So, I’ve just started running my first real campaign as a DM. Things are going great so far. It’s fun making my own game and my players seem to be really enjoying themselves as well.
Though all is well, I have one of *those* players in my group. He’s my cousin who I had invited for my game before it started, and this is his first time playing. After some discussion, he decided to make a Dragonborn Monk.
This is where the problems start. Session 0 is going well. The players just undertook a quest from the local barkeep to retrieve a family heirloom. On the way to the adventure location, the group encountered a group of bandits seeking to rob them. They had defeated most of them, and two surrendered. PC’s decided to tie them up. Here is what went down afterwards:
Newbie: “I want to kill the second bandit.”
Me: “why?”
Newbie: “because.”
the group: “your alignment is lawful good.”
Newbie: “I’m still gonna kill the bandit.”
Me: *rolling my eyes* “you kill the tied up, helpless bandit.”
I encountered another problem when the PC’s entered a dungeon.
Me: “After searching the crates, you are able to find a large stash of wine. About 36 bottles in total.”
Newbie: “I’m gonna drink all the wine.”
Me: “you’re attempting to drink 36 bottles of wine. That would obviously kill you.”
Newbie: “No it wouldn’t. My character drinks alcohol like it’s water.”
Me: “even if your character drinks alcohol like it’s water, it’s not possible to drink 36 bottles of wine.”
He will also not take rejection. Before we made his character, he just kept asking me if his character could have a shotgun and kept bugging me about it until he finally caved in. Also, he keeps saying in-game that he is saving up for a shotgun, even though it would me metagaming if he even knew if shotguns existed because they are extremely rare and just developed.
I don’t want to be an authoritarian DM, but he obviously thinks this is just tabletop Skyrim. It seems that he is becoming a chaotic stupid murder hobo. I know this is kinda how we all started first playing, but I want to decrease this behavior as I can tell it will cause problems for me and the rest of the group in the long run.
Consequences. "You want to drink those 36 bottles of wine? Great. Roll a Constitution saving throw." Increase the save DC each bottle and begin imposing conditions. Drunk, poisoned, blinded (from what I understand your vision isn't so hot when you're drunk? I don't drink so I have no idea). Start taking HP away (maybe he vomits so much it starts to wreak havoc on his esophagus, chipping away at his HP.) Then he becomes incapacitated and/or unconscious. Next day, he's hungover (if he survives. Alcohol poisoning is real). But he's got 1-3 points of exhaustion depending on how long he lasted before passing out.
He wants to kill that bandit? Great. But now you're kicked out of your cloister. You have no connections and can't rely on any monastery to train you on further monk abilities. You're on your own now to figure out how to get that information and harness the full capabilities of ki. And your alignment has changed. Now you're chaotic good or chaotic neutral (or chaotic evil, DM's fiat). You want to get back in the good graces of your monastery? You have to do X, Y, and Z, and maybe they'll consider allowing you to rejoin the order but at a lower rank than you were before. (Obviously none of these suggestions are going to be perfect since we don't know your world and the character backgrounds.)
You want a shotgun? Well first you're going to have to find someone who even knows what you're talking about. Then you have to convince them to train you how to use it. And how to make your own ammo when you run out. You'll have to keep track of how much you have, how much of the supplies you need for making it, etc. But that has to be in your own downtime. And then make the adventures lead them closer to or further from the NPCs who could give him those skills. And then he doesn't get his proficiency bonus on attack rolls with them since they're not monk weapons. (Doesn't get the DEX instead of STR, etc. bonuses in the martial arts section of the class descriptions.)
If you'd rather not impose consequences, you could have a talk with the player off-table, one-on-one, about the mechanics and why the things he wants aren't advantageous to his character and are harming the fun of the table as a whole and your enjoyment as DM in particular. Give him the option to exit the game and find a group that fits more with the way he wants to play.
"Your alignment is now chaotic good" (make a note).
-----------------------------------------
"I want to drink all the wine".
