I disagree with any advice that encourages you to take it out on the character in game for the actions of the player. That's just being passive-aggressive and will only cause more issues not solve them.
As for the advice to talk with the person out of the game I highly encourage that. Let them know that you are looking for a different type of game and that you realize that as a group you are just getting a feel for playing with each other but this is not what you enjoy and you are a part of the game as much as they are.
It's not "taking it out on a character" it's the world reacting to the character in commensurate accordance to their actions. Again, DM should coach the player that inanity will likely be treated as inanity realistically. A potential patron magically rescued the party from dire straits, begins to explain their needs to the party in his sanctuary, it's readily apparent this is likely set up for where the game goes next, so one player decides to derail that and send the party off on what may not fit the classic definition of chaotic stupid but at least chaotic inane. Realistically a potential patron would probably be very much "heck with these guys" and maybe magically transport them back to their initial predicament. DM is clearly trying to run a consistent world and the Bard is clearly trying to derail, break, or at least not respect the world they're playing in. The world does not have to give the character a "pass." It should react accordingly. Thatt's not "taking it out on a character." It's continuity. It's not passive aggressive. The character did it, the world gets to react to it. Just like if the characters had a senseless tavern brawl that left patrons dead, the players may need to find a new tavern to meet in, which may disappoint the players because they liked their characters going there. That's not passive aggressive either.
I guess I should clarify:
1. OOC Problems with the person (They make jokes at everything that happens but not in character) should not be punished with in character actions (when they make a joke out of character their PC suffers 1d4 psychic damage)
2. The world can respond in a reasonable way to how they act. "Rocks fall and somehow do exactly double your HP in damage, roll a new character" with no warning is not an appropriate response...its directly targeting a character to prove a point.
What I see as reasonable: "You put the lampshade on your head. No one in the room laughs. The bartender quietly askes you to get down from the bar or he will call the guards. He has no humor in his face as he does this"
It gets the point across that they do not find his antics funny without resorting to #2.
Yes, but at the same time, the DM chooses the characters they put in the game. The DM can make a no-nonsense bartender or a co-conspiratorial one. If the players enjoy a little antics, it might be nice to have the tavern, at least, be a lighthearted place. They can get serious when they go to the dungeon.
That too...my major point is "Rocks fall and you die because I am tried of your antics" is quite literally not an option I would ever do...
I would much rather have a conversation with the actual player and tell them why this is impacting me as a person and why I would want them to stop. If they can't see it or refuse to stop then just drop them from the group without resorting to, frankly, childish ways of killing them in game out of spite.
I apologize if I'm not exactly looking through the rest of the comments, but I want to pitch in an experience that I feel you might find is valuable and important about dealing with players and their in-character actions with serious repercussions.
Not going to get super into it or the mechanics behind it, but TLDR; last campaign I ran had a Fighter get soul-possessed by a witch on the opposite side of a Prismatic Wall (akin to Magic Jar). Fighter and Cleric are very close and don't want to see each other hurt, so Cleric is desperately looking for a way to stop the Wall or free their friend. Sorcerer has the idea to YEET the Fighter into the Wall as a joke, and Sorc and Druid proceed to joke about it until they come up with a plan to make it happen. They pull it off without anybody else's consent and the Fighter ultimately ends up dying from it. Cleric brings them back, but it's a fun time for nobody and cuts the epic encounter very short.
I bring this experience up because the fallout of the incident was felt through the rest of the campaign and had to be talked about before entering the next one. Lots of feelings were hurt by it because, even though one could argue that it was effective to their players, it still wasn't right for the group. Not only was it not in character, but what half of the group thought was a perfect plan ended up feeling like a miserable and painful experience for the other half.
What I'm trying to get at here is the idea of having respect for your fellow players- the DM included- at the game table. It's a vital part of any collaborative experience, and even though it's often thought of as "uncool" to be trying to lay down the law on how people should be behaving and interacting, it's far more uncool to be disrespecting people at the table. You shouldn't have to play a game and be afraid of feeling hurt by the way people interact with you; if you have a player that doesn't understand that, you should ask them to reconsider or tell them that they might not mesh well with the campaign you have planned (AKA to stop being a jerk, whether they intend it or not). Biggest challenge of being a DM is to remind yourself that you have feelings and boundaries too.
