D&D 5E "Punishing" Player Behavior

[jmartkdr2]

Session Zero is the start of that dialog. You do it before play begins, because it is a massive help to have established a baseline before any particular moment of issue in play. Nobody is saying that the table agreements are written in stone in Session Zero, and are considered comprehensive and never changing after that point.

I agree entirely, but I do see this advice put in the past tense most often: "you should have had a session zero," not "you should have a session zero."

The former implies (probably unintentionally) that the only time the advice works is before the game starts. Most of us know better when the question is phrased this way, but it often is not.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

There are reasons why people are heroic. There are reasons why people are selfish. I don't think selfishness, sociopathy and cruelty are things to aspire to or excuse. Are they part of the real world? OVERWHELMINGLY.

Which is why I don't want them from players in my game. For me its a reflection of character if that's your go to. I'm not talking about having a discussion before the game and agreeing that we're going to have a game with morally grey characters because we want to explore what that means in the scope of the game world.

I'm talking about people who head right for torture, theft and murder of people who are weaker and less capable than they are. There's a gradient in TTRPG's when it comes to violence. Combat is most of the rules in games like D&D and Pathfinder. So dont come at me with that. I KNOW that. But there's a big difference between defending yourself in a fight where you leave your opponent breathing and delivering unnecessary knees to the head while theyre prone and barely conscious and then emptying their pockets for loose change. And then breaking into their home to kill and loot their family for good measure.

Poison use is dishonorable. But using it to incapacitate an enemy you want to bring in alive is less vile than using a fatal poison.

Torture is immoral. It's not heroic. Anyone who says it is is a monster. The results don't matter, it's the ACTION of inflicting pain on a helpless opponent for amusement or to gain information. You can tell yourself that its for the "greater good" all you want. But be honest about WHO YOU ARE if you use these methods. One of my favorite characters in SERENITY is THE OPERATIVE. He does horrible things for the "greater good" but he never, NOT ONCE lies to himself and says he's a hero for it. He knows the world he's trying to create is for other people and not for him. In his own words He's a MONSTER and doesn't belong there.

Heroes SHOULD have faults because people have faults. But some of the actions that people are bringing up here like killing and stealing from other PC's or killing NPC's "Just because" aren't faults. They're...something else.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

'Hero' for our game was defined by 'you want to stop the Cult of the Dragon from destroying the world'.

I got a: NE enabler, CN murder-hobo, LG prisoner slayer, LN blood bather, and one lonely CG people's champion.

Frankly, I would love it if for just one campaign there could be a solid core of heroic adventurers. These 'edgy' characters are just so damn tiresome and ruinous. If I run again, it'll have to be good aligned only.

 

[Umbran]

I agree entirely, but I do see this advice put in the past tense most often: "you should have had a session zero," not "you should have a session zero."

The former implies (probably unintentionally) that the only time the advice works is before the game starts.

With respect, that seems more an inference on your part.

"Session Zero" is not just any discussion about expectations and desires at the table. It is called "Session Zero" because it happens before the action starts, before the first session of actual play. That timing is kind of important - having a Session Zero after the game has begun is kind of like checking your vacation packing list after you have boarded the plane. It'll be less about making sure you have everything you need, and more about adjusting to what you already have, which aren't quite the same activity.

So, that's why you see "have a Session Zero" and "have a talk with your players like mature adults" spoken of slightly differently.

 

[Stormonu]

I don’t ask my players to be hero’s, but I just make sure that they aren’t villains to one another. We’ve had characters mutually agree to non-fatal duels to see who was top dog or settle character differences, but I don’t allow drawing weapons on each other in anger or allow intra-party theft. The players have to be able to work at a basic level, even if in-game their characters don’t get along well.

If the party messes with NPCs - robbing banks, killing the populace and the like, the game world will react and the party will have to deal with consequences. If a character goes full-blown evil or otherwise commits an egrarious act, I reserve the right to turn that character NPC, especially if it makes sense the character would leave the party, be kicked out or the group would otherwise no longer associate with the character (or vice versa). Our game sessions are about the group overall, not the individual.

A recent example was the party’s paladin outright attacked one of the council members of Saltmarsh (the party knew the council member was up to no good, but for some reason the player just “lost it” and outright attacked); the party tried to stop the paladin and things escalated until it was clear characters were about to be fighting one another, at which point I stopped the game. I made it clear I wasn’t going to allow things to continue in the direction they were going, and after a short discussion about the paladin “acting in character”, we resolved the situation and concluded with the paladin being captured. The character was tried and sentenced to 3 years in the local mines, and removed from the game - the player decided to make a new character to replace the paladin. The game continued, and the player (actually my wife), seems to be much happier with the new character she is playing.

If the player is new, I’ll do my best to explain all of this - but I’m not going to coddle them.

 

[Umbran]

We're telling stories. Stories are about change.
....
Sure - You can tell a story about Captain America, or Superman. They're good from the start, and the changes in their stories (usually) are external changes while the heroes try to be true to who they are, even when it is hard.
...
Or, you can tell stories about messed up people becoming better people. Tony Stark was a war profiteer. Peter Parker let a burglar go - and that cost him his Uncle Ben.

So, let us note a couple things. For one - we note that in the story of Tony Stark and Peter Parker, the character change is part of becoming a hero, but it happens fast and early - it is part of the "origin story", not an ongoing struggle. In fact, in Parker's case, it is pretty clear he's not actually a bad kid to start - he lets a crook go in a moment of bad decision that isn't actually how he normally operates.

