I have a PC who is playing a rogue/assassin who is pissing off the rest of the party. Basically, he just runs in and starts stabbing. He even has gotten other characters knocked unconscious by starting fights he can't finish and using his bonus action to disengage and run.
I haven't been around D&D long, but I do understand this much: rogues gonna rogue. And if the rogue is role-playing well it will only make sense that he angers his party from time to time. This PC even has a backstory that would lead the character to be super nihilistic and extra stabby. So it's hard from a DM standpoint to really argue with his actions.
That said, several party members have complained that their own actions aren't important to the plot. They don't get to determine the outcome of an encounter because they're too busy cleaning up the fights that they didn't want to start. It also makes the gameplay a bit less nuanced since it's all fighting and less about exploration or creatively navigating difficult challenges.
Any time a player says “Buts that’s what my character would do” it means they are being a jerk, and they know it. They think because they’re a rogue or chaotic neutral or whatever, that gives them license to do whatever they want with no consequences. The player, backstory or class notwithstanding, is not just helplessly observing the actions of his character. The player is choosing to make the character do these things. The player can choose to not make the character do these things. Playing that way might be his idea of fun, but at some point he needs to realize there are other people at the table.
Its really that simple. Tell the player that what he is doing is making things not be fun for everyone else and he needs to stop. You might also suggest to the rest of the party they not bail him out when he picks fights they don’t want, and see how long he lasts solo.
And I’m going to have to disagree that a rogue will necessarily annoy the the party. I’ve played a lot of D&D. A rogue has never made me upset. I’m hard pressed to think of a time when a rogue character has made my character upset. A player being a jerk has, but that has nothing to do with class.
Thanks for the replies so far! Already giving me some things to think about. If others have ideas I’d love to hear them!
As I try to figure out how to handle this long term, I’m wondering about some shorter term solutions. For instance, are there monsters with strong melee attacks which prevent players from disengaging? I’m thinking that maybe if his normal strategy fails he will be forced to rely on the other members of the team.
I’m also considering introducing some enemies that are easy to negotiate with but very strong in combat. That way the stabbing will get everyone killed (an outcome I’d make narrative preparation for in case of a TPK). That might drive home the importance of negotiation and tactics if the rogue’s actions land everyone in a dungeon cell, waking up with 1HP.
DM Fiat is its own game-killer as much as lone wolf rogueing. So any in game attempts to give a middle finger to the rogue have to be done with tact and subtlety. If he’s charging through doors to stab and disengage to run back to hide outside again before initiative even starts, then a trap that seals the way out behind him as soon as he goes through the door seems reasonable. I imagine his passive perception is really high, or I’d suggest placing a gelatinous cube behind the door between the treasure or target and the rogue. Rugs of Smothering and Mimics are another fun consequence for people charging ahead without thinking. All are really common, even at lower levels, so it’s not like “Oops. You silly level 3 characters ran across and attacked a 20th level Mage. I promise that was how the adventure was written!”
Even if his backstory gives his character license to get stabby and independent. The whole point of playing a character instead of a stat block is that there’s growth and progression. Not just that ‘now my sneak attack deals 3d6’, but “as I’ve spent time with these people, they’ve tempered a lot of my impulses. They’ve saved my butt multiple times, I owe them a bit more caution.”
I have a PC who is playing a rogue/assassin who is pissing off the rest of the party. Basically, he just runs in and starts stabbing. He even has gotten other characters knocked unconscious by starting fights he can't finish and using his bonus action to disengage and run.
Does this means he starts unnecessary fights, or that he just "runs" in first destroying any tactics? If those he attacks are more intelligent than a zombie, you can have them only focus on him, and not attacking the other players as long as they stay out of the fight.
You can add in some archers to shoot when he disengages, and certainly give one or more of the bad guys a greatweapon. Sooner or later you will roll a natural 20, and he will be really hurt. There are also some spells that might "destroy" his tactics.
I haven't been around D&D long, but I do understand this much: rogues gonna rogue. And if the rogue is role-playing well it will only make sense that he angers his party from time to time. This PC even has a backstory that would lead the character to be super nihilistic and extra stabby. So it's hard from a DM standpoint to really argue with his actions.
Here you are (IMO) not exactly right.
NO, all "rogues" don't have to rogue. Bilbo Baggins would certainly be a rogue in this system for instance. But yes, rogues can be rogues.
It's not only rogues who can anger the party because of roleplaying. All characters can. Paladins because of their oath, clerics because of some doctrine, and frankly all characters because of some background trait. If you throw in an NPC who boasts he roasted the peace-loving halfling-druids family, it wouldn't be bad RP if she attacks on sight (bad tactics or not).
That said, several party members have complained that their own actions aren't important to the plot. They don't get to determine the outcome of an encounter because they're too busy cleaning up the fights that they didn't want to start. It also makes the gameplay a bit less nuanced since it's all fighting and less about exploration or creatively navigating difficult challenges.
Any suggestions?
Here I don't follow you. Are the rogue also determining the outcome of the encounter while the others are cleaning up his fight. That I would simply not allow. If he leaves combat, have him sit and wait. Most combat in D&D are over in 30 seconds (in-game). It's not enough time for anyone outside the combat to do much.
It might sound like you actually want your players to solve the "encounters" in other ways than combat. That's a bit tricky in a system like D&D which is so "rigged" around combat. Make it quite easy to solve it in other ways. Like you said, big brutes, but easy to persuade. Or make them easy to sneak pass - basically add things were your players can "solve" the encounter using skills - and make it quite easy.
I don't know how often you allow your players to rest. I generally only allow short rests in dungeons, and even then, they better find a quite safe place. You should warn them up front, but it is possible to create a dungeon where they would have great trouble if they choose to face all the enemies face to face.
The rogue's player is being a Wangrod. See Matt Colville's video on the subject:
I don't care if it's "what my character would do." If you have made up a character who, in doing what he does, is making all the other players at the table miserable, you're a wangrod and you need to cut it out. Either (a) change the character, (b) make up a new character, or (c) find another way for him to 'do what he would do'. But making everyone else at the table miserable and ruining everyone else's fun is not an option. Period, page break, close file.
