent on who shows up for the session, the setting and NPCs the PC meet, and a hundred other things, even including the time of day the table chooses to play.

This is why hard set rules are silly at best. The best rule is to understand it is a game. A cooperative game. Sometimes one player may have more fun than you. Other times you may have more fun. But the end goal is for everyone to have their kind of fun. And therefore, (here is the golden rule part of this) the player should be cognizant and emotionally aware of others at the table.

So it seems we are somewhat in agreement, but we differ on one very big thing. You (and please correct me if I'm wrong) think that players can tell from the game, context, "reading the room" etc. that they can suss out what actions are ok and therefore no hard rules are necessary.

I'm saying that most people are very bad at that and harder lines are necessary. And it's not even difficult, want to introduce PvP - ask the group, if they're ok - cool. It can even come up in game. Turn to the DM and the group "hey, I know we have a no PvP rule, but I think it's appropriate can I go with it?"

This is why I brought up Adam Koebel. He's probably the most public current example of someone who thought he did exactly that (read the context, knew the players, read the room) and didn't run his actions by his group. He miscalculated so badly that he lost his career and has essentially been blackballed by the gaming industry (to the point where the #2 at kickstarter lost his job).

A brief synopsis (I'll put it in spoiler text for those that don't want to read it):

Spoiler

Adam Koebel is the creator of Dungeon World, a well received Indy roleplaying game.
Until last year he was:
1. The DM in residence at Roll20 - running several live streams including their official 5e stream;
2. He had several other live streams and projects;
3. He had several videos on DMing and how to DM sensitive topics, like assault etc. All were very well received.

One of his streams was called Far Verona, where he DMed several other Youtube/twitch personalities in far future RP game titles Far Verona. The series was long running and was 90 episodes in. It had over 250,000 on demand views.

Then last march, Adam decided it would be funny to spring a sexual assault scenario on one of his players. The player was a woman playing a male robot. Adam sprung a scenario where a robot mechanic sticks a wire in the robot, while he is helpless, causing the robot to "robot orgasm."

He clearly thought he knew his players and audience well enough that this would be perceived as a hilarious set piece...

As a result of this:

All of Adam's Far Verona players quit and the stream was cancelled;
He lost his job as DM in residence at Roll20 and all of those streams were cancelled;
Every other stream he was associated with.. cut ties with him or was cancelled.

And just this year, Luke Crane the, now former, #2 at kickstarter tried to kickstart a project which used adam as a creator/consultant but underplayed/hid Adam's involvement. When the other creators on the project found out - they went nuclear. The kickstarter project was cancelled AND Luke Crane is now no longer #2 at kickstarter.

All this over just over 1 minute of livestream.

Thinking you can read the context, read the room, suss out what the other players like/find acceptable is dangerous without explicit consent/ rules.

Edit: Here's an ENworld thread on the subject with a video explaing the incident.

 

[el-remmen]

• Is it okay for a character to have a backstory that lost a child to a terrible incident?
• Is it okay to set up an Indiana Jones style scene where the party rescues children having to work in a mine?
• Is it okay to have an NPC backstory of child abuse? Child neglect? Too tough of scolding?
• Is it okay for the big old blacksmith to smack his apprentice on the ear, knowing everything else he does is to help the kid?
• Is it okay to have a ship sink off the coast - it might have had some younger people on board?
• Is it okay for a planet to be destroyed? (It most certainly has children.)
• Is it okay to show a gang of young 10 year old street urchins that are ruffians and often have fist-a-cuffs with one another?
• Are the Lost Boys from Peter Pan okay? Is it okay to have one of Captain Hook's pirates damage (cut) one during a fight?

I think having a set rule makes it easier to broach the gray areas around those questions when and if they come up. Knowing there is a "no harm to children" rule (for example) frames the very kinds of questions that need to be asked rather than assuming everyone knows or can figure out when and what to ask.

I am not much a Session #0 lay down the guidelines guy myself, but that is because I tend to play with people I know well and have played with for years (if not decades in some cases) so we all have a good sense of how far we'll go, and they know if something goes too far in one direction, as a GM I will stop and discuss or someone else can. That said, when introducing new players or a new style of play I make sure that conversations happen BEFOREHAND, either one on one or as a group or both that can then be the touchstone for further conversations.

 

[nevin]

Problem is, consequences do not prevent an action from happening. If a player's character murders another player's character and does so in a way that would garner no in game consequences - what then? If you don't have a no PvP rule the player can, honestly, say he had no idea he did anything wrong/improper - and he'd be right.

No I think you miss the point. Preventing your players from acting is pretty close to railroading them. And yes the player may not know what they did is wrong, Do you think everyone in jail knew they were wrong? PVP, I'd let the other players do whatever they wanted to the player no DM intervention. If that player murdered a player and got caught or reported In a civilized setting They'd have a price on thier head. If it was a perfectly planned assasination and they got away with it. No consequences till they start trying to sell the players gear, or open thier mouth and brag. If they killed a healer then they might not find another willing to adventure for a long time. I've had a few players that wanted to do things that simply derailed the game, like randomly murdering NPC's , PC's or other bad behavior. I'd say about half of those players get mad and walk away from the game when the consequences caught up with them. The other half don't always become the players I want but they generally fall in line once they know murder hobos's don't tend to live any longer in my game than they do in the real world.

