yesterday I had a pretty nice session in an ongoing (we are four sessions in) campaign. At the start of the campaign I clarified that the campaign will also have "more serious" themes in it and that I do not only want joke characters in it. Now...
The characters came out of a crypt where they encountered undead that were summoned by a ritual, they also rescued a kenku. Afterwards they were chased by the cultists that summoned the undead. Long story short: The Kenku saved them and teleported them out of harms way.
They were teleported to the kenkus library and talked with him. They got a new quest from him. Now... two of four people talked with the kenku while one was investigating and searching the library for interesting books, nothing wrong with that.
And then there was one player that all of a sudden randomly started a polonaise and was drunk. The player just went on a polonaise straight out of the library without saying anything (no goodbye or anyting else) to the NPC. Suddenly one of the players that was talking with the Kenku and the one that was searching for books also got straight to it and went on a polonaise with the guy that started it.
I as a DM was just "going with the flow" but did not really comment on it because I did not know what to say. It was just kinda random to me and now thinking about it, it really ruined the fun for me.
The player that is playing the bard that started the polonaise is always saying that he loves role playing and really likes that kinda "comic-relief" characters. There were multiple random and just out of nowhere "upbeat" things like these. To me this has nothing to do with comic relief, it feels just like a circus and very childish, thinking that an adult would behave like this after finding undead and getting their life saved by the same charactes. To me this does not feel like comic relief but rather like straight chaos. Sometimes it makes me think that their character is "********" or "mental" or "immature" or whatever way you wanna put it.
Now, I already adressed this with another character of this player and then he made a new one because he was thinking we didn't like their character. But now I realise that it was not their character but rather their "Comic relief"-playstyle.
I do not know if I am too sensible here but I am making DnD a priority and I can see no way that this was an in character choice for this player.
TLDR: How do you guys handle "Comic-Relief" (honestly in my opinion it was rather chaotic/"********"/"immature") characters that are only in the adventure just to pull jokes all the time and do random things that are weird?
Do some of you guys hav experiences with this? I really don't know what to do about it. I somehow want to change the two rather chaotic players with two other friends that I also know pretty well and continue the campaign but at the same time this would be kinda disrespectful.
If the polonaise stops next session and they approach the Kenku, the Kenku can tell them "I'm sorry, I was looking for adventurers who could provide help for a serious problem. Evidently, that's not you." And then end the game if you want, or let the players decide whether they want to play that sort of absurd romp and find a DM for it, or play the game you're providing and respect the work you're putting in to it.
If you keep playing, you can ask questions of a character's actions. In this instance if the Bard says "I'm doing the zany!" I'll actually ask, "uh, why are you doing that?" and maybe point out his behavior would be considered not entertaining but insulting to the NPC. Give them a sense of how the behavior would be viewed, after all Bards do play to audiences. Underscore the point that you'd appreciate it if the player could use their creative genius in a way that better integrates with the game you're providing, as their behavior will likely make him a pariah. And run with that. If the party has to check in with their patron, the Bard has to wait in the foyer or isn't even allowed in the manor. They can do what they want outside the manor but the patron has alerted their own guards or the local watch to not tolerate any destructive behavior. If the Bard wants to continue being a sideshow, they can, and get spare moments to do so while the rest of the party actually plays the game.
Or just say your play style doesn't gel with the game you're trying to run and ask them not to come back. It's easy to write off a Bard who decided to focus on their performing or in this case perhaps jailed on confined to an asylum.
What do the other players think about it? If they enjoy it, I suggest you encourage it, but restrict it to no more than say a quarter of the session time. It sounds like you as a DM want the players to engage with your plot and tone, and you need to be having fun, too. So make sure some time is spent on serious themes. But sometimes people need humor to deal with serious themes. A movie that lasts 90 minutes can stay on one tone, but 5 hour operas often have comic relief. A D&D campaign last years. You have to expect some shifts of tone.
Be careful about punishing comic relief, sometimes it's a sign that things have been serious long enough and people's brains need a break. A better approach might be to encourage out of character comic relief instead.
I’d tell the person that derailing the campaign isn’t something you want, and if they keep it up, they’ll be asked to leave.
it’s one thing to be comic relief, quite another to just crap on the dm at “lol random” intervals. There are also a ton of folks that legitimately love to behave like that in DnD games. I’ve dealt with a lot of them over the years.
What works for me, is to directly confront it.
