D&D 5E "Punishing" Player Behavior

[Stormonu]

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).

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.

Sorry, I’ve had problem players in the past who would strike out on their own away from the group and then expect a room full of people to sit on their hands while we cover their antics. Fell for it in the past, not about to do it again.

Now, that’s not the same as someone in the party moving ahead to do a bit of scouting or running an errand elsewhere - we can take time to do something that’s on the order of 15 minutes or so, and then return to everybody else, or switch about as needed. But if the character leaves the party, with no intention of returning, they go the NPC pile, whether the player likes it not.

As for the paladin, I have been contemplating things that have been occurring “in the background”, and with the big showdown brewing, that character might be reappearing, though likely as a helpful NPC (the player has no interest in playing the character again).

 

[Mort]

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.

I saw a lot of this sort of thing when I gamed in high school and some in college. Since then, not so much.

Players in my older group (the youngest player in my current group is 35 oldest over 60) just don't have time for this and would rather just interact with the world.

I do remember that these kind of confrontations:

1: tended to get heated. Rarely did someone walk away not extremely upset or angry. Much more upset or angry than losing something in the game or even having their PC die from encounters etc.;
2: Made going forward kind of rough as everyone needed time to cool down and even after was usually not in the mood to game;
3. Tended to end up in player (not character) confrontations and thus were more a function of player personality than anything to do with the character - to me an undesirable result.

All in all PvP square offs just tended to be much more trouble than they were worth and led to a decided lack of fun for the table.

 

[Lanefan]

Sorry, I’ve had problem players in the past who would strike out on their own away from the group and then expect a room full of people to sit on their hands while we cover their antics. Fell for it in the past, not about to do it again.

Now, that’s not the same as someone in the party moving ahead to do a bit of scouting or running an errand elsewhere - we can take time to do something that’s on the order of 15 minutes or so, and then return to everybody else, or switch about as needed. But if the character leaves the party, with no intention of returning, they go the NPC pile, whether the player likes it not.

Two conflicting things here.

First, if a character leaves the party for good then that character gets put on hold until you and the player can get together at a different time - or interact by email or whatever; in any case there's no need for everyone else to sit around. (and if the departed character is still in position to interact with the party e.g. is following it in secret, that can be done by note at the table while other things are progressing)

Second, in my view the player owns the PC no matter what. You as DM have the right to put it on hold and not DM it then or later, but you have no right to make it an NPC.

Also, and this would depend on your game's set-up and whether you have more than one PC party going, a PC leaving one party might always turn up in another.

As for the paladin, I have been contemplating things that have been occurring “in the background”, and with the big showdown brewing, that character might be reappearing, though likely as a helpful NPC (the player has no interest in playing the character again).

This makes a big difference. I always assume a player wants to keep playing a PC until-unless told otherwise. Here, if she's not interested in playing it again and has voluntarily turned it over to you, no problem. I've done this in the past with a few of my own PCs that just didn't work out being as much fun to play as they might have.

 

[Lanefan]

I saw a lot of this sort of thing when I gamed in high school and some in college. Since then, not so much.

Players in my older group (the youngest player in my current group is 35 oldest over 60) just don't have time for this and would rather just interact with the world.

I do remember that these kind of confrontations:

1: tended to get heated. Rarely did someone walk away not extremely upset or angry. Much more upset or angry than losing something in the game or even having their PC die from encounters etc.;
2: Made going forward kind of rough as everyone needed time to cool down and even after was usually not in the mood to game;
3. Tended to end up in player (not character) confrontations and thus were more a function of player personality than anything to do with the character - to me an undesirable result.

Hence my rule of it stays in character.

If the players are all laughing their butts off while their PCs are killing each other, it's being done right. And the stories will be told for ages.

 

[Umbran]

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.

This isn't about "tone". This is about what people do, and do not, find pleasant and acceptable in play.

As a stark but not uncommon example, I sometimes play in tabletop games with women who are survivors of sexual assault. I am not going to wait until a player does something that will ruin these ladies' nights before talking about what the limits on sexual content in the game will be.

In general, waiting until someone is hurt or frustrated to bother talking about what is hurtful or frustrating seems like a poor way to put together a place for people to have fun.

 

[Lanefan]

This isn't about "tone". This is about what people do, and do not, find pleasant and acceptable in play.

As a stark but not uncommon example, I sometimes play in tabletop games with women who are survivors of sexual assault. I am not going to wait until a player does something that will ruin these ladies nights before talking about what the limits on sexual content in the game will be.

In general, waiting until someone is hurt or frustrated to bother talking about what is hurtful or frustrating seems like a poor way to put together a place for people to have fun.

I'm talking about the tone of the party, not the tone of the table. There is - or certainly can be - a big difference provided people keep self and character separate.

The tone of the table can be lighthearted fun even though the tone of the party at the same time can be grimdark angsty killers.

Setting the tone of the table up front is fine, and a good idea. Setting the tone of the party, not so much.

 

[Umbran]

I'm talking about the tone of the party, not the tone of the table.

These are not generally separable, is the point.

There is - or certainly can be - a big difference provided people keep self and character separate.

Humans are notoriously bad at this, so I cannot recommend that folks rely upon it.

 

[Lanefan]

These are not generally separable, is the point.

Can't speak to generally, but my own specific experience differs.

 

[Stormonu]

Second, in my view the player owns the PC no matter what. You as DM have the right to put it on hold and not DM it then or later, but you have no right to make it an NPC.

In this regard, we have very different views.

 

[el-remmen]

In this regard, we have very different views.

Yeah, I love bringing back abandoned PCs as enemies, competitors, or allies.