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

[TheCosmicKid]

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

It's important, sure. It's not so important as to require that a group put up with a problem player at their table for even a single second longer than the time it takes to say "get out".

EDIT: That was a bit overdramatic. Friction like this can be based on misunderstandings, and the first recourse for resolving it should be stopping and having a conversation about what everybody expects from the game. Only give the boot to persistent troublemakers. But either way, narrative coherence has no bearing at all on how to handle the problem.

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.

Most family disputes don't play out with violence. And I submit that it is neither unusual nor improper for players of this game, or human beings in general, not to want to emulate those disputes which do.

--- 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

This has absolutely nothing to do with PvP.

 

[Lanefan]

It's important, sure. It's not so important as to require that a group put up with a problem player at their table for even a single second longer than the time it takes to say "get out".

EDIT: That was a bit overdramatic. Friction like this can be based on misunderstandings, and the first recourse for resolving it should be stopping and having a conversation about what everybody expects from the game. Only give the boot to persistent troublemakers.

Fair enough.

But either way, narrative coherence has no bearing at all on how to handle the problem.

It does when put in context of the continuing game and the players/characters within it, something a DM always has to keep in mind; even if it comes down to do-what-you-gotta-do now and sort the narrative out later.

I've done this sort-of recently when a player unexpectedly dropped out of my game, the party was far away from anywhere and thus there was no convenient way to retire his character, but I didn't want to run it as a QPC (Quasi-Player Character), and so I quickly dreamed up a plausible way this character could just vanish. But I also had to determine where it went and what it would be doing there, as I knew the party had (and would almost immediately use, and they did!) scrying capability.

This has absolutely nothing to do with PvP.

Actually, tangentially, it does: a DM who is willing to let players play out their characters' discussions and chats is also more likely to let that play go to wherever it leads, including PvP if it comes to that (not that it always - or even ever - does, of course).

 

[Lanefan]

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

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.

In theory a player whose character's about to get the boot should have seen it coming and thus be half-expecting it (and maybe doing some in-character lobbying for support among the party?). Therefore, if something like this were to arise out of the natural run of play it would just happen. The DM can't stop it (and is overstepping her bounds if she does), and the booted-PC's player is left to respond in whatever way suits - be it rolling up and bringing in a new character; or having the booted character either a) plot and maybe exact some revenge or b) secretly follow the party and reingratiate itself by swooping in as an avenging hero during some situation where all otherwise seems lost; or (more commonly) both.

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.

Part of the issue here is another expectation that needs to be set right from the start: that players not become too precious about their characters. (and in truth, if a player's become too precious about a character and I'm another player in that game, that's a bear I will happily poke if I can)

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.

Harmless shenanigans usually comes under the umbrella of PvP, thus everyone's been talking about it.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

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

Re: secretly following party:
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.

I'm not saying any session time needs be spent on sorting out what that character does next (other than maybe a short exchange of notes between player and DM so the DM knows what the player has in mind), but at some point the player and DM would sit down over a beer and update that PC or do it by email.

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.

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.

Other than the bolded bit, this is a whole different element, recently discussed to death in a few threads regarding X-cards and triggering and so forth; and no, upsetting a real-world player due to real-world issues is not my intention.

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.

I agree with this fully. Its the ability to DO this AND remain friends AND not be an naughty word about it that is one of many major things that seperates those who can experience all d&d has to offer from those who cannot or will not ever experience the full package. I feel bad for those who either cant handle it or have friends who cant handle it or who have friends who abuse it. If your friend abuses it that doesnt mean throw this out and dm fist anyone who tries. What it means is take 5 steps to deal with that player. Step 2 may be skipped if the dm gets the gumption to "go there".

1. Work it out in game (without metagaming for full credit)

2. Work it out out of game in a serious but polite conversation between the two players privately.

3. Work it out out of game in a serious but polite conversation between the player and the dm privately.

4. Hold a table meeting between all players and the dm (no player may be absent. Not the ones affected, the ones unaffected, or the problem causing individual.)

5. If problems still persist hold an anonymous digital and simulataneous vote between the dm and the players excluding the problem player.

6. If the problem still persists after he won the vote to stay may gygax the OVER DM have mercy on his soul because the Dm may now reign fire down upon him and by fiat expel him from the table for a time or permanently (the dm should use his wisdom and experience to decide what would be best in this scenario) to the outerplane known as "the local game shop" and he may even alert other Dm's habiting that place of the malign spirit in their midst and not to invite him into their home planes depending on how much of a problem he really was.

 

[Hussar]

And that is when the party responds in character. If the thief picks the wizard's pocket, the wizard polymorphs him into a raccoon or something. If the party gets tired of the character's antics, maybe the next time the cleric doesn't heal him? Or they just tell him they are going their own way and he is not welcome anymore. Keep it in the game.

The player then has a choice, he either changes his character's attitude about it all, or he makes a new character. If the player is consistently a problem, then the group tells him he needs to be more a team-player or won't be invited to the table anymore. Give him every chance to make the change.