Also, do not punish the party over the rogue. Never do that. Just punish the rogue, if you have to. Give the party at the table permission, if he runs in stabbing, to stand back and let him die. Or maybe set up some kind of trap where the first person to run in gets cut off from everyone else and now has to fight alone. Send him unconscious the first time, see if he learns his lesson. If not, next time the character dies, and instruct him upon making a new one not to make a character who is going to ruin everyone else's fun.
Finally, "rogue's gonna rouge," is BS. There is nothing in the description of the rogue character that says it has to be stupid or annoying. Plenty of rogues hide at the back of the party and wait for things to start first, rather than diving in and starting to stab.
But Matt's video is better than anything I can write here so... go watch it. It's only 10 min long. And he explains why it's bad and how to deal with it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
Any time a player says “Buts that’s what my character would do” it means they are being a jerk, and they know it. They think because they’re a rogue or chaotic neutral or whatever, that gives them license to do whatever they want with no consequences. The player, backstory or class notwithstanding, is not just helplessly observing the actions of his character. The player is choosing to make the character do these things. The player can choose to not make the character do these things. Playing that way might be his idea of fun, but at some point he needs to realize there are other people at the table.
Its really that simple. Tell the player that what he is doing is making things not be fun for everyone else and he needs to stop. You might also suggest to the rest of the party they not bail him out when he picks fights they don’t want, and see how long he lasts solo.
And I’m going to have to disagree that a rogue will necessarily annoy the the party. I’ve played a lot of D&D. A rogue has never made me upset. I’m hard pressed to think of a time when a rogue character has made my character upset. A player being a jerk has, but that has nothing to do with class.
Yeah I have to disagree here completely, no offense but I think that is terrible advice.
"This is what my character would do", is literally the foundation of role-playing as is in character group conflict.
Role-playing is the act of taking on a role, you create characters, back stories, personalities and motivations and it is in fact the best players that play those characters as written, for better or for worse. Players who make "player-group-compromises" with their characters so as not to rock the boat, or worse, take actions based on game mechanics rather then story, ultimately make the worse players.
No offense taken, but I stand by what I said. Role Playing does not give you license to be a jerk. The old adage of "your right to swing your fist stops at my nose" comes into play, here. Play however you like, but not to the point that it becomes a problem for others. It's a group game, you don't get to just do whatever you want and force other people to deal with the consequences. Players saying they are just playing the character's backstory is not a defense. The player made the backstory. It wasn't just dumped on them from the sky. They chose to make such a backstory. They can choose to make a different one. Even if they just randomly rolled on the list in their background, there is a lot of wiggle room for how they play those flaws, bonds, etc. that don't involve making things miserable for everyone else.
Also, I would say that players who make compromises for the good of the group are actually the better players. They understand that its not just about them; its about everyone having fun. People unwilling to make a compromise are just being selfish.
The short answer is that the rogue's player is relying on metagame unwillingness of other players to kick him out of the group, while at the same time choosing to roleplay a horrible person who would otherwise be kicked or killed by the other PCs.
As the video says, "It's what my character would do is the last defense of the toxic player."
If you made up the character, why did you make up a character who, if you have him do what he would do, is going to make everyone else at the table unhappy. There is a very simple solution to this: don't make up a character who would do this kind of thing. Xalthu is 100% on this -- you did not get your character dumped on you from the sky. You made it up. Make up something else.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
Let's say you were adventuring in a group and one of the people you are relying on to save your life runs in and consistently start fights you don't want to be in and then runs away leaving the other people in the group to clean up the mess. What would the characters realistically do in this case?
This depends on the characters.
If the character in game are best friends or siblings they might have a friendly discussion and have them either stop acting this way or leave the group.
If the characters in game are associates working together towards a goal and one character fails to deliver then they will tell them to leave, they don't get another chance.
If the characters are simply folks who know each other, adventuring for convenience and another character comes close to killing other group members due to incompetence and irresponsibility then that character is probably either dead or gone. Keep in mind that the characters may live in a rather rough world with little or no enforcement of laws. In such a case, a character who constantly puts their group mates in jeopardy is a liability.
In any of these cases, no matter what happens, the characters have no reason to continue adventuring with this irresponsible and incompetent character who is literally almost killing other group members through their actions. The player is relying on the other players to not want to boot them from the party. The player is relying on the DM to not enforce consequences for actions that endanger other characters. Rogues can often survive when others don't since they are often engaging at range AND they have cunning action allowing them to escape more easily than many other characters. However, if the rogue precipitates deadly situations - no party is going to adventure with them.
As DM, you need to have a discussion with the player pointing out these consequences to their continued stupidity. If this is truly "what their character would do" then their character is really unsuitable to adventuring in groups with other characters and they can reasonably expect no one to want to adventure with them (since no one would typically willingly choose to constatnly endanger their lives having an incompetent, stupid and irresponsible character in their party).
The other way to deal with "it's what my character would do," comes from the other players. If they do what THEIR character would do, the Wangrod character would find himself dead, abandoned, or turned over to the authorities.
Wangrods are relying on everyone else doing what the Wangrods will not -- sacrifice "what their character would do" for another player (i.e., for the Wangrod).
99% of the time what's going on here is, the Wangrod is a prima donna who would have an absolute fit if you backstabbed his character like he's doing to yours. And you know this, so you let him get away with it "for the sake of peace" in the group. Only you can judge if it's worth doing this or not. I did it for years.
But not anymore. Wangrod needs to grow up and act like an adult or get out of any group I am in. (Or I'll leave if I'm the only one bothered, but I never have been....).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
As was said, have a discussion with this player, explaining to him his actions are disrupting everyone else's fun.
The next time he behaves that way, have an enemy (or every enemy) with Sentinel, if he runs up and strikes and tries to disengage, no luck and now he's stuck in the middle of the melee and all that is coming down on him.
