I think a GM is fair to punish bad behaviour from their players. Sometimes you have players who are selfish jerks and, yeah, putting them down a peg is a legit thing to do.
I have literally never seen this do any good. You may think of it as some kind of teachable moment, but in my experience it just doesn't work like that. You're far more likely to foster resentment and feelings of being treated unfairly. If there's a problem with a player, it's not one with a character - deal with the player, not the character, to deal with the problem.
I used to have a history teacher who said:
Some people you don't need to tell. Some you can tell with a look. Some you can tell with a single word. Some need a sentence. Some need to be yelled at and some need to be hit with the issue in the face.
It can help. Some people need that sort of intervention to take the point at all. Different strokes for different folks and all. You have to know what people you are dealing with and come up with a plan according to that information and not use the same canned strategy to deal with every problem.
Sometimes the problem will only resolve itself if you kick the player out of the game, which seems to be a punishment that outstrips the crime and might hurt group morale. So, sometimes, the answer is to grin and bear it and that is always a bit more palpatible if you can get a little bit of revenge-- sugar to sweeten the medicine-- by taking their bad behaviours and custom tailoring a come-uppance that is indisputibly fair and legitimate way for you to behave, but gives satisfaction in regards to the grievance.
If they were ameniable to suggestions, you wouldn't need to go so far. But not everyone is and that's why we keep sticks with our carrots.
Thank you all for making me see it from other points of view.
I see now that I looked at it the wrong way.
I did not expect so many comments.
Thank you,
A
At least give their character a chance to maybe slay this thing and maybe even recover her soulmate, otherwise this player is going to punish you by playing elsewhere.
One of my players has written a background story in which she sets off to find her beloved who was kidnapped by an evil creature.
According to the story he was her greatest love. A soulmate.
When she finally found him he was killed in a horrible and agonizing way and resurrected over and over again in front of her by that same creature.
She asked him to stop and the creature agreed on one condition, she will take her loved one's place.
She refused and as a result sacrificing him.
I feel, that the player did not play according to her backstory that she wrote.
I also feel that this cannot go unpunished.
Am I mistaken to think/feel that?
How would you handle this player?
Thank you.
A
One important thing here, you don't describe is are you all STREAMING or playing this campaign all together at the same place ???
If this campaign is being played by STREAMING, i suggest you ( as a the DM ), should mute the rest of the persons on the STREAM, and take a private talk with the person you are describing, just to confirm what is he/she trying to do. If, this campaign is being played all together at the same place, then I suggest you should get up from the chair and wisper to this person about his/her background ( using a simple question ). THen, go back to your chair and continue the campaign.
A point nobody seems to have mentioned. In order for Resurrection to work, the target soul must be both free and willing to return, and it costs a 1000 gold piece diamond each time the spell is cast. The Soulmate's soul might return once, but not more than that, and all future castings would use up the diamond for nothing.
A point nobody seems to have mentioned. In order for Resurrection to work, the target soul must be both free and willing to return, and it costs a 1000 gold piece diamond each time the spell is cast. The Soulmate's soul might return once, but not more than that, and all future castings would use up the diamond for nothing.
I didn't mention it because I'm assuming DM fiat and it wasn't really the subject being asked about. But, fair, it should have been mentioned in case the DM wasn't aware.
... a come-uppance that is indisputibly fair and legitimate way for you to behave...
Do you think anything is indisputable in the face of someone you feel a need to punish for being a selfish jerk? That seems a little optimistic to me. In the vast majority of cases they'll just feel picked on, which very likely just escalates the problem. A DM can be firm without needing to resort to punishment.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
... a come-uppance that is indisputibly fair and legitimate way for you to behave...
Do you think anything is indisputable in the face of someone you feel a need to punish for being a selfish jerk? That seems a little optimistic to me. In the vast majority of cases they'll just feel picked on, which very likely just escalates the problem. A DM can be firm without needing to resort to punishment.
A DM can be firm without needing to resort to punishment. However, I don't believe it's universally so. There are some cases that merit stronger reactions. If one is punishing everyone for everything then one are behaving derranged. This might describe the vast majority of cases, but it doesn't describe all cases. I would say that if you are inexperienced with wielding authority in that manner, then I could understand your misgivings and that you've never witnessed it being effective surely explains your lack of imagination to as how it could work well or how said way could be indesputably fair.
Like I said, if the come-uppance is within the rules of the game, the rules of setting and the events of the campaign, then it is fair. By demonstrating a mastery of those fields, then like well constructed argument which one disagrees with, one can disagree with the aim and acknowledge that it was a fair and legitimate argument.
The fact of the matter is, if your character does stupid things, the degree to which divine providence will supply you with a second chance might be entirely resting on how much you've pissed off the DM in the course of the campaign. A player transgressing good behaviour can't be surprised that when the DM has the opportunity to throw the book at them, they take it: perhaps gleefully. After all, "It is a right of nature to glut the soul with vengeance."
