D&D General Violent Solutions to Peaceful Problems

[Umbran]

Should every action have a consequence?

My table is currently operating under the assumption that the players are all "white hats", basically decent people. Resorting to violence when it isn't called for on a regular basis would violate the table agreement, and be cause for an out of game discussion.

Similarly, on the basis of that table agreement, yes, there are consequences for doing bad things.

What if it's just shenanigans

Use of deadly force is not classified as "just shenanigans" at my table. If the PCs start a barroom brawl, and no weapons got drawn, and nobody was serious injured in a way a long rest wouldn't fix, then it can be shenanigans. But you don't kill the shopkeeper and his wife, leaving their kids orphans, and get to claim it was "just shenanigans".

and a strong response from the DM would derail the campaign

If everyone agreed to the table premises, the campaign is derailed when the PC violates those premises.

, would you say that consequences are consequences, and just rewrite your campaign, which now becomes e.g. a jailbreak? Or do you look the other way do you don't have to toss out the entire plot?

As above - the PC has already thrown away the plot, so to speak, so I'm not under any onus to follow it any more.

Do you even actively seek some sort of revenge to teach those roguish players to do better roleplay?

Do I, as GM, seek revenge? No. It isn't personal like that. The game world has people in it who will seek justice and/or view the party as a threat, though.

When a bunch of orcs or bandits comes through town and murders people, the town generally finds people like the PCs to deal with them. If the PCs decide to become the bandits, the logic for how that gets dealt with is already in place.

 

[Oofta]

I don't allow evil PCs (my players on the other hand ) so it's not going to be the group running around killing everyone in sight. I haven't used XP for a long time, so that's one of the considerations.

I try to run NPCs and organizations logically based on what I see as their motivations, goals and temperament. So reactions are going to happen as I see fit. In a couple (very, very rare) cases, that's led to the execution of a PC. As far as jailbreaks and whatnot, there are jails for people awaiting trial but very few long term prisons. If someone is extremely dangerous, a decision is often made before a proper trial can commence. It's a harsh world, although it does vary depending on location and situation of course.

There's no set response though. There are enough high level NPCs to take on high level PCs depending on the action and resources available to the NPCs. Other times nothing happens other than a bad reputation and lost opportunities for alliance and future aid.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

View attachment 156911

isn't this 9/10 of D&D games...

I had a 5th level game and a PC multi classed as a paliden and a monk (3e) he had less then half hp, the rest of the party was down or no where near him (like not even in castle) 10 castle guards stood staring at him 6 had heavy cross bows (that he knew were magic) and 4 hadheavy armor, sheilds and long swords... they told him to stand down or be taken down (and he knew if he went with them he had an out cause other players had favors owed by the lord of the land)... his choice... a profanity and explaining that he was going to let at least two of them live.


with 1hp left he had to lay hands on himself after the fight...he did leave 2 alive though... damn the 4 20's over 5 rounds would have been unbelivable if not for him sitting next to me and me seeing tha damn rolls

 

[iserith]

If I'm running a game with a plot, then the players are incentivized to stay on the plot with XP (or more likely story-based advancement). This is very rare for me, however, often only at the request of players who want to experience a particular module. I find this kind of DMing to be very weird in play and I don't like it. But I'll do it for my players if they ask.

What I prefer is more location-based adventuring where the players are free to choose if they want a violent or peaceful solution and either way is fine for me because I have no plot to protect. Whatever consequence may arise from their chosen course will generally be some mix of randomness and what makes sense and is fun for everyone. In most such games, I grant XP for combat and social interaction challenges (and treasure for exploration challenges). Sometimes, I do gold for XP instead.

 

[Dausuul]

isn't this 9/10 of D&D games...

I had a 5th level game and a PC multi classed as a paliden and a monk (3e) he had less then half hp, the rest of the party was down or no where near him (like not even in castle) 10 castle guards stood staring at him 6 had heavy cross bows (that he knew were magic) and 4 hadheavy armor, sheilds and long swords... they told him to stand down or be taken down (and he knew if he went with them he had an out cause other players had favors owed by the lord of the land)... his choice... a profanity and explaining that he was going to let at least two of them live.

with 1hp left he had to lay hands on himself after the fight...he did leave 2 alive though... damn the 4 20's over 5 rounds would have been unbelivable if not for him sitting next to me and me seeing tha damn rolls

One thing I have noticed is that a lot of players have their PCs react violently to anything which threatens their autonomy in the game world. In other words: "Surrender or die" is very likely to be answered with an axe to the face, even if the odds are overwhelming, and even if the PC's behavior is mostly reasonable in other situations.

I mostly try to avoid setting up such scenarios. If I do set one up, I assume that "axe to the face" is a likely response and plan accordingly*.

*Though not the inevitable response. If you base your plans on the certainty that the PCs will fight, they'll surrender instead, because that's just how PCs is.

 

[payn]

One thing I have noticed is that a lot of players have their PCs react violently to anything which threatens their autonomy in the game world. In other words: "Surrender or die" is very likely to be answered with an axe to the face, even if the odds are overwhelming, and even if the PC's behavior is mostly reasonable in other situations.

I mostly try to avoid setting up such scenarios. If I do set one up, I assume that "axe to the face" is a likely response and plan accordingly*.

*Though not the inevitable response. If you base your plans on the certainty that the PCs will fight, they'll surrender instead, because that's just how PCs is.

I've even had the players go so far as draw weapons on drunks in bars bumping into them.

 

[Dausuul]

I've even had the players go so far as draw weapons on drunks in bars bumping into them.

Well, yeah, some players have their PCs react violently to anything, period.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

One thing I have noticed is that a lot of players have their PCs react violently to anything which threatens their autonomy in the game world. In other words: "Surrender or die" is very likely to be answered with an axe to the face, even if the odds are overwhelming, and even if the PC's behavior is mostly reasonable in other situations.

I mostly try to avoid setting up such scenarios. If I do set one up, I assume that "axe to the face" is a likely response and plan accordingly*.

*Though not the inevitable response. If you base your plans on the certainty that the PCs will fight, they'll surrender instead, because that's just how PCs is.

I don't often do so... but man that was a whipper

 

[Krachek]

Jailbreak is an interesting addition to any plot.

 

[INTIMIDAT3R]

I prefer the "Bundy Way" of solving things... swift and blinding violence.