D&D General The Monsters Know What They're Doing ... Are Unsure on 5e24

[AlViking]

This actually seems fine to me. It seems like the player’s specific intent was to push boundaries by taking risky actions, in an attempt to judge if the GM will actually follow through on consequences. It’s a way to establish stakes.

Long, long ago I had decided to be a no-kill DM. I had a player who kept pushing it so after a while I gave up and killed off his character. When I was out of the room he admitted he was wondering what he could get away with and was actually happy I killed their character. Pretty foreign concept to me but now I will never guarantee survival. So plot armor? Sure. Invincible plot armor? Nope.

Oh, and the guy left the game not too long after for a variety of reasons. He had some odd ideas about what he wanted out of the game that simply didn't mesh well with the rest of the players and a few other issues.

 

[AlViking]

Of course, but I also don’t look back years later (I’m assuming this was years ago since it was a 3e game) as if it were a terrible thing. If the good doesn’t remain, I question whether something didn’t go wrong in that game, and I seek to fix that for the next time.

Still trying to elevate the fact that I'd rather not kill off a character into a "terrible thing"? Really? Yeah, I remember it because I killed off what was effectively the same character twice in the same session and then almost had a TPK. Memory is weird like that, it doesn't mean it was a traumatic event.

 

[Maxperson]

Not what the 2024 rules say. But you still haven’t explained what alignment actually is. Say my character is lawful good, am I incapable of steeling a sandwich, like some sort of automaton who can only follow its programming?

I'm looking at the 5.5e PHB right now and alignment is not listed as optional. It's step 4 of what you do when you make a character. It also very clearly says that alignment is ethical attitudes and ideals. It does not say it's actions.

 

[Maxperson]

Sure, but they are wrong, so if they attack my cat person friend I am justified in killing them. And if they law doesn’t like it the law can go **** itself.

Not if you are powerful enough to just take them out. Your post implied that they had no chance against you. Any mob would just end up with a dead village. If you are that powerful, they are not in fact threatening you, even if they are on the offensive. You are not acting in self-defense. You are murdering them when you could just leave.

 

[billd91]

What the heck is the “long run”? We’re here to have the players generate conflict and narratives. That’s the point of playing.

Not all conflicts and narratives are short term.

 

[AlViking]

Because you keep using it pejoratively. It’s the posture of the posts that make me feel this didn’t work out the way you wanted, but you are blaming the player who you said was willing to push their luck. Well, if they’re willing to push their luck and that’s the character they have, there’s no reason to look back sadly at it unless there was something else at hand in the game.

The definition of kleptomania is an irresistible impulse to steal and it is the appropriate term for the character's behavior. Now I'm a bad DM because I don't like killing PCs? I can't win.

 

[AlViking]

I’m sure this was a while ago, so I’m not criticizing any GM actions here.

But it seems like a solid example of a time to make sure good GM practices are being followed.

If the player is acting in a manner you find confusing:

Switch to metagame conversation.
Clarify the player’s intent.
Make sure the player is aware that the stakes are being raised and the consequences are sharpening because of their actions.

Ideally, you never wrap up a scene without knowing what the player(s) were trying to acccomplish.

When the scenario started, I let them know that the orcs were an overwhelming force. When the player decided their character was going to drag the chest that was too heavy I told them it was not possible and gave them options. They continued pursuing an action they knew full well could not succeed. The obvious intent was to steal the entire chest, I don't see how there was anything to clarify here.

 

[tetrasodium]

Yes. You did by assuming I was talking about anyone specific.

How does that change things unless a hypothetical nonspecific gm is not allowed to say "no you can not play at my table" or the default player/GM relationship should be assumed one of employer/we employee?

I've rightly told players that they can't add "a village" or similar that they suggested simply because something about the village did not fit the region or was already basically the same as the one they wanted to add except the existing one was already tied to the world. Usually if the player doesn't care enough to go further than something like "a village" I'll suggest some existing places or offer to let them leave it blank and pick one for them when it comes up.

In those cases I declined the creation of "a village" I just didn't see any justification to weave into creation for no reason other than to extend the orphan sprung from Zeus's head trope of isolation one additional level

 

[TiQuinn]

Still trying to elevate the fact that I'd rather not kill off a character into a "terrible thing"? Really? Yeah, I remember it because I killed off what was effectively the same character twice in the same session and then almost had a TPK. Memory is weird like that, it doesn't mean it was a traumatic event.

Okay fine, not a terrible thing. Is a “bad” thing more appropriate? Not fun? A downer?

 

[TiQuinn]

The definition of kleptomania is an irresistible impulse to steal and it is the appropriate term for the character's behavior. Now I'm a bad DM because I don't like killing PCs? I can't win.

That’s fine. You’re missing my point, and I’m not seeing new information about what happened that clears the situation up or why you feel the way you do after the fact.