I have six newish players, some of who aren't there for every session. In our last game I had three of the impulsive players. They started a bar fight with a wealthy townie.
I improvised two bouncers (lvl 3 fighters) to arrest them, weapons sheathed. The players decided to use firebolt spells on the bouncers. Once they did that, I had to match their actions with equal actions. My advice to back off was ignored; in fact, one said she had a backup character anyway. I said that she would still have to start over again (her character is level 3).
If they want to act foolishly, that's fine, but they're not considering how their actions are making it bad for the rest. I'm actually encouraging of their ideas, even bad ones, but this is different. Maybe they just need to die to learn how the game works.
Goal #1 is to not let their impulsive actions hurt the rest of the party. Sounds like you successfully did this - have the bouncers only fight the three impulsive troublemakers and leave the rest of the party out of it. Also if they're consistently going way off the rails, don't hesitate to make the bouncers FAR higher level and just destroy them quickly so the session doesn't bog down
Goal #2 is to give them some consequences they will care about. Maybe throw them in jail rather than kill them. Dying and making a new character is fun for many players, but no one enjoys being thrown in jail and left out the remainder of the session while your less impulsive players get to roleplay in peace with NPCs. Also losing some of your gear/money as a fine is never fun
Have you explained this to them in an out of character discussion?
Lots of newer players are coming from video games where there’s little consequence for an action, and if there is and you don’t like it, just go back to an earlier save. Explain that their actions will impact the game world and everyone else may end up dealing with the bad choices of one person.
Also, it can be worth explaining the DM is a player, too. And what they are doing is not fun for you, so they should stop.
Have you explained this to them in an out of character discussion?
This is an important question, and also consider how the rest of the party feels about all the antics. I've seen cases like this where the entire party is having fun with it and egging the impulsive players on, which makes it not really be a problem - even if it derails the DM plans for the session, if everyone's having fun then just roll with it. Or in other cases where not everyone is equally amused by the shenanigans, that's where it becomes important to put consequences onto the instigators (but not the rest of the party) and then give the rest of the party time to shine with the instigators out of the picture
If they want to act foolishly, that's fine, but they're not considering how their actions are making it bad for the rest. I'm actually encouraging of their ideas, even bad ones, but this is different. Maybe they just need to die to learn how the game works.
How does the game work? You're encouraging of their ideas ("even bad ones"), so it seems like you're having a good time. Is everyone else having a good time? If so, this is fine. Your game doesn't have to be as deadly serious as the ones I run, where I casting spells in such an area would be met with uncompromising lethal force. I say uncompromising, I would let them know that this isn't a good idea and their characters would know this; if they want to justify it by saying how their character's thinking is impaired by the drink, or if a known sensitive nerve has been prodded, they can continue to go about it and the world will react as such. The world turns with or without them, but I will give the party a chance to step in to either defend their allies or hold them back.
Having said all of this, I would pull them aside at the end of the session and ask how the players are doing. Usually disruption is a sign of boredom, and I've had my own behaviour mistaken as such (One time as a player I had my character stand their ground against a military force they were a part of, not because I was bored, but because my character believed that "those who fall today shall have their convictions stand for eternity.") Sometimes it's just good hearted fun, or there's a motivation that will drive the story in a way you've previously not considered.
Your approach was tactful and ultimately you respected the players' wishes. If they don't respect yours, or those of the rest of the group, then The Talk™ may be required.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
I'd say have the entire party arrested and put on trial. After some time the players who wouldn't back down are sentenced to execution, and the rest of the party is found innocent and sent on their way. It's not exactly a good solution, but I'm not seeing a whole lot of options for this. You may need to kill these characters off, much as I hate the idea. Wish I had something better to tell you.
I'd say have the entire party arrested and put on trial. After some time the players who wouldn't back down are sentenced to execution, and the rest of the party is found innocent and sent on their way. It's not exactly a good solution, but I'm not seeing a whole lot of options for this. You may need to kill these characters off, much as I hate the idea. Wish I had something better to tell you.
I disagree. This isn't a character problem, it's a player problem. Player problems are almost never fixed in-game without there being conversations about the behavior first.
