DM player deaths due to player stupidity

[Drache64]

My players are a bunch of savages with authority problems. They consistently spit in the face of guards, mayors, kings, dragons, ancient sorcerers, gods, etc.

I usually let them get away with minor infractions, sometimes their worst consequence is a difficult combat followed by City escape. They have started a new campaign and are only level 6. In the next mission or so they are going to run into an old very powerful Copper Dragon. If they act antagonistic towards this powerful entity I'm going to have him deal 63 acid damage followed up with a bite attack probably killing the offending PC.

Other DM's what's your tactic with players like this?

[Unoriginal]

My players are a bunch of savages with authority problems. They consistently spit in the face of guards, mayors, kings, dragons, ancient sorcerers, gods, etc.

I usually let them get away with minor infractions, sometimes their worst consequence is a difficult combat followed by City escape. They have started a new campaign and are only level 6. In the next mission or so they are going to run into an old very powerful Copper Dragon. If they act antagonistic towards this powerful entity I'm going to have him deal 63 acid damage followed up with a bite attack probably killing the offending PC.

Other DM's what's your tactic with players like this?

1) Talk to them, ask them why they're doing that, and explain why it is not a good idea.

2) If 1) didn't work, have the consequences of PCs' actions happen.

3) if 2) doesn't change anything, and it is making the game unpleasant for the DM, find new players.

[Vorpalchicken]

Is it possible that they'd rather experience a TPK than listen to one of your NPC's speeches?

[Sigreid]

Eaten by a dragon is a good lesson in politeness. It sounds like in the past you have basically let them get away with everything, so you might want to mention before the session that you think that was a mistake and figures of authority and power are going to be less forgiving in the future.

[mephnick]

Maybe they don't want to deal with mayors and kings and just want to kick down doors and kill orcs.

Nothing wrong with violent pulp hack and slash campaign. If you don't like that style you might have to find new players.

[Emay Ecks]

Maybe try changing the setting?

D&D is a fantasy game, and many people use them to live out the fantasies they can't in real life. Like saying no to authority figures. People want to give the finger to their boss, in-laws, local politicians, and more but often can't. Or they just like the idea of being completely free and independent. Having your strong independent ranger who doesn't need anyone else to get their way have to bend the knee to NPCs can be frustrating, and many would rather face the consequences than do it. Some players put "Doesn't respect authority" or "Chaotic ____" on their character sheets and are roleplaying such. I'm not sure about your case, but it's not always "My players have authority problems."

I've only had one player who repeatedly refused to respect authority, so I just moved the game into a massive wilderness and dungeons. There were no authorities in the lawless land. There were settlements in need of help, sure. But no politicians or powerful individuals to tell the party what to do. It worked wonderfully. The entire party had a lot of fun, and the player didn't have to get into foolish fights with NPCs.

[Drache64]

I personally have no issue with their actions, but there are many times where their actions should have dire consequences and I instead act benevolent and allow them to escape.

I even stop them from killing each other in PvP by intervening with an NPC or something before the death blow is dealt.

This campaign I'm just going to let their actions play out.

They aren't bad players they are just rambunctious. Someone else took over as DM for a short while and they took over a whole town in 1 session at level 3, because the DM didn't see it coming and didn't have guards posted appropriately.

If they can do that while I'm the DM then my hat's off to them. But I'm not going to make it easy and if they want to play high stakes with the NPC's then I'm happy to have the NPC's play high stakes with them.

[Alatar]

Some good responses here. Something else you might consider: this sounds a bit like a Law vs. Chaos situation, which happens to be the alignment axis that makes more sense. Psychopaths aside, most people on both sides of a conflict think of themselves and their cause as good. The orcs that are pillaging human settlements are providing for their tribe. For this reason the good vs evil axis of alignment is problematic. Not so law vs chaos. If you think of chaos as individual rights, freedom, and law as safety and security, a respect for and deference to authority, then that alignment axis is quite workable.