... a come-uppance that is indisputibly fair and legitimate way for you to behave...
Do you think anything is indisputable in the face of someone you feel a need to punish for being a selfish jerk? That seems a little optimistic to me. In the vast majority of cases they'll just feel picked on, which very likely just escalates the problem. A DM can be firm without needing to resort to punishment.
A DM can be firm without needing to resort to punishment. However, I don't believe it's universally so. There are some cases that merit stronger reactions. If one is punishing everyone for everything then one are behaving derranged. This might describe the vast majority of cases, but it doesn't describe all cases. I would say that if you are inexperienced with wielding authority in that manner, then I could understand your misgivings and that you've never witnessed it being effective surely explains your lack of imagination to as how it could work well or how said way could be indesputably fair.
Like I said, if the come-uppance is within the rules of the game, the rules of setting and the events of the campaign, then it is fair. By demonstrating a mastery of those fields, then like well constructed argument which one disagrees with, one can disagree with the aim and acknowledge that it was a fair and legitimate argument.
The fact of the matter is, if your character does stupid things, the degree to which divine providence will supply you with a second chance might be entirely resting on how much you've pissed off the DM in the course of the campaign. A player transgressing good behaviour can't be surprised that when the DM has the opportunity to throw the book at them, they take it: perhaps gleefully. After all, "It is a right of nature to glut the soul with vengeance."
For all practical intents and purposes, I think it is best to for GMs to be firm without resorting to punishment, universally. It is one thing to be a GM, but it is a whole other thing to be a babysitter.
If I have to use a more heavy handed approach and treat a 40 year old man like a 10 year old child, and use threats and timeouts just to get my point across, I rather just kick them out, or better yet not invite them in the first place if I know they are going to be that way. No D&D is better than bad D&D, and this goes for GMs as well, and GMs should not be expected to put up with players they do not get along with.
If some GMs want to wield the authority of a parent, be my guest. However, most GMs do not want to deal with a full grown man child, and I think most GMs are better off focusing on more enjoyable parts of the craft like acting, read more about the rules, homebrew, world building, map making, or whatever they fancy. GMs should not have to waste time learning how to talk to children unless that is something they enjoy.
Don’t punish the player, have the villain, in character, punish the character.
Have the villain’s minions follow her around and try to kill her. The villain could use magic to send her nightmares of the soulmate dying again and again and again.
This should give the character a reason to seek revenge on the villain and keep her going on adventures.
After the villain dies you could have her soulmate’s ghost speak to her and then disappear forever.
The point is not to piss off the player, piss of the character. Make sure the player is still happy.
Unless you are the parent in real life or you're playing with children, it's not your responsibility to parent them. We're all adults here.
If the issue is with character behaviour (ie, nothing to do with the player, provide natural (or supernatural, as the case may be) consequences for their actions. For example, in this case, perhaps the fiance escapes later and is vengeful for having been abandoned. Or perhaps their ghost escapes and haunts the party.
If the issue is with the player, there is a 3 step process.
1. Is the problem actually with me as a DM? Is the player actually degrading the experience at the table or are they just messing my plans up?f so, then I need to do some soul searching. In the mean time, suck it up buttercup.
2. Have a chat with the player to resolve the issues. It could be that I or another player are triggering the undesirable behaviour and we can resolve it. Or the player doesn't realise what's happening. Or maybe they do, but just need to be snapped out of it. Doesn't matter, so long as itncan be resolved.
3. If you can't resolve it and it isn't worth putting up with it for thenother positives that the player brings to the table, then part ways.
The term "punish" should never exist in the DM's vocabulary. If a PC murders, they can be cast into jail as in-game punishment byNPCs, but a DM is not there to punish people, only to provide a framework for the narrative. The attitude of the DM should always be to provide a positive experience for all. So should the player's. If that isn't the objective for any given person, DM and player alike, then it's time for that person to leave. Hopefully, that's not the intention for anyone, and it's merely a misunderstanding or a temporary contention that can be resolved, and that avenue should be tried first.
I reiterate, the DM should never punish a player.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
1) Like I said, if the come-uppance is within the rules of the game, the rules of setting and the events of the campaign, then it is fair.
2) "It is a right of nature to glut the soul with vengeance."
1) A character suffering the logical consequences of its actions is not punishment. Cooking up something special just because you don't like the player or the player's actions, is. And in my experience (my personal experience on both sides of the screen) doing so is excessive and doesn't help anyone become a better player. If you have a problem, tell the people you have a problem with. Be clear and communicative. "You annoy me, so your character is going to suffer to annoy you in return" is just petty.