"I'm role-playing my character" should not be considered "a defense" for taking actions appropriate for that character, that is what your supposed to do.
The key question is how the player would react if one of the other PCs disintegrated his PC because "I'm role-playing MY character". If he'd take offense, he's not actually serious about "role-playing", he's just using it as an excuse to be a jerk.
Having a jerk character in a party is basically a time honored fantasy (and D&D) tradition that has existed in every fantasy story ever written on the subject of adventuring/questing parties. There is ALWAYS a character that derails the groups plans by making hasty, stupid or pointless actions that get everyone in trouble for a wide range of motivational back story reasons that are perfectly justifiable. I would challenge anyone to name any fantasy story where this is not true? To play such a character however you have to have the appropriate level, maturity and most important understanding of the difference between being disruptive and creating conflict.
You're talking about apples and oranges here. A D&D game and a fantasy story are not the same thing. In a fantasy story, the jerk character and the nice characters and the villain and everyone else are all "played" by the same person -- the author. The author isn't putting anyone else out by having the jerk character do his thing. And he knows the audience will enjoy it.
In a D&D game, there are other players there, who may not have consented to being the butt of the jerk player's antics. Who may not appreciate having all their careful plans derailed so that, let's be honest here, jerk-boy's player can hog the spotlight and make the session "all about him." If the player wants to make a jerk who might screw the party by ignoring their plans, then at a minimum, this needs to be cleared with the entire table (including the DM as well as the players) ahead of time. You do not just walk into a game group with a character who is going to take over the spotlight whenever you damn well please, and wreck the entire plan for the whole rest of the table, just because you feel like it.
"My character dives in and starts the fight even though none of the rest of you want me to do that," is selfish. There is not place for selfishness at the D&D table. It's just as bad as the guy who always wants the magic item to go to his character, even if the item might be better suited to someone else.
A rogue got your Paladin down, how does your character deal with a moron that pointlessly charges into combat?
Honestly? My Paladin would probably walk away and refuse to team with your rogue anymore (after saving his life this one last time). This rogue is jeopardizing not only himself, but everyone else in the party, as well as whatever goal we might have. My paladin is logical and forthright. He would correctly judge that he'd be better off completing the quest his duty and honor require of him, without your rogue's interference.
But.... if I do that, if I play MY character "the way he ought to be played," and the party breaks up -- there is no D&D game to play anymore. Do we want to play D&D, or not? If so, then everyone must make compromises. The position you seem to be espousing here, which is that there is no requirement to make compromises that might interfere with the purity of role-play, is not tenable. The only way it would work is if all the players got together and co-designed a perfect party of people who would always stick together no matter what (say a group of quintuplets or something). Absent that, any character I come up with will be an imperfect match for characters you come up with, and to play them together, we're going to have to let some things slide and not play up certain RP elements so that we can have an actual session.
Again, I don't really care how Billy Feels about it, I want to know what the Dragonborn Justicar thinks about it and what he will do about it.
This sounds all well and good but the problem is, you are not playing the game with the Justicar; you are playing it with Billy. And if you are going to do things in blatant disregard of Billy's feelings, you're going to find yourself not playing with Billy any longer, after not too much time passes.
Look, I consider myself a hardcore RPer, but even I would never sacrifice the happiness of people at my table on the altar of roleplay purity. The whole point of this thing is to have fun. This means we need to make sure everyone is having fun. I don't care what your concept is -- if it is making everyone else at the table unhappy, common courtesy (as well as practicality, if you want them to keep playing with you) demands that you make some changes.
Again... the jerk character CAN be fun, if everyone at the table is cool with it. But they need to be cool with it, and if not... people need to cut it out.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
So I feel like there are a few ways you could do this. First thing is to talk to the person outside of game and express how everyone feels and maybe be less stabby or maybe try talking before stabbing. Now he does not need to change completely on his (lack of) "morals", but having an arc as a character can help make the character more in-depth and real. If he wanted to do an arc as a character, maybe help lead them to a resolution by creating a little side plot after he stabs an important person, mafia grabs him in the night and the gang needs to get him back. Or he stabs a noble who is close to the queen who demands he pay for his actions in a fun creative way (ie. Gladiator combat, escape room(so you cant stab your way out), or even capturing fugitives alive).
Another thing to remember that I sometimes forget is: its the players game. You built this whole world and story for them, but it has to be clay. You need to mold it to their actions, maybe something insignificant actions now can have a result later. For example, making a drinking companion (get sober, beat in a drinking competition) can lead to having an inside man in the mafia, towns guard, noble courts. And if they did not want to start the fight, maybe they could dissolve it by talking their way out of it, maybe they make a few enemies or friends because of it.
Last option I could see is create a rival for him. Another rogue that has killed under his MO and is framing him or competing with him in the shadows. The gang needs to find who it is and you could show the character that acting in a behavior like this will result in serious consequences. Potentially even killing his character if he is in a battle he got himself into and couldn't get out. (that would be a last result obviously, but if he will not stop ruining the fun for the rest of the party, maybe it will be necessary.)
But first step is always to talk with him about how you and the others are feeling and if he could restrain himself, or have the other players roleplay to assign him a buddy to make sure they dont get in trouble :)
"My character dives in and starts the fight even though none of the rest of you want me to do that," is selfish. There is not place for selfishness at the D&D table. It's just as bad as the guy who always wants the magic item to go to his character, even if the item might be better suited to someone else.
I must say I don't agree 100% with this. If the PC has a GOOD reason to attack, I'm OK with it, and so are most players. Yes, it's kind of selfish to attack that vampire just because you have written into your character that you hate vampires, but still. I would expect people to do that even if all the other players are screaming for a short or long rest. That is roleplaying. What I wouldn't be OK with is a player doing this "just because he can". If the only RP-reason he has is "that's how he is" - well that doesn't work.
Some cool fights occurs because players feel "obliged" to attack, and it can be cool to roleplay afterwards that it wasn't perhaps the best idea. But if you keep doing it on a regular basis, well, then you could very well be an annoyance to your group.