A story needs conflict. Your players are handing you a major plot hook. They want to be freedom fighters. So offer them oppression. But understand that the freedom fighters are supposed to win in this scenario. The players are the heroes of this story, right? So that oppressive tyrant, the king, is going to bite it in act 3.

If the story supports their antipathy toward authority, if that is what the story is about, then their antipathy toward authority will drive the story rather than disrupt it.

[Sigreid]

Sometimes my group makes the conscious decision to be the villain of the story.

[StoicLeaf]

Talk to them out of combat first to see if you guys want the same thing from the game.
If yes and they act snotty towards your dragon, use the advice from the phb inlay!

"So you want to insult the millennia old, 3 story tall, fire breathing dragon and then take his nicest trinkets.
are you really sure?"

[the_brazenburn]

Here is my thread: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?540101-Ivor-and-Brazenbuns-Curse-of-Strahd-Farce

A common theme running through it is player stupidity (debatable; Ivor would have something different to say about it).

Now, I'm not actually endorsing my controversial tactics, but at least give them a shot if you think they would work.

[Easy_Lee]

I agree with the idea to give them an authority figure they're supposed to hate. That should resonate with them.

In addition to that, the problem could be a form of narcissism where the players think they're perfect, everything they do is good, and everything they don't like is bad. This happens in real life and can happen more easily in games. Killing them with a dragon isn't a solution, since dragons are powerful and they'll just claim it's unfair because you threw something at them that was too powerful for their level. Instead, try Tucker's Kobolds. There's nothing so humbling as being beaten by weak enemies who simply outplay you. It's a popular story for a reason.

[mephnick]

I just moved the game into a massive wilderness and dungeons.

This is my suggestion. Try a hexcrawl or throw them in the Underdark. You know what they think of political/social encounters already (not much), see what they do with old school D&D.

Barring that, play an evil campaign. Let them burn down villages and conquer territory. Give them politics they can wipe off the table with the swipe of a sword.

Forcing them to play through stuff they don't find interesting is a waste of time.

[Chugger]

Find new players.

[Nidgit]

I don't know why no one here as suggested a non-lethal warning shot. Like, say, just the 63 acid damage. That's enough to down almost any L6 character without killing them and should make the rest of the characters sit up straighter without making them mad at you directly.

[Unoriginal]

I don't know why no one here as suggested a non-lethal warning shot. Like, say, just the 63 acid damage. That's enough to down almost any L6 character without killing them and should make the rest of the characters sit up straighter without making them mad at you directly.

Because that kind of players will probably attack the dragon since they were "totally unjustly attacked".

[Sigreid]

Because that kind of players will probably attack the dragon since they were "totally unjustly attacked".

Or attack because they were looking for an excuse anyway.

[Contrast]

When a player is about to do something dumb (more than normal PC levels of stupidity anyway...) he (edit: my DM) checks 3 times if that's really what you want to do. After that the consequences are on you.

After the second or third time most players will have cottoned on that they may need to think carefully if this is something they really want to do.

[Nidgit]

Because that kind of players will probably attack the dragon since they were "totally unjustly attacked".
And actually immediately killing a player won't? If they players are looking for a reason to fight then they're dead anyway and that's 100% their own fault. If the OP is actually interested in having the players listen to the dragon, a non-lethal attack makes that attempt just as well and doesn't single out one jackass player when the rest are apparently just as bad.

[History_buff]

My players are a bunch of savages with authority problems. They consistently spit in the face of guards, mayors, kings, dragons, ancient sorcerers, gods, etc.

I usually let them get away with minor infractions, sometimes their worst consequence is a difficult combat followed by City escape. They have started a new campaign and are only level 6. In the next mission or so they are going to run into an old very powerful Copper Dragon. If they act antagonistic towards this powerful entity I'm going to have him deal 63 acid damage followed up with a bite attack probably killing the offending PC.

Other DM's what's your tactic with players like this?

