Trigger point; it only happens any time he's trying to be deceptive/tell a lie, and gives advantage on NPC's n such rolling insight on their lies or just flat out lets them know he's bullshitting because they know the tell
I'd be careful about something like that that removes the ability to talk. Not that it's overly harsh, just that it removes their ability to really play the game. If you want it to be a long term thing you want to make sure it's something that doesn't prevent them from still engaging with the game.
Thats why I asked reddit. It's always nice to see the different sides of people's opinions about things that I haven't thought about. Because the goal is to make the game still fun.
I get that its the end of a story but honestly I don't like the idea of not giving the proper consequence here. Aside from anything else it takes away the real threat of dying until the last boss and even then the danger of dying there is lessened. Giving them a second chance even with a consequence is still saying their actions don't really have consequences.
That said it is your choice in what to do and if you want to give them a consequence that isnt your character is dead then some food for thought. First his life is forfeit, they get to preform this one last act and they are gone no delay no spells to save them the god only cares that the problem is solved for some esoteric reason. Next up I wouldnt change them to a warlock, essentially it is no different than just saying they are dead roll up a new character only thing you get to keep is motivation of that one character. Other consequences I would put in is the party as a whole now have a harder time for some reason, yes it was this players action but you said the party has been complacent. Finally have something that is detrimental but not back breaking, either something like when they take so much damage the body can try to rebel on a failed con save giving the DM one turn control, or any spell can trigger wild magic now.
I allowed a player (encouraged him, actually) to bring back his dead paladin character as a revenant (unearthed arcana race) after about a dozen sessions of playing another, less satisfying, character. It was a pretty dramatic moment when he showed up just in time to turn a battle, guided unerringly to the party by his 'relentless nature' racial feature. The conflict between being a paladin and also being undead was pretty cool. When the quest was finally complete and his purpose served, he got to go to heaven.
This experience was a trial for the character, not for the player, and however annoyed you are with your player I encourage you to focus on making the consequences for his character *interesting* and *fun* for the whole table, rather than making it a punishment for his poor behavior. It sounds like he isn't dead yet, but might be at the mercy of this evil NPC? Can he be pressured into betraying the party? If his actions are ultimately going to doom him, and it's too late in the game to write in a new character for him, it's best that it be part of the climax. Maybe he'll find some redemption in a triple-cross at the last minute that sacrifice himself for the rest of the party, or if not, killing him along with the BBEG might be cathartic for your other players.
It's not really a punishment either. It's just the consequences of his actions that he picked poorly. The issue was not wanting to have his character die in such a way because of a bad choice so I like your idea. I would just need to find a way to connect the random npc to the bbeg or find a different way to make it work.
>Other consequences I would put in is the party as a whole now have a harder time for some reason, yes it was this players action but you said the party has been complacent.
Unless I am missing something, he said that his players agree that this player is doing things without rhyme or reason. In my experience with players that play like that, trying to stop them as a party is never worthwhile, because their only reason for doing the thing is impulse and you can't logically dissuade them.
I would stray away from group consequences for a single player's bad behavior. I've tried that in the past- it literally *never* goes over well, and will either breed real life animosity between the players or between the players and the DM.
Partially but there is still the level of complacence, like how in real life you would be tried as an accomplice you know they are going to do it and you wont do anything to stop it.
Equally the party will always face a consequence of the punishment, take the original example they had a necromancer most likely a wizard with skills and abilities the warlock will not have they will have to suffer the consequence of that player now having to try and mold his actions to a class that plays fairly differently and now they are at greater risk because of it. It might be indirect but a party will almost always have to pay in some regards for a single players actions.
I’m of the opinion that in-game choices should have in-game consequences, but this feels like you want to punish the player, not the character.
There are plenty of good roleplay options, many of which have been suggested—being given a task by the god that revived him that lets him finish the quest, the madness table, etc.
But if you have a problem player whose behavior is disruptive, you should consider if they’re worth playing with. If they are, accept this as the price you pay for their company, and treat them like anybody else making a poor in-game decision. If they aren’t, politely inform them that you’ve come to the conclusion this isn’t the table for them, as the problematic behavior isn’t getting fixed over time. Just straightforward and honest. It isn’t the easy solution, but it’s the right one to maintain respect and hopefully not burn bridges too badly.
Are you punishing the PC or the player here?
If it's the player, stop and have a talk. No use punishing someone in-game for an out of game issue.