I’d put a note on my DM sheet for this guy before the session starts, and it’d say “you’re being disruptive instead of comic relief.” Then when they (inevitably) go all random, give them the note. If they calm it down and quit being disruptive, let it go. If they make a big deal out of it, just ask for their character sheet, tear it up in front of them and ask them to leave.
Remember, you run Bartertown, they don’t run Bartertown. If they want to audition for a comedy improv show, they can go do that instead of crapping on your prep work.
I'm totally in favor of the DM running the game he wants to run, but you can do it in a nice way, not "tear up his character sheet".
I like the idea of a "yellow card" to alert a player to bad habits, but only if you discuss it ahead of time with that player and the player agrees it will help. Otherwise you seem like a mean nanny handing out whacks with her cane.
You're four sessions in. Everyone, including the player, is still getting accustomed to this campaign. The player may come to discover that the tone is not really for him, or could just be settling into a new character. To me, a decision to swap out players sounds a little premature and punitive given how fresh the group is.
I completely understand wanting to avoid "lol random" types and have players engage with your setting. I myself run a pretty dark, political intrigue campaign and specifically recruited players who weren't into joke characters. That said, I sense that the player's choices may have struck a nerve with you, as though you find comedic chaos disrespectful to the story you're trying to craft. I also have a feeling the player has no idea it could be interpreted that way. So I recommend pulling the player aside and being honest about how that character choice made you feel. It's a chance to reiterate the social contract the player entered when they signed up, but it's also a chance for you to listen to your player about what they like about characters like that. Because while, yes, you get to have fun as the dungeon master too, you also have a responsibility to ensure you aren't squelching your players' fun either. Perhaps a happy medium can be reached. And if not? Well, not every campaign is a good match for every playstyle. But talk it out first. Communication is always an underutilized strategy.
If the polonaise stops next session and they approach the Kenku, the Kenku can tell them "I'm sorry, I was looking for adventurers who could provide help for a serious problem. Evidently, that's not you."
This would be my approach.*
Depending on how well you get on with the players, the next step might be a plan of the game contunuing, or it might be a discussion about playing some other tabletop game.
It sucks to not run something you've prepared for, but it's more important to set your boundary.
It is also important for the consistency of the world. Game worlds should react appropriately to characters' actions. Characters goof off? NPCs now treat them like goof-offs. Characters are professional? NPCs treat them with professionalism.
*And to stress the point (though this might cross the line into pettiness): Aa number of sessions later, have the players see an adventuring party with cool loot. If asked, they say "yeah, we did this mission for a talking birdman and got all this cool stuff!"
Or, simply tell this person in between sessions they are no longer welcome at your table. Forget about it being "disrespectful" to them. How about the enormous disrespect that person is displaying to you and the rest of the people in the group?
Did you guys have a session 0 to discuss the game's theme and what does/ doesn't work within the genre you're trying to create. If not, now's a good time.
Seems what you need is to address the problem alone with said player in person. Let them know they're being disruptive and that you won't tolerate there excessive behavior at your table any more. Nothing disrespectful about it, you're just playing separate games. If they don't want to play ball... don't invite them back. You're the DM -- you get to decide who participates and who doesn't. If your player wants to play a high-comedy game they can DM one themselves, there's nothing in the rule books that says you have to.
Reiterating me and joining up with SteveDoesDnD, I'd say in an "antics outbreak" at a really inappropriate time intervene "in game" first then step out of game if you need to. Like my patron saying "evidently you are not the heroes I'm looking for." Before you get there do the "excuse me" moment before the game is committed to the player's proposed actions. In my game every. players declaration is a proportion and anyone at the table is free to hold that thought for a moment, at minimum to understand what is going on and prep their own characters to respond accordingly. If the player seems to not get the hint ask for a WIS or a Insight (if there's interaction going on) or Perception (if there's nothing social going on), and make it like a DC 5. Then upon passage "impose empathy." Say something to the effect, "You realize your passing thought into the absurd would injure the sensibilities of this potential patron. Care to reconsider?" If you actually put out there that the NPC are rendered as beings with feelings and the characters antics may be harmful, if the person isn't set on being a jack ass, they. may recover into constructive play. If they persist with their intention you go meta and say, "Ok, look, this sort of behavior is "not normal" in this game world. I can't stop you from being zany or whatever but recognize these actions are having an impact on how a significant NPC may treat you and the rest of the party going forward. I get you want to be an entertainer but please realize that entertainment, especially the funny, is often dependent on the funny, in other words there's a time and a place." If he's moved to play with as opposed to play against your world, thank them and promise you'll work some occasion for the Bard to cut loose.