Copper dragons are supposed to be clever tricksters right? That seems more forthright than most would be.

Might be more a copper dragon’s style to embarrass the crap out of a PC giving him/her lip. Lots of illusions, mind games, etc.

[Demonslayer666]

There's two big parts to this in my game.

1). Roleplaying - if a player is roleplaying and doing a great job at it, I will go the extra mile for that character to allow that character to exist in my game without outright killing them. That player wants to play that kind of character, I try my best to allow for it. Within reason of course.

2). Real threats - They still cannot be foolhardy with a deathwish and expect to survive. There are real threats in my game, at least at the lower levels (<10). This is strongly noted in my session 0. "You will face challenges that you are not meant to overcome by combat, and they can result in death if not handled properly."

If the player decides to make a foolish action, I will warn them and make it very apparent that is a bad choice. "The Viscount's bodyguard looks like a veteran of many wars and could chew you up and spit you out." But the decision is theirs to carry it out or not. I'm a fairly lenient DM, and if a character dies, there's usually a solution to it if the player wants to continue playing that character.

Insulting gods to their face? That would be met with very strong display of power (depending on the god of course, they may not even care). Gods in my game are very hands off, so if it came to the party actually meeting one, it would be a huge deal.

Word of advice with your copper dragon, describe him in a way that makes the players wary of insulting him. And don't just have one character take a ton of damage. Set a DC for insight/perception, and let those that make it not be surprised. As a player, I really dislike narrative combat. Remember, you are the master of time, and even though a player scoffs at him and says something rude, you can have the dragon react at any point in time. "As you sneer at the dragon, and utter those first few words, the dragon senses your about to insult him and with a hissing inhale though clenched teeth he puffs out his chest, his nostrils flare, his eyes go wide, his steely muscles tense digging his claws into the earth, and he locks eyes with you, daring you to complete the insult..."

[willdaBEAST]

This may well be on your players, but as others have pointed out, there can be a disconnect between you and them.

For my own campaign I'm running CoS and my players constantly griped about NPCs being unhelpful and wary towards strangers. They almost threw a fit when they couldn't get into the town of Krezk because the Burgomaster was afraid it would blow back on his community if he was seen aiding adventurers.

I tried to articulate all of this and give the NPCs reasons to behave in this manner, but from the players POV they became obstacles. They then tended to be very abrasive towards anyone who wouldn't bend over backwards for them and I could see how that would get out of hand.

I think establishing consequences is important, but not really a fun part of the game for most players. I would try to encourage a dialog where you explain things from your perspective as a DM and how the societies in your game would perceive certain kinds of behavior. Get some feedback from your players too. Are the NPCs that you intend to be allies being perceived that way? My players were honestly surprised that a king wouldn't let an adventurer talk dismissively to him, or the consequences of outright denying a demand he makes and we're all well educated adults.

[Harrysonford]

My DM gives negative inspiration for things like that. Either takes away inspiration, or gives them disadvantage some time in the next few checks/attacks. It’s kinda like karma.

[Laserlight]

Sounds like you need to go back to Session 0 with these guys and ask: what kind of game do you want? Simply kicking doors and killing mobs with no ongoing plot? Or do you want your combats to be part of an ongoing saga, with an ultimate end in mind? Let's say you have three hours of game time; on average, how much of that do you want to be combat, how much social, how much exploration?

Sometimes players just want a meaningless dungeon crawl.

[2D8HP]

Is it possible that they'd rather experience a TPK than listen to one of your NPC's speeches?.
https://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/images/comic_lotr11.jpg

[GlenSmash!]

.
https://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/images/comic_lotr11.jpg

Ha!

Perfect. Of course DMotR was entirely perfect.

[Pelle]

If pc death is not acceptable when the players do stupid things, when is it acceptable?

Just make sure the players know what they want to do is stupid, then everything should be fine.

[Temperjoke]

I personally have no issue with their actions, but there are many times where their actions should have dire consequences and I instead act benevolent and allow them to escape.