2) With all due respect, that's a pretty ironic quote to justify punishing someone for being a selfish jerk. A DM is supposed to take care of the game for everyone at the table to enjoy, choosing to go out of your way to get your pound of flesh from one player seems like something a selfish jerk of a DM would do.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I feel like I have to say, this was extremely problematic story loading, even before the player made the choice. Had I been put into this position as a player, I'd have quit the game there and then.
The player has devised a backstory around finding their lost love.
The DM lets them find their lost love, but has designed it so that either their character fails to achieve their goal (and their romantic interest is tortured for eternity), or dies (and has to be endlessly killed and tortured).
Since presumably the goal was to reunite with the lost love, the DM has determined that this cannot happen
If the player doesn't do what the DM wants, the DM wants to punish them - and what the DM wants is to kill their character
If the player does do what the DM wants, they die
The player's agency and power to be a hero has been stripped from them completely
This puts the player into a no-win situation, where both choices are horrible. Moreover, they are actually quite disturbing, well beyond the kind of "you get melted by acid" that's par for the course in D&D. I guess that the players in this game are OK with maxed out horror if they're still playing the game, but the DM should never, ever foist this kind of lose-lose decision on a player.
2) With all due respect, that's a pretty ironic quote to justify punishing someone for being a selfish jerk. A DM is supposed to take care of the game for everyone at the table to enjoy, choosing to go out of your way to get your pound of flesh from one player seems like something a selfish jerk of a DM would do.
I'm pretty sure Attila isn't a great role model for DMing, but maybe that's just me
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Something which nobodie's asked is what were you expecting to happen? Were they supposed to sacrifice their character, free their soulmate, and then roll up a new character as they know that their previous character, which they have spent hours of gameplay building up, is now not only dead but in an endless cycle of torment?
The character having a soulmate is an excellent plothook to get them to go in the direction you want, but trying to use it in an "ultimate sacrifice" way without player consent is bad form. The player added a kidnapped soulmate in the hope that they might be led to save them in the adventure, not in the hope that they could kill off their character and make a new one. The player's attachment to the character is going to be greater than their characters attachment to their soulmate, as the soulmate was really only a plot device, and the character is "real" to the player - they exist in the game to them. This becomes especially difficult if it's mid-session, as you either force them to make a character sheet for the soulmate or to sit out for the rest of the session as their character is tortured.
A DM can be firm without needing to resort to punishment. However, I don't believe it's universally so. There are some cases that merit stronger reactions. If one is punishing everyone for everything then one are behaving derranged.
What does punishment mean in practice? Comeuppance is within the rules of the game for character behaviour, but not player behaviour. At times the two overlap enough that in-game penalties make sense, but if you're arbitrarily going after a PC because you are irritated by a player, then you're being senselessly arbitrary. If you're just taking a strong stand against character behaviour, then is that really punishment, or is that just a natural consequence of gameplay? Unless, perhaps, you're being inconsistent, in which case that reflects poorly on you as a DM, imo.
You use the example of 'divine providence' for a second chance. But if the sole reason you are holding back is you're annoyed with the player, then you're being passive-aggressive plain and simple. That is toxic behaviour. If you're holding back because it makes sense for the game, all's well and good, but that isn't a punishment. And even if it were a punishment, what is the player really supposed to learn?
At the table, you aren't my parent, my teacher, my boss, my babysitter or any other authoritarian figure. Not over me as a person. If my behaviour is causing issues for the group, then I'd like to know what the problem is so it can be resolved, and if I am unwilling or unable then maybe it's not a good fit. But I'm not there to be scolded or chaperoned or taught life lessons or other wise be treated in some condescending way. I absolutely recognize the right of the DM to apply consequences to my character for choices my character makes (and in the event I think DM adjudication is really unfair, that's a conversation to have). I absolutely recognize the right of anyone at the table to approach me about my conduct. But as a grown-ass person sitting at a table with peers (if not friends), no one gets to punish me. We will have a major problem in that case and it's going to come to words.
There isn't a codified, standard answer to such problems. Punishment, itself, has many usages ranging from taking advantage of a mistake (in chess, fencing or even Dark Souls.) It can mean the behaviour of a parent exercising their authority to correct behaviour. If we boil it down to a general idea, we arrive somewhere in the area of taking action against someone because they did something we can vaguely term as wrong.
1) Like I said, if the come-uppance is within the rules of the game, the rules of setting and the events of the campaign, then it is fair.
2) "It is a right of nature to glut the soul with vengeance."
1) A character suffering the logical consequences of its actions is not punishment. Cooking up something special just because you don't like the player or the player's actions, is. And in my experience (my personal experience on both sides of the screen) doing so is excessive and doesn't help anyone become a better player. If you have a problem, tell the people you have a problem with. Be clear and communicative. "You annoy me, so your character is going to suffer to annoy you in return" is just petty.