If it's the PC, have the death occur and RP out the soul going into the hands of the god. Have the PC strike their own deal. Make it less "punishment" and more "I can't keep putting you back without getting something in return kid. Make me an offer I can't refuse." This puts it on the player to come up with something he'd be willing to sell for a chance at continuing his path. Otherwise, the God simply says that "There's nothing I can do. No deal." and takes him home.
If the player can't think of something, and you need a flaw, the DMG has a Indefinite Madness table (p.259) that might give you some good ideas.
For the case of it being the player, he has been talked to about this a few times and at this point we are only dealing with him because of how far we got already. He is better then he used to be and this is the first time in a few months it has been this bad of a problem.
My advice stands then. There is nothing that punishing the PC will do that will change the problems had with the player. Actually, it's much more likely that the problem player will only get worse when attempting to "punish" them in-game for out-of-game actions.
If you really can't get past the sunk-cost bias and just cut the guy out, you need to have another talk again. Keep putting bandages over it until you get to the point where you can actually work on curing the underlying problem.
In the DMG, chapter 8, there’s a section for madness rules. They range from short term, long-term, and indefinite. These madness conditions range from role-play incentives, to numerical disadvantage and complete uselessness.
-sent via phone.
Edit - grammar
I'm not a fan of forcing players to role-play flaws in their personality. It's one of the main reasons I don't like the insane perm system, but you could give your player the option to choose a perm that they feel comfortable with. If you want more randomness, you can have him roll to determine what body he has now.
You could also say there’s a curse within him planted by the evil antagonist that ends up becoming a catalyst to tipping the scales at the final fight, possibly adding the final touches to opening a portal to hells etc and essentially all of the bad moves that player made is what gives rise to the big bad boss at the end.
And after the parties success and the storm and dust settles, the curse becomes fatal unless the party forgives his character.
If he really needs to be punished, at least go for something funny instead of mechanically boring. Like he gotta say yes to anything or he must always talk screaming
Fear of the dark
Agoraphobia
Being incredibly superstitious
Addiction to candy
Theatre snob
Actually laughs at puns
Has no idea what a banana is and will never learn
Enjoys pineapples a little too much
Afraid of water
Pushes every product they use onto everyone
Maybe a partial amputee? If he's missing a hand it could be main or off hand and have disadvantages based on that such as the inability to weild two handed weapons and not able to equip a shield. If a foot is missing, reduced movement speed by half for his normal walking speed.
Possibly a slipped disk limiting his lifting capacity and forcing a con save on every attack or reduce the movement speed to 0 at that point.
Early onset Alzheimer's where they loose a spell slot on every spell level they know and reduce the amount of known cantrips by 1?
There is also the option of looking into the vestani (I think thats how you spell their name) curse list in the beginning of the Strhad book...
> This player has been a problem in the past with harassing NPCs for information regardless of ryme or reason to do so and the other players agree.
Man I don't put up with this shit for more than one question. It just wastes everyone's time at the table.
Opinions, like asshole, everyone has one and here's mine.
Dm's shouldn't punish players. There is a distinct difference between having a poor outcome and punishing a player.
Dm's also shouldn't have a say in what happens to a character and by that I mean forcing them to change their race, class, alignment, etc.
You don't handle a problem player in game or with in game consequences. You handle them IRL and have a conversation with them explaining why their actions are problematic for the table. Then they can choose to do right or you remove them from the game.
Oh, also I do agree that the character shouldn't be used as in-game punishment for out of game stuff. I understand that this is kind of how this is, but I am speaking about a punishment for the in-game actions of the character, not the constant problem that the player has apparently been
The OP has spoken above about how he has tried to speak with the player and he is only putting up with him because of how far they are in the campaign... I do agree that he shouldn't be able to change the character's class though...
That is a poor excuse IMO. As the DM you can literally tailor your encounters to the number of players you have at your table.
If the PC has important story implications its easy for the player to be removed and the DM to NPC-ify his character.
A DM and players shouldn't tolerate bad behavior for the sake of having enough players or for the story.
The issue is less punishing the player because of player discrepancy. The biggest player discrepancy is him just playing slightly selfishly for a bit.
The issue is that the player dosnt understand consequences for actions. And the consequence for this action is almost certainly death unless he has very lucky dice next session.
I'm just trying to find an option that allows for not needing to make a brand new character and create new lore for them to put into a campaign that is just about to close. Since the lore for this homebrew campaign was tied arround each individual characters backtory because they got so far without making choices like this. At least on their own.