"You drink a bottle of wine. Make a CON saving through (DC12), *passes*. You drink another bottle of wine. Make another CON saving through (DC14), *fails*. You're now drunk."
"I keep drinking!!"
"You drink another bottle of wine. Due to your high level of inebriation, you throw it back up. Take 1d6 damage as the spasms wrack your stomach."
"I KEEP DRANKING!!!!!!"
"You drink another bottle of wine. Due to your high level of inebriation, you throw it back up. Take 1d6 damage as the spasms wrack your stomach. What way are you facing?"
"What?"
"What way are you facing"
"This way......?"
"During your convulsions, your breath weapon discharges. Who's in the cone?"
Have you talked to him yet? Because that should be step 1. It's clear there is a different expectation in his head than in yours. Particularly if he's got his heart set on a shotgun -- has there been any indication that your world even has firearms?
Such a conversation should also have allusions to the consequences described by cosplaywrite and MajorPuddles. And when situations arise where it can make a point, go ahead and apply them. But you also can't just do it to him -- you need to establish a consistent bases you're looking for, and apply it to everyone equally. It will, inevitably, apply to him more, since he's the one "acting out", but you probably get my point.
And, in the end, you have to keep the nuclear option on the table. If all else fails and he's just not getting the message, and it becomes an outright obstruction to everyone else, you'll have no choice but to remove him from the group. There are tables where he'd be right at home, and would mesh perfectly. But it sounds like your table might not be the right place for him.
Talk to him. Tell him your expectations of the game, find out what his are, and see if you can find some common ground. Let him know that his actions will come with appropriate consequences.
I do have a couple of questions, though ...
Re: The murder ... what was the rest of the party doing during this? You'd think one of them would at least have some stern words for him, if not actively attempt to stop him, and potentially even call for his ejection from the group or apprehend him to turn in to the authorities. Even if they weren't present, how did they react when they came back and saw the bandit with his neck snapped (or however, he killed the guy)? It'd be damned obvious what happened.
Re: The wine ... he'd be out cold before he died, but alcohol poisoning is a thing. He'd be unconscious for a long, LONG time, at the very least, with the potential for a literal coma. He could pass out and choke on his own vomit. He could just stop breathing. He could have a heart attack. The dehydration he suffers could literally cause brain damage.
Re: Shotgun ... did HE cave in, or did you cave in? That sentence isn't parsing right to me as it's written.
The rest of the party didn't react much to the murder except for our LG paladin, who let the second bandit go before she could be murdered.
With the shotgun he basically bugged me a few more times about it before eventually huffing and accepting the fact that he would not be getting a shotgun. Another issue that I have with him is that he thinks the rules in the book MUST be taken to heart. No house rules. No changes. He saw that there was a musket in the list of weapons you could get and bugged me more, saying that, "well, a musket is in the book, so I can get it in game." Even though that rule doesnt really apply in my world as firearms are in VERY early development (I.E. flintlock, puff of smoke, roll a nat 1 and the gun breaks almost blowing your hand off)
The problem with kicking him from the group or murdering his character is that he's my cousin and I would not want to just boot him out. He even keeps getting me with the "but Im your cousin" line whenever I let him know that his actions may have consequences. Though Im sure that continuing this behavior will eventually weigh on the group and my experience DMing
As many folks have already pointed out, there are actually rules in the game to cover most of his shenanigans.
I had a player like this, Matt Colville calls them "Mad Scientist" types whose fun comes from trying to 'break the game'. They're disruptive because they're curious where the boundaries are, and are "experimenting" so to speak. They can be discouraged, but at least in this case it seems your cousin isn't messing with the rest of the party which isn't Chaotic Evil as much as Chaotic Stupid.
Option 1:Consequences
As stated before, there are in-game consequences for his behavior. Even in Skyrim, if you drink 36 bottles of wine, you experience negative in-game effects. D&D has rules that cover most of this. Con saves for eating/drinking weird stuff, alignment shifts for senseless murder, etc. Personally I find Chaotic Stupid players love Wild Magic Surges, which you can periodically have him roll for the effects of if he's acting out. I'd just blame that on a Chaotic God taking some amusement in his stupidity.
