I have a Player who has a pun based sense of humor.

His current character name is Dan Gerous, and I just discovered through my campaign that I created for Players to noodle around with experimental and backup characters that his backup character is now Tracing Havoc.

To make things worse, both characters are Paladins.

He's a relatively newish player, so I've been giving him a fair amount of leeway playing a Paladin ( maybe that's a mistake ) as he's getting his legs under him.

Now - In I'm a tad miffed at his fairly regular dropping of puns in the middle of action and encounters. We're not an overly serious group - we joke around (even the DM!) - but puns especially rely on reversed expectations and breaking your current train of thought - they dump you out of the moment, and break the mood. That's their purpose.  As such, I'm kind of annoyed that he's somewhat disruptive of story flow ( with the proviso that it's a game, meant to be fun, and not a dramatic television series ).

I also feel like I'm trying to put a lot of work into making a plausible & consistent gaming world ( strong Simulationist roots here ) - but I really don't want to be that DM who has an attitude of "you must all respect the gravitas and grandeur of my creation!" :p

So my questions are:

• Is this really a problem, or do you think I should "lighten up"?
• If you've had this happen at your table, and if it's actually an issue, how have you dealt with it?

I appreciate any suggestions :)

Just tell him you'd appreciate it if he dialed back the puns a few notches because too many of them sort of lose their charm and make them less funny.

My Saturday group is a handful...I can't wait to get my stream up so I can share it with the world, that said there is a time and place for what's going on.

I have the punny nights, the sing-a-long break downs, the "did you hear" rabbit trails, cell phone interruptions, kids... There are nights where we play for 5 hours and only about 2 hours are actual game play. I really don't mind having fun at the table, just like you said, and similarly I have those days where they detract from the gravity of the moment in game. The first thing I had to figure out was that it's best to let it happen for a short time, give them a couple minutes to get it out of their system. While this happens I am quiet, I don't interrupt, I don't further the story, I don't do anything, most times that brings them back. Other times, if they do it in the middle of an exposition or important description, I'll just keep talking, if they miss it it's because they weren't paying attention. I tend to play it by ear as to whether I should let them go or let them miss out. 

As to your particular player, if they're the one who's the culprit, like my 9 yr old son last night in Sunless Citadel, you have to call it out at times. My boy decided he wanted to be the center of attention, making jokes, being silly, interrupting me, and just being disruptive. I understand they're kids, but there's a time and place, something they are going to begin to understand, what better place than in a game. I looked at him a few times and told him that he was being disruptive, and please chill out with the silliness. A few times he'd interrupt while I was describing things, I simply stopped talking. When asked what I was going to say I replied with "You interrupted me by being silly, I would have told you more had you not done that". With my more adult players, I have no problem looking at them and saying that they're interrupting the game, chill out. I've looked at my fiancee and told her that she needs to stop with the antics, we're not getting anywhere in game. I've even told one of my players to stop trying to "outsmart" me by calling out what he things is going to happen next, mostly because he was wrong.

In the end, if you want players to act a certain way, you'll need to give them that frame work, and then keep consistent. They're adults, this is a game, so they're given some latitude inside those confines, a bit of give and take, but there are expectations that should be presented. Just take him aside and let him know to cool it with the puns, they're getting a bit much, then just give him firm reminders during the game without being mean.

I feel your pain. I haven't DMd a group with a player like this, but I've been a player alongside - and it was frustrating as anything. The classic, 'Can you take this seriously, please?' - '..Err.. It's a game sorry for having fun.'

The good news is, after a session zero, where we explained that we were hoping for a more 'serious' tone to the game, he revealed that he was playing a silly character because he was a bit nervous about taking it seriously. A sort of protection from embarrassment by being ridiculous.

Once we reminded him that we're all nerds, sitting around a table inventing an imaginary fantasy world, and that the 'D&D is for weirdos' trope doesn't exist anymore, we managed to coax him out of his shell, help him build a character that he could really identify with, and he became an absolutely fantastic roleplayer. 

I'm not saying your situation is the same, but it sounds familiar. A newish player, a bit scared of letting his guard down, so cracking jokes and disrupting the mood as a defense. Your player could also just want to be in the spotlight. A bit of a 'class clown' that is happy to play the fool to get a laugh and have the spotlight on them. D&D can bring that out in people.

Onto your questions: 

Is this really a problem, or do you think I should "lighten up"?

If it's disrupting your and the other players' fun, then yes, it's a problem. You spend a lot of time preparing your campaign, and the other players probably look forward to something tonally more serious. A wisecracking paladin can, as you say, kill the mood, break immersion, and really ruin the game. 

Only caveat would be if the other players enjoyed that tone as well, in which case you'd either have to accept that you're DMing for a group looking more for laughs and casual fun, or accept that you might not be the DM for this group of players.

If you've had this happen at your table, and if it's actually an issue, how have you dealt with it?

As mentioned, the DM checked in with the rest of us first to see if we also had a problem with it. We all said we were hoping for a more 'serious' campaign, and so the DM called a session zero. We respectfully all chatted about what we wanted to get out of the campaign, the kind of story we wanted to weave, and the characters we were hoping to play. It clearly didn't gel with the problem player, so we talked it out.

