D&D 5E "Punishing" Player Behavior

[Dragonsbane]

As stated above, during Session 0 players learn:

• No PvP or conflict with other PCs (stealing, etc)
• No evil or CN alignments (alignments are descriptive, so your LN PC might be changed to LE and removed)
• Group play is required

Simple.

 

[Mort]

When it comes to this sort of thing I'm a proponent of anything goes, as long as it stays in character and doesn't get to the table. Here, it helps if (most of) the players already know each other well enough to know what to expect. But I don't generally tell players what their characters are "supposed to be" (well, other than adventurers maybe) and would be annoyed were a DM to tell me that as a player.

I've found "I was just playing my character..." or "I was just doing what my character would do..." are the rallying cries of the jerk player.

The truth of it is that the player establishes the character they are playing - they have to wilfully choose to play a disruptive character. So the whole "I was just playing my character..." rings false.

Now, if the group has fun messing with each other and getting in each other's way - great. But it should be a group decision to allow that sort of thing, not one player trying to impose his fun on the table.

 

[Oofta]

I don't punish players for PC behavior. I set out rules for my players, explain that it's a team game and let people know that certain behavior won't be allowed. It's not fair to me or the other players to have a disruptive player at the table. I'm sure there are other DMs that allow intra-party theft, evil PCs and so on and if that's what the player wants to do that's the type of DM they'll have to find.

I can't be the right DM for every player. Like others, I want heroes, not anti-heroes. If that doesn't work for you then you'll have to find a different group. I've had people quit my game because of this, I've left games for the same reason. Life is too short and my time is too valuable to spend it playing a game I don't enjoy.

 

[Mannahnin]

I've found "I was just playing my character..." or "I was just doing what my character would do..." are the rallying cries of the jerk player.

As Colville terms it, "The wangrod defense".

 

[Umbran]

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:

No.

That's the common wisdom for dealing with experienced players, who know and are actually abiding by the table agreement, but making questionable choices in game. If they know what they are doing, and aren't cheesing anyone off, they get logical consequences.

If they are new, or they are ruining fun for other players, you don't do passive-aggressive things like having consequences in game and hope they learn. You talk to the player out-of-game about the expectations of play. You should be reinforcing whatever you went over in Session Zero that they didn't seem to get. You did have a Session Zero, didn't you?

We have words. We should use them.

 

[el-remmen]

Some time in the early 2000s:

[Scene: A fight breaks out in a tavern and is wrapping up]

DM: He falls down bleeding from the blow.
Player A: I chop off his head, pick it up in both hands and PUNT IT!
Rest of the Table: <jaws drop>
Player A: Okay, maybe I don't do that.

That was the last time I was at a table where this was an issue. Even my current newbie group, while doing all the cute things new players do when trying to figure out the game, have basically stuck to the heroic mold - even when being sneaks or thieves there is usually a group agreed greater good behind the action.

 

[Scott Christian]

I've found "I was just playing my character..." or "I was just doing what my character would do..." are the rallying cries of the jerk player.

This is not an absolute. I am not sure if you meant it to be. But it is all context.

 

[Mort]

This is not an absolute. I am not sure if you meant it to be. But it is all context.

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.

 

[el-remmen]

The "I'm just playing my character" brings up to me an approach to role-playing I try to encourage (to various degrees of success, and the degree to which some players were unable to follow me there has led to parting ways):

If you come upon a situation where the rest of the party wants to (or doesn't want to) do something or you want to do something they don't agree with and you defensively want to react to it by saying "I'm just playing my character," try working backwards. Start with assuming that your character will (or won't) do it (depending on which breaks the deadlock) and then figure out the reasoning necessary to keep that choice "in character" to the most degree. If that can't work for some reason (the rest of the party wants to sacrifice an innocent child to keep a demon at bay but you're playing an LG paladin or something), then the discussion should move OOC to find a way the characters can move forward without dissolving the party.

I am not saying conflict and disagreement needs to always be avoided - but when it becomes a cluster of acrimony or a way too long argument at the table, find a way through, so we can keep playing.

Edit to Add: For some players the argument is the playing, but I have a limited tolerance for that style - esp. if it happens too often. The last 3E game I ran had too much of that (endless in-character arguing) and I wasn't all that disappointed when that game had to end - but at least they weren't arguing over murder-hobo-ism but rather minute in-character political differences and motivations for choosing adventures to go on.

 

[jgsugden]

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

Worse and better are relative terms, defined by your objectives.

My objective, as a DM, is to create a great experience for my players where they all feel engaged, immersed and enthusiastic. You can have amazing stories that involve a really bad person. Major archetype stories require the hero to start off as less than a hero (redemption, for example).

My session zero includes the requirement that the decisions they make as players and characters can't be offensive to another player. A PC can be offended, but not a player.

If you're going to do things against the interest of another PC, the players need to have precleared it. This includes things like the party rogue stealing from a town as the entire party may take a hit if the rogue is caught. However, I often hear from players that it is fine for the rogue to do whatever the player wants their PC to do, and when things arise out of immoral, unethical and illegal activities by a PC - we can usually fold that into a good story.

I also ask the PCs to think about goals or stories they want to explore and give me some insight into them. If a player just wants to be an %$!#@ for 20 levels, I encourage them to consider that there is more they can explore and then I give them opportunities to follow a more enriching storyline. However, I do not force them to do so, except to the extent necessary to keep them from upsetting another player.