D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[AbdulAlhazred]

As long as it's done with full disclosure ahead of time and in good faith during play- I don't see a real problem.

Disallowing evil PCs is actually a pretty common limitation.

honestly, I agree with both you and @chaochou if a GM (OR A PLAYER) states that specific things are 'off the table' (I'm not super hip on the modern parlance here) then that's part of the 'deal' with that game. So its fine if @Oofta doesn't run games for evil PCs, and it would be fine if one of the players had a similar policy! Obviously the question arises as to who will prevail and how that will play out when these sorts of agreements or preferences are not upheld. Players could get a new GM, they could expel a player that goes against their rules, or they could walk themselves (as either party). All that is 'table politics'.

 

[Lanefan]

The player has full control over their PC. When they joined my game they agreed to a social contract and agreed to the low, low standard that they wouldn't run an evil PC.

And those two sentences directly contradict each other.

By agreeing to that social contract (which isn't really a social contract but more a conditon of play imposed by you the DM) the player has agreed NOT to have full control over their PC...or at least not to exercise some of that control.

Since they can't run an evil PC and I don't ever tell them what their PC thinks or does, their PC becoming an NPC is the only logical outcome.

And bang goes the player's "full control".

What's the alternative? Let people run characters I find offensive?

Well, to some degree, yes. And not just evil characters: I've DMed all kinds of characters of every alignment who've annoyed* me to no end but that's not going to push me to tell players not to play them.

And if characters do things in the fiction that upset or enrage other characters then sort it out in the fiction be it by in-party retribution, external consequences, or whatever else makes sense. Separating character feelings from player feelings and keeping it all in character is of paramount importance and can't be stressed enough.

Give players truly full control of their characters and IME they'll, after some early infighting and almost-certain character turnover, eventually emerge with a functional party that more or less tolerates each others' company. What usually happens is that one or two key characters end up setting a tone (which can be anything and can't be DM-forced), and new recruits are somewhat measured against that tone before being accepted by the group.

In one group I ran the tone-setting characters - after that early shakedown phase - turned out to be an Assassin and a couple of low-morals Fighters; so they murderhoboed their way up and down the continent for the next ten real-world years while occasionally pulling off acts of great heroism almost as unintentional side effects (until the end, where they made a conscious in-character decision to go out in a blaze of heroic glory, ending the campaign). At one point a couple of rejected characters split off and started a second party (meaning I ran two groups side-along on different nights), and that crew quickly set a tone of much more gonzo chaos and fun rather than the other group's more gritty-serious outlook.

Another group was tone-set by a chaotic-good Mage and a goodly Fighter; that crew turned out to be much more generically heroic over the long run but always with just enough of a chaotic unpredictable undercurrent to keep them entertaining.

* - I say annoy rather than offend because it takes an awful lot for me to find something actually offensive.

Run a game that makes me and at least one player (my wife) uncomfortable so that you can't call me out for not living up to some philosophical standard?

If, when running a game like D&D where over-the-top violence is a fairly common thing, you're uncomfortable with over-the-top violence, there would seem to be a disconnect somewhere.

 

[Oofta]

And those two sentences directly contradict each other.

By agreeing to that social contract (which isn't really a social contract but more a conditon of play imposed by you the DM) the player has agreed NOT to have full control over their PC...or at least not to exercise some of that control.

And bang goes the player's "full control".

They were in full control. They chose to abandon control of their PC. But call it what you will. I let people know when they join what will happen. When we sit down at the table we accept all sorts of limitations. That a player is not going to physically abusive, they can't literally play Superman in a D&D game, etc.

Well, to some degree, yes. And not just evil characters: I've DMed all kinds of characters of every alignment who've annoyed* me to no end but that's not going to push me to tell players not to play them.

You do you. I've been at tables where evil PCs allowed. I'm not going to repeat that experience, it led to RP that was gross and disturbing. But even in cases where it didn't get to that level, I didn't enjoy it. I don't care for anti-heroes or TV shows like the Sopranos either. It's just not my idea of entertaining. As it happens, my wife agrees and she's about the only one who I can count on being at the table from one game to the next.

And if characters do things in the fiction that upset or enrage other characters then sort it out in the fiction be it by in-party retribution, external consequences, or whatever else makes sense. Separating character feelings from player feelings and keeping it all in character is of paramount importance and can't be stressed enough.

