We are 3 players, me (Neutral Good) and 2 Chaotic Neutral players (one even leaning towards Chaotic Evil). They play selfish and only care for personal gain like power and money. They play shallow only wanting to steal, loot and kill. Their selfishness and attitude didn't get us far. They are acting bad to new NPCs (it's okay to be suspicious, but act smart) and they made our powerful allies to be hostile against us and we are alone again. Our DM agrees with me that they are too much and they need to relax, but they only justify themselves that "that my character would do, it's his background...". I am considering leaving the party if things will not be better. How do we deal with them?
That’s a player problem. There are so many videos out there that call out disruptive behaviour like this as a problem. This is a game and sure your character my do it, but if your character isn’t what someone wants to play with or is anti fun for everyone then… don’t. It’s collaborative story telling. everyone needs to have fun.
either they need to chill. Or a conversation needs to be had. Or I would suggest moving on. but I wouldn’t say it’s their alignment. Chaotic neutral and even evil characters can be done IF the player does it well. But only if
Frankly I (as DM) would have the authorities round up the party and put them on trial, if the two malcontents want to fight back they can be killed, if not they are imprisoned and the players get to create new characters. If they don’t like that then they leave the table. As others have said it’s a cooperative game where everyone should be having fun, they have been damaging everyone else’s fun so it’s time for “turn about is fair play”. These characters are acting as hard core criminals and should be dealt with as such.
This is an out of game problem. You and the DM have one idea of what's fun about D&D, and these others have a different idea. You need to have a conversation about what you all find fun. Is there a way you can all have fun? Try playing that way instead. If your hangup is just "my character wouldn't be ok with this" instead of "I don't like playing that way," it might mean you roll up a different character that's more in line with theirs and the DM adjusts the game accordingly. If you have irreconcilable differences, then it might be best to part ways as a group of players.
The issue isn't free passes, it's that a game has never been fixed by a DM punishing the characters for a problem with the players. Flagrant murderhoboing, players constantly acting like turdburglars and just killing their way through everything, is a player problem. Either one of different goals, as Rellott points out, or one of insufficient education. Either the player doesn't know that wandering through the world murdering, looting, and graping-without-the-G is badly against the spirit of the game - and given modern video games like Grand Theft Auto that explicitly insist the player act as a gigantic assbag hypercriminal, it's not actually as sure a bet as some people would think that players should know that murderhoboing is bad - or they don't care.
If the former, a DM needs to explain how the game works to them and get them sorted. If the latter, a DM needs new players. Neither situation is one you solve by imposing vicious punishments on the characters and making your players wonder why you're being such a killjoy. You solve this problem, as a DM, by telling the hobos "this isn't working, and I'm not willing to run the kind of game you guys are trying to play. Can we fix this, or do we need to part ways?" You solve this problem, as a player, by talking to the DM and seeing if you're the odd man out (in which case you find a new table), or if the DM agrees, at which point you go back to the "this isn't working" bit.
If players were willing "NPCs are mad at you" as a corrective hint, they wouldn't be murderhobos in the first place.
+As others have said, this is a player problem, or at least (being very generous to said players) a "disagreement in playstyle." Specifically, you and the DM apparently want to have a game about heroic quests or whatever and the other two want to fantasize about being chaotic evil murder hobos. "It's what my character would do" is not an excuse for disruptive behavior when the person saying that made the character. It's their fault. And the kind of behavior is not Chaotic Neutral. Being a shameless, self centered sociopathic prick then saying "Whatever, I do what I want!" like Eric Cartman from South Park is not Chaotic Neutral. Cartman as a character is an example of everything that's wrong with humanity and is objectively evil, and so are those characters by the sound of it.
At this point the only thing you can do is ask the DM to either demand that the players stop playing in their game as chaotic evil murder hobos or just kick them out of the game. Again, this is a player issue because "it's what my character would do" is a lame and pitiful excuse when they made the character because they want to play that way. Or you can leave the game if you don't want to take part in their medieval Grand Theft Auto sociopathic rampage fantasy.
The issue isn't free passes, it's that a game has never been fixed by a DM punishing the characters for a problem with the players.