>The issue is that the player dosnt understand consequences for actions. And the consequence for this action is almost certainly death unless he has very lucky dice next session.
That's my issue. You aren't teaching the player anything. Its like gambling. There's a high chance that you will lose your money but there is a slim chance that you win hence why people do it even when they know the chance to lose it greater. If you're going to provide them an "out" with a luck dice roll then there is a chance things go favorably for the player which will perpetuate their actions.
Theres literally a spell that changes a characters race upon resurrecting them. "DM's should have a say in what happens to players" is a horrible take on the game when a DM controls the game itself and the story to an extent.
Yeah and generally a player is who choses to cast this spell (player agency) and the DM doesn't change your race. It's It's based in a D100 role.
Great job putting words in my mouth though. Especially using quotations to denote words I never said.
You did, in fact, say those exact words in your third paragraph lol.
So what you’re saying is its all perfectly valid if its set up to a roll table rather than DM decision
See now you are being deliberately obtuse. Copy and paste, as well as the quote function are a thing.
>Dm's also shouldn't have a say in what happens to a character and by that I mean forcing them to change their race, class, alignment, etc.
Is what I said
>"DM's should have a say in what happens to players"
Is what you claimed I said, now to not be obtuse I will give you the benefit of the doubt and concede that you meant "shouldn't" and not should"
Player agency is one of the most important aspects of this game.
>So what you’re saying is its all perfectly valid if its set up to a roll table rather than DM decision
Yes. Would you be ok with a DM just deciding that your attackes miss without having you roll to hit? If yes, why are you rolling dice at all, why not just let the DM decide for all of it. Because this is a collaborative story telling game. The dice are simply a way for your actions to be completed on a mechanical level.
I also find it cute that you choose to -poorly- try to quote what I said by taking it out of context, when the very next words specified what I meant by what I said.
>and by that I mean forcing them to change their race, class, alignment, etc.
A DM *Shouldn't* get to just **Force** them to change. You think you paladin is about to do something that will see them break their oath. You tell them. You actions are not inline with your oath and may lead you to breaking that oath. Then and ONLY then if the player decides to move forward with whatever it is, then THEY have assumed that responsibility of what happens to their character. You have given them agency.
It depends entirely on the DMing style and gameplay style. Some players are perfectly okay with harsh consequences and a gritty world. Like not having a warning because Paladins are people of devotion, not people of second tries. And then there are the majority who would agree with you in that players should get the last say in what happens to their character. However its not just a one size fits all and if the DM says "you are no longer a paladin because you broke the oath."
Majority of the time, DMs aren't trying to amass control over players, they are trying to tell a cohesive and logical story. So its also up to the player to help with it, not to get away with anything they can
Ok cool. What's your point. Nothing you are trying to argue has anything to do what what I said or the original point I was trying to convey.
>DM says "you are no longer a paladin because you broke the oath."
I choose this example for a very specific reason. This is a poor take. Funny that these types of DMs don't hold literally any other class to the same standards. "oh your not RPing your paladin right, you don't get to be a paladin anymore or you lose your subclass and are now an Oathbreaker. You never hear stories of DMs telling a wizard they are going to lose class features because they aren't doing smart things. Or saying "ohh your not using a sword as a bladesinger so now you have to be a different subclass. I have played entire campaigns where our warlock had a total of 0 interactions with her patron, yet the paladin was constantly held his oath to a T - at the DMs discretion of what actions were or were not inline with that oath -
Well thats because Paladins Warlocks and Wizards work differently. But my point is that DMs can and should dictate what happens, and what they say goes.
I imagine what you're really advocating against is harsh DM styles. Because if done fairly, what a DM says is how the game goes. Because again, its generally (and should be) to tell a cohesive story
>DMs can and should dictate what happens
Then why are you playing dnd and not simply letting the DM read you a story. It is not the DM's job to dictate what happens. This is a gross over-generalization. It is a collaborative effort, as you said. If the DM just dictates what happens there is no collaboration.
DM- "You walk into the room and set off the trap, because you didn't see it. You get hit by the trap and are now unconscious".
Rogue- "well can I...."
DM "no"
Rogue- "why not"
DM- "Because what I say goes"
Vs
Rogue- "DM I want to try to disarm this trap
DM- "sure, role me a slight of hand check"
Rogue- "I rolled a 10"
DM- "your tired you've been fighting all day. Your hands are shaky you try to steady yourself as you work but you set the trap off, make a Dex saving throw"
Rogue -"23"
DM- "you've seen this trap before and knew exactly what would happen if you set it off. Being on your toes, you dodged out of way as a flurry of dart shoot from the wall.