And if none of these work, well adapt your game accordingly, or dismiss the player because of incompatible play styles or what have you.
I don't know if a Session 0 would have necessarily mitigated this. I can't see any DM saying "No, no jokes in my game, ever." I could see someone saying they're playing a Bard who likes to introduce levity in dark moments as acceptable. I mean there's Bronn. in Game of Thrones. That character does the funny, but in a way that doesn't break the world. Then there's Mork from Ork, which seems more where this character falls, and that's literally alien to the world.
There's a type. of player sometimes called "the tester" who does stuff like this to see how far they can run. They, actually, I'll let this video explain the idea better, it starts around 10:00 in, but the whole video is good guidance::
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Reiterating me and joining up with SteveDoesDnD, I'd say in an "antics outbreak" at a really inappropriate time intervene "in game" first then step out of game if you need to. Like my patron saying "evidently you are not the heroes I'm looking for." Before you get there do the "excuse me" moment before the game is committed to the player's proposed actions. In my game every. players declaration is a proportion and anyone at the table is free to hold that thought for a moment, at minimum to understand what is going on and prep their own characters to respond accordingly. If the player seems to not get the hint ask for a WIS or a Insight (if there's interaction going on) or Perception (if there's nothing social going on), and make it like a DC 5. Then upon passage "impose empathy." Say something to the effect, "You realize your passing thought into the absurd would injure the sensibilities of this potential patron. Care to reconsider?" If you actually put out there that the NPC are rendered as beings with feelings and the characters antics may be harmful, if the person isn't set on being a jack ass, they. may recover into constructive play. If they persist with their intention you go meta and say, "Ok, look, this sort of behavior is "not normal" in this game world. I can't stop you from being zany or whatever but recognize these actions are having an impact on how a significant NPC may treat you and the rest of the party going forward. I get you want to be an entertainer but please realize that entertainment, especially the funny, is often dependent on the funny, in other words there's a time and a place." If he's moved to play with as opposed to play against your world, thank them and promise you'll work some occasion for the Bard to cut loose.
And if none of these work, well adapt your game accordingly, or dismiss the player because of incompatible play styles or what have you.
I don't know if a Session 0 would have necessarily mitigated this. I can't see any DM saying "No, no jokes in my game, ever." I could see someone saying they're playing a Bard who likes to introduce levity in dark moments as acceptable. I mean there's Bronn. in Game of Thrones. That character does the funny, but in a way that doesn't break the world. Then there's Mork from Ork, which seems more where this character falls, and that's literally alien to the world.
There's a type. of player sometimes called "the tester" who does stuff like this to see how far they can run. They, actually, I'll let this video explain the idea better, it starts around 10:00 in, but the whole video is good guidance::
Thank you for the thorough explanation. I think I will have another talk with them and talk about the group dynamic. I will also make it clear that there are "places" to have fun and that jokes in serious situations are still welcome. But actions like those that were performed don't really fit my game.
Yes I had a session 0 with them back then. But maybe it is time to do that again and make my points clear.
I'm coming in a little late to this but I would suggest, as it has been suggested before, waiting until the next session and see how things play out. Maybe it was a one-shot comic situation that has already passed and the players will focus back on the adventure.
For me when comic relief comes up by the player that is a) out of character or b) so outlandish that the player is just making a scene at the table I would call them out right then and there asking "Is that what you really want to do?". I've been fortunate that in those cases the players usually back down from what they are doing and I continue on with the narrative that is occuring. When they don't back down I'll give them their fun once for the situation thinking about what consequences may come up, some good suggestions have already been mentioned. If the players continue to do something that becomes more of a disruption to the game I'll again call them out at the table saying "ok, enough of that let's focus on the game." in a tone that says "You've had your fun now we are done." If it continues and I've done everything to give the player a chance I'd talk to them off game talking about what has been occurring and why it needs to stop. I've never gotten that far as mostly calling the player out at the table stops what may be disruptive, in a comic relief sense, to the table.
Now if the player wants to change up his character to BE more of the comic relief I'd talk that out to understand what the idea of the change is and what would be considered proper comic relief.
It may sound like I give the players a lot of chances but when you look at it is takes a little bit of time and effort to work through things.