You're free not to believe me, this is the interwebz after all, but imposing harsh in-game consequences for criminal activities has worked a couple of times for me. I did make it abundantly clear this was one of only a very few ways it could go down, and them walking if they didn't like it or getting the boot anyway if they felt like pushing the issue made up most of the other ways. So really, more part of a solution than an actual one. Having a candid word will always be the major component of almost any game fix.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I think there's a rift developing that's predicated on word choice. I believe, sure, characters can face consequences for their (player directed) actions in game. However, that's not "punishing" a player.
Like Pang, I believe players can be rehabilitated without punitive sanctions, and do it too. Most Chaotic Stupid (are we allowed to type that on this board? that's basically what we're talkig about here) comes from a player failing to appreciate (literally give value) to the larger game and thus fails to grant respect to the DMs and other players efforts to establish a good game. A OOC side chat on what the rest of the table would like to see in their game usually. encourages the self awareness that the players are short circuiting everyone else's fun. The defense "but that's what my character would do!" at my table mandates about an hour of Seth Skorkowsky* videos before they're allowed to speak of their character again. That's not punishment, that's enlightenment.
So if I have a player who chooses to plant their flag on Chaotic Stupid Hill, I'll actually coach them through the deliberations they should have done before announcing their actions in the first place. There's a way to allow a player to reconsider and maybe change their mind before permitting a resolution to the character's actions ... the consequences may be harsh or even fatal, but they're not punishing the player. Rather it's just how the game world works.
Another consequence of chaotic stupid say getting locked up by the town guard or arrested for high crimes or cast into Bedlam the, "Ok, so now the party has to rescue me, right?" "That's up to them. My guess is more likely you'll be rolling up a character more capable of adhering to mission instead of the loose the cannon with whom they see no point in working further."
*Maybe have them read some Elric stories to see how you can play the alignment without being a moron. Of course, if they do want to play the holy fool, Rosencratnz and Guiildenstern are Dead provides viable modeling for a D&D character.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I understand. I can speak from experience myself, though, when I say that "harsh consequences for ****ery" can also lead to a pissed off, frustrated player not understanding what they're doing wrong and having them leave the table upset at you with a damaged friendship. Or, in one rather more extreme case, end with the campaign literally exploding due to a combination of hoboism, 'harsh consequences' for in-character stupidity, and about two hundred pounds of black powder.
By all means, do the in-world harsh consequences thing. But if someone is truly concerned about their game and/or their fellow players, there's no substitute for talking to them. A healthy table is a table that communicates regularly - Session Zero should not, ever, be the only time you talk about expectations. Have a check-in regularly with your table to see if everything's still going sweetly and people are enjoying, or your game can quite easily deteriorate without you seeing it.
You talk outside of the game, and you play the game in the world as is, I don't see any way of playing the game while not doing both.
"Session Zero" I think is over rated in that it's significance is overweighted. You're right, the parameters. of the game should always be fair ground to discuss when they're being transgressed. Sometimes the discussion will lead to a course correction to comport to the game's initial expectations, other times it will lead the table to realize that the games evolved into a new set of parameters. Imagination is cool like that.
Frankly I (as DM) would have the authorities round up the party and put them on trial, if the two malcontents want to fight back they can be killed, if not they are imprisoned and the players get to create new characters. If they don’t like that then they leave the table. As others have said it’s a cooperative game where everyone should be having fun, they have been damaging everyone else’s fun so it’s time for “turn about is fair play”. These characters are acting as hard core criminals and should be dealt with as such.
I had a similar situation where two in my party murdered some officers who were appropriately trying to arrest them for some minor charges (the kind where you sleep it off in a cell and pay a fine). It derailed our entire campaign as the entire party was wanted for these heinous murders in a town with an important campaign objective. This was pattered behavior for the players with repeated feedback given on how we want to be the good guys. My DM had enough and after a long private discussion with the players, the players returned to the table and solemnly RP'd their exit as (true to their characters) feeling they could better avoid authorities without us, then the players left the game.
The problem is that the party was still wanted for the murders and the people the town was sending after us were much more powerful than the party when we were a full party. I have convinced the remaining members that we need to apprehend the "true neutral" PCs-turned-NPCs ourselves to avoid life in prison (or hangings). We have not been able to start the game up since changing our mission a few months back, but that is the plan. It is our only real shot at being able to eventually save the world from a malicious archfey!
I feel that while enormously inconvenient for both the players and characters that remain at the table, this new mission provides a realistic way for us to deal with problem PC/players without retconning them out of the game. That said, it is not the most fun trying to save the world while being continuously harassed by the law. I would have preferred a time-skip so I am not having to suffer the consequences of another player's choices. However, I have made it work for me so far and the rest of the party seemed okay with our path ahead.