There are all sorts of problems with this though. First off - escalation. Player A does something Player B doesn't like. So, Player A doesn't get healed (for example). You're going to tell me that this won't cause any arguments at your table? It sure as heck will drag play to a grinding halt at mine as Player A bitches and whines for the next hour about how he can't play the game and how everyone else just sucks. Or, worse yet, Player A's character gets flat out killed. Yeah, that's not going to cause any hard feelings at the table. :/

Keeping stuff like this in character is the absolute WORST gaming advice ever. It will NEVER resolve in character and will lead to garbage play experiences.

You don't have to of course, but then you are basically telling that player they can't play their character in character the way they want to.

That isn't really fair, either. If a table told that to me, I would probably just leave as obviously they aren't my friends, and not people I would want as friends.

We do that all the time. No Evils is a pretty standard table rule. The notion that you get to play whatever you want regardless of the group is disruptive and frankly a bad player.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Diplomacy - ruining friendships for decades.

But, I think the bigger point is this:

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.

Look, @Lanefan, you have to realize that your gaming is so far outside the experience of the overwhelming majority of people you're talking to that you really aren't speaking the same language anymore. You run games that last many years, continuing through multiple players, and only play with people you are friends with.

That is simply not true for many, many of us here. I haven't played a face to face game, despite playing weekly, in almost twenty years. I certainly wouldn't presume that my experience is somehow universal. But, that being said, we KNOW that most groups only last a couple of years and most campaigns are measured in months, not years. Adding in this level of PVP to a group that a) probably doesn't know each other that well and b) has such a limited amount of time to game, is only going to cause all sorts of problems.

Sure, it's easy to laugh off that thing that you're high school buddy does. It's not so easy when your experience is turned to trash, you only get to play once a month, by someone you barely know, and you're then told to suck it up and only respond in character.

Honestly, your advice just isn't applicable to most tables.

 

[Esker]

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.

Those aren't all the same thing. The PCs don't have to get along or have the same goals, but keep the not getting along to roleplaying, not actions that have serious mechanical consequences, especially lasting ones. Again, unless everyone has a prior agreement that doing otherwise is ok.

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?".

If a player is asked to leave a table because they couldn't see eye to eye with the rest of the table, or wouldn't change their behavior after being asked, and then other people keep bringing up their character, unless the DM deliberately dropped hints that there was something to explore there, that reads to me as passive aggressive.

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

Being absolutely opposed to metagaming regardless of context is a fairly absurd position to take, if you ask me. If rule zero is "What the DM says goes" then rule negative one is "Thou shalt not let your commitment to roleplaying your character get in the way of other people's fun." If you can't abide some metagaming to make sure that happens, then you'd better throw out any character concepts that are going to "force" you to piss off other players.

But more 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.

Damn straight; if those things are getting in the way of other people's fun.

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.

Nobody is saying you can't have arguments in character, within reason. I've spent a lot of time with groups of people --- family, friends on a road trip, etc. --- and sure, we've gotten annoyed at each other, but that doesn't mean we steal from each other or injure each other, or do anything that's causing physical or permanent harm.

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

If your idea of a prankster is someone who causes irreversible changes to the people being pranked, then yes. Yes it does. I don't think anybody here is talking about putting shaving cream in someone's palm while they're sleeping, or putting a kick me sign on their back.

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!).

We're also not talking about friendly-fire AoE damage here. That's a cost-benefit calculation, and sometimes a little friendly fire is worth it in the big picture. I certainly expect that you're not going to induce friendly fire that would actually kill a fellow PC, unless not doing so stood a good chance of leading to a TPK. But that's also being party-minded, not PvP.

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......

Depends on the situation. If you were to do that at the inn after the adventure, and Wizzie could just rest it off afterwards, then that's probably closer to the shaving cream in the palm scenario. But ultimately it depends on how Wizzie's player would take to your PC doing that to theirs.

 

[Ashrym]

*Someone starts a thread about mechanics...
*...and it turns into a argument discussing disruptive behavior.

If a player intentionally choose to create a character with a disruptive nature then that disruption still originates with the player. "My character would..." is just looking for a loop-hole or technicality in the social contract so that the player can be disruptive at the table.

The social contract takes precedence and allowing that playstyle needs to be part of the social contract.

So if another player uses a Wish to turn your character into half your height or twice your height, or to drastically alter your alignment or make you donate all your gold or soemthing, what would you do?

Those are perfectly valid uses of a wish mechanically. You should get a saving throw, but let's say you failed it. Then what?

I would think that player wasted a wish frivolously tbh. Then apply a fix to wish in game as a DM somehow. If the play is disruptive the player may become uninvited to the game.

 

[Don Durito]

I'm going to point out that the annoying thief character is a (unintentionally) loaded example of in party conflict.

Because it's not just disruptive, it's tedious, and usually immature. Handling that in character may not work because 1) the players simply might not want to (most of us have seen it before) and 2) the same attitude that made the player try it in the first place may derail the whole campaign as they insist upon becoming the centre of attention.

If you can get past the immaturity than conflict within the party can work. I've played in games that worked perfectly well where PCs had goals at odds with each other.

 

[der_kluge]

"Retard Strength"