Thank you for the thorough explanation. I think I will have another talk with them and talk about the group dynamic. I will also make it clear that there are "places" to have fun and that jokes in serious situations are still welcome. But actions like those that were performed don't really fit my game.
The vid I posted, Seth Skorkowsky is sorta a big deal in DM guidance. I find his style probably the most approachable out of the various YouTube personalities out there. In your case, you may want to catch the videos on The RPG Social Contract, and The RPG Terrorists. His vids are fun, and he does an excellent empathetic job of articulating "feelings" a DM/GM may have where they know something table-social is problematic but can't articulate it themselves. Then he provides excellent strategies to improve your table's dynamics. It's not DM vs. player stuff, it's a very holistic approach, and the videos always leave me feeling more confident in my DM/GM abilities.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
If the polonaise stops next session and they approach the Kenku, the Kenku can tell them "I'm sorry, I was looking for adventurers who could provide help for a serious problem. Evidently, that's not you." And then end the game if you want, or let the players decide whether they want to play that sort of absurd romp and find a DM for it, or play the game you're providing and respect the work you're putting in to it.
If you keep playing, you can ask questions of a character's actions. In this instance if the Bard says "I'm doing the zany!" I'll actually ask, "uh, why are you doing that?" and maybe point out his behavior would be considered not entertaining but insulting to the NPC. Give them a sense of how the behavior would be viewed, after all Bards do play to audiences. Underscore the point that you'd appreciate it if the player could use their creative genius in a way that better integrates with the game you're providing, as their behavior will likely make him a pariah. And run with that. If the party has to check in with their patron, the Bard has to wait in the foyer or isn't even allowed in the manor. They can do what they want outside the manor but the patron has alerted their own guards or the local watch to not tolerate any destructive behavior. If the Bard wants to continue being a sideshow, they can, and get spare moments to do so while the rest of the party actually plays the game.
Or just say your play style doesn't gel with the game you're trying to run and ask them not to come back. It's easy to write off a Bard who decided to focus on their performing or in this case perhaps jailed on confined to an asylum.
I like this idea. It is great to have fun in a game, but what the player role-plays is what the NPCs see and react to. Having an NPC say "no, this party is not dependable" might be a way to calm him down. Or have the kenku offer the quest to two different adventuring parties on the premise that the party that wins gets paid, then maybe let the party play through the adventure, to possibly lose out?
I disagree with any advice that encourages you to take it out on the character in game for the actions of the player. That's just being passive-aggressive and will only cause more issues not solve them.
As for the advice to talk with the person out of the game I highly encourage that. Let them know that you are looking for a different type of game and that you realize that as a group you are just getting a feel for playing with each other but this is not what you enjoy and you are a part of the game as much as they are.
I disagree with any advice that encourages you to take it out on the character in game for the actions of the player. That's just being passive-aggressive and will only cause more issues not solve them.
As for the advice to talk with the person out of the game I highly encourage that. Let them know that you are looking for a different type of game and that you realize that as a group you are just getting a feel for playing with each other but this is not what you enjoy and you are a part of the game as much as they are.
It's not "taking it out on a character" it's the world reacting to the character in commensurate accordance to their actions. Again, DM should coach the player that inanity will likely be treated as inanity realistically. A potential patron magically rescued the party from dire straits, begins to explain their needs to the party in his sanctuary, it's readily apparent this is likely set up for where the game goes next, so one player decides to derail that and send the party off on what may not fit the classic definition of chaotic stupid but at least chaotic inane. Realistically a potential patron would probably be very much "heck with these guys" and maybe magically transport them back to their initial predicament. DM is clearly trying to run a consistent world and the Bard is clearly trying to derail, break, or at least not respect the world they're playing in. The world does not have to give the character a "pass." It should react accordingly. Thatt's not "taking it out on a character." It's continuity. It's not passive aggressive. The character did it, the world gets to react to it. Just like if the characters had a senseless tavern brawl that left patrons dead, the players may need to find a new tavern to meet in, which may disappoint the players because they liked their characters going there. That's not passive aggressive either.
I disagree with any advice that encourages you to take it out on the character in game for the actions of the player. That's just being passive-aggressive and will only cause more issues not solve them.
As for the advice to talk with the person out of the game I highly encourage that. Let them know that you are looking for a different type of game and that you realize that as a group you are just getting a feel for playing with each other but this is not what you enjoy and you are a part of the game as much as they are.