At the end of the day, you should encourage these conversations to be had because it builds trust and lasting friendships to know that you have people to play with who all respect each other enough not to pull these kinds of things. At the end of the day, the best thing to come out of D&D in my opinion is stories and friendships rather than levels and loot! : ) I hope you and anybody else who might be struggling with feeling lost with tough players can forge these sorts of respectful relationships!
I disagree with any advice that encourages you to take it out on the character in game for the actions of the player. That's just being passive-aggressive and will only cause more issues not solve them.
As for the advice to talk with the person out of the game I highly encourage that. Let them know that you are looking for a different type of game and that you realize that as a group you are just getting a feel for playing with each other but this is not what you enjoy and you are a part of the game as much as they are.
It's not "taking it out on a character" it's the world reacting to the character in commensurate accordance to their actions. Again, DM should coach the player that inanity will likely be treated as inanity realistically. A potential patron magically rescued the party from dire straits, begins to explain their needs to the party in his sanctuary, it's readily apparent this is likely set up for where the game goes next, so one player decides to derail that and send the party off on what may not fit the classic definition of chaotic stupid but at least chaotic inane. Realistically a potential patron would probably be very much "heck with these guys" and maybe magically transport them back to their initial predicament. DM is clearly trying to run a consistent world and the Bard is clearly trying to derail, break, or at least not respect the world they're playing in. The world does not have to give the character a "pass." It should react accordingly. Thatt's not "taking it out on a character." It's continuity. It's not passive aggressive. The character did it, the world gets to react to it. Just like if the characters had a senseless tavern brawl that left patrons dead, the players may need to find a new tavern to meet in, which may disappoint the players because they liked their characters going there. That's not passive aggressive either.
Most people simply don't like personal confrontation. Unfortunately, I am quite confident that every DM, if they DM long enough, will have to deal with it. Some deal with it in game, some out of game (which is much harder for some people), and some do both.
I sense, and could be entirely wrong, that that this new DM wants to avoid the personal confrontation route. So doing as you suggest, where in-game actions have serious in-game consequences, is a valid route, and likely the first step. However, past experience tells me that for people (not chars), like this, in-game consequences are not something such people worry about, or often clue into. You quite literally have to club them over the head, in-game, and then STILL say something out of game. I have seen this kind of thing devolve into the player say "why did you do that to my char?", and the DM lose their temper and say "because your char did a dumbass thing."
One of the other side effects of this kind of disruptive behaviour is that eventually the other players act in-game, or out of game, if the DM does not. And the other players actions often include walking away from the table, never to return, if those other players don't like personal confrontation either. It is best for the DM to hammer this nail as quickly as possible.
Yeah they progressed into negativity because its the worst way to approach the situation....
I understand that they may want to avoid the conflict....but my point is that is the most unhealthy and counterproductive way to handle this. If you truly want to have a good game with your group you need to be able to have these types of conversations.
Being a DM (and an adult for that matter) means that you have to be willing to have some tough conversations to set expectations and to hold people accountable for their actions.
DMing puts you in the drivers seat when it comes to group dynamics and interactions. You are running the show and therefore have to step up to take on the challenge of a disruptive player.
Sometimes that means having a tough conversation and letting them know how their behavior is affecting you and the others in the group. This is the healthy way to approach it.
Passive-aggressive hand slapping or outright character killing in game to try to prove a point will not end well....its not a good way to deal with conflict. It does not address the behavior in a way that actually frames how it is affecting you and the others at the table.
Its rough I know....but honestly putting yourself out there and having a tough conversation will only help you grow as a person and as a DM.
Be careful about punishing comic relief, sometimes it's a sign that things have been serious long enough and people's brains need a break. A better approach might be to encourage out of character comic relief instead.
Maybe the guy was just being immature, but this ^ is 100% where my mind went. Even with a Session 0, people may agree to a serious campaign without really understanding what they can handle. A serious campaign is going to evoke a lot of tension, and people may react to this with humor without even really knowing why they're doing it. As a DM, it can be helpful to be very mindful of the tension level and provide enough moments of release that the players won't have to do it themselves. Even a show like Breaking Bad has moments of comic relief or silliness.
yesterday I had a pretty nice session in an ongoing (we are four sessions in) campaign. At the start of the campaign I clarified that the campaign will also have "more serious" themes in it and that I do not only want joke characters in it. Now...
