D&D 5E "Punishing" Player Behavior

[Maxperson]

If you've ever DM'd for new players, you've probably run into some poor gaming etiquette. I'm talking about stealing from the party, murdering allied NPCs, and other general acts of murder-hoboism. The common wisdom is to impose logical consequences: the NPCs become hostile; bounty hunters come after you; you get geased and have to pay your debts to society via questing. These are all workable ideas, but I'm not sure they're always appropriate.

Was that supposed to be "greased" or "geesed?" The latter being far worse.

I think it's important to take a step back from knee-jerk need to “punish” player behavior. Especially when you’re dealing with new players, I think it’s better to encourage creativity than crack down on misconduct. When players are in the “testing boundaries” stage of their gamer development, a little restraint can go a long way. Imagine if, the first time you tried to rob a shop in an Elder Scrolls game, you had to retire your character rather than pay a fine. I doubt I’d have ever finished Oblivion.

The first step is to talk to the player and explain things. If the behavior continues after the issue is brought to his attention, you boot him. At that point there's no excuse for the behavior.

 

[Stormonu]

Was that supposed to be "greased" or "geesed?" The latter being far worse.

Geas - the 5th level or so spell that compels you to a certain action.

 

[Scott Christian]

There are few absolutes- so sure.

But, generally if the player is playing their character in a way that's been accepted at the table (either through session 0, known table convention etc.) then this comment isn't necessary/doesn't come up.

This comment generally comes up when the player has done something to anger/annoy someone/multiple someones at the table.

So yes context matters. But the only context I've seen this phrase come up (in over 30 years) is when the player using it has been behaving like a jerk.

Fair enough. I guess we just have different experiences. I have heard the phrase twice (that I remember) in my time playing. They were:

• The 4e published drow campaign where the player waited until the very last session and then murdered his party. When asked why by the other players (they weren't really mad), he proceeded to lay out all the little clues and other actions he did. Then ended it with: "That is what my character would do."
• The other was a male barbarian slapping women (including his wife's character who was playing) on the ass. After the hundredth time of his PC slapping an NPC, he saw a smack on the forehead from the DM. He stated: "That is what my barbarian character would do." And he was right. Then the DM said, oh I know and agree, but can we just say it is now implied that you will always do it. And he absolutely agreed because the joke had run its course. Then his wife's character started slapping other PC's butts, as in good job. Then, later, as our campaign ended on the last session, the DM had a whirlwind of NPCs he and she had slapped on the butt make a surprise appearance. And at the glowing "You saved the world" presentation, they all got to slap the PCs on the behind - as per tradition. It was funny for that particular table.

So I understand your point of view, and if those are the cases you have seen, you are absolutely right. But my experiences tell me differently.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Just about every time I "punished a character" in the past, I should have just had a conversation with the player. I should have said "no, you can't take a character you'd been playing in my campaign, run solo adventures for yourself to power-level and load up on magic items, then keep playing in my campaign" instead of setting up an adventure to level drain them and ensure they lost their paladinhood. When that same player repeatedly tried to bully other characters and attack them at a drop of a hat I should have...oh wait, I would have still booted him from the group at that point.

 

[Umbran]

Was that supposed to be "greased" or "geesed?" The latter being far worse.

I think this is less about lubricants (physical or financial) or waterfowl, and more about the spell, Geas.

 

[Coroc]

If you've ever DM'd for new players, you've probably run into some poor gaming etiquette. I'm talking about stealing from the party, murdering allied NPCs, and other general acts of murder-hoboism. The common wisdom is to impose logical consequences: the NPCs become hostile; bounty hunters come after you; you get geased and have to pay your debts to society via questing. These are all workable ideas, but I'm not sure they're always appropriate.

I think it's important to take a step back from knee-jerk need to “punish” player behavior. Especially when you’re dealing with new players, I think it’s better to encourage creativity than crack down on misconduct. When players are in the “testing boundaries” stage of their gamer development, a little restraint can go a long way. Imagine if, the first time you tried to rob a shop in an Elder Scrolls game, you had to retire your character rather than pay a fine. I doubt I’d have ever finished Oblivion.

When you encounter a new game, pushing the boundaries of what’s allowable is only natural. In video game terms you try to glitch the map, check for invisible walls on cliffs, and see if you can actually harm the NPCs. The same impulse applies to the tabletop. But whether you’re in the digital realm or the analog, the novelty wears off. You eventually settle down to play. So if you’re running for such a player, I say to give ’em time to get it out of their system. We’ve all been there, and it can even be fun if you let it.

(Comic for illustrative purposes.)

Well there you answered the question with your comic. Sometimes (i do not exclude myself there) you tend to test the boundaries. A good DM will give you an OOC warning for that.
E.g. "You are in a Duergar town with 20.000 inhabitants, you canot start killing them even if you are level 20 and they are level one.
If this is ignored, the second step is punish instead of kill, bash the PCs into negatives gag and bind them (with extra precautions for classes who can do misty step shenanigans and the like, eventually permanetly hamper such skills an then they can try to escape their new profession - slave labor in the mines.
If something is obviously absolutely blunt e.g. the party assasinates the king although the DM warned them that the guards are looking extra tough and the attending head cleric of the kings faith and his court mage look quite capable too, then it is all out. A TPK is in order then.

 

[Maxperson]

I think this is less about lubricants (physical or financial) or waterfowl, and more about the spell, Geas.

Aha! I wasn't thinking lubricants, so much as "grease the PC" being a euphemism for kill the PC. And I still maintain that geesed would be worse.

 

[payn]

The "just playing my character" works in a few ways. I have personally known a few lying, thieving, dinks in my time. I dont know them anymore because I stopped associating with them. So if my PC suddenly finds some other lying, thieving, dink PC to be too much trouble, they will simply abandon them to their own devices. "Just playing my character" to not associate with problematic characters.

 

[jmartkdr2]

1. I agree with those that establish expectations including boundaries (no PVP, logical consequences from actions etc.)

2. I find that players tend to murderhobo when they realize there is a distinct lack of consequence (and often benefit) to doing so. As in if it's the easiest most direct solution - that's what they go to. Explain that there are consequences (session 0) or show there are consequences (during play) and players will instead get creative and find other ways to solve problems/overcome challenges.

I'd add two other angles to the "why do players murderhobo" hypothesis:
1. It's the most fun option available. If the main quest is boring or they can't explore due to railroading, players will start getting disruptive.
2. If the npc's are all jerks, the pc's will become anti-social. I see this a lot for some reason. Note to dm's: your lovable jerk npcs probably aren't lovable. They're just jerks.

 

[payn]

I'd add two other angles to the "why do players murderhobo" hypothesis:
1. It's the most fun option available. If the main quest is boring or they can't explore due to railroading, players will start getting disruptive.
2. If the npc's are all jerks, the pc's will become anti-social. I see this a lot for some reason. Note to dm's: your lovable jerk npcs probably aren't lovable. They're just jerks.

This. I remember a thread on the adventure path Carrion Crown about killing sheriffs. The campaign takes place in the pathfinder's version of Ravenloft. Most towns are dubious, if not downright suspicious of strangers. They got reason to be. However, in this thread folks kept talking about every sheriff being a jerk for not letting the PCs do whatever they want and forcing their hand in killing them left and right. It was a very odd perspective.