D&D 5E "Punishing" Player Behavior

[el-remmen]

I've been thinking about pitching an essay somewhere about how there is no such thing as "what my character would do" outside of what you have them do. This is why I am a strong believer in, when necessary, choose the action first and then role-play the reasoning necessary to get there using that established sense of character. Real people are a lot less consistent than they like to believe they are, so I see no reason why player characters can't be like that too when it helps smooth a bump.

Continuity itself a fiction and fictions can be manipulated or massaged for the sake of the game play. In fact, when someone says "That's what my character would do" they are also doing that - except that too often it creates a bump rather than smooths it.

But again, bumps aren't always bad - just I think bumps that everyone buys in on and plays through avoid the potentially game-halting conflict where one or two players basically decide for the whole group what the focus should be and demanding, by means of this false interiority of character motivation, that it has equal weight as whatever else might be going on that the whole group can engage with more enthusiastically.

One more caveat: This is not to say that individual characters can't get spotlight time.

 

[Mort]

I've been thinking about pitching an essay somewhere about how there is no such thing as "what my character would do" outside of what you have them do. This is why I am a strong believer in, when necessary, choose the action first and then role-play the reasoning necessary to get there using that established sense of character. Real people are a lot less consistent than they like to believe they are, so I see no reason why player characters can't be like that too when it helps smooth a bump.

Continuity itself a fiction and fictions can be manipulated or massaged for the sake of the game play. In fact, when someone says "That's what my character would do" they are also doing that - except that too often it creates a bump rather than smooths it.

But again, bumps aren't always bad - just I think bumps that everyone buys in on and plays through avoid the potentially game-halting conflict where one or two players basically decide for the whole group what the focus should be and demanding, by means of this false interiority of character motivation, that it has equal weight as whatever else might be going on that the whole group can engage with more enthusiastically.

One more caveat: This is not to say that individual characters can't get spotlight time.

Great points. The player creates the character, his motivations and his responses.

If, In a group full of elves or even one I expect will have elves in it, I create a character who's backstory is: family killed by elves. Who's ideal is : I strive for a world free of elves. Who's flaw is, I can't restrain myself from getting all murdery around elves.

Is it really "my character," causing the conflict with the rest of the group?

 

[Scott Christian]

I've been thinking about pitching an essay somewhere about how there is no such thing as "what my character would do" outside of what you have them do. This is why I am a strong believer in, when necessary, choose the action first and then role-play the reasoning necessary to get there using that established sense of character. Real people are a lot less consistent than they like to believe they are, so I see no reason why player characters can't be like that too when it helps smooth a bump.

I completely agree, real people are a lot less consistent than they believe. Which is why you have a "what my character would do." Whenever I hear a player say that, I assume they are reading (or rereading) their character traits, flaws, ideals, backstory, lore, etc. and then trying to declare the action that they had from the beginning. That is why that phrase is so important. It can be the same as saying: "My gut instinct tells me to do this, but looking at my character's flaw, I believe they would do this."

This is when player experience comes in. We all know the player that plays the same character, no matter the class, race, background, etc. That is how they have fun. It is natural for them to play that character personality. It is nice to see, like a home comforting meal. Yet, there are also others that need a compass, refer to the compass, and then decide what to do. Most I know in 5e use the traits, bonds, etc. for this. Some use alignment. Others use lore.

 

[Maxperson]

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!

Far out man. Like way out to Mars, the Milky Way or whatchamacallit.

 

[Scott Christian]

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.

In the beginning, way back in the pages, I said everything is context. Don't you think that should matter with your bold words. Players can say they are not okay with conflict, and then change their mind over the course of a campaign. This is especially true if they are trying to play their character and not trying to be civil because we are playing a game. The fiend warlock and cleric of Eldath can start off okay with one another, and agree during session zero, no PVP. But then over the course of six months come to into a feud. Context, especially in a roleplaying game, can change. And with that, social contracts can change.
When only one agrees to the change, you go the safe route, no PVP. But, then suddenly you may be ruining the other person's enjoyment of the game. Hamstringing their character to act in the way that is not appropriate in their mind. And it can always be said: "But we said no PVP." And all the other player can do is shrug and say: "I know."

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.

I like session zero. I think it is important. In fact, I would even take it a step further and say, maybe play a solo session with the DM to get your character's footing, to start a story, etc. But it is extremely flawed to believe any contract in session zero cannot change due to context. And, in your example, you have all the players telling their PCs backstory to each other? That doesn't seem right. If they are just giving it to the DM, how is the DM to always know what might create conflict? Or even better, is the DM supposed to be Editor Nitpick and keep handing the backstory back because their "might" be conflict?
Session zero is beneficial. It is a fun session. But, it is anything but a panacea for table conflict.
And I know this has been mentioned before, but what about people that join after the fact. I am not sure that I have ever been part of a long campaign where this hasn't happened. That person enters, and even given the social contract, can change the chemistry, nulling or adding to the already existing contract.