First let me just say that I'm not defending jerk players and Matt C. is talking about jerk players, people who intentionally create crap characters so that they can disrupt a group because they get their rocks off on ruining things for others and they don't think anyone will have the balls to ruin it for them. In cases like that I do believe in GM intervention and this is what Matt C. is talking about, but I believe people have become so overly sensitive to any kind of disruption that the creative process of bringing characters to life is impossible at most tables, the only thing you are allowed to do is make cookie cutter characters who are always "nice to each other because we are an adventuring party".
However, fundamentally, the group IS an adventuring party. This party would NOT form. They would NOT stick together and would NOT naturally choose (in-character) to retain a character in the group whose decisions constantly endangered and even killed other party members. In any reasonable situation, such a disruptive character would be told to leave and if they did not they would likely be killed. Period. There are limits to role-playing.
I ran a 1e ADD campaign that had a barbarian (which hated all magic in that edition) and a gnome illusionist/thief who loved magic. We had a great time with the gnome hiding their magic from the barbarian and explaining it away so the barbarian didn't become too suspicious. However, when an immensely valuable magic item showed up, the barbarian was all for destroying it and the gnome wanted it for themselves and the fundamental differences between the characters were such that the gnome had to leave the party before the barbarian killed them.
The point is that making any role playing choice that is against the party or inimical to it will eventually result in the character leaving or dying unless all of the players have got together and come up with some backstory reason justifying why they would remotely tolerate such dangerous behaviour in an actual group. Adventuring is dangerous, why bring along anyone who increases the odds of anyone but them dying?
"I'm role-playing my character" should not be considered "a defense" for taking actions appropriate for that character, that is what your supposed to do. That is the question the DM should be asking all the time. What does your character do. As a DM, I couldn't give fewer f*** what Bob the electrician who plays in my game wants to do, I want to know what his Necromancer Dark Elf is going to do.
Sure ... and if that includes making your party members dead (or at least hoping that they will die and nudging them in that direction) so that you can add them to your growing army of skeletons and zombies ... you can expect that necromancer to be dumped from that adventuring party really quickly. Anti party and anti group role playing decisions that endanger everyone are a prime reason to NOT travel with that character.
Having a jerk character in a party is basically a time honored fantasy (and D&D) tradition that has existed in every fantasy story ever written on the subject of adventuring/questing parties. There is ALWAYS a character that derails the groups plans by making hasty, stupid or pointless actions that get everyone in trouble for a wide range of motivational back story reasons that are perfectly justifiable. I would challenge anyone to name any fantasy story where this is not true? To play such a character however you have to have the appropriate level, maturity and most important understanding of the difference between being disruptive and creating conflict.
This may be a fantasy trope. However, the author is creating a narrative with their characters and there are usually story reasons why such an incompetent is permitted to remain with a group. This is created and tied together by the author. If the DM and all the players agree before hand on a backstory that includes keeping a character in the party that will likely result in the deaths of other characters at some point then fine. However, if they other players are actually role playing their characters properly, there is NO way they would continue to travel with "a character that derails the groups plans by making hasty, stupid or pointless actions that get everyone in trouble". D&D is a shared narrative not a book and as such each of the characters are played by a different player ... characters who may not even remotely accept an incompetent and dangerous character in the party.
In game, in character conflict based on back stories and the craziness that ensues is as D&D as Wizards and sleep spells.
Sure. Been there done that. However, in character intra-party conflict is either resolved or one of the characters ends up dead or leaving the party because if the characters are being role played, they won't tolerate that sort of behaviour from someone they rely on to save their lives ... unless they CAN be relied on to save their lives ... but a character that gets everyone into difficult situations and runs away is not doing that.
Part of the problem that I see playing out at a lot of tables (in particular young ones) is that people no longer play D&D for emerging stories, they play it like a tactical video game where they are trying to win role-playing so anytime someone does something that isn't optimal, unexpected or disrupts plans, its not taken as just a turn in the story (an event), its considered "bad gameplay" and is immediately turned into a GM complaint rather then being handled where in belongs, in character in story.
People make "non-optimal" decisions all the time. Characters make non-optimal decisions for role playing reasons all the time. Splitting damage over multiple attackers happens all the time for example. People create characters that don't automatically have a maxed primary stat (eg 16 or 17 with point buy). However, I haven't heard anyone complain to the DM about other players making non-optimal decisions in 3 years of playing 5e. They might mention it to the player directly and depending on maturity will have different tolerance for the answers but it isn't a DM issue.
A rogue got your Paladin down, how does your character deal with a moron that pointlessly charges into combat? Again, I don't really care how Billy Feels about it, I want to know what the Dragonborn Justicar thinks about it and what he will do about it. Role-playing... your playing a role, play your part and let players play theirs.
Good aligned paladin tells the rogue to leave.
Neutral aligned paladin bashes the rogue on the head and tells them to leave.
Evil aligned paladin just cuts his throat and says good riddance.
In any case, problem solved and won't be an issue again. Paladins are far more flexible in this edition :)
GM's need to push back on players a little in my opinion, just because their is in character conflict and players aren't happy about it is not reason to start altering the concept of role-playing so that "everyone has fun". Conflict is part of the game, things that happen in the game are going to make you "the player" angry, its normal, that's part of what the game is, in fact, if that doesn't happen your doing something wrong. You should feel something when your playing an RPG. Things will go wrong, people will wrong you, you should have enough connection to the game for that to matter to you enough to have some emotions about it.... if you stay in character, that is when the magic happens, when that emotion becomes good role-playing and as a GM its your job to make sure people stay in character.
You are welcome to play however you like but in the games I run the objective is for the DM and the players to have FUN. A little intra party conflict can add some spice but too much detracts from the campaign and the enjoyment that the players find in role playing their characters. It can actually lead to real world conflicts between the players over events happening in the game. No game is worth that in my opinion. Most of us play games to have a good time. It is not a good time when real world conflicts develop between the players and get carried out of the game which inevitably happens if there are significant in-game character conflicts that are large enough that the players are not having fun.