My first DM would use the threat "Roll for Interpretative Dance" whenever a player was being disruptive, then on anything but a Nat20 there was either a Wild Magic Surge or 1d6 Lightning Damage (as if you've been struck by lightning from a wrathful god LOL).
You mentioned they were playing a Monk? Maybe he would be interested in playing a Drunken Master (UA). It would give mechanical benefit to some of the random stuff he wants to do, and could actually end up supporting his party. At this point, it's also likely the only Monastic Order that would accept them after their antics.
Option 2: Fun House Dungeons
Matt Colville advises that Chaotic Stupid/"Mad Scientist" players really love the randomness and chance of Fun House Dungeons. Fun House Dungeons are dungeons that have a lot of instant kill traps and tend to be maze-like. They were known as Meat Grinders with lots of doors, stairways, puzzles and strange, nonsensical rooms. Chaotic Stupid players who have a sense of humor will not get mad over a character death if it's funny enough. They are a staple of old school 1e adventure's and Gygax even made a few in his time.
Tales from the Yawning Portal has a few of these dungeons and adventures, the most famous of which being Tomb of Horrors and White Plume Mountain.
To make this more fun, have them roll on the Reincarnate table whenever their character dies. This will increase the randomness. That being said, you should definitely make them roll a new character sheet every time. This will significantly cut down on the stupidity, as they will get fairly tired of rolling new sheets every time they fail to think things through.
In any case, I think it would be fine to let him have his fun as long as it's not too disruptive to the party. Don't discourage his creativity outright, newbies can come up with the most unique ideas ever. If he wants to do something, tell him how he can do it with intricate detail. Tell him the rolls he needs to make, and make him aware of the consequences of his actions. If he's cool with it, let him do it and accept the consequences. Lots of D&D shows run off of random stupidity and goofs. You're in control here, DM.
Point out to him that, while muskets are in the book, they're specifically in the dungeon master's guide under a section ABOUT alternate rules that can be included at the DM's descression.
If he keeps being rigid about the rules, just tell him that is not how d&d works.
If he keeps playing the "but I'm your cousin" card, play it back. "C'mon, I'm your cousin, I put a lot of work into this game, can you try to play along with us?"
Point out to him that, while muskets are in the book, they're specifically in the dungeon master's guide under a section ABOUT alternate rules that can be included at the DM's descression.
If he keeps being rigid about the rules, just tell him that is not how d&d works.
If he keeps playing the "but I'm your cousin" card, play it back. "C'mon, I'm your cousin, I put a lot of work into this game, can you try to play along with us?"
This is a good point, also in the New Players Guide on DNDBeyond, it even says "The DM Adjudicates the rules and makes the final call".
The problem with kicking him from the group or murdering his character is that he's my cousin and I would not want to just boot him out. He even keeps getting me with the "but Im your cousin" line whenever I let him know that his actions may have consequences. Though Im sure that continuing this behavior will eventually weigh on the group and my experience DMing
The correct response to "But I'm your cousin!" is "So what?", IMHO. Let him know, politely but in no uncertain terms, that if his behavior continues to negatively impact the game, he WILL be ejected, just like anybody else behaving like this would. To be honest, I strongly suspect he'll up and quit then and there.
I just would not put up with it for to long. If he is a disruption to the game talk to him about it and if he refuses to change just give him the boot. Also as others pointed out that there are many ways to deal with this in game. And sure the player is your cousin but the character is not. Hell its not even real. I would see it like he is trolling the game. I had a player who would do stuff like that and was seriously causing issues with the whole group. He got the boot. I had talked to him but it was to late. The other players refused to game with him anymore. So I dropped him before I lost the whole group.
The rest of the party didn't react much to the murder except for our LG paladin, who let the second bandit go before she could be murdered.