OP, I think your instinct not to punish the whole party for the stupidity of a subset is fair. After speaking with the trouble players about constructive collaboration in this hobby, I recommend instituting reasonable in-game consequences that get the point across that murderhobos don't prosper. Fines, imprisonment, community service, being banned from taverns/towns, warrants of arrest and being hunted...there are plenty of options in your arsenal that don't involve letting the player respawn another murderhobo. Some of these may cause issues for the party, true, but if your traveling companions get on your case and the law is on your tail, you start to realize you can't keep doing whatever you want.
So the moment a player says "It's okay if my character dies, I have a new one to play" I'd call a stop to the session.
Now, context, I'm a narrative heavy DM. I stream my games, we have custom art, intro videos, and all sorts of things we do to add to the experience. I expect my players to be invested (and they generally are having brought extensive backgrounds, character histories, and their own personal lore). Having any one of them say "I don't care about the fate of my character" is a record-scratch moment. (For reference: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RecordNeedleScratch)
Now that said, I also firmly disagree with the advice to put a player in time out by having their character locked up, knocked out or otherwise "removed from play". While that sounds like an appropriate "punishment" at the table, I've found that few players respond well to being treated like children. If an adult really needs a literal "time out" to "learn" how to play, then the issue really is deeper than your time out can serve.
For my money, a solid "this is what you're doing, this is how it's affecting the table, how do we all move forward" gets the job done much better. At the end of the say this is a recreational activity we all come to for fun. Adults should be able to discuss that reasonably.
@Lantern I agree. I didn't like how the player was not committed to the character and assumed that she had a bunch of backups to restart with. This kind of thinking is against the so-called metathinking aspect of dnd. I remind the players: you're playing this character; what would the character do? Just so you know, these are high schoolers, teens. Their adult skills are not all there yet. I don't want to punish them insofar as showing cause and effect. If you punch a "somebody" in a public bar, there will be a reaction. We'll resume next week and see how it goes. Thanks.
The game should have consequences for players' actions. It is more than fair to have laws the characters must abide to and if they don't the proper punishments is then applied. You can also add in logical repercussions. The tavern can ban them. Is the wealthy townie in a position extract revenge?
If they wish to play this way and are having fun then allow it. The string of enemies, burned bridges, and untrusting reputation will become part of the story. If the players start fighting (out of character) then maybe you need to have an out of session talk. Otherwise, build the game on how everyone wants to play; and politely and respectfully talk to them if the game keeps falling off the rails. The players should have a common motivation to move the campaign to exciting quests, so remind them if they are holding up this progression.
But overall, don't treat it like "punishing" them. Establish rules that logically fit in this world. Using magic to cause harm to civilians would be a major crime. So the follow up sessions should be the players are now in prison or running form authorities. If they express displeasure with that, well, you have justification for why this is happening. I know it can cause you to lose the path of the game, and yes that can suck, but you are giving the players "their game" now. If they choose to behalf and play this way then allow the story of the game to proceed this natural course.
Just so you know, these are high schoolers, teens. Their adult skills are not all there yet.
I've seen this frequently, it can be a lack of adult-ing social skills but also it can just be a difference in what players are looking for from playing Dungeons and Dragons.
Adults playing D&D typically have boring, serious jobs and all sorts of real-life responsibilities, and frequently are looking to D&D as a way to escape reality by living vicariously as a cool alter-ego who goes on interesting adventures. For players like these, attachment to their character is strong, immersion in the setting is important, and realism/consistency of the results is critical for it to be a viable substitute for reality.
Teenagers playing D&D typically have most aspects of their lives controlled for them, between school, homework, extracurriculars, and whatever else their parents drag them into. Frequently they are looking to D&D as a way to rebel and test boundaries by living vicariously as an alter-ego that actually gets to make decisions. For players like these, their character itself is easily replaceable, consistency or immersion in the setting isn't particularly important, and what they're really looking for is a chance to make bad decisions with hilariously memorable results.
These are definitely stereotypes and not true for all adults or for all teens, but I think they are frequently true and no matter what it's always worth considering whether what you consider to be "bad behavior" or "not what D&D is about" is actually exactly what another player considers D&D to be about.
I'd say have the entire party arrested and put on trial. After some time the players who wouldn't back down are sentenced to execution, and the rest of the party is found innocent and sent on their way. It's not exactly a good solution, but I'm not seeing a whole lot of options for this. You may need to kill these characters off, much as I hate the idea. Wish I had something better to tell you.
I disagree. This isn't a character problem, it's a player problem. Player problems are almost never fixed in-game without there being conversations about the behavior first.