It's not "taking it out on a character" it's the world reacting to the character in commensurate accordance to their actions. Again, DM should coach the player that inanity will likely be treated as inanity realistically. A potential patron magically rescued the party from dire straits, begins to explain their needs to the party in his sanctuary, it's readily apparent this is likely set up for where the game goes next, so one player decides to derail that and send the party off on what may not fit the classic definition of chaotic stupid but at least chaotic inane. Realistically a potential patron would probably be very much "heck with these guys" and maybe magically transport them back to their initial predicament. DM is clearly trying to run a consistent world and the Bard is clearly trying to derail, break, or at least not respect the world they're playing in. The world does not have to give the character a "pass." It should react accordingly. Thatt's not "taking it out on a character." It's continuity. It's not passive aggressive. The character did it, the world gets to react to it. Just like if the characters had a senseless tavern brawl that left patrons dead, the players may need to find a new tavern to meet in, which may disappoint the players because they liked their characters going there. That's not passive aggressive either.
I guess I should clarify:
1. OOC Problems with the person (They make jokes at everything that happens but not in character) should not be punished with in character actions (when they make a joke out of character their PC suffers 1d4 psychic damage)
2. The world can respond in a reasonable way to how they act. "Rocks fall and somehow do exactly double your HP in damage, roll a new character" with no warning is not an appropriate response...its directly targeting a character to prove a point.
What I see as reasonable: "You put the lampshade on your head. No one in the room laughs. The bartender quietly askes you to get down from the bar or he will call the guards. He has no humor in his face as he does this"
It gets the point across that they do not find his antics funny without resorting to #2.
I disagree with any advice that encourages you to take it out on the character in game for the actions of the player. That's just being passive-aggressive and will only cause more issues not solve them.
As for the advice to talk with the person out of the game I highly encourage that. Let them know that you are looking for a different type of game and that you realize that as a group you are just getting a feel for playing with each other but this is not what you enjoy and you are a part of the game as much as they are.
It's not "taking it out on a character" it's the world reacting to the character in commensurate accordance to their actions. Again, DM should coach the player that inanity will likely be treated as inanity realistically. A potential patron magically rescued the party from dire straits, begins to explain their needs to the party in his sanctuary, it's readily apparent this is likely set up for where the game goes next, so one player decides to derail that and send the party off on what may not fit the classic definition of chaotic stupid but at least chaotic inane. Realistically a potential patron would probably be very much "heck with these guys" and maybe magically transport them back to their initial predicament. DM is clearly trying to run a consistent world and the Bard is clearly trying to derail, break, or at least not respect the world they're playing in. The world does not have to give the character a "pass." It should react accordingly. Thatt's not "taking it out on a character." It's continuity. It's not passive aggressive. The character did it, the world gets to react to it. Just like if the characters had a senseless tavern brawl that left patrons dead, the players may need to find a new tavern to meet in, which may disappoint the players because they liked their characters going there. That's not passive aggressive either.
I guess I should clarify:
1. OOC Problems with the person (They make jokes at everything that happens but not in character) should not be punished with in character actions (when they make a joke out of character their PC suffers 1d4 psychic damage)
2. The world can respond in a reasonable way to how they act. "Rocks fall and somehow do exactly double your HP in damage, roll a new character" with no warning is not an appropriate response...its directly targeting a character to prove a point.
What I see as reasonable: "You put the lampshade on your head. No one in the room laughs. The bartender quietly askes you to get down from the bar or he will call the guards. He has no humor in his face as he does this"
It gets the point across that they do not find his antics funny without resorting to #2.
Yes, but at the same time, the DM chooses the characters they put in the game. The DM can make a no-nonsense bartender or a co-conspiratorial one. If the players enjoy a little antics, it might be nice to have the tavern, at least, be a lighthearted place. They can get serious when they go to the dungeon.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hello everyone,
yesterday I had a pretty nice session in an ongoing (we are four sessions in) campaign. At the start of the campaign I clarified that the campaign will also have "more serious" themes in it and that I do not only want joke characters in it. Now...
The characters came out of a crypt where they encountered undead that were summoned by a ritual, they also rescued a kenku. Afterwards they were chased by the cultists that summoned the undead. Long story short: The Kenku saved them and teleported them out of harms way.
They were teleported to the kenkus library and talked with him. They got a new quest from him. Now... two of four people talked with the kenku while one was investigating and searching the library for interesting books, nothing wrong with that.