... the rest of the party kind of sucks. That's kinda pathetic.
that very much depends on the kind of character they are playing
Let's take that situation:
The group is attacked by bandits assuming we are in a somewhat medieval like society - killing those bandits - even after they surrendered might be considered the lawful good thing:
the road is cleared of a danger - how many people are save cause the bandit has been killed? but wait you might say: the bandits should be brought before a court.
Maybe - depending on what kind of lawful you are , if you read the description of lawful you will see that it is about either following the law, a moral codex or a personal codex.
It is however undoubtedly not lawful good to let the bandit go: it might be chaotic good if you are really certain the guy will never commit a crime again but is it lawful to let a robber (probably murderer as well) go?
I disagree
But back to the topic at hand: whether the rest of the party reacts to that depends on what alignment they have: should an evil character care? should a lawful neutral guy care? after all we are just saving a court some work here - more importantly: we are probably in the middle of nowhere : are we risking that the guy escapes? are we slowing down our travel cause we have to make sure the guy does not escape? do we risk that he alarms other bandits?
I see a lot of good reasons why even a "good" or "lawful" group might opt to kill a bandit.
other option : you leave them there tied up: two possible outcomes: the bandits die of thirst and after long suffering, or they somehow free themselves with the same implications that a fleeing bandit has had above
Whether there is a problem with his monastery depends on what kind of monk he is and what kind of rules this monastery has: is it so to speak an "open palm monastery" (subclass used as simplifaction of live in the monastery) ? there should be consequences! is it "long death"? probably not so much.
( edit: dont get me wrong from what is discribed (especially the gun stuff) the player is just a pain, i just want to point out that "lawful good" does not necessarily mean a character is a goody two shoes)
when it comes to the wine: as so many others said: I'd go with saving throws and have increasingly bad consequences for failing
Humans (iRL) are coming into life threating territory above 0,4% alcohol in their blood
let's say the dragonborn is really tough and a monk after all and put him at 1% deadly dose
assuming a bottle has 10% and assuming he weighs about 100kg he'd reach his defiantly deadly dose after about 10 bottles in a short timespan - unless ofc he is immune to poison
However: in both cases you dont have to put up with it: speak with the player - if that does not help speak with the other players - maybe they can influence him, or they are equally annoyed by the guy and you find backup for any other actions
"Yes, but the character you're playing is not getting along with the other characters in the group. It's a group of adventuring characters who travel the world with a common goal which they work together to accomplish."
I'd let him find an old musket that would need to be repaired. Which opens up a subquest for him. It's ok for a player to get crazy odd weapons if they can fit in the campaign. Just curb the damage on it. Have times where players have to travel through water which makes his powder wet. Make it so he has to clean the weapon or it fails with consequences.
I'd make up a d10 list of possible bad outcomes for a crit fail and roll on that list to see what happens to him or the weapon of it's not properly maintained. Make him have the responsibility to remember to maintain it. If he forgets then he rolls disadvantage until it's maintained.
Drinking excessively has fun consequences. Let him get drunk in a pub and have a npc bad person lure him away and kidnap him. He can pass out in the alley and people can nab him. That opens up the party for either paying a Ransom for him or he's killed. Let the party choose his fate. If they let him die he may learn a lesson about being more cooperative and polite to others in the group.
All on all lots supposed to be fun. But that doesn't mean it always will be. As the GM when you make a ruling that's the end of the conversation. There should be zero arguments about it after that.
if he does not fit the play style of the group, and it sounds like it's an age/maturity thing. then treat him like an apprentice. "hey cousin, I need you to RP the inspector that is investigating the murder of some well connected bandits this session. it means your monk will sit this session out until he recovers from his bender... but I could really use the help". in this sort of scenario you give him a task and character that, when played well, is rewarding for players and cousins alike. and there is no temptation to pursue shotguns and such as... that is not how this inspector rolls.
truly though... do not let a player suffer because of another's demands. that is a rule players and DMs should abide by.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jesus Saves!... Everyone else takes damage.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hello all.
So, I’ve just started running my first real campaign as a DM. Things are going great so far. It’s fun making my own game and my players seem to be really enjoying themselves as well.
Though all is well, I have one of *those* players in my group. He’s my cousin who I had invited for my game before it started, and this is his first time playing. After some discussion, he decided to make a Dragonborn Monk.
This is where the problems start. Session 0 is going well. The players just undertook a quest from the local barkeep to retrieve a family heirloom. On the way to the adventure location, the group encountered a group of bandits seeking to rob them. They had defeated most of them, and two surrendered. PC’s decided to tie them up. Here is what went down afterwards:
Newbie: “I want to kill the second bandit.”
Me: “why?”
Newbie: “because.”
the group: “your alignment is lawful good.”
Newbie: “I’m still gonna kill the bandit.”
Me: *rolling my eyes* “you kill the tied up, helpless bandit.”
I encountered another problem when the PC’s entered a dungeon.
Me: “After searching the crates, you are able to find a large stash of wine. About 36 bottles in total.”
Newbie: “I’m gonna drink all the wine.”
Me: “you’re attempting to drink 36 bottles of wine. That would obviously kill you.”
Newbie: “No it wouldn’t. My character drinks alcohol like it’s water.”
Me: “even if your character drinks alcohol like it’s water, it’s not possible to drink 36 bottles of wine.”
He will also not take rejection. Before we made his character, he just kept asking me if his character could have a shotgun and kept bugging me about it until he finally caved in. Also, he keeps saying in-game that he is saving up for a shotgun, even though it would me metagaming if he even knew if shotguns existed because they are extremely rare and just developed.
I don’t want to be an authoritarian DM, but he obviously thinks this is just tabletop Skyrim. It seems that he is becoming a chaotic stupid murder hobo. I know this is kinda how we all started first playing, but I want to decrease this behavior as I can tell it will cause problems for me and the rest of the group in the long run.
Consequences. "You want to drink those 36 bottles of wine? Great. Roll a Constitution saving throw." Increase the save DC each bottle and begin imposing conditions. Drunk, poisoned, blinded (from what I understand your vision isn't so hot when you're drunk? I don't drink so I have no idea). Start taking HP away (maybe he vomits so much it starts to wreak havoc on his esophagus, chipping away at his HP.) Then he becomes incapacitated and/or unconscious. Next day, he's hungover (if he survives. Alcohol poisoning is real). But he's got 1-3 points of exhaustion depending on how long he lasted before passing out.
He wants to kill that bandit? Great. But now you're kicked out of your cloister. You have no connections and can't rely on any monastery to train you on further monk abilities. You're on your own now to figure out how to get that information and harness the full capabilities of ki. And your alignment has changed. Now you're chaotic good or chaotic neutral (or chaotic evil, DM's fiat). You want to get back in the good graces of your monastery? You have to do X, Y, and Z, and maybe they'll consider allowing you to rejoin the order but at a lower rank than you were before. (Obviously none of these suggestions are going to be perfect since we don't know your world and the character backgrounds.)
You want a shotgun? Well first you're going to have to find someone who even knows what you're talking about. Then you have to convince them to train you how to use it. And how to make your own ammo when you run out. You'll have to keep track of how much you have, how much of the supplies you need for making it, etc. But that has to be in your own downtime. And then make the adventures lead them closer to or further from the NPCs who could give him those skills. And then he doesn't get his proficiency bonus on attack rolls with them since they're not monk weapons. (Doesn't get the DEX instead of STR, etc. bonuses in the martial arts section of the class descriptions.)
If you'd rather not impose consequences, you could have a talk with the player off-table, one-on-one, about the mechanics and why the things he wants aren't advantageous to his character and are harming the fun of the table as a whole and your enjoyment as DM in particular. Give him the option to exit the game and find a group that fits more with the way he wants to play.