You don't stop the game mid-session for a course-correction talk unless things are exploding off the rails, no. And yes, sometimes the game changes directions as it plays. But not everybody is going to catch every change in direction, and not every change in direction is good or desired.
All I'm really saying is that like every collaborative endeavor, communication grows it and lack of communication throttles it. Chaotic Stupid won't learn better if they're not told what they're doing wrong - you can slap them with character-ending jail sentences all you want, but the one time I tried that it ended with a player leaving my table with lingering resentment, putting a strain on my game and putting her husband - who was still trying to play - in a bad spot. Now, in fairness I tried talking to her out of game as well, and this was also when I was very new at DMing and D&D in general and had not done as much reading, so it didn't work out great regardless. But that's why I try and pass on the experience when someone else is in a similar spot.
"Well, this is what would happen to your character then. The same thing that would happen to anyone else doing the same, I'll add. Which, I agree, really sucks for them. And also, incidentally, for the other characters who wouldn't do what your character would do, but decided to team up because that's how this game works. So bottom line, what would happen is nobody has fun because you choose to play a character that would do that."
I know that going along with the arguments of people arguing in bad faith is usually a bad idea - you shouldn't validate bad faith arguments - but if we're going to talk this out just ignoring this doesn't work either. I prefer showing why the argument doesn't hold water. Helps with the out-of-character talk.
You don't stop the game mid-session for a course-correction talk unless things are exploding off the rails, no. And yes, sometimes the game changes directions as it plays. But not everybody is going to catch every change in direction, and not every change in direction is good or desired.
All I'm really saying is that like every collaborative endeavor, communication grows it and lack of communication throttles it. Chaotic Stupid won't learn better if they're not told what they're doing wrong - you can slap them with character-ending jail sentences all you want, but the one time I tried that it ended with a player leaving my table with lingering resentment, putting a strain on my game and putting her husband - who was still trying to play - in a bad spot. Now, in fairness I tried talking to her out of game as well, and this was also when I was very new at DMing and D&D in general and had not done as much reading, so it didn't work out great regardless. But that's why I try and pass on the experience when someone else is in a similar spot.
Maybe in whatever frame of reference your hyperbolic polarized mode of expression evidently captures one does not stop a game for a course correction talk. But I feel that rhetorical tact is simply discounting what you feel as contesting against you as opposed to appreciating or at least considering a differing point of view. And that's fine, but I. think at the end of the day the OP is looking for generative dynamics, which require "in game". and "meta" discussion, kinda sorta like deliberations IRL.
So I'm not sure what happens at your table when it's in pure game mode and points of order or rulings can't be discussed; but I can't think of a table I sat where a player who proposes a chaotic stupid act isn't subjected to "hold on a second" interventions from players and/or the DM, especially in the modern modes of play that pay consideration to how a players actions can affect the experience of other players. These moments are evocative of session zero, can take place concurrent to game action, and may serve for a "so this is where we are" moments. And they can be dealt with in short order, where the game-offending chaotic stupid player is given space to reflect without. being punished or castigated as a player, and from there whatever the player decides their character engages in, the consequence fall as they were telegraphed in that brief meta moment.
So in your cited instance of both/and as failure, player of chaotic stupid declares intent for character to commit high chaotic stupidity with or without Yakkity Sax. In my games, a player more organically invested in the scene may go "wtf?" and then offered a reasoned objection to the character. and/or the DM may mention "are you sure" with a discussion of character motives and how CN. as an alignment does not in fact translate into expression of pure Id and remind them the character is in a context where in world norms exist and any reasonably intelligent character would be aware of said consequences (sorta granted them 10 in local customs and social queues without them asking). This takes maybe a minute of game time and really is all chaotic stupid should be granted. If they nevertheless persist, you're now in IRL difficult personalty terrain and your game is not about entertaining folks who want their fun at the expense of disrupting everyone else's fun. Sometimes, as may be your case, that blows up a table. I haven't seen that happen on either side of the screen since adolescence, but I tend to feel out what people are trying to get out of a game and a DM has a lot of soft power in controlling the spotlight's focus on good play conduct vs. bad play. And in the case you're outlying, it's sorta a given that no D&D is often better than bad D&D where insufferability has to be granted, and I'm a fairly tolerant person.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
You don't stop the game mid-session for a course-correction talk unless things are exploding off the rails, no. And yes, sometimes the game changes directions as it plays. But not everybody is going to catch every change in direction, and not every change in direction is good or desired.