Let the players create the consequences for the rogue. That's my advice, push back a bit, challenge it, don't set a precedence in your game where "anytime something happens I don't like I will complain to the GM about it" . This is your problem only if you have a problem player as Matt C. described quite well, someone who is in your game specifically to ruin everyone's fun. If that is not the case, this is not a GM problem.
If the characters behave as one would expect, the rogue will either leave or wind up dead. Player becomes unhappy because their character is dead or they can't play them. Player leaves because they feel the others are picking on them. Other players feel bad.
Is this really a better solution than the DM having a little chat with the rogue making it clear to them that their actions will have consequences if they keep up the behaviour? That the other characters in the party may be forced to kick him out just to help ensure their own survival? The player of the rogue may not even be aware that their behaviour is an issue, they might just be acting like an idiot for giggles and they think it is funny when it isn't for anyone else at the table. This is a player issue that needs discussing, not a role playing issue.
"This is what my character would do", is literally the foundation of role-playing as is in character group conflict.
It is not the sentiment that is the problem, but the player using it. Almost all the time, if you hear "But that's what my character would do." from a player then its because they've been a jerk and they know they've been a jerk and they are trying to justify it.
"My character dives in and starts the fight even though none of the rest of you want me to do that," is selfish. There is not place for selfishness at the D&D table. It's just as bad as the guy who always wants the magic item to go to his character, even if the item might be better suited to someone else.
I must say I don't agree 100% with this. If the PC has a GOOD reason to attack, I'm OK with it, and so are most players. Yes, it's kind of selfish to attack that vampire just because you have written into your character that you hate vampires, but still. I would expect people to do that even if all the other players are screaming for a short or long rest. That is roleplaying. What I wouldn't be OK with is a player doing this "just because he can". If the only RP-reason he has is "that's how he is" - well that doesn't work.
Some cool fights occurs because players feel "obliged" to attack, and it can be cool to roleplay afterwards that it wasn't perhaps the best idea. But if you keep doing it on a regular basis, well, then you could very well be an annoyance to your group.
We're not talking about "GOOD" reasons though. The OP stated, "Basically, he just runs in and starts stabbing. He even has gotten other characters knocked unconscious by starting fights he can't finish and using his bonus action to disengage and run." That doesn't sound like a good reason, to me. The OP stated the other players are frustrated. He stated that he is not able to do more nuanced stories because everything turns into combat. So, the rogue is NOT some noble RPer just doing great RP that the other players don't like. He's actually reducing the RP and noncombat situations by saying "Eff it I just go in and start stabbing" over and over again. And then when that turns out to have been a bad idea, he "disengages" and gets the heck out of Dodge. The other players the complain that they have to clean up his mess -- meaning either finish a battle that HE started without his help, or else, that they have to now smooth things over with people who got attacked, or were friends of those who were attacked.
This rogue player is making the rest of the table miserable and ruining the experience they want to have by doing what he damn well pleases. Over and over again. This is not acceptable play at the table and I would not allow it as a DM. The player and I would have a talk, and if he refuses to change, I would have to tell him he is no longer playing with us.
There can never, ever, be a "GOOD" reason for destroying the experiences of your fellow players. The purpose is to have fun. I don't care how in-character it is, if what you are doing at the table is making other players unable to have fun, it is not acceptable and it must be stopped. You are not allowed to have fun at the other players' (and DM's) expense.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I have a PC who is playing a rogue/assassin who is pissing off the rest of the party. Basically, he just runs in and starts stabbing. He even has gotten other characters knocked unconscious by starting fights he can't finish and using his bonus action to disengage and run.
I haven't been around D&D long, but I do understand this much: rogues gonna rogue. And if the rogue is role-playing well it will only make sense that he angers his party from time to time. This PC even has a backstory that would lead the character to be super nihilistic and extra stabby. So it's hard from a DM standpoint to really argue with his actions.
That said, several party members have complained that their own actions aren't important to the plot. They don't get to determine the outcome of an encounter because they're too busy cleaning up the fights that they didn't want to start. It also makes the gameplay a bit less nuanced since it's all fighting and less about exploration or creatively navigating difficult challenges.
Any suggestions?
Any time a player says “Buts that’s what my character would do” it means they are being a jerk, and they know it. They think because they’re a rogue or chaotic neutral or whatever, that gives them license to do whatever they want with no consequences.
The player, backstory or class notwithstanding, is not just helplessly observing the actions of his character. The player is choosing to make the character do these things. The player can choose to not make the character do these things. Playing that way might be his idea of fun, but at some point he needs to realize there are other people at the table.
Its really that simple. Tell the player that what he is doing is making things not be fun for everyone else and he needs to stop.
You might also suggest to the rest of the party they not bail him out when he picks fights they don’t want, and see how long he lasts solo.
And I’m going to have to disagree that a rogue will necessarily annoy the the party. I’ve played a lot of D&D. A rogue has never made me upset. I’m hard pressed to think of a time when a rogue character has made my character upset. A player being a jerk has, but that has nothing to do with class.
Thanks for the replies so far! Already giving me some things to think about. If others have ideas I’d love to hear them!
As I try to figure out how to handle this long term, I’m wondering about some shorter term solutions. For instance, are there monsters with strong melee attacks which prevent players from disengaging? I’m thinking that maybe if his normal strategy fails he will be forced to rely on the other members of the team.
I’m also considering introducing some enemies that are easy to negotiate with but very strong in combat. That way the stabbing will get everyone killed (an outcome I’d make narrative preparation for in case of a TPK). That might drive home the importance of negotiation and tactics if the rogue’s actions land everyone in a dungeon cell, waking up with 1HP.
DM Fiat is its own game-killer as much as lone wolf rogueing. So any in game attempts to give a middle finger to the rogue have to be done with tact and subtlety. If he’s charging through doors to stab and disengage to run back to hide outside again before initiative even starts, then a trap that seals the way out behind him as soon as he goes through the door seems reasonable. I imagine his passive perception is really high, or I’d suggest placing a gelatinous cube behind the door between the treasure or target and the rogue. Rugs of Smothering and Mimics are another fun consequence for people charging ahead without thinking. All are really common, even at lower levels, so it’s not like “Oops. You silly level 3 characters ran across and attacked a 20th level Mage. I promise that was how the adventure was written!”