Give players truly full control of their characters and IME they'll, after some early infighting and almost-certain character turnover, eventually emerge with a functional party that more or less tolerates each others' company. What usually happens is that one or two key characters end up setting a tone (which can be anything and can't be DM-forced), and new recruits are somewhat measured against that tone before being accepted by the group.

In one group I ran the tone-setting characters - after that early shakedown phase - turned out to be an Assassin and a couple of low-morals Fighters; so they murderhoboed their way up and down the continent for the next ten real-world years while occasionally pulling off acts of great heroism almost as unintentional side effects (until the end, where they made a conscious in-character decision to go out in a blaze of heroic glory, ending the campaign). At one point a couple of rejected characters split off and started a second party (meaning I ran two groups side-along on different nights), and that crew quickly set a tone of much more gonzo chaos and fun rather than the other group's more gritty-serious outlook.

Another group was tone-set by a chaotic-good Mage and a goodly Fighter; that crew turned out to be much more generically heroic over the long run but always with just enough of a chaotic unpredictable undercurrent to keep them entertaining.

* - I say annoy rather than offend because it takes an awful lot for me to find something actually offensive.

If, when running a game like D&D where over-the-top violence is a fairly common thing, you're uncomfortable with over-the-top violence, there would seem to be a disconnect somewhere.

I'm not the DM for everyone and I don't try to be.

 

[Lanefan]

Oh, yeah! Intraparty strife! Always a winner in D&D type games. I mean, I'm not actually disagreeing with you here. I am mostly just pointing out why its something a lot of people avoid. This was an interesting part of our BitD game, the PCs are all part of a 'crew'. There's no provision in the game for a crew to break up, for members to leave or transfer to a new one, etc. (obviously this would be an area for discussion and table 'rulings' I guess). Still, our characters did sometimes have divergent approaches to things, and there was some question about whether it would get resolved in a way that would keep the group together. As it happens, it did, but this was a game that seemed to lend itself to "different parts of the party go different ways" and MOST of the time different members were executing different scores in parallel. I think it works BECAUSE of the narrowness of the premise. Like, D&D parties are much more fragile, they're just a juxtaposition of several characters with, usually, no really deep reason for them to be together.

Indeed, and if a character roleplays itself right out of the party then so be it...that character is still out there for its player to bring in at some other time and-or to some other party, or play solo, or build another party around; and the player can always roll up a replacement for here and now. (I've always held that having extra PCs "out there" tends to make for a deeper and richer campaign/setting in the long run)

And yes, sometimes in-party disagreements escalate to the point where weapons get drawn, spells get cast, and some characters end up either tossed out, charmed, or dead (or, in one memorable and hilarious - you had to be there - case, given away into slavery). The key thing is that what happens in character stays in character: if the players are laughing as these things happen, all is good.

I'd rather see these things resolved that way than by the more passive-aggressive approach I've also seen, where an annoying character is by tacit agreement among the other characters/players hung out to dry in some combat or other and left to die.

If one works against the others, things implode completely. Our Wandering Souls crew OTOH had significant connections within the stories of the characters, so it was pretty natural for them to say to each other "OK, we can work this out." Why would a D&D party do that?

Indeed, why would they do that? Best answer IMO is maybe they wouldn't; and end up going their separate ways (or, more commonly IME, splitting into two groups that do get along internally - which means I then run two parties once each group fills out its lineup with new recruits).

 

[Lanefan]

Every PC I've ever seen in any classic/trad D&D or D&D-like game was a stark raving lunatic by any rational measure.

And that's why we love them.

There is no actual character to play. You talk about 'murderhobo', but just ADVENTURER is already pretty much psycho insane nutjob level crazy

Yeah, pretty much this.

Adventuring takes the concept of high risk high reward and dials it to eleven.

 

[Lanefan]

As the great teacher DM he's going to teach them what fun is. lol. Oh, well, at least 'proper fun', the kind HE knows best is actually the real fun, not the kind they were trying to have (the ignorant unwashed masses player kind of fun).

The TPKs will continue until morale improves.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

What does that have to do with the following:

I was responding to @Flamestrike and his statements about how crazy some 'murderhobo' is (and presumably this was directed at the PCs in the OP). So, my response is "all PCs in this sort of game are already stark raving mad." I think backed that up with some more statements along the same lines.

I have no idea what your games are like, I wasn't commenting on them, and I'm perfectly willing to believe they have a different tenor.