And then there was one player that all of a sudden randomly started a polonaise and was drunk. The player just went on a polonaise straight out of the library without saying anything (no goodbye or anyting else) to the NPC. Suddenly one of the players that was talking with the Kenku and the one that was searching for books also got straight to it and went on a polonaise with the guy that started it.
I as a DM was just "going with the flow" but did not really comment on it because I did not know what to say. It was just kinda random to me and now thinking about it, it really ruined the fun for me.
The player that is playing the bard that started the polonaise is always saying that he loves role playing and really likes that kinda "comic-relief" characters. There were multiple random and just out of nowhere "upbeat" things like these. To me this has nothing to do with comic relief, it feels just like a circus and very childish, thinking that an adult would behave like this after finding undead and getting their life saved by the same charactes. To me this does not feel like comic relief but rather like straight chaos. Sometimes it makes me think that their character is "********" or "mental" or "immature" or whatever way you wanna put it.
Now, I already adressed this with another character of this player and then he made a new one because he was thinking we didn't like their character. But now I realise that it was not their character but rather their "Comic relief"-playstyle.
I do not know if I am too sensible here but I am making DnD a priority and I can see no way that this was an in character choice for this player.
TLDR: How do you guys handle "Comic-Relief" (honestly in my opinion it was rather chaotic/"********"/"immature") characters that are only in the adventure just to pull jokes all the time and do random things that are weird?
Do some of you guys hav experiences with this? I really don't know what to do about it. I somehow want to change the two rather chaotic players with two other friends that I also know pretty well and continue the campaign but at the same time this would be kinda disrespectful.
I handle it by not playing D&D with such people.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
If the polonaise stops next session and they approach the Kenku, the Kenku can tell them "I'm sorry, I was looking for adventurers who could provide help for a serious problem. Evidently, that's not you." And then end the game if you want, or let the players decide whether they want to play that sort of absurd romp and find a DM for it, or play the game you're providing and respect the work you're putting in to it.
If you keep playing, you can ask questions of a character's actions. In this instance if the Bard says "I'm doing the zany!" I'll actually ask, "uh, why are you doing that?" and maybe point out his behavior would be considered not entertaining but insulting to the NPC. Give them a sense of how the behavior would be viewed, after all Bards do play to audiences. Underscore the point that you'd appreciate it if the player could use their creative genius in a way that better integrates with the game you're providing, as their behavior will likely make him a pariah. And run with that. If the party has to check in with their patron, the Bard has to wait in the foyer or isn't even allowed in the manor. They can do what they want outside the manor but the patron has alerted their own guards or the local watch to not tolerate any destructive behavior. If the Bard wants to continue being a sideshow, they can, and get spare moments to do so while the rest of the party actually plays the game.
Or just say your play style doesn't gel with the game you're trying to run and ask them not to come back. It's easy to write off a Bard who decided to focus on their performing or in this case perhaps jailed on confined to an asylum.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
What do the other players think about it? If they enjoy it, I suggest you encourage it, but restrict it to no more than say a quarter of the session time. It sounds like you as a DM want the players to engage with your plot and tone, and you need to be having fun, too. So make sure some time is spent on serious themes. But sometimes people need humor to deal with serious themes. A movie that lasts 90 minutes can stay on one tone, but 5 hour operas often have comic relief. A D&D campaign last years. You have to expect some shifts of tone.
Be careful about punishing comic relief, sometimes it's a sign that things have been serious long enough and people's brains need a break. A better approach might be to encourage out of character comic relief instead.
I’d tell the person that derailing the campaign isn’t something you want, and if they keep it up, they’ll be asked to leave.
it’s one thing to be comic relief, quite another to just crap on the dm at “lol random” intervals. There are also a ton of folks that legitimately love to behave like that in DnD games. I’ve dealt with a lot of them over the years.
What works for me, is to directly confront it.
I’d put a note on my DM sheet for this guy before the session starts, and it’d say “you’re being disruptive instead of comic relief.” Then when they (inevitably) go all random, give them the note. If they calm it down and quit being disruptive, let it go. If they make a big deal out of it, just ask for their character sheet, tear it up in front of them and ask them to leave.
Remember, you run Bartertown, they don’t run Bartertown. If they want to audition for a comedy improv show, they can go do that instead of crapping on your prep work.
I'm totally in favor of the DM running the game he wants to run, but you can do it in a nice way, not "tear up his character sheet".
I like the idea of a "yellow card" to alert a player to bad habits, but only if you discuss it ahead of time with that player and the player agrees it will help. Otherwise you seem like a mean nanny handing out whacks with her cane.