Even if his backstory gives his character license to get stabby and independent. The whole point of playing a character instead of a stat block is that there’s growth and progression. Not just that ‘now my sneak attack deals 3d6’, but “as I’ve spent time with these people, they’ve tempered a lot of my impulses. They’ve saved my butt multiple times, I owe them a bit more caution.”
Does this means he starts unnecessary fights, or that he just "runs" in first destroying any tactics? If those he attacks are more intelligent than a zombie, you can have them only focus on him, and not attacking the other players as long as they stay out of the fight.
You can add in some archers to shoot when he disengages, and certainly give one or more of the bad guys a greatweapon. Sooner or later you will roll a natural 20, and he will be really hurt. There are also some spells that might "destroy" his tactics.
Here you are (IMO) not exactly right.
NO, all "rogues" don't have to rogue. Bilbo Baggins would certainly be a rogue in this system for instance. But yes, rogues can be rogues.
It's not only rogues who can anger the party because of roleplaying. All characters can. Paladins because of their oath, clerics because of some doctrine, and frankly all characters because of some background trait. If you throw in an NPC who boasts he roasted the peace-loving halfling-druids family, it wouldn't be bad RP if she attacks on sight (bad tactics or not).
Here I don't follow you. Are the rogue also determining the outcome of the encounter while the others are cleaning up his fight. That I would simply not allow. If he leaves combat, have him sit and wait. Most combat in D&D are over in 30 seconds (in-game). It's not enough time for anyone outside the combat to do much.
It might sound like you actually want your players to solve the "encounters" in other ways than combat. That's a bit tricky in a system like D&D which is so "rigged" around combat. Make it quite easy to solve it in other ways. Like you said, big brutes, but easy to persuade. Or make them easy to sneak pass - basically add things were your players can "solve" the encounter using skills - and make it quite easy.
I don't know how often you allow your players to rest. I generally only allow short rests in dungeons, and even then, they better find a quite safe place. You should warn them up front, but it is possible to create a dungeon where they would have great trouble if they choose to face all the enemies face to face.
Ludo ergo sum!
The rogue's player is being a Wangrod. See Matt Colville's video on the subject:
I don't care if it's "what my character would do." If you have made up a character who, in doing what he does, is making all the other players at the table miserable, you're a wangrod and you need to cut it out. Either (a) change the character, (b) make up a new character, or (c) find another way for him to 'do what he would do'. But making everyone else at the table miserable and ruining everyone else's fun is not an option. Period, page break, close file.
Also, do not punish the party over the rogue. Never do that. Just punish the rogue, if you have to. Give the party at the table permission, if he runs in stabbing, to stand back and let him die. Or maybe set up some kind of trap where the first person to run in gets cut off from everyone else and now has to fight alone. Send him unconscious the first time, see if he learns his lesson. If not, next time the character dies, and instruct him upon making a new one not to make a character who is going to ruin everyone else's fun.
Finally, "rogue's gonna rouge," is BS. There is nothing in the description of the rogue character that says it has to be stupid or annoying. Plenty of rogues hide at the back of the party and wait for things to start first, rather than diving in and starting to stab.
But Matt's video is better than anything I can write here so... go watch it. It's only 10 min long. And he explains why it's bad and how to deal with it.
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.
Maybe the rogue's enemies hire the party to do away with him?
No offense taken, but I stand by what I said. Role Playing does not give you license to be a jerk. The old adage of "your right to swing your fist stops at my nose" comes into play, here. Play however you like, but not to the point that it becomes a problem for others. It's a group game, you don't get to just do whatever you want and force other people to deal with the consequences. Players saying they are just playing the character's backstory is not a defense. The player made the backstory. It wasn't just dumped on them from the sky. They chose to make such a backstory. They can choose to make a different one. Even if they just randomly rolled on the list in their background, there is a lot of wiggle room for how they play those flaws, bonds, etc. that don't involve making things miserable for everyone else.
Also, I would say that players who make compromises for the good of the group are actually the better players. They understand that its not just about them; its about everyone having fun. People unwilling to make a compromise are just being selfish.
See also, the video Biowizard posted above.
The short answer is that the rogue's player is relying on metagame unwillingness of other players to kick him out of the group, while at the same time choosing to roleplay a horrible person who would otherwise be kicked or killed by the other PCs.
As the video says, "It's what my character would do is the last defense of the toxic player."
If you made up the character, why did you make up a character who, if you have him do what he would do, is going to make everyone else at the table unhappy. There is a very simple solution to this: don't make up a character who would do this kind of thing. Xalthu is 100% on this -- you did not get your character dumped on you from the sky. You made it up. Make up something else.
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.
The short answer is consequences.
Let's say you were adventuring in a group and one of the people you are relying on to save your life runs in and consistently start fights you don't want to be in and then runs away leaving the other people in the group to clean up the mess. What would the characters realistically do in this case?
This depends on the characters.
If the character in game are best friends or siblings they might have a friendly discussion and have them either stop acting this way or leave the group.
If the characters in game are associates working together towards a goal and one character fails to deliver then they will tell them to leave, they don't get another chance.
If the characters are simply folks who know each other, adventuring for convenience and another character comes close to killing other group members due to incompetence and irresponsibility then that character is probably either dead or gone. Keep in mind that the characters may live in a rather rough world with little or no enforcement of laws. In such a case, a character who constantly puts their group mates in jeopardy is a liability.
In any of these cases, no matter what happens, the characters have no reason to continue adventuring with this irresponsible and incompetent character who is literally almost killing other group members through their actions. The player is relying on the other players to not want to boot them from the party. The player is relying on the DM to not enforce consequences for actions that endanger other characters. Rogues can often survive when others don't since they are often engaging at range AND they have cunning action allowing them to escape more easily than many other characters. However, if the rogue precipitates deadly situations - no party is going to adventure with them.