2) With all due respect, that's a pretty ironic quote to justify punishing someone for being a selfish jerk. A DM is supposed to take care of the game for everyone at the table to enjoy, choosing to go out of your way to get your pound of flesh from one player seems like something a selfish jerk of a DM would do.
1) You're arguing sematics.
It's not the course of action, but the intent of those actions that make it punishment or coincidence. I don't agree that everyone is open to communication or reason. That's why our societies are facing their current challenges: the Enlightment has limited reach in terms of social penetration because the sort of person who says "I'm too tired to think, I just want to turn my brain off" aren't the sort of person to take on the immense mental burden of being a fully functional individual who thrives under freedom. Being free, rational and responsible for one's outcomes is hard and taxing and not everyone is willing to live with a permanent state of discomfort. I'm not judging those sorts of people, but they exist and aren't barred from public life.
2) It's not a selfish quote. Being a jerk or being unlikable is another issue, but roleplaying is a inherently group focused activity and need commitment from the whole group to see the success of the game as the responsibility of every member of the group. We all tolerate people who coast, but players who don't learn the rules, who don't do their "homework" are destructive elements. If everyone behaved like that, there could be no games.
That quote is a military speech and it ends with "I shall hurl the first spear at the foe. If any can stand at rest while Attila fights, he is a dead man. " One is either as commited to this project as I am, or will suffer my wrath. That was the message, and in that regard I feel that is a very apt message to this endeavour. A DM must commit to the quality of his game and those people who stand between them and their goal must be dealt with before they deal a fatal blow to the entire undertaking. I mean, that's the nature of leadership of any person who is truly responsible for the survival of any undertaking.
2) With all due respect, that's a pretty ironic quote to justify punishing someone for being a selfish jerk. A DM is supposed to take care of the game for everyone at the table to enjoy, choosing to go out of your way to get your pound of flesh from one player seems like something a selfish jerk of a DM would do.
I'm pretty sure Attila isn't a great role model for DMing, but maybe that's just me
It's really a question of personal methods suiting personal character, rather than adopting methods unsuitible for your own person.
This is a two fold failure, the DM first decided to put the player in an antagonistic situation with one expected outcome, and two they want to punish the player for not forfeiting to satisfy that outcome.
Your a bad DM, and you need to learn how to develop compelling stakes rather than, "I require you to care and whatever you offered me as your character will be abused to remove your agency."
Quite frankly, the player is smarter than you to avoid being trapped by your forced designs. You need to stop and apologize for your behavior, than reevaluate the quality of compelling stakes in a story. Think back to all the good books and movies you probably failed to learn from and think of which ones actually had interesting stakes which were fulfilling to read. There's a reason why the hero is able to rescue the victim who miraculously remained unharmed just long enough. Audiences don't like lost companions even if they are more immersive and gritty.
Hopefully this player tells you off and withdraws from your game.
1) Like I said, if the come-uppance is within the rules of the game, the rules of setting and the events of the campaign, then it is fair.
2) "It is a right of nature to glut the soul with vengeance."
1) A character suffering the logical consequences of its actions is not punishment. Cooking up something special just because you don't like the player or the player's actions, is. And in my experience (my personal experience on both sides of the screen) doing so is excessive and doesn't help anyone become a better player. If you have a problem, tell the people you have a problem with. Be clear and communicative. "You annoy me, so your character is going to suffer to annoy you in return" is just petty.
2) With all due respect, that's a pretty ironic quote to justify punishing someone for being a selfish jerk. A DM is supposed to take care of the game for everyone at the table to enjoy, choosing to go out of your way to get your pound of flesh from one player seems like something a selfish jerk of a DM would do.
1) You're arguing sematics.
It's not the course of action, but the intent of those actions that make it punishment or coincidence. I don't agree that everyone is open to communication or reason. That's why our societies are facing their current challenges: the Enlightment has limited reach in terms of social penetration because the sort of person who says "I'm too tired to think, I just want to turn my brain off" aren't the sort of person to take on the immense mental burden of being a fully functional individual who thrives under freedom. Being free, rational and responsible for one's outcomes is hard and taxing and not everyone is willing to live with a permanent state of discomfort. I'm not judging those sorts of people, but they exist and aren't barred from public life.
2) It's not a selfish quote. Being a jerk or being unlikable is another issue, but roleplaying is a inherently group focused activity and need commitment from the whole group to see the success of the game as the responsibility of every member of the group. We all tolerate people who coast, but players who don't learn the rules, who don't do their "homework" are destructive elements. If everyone behaved like that, there could be no games.
That quote is a military speech and it ends with "I shall hurl the first spear at the foe. If any can stand at rest while Attila fights, he is a dead man. " One is either as commited to this project as I am, or will suffer my wrath. That was the message, and in that regard I feel that is a very apt message to this endeavour. A DM must commit to the quality of his game and those people who stand between them and their goal must be dealt with before they deal a fatal blow to the entire undertaking. I mean, that's the nature of leadership of any person who is truly responsible for the survival of any undertaking.