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.

Even in this example, you state it is not okay, but possibly funny. Context is king. I will even take it a step further. Real life people can do things in game at the table, and then another person at the same table, can say or do the same thing, and it is not okay. Bill, the stand up comedian, can have his character joke to the audience at the Prancing Pony Inn about being raped by Asmodeus and everyone laughs. Tom the accountant, can do the same exact thing, and the players at the table might not like it. Context. Timing. It makes social contracts amendable at best, nullified at worst.

 

[Mort]

In the beginning, way back in the pages, I said everything is context. Don't you think that should matter with your bold words. Players can say they are not okay with conflict, and then change their mind over the course of a campaign. This is especially true if they are trying to play their character and not trying to be civil because we are playing a game. The fiend warlock and cleric of Eldath can start off okay with one another, and agree during session zero, no PVP. But then over the course of six months come to into a feud. Context, especially in a roleplaying game, can change. And with that, social contracts can change.
When only one agrees to the change, you go the safe route, no PVP. But, then suddenly you may be ruining the other person's enjoyment of the game. Hamstringing their character to act in the way that is not appropriate in their mind. And it can always be said: "But we said no PVP." And all the other player can do is shrug and say: "I know."

This is simple - if they change their mind, they tell you - and then it's ok - boom done.

Assuming that "if it's just done right..." they'll change their mind and be cool with it - that's just condescending. It's like the people who tell you "I know you say you don't like tomatoes but that's only because you haven't had the right kind of tomatoes." Some people just don't like tomatoes.

I like session zero. I think it is important. In fact, I would even take it a step further and say, maybe play a solo session with the DM to get your character's footing, to start a story, etc. But it is extremely flawed to believe any contract in session zero cannot change due to context. And, in your example, you have all the players telling their PCs backstory to each other? That doesn't seem right. If they are just giving it to the DM, how is the DM to always know what might create conflict? Or even better, is the DM supposed to be Editor Nitpick and keep handing the backstory back because their "might" be conflict?
Session zero is beneficial. It is a fun session. But, it is anything but a panacea for table conflict.
And I know this has been mentioned before, but what about people that join after the fact. I am not sure that I have ever been part of a long campaign where this hasn't happened. That person enters, and even given the social contract, can change the chemistry, nulling or adding to the already existing contract.

You talk to the people and explicitly make sure people are ok with various things. If things change - then change to allow different things. New players are given the table rules - if they buck against the table rules from the get go? That's a problem. If I tell a player "no PvP" and they push against that, well then they wouldn't be a good fit for my table

Even in this example, you state it is not okay, but possibly funny. Context is king. I will even take it a step further. Real life people can do things in game at the table, and then another person at the same table, can say or do the same thing, and it is not okay. Bill, the stand up comedian, can have his character joke to the audience at the Prancing Pony Inn about being raped by Asmodeus and everyone laughs. Tom the accountant, can do the same exact thing, and the players at the table might not like it. Context. Timing. It makes social contracts amendable at best, nullified at worst.

The problem is pushing it.. you only find out something is not ok after the fact - then it might be too late. Get permission first - no issue.

Do you know who Adam Koebel is? I bet he thought what he was doing was awesome and fun, why should he get permission from the group? It worked out very, very badly for him.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Good. I'll take him.

When he made his move the campaign was ending anyway, by the sound of it, meaning no long-term harm was going to come to the campaign no matter what happened; and he did something unexpected that made that campaign truly memorable.

And that he built up to it over the long term, leaving clues along the way? Priceless!

Now if he's really on his game, in the next campaign with the same players he'll run an upright and honest PC who has no hidden agenda at all, but every now and then do or say something that might remind them of the clues dropped by the first character...

 

[Lanefan]

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?"

I have a note from a player, passed around among all players except that of the PC named in the note at a time when the party couldn't decide what to do next, tacked to my side of the DM screen as a reminder of good times:

"Let's wait for [PC name] to do something stupid. We know he'll do it!"

The PC in question didn't disappoint.

 

[Scott Christian]

This is simple - if they change their mind, they tell you - and then it's ok - boom done.

Assuming that "if it's just done right..." they'll change their mind and be cool with it - that's just condescending. It's like the people who tell you "I know you say you don't like tomatoes but that's only because you haven't had the right kind of tomatoes." Some people just don't like tomatoes.

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.

You talk to the people and explicitly make sure people are ok with various things. If things change - then change to allow different things. New players are given the table rules - if they buck against the table rules from the get go? That's a problem. If I tell a player "no PvP" and they push against that, well then they wouldn't be a good fit for my table

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

The problem is pushing it.. you only find out something is not ok after the fact - then it might be too late. Get permission first - no issue.

Do you know who Adam Koebel is? I bet he thought what he was doing was awesome and fun, why should he get permission from the group? It worked out very, very badly for him.

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.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

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.

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.