All I'm really saying is that like every collaborative endeavor, communication grows it and lack of communication throttles it. Chaotic Stupid won't learn better if they're not told what they're doing wrong - you can slap them with character-ending jail sentences all you want, but the one time I tried that it ended with a player leaving my table with lingering resentment, putting a strain on my game and putting her husband - who was still trying to play - in a bad spot. Now, in fairness I tried talking to her out of game as well, and this was also when I was very new at DMing and D&D in general and had not done as much reading, so it didn't work out great regardless. But that's why I try and pass on the experience when someone else is in a similar spot.
I definitely agree that waiting for a discussion outside the game is preferred in most cases. In my case, everyone at the table was over it.
To give a bit more context to my specific example, this was the latest in a long series of disruptive behaviors. Examples like stealing from players, stealing from NPCs, killing villains that we could have apprehended and interrogated, killing bandits who stole only because they were starving, getting us banned from shops and bars, trying to convince the party to abandon people who need our help because there was no personal gain from helping, etc. Feedback had been repeatedly given on what specifically was disruptive to this table and our goals as players. While specific issues did not repeat often after they were discussed, the players sought new ways to release the pressure valve on their barely contained impulses. This had been going on for months and when it did come to a head, not even the mutual friend of these players took issue when being excused from the game. In fact, post-game this person expressed regret for having even invited them to the table.
In all honesty, I got the impression that they were just bored with the game. I also believe that they cared little for how their choices were impacting others at the table. I can see why some might say it is better to excuse the players after the session was over, but, I suppose you had to be there to understand why even their friend was happy to see them be immediately dismissed. I do agree with you that for most cases, it may be more considerate to the excused to just finish a session and dismiss them after.
Definitely communicate with them and have that conversation; as others have said, there is no substitute for talking with people. With that said, I'll add from my own experience and say try your best to have that talk as maturely and amicably as possible, but be prepared to pull the plug and move on if they decide they'd rather be ******** than friends.
They play shallow only wanting to steal, loot and kill...They are acting bad to new NPCs ... they made our powerful allies to be hostile against us
If these people genuinely want to play selfish characters, it may help to explain to them that even purely evil characters will work with a group if it helps them achieve their goals. You can be a PC completely focused on only loot and still be a team player because you realize that you will get more loot and have greater survivability as part of an adventuring group. Powerful allies are likewise worth "using" for the advantages they provide.
Part of this is "don't be a jerk," but you can also point out that those alignments also don't require you to be a jerk.
We are 3 players, me (Neutral Good) and 2 Chaotic Neutral players (one even leaning towards Chaotic Evil). They play selfish and only care for personal gain like power and money. They play shallow only wanting to steal, loot and kill. Their selfishness and attitude didn't get us far. They are acting bad to new NPCs (it's okay to be suspicious, but act smart) and they made our powerful allies to be hostile against us and we are alone again. Our DM agrees with me that they are too much and they need to relax, but they only justify themselves that "that my character would do, it's his background...". I am considering leaving the party if things will not be better. How do we deal with them?
Boot their pog asses.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
We are 3 players, me (Neutral Good) and 2 Chaotic Neutral players (one even leaning towards Chaotic Evil). They play selfish and only care for personal gain like power and money. They play shallow only wanting to steal, loot and kill. Their selfishness and attitude didn't get us far. They are acting bad to new NPCs (it's okay to be suspicious, but act smart) and they made our powerful allies to be hostile against us and we are alone again. Our DM agrees with me that they are too much and they need to relax, but they only justify themselves that "that my character would do, it's his background...". I am considering leaving the party if things will not be better. How do we deal with them?