1) I think the difference is meaningful. Determining what happens as the consequence of what the party does is what the DM does. It's their core function. Determining what happens as the consequence of annoying the DM is not.
Also, I didn't say everyone's open to reason. What I'm saying is that if you're dealing with someone you have tried communicating fairly with and found it impossible to get through, picking on them from your tower of power behind the DM screen is very unlikely to be something they are open to just the same. At that point it's better to go your separate ways.
2) Nothing of what you're saying even implies an argument in favour of punishing players rather than trying literally anything else. D&D is not a military campaign. Moreover, a DM who commits to the quality of the game should know better than to get sidetracked in petty squabbles with one player.
1) Like I said, if the come-uppance is within the rules of the game, the rules of setting and the events of the campaign, then it is fair.
2) "It is a right of nature to glut the soul with vengeance."
1) A character suffering the logical consequences of its actions is not punishment. Cooking up something special just because you don't like the player or the player's actions, is. And in my experience (my personal experience on both sides of the screen) doing so is excessive and doesn't help anyone become a better player. If you have a problem, tell the people you have a problem with. Be clear and communicative. "You annoy me, so your character is going to suffer to annoy you in return" is just petty.
2) With all due respect, that's a pretty ironic quote to justify punishing someone for being a selfish jerk. A DM is supposed to take care of the game for everyone at the table to enjoy, choosing to go out of your way to get your pound of flesh from one player seems like something a selfish jerk of a DM would do.
1) You're arguing sematics.
It's not the course of action, but the intent of those actions that make it punishment or coincidence. I don't agree that everyone is open to communication or reason. That's why our societies are facing their current challenges: the Enlightment has limited reach in terms of social penetration because the sort of person who says "I'm too tired to think, I just want to turn my brain off" aren't the sort of person to take on the immense mental burden of being a fully functional individual who thrives under freedom. Being free, rational and responsible for one's outcomes is hard and taxing and not everyone is willing to live with a permanent state of discomfort. I'm not judging those sorts of people, but they exist and aren't barred from public life.
2) It's not a selfish quote. Being a jerk or being unlikable is another issue, but roleplaying is a inherently group focused activity and need commitment from the whole group to see the success of the game as the responsibility of every member of the group. We all tolerate people who coast, but players who don't learn the rules, who don't do their "homework" are destructive elements. If everyone behaved like that, there could be no games.
That quote is a military speech and it ends with "I shall hurl the first spear at the foe. If any can stand at rest while Attila fights, he is a dead man. " One is either as commited to this project as I am, or will suffer my wrath. That was the message, and in that regard I feel that is a very apt message to this endeavour. A DM must commit to the quality of his game and those people who stand between them and their goal must be dealt with before they deal a fatal blow to the entire undertaking. I mean, that's the nature of leadership of any person who is truly responsible for the survival of any undertaking.
1) I think the difference is meaningful. Determining what happens as the consequence of what the party does is what the DM does. It's their core function. Determining what happens as the consequence of annoying the DM is not.
Also, I didn't say everyone's open to reason. What I'm saying is that if you're dealing with someone you have tried communicating fairly with and found it impossible to get through, picking on them from your tower of power behind the DM screen is very unlikely to be something they are open to just the same. At that point it's better to go your separate ways.
2) Nothing of what you're saying even implies an argument in favour of punishing players rather than trying literally anything else. D&D is not a military campaign. Moreover, a DM who commits to the quality of the game should know better than to get sidetracked in petty squabbles with one player.
The DM's role is more than arbitrating outcomes. They have to plan the scenario, prepare and plan for outcomes, set the schedule, decide upon rules and their enforcement and beyond all ensure group cohesion. They aren't only the arbiters of character fate, they are the manager of the game. That they have the power to eject people from the game, as you point out in their post, which is a statement that their powers are far and away more reaching than the average player.
And do you think that using that power to burn a player's investment of time doesn't constitute a punishment? You can't come down from your tower of power. The position is nothing but the tower of power. You come down, you leave the game. You have and advocate using unilaterally the ability to render a player's time as a complete and utter waste, if they don't fit your idea of reconcilable differences. That's punishment, no matter how you dress it up.
Do you think something has to be a military campaign in order to draw parallels from military leadership? It's called an analogy. They aren't directly applicable. It's not that running a campaign in D&D is akin to a 5th century military campaign. That would be insane. But leadership and administration has some commonalities accross particular applications, and one of them is that when it comes to getting the job done, a certain degree of ruthlessness is required to assure that the job is done successfully. If that means punishing players, then you have to bite the bullet and do the thing that will see you through the day. If you can't see how my argument, which I summed up several posts ago as "you need to use the tools suitable to the job" and therefore not forswear any particular tool because you it ideologically distasteful. Because that means dancing around a problem instead of solving it. Sometimes a little aggression goes a long way into solving actual problems, where the "let's hold hands and sing" approach simply does not cut it.