In the end, our player came around to playing more seriously. But I think you have to be prepared to call an ultimatum and decide whether your player's style fits with the type of game you want to play. 

Did you have a session zero where you set expectations about tone? If not, or if it wasn't particularly clear, your player might just not understand what kind of game you were hoping to run.

If that's the case, you'll want to have a "reset" conversation where you talk to everyone about tone. It sounds like you don't mind a joke every once in a while; it's just the excessiveness of it that is disrupting your game. But you're not wrong to see this as a problem.

On the other hand, if you did have this conversation at the start of the campaign, and the other players are adhering to your expecations, I would suggest talking about it with this player one-on-one as well.

Chequers made a very good point as well that this might be related to roleplaying inexperience. When I've seen this behavior in the past, it's often because the player is uncomfortable playing their character. If that's the case, you should do what you can to help them better understand their character and encourage them to speak up more in that context.

Though I will say, if your player names their character something like Dan Gerous, that should be a red flag that you're not on the same page about tone. Ideally, this is a conversation you would have had at that time.

I do a pretty exhaustive session 0 - but I'm not sure "tone and levity" were covered.

I has also thinking that maybe instead of treating this as a problem, treat this as a role-playing opportunity.

The problems isn't really the Player's sense of humor ( although it make me wince and bleed :p ). The problem is that the puns and jokes are dropped "outside" the narrative and tend to disrupt story flow.

I'm inspired here by Sam Riegel's characters on Critical Role - he has a pretty low sense of humor ( but fantastic comedic timing ). His characters are wise-asses and crack crass jokes, and drop stink-bomb puns - but all in character and in the narrative flow. 

Maybe I should nudge the Player away from Paladins and more toward a smart-ass Bard ( thinking Scanlan from Vox Machina ), or rogue ( Nott from The Mighty Nein ), or something where he can channel his humor into role-player and the narrative, rather that in spite of it.

If that is your intent, there's no reason to drop the Paladin, it's purely personality in that case. The class a player chooses doesn't necessarily give, or remove, the ability to provide levity in game. 

Instead start having the NPCs, monsters, and such react to the comments, in character/in game. Start treating the off-hand comments as in character, but do it gently at first. In a way you may stop the player from being so emboldened to do it, otherwise you'll simply steer him into using it as a character manifestation.

----

Some examples you might give your player so that he may be able to cater his character's personality to the game play:

I play a Hunter/Swashbuckler who is constantly chiding and back talking Strahd, my DM thought it was due to me not taking things seriously. I had to explain that it was my character's way of trying to keep the party from freaking out as he felt he was the face of the group. His antics were meant to pull Strahd's attention away, make himself the target, so the rest of the party could do what needed to be done.

I played a Wizard in LMoP who was almost completely against killing, he only killed a Stirge and a Gelatenous Cube through out the entire game. He was also very pretentious and a know-it-all. I played him with an effeminate voice, constantly correcting people, and going on long rants about how things were this not that. My table wanted to punch me every time I started to talk, but to this day they all remember him and talk about him with fondness.

I am also playing a Dwarf Barbarian who is an entertainer/gladiator. His whole schtik is that he's the equivalent of Hulk Hogan or John Cena, the good guy, super charismatic and always talking up a big game. His introduction was shouting at the top of his lungs "Time to play the Iron Urine is here!" while smashing his war picks together menacingly. This is during a moment in the game where they were trying to sneak through a strong hold...so I ran in smashing everything in the face with my picks. The party loves him, even if there's no being quiet when he's around.

I'd like to do either - or both.

I'd like the humor to stop derailing the mood and flow of the narrative. If that's being able to channel it into the narrative, great - if that's just cutting it out entirely, also great.

I think explaining the disruption aspects to the player, and giving them a place to express their humor in scene , is the way to go here. Some from column A and some from column B.

Just must remember not to use NPCs to punish puns .... ;D

Quote from DMThac0 >>

 

I am also playing a Dwarf Barbarian who is an entertainer/gladiator.

Heh - the game I play in ( run by one of my players ), I also play a Dwarf Barbarian gladiator ( Berserker ).

Here's where I breakout my old mainstay I know will piss everyone off and I'll be labelled a DM with no players in waiting, even though I've kept groups together on the order of decades.

STOP right now STOP believing this old BS where, "it's not your game."

It IS your game. You're the GM. You are the embodiment of the greatest game mechanic ever invented. If you don't want something in your game, it should not be in your game. 

Now, that said, understand this; new players tend to be this way. They're uncomfortable. They're new to a very nerdy hobby and feel awkward. It IS good to let this slide for a bit. My advice is to drag him into something very, very serious. 

There was this scene in an old module. I don't remember the name, but it was meant as a transition from AD&D 2nd Edition to 3rd edition. It was an end-of-the-world scenario. One scene stuck with me. A bunch of extraplaners were invading the world, and a particular tavern that the PCs encounter had been hit. All seems normal the night the PCs arrive, but when they awake they find a slaughterhouse and realize the previous night had been an illusion. They soon realize the meatpies they'd enjoyed for dinner the night before had been made of the inn's patrons.

