D&D 5E "Punishing" Player Behavior

[Oofta]

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.

This is the reason I stress to everyone joining the game that I want heroes, not murder hobos from the very beginning. It's one of the first things I mention on my invite or game opening post.

So even though it may not work, I'd suggest just having an honest chat with everyone in the group. Describe what kind of game you want, what kind of players. Be explicit that playing. The first bullet point in my "house rules" that I include is:

​

No Evil characters, including CN characters that are really evil sociopaths. While I don't care too much about alignment, I want to run a game with heroes, not gangsters.​

​

My second bullet point is:

Don't play a jerk, a loner who doesn't get along with anyone or a PC that demands that everyone adhere to their moral code. This is a team game, let's work together to come up with a team that makes sense.​

So that kind of sets the tone right off the bat, it's something I tell everyone before they join my game. I've always been able to find players that can abide by this. So talk to the group. See if they can figure out a way to play the kind of game everyone can enjoy. If there's a debate on which way to go, come up with a set of rules to resolve it either by vote or the roll of the dice. I even set up anonymous ranked polling if people are having a hard time deciding because I try to make big decision points occur at the end of a session. Doing that lets me get ready for next game, while still giving the group freedom.

Maybe the group just needs to elect a leader to make some decisions? Last, but not least, there are some players that you have to cater to when it comes to style (I do my best to avoid in-game favoritism). I'm going to run a style of game that my wife enjoys because I know she's going to show up at the table and, frankly, her enjoyment of the game is more important than that of the other players.

Sit everyone down. Talk through the issues and explain that it's just not working. It may be too late but I find that open and honest conversation about things like this is the best, even if it can be a bit painful at times. Good luck.

 

[Oofta]

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.

True. I establish the ground rules for my campaign in my "intro to the campaign document" and then let people know if they're going too far. If I think someone is going to cross the line I simply do a timeout and let them know if they continue their PC will become an NPC.

Like I said upthread, I've had people quit my campaign because they wanted to "explore their darker side" and play an evil PC. We parted amicably and I wished them luck but I just wouldn't enjoy a campaign with evil PCs. If the entire group is into evil PCs, there's nothing wrong with it, more power to them. I just don't want to be part of that game.

There will always be consequences to PC actions (good and bad). But behavior I don't want to deal with at the table? I just discuss it openly with the player and the group.

 

[jgsugden]

A thing to consider for the people that expect that every PC coming to the table be a hero at 1st level.

We're telling stories. Stories are about change. The classic heroic story structure, the hero's journey, inherently involves the hero growing. They start out as someone that refuses the call to adventure, then they meet a mentor and learn the ways of the hero, rising up to become a better person by facing down their flaw, then go on to overcome the greatest of threats and return home a hero. That is all about the hero changing.

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. An entire party of well intentioned and moral creatures can be told - Paw Patrol, for example. You're all good dogs. (Yes, you can tell more adult stories too - the well intentioned hero that failed their first time out and let people die is also a classic trope.)

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. Bruce Banner's inner monster has been explained many ways, but often is a reflection of the rage living inside his meek exterior. Being a jerk is a classic reason for the hero to refuse their obligations in the classic hero's journey. Flaws make characters relatable, and are inherently part of the 5E character (and character sheet) for a reason.

To be clear: we should not allow flaws to be offensive to players. Each table is different, and the DM and players need to be careful when writing flaws into PCs. However, you can tell a good story about five thugs that survive by robbing people until they become wrapped up in events bigger than them and learn to be heroes as they navigate those dangerous waters. Think of Han Solo.

In 5E we have flaws on our character sheet for a few different reasons. They are often seen as a characteristic to adhere to for the PC. However, as a DM, I think of them as a challenge for the PC to address and overcome.

 

[AnotherGuy]

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.

I have a situation with a new player (two years) who has joined an existing campaign but her character is behaving in a manner that I would characterise as selfish. I attribute this to a number of factors

• Player not understanding the role of her character within the party;
• Lack of defined character goals (initial character goals were resolved - cleared her name as well as the name of her family and friends, restored her title and dignity, avenged the person that had wronged her); and
• Lack of my initial guidance as DM;

How I have attempted to resolve this, as there are other factors at play I'd rather not get into here, is to approach two of the more experienced players on the group, who have also noticed this issue - and is to initiate some in-game conversations amongst the party as to their roles, responsibilities and future. This conversation will be driven by one of the characters who has a background of serving in the military and will lean into that experience of serving in squads or units.
We're hoping this indirect route may help, rather than having to pull the player aside, especially since the issue is only in-game.

 

[Ixal]

Everyone who says that you expect the PCs to be heroes, what is your definition of hero?

That every PC behaves basically like a palandin, always honorable, always good?
That the PCs always help others (go along with the plot in the end) for no or little reward?
Are heroes allowed to use dishonourable tactics, poison, etc?
Are heroes allowed to use blackmail, threats, etc. in order to advance the (good) quest?
Are heroes allowed to deny their help to someone because they see no profit in it or have other reasons why they should help besides "being good"?
Are heroes allowed to have faults, sometimes even big ones, like a good character owning slaves because that is normal in the society he grew up?

 

[Oofta]

Everyone who says that you expect the PCs to be heroes, what is your definition of hero?

That every PC behaves basically like a palandin, always honorable, always good?
That the PCs always help others (go along with the plot in the end) for no or little reward?
Are heroes allowed to use dishonourable tactics, poison, etc?
Are heroes allowed to use blackmail, threats, etc. in order to advance the (good) quest?
Are heroes allowed to deny their help to someone because they see no profit in it or have other reasons why they should help besides "being good"?
Are heroes allowed to have faults, sometimes even big ones, like a good character owning slaves because that is normal in the society he grew up?

My bar is probably pretty low. Try "not murder-hobos" and "willing to risk a great deal for the greater good if that's the direction the group decides to go". They don't have to be saints, but yes, at times they should sacrifice their own personal gain for the greater good. I also effectively ban things like torture that I consider evil. Slavery is also evil in my campaign.

May not work for everyone, but I'm not the DM for everyone.

 

[prabe]

Everyone who says that you expect the PCs to be heroes, what is your definition of hero?

That every PC behaves basically like a palandin, always honorable, always good?
That the PCs always help others (go along with the plot in the end) for no or little reward?
Are heroes allowed to use dishonourable tactics, poison, etc?
Are heroes allowed to use blackmail, threats, etc. in order to advance the (good) quest?
Are heroes allowed to deny their help to someone because they see no profit in it or have other reasons why they should help besides "being good"?
Are heroes allowed to have faults, sometimes even big ones, like a good character owning slaves because that is normal in the society he grew up?

That's a fair question, or series of questions.

As a DM, I have a general rule that PCs be willing to be heroes, mostly because I find those sorts of motivations easier to work with, and I prefer to run those sorts of adventures. I have mostly left what "willing to be a hero" means up to the individual players, which has on occasion led to some interesting intra-party interactions when definitions differed.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Everyone who says that you expect the PCs to be heroes, what is your definition of hero?

Not a jerk.

 

[Umbran]

People play the game in order to do things they can't do in real life. This sometimes includes doing unpleasant things they can't do in real life. Not a problem, as long as it stays in character.

Not a problem.... for you... as long as it stays in character. Two words, but much meaning.

People also play the game in order to get away from real life in other ways. The world around us... is kind of already filled with examples of sociopathic behavior. So, it is not odd for folks to want a fantasy where the protagonists are a bit more clean, hm?

 

[Umbran]

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.

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.