Do you think something has to be a military campaign in order to draw parallels from military leadership? It's called an analogy. They aren't directly applicable. It's not that running a campaign in D&D is akin to a 5th century military campaign. That would be insane. But leadership and administration has some commonalities accross particular applications, and one of them is that when it comes to getting the job done, a certain degree of ruthlessness is required to assure that the job is done successfully. If that means punishing players, then you have to bite the bullet and do the thing that will see you through the day. If you can't see how my argument, which I summed up several posts ago as "you need to use the tools suitable to the job" and therefore not forswear any particular tool because you it ideologically distasteful. Because that means dancing around a problem instead of solving it. Sometimes a little aggression goes a long way into solving actual problems, where the "let's hold hands and sing" approach simply does not cut it.
That's my argument.
GMs are not obligated to "solve" every single problem. This is a hobby. There is no reason for a GM to pull their hair accomodating a player by treating them like a child using threats and timeouts when the GM can just kick the player out of the group. If anything, kicking is a far better solution than using threats and aggression.
I used to have a history teacher who said:
Some people you don't need to tell. Some you can tell with a look. Some you can tell with a single word. Some need a sentence. Some need to be yelled at and some need to be hit with the issue in the face.
It can help. Some people need that sort of intervention to take the point at all. Different strokes for different folks and all. You have to know what people you are dealing with and come up with a plan according to that information and not use the same canned strategy to deal with every problem.
Sometimes the problem will only resolve itself if you kick the player out of the game, which seems to be a punishment that outstrips the crime and might hurt group morale. So, sometimes, the answer is to grin and bear it and that is always a bit more palpatible if you can get a little bit of revenge-- sugar to sweeten the medicine-- by taking their bad behaviours and custom tailoring a come-uppance that is indisputibly fair and legitimate way for you to behave, but gives satisfaction in regards to the grievance.
If they were ameniable to suggestions, you wouldn't need to go so far. But not everyone is and that's why we keep sticks with our carrots.
At least give their character a chance to maybe slay this thing and maybe even recover her soulmate, otherwise this player is going to punish you by playing elsewhere.
One important thing here, you don't describe is are you all STREAMING or playing this campaign all together at the same place ???
If this campaign is being played by STREAMING, i suggest you ( as a the DM ), should mute the rest of the persons on the STREAM, and take a private talk with the person you are describing, just to confirm what is he/she trying to do.
If, this campaign is being played all together at the same place, then I suggest you should get up from the chair and wisper to this person about his/her background ( using a simple question ). THen, go back to your chair and continue the campaign.
My Ready-to-rock&roll chars:
Dertinus Tristany // Amilcar Barca // Vicenç Sacrarius // Oriol Deulofeu // Grovtuk
A point nobody seems to have mentioned. In order for Resurrection to work, the target soul must be both free and willing to return, and it costs a 1000 gold piece diamond each time the spell is cast. The Soulmate's soul might return once, but not more than that, and all future castings would use up the diamond for nothing.
<Insert clever signature here>
I didn't mention it because I'm assuming DM fiat and it wasn't really the subject being asked about. But, fair, it should have been mentioned in case the DM wasn't aware.
Do you think anything is indisputable in the face of someone you feel a need to punish for being a selfish jerk? That seems a little optimistic to me. In the vast majority of cases they'll just feel picked on, which very likely just escalates the problem. A DM can be firm without needing to resort to punishment.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
A DM can be firm without needing to resort to punishment. However, I don't believe it's universally so. There are some cases that merit stronger reactions. If one is punishing everyone for everything then one are behaving derranged. This might describe the vast majority of cases, but it doesn't describe all cases. I would say that if you are inexperienced with wielding authority in that manner, then I could understand your misgivings and that you've never witnessed it being effective surely explains your lack of imagination to as how it could work well or how said way could be indesputably fair.
Like I said, if the come-uppance is within the rules of the game, the rules of setting and the events of the campaign, then it is fair. By demonstrating a mastery of those fields, then like well constructed argument which one disagrees with, one can disagree with the aim and acknowledge that it was a fair and legitimate argument.
The fact of the matter is, if your character does stupid things, the degree to which divine providence will supply you with a second chance might be entirely resting on how much you've pissed off the DM in the course of the campaign. A player transgressing good behaviour can't be surprised that when the DM has the opportunity to throw the book at them, they take it: perhaps gleefully. After all, "It is a right of nature to glut the soul with vengeance."