If the DM agrees then the 2 of you should probably find some different players imo
my name is not Bryce
Actor
Certified Dark Sun enjoyer
usually on forum games and not contributing to conversations ¯\_ (ツ)_/
For every user who writes 5 paragraph essays as each of their posts: Remember to touch grass occasionally
That’s a player problem. There are so many videos out there that call out disruptive behaviour like this as a problem. This is a game and sure your character my do it, but if your character isn’t what someone wants to play with or is anti fun for everyone then… don’t. It’s collaborative story telling. everyone needs to have fun.
either they need to chill. Or a conversation needs to be had. Or I would suggest moving on.
but I wouldn’t say it’s their alignment. Chaotic neutral and even evil characters can be done IF the player does it well. But only if
Frankly I (as DM) would have the authorities round up the party and put them on trial, if the two malcontents want to fight back they can be killed, if not they are imprisoned and the players get to create new characters. If they don’t like that then they leave the table. As others have said it’s a cooperative game where everyone should be having fun, they have been damaging everyone else’s fun so it’s time for “turn about is fair play”. These characters are acting as hard core criminals and should be dealt with as such.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
This is an out of game problem. You and the DM have one idea of what's fun about D&D, and these others have a different idea. You need to have a conversation about what you all find fun. Is there a way you can all have fun? Try playing that way instead. If your hangup is just "my character wouldn't be ok with this" instead of "I don't like playing that way," it might mean you roll up a different character that's more in line with theirs and the DM adjusts the game accordingly. If you have irreconcilable differences, then it might be best to part ways as a group of players.
The issue isn't free passes, it's that a game has never been fixed by a DM punishing the characters for a problem with the players. Flagrant murderhoboing, players constantly acting like turdburglars and just killing their way through everything, is a player problem. Either one of different goals, as Rellott points out, or one of insufficient education. Either the player doesn't know that wandering through the world murdering, looting, and graping-without-the-G is badly against the spirit of the game - and given modern video games like Grand Theft Auto that explicitly insist the player act as a gigantic assbag hypercriminal, it's not actually as sure a bet as some people would think that players should know that murderhoboing is bad - or they don't care.
If the former, a DM needs to explain how the game works to them and get them sorted. If the latter, a DM needs new players. Neither situation is one you solve by imposing vicious punishments on the characters and making your players wonder why you're being such a killjoy. You solve this problem, as a DM, by telling the hobos "this isn't working, and I'm not willing to run the kind of game you guys are trying to play. Can we fix this, or do we need to part ways?" You solve this problem, as a player, by talking to the DM and seeing if you're the odd man out (in which case you find a new table), or if the DM agrees, at which point you go back to the "this isn't working" bit.
If players were willing "NPCs are mad at you" as a corrective hint, they wouldn't be murderhobos in the first place.
Please do not contact or message me.
+As others have said, this is a player problem, or at least (being very generous to said players) a "disagreement in playstyle." Specifically, you and the DM apparently want to have a game about heroic quests or whatever and the other two want to fantasize about being chaotic evil murder hobos. "It's what my character would do" is not an excuse for disruptive behavior when the person saying that made the character. It's their fault. And the kind of behavior is not Chaotic Neutral. Being a shameless, self centered sociopathic prick then saying "Whatever, I do what I want!" like Eric Cartman from South Park is not Chaotic Neutral. Cartman as a character is an example of everything that's wrong with humanity and is objectively evil, and so are those characters by the sound of it.
At this point the only thing you can do is ask the DM to either demand that the players stop playing in their game as chaotic evil murder hobos or just kick them out of the game. Again, this is a player issue because "it's what my character would do" is a lame and pitiful excuse when they made the character because they want to play that way. Or you can leave the game if you don't want to take part in their medieval Grand Theft Auto sociopathic rampage fantasy.
You're free not to believe me, this is the interwebz after all, but imposing harsh in-game consequences for criminal activities has worked a couple of times for me. I did make it abundantly clear this was one of only a very few ways it could go down, and them walking if they didn't like it or getting the boot anyway if they felt like pushing the issue made up most of the other ways. So really, more part of a solution than an actual one. Having a candid word will always be the major component of almost any game fix.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I think there's a rift developing that's predicated on word choice. I believe, sure, characters can face consequences for their (player directed) actions in game. However, that's not "punishing" a player.
Like Pang, I believe players can be rehabilitated without punitive sanctions, and do it too. Most Chaotic Stupid (are we allowed to type that on this board? that's basically what we're talkig about here) comes from a player failing to appreciate (literally give value) to the larger game and thus fails to grant respect to the DMs and other players efforts to establish a good game. A OOC side chat on what the rest of the table would like to see in their game usually. encourages the self awareness that the players are short circuiting everyone else's fun. The defense "but that's what my character would do!" at my table mandates about an hour of Seth Skorkowsky* videos before they're allowed to speak of their character again. That's not punishment, that's enlightenment.