I even stop them from killing each other in PvP by intervening with an NPC or something before the death blow is dealt.

This campaign I'm just going to let their actions play out.

They aren't bad players they are just rambunctious. Someone else took over as DM for a short while and they took over a whole town in 1 session at level 3, because the DM didn't see it coming and didn't have guards posted appropriately.

If they can do that while I'm the DM then my hat's off to them. But I'm not going to make it easy and if they want to play high stakes with the NPC's then I'm happy to have the NPC's play high stakes with them.

I highlighted the important part. Why on earth would they be afraid of consequences when you've never let them face actual consequences? They're going to walk into a TPK over this, and blame you because you've never actually held them accountable before. Even if it is their own fault, they don't have that understanding or expectation. I would start with a new session zero and explain that this time will be different, and that there will be real consequences. Assuming you stick with actually holding them to the consequences.

[wthrift]

Remember, you are the master of time, and even though a player scoffs at him and says something rude, you can have the dragon react at any point in time.

This is great advice for DMs.


It seems like there are two camps: 1) punish your players 2) pander to your players

I definitely think you should choose option 2. It is a game, the point is to have fun.

[Nargrakhan]

Is it possible that they'd rather experience a TPK than listen to one of your NPC's speeches?

Lol... you made me remember Deadpool...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYP1MlDGfUE

:smallcool:

[Sigreid]

If pc death is not acceptable when the players do stupid things, when is it acceptable?

When it's funny.

[Anteros]

I personally have no issue with their actions, but there are many times where their actions should have dire consequences and I instead act benevolent and allow them to escape.

I even stop them from killing each other in PvP by intervening with an NPC or something before the death blow is dealt.

This campaign I'm just going to let their actions play out.

They aren't bad players they are just rambunctious. Someone else took over as DM for a short while and they took over a whole town in 1 session at level 3, because the DM didn't see it coming and didn't have guards posted appropriately.

If they can do that while I'm the DM then my hat's off to them. But I'm not going to make it easy and if they want to play high stakes with the NPC's then I'm happy to have the NPC's play high stakes with them.

You're not being benevolent, you're just doing your job. Your job as DM is to make sure everyone at the table is having fun, not just to enforce rules or create a setting. Those things are secondary.

If you plan on drastically changing the way that you DM a game, make sure they're aware of that. If the way they're playing isn't fun for you, be an adult and talk to them about it. Making sure everyone has fun does include yourself, but not at the expense of everyone else.

[jojo]

If they can do that while I'm the DM then my hat's off to them. But I'm not going to make it easy and if they want to play high stakes with the NPC's then I'm happy to have the NPC's play high stakes with them.

I would advise against taking that attitude to the table with you. Deciding what kind of game your players are going to play is railroading. Actively making preparations to prevent players from doing something you think they're going to want to do is adversarial. Neither of those things facilitate a fun, collaborative experience for your players. If you choose to bring those attitudes to the table no one sitting around it, yourself included will have much fun.

That's my advice as a DM.


Talk to them out of combat first to see if you guys want the same thing from the game.
If yes and they act snotty towards your dragon, use the advice from the phb inlay!

"So you want to insult the millennia old, 3 story tall, fire breathing dragon and then take his nicest trinkets.
are you really sure?"

This is also accurate.


I don't know why no one here as suggested a non-lethal warning shot. Like, say, just the 63 acid damage. That's enough to down almost any L6 character without killing them and should make the rest of the characters sit up straighter without making them mad at you directly.

As is this. Per the rules whenever you deal enough damage to reduce something to 0 HP you can choose whether you kill it or knock it unconscious.

If your players ignore the above you don't have to TPK them, but that doesn't mean the Dragon can't knock them all unconscious then proceed to fly away none the worse for the wear to find a new group of adventurers to assist it.