The characters came out of a crypt where they encountered undead that were summoned by a ritual, they also rescued a kenku. Afterwards they were chased by the cultists that summoned the undead. Long story short: The Kenku saved them and teleported them out of harms way.
They were teleported to the kenkus library and talked with him. They got a new quest from him. Now... two of four people talked with the kenku while one was investigating and searching the library for interesting books, nothing wrong with that.
And then there was one player that all of a sudden randomly started a polonaise and was drunk. The player just went on a polonaise straight out of the library without saying anything (no goodbye or anyting else) to the NPC. Suddenly one of the players that was talking with the Kenku and the one that was searching for books also got straight to it and went on a polonaise with the guy that started it.
I as a DM was just "going with the flow" but did not really comment on it because I did not know what to say. It was just kinda random to me and now thinking about it, it really ruined the fun for me.
The player that is playing the bard that started the polonaise is always saying that he loves role playing and really likes that kinda "comic-relief" characters. There were multiple random and just out of nowhere "upbeat" things like these. To me this has nothing to do with comic relief, it feels just like a circus and very childish, thinking that an adult would behave like this after finding undead and getting their life saved by the same charactes. To me this does not feel like comic relief but rather like straight chaos. Sometimes it makes me think that their character is "********" or "mental" or "immature" or whatever way you wanna put it.
Now, I already adressed this with another character of this player and then he made a new one because he was thinking we didn't like their character. But now I realise that it was not their character but rather their "Comic relief"-playstyle.
I do not know if I am too sensible here but I am making DnD a priority and I can see no way that this was an in character choice for this player.
TLDR: How do you guys handle "Comic-Relief" (honestly in my opinion it was rather chaotic/"********"/"immature") characters that are only in the adventure just to pull jokes all the time and do random things that are weird?
Do some of you guys hav experiences with this? I really don't know what to do about it. I somehow want to change the two rather chaotic players with two other friends that I also know pretty well and continue the campaign but at the same time this would be kinda disrespectful.
I've bolded some of the important bits ..
1) This is a recurring problem. The player involved had a previous character with a similar issue and the player changed the character in response to comments from the DM.
2) The player involved not only disrupted the encounter with actions that would appear to be out of character for the character (starting a polonaise and suddenly becoming drunk - not sure how that happens unless the character drinks all the time anyway), they also derailed the encounter for the other players by dragging two of the other players who were interacting with the NPC into their out of character behaviour.
3) The DM did not enjoy the random chaotic "comic relief".
What to do?
The issue is NOT just the single player though they were the catalyst. The DM needs to have an honest chat with the group to see what's going on. Did the bard character do similar things in any of the three previous sessions? If not, why not? If the bard did do similar things, did other players join in?
The other two players joining the bard character is actually probably as much of a concern as the bard player. This is because players that are invested in the playstyle and are enjoying the scene won't usually step way out of character to take "crazy" out of character actions with another character since it breaks the immersion for them as much as the DM. This may depend on the players and how they see the game but I think this may be an indication that at least 3 of the 4 players were bored with the Kenku encounter for whatever reason and did not feel comfortable making a comment to the DM to that effect. Instead, the bard character, who was doing nothing during the encounter, decided to do something zany because they were bored and they needed "comic relief" and two of the other players joined them - possibly indicating that they were also bored with how the scene was playing out.
If this did not happen in the previous sessions that involved combat, exploration, chases and other exciting encounters - it may be that the Kenku encounter in the library was taking too long, perhaps particularly if the DM was doing something unusual to roleplay the Kenku that can only communicate through mimicry. This is just a guess since there isn't that much information in the original post.
In terms of dealing with it, I think the DM needs to have a chat with everyone and find out why the bard player decided to do something totally off the wall and why the other players decided to go along with it ... since none of it really made much sense from an in character perspective. The game doesn't need to be serious all the time, but the DM can also indicate that random out of character silliness doesn't really make much sense .. and perhaps see if there is some middle ground.
