D&D 5E Mechanics you don't want to see, ever

[Esker]

Which in effect boils down to the same thing: play my way or go home.

I mean, said another way, it boils down to "Don't try to overturn the group's consensus about how they want to play; or find another group that shares your playstyle." Hard to argue with that, I think.

And, even if a character gets booted from a party it still a) is a character existing in the game world and b) has a player attached. So until-unless the player turns that PC over to the DM to use as an NPC that character still belongs to the player.

Narrative coherence is not of such paramount importance that a DM is obligated to spend mental effort figuring out how to work your PC's arc into the story when you as a player get asked to leave the game. Deus ex machina "they vanish in a puff of mist" is perfectly reasonable in that situation. There is, of course, nothing stopping you from taking that same character and playing them at another table (minus whatever equipment and treasure; possibly at a different level; etc).

The social contract quite rightly tells me I can't just reach across the table, haul off and punch Bob in the face. But there's absolutely nothing saying my character Eohyl can't haul off and punch Bob's character Falstaff in the face, even though Bob and I might otherwise be the best of friends.

Unless the players have agreed out of game that PCs punching each other is part of the way they want to play the game, then the default social contract for a cooperative RPG does prohibit that, yes.

Actually, yes it is; as it's the harmless shenanigans and PvP that can be (and IME are) laughed off that are what people seem to want to ban; and I'm not cool with that.

D&D is a group game. If the rest of the people at the table don't want PvP, then it's not the table for you. Nobody is saying that no group should be allowed to include PvP in their playstyle. But if the people you're playing with aren't cool with it, then yes, you're obligated to "metagame" in such a way that prevents your character from engaging in that sort of behavior. Otherwise you're being a jerk out-of-game, as much as you might want to pretend that your player hands are clean when your character's hands punch another PC or whatever.

From what you're saying, it sounds like your group is fine with it. Nobody is saying there's anything wrong with that; as long as the DM and all the players are on the same page.

But the piece about the long-term change to a well-loved character? Happens all the time as a known part of the game; the only difference here is that the source of said change might be another PC rather than something in the setting (e.g. trap) or opposition.

Again, if it's the setting or an enemy that causes something bad to happen, that's a risk that's built into the game itself. If your PC does something to another PC that causes something like that to happen, unless your group has established that as part of their social contract, then you're just being a jerk. You, as a player; not your character. And if the posts here are any indication, the large majority of groups are not okay with that crap.

 

[Lanefan]

Because, if your character is an a-hole to another character, without prior agreement with the other player, then, you are also being an a-hole. You are at a (perhaps virtual) table with other real-world people. They actually matter. If you are not considerate of them, you are, I am sad to say, in the wrong.

First off, a disclaimer: playing at a virtual table is such a foreign (and off-putting) concept to me that in my eyes it might as well not exist as a thing. No game at all would be preferable to playing with a "table" of people I'd never actually met, couldn't go down to the pub for a beer with, and didn't know from a hole in the ground.

That said, and I seem to keep having to bang this drum, there's a big difference between being inconsiderate player-to-player and inconsiderate character-to-character.

If I'm playing a Fighter with an established pattern of having a hair-trigger and violent temper, that the party keep around mostly because he's ace in a fight and fun to hang with when he's not mad, if someone in the party pees him off somehow I'm not going to ask permission at the table before having my Fighter belt the annoyer upside the head. (and even less so if we're running in "if you say it, your character says it" mode! ) It's just gonna happen, and it's then on the rest of the party to respond - in character! - however they will*.

Experience tells me the players at the table will be laughing but their PCs most likely won't be.

 

[Lanefan]

it is kind of like playing with that guy that likes to pick pockets and steal from the party all the time.Most players would prefer to play without him and work in a group as a team. And that player always uses the excuse I am just role playing my character.

Yes, and it's down to the party to react to that situation in character. Turn the Thief upside down and shake until all the loot falls out. Send the Thief down the road. Kill it in its sleep.

But keep it in character.

That said, if the player keeps coming back with the same type of character over and over then you've likely not got a good fit. But sometimes the most unlikely of players...

Story from way long ago: 1e game was DM and 6 players. Players IRL were by and large the nicest of people, and all good friends. In-game we were very low level and had just got slaughtered: 4 of us needed new PCs. So what happens? Without any contrivance or discussion between anyone and without really forewarning the DM, all 4 brought in characters purporting to be some class or other that were in fact hidden Assassins out for blood! None of us knew about any of the other three; and the resulting plotting and sneakery provided hours of entertainment for the DM.

