D&D 5E "Punishing" Player Behavior

[el-remmen]

I completely and rather vehemently disagree.

If dissolving the party is what would happen next then that's what should happen next. If the Paladin would draw her sword and use violence to defend the child from the party, then that's what she should do.

Okay. I have played that way and had a lot of fun but there were also frequently bad feelings. To me it doesn't really matter whether the folks I am playing with should have bad feelings, only that they have them - so having some consensus method to moving past those moments and then role-playing that works for me.

The thing is, the OOC decision by the group might be "this is a hella fun scene, let's keep going!" and that'd be fine too.

 

[loverdrive]

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.

I'm not talking immoral, I'm talking player (not character) being a jackass and spoiling your or other people's fun -- in that case, engaging with jackassery leads to more jackassery.

 

[Campbell]

I'm not talking immoral, I'm talking player (not character) being a jackass and spoiling your or other people's fun -- in that case, engaging with jackassery leads to more jackassery.

This all day. Often by responding to player behavior that is outside the group's social contract through the game's fiction results in giving the griefing player exactly what they want. It also punishes the whole group.

 

[Don Durito]

If you're ok with the behaviour then just roll with it and apply logical consequences. If the player's behaviour is likely to have campaign ending consequences point that out.

If you're trying to change player behaviour through punishment then you're wasting time. Even assuming this will actually work (and it's a big assumption), it's going to take a considerable amount of time. Why wouldn't you just talk to the player out of the game and fix the problem now rather than 6 months down the track (if you're incredibly lucky).

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Our current game is about to crash and burn due to player shenanigans. You know the behavior; spotlight hogging, 'why would my character be part of this party?', inattentive play, 'I wanna play eevil', session 7 'which die do I roll for my greataxe?', arguments over whether to travel north-west or west-north.

Thing is, they all recognized the mistakes and are making amends - but too late. A key player, my daughter, is burnt out: 'This is not the heroic adventure you described to me.'

When I have to pull the plug there's going to be a lot of disappointment. It didn't have to be this way.

 

[Zardnaar]

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.

Yeah that's an I boot you from the game situation.

Covered in session 0 don't play a lone wolf.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Many keep hammering on about session 0 like that is where everything is resolved as if no one joins the crew after the campaign has started? New players aren't suddenly introduced into an existing game?

Really the session 0 comments are not as helpful as some like to believe.

 

[Necrozius]

I don’t think having in-game consequences of deliberately negative character behaviour is necessarily passive-aggressive. When a PC is a known bully to NPCs in a village, there will be an impact on their reputation. Getting caught committing an obvious crime will draw the attention of authorities, meagre as they might be.

Believe it or not there are players who appreciate playing in a cohesive world (despite being fantastic).

The game has to be fun for the DM too. If I don’t want to run a game about murderous sociopaths, I’ll explain this is session zero. Players can cross the line for the DM too. I’ve had players really get into their intimidation checks, yelling in my face and browbeating ME, not the character. Or having to narrate how much NPCs are cowering, frightened or even crying while the PC assaults and/or harasses them. It gets unpleasant, and I can’t help but feel that this sort of behaviour, which typically isn’t tolerated or well-regardes in real life (or in media) should be consequence-free in a RPG setting.

 

[prabe]

Many keep hammering on about session 0 like that is where everything is resolved as if no one joins the crew after the campaign has started? New players aren't suddenly introduced into an existing game?

Really the session 0 comments are not as helpful as some like to believe.

You can still have a session-zero-style talk with a player coming in, in the middle of a campaign.

Also, I get the feeling the OP was talking about players new to the hobby overall; I think they're probably less likely to join a game already in progress and more likely to need space and/or help figuring out the boundaries of appropriateness.

 

[Campbell]

I share a level of cynicism about Session Zero. Having a discussion about group expectations is important, but it needs to be an ongoing dialogue that happens not just when things go wrong, but also when things are going strong. It also should be a two way street.