As DM, you need to have a discussion with the player pointing out these consequences to their continued stupidity. If this is truly "what their character would do" then their character is really unsuitable to adventuring in groups with other characters and they can reasonably expect no one to want to adventure with them (since no one would typically willingly choose to constatnly endanger their lives having an incompetent, stupid and irresponsible character in their party).
^^^^ This.
The other way to deal with "it's what my character would do," comes from the other players. If they do what THEIR character would do, the Wangrod character would find himself dead, abandoned, or turned over to the authorities.
Wangrods are relying on everyone else doing what the Wangrods will not -- sacrifice "what their character would do" for another player (i.e., for the Wangrod).
99% of the time what's going on here is, the Wangrod is a prima donna who would have an absolute fit if you backstabbed his character like he's doing to yours. And you know this, so you let him get away with it "for the sake of peace" in the group. Only you can judge if it's worth doing this or not. I did it for years.
But not anymore. Wangrod needs to grow up and act like an adult or get out of any group I am in. (Or I'll leave if I'm the only one bothered, but I never have been....).
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.
As was said, have a discussion with this player, explaining to him his actions are disrupting everyone else's fun.
The next time he behaves that way, have an enemy (or every enemy) with Sentinel, if he runs up and strikes and tries to disengage, no luck and now he's stuck in the middle of the melee and all that is coming down on him.
The key question is how the player would react if one of the other PCs disintegrated his PC because "I'm role-playing MY character". If he'd take offense, he's not actually serious about "role-playing", he's just using it as an excuse to be a jerk.
You're talking about apples and oranges here. A D&D game and a fantasy story are not the same thing. In a fantasy story, the jerk character and the nice characters and the villain and everyone else are all "played" by the same person -- the author. The author isn't putting anyone else out by having the jerk character do his thing. And he knows the audience will enjoy it.
In a D&D game, there are other players there, who may not have consented to being the butt of the jerk player's antics. Who may not appreciate having all their careful plans derailed so that, let's be honest here, jerk-boy's player can hog the spotlight and make the session "all about him." If the player wants to make a jerk who might screw the party by ignoring their plans, then at a minimum, this needs to be cleared with the entire table (including the DM as well as the players) ahead of time. You do not just walk into a game group with a character who is going to take over the spotlight whenever you damn well please, and wreck the entire plan for the whole rest of the table, just because you feel like it.
"My character dives in and starts the fight even though none of the rest of you want me to do that," is selfish. There is not place for selfishness at the D&D table. It's just as bad as the guy who always wants the magic item to go to his character, even if the item might be better suited to someone else.
Honestly? My Paladin would probably walk away and refuse to team with your rogue anymore (after saving his life this one last time). This rogue is jeopardizing not only himself, but everyone else in the party, as well as whatever goal we might have. My paladin is logical and forthright. He would correctly judge that he'd be better off completing the quest his duty and honor require of him, without your rogue's interference.
But.... if I do that, if I play MY character "the way he ought to be played," and the party breaks up -- there is no D&D game to play anymore. Do we want to play D&D, or not? If so, then everyone must make compromises. The position you seem to be espousing here, which is that there is no requirement to make compromises that might interfere with the purity of role-play, is not tenable. The only way it would work is if all the players got together and co-designed a perfect party of people who would always stick together no matter what (say a group of quintuplets or something). Absent that, any character I come up with will be an imperfect match for characters you come up with, and to play them together, we're going to have to let some things slide and not play up certain RP elements so that we can have an actual session.
This sounds all well and good but the problem is, you are not playing the game with the Justicar; you are playing it with Billy. And if you are going to do things in blatant disregard of Billy's feelings, you're going to find yourself not playing with Billy any longer, after not too much time passes.
Look, I consider myself a hardcore RPer, but even I would never sacrifice the happiness of people at my table on the altar of roleplay purity. The whole point of this thing is to have fun. This means we need to make sure everyone is having fun. I don't care what your concept is -- if it is making everyone else at the table unhappy, common courtesy (as well as practicality, if you want them to keep playing with you) demands that you make some changes.
Again... the jerk character CAN be fun, if everyone at the table is cool with it. But they need to be cool with it, and if not... people need to cut it out.
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.
So I feel like there are a few ways you could do this. First thing is to talk to the person outside of game and express how everyone feels and maybe be less stabby or maybe try talking before stabbing. Now he does not need to change completely on his (lack of) "morals", but having an arc as a character can help make the character more in-depth and real. If he wanted to do an arc as a character, maybe help lead them to a resolution by creating a little side plot after he stabs an important person, mafia grabs him in the night and the gang needs to get him back. Or he stabs a noble who is close to the queen who demands he pay for his actions in a fun creative way (ie. Gladiator combat, escape room(so you cant stab your way out), or even capturing fugitives alive).
Another thing to remember that I sometimes forget is: its the players game. You built this whole world and story for them, but it has to be clay. You need to mold it to their actions, maybe something insignificant actions now can have a result later. For example, making a drinking companion (get sober, beat in a drinking competition) can lead to having an inside man in the mafia, towns guard, noble courts. And if they did not want to start the fight, maybe they could dissolve it by talking their way out of it, maybe they make a few enemies or friends because of it.
Last option I could see is create a rival for him. Another rogue that has killed under his MO and is framing him or competing with him in the shadows. The gang needs to find who it is and you could show the character that acting in a behavior like this will result in serious consequences. Potentially even killing his character if he is in a battle he got himself into and couldn't get out. (that would be a last result obviously, but if he will not stop ruining the fun for the rest of the party, maybe it will be necessary.)
But first step is always to talk with him about how you and the others are feeling and if he could restrain himself, or have the other players roleplay to assign him a buddy to make sure they dont get in trouble :)
I must say I don't agree 100% with this. If the PC has a GOOD reason to attack, I'm OK with it, and so are most players. Yes, it's kind of selfish to attack that vampire just because you have written into your character that you hate vampires, but still. I would expect people to do that even if all the other players are screaming for a short or long rest. That is roleplaying. What I wouldn't be OK with is a player doing this "just because he can". If the only RP-reason he has is "that's how he is" - well that doesn't work.