You're four sessions in. Everyone, including the player, is still getting accustomed to this campaign. The player may come to discover that the tone is not really for him, or could just be settling into a new character. To me, a decision to swap out players sounds a little premature and punitive given how fresh the group is.
I completely understand wanting to avoid "lol random" types and have players engage with your setting. I myself run a pretty dark, political intrigue campaign and specifically recruited players who weren't into joke characters. That said, I sense that the player's choices may have struck a nerve with you, as though you find comedic chaos disrespectful to the story you're trying to craft. I also have a feeling the player has no idea it could be interpreted that way. So I recommend pulling the player aside and being honest about how that character choice made you feel. It's a chance to reiterate the social contract the player entered when they signed up, but it's also a chance for you to listen to your player about what they like about characters like that. Because while, yes, you get to have fun as the dungeon master too, you also have a responsibility to ensure you aren't squelching your players' fun either. Perhaps a happy medium can be reached. And if not? Well, not every campaign is a good match for every playstyle. But talk it out first. Communication is always an underutilized strategy.
This would be my approach.*
Depending on how well you get on with the players, the next step might be a plan of the game contunuing, or it might be a discussion about playing some other tabletop game.
It sucks to not run something you've prepared for, but it's more important to set your boundary.
It is also important for the consistency of the world. Game worlds should react appropriately to characters' actions. Characters goof off? NPCs now treat them like goof-offs. Characters are professional? NPCs treat them with professionalism.
*And to stress the point (though this might cross the line into pettiness): Aa number of sessions later, have the players see an adventuring party with cool loot. If asked, they say "yeah, we did this mission for a talking birdman and got all this cool stuff!"
Did you guys have a session 0 to discuss the game's theme and what does/ doesn't work within the genre you're trying to create. If not, now's a good time.
Seems what you need is to address the problem alone with said player in person. Let them know they're being disruptive and that you won't tolerate there excessive behavior at your table any more. Nothing disrespectful about it, you're just playing separate games. If they don't want to play ball... don't invite them back. You're the DM -- you get to decide who participates and who doesn't. If your player wants to play a high-comedy game they can DM one themselves, there's nothing in the rule books that says you have to.
Reiterating me and joining up with SteveDoesDnD, I'd say in an "antics outbreak" at a really inappropriate time intervene "in game" first then step out of game if you need to. Like my patron saying "evidently you are not the heroes I'm looking for." Before you get there do the "excuse me" moment before the game is committed to the player's proposed actions. In my game every. players declaration is a proportion and anyone at the table is free to hold that thought for a moment, at minimum to understand what is going on and prep their own characters to respond accordingly. If the player seems to not get the hint ask for a WIS or a Insight (if there's interaction going on) or Perception (if there's nothing social going on), and make it like a DC 5. Then upon passage "impose empathy." Say something to the effect, "You realize your passing thought into the absurd would injure the sensibilities of this potential patron. Care to reconsider?" If you actually put out there that the NPC are rendered as beings with feelings and the characters antics may be harmful, if the person isn't set on being a jack ass, they. may recover into constructive play. If they persist with their intention you go meta and say, "Ok, look, this sort of behavior is "not normal" in this game world. I can't stop you from being zany or whatever but recognize these actions are having an impact on how a significant NPC may treat you and the rest of the party going forward. I get you want to be an entertainer but please realize that entertainment, especially the funny, is often dependent on the funny, in other words there's a time and a place." If he's moved to play with as opposed to play against your world, thank them and promise you'll work some occasion for the Bard to cut loose.
And if none of these work, well adapt your game accordingly, or dismiss the player because of incompatible play styles or what have you.
I don't know if a Session 0 would have necessarily mitigated this. I can't see any DM saying "No, no jokes in my game, ever." I could see someone saying they're playing a Bard who likes to introduce levity in dark moments as acceptable. I mean there's Bronn. in Game of Thrones. That character does the funny, but in a way that doesn't break the world. Then there's Mork from Ork, which seems more where this character falls, and that's literally alien to the world.
There's a type. of player sometimes called "the tester" who does stuff like this to see how far they can run. They, actually, I'll let this video explain the idea better, it starts around 10:00 in, but the whole video is good guidance::
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Yes I had a session 0 with them back then. But maybe it is time to do that again and make my points clear.