Once that happens who's to say it doesn't act petty and actively provide support and patronage to a competing party of NPCs? Who perhaps decide to curry further favor by taking a shot at the PCs?

Now, eventually, there's no reason why the PCs can't eventually get strong enough to take on the opposing NPCs and the Dragon. But this time they have a realistic motive for doing so and so on and so forth with the point being that you've facilitated a fun and unique campaign wherein the PCs have agency and all parties have a great deal of fun together as a result.

[opaopajr]

You can be a fan of your players while still striving to be a neutral arbiter to their PCs.

In fact, it is a healthy display of trust to your players to let natural (coherent) consequences befall their PCs when they do dangerous foolishness. You are not there to catch them when they let their PCs fall. You are there to give their PCs your GM attention as they choose how their PCs end up with their own stories.

Bad choices often have bad consequences. This coherent result commands respect for you as a GM and your setting. Players, like all living things, test boundaries, and they want to see whether to game you, resent you, or trust you.

Open channels, mature communication, and fairness leads to them trusting you. Choose that.

[Glorthindel]

I think I'm going to go against the wishy-washy tide here, and say do it. Things have clearly got out of control, so its time to put on the breaks, and start racking up a body count until they take the hint. And laugh at any whining, choices have consequences.

[Throne12]

Throw assassin's at them. If they disrespect a king or any Authority figure. They maybe to powerful to take on head on. But if a group of assassin's following them from the shadows. Shooting them with arrows then Slinking back into the shadows. Waiting untell the party stop searching for them and leave. Then later that night start have the assassin's strike again. They shoot the hide wait for them to go back to bed. Then attack again then hide. Chip down there hp but don't out right kill them. They wake up in shackles with a Smug looking king looking down at them. The king say for your crimes you shall be Punished.

[Contrast]

Per the rules whenever you deal enough damage to reduce something to 0 HP you can choose whether you kill it or knock it unconscious.

Note: This is technically only true for melee attacks. Ranged attacks or spells don't give you this option. Specifically in this case, I don't think a dragon could choose to knock someone unconscious with its breath weapon unless the DM decided they could.

[GooeyChewie]

Throw assassin's at them. If they disrespect a king or any Authority figure. They maybe to powerful to take on head on. But if a group of assassin's following them from the shadows. Shooting them with arrows then Slinking back into the shadows. Waiting untell the party stop searching for them and leave. Then later that night start have the assassin's strike again. They shoot the hide wait for them to go back to bed. Then attack again then hide. Chip down there hp but don't out right kill them. They wake up in shackles with a Smug looking king looking down at them. The king say for your crimes you shall be Punished.

I like this option, or something like it. Rather than having immediate consequences, let the players realize their interactions with NPCs can have long-term consequences. Plus, this way you don’t depend on accurately predicting when they’ll snub the authority. There’s a good chance that they are snubbing the political-types because they feel like they could easily outmatch them in a fight, so they’d likely show a dragon more respect, ruining your plan.

[Drache64]

A few notes, one thing everyone over looked is that the players are still settling into their new characters, 3 of them want to reroll anyways. So I'm not talking about TPK I'm talking about killing a fighter who wants to reroll ranger.

I will also specify this is an Ancient Dragon. They will know what that means for their level 6 characters should they choose to be hostile towards the metallic dragon. They are not ignorant to the power of such a thing. I am not forcing their hands, I am simply going to react correctly to anything they choose to do.

And no, players don't get to dictate what happens. If they want to run a town I will gladly set that up for them, but they can't seize Gondor at level 3 because they say so.

[Specter]

If pc death is not acceptable when the players do stupid things, when is it acceptable?

This.

If there's a blue dragon cave somewhere in the map, and the players know a blue dragon is there, and they're at level 5, and they ignore the advice of NPCs who know a blue dragon is there, and they go there, then they die. Otherwise, there's no point in choosing anything in the game, and you should just tell them the story and be done with it.

Never be afraid to kill players, as long as the stakes are clear to them.