Some cool fights occurs because players feel "obliged" to attack, and it can be cool to roleplay afterwards that it wasn't perhaps the best idea. But if you keep doing it on a regular basis, well, then you could very well be an annoyance to your group.
Ludo ergo sum!
However, fundamentally, the group IS an adventuring party. This party would NOT form. They would NOT stick together and would NOT naturally choose (in-character) to retain a character in the group whose decisions constantly endangered and even killed other party members. In any reasonable situation, such a disruptive character would be told to leave and if they did not they would likely be killed. Period. There are limits to role-playing.
I ran a 1e ADD campaign that had a barbarian (which hated all magic in that edition) and a gnome illusionist/thief who loved magic. We had a great time with the gnome hiding their magic from the barbarian and explaining it away so the barbarian didn't become too suspicious. However, when an immensely valuable magic item showed up, the barbarian was all for destroying it and the gnome wanted it for themselves and the fundamental differences between the characters were such that the gnome had to leave the party before the barbarian killed them.
The point is that making any role playing choice that is against the party or inimical to it will eventually result in the character leaving or dying unless all of the players have got together and come up with some backstory reason justifying why they would remotely tolerate such dangerous behaviour in an actual group. Adventuring is dangerous, why bring along anyone who increases the odds of anyone but them dying?
Sure ... and if that includes making your party members dead (or at least hoping that they will die and nudging them in that direction) so that you can add them to your growing army of skeletons and zombies ... you can expect that necromancer to be dumped from that adventuring party really quickly. Anti party and anti group role playing decisions that endanger everyone are a prime reason to NOT travel with that character.
This may be a fantasy trope. However, the author is creating a narrative with their characters and there are usually story reasons why such an incompetent is permitted to remain with a group. This is created and tied together by the author. If the DM and all the players agree before hand on a backstory that includes keeping a character in the party that will likely result in the deaths of other characters at some point then fine. However, if they other players are actually role playing their characters properly, there is NO way they would continue to travel with "a character that derails the groups plans by making hasty, stupid or pointless actions that get everyone in trouble". D&D is a shared narrative not a book and as such each of the characters are played by a different player ... characters who may not even remotely accept an incompetent and dangerous character in the party.
Sure. Been there done that. However, in character intra-party conflict is either resolved or one of the characters ends up dead or leaving the party because if the characters are being role played, they won't tolerate that sort of behaviour from someone they rely on to save their lives ... unless they CAN be relied on to save their lives ... but a character that gets everyone into difficult situations and runs away is not doing that.
People make "non-optimal" decisions all the time. Characters make non-optimal decisions for role playing reasons all the time. Splitting damage over multiple attackers happens all the time for example. People create characters that don't automatically have a maxed primary stat (eg 16 or 17 with point buy). However, I haven't heard anyone complain to the DM about other players making non-optimal decisions in 3 years of playing 5e. They might mention it to the player directly and depending on maturity will have different tolerance for the answers but it isn't a DM issue.
Good aligned paladin tells the rogue to leave.
Neutral aligned paladin bashes the rogue on the head and tells them to leave.
Evil aligned paladin just cuts his throat and says good riddance.
In any case, problem solved and won't be an issue again. Paladins are far more flexible in this edition :)
You are welcome to play however you like but in the games I run the objective is for the DM and the players to have FUN. A little intra party conflict can add some spice but too much detracts from the campaign and the enjoyment that the players find in role playing their characters. It can actually lead to real world conflicts between the players over events happening in the game. No game is worth that in my opinion. Most of us play games to have a good time. It is not a good time when real world conflicts develop between the players and get carried out of the game which inevitably happens if there are significant in-game character conflicts that are large enough that the players are not having fun.
If the characters behave as one would expect, the rogue will either leave or wind up dead. Player becomes unhappy because their character is dead or they can't play them. Player leaves because they feel the others are picking on them. Other players feel bad.
Is this really a better solution than the DM having a little chat with the rogue making it clear to them that their actions will have consequences if they keep up the behaviour? That the other characters in the party may be forced to kick him out just to help ensure their own survival? The player of the rogue may not even be aware that their behaviour is an issue, they might just be acting like an idiot for giggles and they think it is funny when it isn't for anyone else at the table. This is a player issue that needs discussing, not a role playing issue.
It is not the sentiment that is the problem, but the player using it. Almost all the time, if you hear "But that's what my character would do." from a player then its because they've been a jerk and they know they've been a jerk and they are trying to justify it.
We're not talking about "GOOD" reasons though. The OP stated, "Basically, he just runs in and starts stabbing. He even has gotten other characters knocked unconscious by starting fights he can't finish and using his bonus action to disengage and run." That doesn't sound like a good reason, to me. The OP stated the other players are frustrated. He stated that he is not able to do more nuanced stories because everything turns into combat. So, the rogue is NOT some noble RPer just doing great RP that the other players don't like. He's actually reducing the RP and noncombat situations by saying "Eff it I just go in and start stabbing" over and over again. And then when that turns out to have been a bad idea, he "disengages" and gets the heck out of Dodge. The other players the complain that they have to clean up his mess -- meaning either finish a battle that HE started without his help, or else, that they have to now smooth things over with people who got attacked, or were friends of those who were attacked.
This rogue player is making the rest of the table miserable and ruining the experience they want to have by doing what he damn well pleases. Over and over again. This is not acceptable play at the table and I would not allow it as a DM. The player and I would have a talk, and if he refuses to change, I would have to tell him he is no longer playing with us.
There can never, ever, be a "GOOD" reason for destroying the experiences of your fellow players. The purpose is to have fun. I don't care how in-character it is, if what you are doing at the table is making other players unable to have fun, it is not acceptable and it must be stopped. You are not allowed to have fun at the other players' (and DM's) expense.
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.