Yes, the DMs toolbox isn't exclusive to a hammer. And frankly offing a character for what's basically a in game social offense or otherwise being a bad actor, so to speak, at the game table is pretty darn confrontational. The DMs goal is to encourage good play that in turn inspires the DM to deliver a good game. An intervention, as I outlined, need not be adversarial.
Basically, player conduct like this is deflating the game's tires. If the DM loses too much air, game car don't go. Now is it a better tactic to accelerate the game car and toss the player out of the game car in front of the other players along for the ride? I mean, that's one thing you could do, and the other players will certainly tighten their seatbelts, but when you're driving and looking for songs to play on the radio, the player passenger may feel afraid to speak up let they incur Dm wrath. To me, the smarter play would be to momentarily pull the vehicle over. Point out the tire damage done by the player and say the two of you need to patch this up and get some air back in to get the game car going again. That, I feel, is the best way to assure a smoother ride in the game. A asymmetric retaliation (player death) or ignoring the problem is just going to make the ride progressively bumpier again until the tires lose all their air, or the game's alignment goes out of whack (man, I"m loving the puns popping out of this metaphor).
More encouragement to watch Seth's videos. They are great for GM folks who need frameworks to assert good faith play on the social side/player conduct side of the table.
Tl:dr Games aren't just run, they need maintenance. Sometimes the game has to stop for such needs, but it's the best thing for game longevity.
That too...my major point is "Rocks fall and you die because I am tried of your antics" is quite literally not an option I would ever do...
I would much rather have a conversation with the actual player and tell them why this is impacting me as a person and why I would want them to stop. If they can't see it or refuse to stop then just drop them from the group without resorting to, frankly, childish ways of killing them in game out of spite.
I apologize if I'm not exactly looking through the rest of the comments, but I want to pitch in an experience that I feel you might find is valuable and important about dealing with players and their in-character actions with serious repercussions.
Not going to get super into it or the mechanics behind it, but TLDR; last campaign I ran had a Fighter get soul-possessed by a witch on the opposite side of a Prismatic Wall (akin to Magic Jar). Fighter and Cleric are very close and don't want to see each other hurt, so Cleric is desperately looking for a way to stop the Wall or free their friend. Sorcerer has the idea to YEET the Fighter into the Wall as a joke, and Sorc and Druid proceed to joke about it until they come up with a plan to make it happen. They pull it off without anybody else's consent and the Fighter ultimately ends up dying from it. Cleric brings them back, but it's a fun time for nobody and cuts the epic encounter very short.
I bring this experience up because the fallout of the incident was felt through the rest of the campaign and had to be talked about before entering the next one. Lots of feelings were hurt by it because, even though one could argue that it was effective to their players, it still wasn't right for the group. Not only was it not in character, but what half of the group thought was a perfect plan ended up feeling like a miserable and painful experience for the other half.
What I'm trying to get at here is the idea of having respect for your fellow players- the DM included- at the game table. It's a vital part of any collaborative experience, and even though it's often thought of as "uncool" to be trying to lay down the law on how people should be behaving and interacting, it's far more uncool to be disrespecting people at the table. You shouldn't have to play a game and be afraid of feeling hurt by the way people interact with you; if you have a player that doesn't understand that, you should ask them to reconsider or tell them that they might not mesh well with the campaign you have planned (AKA to stop being a jerk, whether they intend it or not). Biggest challenge of being a DM is to remind yourself that you have feelings and boundaries too.
At the end of the day, you should encourage these conversations to be had because it builds trust and lasting friendships to know that you have people to play with who all respect each other enough not to pull these kinds of things. At the end of the day, the best thing to come out of D&D in my opinion is stories and friendships rather than levels and loot! : ) I hope you and anybody else who might be struggling with feeling lost with tough players can forge these sorts of respectful relationships!
Yeah they progressed into negativity because its the worst way to approach the situation....
I understand that they may want to avoid the conflict....but my point is that is the most unhealthy and counterproductive way to handle this. If you truly want to have a good game with your group you need to be able to have these types of conversations.
Being a DM (and an adult for that matter) means that you have to be willing to have some tough conversations to set expectations and to hold people accountable for their actions.
DMing puts you in the drivers seat when it comes to group dynamics and interactions. You are running the show and therefore have to step up to take on the challenge of a disruptive player.