So if I have a player who chooses to plant their flag on Chaotic Stupid Hill, I'll actually coach them through the deliberations they should have done before announcing their actions in the first place. There's a way to allow a player to reconsider and maybe change their mind before permitting a resolution to the character's actions ... the consequences may be harsh or even fatal, but they're not punishing the player. Rather it's just how the game world works.
Another consequence of chaotic stupid say getting locked up by the town guard or arrested for high crimes or cast into Bedlam the, "Ok, so now the party has to rescue me, right?" "That's up to them. My guess is more likely you'll be rolling up a character more capable of adhering to mission instead of the loose the cannon with whom they see no point in working further."
*Maybe have them read some Elric stories to see how you can play the alignment without being a moron. Of course, if they do want to play the holy fool, Rosencratnz and Guiildenstern are Dead provides viable modeling for a D&D character.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I understand. I can speak from experience myself, though, when I say that "harsh consequences for ****ery" can also lead to a pissed off, frustrated player not understanding what they're doing wrong and having them leave the table upset at you with a damaged friendship. Or, in one rather more extreme case, end with the campaign literally exploding due to a combination of hoboism, 'harsh consequences' for in-character stupidity, and about two hundred pounds of black powder.
By all means, do the in-world harsh consequences thing. But if someone is truly concerned about their game and/or their fellow players, there's no substitute for talking to them. A healthy table is a table that communicates regularly - Session Zero should not, ever, be the only time you talk about expectations. Have a check-in regularly with your table to see if everything's still going sweetly and people are enjoying, or your game can quite easily deteriorate without you seeing it.
Please do not contact or message me.
You talk outside of the game, and you play the game in the world as is, I don't see any way of playing the game while not doing both.
"Session Zero" I think is over rated in that it's significance is overweighted. You're right, the parameters. of the game should always be fair ground to discuss when they're being transgressed. Sometimes the discussion will lead to a course correction to comport to the game's initial expectations, other times it will lead the table to realize that the games evolved into a new set of parameters. Imagination is cool like that.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I had a similar situation where two in my party murdered some officers who were appropriately trying to arrest them for some minor charges (the kind where you sleep it off in a cell and pay a fine). It derailed our entire campaign as the entire party was wanted for these heinous murders in a town with an important campaign objective. This was pattered behavior for the players with repeated feedback given on how we want to be the good guys. My DM had enough and after a long private discussion with the players, the players returned to the table and solemnly RP'd their exit as (true to their characters) feeling they could better avoid authorities without us, then the players left the game.
The problem is that the party was still wanted for the murders and the people the town was sending after us were much more powerful than the party when we were a full party. I have convinced the remaining members that we need to apprehend the "true neutral" PCs-turned-NPCs ourselves to avoid life in prison (or hangings). We have not been able to start the game up since changing our mission a few months back, but that is the plan. It is our only real shot at being able to eventually save the world from a malicious archfey!
I feel that while enormously inconvenient for both the players and characters that remain at the table, this new mission provides a realistic way for us to deal with problem PC/players without retconning them out of the game. That said, it is not the most fun trying to save the world while being continuously harassed by the law. I would have preferred a time-skip so I am not having to suffer the consequences of another player's choices. However, I have made it work for me so far and the rest of the party seemed okay with our path ahead.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
You don't stop the game mid-session for a course-correction talk unless things are exploding off the rails, no. And yes, sometimes the game changes directions as it plays. But not everybody is going to catch every change in direction, and not every change in direction is good or desired.
All I'm really saying is that like every collaborative endeavor, communication grows it and lack of communication throttles it. Chaotic Stupid won't learn better if they're not told what they're doing wrong - you can slap them with character-ending jail sentences all you want, but the one time I tried that it ended with a player leaving my table with lingering resentment, putting a strain on my game and putting her husband - who was still trying to play - in a bad spot. Now, in fairness I tried talking to her out of game as well, and this was also when I was very new at DMing and D&D in general and had not done as much reading, so it didn't work out great regardless. But that's why I try and pass on the experience when someone else is in a similar spot.
Please do not contact or message me.
"Well, this is what would happen to your character then. The same thing that would happen to anyone else doing the same, I'll add. Which, I agree, really sucks for them. And also, incidentally, for the other characters who wouldn't do what your character would do, but decided to team up because that's how this game works. So bottom line, what would happen is nobody has fun because you choose to play a character that would do that."