[Tanarii]

I highlighted the important part. Why on earth would they be afraid of consequences when you've never let them face actual consequences? They're going to walk into a TPK over this, and blame you because you've never actually held them accountable before. Even if it is their own fault, they don't have that understanding or expectation. I would start with a new session zero and explain that this time will be different, and that there will be real consequences. Assuming you stick with actually holding them to the consequences.OP, this is on point. You don't want to suddenly switch it up to massive deadly consequences with an all powerful creature with no warning. You're the one that taught them they could behave this way in the first place, so to speak. I understand you're trying to fix that, but doing it too suddenly will just be punishment for behavior they've learned is okay in your campaign world, not "natural" consequences for their actions.

Warn them at the beginning of a session. If you think it's possible, start slowly ramping up consequences instead of jumping to a TPK-level dragon.

I run a combat-as-war campaign where the players know they cannot win every fight, and often have to run away. At times putting Brave Sir Robin to shame. But I didn't suddenly change it up out of left field to correct a previous lack of it.


This is great advice for DMs.


It seems like there are two camps: 1) punish your players 2) pander to your players

I definitely think you should choose option 2. It is a game, the point is to have fun.The important thing is to not suddenly change between one and the other, especially without warning. That will just appear arbritary and unfair, especially if it's in the pander -> punish direction.


When it's funny.
Isn't PC death always funny? :smallamused:

[Drache64]

OP, this is on point. You don't want to suddenly switch it up to massive deadly consequences with an all powerful creature with no warning. You're the one that taught them they could behave this way in the first place, so to speak. I understand you're trying to fix that, but doing it too suddenly will just be punishment for behavior they've learned is okay in your campaign world, not "natural" consequences for their actions.

Warn them at the beginning of a session. If you think it's possible, start slowly ramping up consequences instead of jumping to a TPK-level dragon.

I run a combat-as-war campaign where the players know they cannot win every fight, and often have to run away. At times putting Brave Sir Robin to shame. But I didn't suddenly change it up out of left field to correct a previous lack of it.

The important thing is to not suddenly change between one and the other, especially without warning. That will just appear arbritary and unfair, especially if it's in the pander -> punish direction.


Isn't PC death always funny? :smallamused:

You should check my notes above. Also I think people are taking my benevolent comment to 11 when it's meant to go to 5. I've killed some of their characters before for repeatedly trying to fight clear warnings.

[smcmike]

My players are a bunch of savages with authority problems. They consistently spit in the face of guards, mayors, kings, dragons, ancient sorcerers, gods, etc.

That is literally the point of including guards, mayors, kings, dragons, ancient sorcerers, and gods in games. They are antagonists. Fighting them is what heroes are supposed to do. If you want to give your antagonists a chance to monologue, you’ll need to set up a scenario where that makes sense - either make it clear that the fight is not winnable, or literally knock out a disruptive character to allow your villain to monologue in peace.

If your characters are disrespecting and attacking NPCs who are not meant to be antagonists, maybe consider whether you have successfully communicated this, and whether you can develop ways of policing character behavior that do not require an antagonist.

[Tanarii]

You should check my notes above. Also I think people are taking my benevolent comment to 11 when it's meant to go to 5. I've killed some of their characters before for repeatedly trying to fight clear warnings.
Is this your teens on caffeine group? If so, your situation makes a lot more sense. If there's anyone that's gonna talk smack to authority, it's teens on caffeine.

Personally I'd go with a non-lethal smack down, be it from dragon or some other powerful NPCs. Ie reduce HPs to 0 with melee attacks.

[mephnick]

Obviously I don't have all the information but....all of this advice you're getting is worthless if your players just want to kill goblins and loot shiny things.

They're not going to suddenly change their play-style just because you throw them in jail or torch them with a dragon.

They'll just keep trying to play the campaign they want until you relent and give it to them or they get bored.

[MxKit]

Obviously I don't have all the information but....all of this advice you're getting is worthless if your players just want to kill goblins and loot shiny things.