For all practical intents and purposes, I think it is best to for GMs to be firm without resorting to punishment, universally. It is one thing to be a GM, but it is a whole other thing to be a babysitter.
If I have to use a more heavy handed approach and treat a 40 year old man like a 10 year old child, and use threats and timeouts just to get my point across, I rather just kick them out, or better yet not invite them in the first place if I know they are going to be that way. No D&D is better than bad D&D, and this goes for GMs as well, and GMs should not be expected to put up with players they do not get along with.
If some GMs want to wield the authority of a parent, be my guest. However, most GMs do not want to deal with a full grown man child, and I think most GMs are better off focusing on more enjoyable parts of the craft like acting, read more about the rules, homebrew, world building, map making, or whatever they fancy. GMs should not have to waste time learning how to talk to children unless that is something they enjoy.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
Don’t punish the player, have the villain, in character, punish the character.
Have the villain’s minions follow her around and try to kill her. The villain could use magic to send her nightmares of the soulmate dying again and again and again.
This should give the character a reason to seek revenge on the villain and keep her going on adventures.
After the villain dies you could have her soulmate’s ghost speak to her and then disappear forever.
The point is not to piss off the player, piss of the character. Make sure the player is still happy.
Make her choice have an impact on the game.
Unless you are the parent in real life or you're playing with children, it's not your responsibility to parent them. We're all adults here.
If the issue is with character behaviour (ie, nothing to do with the player, provide natural (or supernatural, as the case may be) consequences for their actions. For example, in this case, perhaps the fiance escapes later and is vengeful for having been abandoned. Or perhaps their ghost escapes and haunts the party.
If the issue is with the player, there is a 3 step process.
1. Is the problem actually with me as a DM? Is the player actually degrading the experience at the table or are they just messing my plans up?f so, then I need to do some soul searching. In the mean time, suck it up buttercup.
2. Have a chat with the player to resolve the issues. It could be that I or another player are triggering the undesirable behaviour and we can resolve it. Or the player doesn't realise what's happening. Or maybe they do, but just need to be snapped out of it. Doesn't matter, so long as itncan be resolved.
3. If you can't resolve it and it isn't worth putting up with it for thenother positives that the player brings to the table, then part ways.
The term "punish" should never exist in the DM's vocabulary. If a PC murders, they can be cast into jail as in-game punishment byNPCs, but a DM is not there to punish people, only to provide a framework for the narrative. The attitude of the DM should always be to provide a positive experience for all. So should the player's. If that isn't the objective for any given person, DM and player alike, then it's time for that person to leave. Hopefully, that's not the intention for anyone, and it's merely a misunderstanding or a temporary contention that can be resolved, and that avenue should be tried first.
I reiterate, the DM should never punish a player.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Let the players play the way they want to play
1) A character suffering the logical consequences of its actions is not punishment. Cooking up something special just because you don't like the player or the player's actions, is. And in my experience (my personal experience on both sides of the screen) doing so is excessive and doesn't help anyone become a better player. If you have a problem, tell the people you have a problem with. Be clear and communicative. "You annoy me, so your character is going to suffer to annoy you in return" is just petty.
2) With all due respect, that's a pretty ironic quote to justify punishing someone for being a selfish jerk. A DM is supposed to take care of the game for everyone at the table to enjoy, choosing to go out of your way to get your pound of flesh from one player seems like something a selfish jerk of a DM would do.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I feel like I have to say, this was extremely problematic story loading, even before the player made the choice. Had I been put into this position as a player, I'd have quit the game there and then.
This puts the player into a no-win situation, where both choices are horrible. Moreover, they are actually quite disturbing, well beyond the kind of "you get melted by acid" that's par for the course in D&D. I guess that the players in this game are OK with maxed out horror if they're still playing the game, but the DM should never, ever foist this kind of lose-lose decision on a player.
I'm pretty sure Attila isn't a great role model for DMing, but maybe that's just me
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Something which nobodie's asked is what were you expecting to happen? Were they supposed to sacrifice their character, free their soulmate, and then roll up a new character as they know that their previous character, which they have spent hours of gameplay building up, is now not only dead but in an endless cycle of torment?
The character having a soulmate is an excellent plothook to get them to go in the direction you want, but trying to use it in an "ultimate sacrifice" way without player consent is bad form. The player added a kidnapped soulmate in the hope that they might be led to save them in the adventure, not in the hope that they could kill off their character and make a new one. The player's attachment to the character is going to be greater than their characters attachment to their soulmate, as the soulmate was really only a plot device, and the character is "real" to the player - they exist in the game to them. This becomes especially difficult if it's mid-session, as you either force them to make a character sheet for the soulmate or to sit out for the rest of the session as their character is tortured.
