D&D 5E "Punishing" Player Behavior

[TerraDave]

Over the years, if the action is problematic, I just give some meta hints, and the action is usually adjusted.

I have sometimes used a karma type mechanic to reign in the worst behaviour. But in practice, even just some nudging can solve most problems.

 

[Greg K]

Delete Post. I thought I had deleted the contents, but, apparently, missed two characters.

 

[Stormonu]

Hard no to stealing from other PCs or killing other characters. That's usually discussed in session 0, but I have no uses for players who won't co-operate in what is essentially a group game. Take your lone wolf PC and go elsewhere, I'm sick of it.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The obvious issue with the oblivion analogy is that in that computer game if you get caught for stealing, or attacked by guards, the only person it affects is yourself. Your unilateral decision doesn’t end in dragging the whole party into a situation they would rather not be in through no fault of their own.

PvP or being openly antagonistic to NPCs in a way that’s out of sync with the party or their play style is an out of game problem. The maxim don’t deal with out of game problems in game, is a good one. It’s hard to justify in-game solutions rather than an honest conversation.

Logical consequences should just be a thing at all times, not something that gets brought out when a player has narked off an NPC. It improves the game world.

In short using logical consequences as the solution for out of game behaviour like players stealing from other players is a bad idea that can easily lead to resentment. Unless that’s what the players want.

Yeah this is pretty much exactly my approach to this too.

I've dealt with this sort of thing a fair bit - much less so after about 20-22 but back in the day plenty. And yes you don't treat out-of-game problems, which almost all of this is, as in-game ones. Like the munchkin in my group back when we were teens, who grew out of it, he was very excessively aggressive with NPCs (though not in D&D weirdly), and it was entirely an out-of-game problem. If I'd dropped huge consequences on the party every time he did something dumb, it would have made the game no fun for anyone.

And yeah re: logical consequences, within reason. I mean, if I'm running D&D (and this is my personal style), there's certain expectation of high adventure rather than depressing reality, so as logical often gives the DM a pretty large amount of discretion, I tend to think "What would happen in a Fritz Leiber story?" rather than "What would happen in a realistic middle ages setting?". I mean, I think the key thing is to pick a tone and stick with it - nothing is worse than the game being REH-ish thrills and boasting and so on one minute, and suddenly it's KJ Parker the next, because the DM is annoyed with you. If it's KJ Parker all the way, well first off enjoy that misanthropic game without me, but second off, at least it's consistent, people can have expectations. Which is I think the point you're making re: not just rolling out logical consequences when the NPCs are annoyed/DM is mad.

 

[Shiroiken]

Session 0 should set the tone of expectations of players. With new players I'm a bit lenient, often pointing out the potential problems for unusual actions. If they push into those actions though, however, they'll suffer the exact same consequences as any other player.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

And when your players want to play crooks? Or a mix?

If they're actually interested in roleplaying as criminals I'd have no problem coming up with an appropriate campaign. "Heroes, not crooks" is meant as a reminder that we're not playing Skyrim and just because you can do anything in a tabletop game, it doesn't mean you should.

"A mix" is right out unless the players are experienced enough to handle the inevitable intra-party conflicts in an entertaining manner.

 

[Nefermandias]

And when your players want to play crooks?

I send them to OP's table.

 

[loverdrive]

I think that "realistic response" actually makes the situation worse -- you are actually rewarding the player with spotlight for doing naughty word things.

 

[amethal]

It doesn't really come up in my games, because I rarely game with strangers.

The last time I was a player in a new group my PC explained that he always included a stout length of rope amongst his equipment "in case it turns out we have a thief in the party".

When running a game I'm in favour of having logical consequences to bad character actions, but in practice I'm more likely to say "If that's the sort of game you want to play then you'll need to find another DM".

 

[Scott Christian]

Roll with it is how I generally handle it. Especially stealing. I just take the wind out of it by saying, "Ok, you sneak up behind so-and-so and lift the whatever." No roll. No fan-fair. Then I move on with the story. Later, it might come back to bite them if it was a PC they stole from. During camp I will mention they notice that something is gone, then they can deal with it. The consequence is purely from another PC, not me. If it was a NPC, I just let it go.
Murder is generally another thing. It all depends on the situation. Sometimes I will do the same and not even let the player roll dice. Just and, "Ok, you slit his or her throat." Then the same thing will occur if the PC's are not in agreement. It is a group (and 99%) of the time cooperative game. If you fall outside the cooperation (unless the story backs it up), then the table should deal with it in game.
No one should be mad outside the table though.