After we'd been wiped out a second time (caused by a 5th character's doing!) all was revealed, to much laughter and "I told you so".

 

[Lanefan]

That sounds like an absolutely garbage play experience. If all my friends were into that, I’d just not play dnd with my friends.

Which is too bad, as you'd likely miss out on some entertaining intrigue-style gaming. Done right, a party of counter-plotting PCs can end up making D&D play very much like Diplomacy.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Which is too bad, as you'd likely miss out on some entertaining intrigue-style gaming. Done right, a party of counter-plotting PCs can end up making D&D play very much like Diplomacy.

As a one shot or limited series style campaign, maybe.

As a general way of playing the game...enjoy why you enjoy but I’d hate that.

 

[Esker]

Which is too bad, as you'd likely miss out on some entertaining intrigue-style gaming. Done right, a party of counter-plotting PCs can end up making D&D play very much like Diplomacy.

Again, I don't think anybody objects to there being tables who play D&D that way, or doubts that for some people it might be a lot of fun. The issue I and others are having is that it sounds like you are saying that DMs or players who aren't ok with that sort of thing, or who jump straight away to an out-of-character level to deal with differences in expectations in that area are doing it wrong. Since D&D is set up as a cooperative game by default, the burden should be on the players who wants to introduce PvP elements to secure active group buy-in before beginning the campaign.

 

[Lanefan]

I mean, said another way, it boils down to "Don't try to overturn the group's consensus about how they want to play; or find another group that shares your playstyle." Hard to argue with that, I think.

True.

I just don't agree with what seems to be the majority consensus here: that PCs should always get along, have the same goals, and always be team-first.

Narrative coherence is not of such paramount importance that a DM is obligated to spend mental effort figuring out how to work your PC's arc into the story when you as a player get asked to leave the game. Deus ex machina "they vanish in a puff of mist" is perfectly reasonable in that situation.

Here I (surprise surprise! ) again disagree, in that I see narrative coherence as absolutely vital.

And that doesn't forbid the "puff of mist" idea; but it does force the DM to have a plausible in-game explanation ready for when someone casts Commune and asks "What became of Kallios?".

There is, of course, nothing stopping you from taking that same character and playing them at another table (minus whatever equipment and treasure; possibly at a different level; etc).

True, assuming the new table is playing anything close to the same rule-set as the old one. Otherwise it's usually just easier to roll up something new.

Unless the players have agreed out of game that PCs punching each other is part of the way they want to play the game, then the default social contract for a cooperative RPG does prohibit that, yes.

D&D is a group game. If the rest of the people at the table don't want PvP, then it's not the table for you. Nobody is saying that no group should be allowed to include PvP in their playstyle. But if the people you're playing with aren't cool with it, then yes, you're obligated to "metagame" in such a way that prevents your character from engaging in that sort of behavior.

Well, first off I'm a fairly staunch opponent of metagaming.

Butmore to the point, the problem with banning any and all PvP comes when you realize you're also in effect banning a certain degree of realism and to a lesser degree telling people how to play their characters. Realistically, people thrown together for any length of time are going to disagree, fight, get mad at each other, and so forth - just look at almost any family in the world as an exmaple of what I mean. Banning PvP means those disputes can't realistically be played out, or - in the extreme - aren't even allowed to occur; and I just can't get behind that.

It also in effect bans the prankster character trope, which is truly sad.

Again, if it's the setting or an enemy that causes something bad to happen, that's a risk that's built into the game itself.

Ah, there might be a difference between us: I see the other PCs as also being part of the risk that's built into the game itself (and the many front-liners I've played who have been hit and sometimes killed by friendly-fire AoE damage would back me to the hilt!).

If your PC does something to another PC that causes something like that to happen, unless your group has established that as part of their social contract, then you're just being a jerk. You, as a player; not your character. And if the posts here are any indication, the large majority of groups are not okay with that crap.

So if Wizzie catches me in his fireball it's OK, but it's not OK if (assuming I survive) I punch his lights out for it afterwards? Seems a bit double-standardish from here......

 

[Arnwolf666]

Yes, and it's down to the party to react to that situation in character. Turn the Thief upside down and shake until all the loot falls out. Send the Thief down the road. Kill it in its sleep.

But keep it in character.