For another, there's a world of difference between "flawed" and "bad person". Being flawed does not necessarily keep you from being a hero, but being a bad person does.

In the comics, even after he stops selling weapons, Tony Stark is flawed - specifically, he's an alcoholic. His issues lead to bad decisions that hurt people, but it is because he's struggling with things, not because he actually intends bad things.

If you are bringing a "bad person" into a campaign, and intending a redemption arc, that's awesome. Since it is part of your intent, there's no reason to not mention this before play. "Folks, so you know, this character may act like a jerk, and make decisions that aren't good for everyone all the time, but I intend that to decrease over time, is that okay?"

 

[Lanefan]

Session Zero is the start of that dialog. You do it before play begins, because it is a massive help to have established a baseline before any particular moment of issue in play. Nobody is saying that the table agreements are written in stone in Session Zero, and are considered comprehensive and never changing after that point.

Thing is, I'd far rather let the party's tone establish itself during the early run of play (i.e. the first few adventures) than try any sort of enforcement ahead of time.

Sometimes there'll be a clear decision point: e.g. the PC Paladin and the PC Assassin square off, and the results of that in-character conflict (including who else in the party supports who) will set the party's tone for years. Other times it's more a slow steady establishment of a party's way of operating.

End result: one party might take a goodly heroic slant toward things while another - sometimes involving the exact same players! - might go full-on murderhobo and a third might decide to just rob the first two and have done with it.

As DM, I see it as simply part of the job to DM whatever characters they throw at me. If it's not fun for me (very rare) I'll find a way to make it fun, and it's rare I have to look very hard.

 

[Lanefan]

'Hero' for our game was defined by 'you want to stop the Cult of the Dragon from destroying the world'.

I got a: NE enabler, CN murder-hobo, LG prisoner slayer, LN blood bather, and one lonely CG people's champion.

Frankly, I would love it if for just one campaign there could be a solid core of heroic adventurers. These 'edgy' characters are just so damn tiresome and ruinous. If I run again, it'll have to be good aligned only.

Thing is, if you enforce Good-only and all that happens is your players get bored with their own PCs, how does that help?

For me, that group above would be an easy party to DM in one respect: as I know they're going to self-destruct at some point, all I have to do is run adventures until that happens, and then when it does I can just sit back and referee the fights. Those still in the party afterwards will set the tone going forward, and I'll DM that.

 

[Lanefan]

I don’t ask my players to be hero’s, but I just make sure that they aren’t villains to one another. We’ve had characters mutually agree to non-fatal duels to see who was top dog or settle character differences, but I don’t allow drawing weapons on each other in anger or allow intra-party theft. The players have to be able to work at a basic level, even if in-game their characters don’t get along well.

If the party messes with NPCs - robbing banks, killing the populace and the like, the game world will react and the party will have to deal with consequences. If a character goes full-blown evil or otherwise commits an egrarious act, I reserve the right to turn that character NPC, especially if it makes sense the character would leave the party, be kicked out or the group would otherwise no longer associate with the character (or vice versa). Our game sessions are about the group overall, not the individual.

Thing is, a PC kicked out of a party or who leaves a party is still in my eyes a PC unless its player proactively (and without my asking) signs the character over to me-as-DM to do with as I will. The player owns it.

Sure the player would probably roll up another PC to keep playing in the party, and now that player has two PCs in the game world: one actively adventuring, and another doing whatever in the background (which might include secretly following the party or plotting against it or ratting them out to their enemies - that's what email during the week is for).

A recent example was the party’s paladin outright attacked one of the council members of Saltmarsh (the party knew the council member was up to no good, but for some reason the player just “lost it” and outright attacked); the party tried to stop the paladin and things escalated until it was clear characters were about to be fighting one another, at which point I stopped the game. I made it clear I wasn’t going to allow things to continue in the direction they were going, and after a short discussion about the paladin “acting in character”, we resolved the situation and concluded with the paladin being captured. The character was tried and sentenced to 3 years in the local mines, and removed from the game - the player decided to make a new character to replace the paladin. The game continued, and the player (actually my wife), seems to be much happier with the new character she is playing.

Were it me, after half a year of in-game time had passed I'd do a very quick update session with the player to see what's become of said Paladin - still in the mines? Died under the lash? Escaped? Organized a workers' revolt? - just for continuity.

 

[Baldurs_Underdark]

'Hero' for our game was defined by 'you want to stop the Cult of the Dragon from destroying the world'.

I got a: NE enabler, CN murder-hobo, LG prisoner slayer, LN blood bather, and one lonely CG people's champion.

Frankly, I would love it if for just one campaign there could be a solid core of heroic adventurers. These 'edgy' characters are just so damn tiresome and ruinous. If I run again, it'll have to be good aligned only.

How did this group get past Session Zero?

I ask every player "Why would you work together - even trust your life - to that guy?", "And to that one?", "And that one?". PCs that just don't work together usually answer honestly that they already dislike the other PC. So, that needs to be fixed.

Also, it aligns the behavior of the PCs.

Personally, I don't care if the PCs are all a bit chaotic or evil. Of course, that has consequences, but if they want to go and kill the cultists because they want to be the high-priests of Tiamat themselves, then that's fine. As long as they have a goal as a party (and all players agree with it), they can be whatever they want.