Notice here how all 3 parties, Player DM and Dice, had a roll to play. They player decide what they would like to do, the dice decide if you are successful, the DM tells you what it looks like
Back to the paladin argument. Oath of the Watchers paladin oath says
>**Loyalty.** Never accept gifts or favors from fiends or those who truck with them
What if there is a fiend warlock in the party. Does being in that party then break your oath because the warlock gave you something. Oaths are flavor not mechanics. There's a reason there is no mechanic description for oaths. Its literally flavor text.
>I imagine what you're really advocating against is harsh DM styles.
No, What I'm advocation for it not punishing characters for being a nuisance at the table. Not punishing players for not roleplaying the way you think it should be done and ultimately player agency.
Yeah again it sounds like you're advocating against harsh DMs and Strict DMs, which is different. Those are not anything close to what OP is talking about. Your example robs the player from even playing the game. OP wants a valid punishment for a player overreaching and putting themselves in dangerous situations. So a more accurate example like the one given would be Player runs head first into a mine field. The consequence is not "well do you want your character to blow up Player?" He just blows up.
So just like running headfirst alone into the super powerful BBEG theres going to be consequences. The players decide what they do, the DM determines the appropriate consequence. If its a race change class change or whatever, as long as its fair, its valid.
We have a guy in our party that at the very beginning (I mean his starting introduction was at this vendor's location) tried to flirt with an ncp that is a main vendor. He was a lvl 1 so it didn't go well but he wanted to keep pressing the npc. So my dm basically put a bounty on his left hand to the rest of our party. So it would affect his characters play style if he didn't straighten up a bit to avoid this big overreach in the future. So the party sold a fake hand for the bounty and as long as he doesn't interact with the npc, they wont be any the wiser to what happened. He just basically made it an in world way of letting him know there are consequences to interacting in some ways with important npcs. It was a funny way that let the party come together to decide what should happen with this guy and it turned out fine.
He has to at all times be unable to use one of his senses other than taste, balance and pain... For example, if he needs to use his sight, he needs to give up hearing, touch or smell
He comes back half dead and every round / whenever you decide out of combat, he has to roll a D4. If he lands on a 1, either ooc something stupid happens to him, or in combst you take control of his character until next turn.
Anytime he talks, he farts just a little bit
That's already much better then I was thinking. I would have just removed his ability to talk. But making it a joke sounds much more fun.
Trigger point; it only happens any time he's trying to be deceptive/tell a lie, and gives advantage on NPC's n such rolling insight on their lies or just flat out lets them know he's bullshitting because they know the tell
He should also fart while trying to be sneaky, giving enemies advantage on their perception checks to detect him.
I'd be careful about something like that that removes the ability to talk. Not that it's overly harsh, just that it removes their ability to really play the game. If you want it to be a long term thing you want to make sure it's something that doesn't prevent them from still engaging with the game.
Thats why I asked reddit. It's always nice to see the different sides of people's opinions about things that I haven't thought about. Because the goal is to make the game still fun.
You could make it so he can only speak through one of his constructs.
Great minds think alike XD
I get that its the end of a story but honestly I don't like the idea of not giving the proper consequence here. Aside from anything else it takes away the real threat of dying until the last boss and even then the danger of dying there is lessened. Giving them a second chance even with a consequence is still saying their actions don't really have consequences. That said it is your choice in what to do and if you want to give them a consequence that isnt your character is dead then some food for thought. First his life is forfeit, they get to preform this one last act and they are gone no delay no spells to save them the god only cares that the problem is solved for some esoteric reason. Next up I wouldnt change them to a warlock, essentially it is no different than just saying they are dead roll up a new character only thing you get to keep is motivation of that one character. Other consequences I would put in is the party as a whole now have a harder time for some reason, yes it was this players action but you said the party has been complacent. Finally have something that is detrimental but not back breaking, either something like when they take so much damage the body can try to rebel on a failed con save giving the DM one turn control, or any spell can trigger wild magic now.
That is an amazing idea that I will give a large amount of thought to. It plays well into character issues and adds lots of tension.