 

[Scott Christian]

So it seems we are somewhat in agreement, but we differ on one very big thing. You (and please correct me if I'm wrong) think that players can tell from the game, context, "reading the room" etc. that they can suss out what actions are ok and therefore no hard rules are necessary.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply Mort. It is appreciated.
I may be in the minority here, but I assume we are talking about friends sitting down to play a campaign. Maybe some are just acquaintances. But in my experience, they can tell and can read the room. I may be just lucky, but I have played on many tables in many places, and a problem has never been resolved by more than a quick look or someone saying "too much." Maybe I am a fortunate player, but everyone I've ever played with for extended periods is respectful.

I'm saying that most people are very bad at that and harder lines are necessary. And it's not even difficult, want to introduce PvP - ask the group, if they're ok - cool. It can even come up in game. Turn to the DM and the group "hey, I know we have a no PvP rule, but I think it's appropriate can I go with it?"

This is exactly my point. Context changes, and then what? Then ask? Ok. Nothing wrong with that. But the simple fact that you had this session to ask a question that you know can change makes it kind of silly.

This is why I brought up Adam Koebel. He's probably the most public current example of someone who thought he did exactly that (read the context, knew the players, read the room) and didn't run his actions by his group. He miscalculated so badly that he lost his career and has essentially been blackballed by the gaming industry (to the point where the #2 at kickstarter lost his job).

No offense, but Adam makes his living doing this. He is doing it for the public - not him and his friends. A teacher, lawyer, soldier, etc. needs to adhere to a specific conduct when at work. He did not. He tried to push it. It didn't work.

I think we mostly agree on this. We might be misinterpreting each other's scenarios though. If we are talking about session zero, asking questions and setting boundaries, then I can only assume some of the people at the table are friends. Hopefully, by the end of the campaign, they will all be friends. If you want to change the context to a group of strangers, it might change some of the pieces, but my claim would still be context trumps those rules. In fact, it might even more so with strangers.

 

[Scott Christian]

I think having a set rule makes it easier to broach the gray areas around those questions when and if they come up. Knowing there is a "no harm to children" rule (for example) frames the very kinds of questions that need to be asked rather than assuming everyone knows or can figure out when and what to ask.

I am not much a Session #0 lay down the guidelines guy myself, but that is because I tend to play with people I know well and have played with for years (if not decades in some cases) so we all have a good sense of how far we'll go, and they know if something goes too far in one direction, as a GM I will stop and discuss or someone else can. That said, when introducing new players or a new style of play I make sure that conversations happen BEFOREHAND, either one on one or as a group or both that can then be the touchstone for further conversations.

Like I said. I am for having the conversation. There is nothing wrong with it. But it should also be understood that you can't pin everything down, context changes, and the variables are far too great to "frame" as you put it. Whether the person gets offended can change based on the setting, the person saying it, the time of day, the type of day they had coming into the game, etc. Literally, there are countless reasons.

Your phrasing in response to those questions is everything. It is an understanding of how context can change the situation, yet a vague response as to what the DM should do about it. They should try to frame "questions that need to be asked" in regards to each point of contention a player may have. So it is the table or DM's job to sit there and pepper this person with a hundred context questionnaire regarding the thing they are uncomfortable with? That sounds - silly.

But my experience is similar to yours - gaming with friends. Yet, even when I have been the new guy, I've been able to understand the table's boundaries in one session. Most people are probably equal or better at this than me. It's not a super power. And since context changes those boundaries, it is more prudent to know and understand the people you play with than develop some sort of social contract.

 

[el-remmen]

But my experience is similar to yours - gaming with friends. Yet, even when I have been the new guy, I've been able to understand the table's boundaries in one session. Most people are probably equal or better at this than me. It's not a super power. And since context changes those boundaries, it is more prudent to know and understand the people you play with than develop some sort of social contract.

I tend to think that when it comes to gauging how good we are at "reading the room" and understanding other people the Dunning-Kruger effect tends to apply at higher rates than it already tends to.

 

[Mort]

No I think you miss the point. Preventing your players from acting is pretty close to railroading them. And yes the player may not know what they did is wrong, Do you think everyone in jail knew they were wrong? PVP, I'd let the other players do whatever they wanted to the player no DM intervention. If that player murdered a player and got caught or reported In a civilized setting They'd have a price on thier head. If it was a perfectly planned assasination and they got away with it. No consequences till they start trying to sell the players gear, or open thier mouth and brag. If they killed a healer then they might not find another willing to adventure for a long time. I've had a few players that wanted to do things that simply derailed the game, like randomly murdering NPC's , PC's or other bad behavior. I'd say about half of those players get mad and walk away from the game when the consequences caught up with them. The other half don't always become the players I want but they generally fall in line once they know murder hobos's don't tend to live any longer in my game than they do in the real world.

The problem is the murdered character is still dead. What do you do with the player who wasn't expecting his character to be murdered in his sleep?

Sure you can tell him to suck it up - but the point is, why should he have to?