This is just an example, but the idea is get to something deep and tough to joke about. I, personally, have few limits. If it's a war campaign, my PCs will witness atrocities, among the worst you can imagine. It's dark, it's hard to stomach, but that's the point. I need to let my PCs know things get real, and I expect them to do the same when appropriate. 

On the other hand, I've run campaigns based on the works of Alexander Dumas, and in that case, I love me a pun spewing, chandelier swinging joker- as long as they know when to come down to earth when appropriate.

Quote from DropkickCleary >>

Here's where I breakout my old mainstay I know will piss everyone off and I'll be labelled a DM with no players in waiting, even though I've kept groups together on the order of decades.

STOP right now STOP believing this old BS where, "it's not your game."

It IS your game. You're the GM. You are the embodiment of the greatest game mechanic ever invented. If you don't want something in your game, it should not be in your game.  

I think you're right - it's a shared narrative that everyone contributes to, but ultimately the DM writes the book.

Thing is, that won't look the same to every player. It's the DMs job to draw the line, set the expectations, and arbitrate what's allowed at the table. You're definitely correct in that if the DM doesn't think it belongs, then it shouldn't be there. But it's in the interest of the whole group to make it as enjoyable for all.

I think that's why a session zero is important. Laying out what's expected of the players, and (perhaps more importantly), what the players can expect from the DM, gets everyone on the same page. I think some DMs, especially when they're inexperienced, tend to shy away from having to rule anything that might potentially upset players, or set any kind of hard-and-fast rules and so end up with a muddy vibe where every player is trying to pull the game in their own way.

I like the above ideas of either incorporating the humour into more tonally realistic role-play opportunities, or indeed presenting the player with something harrowing, where making a wisecrack would just feel out of place. 

I know this player as a person outside the game ( so I knew their sense of humor, I just thought they could use it more appropriately in game ) , and I can tell you that if I really wanted to force them to quit, dragging them into a dark and serious plot line that they would hate, as a lesson, would be a great recipe for them to be gone from the table in 3-4 sessions.

Try to educate them in the way they they should be having fun, and they'd quit. I wouldn't blame them.

If a DM keeps trying to force players into a mold they don't want to fit into, eventually they'll be left only with the players who fit that mold.

They'll end up with a stable group at the end of it - possibly one that seems to absolutely love their style, but only because everyone else who doesn't love it will have quit. And the DM  might think that because they see that stable little core, they've hit upon a really good way to DM - discounting the players who walked away because they hated being forced to have fun on the DM's terms. Some of those DMs might see the stability of the surviving core group and conclude they've hit upon the one true way that will work for all players and groups, and that the people who don't agree with them are just fools, blind to their DM'ing genius.

Fortunately, I've not seen tons of those cult-like little clique groups since I first started playing ( off and on ) in '76 - but enough to know that's not how I want to run a group. I've picked up enough players who have left those kinds of groups, and gotten enough "hey, you don't run your sessions like an *******!" comments to know how toxic those groups can be for players who don't fit that dictatorial mold.

I don't operate under the delusion that I'm the "embodiment of the greatest game mechanic ever invented", but on the flip side, I don't accommodate everyone blindly, either. I'm a member of the table as much as an anyone else - and my wants in the game need to be factored into it all as well as the others. I refuse to be a doormat for my players. If I'm going to put in that amount of work into something, I have to be happy with the results.  Fortunately for my players, my tastes are broad, and I'm happy with exploring a reasonably broad range of play and narrative styles - so I can usually find a middle ground that works for my players and me. It might not be as artistically pretentious as Alexendar Dumas - but I'm not writing a novel, I'm trying to run a role-playing game of collaborative narrative, exploration, combat, and High-Fantasy adventure.

But a middle ground can't always be found. I recently asked player to find another group ( after a couple of discussions about player/character conflicts ), rather than trying to force her into playing the way I thought she should. I've lost players before - and will continue to do so, I'm sure - but that's because I and the player couldn't come to common ground for that group . I've had groups in the past where she would have fit perfectly into their dynamic - and if I pick up a group more her style, I may invite her back, as we parted on amicable terms.

I've had dark and gritty campaigns. I've had silly and lighthearted campaigns. I've had campaigns where my players go off and talk in character a lot. I've had campaigns where it was borderline tactical wargaming and the "story" was just the filler between complex tactical combats.

My "trick" is to find a narrative style, and tone, that works for the group at hand - with the proviso that I'm a member of that group as well.

Pulling it all back to the OP - my options have really boiled down to channeling the player's humor into the game, getting them to agree to reign it in during thematically inappropriate moments or when it would disrupt the game, or concluding this isn't a "good fit" and easing them out of this group ( possibly into a different group which is a little more "Monty Haul" ).

But trying to browbeat or educate them as to how they should be playing, by forcing them into educational story lines, is just a passive-aggressive way to force them into the third option.

Edit: For typos and grammar.