That said, if the player keeps coming back with the same type of character over and over then you've likely not got a good fit. But sometimes the most unlikely of players...

Story from way long ago: 1e game was DM and 6 players. Players IRL were by and large the nicest of people, and all good friends. In-game we were very low level and had just got slaughtered: 4 of us needed new PCs. So what happens? Without any contrivance or discussion between anyone and without really forewarning the DM, all 4 brought in characters purporting to be some class or other that were in fact hidden Assassins out for blood! None of us knew about any of the other three; and the resulting plotting and sneakery provided hours of entertainment for the DM.

After we'd been wiped out a second time (caused by a 5th character's doing!) all was revealed, to much laughter and "I told you so".

It’s easier to just ask the guy to leave and get on with the game.

 

[Lanefan]

Again, I don't think anybody objects to there being tables who play D&D that way, or doubts that for some people it might be a lot of fun. The issue I and others are having is that it sounds like you are saying that DMs or players who aren't ok with that sort of thing, or who jump straight away to an out-of-character level to deal with differences in expectations in that area are doing it wrong. Since D&D is set up as a cooperative game by default, the burden should be on the players who wants to introduce PvP elements to secure active group buy-in before beginning the campaign.

Introducing PvP into an already-established game that doesn't have it and-or doesn't want it isn't likely going to fly.

The start of the campaign, as you quite rightly note, is when the tone is set; and my position is that for an open-ended campaign (as opposed to a hard-baked AP, for example) said tone should be as open-ended as reasonably possible, for a few reasons:

--- it allows more freedom in character and personality choices; the DM isn't telling us what to play and how
--- it tells the players that the DM isn't looking to ram us through a pre-set story; that the players will have some control over what happens and how
--- it tells the players that the DM isn't precious about time; that she's ready and able to have some sessions that maybe don't advance the plot any but do advance the characterizations, and that she won't see a session in which the characters do nothing but get to know each other* as being wasted
--- it tells me the DM trusts the players to be able to sort things out in character without real-world animosity creeping into it

* - even if such is entirely peaceful; some DMs get upset if the players spend more than a few minutes talking in-character and go nuts if the players decide to spend a sesison role-playing getting to know each other around the campfire

Now for something like a hard-baked AP, or a campaign that's running to a strict time limit for some reason, things are different; and the DM can and probably will impose all sorts of restrictions to which the players will have to buy in.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Which in effect boils down to the same thing: play my way or go home.

If you're not willing to play the game in the way that the DM and the other players want to, then yes.

OK, first off, the DM has no say whatsoever in whether a character gets booted from a party (unless the DM has one or more NPCs in the party who could, along with the PCs, voice an opinion based on their established character).

And, even if a character gets booted from a party it still a) is a character existing in the game world and b) has a player attached. So until-unless the player turns that PC over to the DM to use as an NPC that character still belongs to the player.

IME, before having their characters boot another player's character from the party, players will usually check with the DM and the other player to make sure they're OK with that. - Generally because most of the games I've seen have been non-PVP and with the social contract of "Make sure that the character you're generating will be able to work with the party" laid down in session zero.

This is what I disagree with.

The social contract quite rightly tells me I can't just reach across the table, haul off and punch Bob in the face. But there's absolutely nothing saying my character Eohyl can't haul off and punch Bob's character Falstaff in the face, even though Bob and I might otherwise be the best of friends.

Lets look at the actual example that this discussion has been about shall we: A couple of people expressed the thought that permanent and major changes to their character's appearance or alignment would not be something that they wish to see happen, to the point that they may simply cease to play that character.
Thus the social contract would seem to be that you cannot (or at least should not) take the action that dnd4vr suggested, which was to use a wish spell to alter that player's character in that fashion.

In a PVP game, or one in which the other players wouldn't be upset by that happening, its probably fine. But in the example being discussed, where the player has expressed a clear indication that they wouldn't be happy with something, doing that thing isn't going to be fine.

If it comes up in the course of the adventure (prewritten perhaps, as the DM should probably not deliberately create something that they know will be a problem), then that is acceptable, just like legitimate character death would be. But for another player to deliberately do something they know will upset another player, there is an issue.

Actually, yes it is; as it's the harmless shenanigans and PvP that can be (and IME are) laughed off that are what people seem to want to ban; and I'm not cool with that.

I don't think that anyone has expressed any wishes about harmless shenanigans and agreed upon PVP here. Unless I'm on someone's ignore list, I don't think that its come up.