OP, I think your instinct not to punish the whole party for the stupidity of a subset is fair. After speaking with the trouble players about constructive collaboration in this hobby, I recommend instituting reasonable in-game consequences that get the point across that murderhobos don't prosper. Fines, imprisonment, community service, being banned from taverns/towns, warrants of arrest and being hunted...there are plenty of options in your arsenal that don't involve letting the player respawn another murderhobo. Some of these may cause issues for the party, true, but if your traveling companions get on your case and the law is on your tail, you start to realize you can't keep doing whatever you want.
I hadn't thought of that, I'll keep that in mind, thanks.
@drjawa They are impulsive. In the end they had a lot of fun at least.
When the player said she wanted a date w/a npc, I let it ride b/c we would all learn from it. My problem was when the other two irrationally turned a date into a bloody fight because they didn't like the npc. Because they don't have a lot of combat experience, they haven't had to deal with deaths within the party. They've fought an ochre jelly, a zombie and bought off a chimera.
Time for a deus ex machina to sidestep this mess. Since this is Icespire Peak, I could have Cryovain fly down and disrupt everything. They'd have little choice but to run.
I think that you should look at the whole party. Are they fine with what this character has done? If they aren't, then you might need to institute some sort of consequence for their actions. Perhaps the wealthy man gets angry and they are thrown out of the village and can no longer adventure there?
One thing you might want to consider, do not make fantastical solutions to situations that your players cause. Doing that could inspire the players to make the unwise decision just to see how you respond. Instead just have additional city guards rush in and have some of them in green and purple cloaks that can counter spell the players. Make the guard over powering and result in a boring and dull conclusion. It may counter your desire, but think of it this way: if you make a fun and interesting ending then players might thing their actions are adding to a better story.
If they learn their actions result in eating porridge and breaking rocks for a stint in the jailhouse, then they might learn to evaluate their decisions.
If you bring forth an ancient dragon when they cause a bar fight, then they might be interested in what you will bring out the next time they derail a session.
So the moment a player says "It's okay if my character dies, I have a new one to play" I'd call a stop to the session.
Same here. If the player is not invested in playng their character then I have to ask why I'm here, doing all the work.
My response would be to end the session there and send the players home to think about whether or not they really want to be in this game, because I'm not willing to spend time if they are not. I'd also remind them gently about exactly how much time I spend preparing for the session.
More generally, if the players are bout to have their characters do something with big consequences, as GM's we should warn them.
"Casting spells at these bouncers will escalate the situation a lot. Instead of trying to kick you out and maybe loosen a few teeth, the bouncers will draw weapons and try to straight up kill you. The watch will also get involved, which means criminal charges, jail, bounty-hunters, and all sorts of heat. Are you sure you want to do this?"
If the players still do the actions, then enforce the consequences. That's what player agency is all about - The GM presents a gameworld, the players choose actions, the GM presents the gameworld's response to those actions.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I have six newish players, some of who aren't there for every session. In our last game I had three of the impulsive players. They started a bar fight with a wealthy townie.
I improvised two bouncers (lvl 3 fighters) to arrest them, weapons sheathed. The players decided to use firebolt spells on the bouncers. Once they did that, I had to match their actions with equal actions. My advice to back off was ignored; in fact, one said she had a backup character anyway. I said that she would still have to start over again (her character is level 3).
If they want to act foolishly, that's fine, but they're not considering how their actions are making it bad for the rest. I'm actually encouraging of their ideas, even bad ones, but this is different. Maybe they just need to die to learn how the game works.
What would you do as the dm? Thank you.
Goal #1 is to not let their impulsive actions hurt the rest of the party. Sounds like you successfully did this - have the bouncers only fight the three impulsive troublemakers and leave the rest of the party out of it. Also if they're consistently going way off the rails, don't hesitate to make the bouncers FAR higher level and just destroy them quickly so the session doesn't bog down
Goal #2 is to give them some consequences they will care about. Maybe throw them in jail rather than kill them. Dying and making a new character is fun for many players, but no one enjoys being thrown in jail and left out the remainder of the session while your less impulsive players get to roleplay in peace with NPCs. Also losing some of your gear/money as a fine is never fun
Have you explained this to them in an out of character discussion?
Lots of newer players are coming from video games where there’s little consequence for an action, and if there is and you don’t like it, just go back to an earlier save. Explain that their actions will impact the game world and everyone else may end up dealing with the bad choices of one person.