Thank you for the thorough explanation. I think I will have another talk with them and talk about the group dynamic. I will also make it clear that there are "places" to have fun and that jokes in serious situations are still welcome. But actions like those that were performed don't really fit my game.
I'm coming in a little late to this but I would suggest, as it has been suggested before, waiting until the next session and see how things play out. Maybe it was a one-shot comic situation that has already passed and the players will focus back on the adventure.
For me when comic relief comes up by the player that is a) out of character or b) so outlandish that the player is just making a scene at the table I would call them out right then and there asking "Is that what you really want to do?". I've been fortunate that in those cases the players usually back down from what they are doing and I continue on with the narrative that is occuring. When they don't back down I'll give them their fun once for the situation thinking about what consequences may come up, some good suggestions have already been mentioned. If the players continue to do something that becomes more of a disruption to the game I'll again call them out at the table saying "ok, enough of that let's focus on the game." in a tone that says "You've had your fun now we are done." If it continues and I've done everything to give the player a chance I'd talk to them off game talking about what has been occurring and why it needs to stop. I've never gotten that far as mostly calling the player out at the table stops what may be disruptive, in a comic relief sense, to the table.
Now if the player wants to change up his character to BE more of the comic relief I'd talk that out to understand what the idea of the change is and what would be considered proper comic relief.
It may sound like I give the players a lot of chances but when you look at it is takes a little bit of time and effort to work through things.
The vid I posted, Seth Skorkowsky is sorta a big deal in DM guidance. I find his style probably the most approachable out of the various YouTube personalities out there. In your case, you may want to catch the videos on The RPG Social Contract, and The RPG Terrorists. His vids are fun, and he does an excellent empathetic job of articulating "feelings" a DM/GM may have where they know something table-social is problematic but can't articulate it themselves. Then he provides excellent strategies to improve your table's dynamics. It's not DM vs. player stuff, it's a very holistic approach, and the videos always leave me feeling more confident in my DM/GM abilities.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I like this idea. It is great to have fun in a game, but what the player role-plays is what the NPCs see and react to. Having an NPC say "no, this party is not dependable" might be a way to calm him down. Or have the kenku offer the quest to two different adventuring parties on the premise that the party that wins gets paid, then maybe let the party play through the adventure, to possibly lose out?
I disagree with any advice that encourages you to take it out on the character in game for the actions of the player. That's just being passive-aggressive and will only cause more issues not solve them.
As for the advice to talk with the person out of the game I highly encourage that. Let them know that you are looking for a different type of game and that you realize that as a group you are just getting a feel for playing with each other but this is not what you enjoy and you are a part of the game as much as they are.
It's not "taking it out on a character" it's the world reacting to the character in commensurate accordance to their actions. Again, DM should coach the player that inanity will likely be treated as inanity realistically. A potential patron magically rescued the party from dire straits, begins to explain their needs to the party in his sanctuary, it's readily apparent this is likely set up for where the game goes next, so one player decides to derail that and send the party off on what may not fit the classic definition of chaotic stupid but at least chaotic inane. Realistically a potential patron would probably be very much "heck with these guys" and maybe magically transport them back to their initial predicament. DM is clearly trying to run a consistent world and the Bard is clearly trying to derail, break, or at least not respect the world they're playing in. The world does not have to give the character a "pass." It should react accordingly. Thatt's not "taking it out on a character." It's continuity. It's not passive aggressive. The character did it, the world gets to react to it. Just like if the characters had a senseless tavern brawl that left patrons dead, the players may need to find a new tavern to meet in, which may disappoint the players because they liked their characters going there. That's not passive aggressive either.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I guess I should clarify:
1. OOC Problems with the person (They make jokes at everything that happens but not in character) should not be punished with in character actions (when they make a joke out of character their PC suffers 1d4 psychic damage)
2. The world can respond in a reasonable way to how they act. "Rocks fall and somehow do exactly double your HP in damage, roll a new character" with no warning is not an appropriate response...its directly targeting a character to prove a point.
What I see as reasonable: "You put the lampshade on your head. No one in the room laughs. The bartender quietly askes you to get down from the bar or he will call the guards. He has no humor in his face as he does this"
It gets the point across that they do not find his antics funny without resorting to #2.
Yes, but at the same time, the DM chooses the characters they put in the game. The DM can make a no-nonsense bartender or a co-conspiratorial one. If the players enjoy a little antics, it might be nice to have the tavern, at least, be a lighthearted place. They can get serious when they go to the dungeon.