First, you're assuming one style of campaign. I don't remember the last time I ran a session based on kicking in doors and stealing loot. If the PCs are kicking in doors, it's for a reason. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but even in modules I've played that doesn't happen any more.

Again, there's no implication in anything I said that YOU @Oofta run a game which is structured in the way I described. I have no idea if it is or not. At a guess I would imagine that the PCs in your game are FAR from normal average people, and probably do some things that most people would consider a bit crazy. OTOH that doesn't make them completely nuts, there may be well-established reasons. And its always possible the characters in your games are simply well-adjusted normal people I guess. I try not to speculate on things I don't know...

So soldiers, police officers, firefighters are all stark raving lunatics because they have dangerous professions? Although after a quick google search, apparently small engine mechanics have a more dangerous job than being a police officer or firefighter. Who knew?

lol, I made my money for D&D books fixing lawnmowers as a kid. I can believe it. My friend and I once set ourselves on fire, luckily nobody actually got hurt in that incident, but I guess lawnmowers are kinda evil! As for 'first responder' types... First of all, they're not much like PCs at all, IMHO. They get paid to do a job that is moderately dangerous sometimes. However, they also take very careful measures to mitigate all that danger. I remember a huge 5 alarm fire burned a whole city block next to my house when I was a kid. The fire fighters did take some risks, but when it was obviously too dangerous the captain got on his bullhorn and literally said "I'm not losing anyone, EVERYBODY OUT NOW!" and then they stood there for 5 hours and watched the whole block burn. These are people who understand the difference between doing a job that involves some risk, and being a nutcase.

In the case of soldiers, it requires strong discipline and motivation to create a fighting force. I'm no military officer, I can only note what I see, but what I don't see is anyone taking a risk they don't feel is needed or justified. PCs might potentially fall into that category, but IME D&D is not great "out of the box" at portraying this kind of situation, it just doesn't set it up. As I said in another post, games like BitD are much stronger in this regard.

Again, you are making a ton of assumptions. While some soldiers may be nutjobs, most are not although their job is to kill the enemy.

Every soldier in history went into battle to 'protect his people' if you ask me. I think this is a complex psychological question, and actually IIRC the US Army has done a huge amount of research on it. I'm no psychologist or such, so I can't really comment much on what they found, though I do remember that the US Army determined that in WWII less than 10% of all soldiers EVER fired their personal weapons at the enemy in battle. Even soldiers, probably believing in the rightness and necessity of their cause, are rarely able to bring themselves to kill. I believe almost all the cases where they do so were outright self-defense or defense of another fellow soldier in their proximity. Even in Ukraine it appears that 90+% of all casualties are caused by indirect fires, that is people just operating a machine nowhere near where their targets are.

There's a vast difference between the PCs in games I run or play and murderhoboes. It may be different in your games but your games do not sound very typical. It is just a game at the end of the day but in a game I just started playing, we're just trying to escape Ravenloft and by and large are simply defending ourselves. In my home game, either the PCs are acting as soldiers in a de facto war or were investigating something when attacked. I can't remember the last time I DMed or played a game where the sole purpose was to break in kill the inhabitants and take their stuff.

There's nothing wrong with old school dungeon crawls, I just think it's a small minority of what people actually play now.

I wouldn't presume to know all of what people play now. I have read some APs, they seem REMARKABLY similar to the DGQ series from way back in the 1970s to be honest. Yes, at the start of D1 there's a bit of setup that says the PCs are wiping out the giants because their homeland is being raided or some such. Its a single paragraph, maybe 2! Next you are plopped down in front of G1, which is basically a dungeon, albeit half above ground, filled with giants. I don't see where any of the 5e APs are much different, and my assumption is that the vast majority of play is published adventures, or stuff modeled on them.

Again, I'm not commenting on your game, I was responding to Flamestrike. I think it is a reasonable response, the average D&D adventurer is at least a pretty abnormal individual. I don't particularly find it easy to relate to those sorts of characters very easily. So, for example my Stonetop character is a young woman who has experienced some weird magical effects, and is very curious about them, and is trying to locate her missing father. She's part of the community (she brews the whiskey for the town) and is maybe not your average person, but she's not super weird and abnormal. Next session she's going to (I assume) go along on an attempt to rescue some town children that are in danger. Beyond the obvious 'civic duty' motive, she's undoubtedly curious about the strange forces which seem to be at work in this kidnapping. I can relate to this character, though some of her life concerns and such are probably a bit foreign to me.