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
There isn't a codified, standard answer to such problems. Punishment, itself, has many usages ranging from taking advantage of a mistake (in chess, fencing or even Dark Souls.) It can mean the behaviour of a parent exercising their authority to correct behaviour. If we boil it down to a general idea, we arrive somewhere in the area of taking action against someone because they did something we can vaguely term as wrong.
1) You're arguing sematics.
It's not the course of action, but the intent of those actions that make it punishment or coincidence. I don't agree that everyone is open to communication or reason. That's why our societies are facing their current challenges: the Enlightment has limited reach in terms of social penetration because the sort of person who says "I'm too tired to think, I just want to turn my brain off" aren't the sort of person to take on the immense mental burden of being a fully functional individual who thrives under freedom. Being free, rational and responsible for one's outcomes is hard and taxing and not everyone is willing to live with a permanent state of discomfort. I'm not judging those sorts of people, but they exist and aren't barred from public life.
2) It's not a selfish quote. Being a jerk or being unlikable is another issue, but roleplaying is a inherently group focused activity and need commitment from the whole group to see the success of the game as the responsibility of every member of the group. We all tolerate people who coast, but players who don't learn the rules, who don't do their "homework" are destructive elements. If everyone behaved like that, there could be no games.
That quote is a military speech and it ends with "I shall hurl the first spear at the foe. If any can stand at rest while Attila fights, he is a dead man. " One is either as commited to this project as I am, or will suffer my wrath. That was the message, and in that regard I feel that is a very apt message to this endeavour. A DM must commit to the quality of his game and those people who stand between them and their goal must be dealt with before they deal a fatal blow to the entire undertaking. I mean, that's the nature of leadership of any person who is truly responsible for the survival of any undertaking.
It's really a question of personal methods suiting personal character, rather than adopting methods unsuitible for your own person.
This is a two fold failure, the DM first decided to put the player in an antagonistic situation with one expected outcome, and two they want to punish the player for not forfeiting to satisfy that outcome.
Your a bad DM, and you need to learn how to develop compelling stakes rather than, "I require you to care and whatever you offered me as your character will be abused to remove your agency."
Quite frankly, the player is smarter than you to avoid being trapped by your forced designs. You need to stop and apologize for your behavior, than reevaluate the quality of compelling stakes in a story. Think back to all the good books and movies you probably failed to learn from and think of which ones actually had interesting stakes which were fulfilling to read. There's a reason why the hero is able to rescue the victim who miraculously remained unharmed just long enough. Audiences don't like lost companions even if they are more immersive and gritty.
Hopefully this player tells you off and withdraws from your game.
1) I think the difference is meaningful. Determining what happens as the consequence of what the party does is what the DM does. It's their core function. Determining what happens as the consequence of annoying the DM is not.
Also, I didn't say everyone's open to reason. What I'm saying is that if you're dealing with someone you have tried communicating fairly with and found it impossible to get through, picking on them from your tower of power behind the DM screen is very unlikely to be something they are open to just the same. At that point it's better to go your separate ways.
2) Nothing of what you're saying even implies an argument in favour of punishing players rather than trying literally anything else. D&D is not a military campaign. Moreover, a DM who commits to the quality of the game should know better than to get sidetracked in petty squabbles with one player.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The DM's role is more than arbitrating outcomes. They have to plan the scenario, prepare and plan for outcomes, set the schedule, decide upon rules and their enforcement and beyond all ensure group cohesion. They aren't only the arbiters of character fate, they are the manager of the game. That they have the power to eject people from the game, as you point out in their post, which is a statement that their powers are far and away more reaching than the average player.
And do you think that using that power to burn a player's investment of time doesn't constitute a punishment? You can't come down from your tower of power. The position is nothing but the tower of power. You come down, you leave the game. You have and advocate using unilaterally the ability to render a player's time as a complete and utter waste, if they don't fit your idea of reconcilable differences. That's punishment, no matter how you dress it up.
Do you think something has to be a military campaign in order to draw parallels from military leadership? It's called an analogy. They aren't directly applicable. It's not that running a campaign in D&D is akin to a 5th century military campaign. That would be insane. But leadership and administration has some commonalities accross particular applications, and one of them is that when it comes to getting the job done, a certain degree of ruthlessness is required to assure that the job is done successfully. If that means punishing players, then you have to bite the bullet and do the thing that will see you through the day. If you can't see how my argument, which I summed up several posts ago as "you need to use the tools suitable to the job" and therefore not forswear any particular tool because you it ideologically distasteful. Because that means dancing around a problem instead of solving it. Sometimes a little aggression goes a long way into solving actual problems, where the "let's hold hands and sing" approach simply does not cut it.
That's my argument.
GMs are not obligated to "solve" every single problem. This is a hobby. There is no reason for a GM to pull their hair accomodating a player by treating them like a child using threats and timeouts when the GM can just kick the player out of the group. If anything, kicking is a far better solution than using threats and aggression.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >