I have a perfectly good sense of humor. I just don't find people who think that being "chaotic" means being random and disruptive to be funny. I've played in entirely too many games with people like that, and it really isn't that fun for everyone else at the table.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Ah yes, nothing trips up a DM more than meeting a shopkeep and saying, "Hi, I'm _____, what's your name?"
I always make sure the shopkeepers have names and some sort of personality
The manticores, on the other hand...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Does anyone have any highly chaotic strategies that you use? I'm looking for things like "I kill everyone in the tavern and run it as my own" and "I pretend I'm the polymorphed king, and the real king is a imposter"
I make it clear in my session zero that in-game actions will always have in-game consequences. I also tell them that I'll accept any alignment other than Chaotic Evil in their characters (though I don't make them choose an alignment, it's really just a guide). This is what would happen in my game:
I kill everyone in the tavern and run it as my own
I don't run the classic "They are cops, but in a fantasy world" guard system, because those didn't really exist in the past and I find them dreary. But what I do have is a local ruler in any area who deals with these things. The people in the tavern are going to be missed. They're also going to have family nearby. Soon enough, there'll be a quest up on the town notice board asking for adventurers to investigate the slaughter. And wow, look, this newcomer has just appeared in town claiming to run the tavern? But it's inherited by a cousin in the next village.
If the PCs are playing a Chaotic Evil party, then they can expect some adventurers to show up. Maybe they're lower level, and the PCs kill them. But cause enough trouble, and I'll send in one of my big gun NPCs, who won't stop and take them alive when they fall unconscious, they'll stab them until they're out of death saving throws. Essentially, when a player decides that they control the villains instead of me in a lawful area, then they'll pay the logical price. Unless they're high level, this almost certainly means being destroyed.
I pretend I'm the polymorphed king, and the real king is a imposter
This one is even simpler. If they do this for a short time - e.g. just a few minutes in an encounter then fine, that's cool, let's play it out! But if you mean they attempt it over a longer period of time, the king is not surrounded by morons. He'll have his high priest, his wizard, his captain of the guard. The family of the king will see that something is up. Investigations will occur, and the PC will be quickly caught (probably in a cunning trap laid by the wizard or else a simple Dispel Magic) and then the PC is caught and executed. I have homebrew rules for "decapitation occurring whilst incapacitated." It's auto death, no rolling required.
Attack and kill the NPC's that your DM expected to advance the story line
This one isn't necessarily evil, since the NPCS could be villains. But this usually requires out of character, or villainous behaviour, but it can go any number of ways. But I've seen low level PCs do some dumb stuff against NPCs who massively out-level them, and see another DM (and myself) really have to consider strongly whether or not to just TPK the party because of it.
If a player was just attacking NPCs seemingly at random, they'd find their character was hunted down and punished, or else I'd need to have a talk with them about how they are playing the game. The DM puts in 99% of the work to make the game happen; disrespecting that is disrespecting the game, the other players, and the DM. If a character thinks they're godlike, they'll soon be disabused of that notion when the level 15 assassin one shots them in their sleep.
Arrive to a city which have a harbour and docks. Then "" rent a boat "", and tell the DM this: --> Today my char have the stubborn-ish idea on his head to discover New lands.........
Guess how my DM felt when he realised he hadn't prepare anything about it....... AND HE HAD TO END THE SESSION, BECAUSE OF ME.
I imagine that the DM felt that you were deliberately subverting the game they'd prepared, and weren't fulfilling your half of the unspoken contract. Players need to make an effort to follow the DM's story. Some DM's will plan linear games, some will plan sandboxes, but the campaign ought to be ended if the players are showing that they simply aren't interested in what the DM is offering them. The DM is under no obligation to ad-hoc invent things to appease silly whims.
In this scenario, I'd have let your character go off alone and be out of the campaign until such time as they returned. No need to end the session for everyone else. If the other players were doing the same - and I've had something similar where a group of PCs simply didn't want to do a major storyline and all wanted to just follow their own back story threads - then the campaign is over.
Some people want to do ridiculous things in their games and if that's how they get their kicks as a group, more power to them.
I put in maybe 3 hours of preparation for every 1 hour we play. If a player doesn't want to play my game, they don't have to play in it. It is a collaborative game, but it is also the DM's game at heart. If the DM enjoys this type of game then fine, but I wouldn't waste my time on this kind of player.
When I first started playing, the most common thing to derail the DM's story was player vs player combat/deaths.
I talk to the players in session zero and implement the following rule:
If another player casts a hostile spell or makes an attack roll against your character, then you can decide whether you fail, succeed, or the attack hits.
One of the worst kinds of player is the one who doesn't realise that D&D is a cooperative team game, and that at all times they must have a reason for being with and working with the party. If two players decide for RP reasons to fight to the death, then that's fine, but it has to be a mutual player decision. Same goes for stealing from other PCs.
Not everyone likes to be confused. When you confuse a DM, some of them might get mad. Why would anyone want to confuse their DM in the first place? What do they expect to have happen?
For myself, I'll probably ignore it most of the time, but I'm a part of the group, and I don't like to be confused. I have a lot of work I need to get done so the players can all have fun, and I'm one of them, I run all the things they can interact with.
Normally I'm just a normal level of chaos, but this last session I was truly chaotic.
"accidentally" kill an npc ally, but make sure it makes sense. a fight breaks out, sees a pirate (the npc) and panic because you were almost killed by pirates before and whack them. you can pick to leave them if you don't one shot them, or whack them again to put them out of their misery (judge based off the table and the dm) Alter to what fits you and your party.
Use the dust of sneezing and choking. Use it as the first action in an encounter as soon as your close enough. It had the whole table in laughter and the dm thought it was a clever and funny use of the dust. (we do short missions each week and I bought the dust for 400 gold from our item shop) Now the item is more expensive/potentially banned because it works kind of like mustard gas and it took out the boss for the week in 3 turns
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I have a perfectly good sense of humor. I just don't find people who think that being "chaotic" means being random and disruptive to be funny. I've played in entirely too many games with people like that, and it really isn't that fun for everyone else at the table.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Along the same line, asking "how far" as in distance not time also sometimes trips them up
Question everything then when you find out who the BBEG is five sessions early kill him. Or just spam fire ball
I always make sure the shopkeepers have names and some sort of personality
The manticores, on the other hand...
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I make it clear in my session zero that in-game actions will always have in-game consequences. I also tell them that I'll accept any alignment other than Chaotic Evil in their characters (though I don't make them choose an alignment, it's really just a guide). This is what would happen in my game:
I kill everyone in the tavern and run it as my own
I don't run the classic "They are cops, but in a fantasy world" guard system, because those didn't really exist in the past and I find them dreary. But what I do have is a local ruler in any area who deals with these things. The people in the tavern are going to be missed. They're also going to have family nearby. Soon enough, there'll be a quest up on the town notice board asking for adventurers to investigate the slaughter. And wow, look, this newcomer has just appeared in town claiming to run the tavern? But it's inherited by a cousin in the next village.
If the PCs are playing a Chaotic Evil party, then they can expect some adventurers to show up. Maybe they're lower level, and the PCs kill them. But cause enough trouble, and I'll send in one of my big gun NPCs, who won't stop and take them alive when they fall unconscious, they'll stab them until they're out of death saving throws. Essentially, when a player decides that they control the villains instead of me in a lawful area, then they'll pay the logical price. Unless they're high level, this almost certainly means being destroyed.
I pretend I'm the polymorphed king, and the real king is a imposter
This one is even simpler. If they do this for a short time - e.g. just a few minutes in an encounter then fine, that's cool, let's play it out! But if you mean they attempt it over a longer period of time, the king is not surrounded by morons. He'll have his high priest, his wizard, his captain of the guard. The family of the king will see that something is up. Investigations will occur, and the PC will be quickly caught (probably in a cunning trap laid by the wizard or else a simple Dispel Magic) and then the PC is caught and executed. I have homebrew rules for "decapitation occurring whilst incapacitated." It's auto death, no rolling required.
Attack and kill the NPC's that your DM expected to advance the story line
This one isn't necessarily evil, since the NPCS could be villains. But this usually requires out of character, or villainous behaviour, but it can go any number of ways. But I've seen low level PCs do some dumb stuff against NPCs who massively out-level them, and see another DM (and myself) really have to consider strongly whether or not to just TPK the party because of it.
If a player was just attacking NPCs seemingly at random, they'd find their character was hunted down and punished, or else I'd need to have a talk with them about how they are playing the game. The DM puts in 99% of the work to make the game happen; disrespecting that is disrespecting the game, the other players, and the DM. If a character thinks they're godlike, they'll soon be disabused of that notion when the level 15 assassin one shots them in their sleep.
I imagine that the DM felt that you were deliberately subverting the game they'd prepared, and weren't fulfilling your half of the unspoken contract. Players need to make an effort to follow the DM's story. Some DM's will plan linear games, some will plan sandboxes, but the campaign ought to be ended if the players are showing that they simply aren't interested in what the DM is offering them. The DM is under no obligation to ad-hoc invent things to appease silly whims.
In this scenario, I'd have let your character go off alone and be out of the campaign until such time as they returned. No need to end the session for everyone else. If the other players were doing the same - and I've had something similar where a group of PCs simply didn't want to do a major storyline and all wanted to just follow their own back story threads - then the campaign is over.
Some people want to do ridiculous things in their games and if that's how they get their kicks as a group, more power to them.
I put in maybe 3 hours of preparation for every 1 hour we play. If a player doesn't want to play my game, they don't have to play in it. It is a collaborative game, but it is also the DM's game at heart. If the DM enjoys this type of game then fine, but I wouldn't waste my time on this kind of player.
When I first started playing, the most common thing to derail the DM's story was player vs player combat/deaths.
I talk to the players in session zero and implement the following rule:
If another player casts a hostile spell or makes an attack roll against your character, then you can decide whether you fail, succeed, or the attack hits.
One of the worst kinds of player is the one who doesn't realise that D&D is a cooperative team game, and that at all times they must have a reason for being with and working with the party. If two players decide for RP reasons to fight to the death, then that's fine, but it has to be a mutual player decision. Same goes for stealing from other PCs.
Not everyone likes to be confused. When you confuse a DM, some of them might get mad. Why would anyone want to confuse their DM in the first place? What do they expect to have happen?
For myself, I'll probably ignore it most of the time, but I'm a part of the group, and I don't like to be confused. I have a lot of work I need to get done so the players can all have fun, and I'm one of them, I run all the things they can interact with.
<Insert clever signature here>
You want chaos in a game? Go find Gygax’s Looney Tunes adventure and run it.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Normally I'm just a normal level of chaos, but this last session I was truly chaotic.
"accidentally" kill an npc ally, but make sure it makes sense. a fight breaks out, sees a pirate (the npc) and panic because you were almost killed by pirates before and whack them. you can pick to leave them if you don't one shot them, or whack them again to put them out of their misery (judge based off the table and the dm) Alter to what fits you and your party.
Use the dust of sneezing and choking. Use it as the first action in an encounter as soon as your close enough. It had the whole table in laughter and the dm thought it was a clever and funny use of the dust. (we do short missions each week and I bought the dust for 400 gold from our item shop) Now the item is more expensive/potentially banned because it works kind of like mustard gas and it took out the boss for the week in 3 turns