 

[Flamestrike]

History isn't full of any such thing.

History isnt full of people hiring other people to do jobs for them?

 

[Oofta]

I was responding to @Flamestrike and his statements about how crazy some 'murderhobo' is (and presumably this was directed at the PCs in the OP). So, my response is "all PCs in this sort of game are already stark raving mad." I think backed that up with some more statements along the same lines.

I have no idea what your games are like, I wasn't commenting on them, and I'm perfectly willing to believe they have a different tenor.

Again, there's no implication in anything I said that YOU @Oofta run a game which is structured in the way I described. I have no idea if it is or not. At a guess I would imagine that the PCs in your game are FAR from normal average people, and probably do some things that most people would consider a bit crazy. OTOH that doesn't make them completely nuts, there may be well-established reasons. And its always possible the characters in your games are simply well-adjusted normal people I guess. I try not to speculate on things I don't know...

lol, I made my money for D&D books fixing lawnmowers as a kid. I can believe it. My friend and I once set ourselves on fire, luckily nobody actually got hurt in that incident, but I guess lawnmowers are kinda evil! As for 'first responder' types... First of all, they're not much like PCs at all, IMHO. They get paid to do a job that is moderately dangerous sometimes. However, they also take very careful measures to mitigate all that danger. I remember a huge 5 alarm fire burned a whole city block next to my house when I was a kid. The fire fighters did take some risks, but when it was obviously too dangerous the captain got on his bullhorn and literally said "I'm not losing anyone, EVERYBODY OUT NOW!" and then they stood there for 5 hours and watched the whole block burn. These are people who understand the difference between doing a job that involves some risk, and being a nutcase.

In the case of soldiers, it requires strong discipline and motivation to create a fighting force. I'm no military officer, I can only note what I see, but what I don't see is anyone taking a risk they don't feel is needed or justified. PCs might potentially fall into that category, but IME D&D is not great "out of the box" at portraying this kind of situation, it just doesn't set it up. As I said in another post, games like BitD are much stronger in this regard.

Every soldier in history went into battle to 'protect his people' if you ask me. I think this is a complex psychological question, and actually IIRC the US Army has done a huge amount of research on it. I'm no psychologist or such, so I can't really comment much on what they found, though I do remember that the US Army determined that in WWII less than 10% of all soldiers EVER fired their personal weapons at the enemy in battle. Even soldiers, probably believing in the rightness and necessity of their cause, are rarely able to bring themselves to kill. I believe almost all the cases where they do so were outright self-defense or defense of another fellow soldier in their proximity. Even in Ukraine it appears that 90+% of all casualties are caused by indirect fires, that is people just operating a machine nowhere near where their targets are.

I wouldn't presume to know all of what people play now. I have read some APs, they seem REMARKABLY similar to the DGQ series from way back in the 1970s to be honest. Yes, at the start of D1 there's a bit of setup that says the PCs are wiping out the giants because their homeland is being raided or some such. Its a single paragraph, maybe 2! Next you are plopped down in front of G1, which is basically a dungeon, albeit half above ground, filled with giants. I don't see where any of the 5e APs are much different, and my assumption is that the vast majority of play is published adventures, or stuff modeled on them.

Again, I'm not commenting on your game, I was responding to Flamestrike. I think it is a reasonable response, the average D&D adventurer is at least a pretty abnormal individual. I don't particularly find it easy to relate to those sorts of characters very easily. So, for example my Stonetop character is a young woman who has experienced some weird magical effects, and is very curious about them, and is trying to locate her missing father. She's part of the community (she brews the whiskey for the town) and is maybe not your average person, but she's not super weird and abnormal. Next session she's going to (I assume) go along on an attempt to rescue some town children that are in danger. Beyond the obvious 'civic duty' motive, she's undoubtedly curious about the strange forces which seem to be at work in this kidnapping. I can relate to this character, though some of her life concerns and such are probably a bit foreign to me.

Well, according to most posters on this forum in 5E it's almost impossible to kill a PC. That makes it one of the safest professions there is, doesn't it?

 

[Flamestrike]

You say this like you know something...

I do. I've traveled all over the world and have yet to find myself in a place full of DnD-esque murder-hobos.

Even in dangerous places, you'll have militants killing people over differences in religion, or nationalistic gripes, or over a gang war or whatever, but a nation full of utter psychopaths slaughtering random people for on-the-spot trifling reasons doesnt exist anywhere other than a Khornate Demon world in 40K.