My Homebrew Backgrounds | Feats | Magic Items | Monsters | Races | Subclasses
Repercussions.
"I want to kill the bandit."
"Change your alignment to Chaotic Good"
"No".
"Your alignment is now chaotic good" (make a note).
-----------------------------------------
"I want to drink all the wine".
"You drink a bottle of wine. Make a CON saving through (DC12), *passes*. You drink another bottle of wine. Make another CON saving through (DC14), *fails*. You're now drunk."
"I keep drinking!!"
"You drink another bottle of wine. Due to your high level of inebriation, you throw it back up. Take 1d6 damage as the spasms wrack your stomach."
"I KEEP DRANKING!!!!!!"
"You drink another bottle of wine. Due to your high level of inebriation, you throw it back up. Take 1d6 damage as the spasms wrack your stomach. What way are you facing?"
"What?"
"What way are you facing"
"This way......?"
"During your convulsions, your breath weapon discharges. Who's in the cone?"
Etc etc etc etc.
Have you talked to him yet? Because that should be step 1. It's clear there is a different expectation in his head than in yours. Particularly if he's got his heart set on a shotgun -- has there been any indication that your world even has firearms?
Such a conversation should also have allusions to the consequences described by cosplaywrite and MajorPuddles. And when situations arise where it can make a point, go ahead and apply them. But you also can't just do it to him -- you need to establish a consistent bases you're looking for, and apply it to everyone equally. It will, inevitably, apply to him more, since he's the one "acting out", but you probably get my point.
And, in the end, you have to keep the nuclear option on the table. If all else fails and he's just not getting the message, and it becomes an outright obstruction to everyone else, you'll have no choice but to remove him from the group. There are tables where he'd be right at home, and would mesh perfectly. But it sounds like your table might not be the right place for him.
Talk to him. Tell him your expectations of the game, find out what his are, and see if you can find some common ground. Let him know that his actions will come with appropriate consequences.
I do have a couple of questions, though ...
Re: The murder ... what was the rest of the party doing during this? You'd think one of them would at least have some stern words for him, if not actively attempt to stop him, and potentially even call for his ejection from the group or apprehend him to turn in to the authorities. Even if they weren't present, how did they react when they came back and saw the bandit with his neck snapped (or however, he killed the guy)? It'd be damned obvious what happened.
Re: The wine ... he'd be out cold before he died, but alcohol poisoning is a thing. He'd be unconscious for a long, LONG time, at the very least, with the potential for a literal coma. He could pass out and choke on his own vomit. He could just stop breathing. He could have a heart attack. The dehydration he suffers could literally cause brain damage.
Re: Shotgun ... did HE cave in, or did you cave in? That sentence isn't parsing right to me as it's written.
I'm pretty sure drinking that much of any liquid will kill you. People die chugging gallons of water.
"I drink all the wine!"
"Are you sure? "
"Yes!"
"Ok, your stomach and kidneys have ruptured and you die. Roll a new character. "
If you tried playing ball and they won't, then don't.
The rest of the party didn't react much to the murder except for our LG paladin, who let the second bandit go before she could be murdered.
With the shotgun he basically bugged me a few more times about it before eventually huffing and accepting the fact that he would not be getting a shotgun. Another issue that I have with him is that he thinks the rules in the book MUST be taken to heart. No house rules. No changes. He saw that there was a musket in the list of weapons you could get and bugged me more, saying that, "well, a musket is in the book, so I can get it in game." Even though that rule doesnt really apply in my world as firearms are in VERY early development (I.E. flintlock, puff of smoke, roll a nat 1 and the gun breaks almost blowing your hand off)
The problem with kicking him from the group or murdering his character is that he's my cousin and I would not want to just boot him out. He even keeps getting me with the "but Im your cousin" line whenever I let him know that his actions may have consequences. Though Im sure that continuing this behavior will eventually weigh on the group and my experience DMing
As many folks have already pointed out, there are actually rules in the game to cover most of his shenanigans.