They're not going to suddenly change their play-style just because you throw them in jail or torch them with a dragon.

They'll just keep trying to play the campaign they want until you relent and give it to them or they get bored.

+1

And as satisfying as the "if you don't like what they're doing, smack them down, kill them off; if they don't like it, tough, mock them for thinking they can get away from ****" thing might be... as much right as you have to do it, as DM... that's just going to end with them deciding they don't want to play with you.

Right now, it sounds like there may be some kind of inherent mismatch in your playstyles. You, the GM, seem to want a different style of game than they, the players, want. Yes, even taking into account that three of them want to reroll new characters anyway and might not care at all about being killed off. Rerolling from Fighter to Ranger isn't going to suddenly make the player respect the authority and dangers in the game. It's not really a fix.

I agree that you should probably pause the game and hold a Session 0, either on your next game day or on a day in between your usual gaming sessions. Talk things over. Explain that the way they're playing is frustrating you, yes, but also ask them why they play that way. See what playstyles they'd prefer and what they don't find interesting in your DMing style. If you do want to change it up and be more strict about things, let the players know you want to do that and see how they react; if they really balk at it, you guys might have to accept that you don't want the same things out of the game. But if you guys can manage to get on the same page just by talking it out among yourselves, that's a good outcome for all of you.

[Potato_Priest]

Sometimes, just sometimes, I'd rather my character die than I have to take orders from the DM powerful NPC. I will act agressive or rebellious, and I don't necessarily expect to survive, but I expect that my character will win or die with some honor.

This is not wrong, and while it may be stupid, it is also a player choice.

My advice? Kill them, throw the NPC at them fairly, using its actual abilities in a way that the NPC would, given their position in the world. If they die, they die, but they died free. If they win, then have the world react in a reasonable way.

It may be that your players want an evil campaign, where they are the villains whose job it is to defy and kill all those powerful NPCs. These campaigns can be a lot of fun, and I might suggest you propose it to them.

[Mikal]

Smack them down. Actions have consequences and if their characters are too stupid to live you need to oblige them.

And yes I said stupid. There's evil and then there's idiotic, and spitting in the face of guards (who usually have dozens if not hundreds of allies), monarchs, and dragons isn't stupid, well...

[Throne12]

Obviously I don't have all the information but....all of this advice you're getting is worthless if your players just want to kill goblins and loot shiny things.

They're not going to suddenly change their play-style just because you throw them in jail or torch them with a dragon.

They'll just keep trying to play the campaign they want until you relent and give it to them or they get bored.

If they want to kill goblins and loot shinny things find. But don't spit on a guard and Threaten a king. Even among bad people that's not cool to Disrespect everyone. He also said they are so bad that there is even PvP in the group. This is problem that needs to be fixed.

If you caught your kid spitting on a police officer. Your not going to put a sigh in his hands and tell him to protest peacefully. Your going to Punish him. It sounds like he has bad players.

[smcmike]

If they want to kill goblins and loot shinny things find. But don't spit on a guard and Threaten a king. Even among bad people that's not cool to Disrespect everyone. He also said they are so bad that there is even PvP in the group. This is problem that needs to be fixed.

If you caught your kid spitting on a police officer. Your not going to put a sigh in his hands and tell him to protest peacefully. Your going to Punish him. It sounds like he has bad players.

We aren’t talking about children here. We are talking about the heroes of a fantasy game. I discipline my children because their actions have real consequences for real people, and because teaching them to behave is essential for their success in the real world.

You’ve never seen any fantasy heroes that spit on guards, threaten kings, or fight amongst themselves? How boring!

[Mikal]

We aren’t talking about children here. We are talking about the heroes of a fantasy game. I discipline my children because their actions have real consequences for real people, and because teaching them to behave is essential for their success in the real world.

You’ve never seen any fantasy heroes that spit on guards, threaten kings, or fight amongst themselves? How boring!