Sometimes that means having a tough conversation and letting them know how their behavior is affecting you and the others in the group. This is the healthy way to approach it.
Passive-aggressive hand slapping or outright character killing in game to try to prove a point will not end well....its not a good way to deal with conflict. It does not address the behavior in a way that actually frames how it is affecting you and the others at the table.
Its rough I know....but honestly putting yourself out there and having a tough conversation will only help you grow as a person and as a DM.
Maybe the guy was just being immature, but this ^ is 100% where my mind went. Even with a Session 0, people may agree to a serious campaign without really understanding what they can handle. A serious campaign is going to evoke a lot of tension, and people may react to this with humor without even really knowing why they're doing it. As a DM, it can be helpful to be very mindful of the tension level and provide enough moments of release that the players won't have to do it themselves. Even a show like Breaking Bad has moments of comic relief or silliness.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I've bolded some of the important bits ..
1) This is a recurring problem. The player involved had a previous character with a similar issue and the player changed the character in response to comments from the DM.
2) The player involved not only disrupted the encounter with actions that would appear to be out of character for the character (starting a polonaise and suddenly becoming drunk - not sure how that happens unless the character drinks all the time anyway), they also derailed the encounter for the other players by dragging two of the other players who were interacting with the NPC into their out of character behaviour.
3) The DM did not enjoy the random chaotic "comic relief".
What to do?
The issue is NOT just the single player though they were the catalyst. The DM needs to have an honest chat with the group to see what's going on. Did the bard character do similar things in any of the three previous sessions? If not, why not? If the bard did do similar things, did other players join in?
The other two players joining the bard character is actually probably as much of a concern as the bard player. This is because players that are invested in the playstyle and are enjoying the scene won't usually step way out of character to take "crazy" out of character actions with another character since it breaks the immersion for them as much as the DM. This may depend on the players and how they see the game but I think this may be an indication that at least 3 of the 4 players were bored with the Kenku encounter for whatever reason and did not feel comfortable making a comment to the DM to that effect. Instead, the bard character, who was doing nothing during the encounter, decided to do something zany because they were bored and they needed "comic relief" and two of the other players joined them - possibly indicating that they were also bored with how the scene was playing out.
If this did not happen in the previous sessions that involved combat, exploration, chases and other exciting encounters - it may be that the Kenku encounter in the library was taking too long, perhaps particularly if the DM was doing something unusual to roleplay the Kenku that can only communicate through mimicry. This is just a guess since there isn't that much information in the original post.
In terms of dealing with it, I think the DM needs to have a chat with everyone and find out why the bard player decided to do something totally off the wall and why the other players decided to go along with it ... since none of it really made much sense from an in character perspective. The game doesn't need to be serious all the time, but the DM can also indicate that random out of character silliness doesn't really make much sense .. and perhaps see if there is some middle ground.
Yes, the DMs toolbox isn't exclusive to a hammer. And frankly offing a character for what's basically a in game social offense or otherwise being a bad actor, so to speak, at the game table is pretty darn confrontational. The DMs goal is to encourage good play that in turn inspires the DM to deliver a good game. An intervention, as I outlined, need not be adversarial.
Basically, player conduct like this is deflating the game's tires. If the DM loses too much air, game car don't go. Now is it a better tactic to accelerate the game car and toss the player out of the game car in front of the other players along for the ride? I mean, that's one thing you could do, and the other players will certainly tighten their seatbelts, but when you're driving and looking for songs to play on the radio, the player passenger may feel afraid to speak up let they incur Dm wrath. To me, the smarter play would be to momentarily pull the vehicle over. Point out the tire damage done by the player and say the two of you need to patch this up and get some air back in to get the game car going again. That, I feel, is the best way to assure a smoother ride in the game. A asymmetric retaliation (player death) or ignoring the problem is just going to make the ride progressively bumpier again until the tires lose all their air, or the game's alignment goes out of whack (man, I"m loving the puns popping out of this metaphor).
More encouragement to watch Seth's videos. They are great for GM folks who need frameworks to assert good faith play on the social side/player conduct side of the table.
Tl:dr Games aren't just run, they need maintenance. Sometimes the game has to stop for such needs, but it's the best thing for game longevity.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.