Also, it can be worth explaining the DM is a player, too. And what they are doing is not fun for you, so they should stop.
This is an important question, and also consider how the rest of the party feels about all the antics. I've seen cases like this where the entire party is having fun with it and egging the impulsive players on, which makes it not really be a problem - even if it derails the DM plans for the session, if everyone's having fun then just roll with it. Or in other cases where not everyone is equally amused by the shenanigans, that's where it becomes important to put consequences onto the instigators (but not the rest of the party) and then give the rest of the party time to shine with the instigators out of the picture
How does the game work? You're encouraging of their ideas ("even bad ones"), so it seems like you're having a good time. Is everyone else having a good time? If so, this is fine. Your game doesn't have to be as deadly serious as the ones I run, where I casting spells in such an area would be met with uncompromising lethal force. I say uncompromising, I would let them know that this isn't a good idea and their characters would know this; if they want to justify it by saying how their character's thinking is impaired by the drink, or if a known sensitive nerve has been prodded, they can continue to go about it and the world will react as such. The world turns with or without them, but I will give the party a chance to step in to either defend their allies or hold them back.
Having said all of this, I would pull them aside at the end of the session and ask how the players are doing. Usually disruption is a sign of boredom, and I've had my own behaviour mistaken as such (One time as a player I had my character stand their ground against a military force they were a part of, not because I was bored, but because my character believed that "those who fall today shall have their convictions stand for eternity.") Sometimes it's just good hearted fun, or there's a motivation that will drive the story in a way you've previously not considered.
Your approach was tactful and ultimately you respected the players' wishes. If they don't respect yours, or those of the rest of the group, then The Talk™ may be required.
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
- The Assemblage of Houses, World of Warcraft
I'd say have the entire party arrested and put on trial. After some time the players who wouldn't back down are sentenced to execution, and the rest of the party is found innocent and sent on their way. It's not exactly a good solution, but I'm not seeing a whole lot of options for this. You may need to kill these characters off, much as I hate the idea. Wish I had something better to tell you.
I disagree. This isn't a character problem, it's a player problem. Player problems are almost never fixed in-game without there being conversations about the behavior first.
OP, I think your instinct not to punish the whole party for the stupidity of a subset is fair. After speaking with the trouble players about constructive collaboration in this hobby, I recommend instituting reasonable in-game consequences that get the point across that murderhobos don't prosper. Fines, imprisonment, community service, being banned from taverns/towns, warrants of arrest and being hunted...there are plenty of options in your arsenal that don't involve letting the player respawn another murderhobo. Some of these may cause issues for the party, true, but if your traveling companions get on your case and the law is on your tail, you start to realize you can't keep doing whatever you want.
So the moment a player says "It's okay if my character dies, I have a new one to play" I'd call a stop to the session.
Now, context, I'm a narrative heavy DM. I stream my games, we have custom art, intro videos, and all sorts of things we do to add to the experience. I expect my players to be invested (and they generally are having brought extensive backgrounds, character histories, and their own personal lore). Having any one of them say "I don't care about the fate of my character" is a record-scratch moment. (For reference: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RecordNeedleScratch)
Now that said, I also firmly disagree with the advice to put a player in time out by having their character locked up, knocked out or otherwise "removed from play". While that sounds like an appropriate "punishment" at the table, I've found that few players respond well to being treated like children. If an adult really needs a literal "time out" to "learn" how to play, then the issue really is deeper than your time out can serve.
For my money, a solid "this is what you're doing, this is how it's affecting the table, how do we all move forward" gets the job done much better. At the end of the say this is a recreational activity we all come to for fun. Adults should be able to discuss that reasonably.
"Teller of tales, dreamer of dreams"
Tips, Tricks, Maps: Lantern Noir Presents
**Streams hosted at at twitch.tv/LaternNoir
@Lantern I agree. I didn't like how the player was not committed to the character and assumed that she had a bunch of backups to restart with. This kind of thinking is against the so-called metathinking aspect of dnd. I remind the players: you're playing this character; what would the character do? Just so you know, these are high schoolers, teens. Their adult skills are not all there yet. I don't want to punish them insofar as showing cause and effect. If you punch a "somebody" in a public bar, there will be a reaction. We'll resume next week and see how it goes. Thanks.
The game should have consequences for players' actions. It is more than fair to have laws the characters must abide to and if they don't the proper punishments is then applied. You can also add in logical repercussions. The tavern can ban them. Is the wealthy townie in a position extract revenge?