If the "heroes" want to spit on guards, threaten kings, and whatnot, let em. But that doesn't mean the guards and king will take it.

[Tanarii]

We aren’t talking about children here. We are talking about the heroes of a fantasy game. I discipline my children because their actions have real consequences for real people, and because teaching them to behave is essential for their success in the real world.
Strangely, I prefer both playing and running games where actions have consequences. And I've found most players not on a power-trip do too.

For one, logical consequences following from declared actions makes knowing the likely results of your actions easier to predict, which makes accomplishing things in the game easier.

Powerful NPCs not getting mad, and (if they think they can) attempting retribution against uppity and actually fairly weak 'heroes' destroys verisimilitude for everyone. It's one thing if you're well on your way to Conan, and want to pull an "Enough Talk" move. But when you're still a fresh rookie, which is exactly what level 1-4 characters are in the in-game world, it can be, and should be, fairly suicidal.

[mephnick]

If they want to kill goblins and loot shinny things find. But don't spit on a guard and Threaten a king.

So don't put those aspects in the game? Take them out of the city. You know they're going to disrespect royalty because they don't care about that aspect of RPGs, so..why do they keep being put in positions to meet with royalty?

Throw 'em on a hexmap of an unexplored area full of monsters and let them loose.

[smcmike]

If the "heroes" want to spit on guards, threaten kings, and whatnot, let em. But that doesn't mean the guards and king will take it.

Of course. They wouldn’t be much fun as antagonists if they just accepted this sort of abuse. The question, though, is what sort of action they should take that enhances the fun of the game.

Fun: The king stares at you for a moment, stunned by your impudence, and a hush dale across the court. Suddenly a broad grin breaks across his face, and he stands, laughing. “It looks like we have a new contestant for the Arena!” You hear uproarious cheers and laughter from the crowd as you are dragged away.

Not Fun: The king stares at you for a moment, stunned by your impudence. “Put this idiot’s head on a pike.” (Roll a new character).

[Mikal]

So don't put those aspects in the game? Take them out of the city. You know they're going to disrespect royalty because they don't care about that aspect of RPGs, so..why do they keep being put in positions to meet with royalty?

Throw 'em on a hexmap of an unexplored area full of monsters and let them loose.

Exactly. Encourage their immature power trip! Who cares if you wanted to run a game that was more than a blind hack n'slash?
Or, you know, actually run a game, give these idiots consequences for their actions, and see if they grow up. Otherwise, instead of wasting your time with them they can go play an MMO if they want to have a power trip.


Of course. They wouldn’t be much fun as antagonists if they just accepted this sort of abuse. The question, though, is what sort of action they should take that enhances the fun of the game.

Fun: The king stares at you for a moment, stunned by your impudence, and a hush dale across the court. Suddenly a broad grin breaks across his face, and he stands, laughing. “It looks like we have a new contestant for the Arena!” You hear uproarious cheers and laughter from the crowd as you are dragged away.

Not Fun: The king stares at you for a moment, stunned by your impudence. “Put this idiot’s head on a pike.” (Roll a new character).

.
..
...
I like the cut of yer jib.

[mephnick]

Exactly. Encourage their immature power trip!

It's D&D. Every game is an immature power trip. It's literally make-believe for adults.


Who cares if you wanted to run a game that was more than a blind hack n'slash?

Yeah, who cares? You don't get to run the game you want if the players don't want to play it. Get over yourself or find new players.

[Tanarii]

It's D&D. Every game is an immature power trip. It's literally make-believe for adults.hahahahaha fair point.

But there's still levels to this stuff.


Yeah, who cares? You don't get to run the game you want if the players don't want to play it. Get over yourself or find new players.Pretty hard advice. But accurate. It's easy to find new players, but can be difficult to find the kind of players for exactly what you want to do.

If it was easy, I'd be running a large open-table BECMI campaign instead of a large open-table 5e campaign.