I know that going along with the arguments of people arguing in bad faith is usually a bad idea - you shouldn't validate bad faith arguments - but if we're going to talk this out just ignoring this doesn't work either. I prefer showing why the argument doesn't hold water. Helps with the out-of-character talk.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Maybe in whatever frame of reference your hyperbolic polarized mode of expression evidently captures one does not stop a game for a course correction talk. But I feel that rhetorical tact is simply discounting what you feel as contesting against you as opposed to appreciating or at least considering a differing point of view. And that's fine, but I. think at the end of the day the OP is looking for generative dynamics, which require "in game". and "meta" discussion, kinda sorta like deliberations IRL.
So I'm not sure what happens at your table when it's in pure game mode and points of order or rulings can't be discussed; but I can't think of a table I sat where a player who proposes a chaotic stupid act isn't subjected to "hold on a second" interventions from players and/or the DM, especially in the modern modes of play that pay consideration to how a players actions can affect the experience of other players. These moments are evocative of session zero, can take place concurrent to game action, and may serve for a "so this is where we are" moments. And they can be dealt with in short order, where the game-offending chaotic stupid player is given space to reflect without. being punished or castigated as a player, and from there whatever the player decides their character engages in, the consequence fall as they were telegraphed in that brief meta moment.
So in your cited instance of both/and as failure, player of chaotic stupid declares intent for character to commit high chaotic stupidity with or without Yakkity Sax. In my games, a player more organically invested in the scene may go "wtf?" and then offered a reasoned objection to the character. and/or the DM may mention "are you sure" with a discussion of character motives and how CN. as an alignment does not in fact translate into expression of pure Id and remind them the character is in a context where in world norms exist and any reasonably intelligent character would be aware of said consequences (sorta granted them 10 in local customs and social queues without them asking). This takes maybe a minute of game time and really is all chaotic stupid should be granted. If they nevertheless persist, you're now in IRL difficult personalty terrain and your game is not about entertaining folks who want their fun at the expense of disrupting everyone else's fun. Sometimes, as may be your case, that blows up a table. I haven't seen that happen on either side of the screen since adolescence, but I tend to feel out what people are trying to get out of a game and a DM has a lot of soft power in controlling the spotlight's focus on good play conduct vs. bad play. And in the case you're outlying, it's sorta a given that no D&D is often better than bad D&D where insufferability has to be granted, and I'm a fairly tolerant person.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I definitely agree that waiting for a discussion outside the game is preferred in most cases. In my case, everyone at the table was over it.
To give a bit more context to my specific example, this was the latest in a long series of disruptive behaviors. Examples like stealing from players, stealing from NPCs, killing villains that we could have apprehended and interrogated, killing bandits who stole only because they were starving, getting us banned from shops and bars, trying to convince the party to abandon people who need our help because there was no personal gain from helping, etc. Feedback had been repeatedly given on what specifically was disruptive to this table and our goals as players. While specific issues did not repeat often after they were discussed, the players sought new ways to release the pressure valve on their barely contained impulses. This had been going on for months and when it did come to a head, not even the mutual friend of these players took issue when being excused from the game. In fact, post-game this person expressed regret for having even invited them to the table.
In all honesty, I got the impression that they were just bored with the game. I also believe that they cared little for how their choices were impacting others at the table. I can see why some might say it is better to excuse the players after the session was over, but, I suppose you had to be there to understand why even their friend was happy to see them be immediately dismissed. I do agree with you that for most cases, it may be more considerate to the excused to just finish a session and dismiss them after.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Definitely communicate with them and have that conversation; as others have said, there is no substitute for talking with people. With that said, I'll add from my own experience and say try your best to have that talk as maturely and amicably as possible, but be prepared to pull the plug and move on if they decide they'd rather be ******** than friends.
If these people genuinely want to play selfish characters, it may help to explain to them that even purely evil characters will work with a group if it helps them achieve their goals. You can be a PC completely focused on only loot and still be a team player because you realize that you will get more loot and have greater survivability as part of an adventuring group. Powerful allies are likewise worth "using" for the advantages they provide.
Part of this is "don't be a jerk," but you can also point out that those alignments also don't require you to be a jerk.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I’ve run into two players who are like that. I refuse to play with them and I won’t let them into my games when I DM.
Fortunately there are only 2 of them and there are a lot of other people to play with.
Professional computer geek
Boot their pog asses.