If they wish to play this way and are having fun then allow it. The string of enemies, burned bridges, and untrusting reputation will become part of the story. If the players start fighting (out of character) then maybe you need to have an out of session talk. Otherwise, build the game on how everyone wants to play; and politely and respectfully talk to them if the game keeps falling off the rails. The players should have a common motivation to move the campaign to exciting quests, so remind them if they are holding up this progression.
But overall, don't treat it like "punishing" them. Establish rules that logically fit in this world. Using magic to cause harm to civilians would be a major crime. So the follow up sessions should be the players are now in prison or running form authorities. If they express displeasure with that, well, you have justification for why this is happening. I know it can cause you to lose the path of the game, and yes that can suck, but you are giving the players "their game" now. If they choose to behalf and play this way then allow the story of the game to proceed this natural course.
I've seen this frequently, it can be a lack of adult-ing social skills but also it can just be a difference in what players are looking for from playing Dungeons and Dragons.
Adults playing D&D typically have boring, serious jobs and all sorts of real-life responsibilities, and frequently are looking to D&D as a way to escape reality by living vicariously as a cool alter-ego who goes on interesting adventures. For players like these, attachment to their character is strong, immersion in the setting is important, and realism/consistency of the results is critical for it to be a viable substitute for reality.
Teenagers playing D&D typically have most aspects of their lives controlled for them, between school, homework, extracurriculars, and whatever else their parents drag them into. Frequently they are looking to D&D as a way to rebel and test boundaries by living vicariously as an alter-ego that actually gets to make decisions. For players like these, their character itself is easily replaceable, consistency or immersion in the setting isn't particularly important, and what they're really looking for is a chance to make bad decisions with hilariously memorable results.
These are definitely stereotypes and not true for all adults or for all teens, but I think they are frequently true and no matter what it's always worth considering whether what you consider to be "bad behavior" or "not what D&D is about" is actually exactly what another player considers D&D to be about.
I hadn't thought of that, I'll keep that in mind, thanks.
Much good advice up there. ;-)
Maybe also ask the player if they having fun with their current character. If not, let them switch.
@drjawa They are impulsive. In the end they had a lot of fun at least.
When the player said she wanted a date w/a npc, I let it ride b/c we would all learn from it. My problem was when the other two irrationally turned a date into a bloody fight because they didn't like the npc. Because they don't have a lot of combat experience, they haven't had to deal with deaths within the party. They've fought an ochre jelly, a zombie and bought off a chimera.
Time for a deus ex machina to sidestep this mess. Since this is Icespire Peak, I could have Cryovain fly down and disrupt everything. They'd have little choice but to run.
I think that you should look at the whole party. Are they fine with what this character has done? If they aren't, then you might need to institute some sort of consequence for their actions. Perhaps the wealthy man gets angry and they are thrown out of the village and can no longer adventure there?
Join The Ranger’s Guild!
Nobody reads these…
One thing you might want to consider, do not make fantastical solutions to situations that your players cause. Doing that could inspire the players to make the unwise decision just to see how you respond. Instead just have additional city guards rush in and have some of them in green and purple cloaks that can counter spell the players. Make the guard over powering and result in a boring and dull conclusion. It may counter your desire, but think of it this way: if you make a fun and interesting ending then players might thing their actions are adding to a better story.
If they learn their actions result in eating porridge and breaking rocks for a stint in the jailhouse, then they might learn to evaluate their decisions.
If you bring forth an ancient dragon when they cause a bar fight, then they might be interested in what you will bring out the next time they derail a session.
Same here. If the player is not invested in playng their character then I have to ask why I'm here, doing all the work.
My response would be to end the session there and send the players home to think about whether or not they really want to be in this game, because I'm not willing to spend time if they are not. I'd also remind them gently about exactly how much time I spend preparing for the session.
More generally, if the players are bout to have their characters do something with big consequences, as GM's we should warn them.
"Casting spells at these bouncers will escalate the situation a lot. Instead of trying to kick you out and maybe loosen a few teeth, the bouncers will draw weapons and try to straight up kill you. The watch will also get involved, which means criminal charges, jail, bounty-hunters, and all sorts of heat. Are you sure you want to do this?"
If the players still do the actions, then enforce the consequences. That's what player agency is all about - The GM presents a gameworld, the players choose actions, the GM presents the gameworld's response to those actions.