I had a player like this, Matt Colville calls them "Mad Scientist" types whose fun comes from trying to 'break the game'. They're disruptive because they're curious where the boundaries are, and are "experimenting" so to speak. They can be discouraged, but at least in this case it seems your cousin isn't messing with the rest of the party which isn't Chaotic Evil as much as Chaotic Stupid.
Option 1: Consequences
As stated before, there are in-game consequences for his behavior. Even in Skyrim, if you drink 36 bottles of wine, you experience negative in-game effects. D&D has rules that cover most of this. Con saves for eating/drinking weird stuff, alignment shifts for senseless murder, etc. Personally I find Chaotic Stupid players love Wild Magic Surges, which you can periodically have him roll for the effects of if he's acting out. I'd just blame that on a Chaotic God taking some amusement in his stupidity.
My first DM would use the threat "Roll for Interpretative Dance" whenever a player was being disruptive, then on anything but a Nat20 there was either a Wild Magic Surge or 1d6 Lightning Damage (as if you've been struck by lightning from a wrathful god LOL).
You mentioned they were playing a Monk? Maybe he would be interested in playing a Drunken Master (UA). It would give mechanical benefit to some of the random stuff he wants to do, and could actually end up supporting his party. At this point, it's also likely the only Monastic Order that would accept them after their antics.
Option 2: Fun House Dungeons
Matt Colville advises that Chaotic Stupid/"Mad Scientist" players really love the randomness and chance of Fun House Dungeons. Fun House Dungeons are dungeons that have a lot of instant kill traps and tend to be maze-like. They were known as Meat Grinders with lots of doors, stairways, puzzles and strange, nonsensical rooms. Chaotic Stupid players who have a sense of humor will not get mad over a character death if it's funny enough. They are a staple of old school 1e adventure's and Gygax even made a few in his time.
Tales from the Yawning Portal has a few of these dungeons and adventures, the most famous of which being Tomb of Horrors and White Plume Mountain.
To make this more fun, have them roll on the Reincarnate table whenever their character dies. This will increase the randomness. That being said, you should definitely make them roll a new character sheet every time. This will significantly cut down on the stupidity, as they will get fairly tired of rolling new sheets every time they fail to think things through.
In any case, I think it would be fine to let him have his fun as long as it's not too disruptive to the party. Don't discourage his creativity outright, newbies can come up with the most unique ideas ever. If he wants to do something, tell him how he can do it with intricate detail. Tell him the rolls he needs to make, and make him aware of the consequences of his actions. If he's cool with it, let him do it and accept the consequences. Lots of D&D shows run off of random stupidity and goofs. You're in control here, DM.
Point out to him that, while muskets are in the book, they're specifically in the dungeon master's guide under a section ABOUT alternate rules that can be included at the DM's descression.
If he keeps being rigid about the rules, just tell him that is not how d&d works.
If he keeps playing the "but I'm your cousin" card, play it back. "C'mon, I'm your cousin, I put a lot of work into this game, can you try to play along with us?"
This is a good point, also in the New Players Guide on DNDBeyond, it even says "The DM Adjudicates the rules and makes the final call".
Thank you all for your insight
The correct response to "But I'm your cousin!" is "So what?", IMHO. Let him know, politely but in no uncertain terms, that if his behavior continues to negatively impact the game, he WILL be ejected, just like anybody else behaving like this would. To be honest, I strongly suspect he'll up and quit then and there.
... the rest of the party kind of sucks. That's kinda pathetic.
I just would not put up with it for to long. If he is a disruption to the game talk to him about it and if he refuses to change just give him the boot. Also as others pointed out that there are many ways to deal with this in game. And sure the player is your cousin but the character is not. Hell its not even real. I would see it like he is trolling the game. I had a player who would do stuff like that and was seriously causing issues with the whole group. He got the boot. I had talked to him but it was to late. The other players refused to game with him anymore. So I dropped him before I lost the whole group.
that very much depends on the kind of character they are playing
Let's take that situation:
The group is attacked by bandits assuming we are in a somewhat medieval like society - killing those bandits - even after they surrendered might be considered the lawful good thing:
the road is cleared of a danger - how many people are save cause the bandit has been killed? but wait you might say: the bandits should be brought before a court.
Maybe - depending on what kind of lawful you are , if you read the description of lawful you will see that it is about either following the law, a moral codex or a personal codex.
It is however undoubtedly not lawful good to let the bandit go: it might be chaotic good if you are really certain the guy will never commit a crime again but is it lawful to let a robber (probably murderer as well) go?
I disagree
But back to the topic at hand: whether the rest of the party reacts to that depends on what alignment they have: should an evil character care? should a lawful neutral guy care? after all we are just saving a court some work here - more importantly: we are probably in the middle of nowhere : are we risking that the guy escapes? are we slowing down our travel cause we have to make sure the guy does not escape? do we risk that he alarms other bandits?
I see a lot of good reasons why even a "good" or "lawful" group might opt to kill a bandit.
other option : you leave them there tied up: two possible outcomes: the bandits die of thirst and after long suffering, or they somehow free themselves with the same implications that a fleeing bandit has had above
Whether there is a problem with his monastery depends on what kind of monk he is and what kind of rules this monastery has: is it so to speak an "open palm monastery" (subclass used as simplifaction of live in the monastery) ? there should be consequences! is it "long death"? probably not so much.
( edit: dont get me wrong from what is discribed (especially the gun stuff) the player is just a pain, i just want to point out that "lawful good" does not necessarily mean a character is a goody two shoes)
when it comes to the wine: as so many others said: I'd go with saving throws and have increasingly bad consequences for failing
Humans (iRL) are coming into life threating territory above 0,4% alcohol in their blood
let's say the dragonborn is really tough and a monk after all and put him at 1% deadly dose
assuming a bottle has 10% and assuming he weighs about 100kg he'd reach his defiantly deadly dose after about 10 bottles in a short timespan - unless ofc he is immune to poison
However: in both cases you dont have to put up with it: speak with the player - if that does not help speak with the other players - maybe they can influence him, or they are equally annoyed by the guy and you find backup for any other actions
"But I'm your cousin!"
"Yes, but the character you're playing is not getting along with the other characters in the group. It's a group of adventuring characters who travel the world with a common goal which they work together to accomplish."
I'd let him find an old musket that would need to be repaired. Which opens up a subquest for him. It's ok for a player to get crazy odd weapons if they can fit in the campaign. Just curb the damage on it. Have times where players have to travel through water which makes his powder wet. Make it so he has to clean the weapon or it fails with consequences.
I'd make up a d10 list of possible bad outcomes for a crit fail and roll on that list to see what happens to him or the weapon of it's not properly maintained. Make him have the responsibility to remember to maintain it. If he forgets then he rolls disadvantage until it's maintained.
Drinking excessively has fun consequences. Let him get drunk in a pub and have a npc bad person lure him away and kidnap him. He can pass out in the alley and people can nab him. That opens up the party for either paying a Ransom for him or he's killed. Let the party choose his fate. If they let him die he may learn a lesson about being more cooperative and polite to others in the group.
All on all lots supposed to be fun. But that doesn't mean it always will be. As the GM when you make a ruling that's the end of the conversation. There should be zero arguments about it after that.
if he does not fit the play style of the group, and it sounds like it's an age/maturity thing. then treat him like an apprentice. "hey cousin, I need you to RP the inspector that is investigating the murder of some well connected bandits this session. it means your monk will sit this session out until he recovers from his bender... but I could really use the help". in this sort of scenario you give him a task and character that, when played well, is rewarding for players and cousins alike. and there is no temptation to pursue shotguns and such as... that is not how this inspector rolls.
truly though... do not let a player suffer because of another's demands. that is a rule players and DMs should abide by.
Jesus Saves!... Everyone else takes damage.