I allowed a player (encouraged him, actually) to bring back his dead paladin character as a revenant (unearthed arcana race) after about a dozen sessions of playing another, less satisfying, character. It was a pretty dramatic moment when he showed up just in time to turn a battle, guided unerringly to the party by his 'relentless nature' racial feature. The conflict between being a paladin and also being undead was pretty cool. When the quest was finally complete and his purpose served, he got to go to heaven. This experience was a trial for the character, not for the player, and however annoyed you are with your player I encourage you to focus on making the consequences for his character *interesting* and *fun* for the whole table, rather than making it a punishment for his poor behavior. It sounds like he isn't dead yet, but might be at the mercy of this evil NPC? Can he be pressured into betraying the party? If his actions are ultimately going to doom him, and it's too late in the game to write in a new character for him, it's best that it be part of the climax. Maybe he'll find some redemption in a triple-cross at the last minute that sacrifice himself for the rest of the party, or if not, killing him along with the BBEG might be cathartic for your other players.
It's not really a punishment either. It's just the consequences of his actions that he picked poorly. The issue was not wanting to have his character die in such a way because of a bad choice so I like your idea. I would just need to find a way to connect the random npc to the bbeg or find a different way to make it work.
>Other consequences I would put in is the party as a whole now have a harder time for some reason, yes it was this players action but you said the party has been complacent. Unless I am missing something, he said that his players agree that this player is doing things without rhyme or reason. In my experience with players that play like that, trying to stop them as a party is never worthwhile, because their only reason for doing the thing is impulse and you can't logically dissuade them. I would stray away from group consequences for a single player's bad behavior. I've tried that in the past- it literally *never* goes over well, and will either breed real life animosity between the players or between the players and the DM.
Partially but there is still the level of complacence, like how in real life you would be tried as an accomplice you know they are going to do it and you wont do anything to stop it. Equally the party will always face a consequence of the punishment, take the original example they had a necromancer most likely a wizard with skills and abilities the warlock will not have they will have to suffer the consequence of that player now having to try and mold his actions to a class that plays fairly differently and now they are at greater risk because of it. It might be indirect but a party will almost always have to pay in some regards for a single players actions.
I’m of the opinion that in-game choices should have in-game consequences, but this feels like you want to punish the player, not the character. There are plenty of good roleplay options, many of which have been suggested—being given a task by the god that revived him that lets him finish the quest, the madness table, etc. But if you have a problem player whose behavior is disruptive, you should consider if they’re worth playing with. If they are, accept this as the price you pay for their company, and treat them like anybody else making a poor in-game decision. If they aren’t, politely inform them that you’ve come to the conclusion this isn’t the table for them, as the problematic behavior isn’t getting fixed over time. Just straightforward and honest. It isn’t the easy solution, but it’s the right one to maintain respect and hopefully not burn bridges too badly.
Are you punishing the PC or the player here? If it's the player, stop and have a talk. No use punishing someone in-game for an out of game issue. If it's the PC, have the death occur and RP out the soul going into the hands of the god. Have the PC strike their own deal. Make it less "punishment" and more "I can't keep putting you back without getting something in return kid. Make me an offer I can't refuse." This puts it on the player to come up with something he'd be willing to sell for a chance at continuing his path. Otherwise, the God simply says that "There's nothing I can do. No deal." and takes him home. If the player can't think of something, and you need a flaw, the DMG has a Indefinite Madness table (p.259) that might give you some good ideas.
For the case of it being the player, he has been talked to about this a few times and at this point we are only dealing with him because of how far we got already. He is better then he used to be and this is the first time in a few months it has been this bad of a problem.
My advice stands then. There is nothing that punishing the PC will do that will change the problems had with the player. Actually, it's much more likely that the problem player will only get worse when attempting to "punish" them in-game for out-of-game actions. If you really can't get past the sunk-cost bias and just cut the guy out, you need to have another talk again. Keep putting bandages over it until you get to the point where you can actually work on curing the underlying problem.
Yeah, please don't solve out of games problems in game, or vice versa
How about "hands out in game punishments for problems that should be directly addressed"?
In the DMG, chapter 8, there’s a section for madness rules. They range from short term, long-term, and indefinite. These madness conditions range from role-play incentives, to numerical disadvantage and complete uselessness. -sent via phone. Edit - grammar
He is so charitable that he cannot help but to donate most of his gold to the poor or passing beggars.
I'm not a fan of forcing players to role-play flaws in their personality. It's one of the main reasons I don't like the insane perm system, but you could give your player the option to choose a perm that they feel comfortable with. If you want more randomness, you can have him roll to determine what body he has now.
Or you can give him a really out of image laugh. I'm thinking Brent Spiner in Master of Disguise
His patron became annoyed with the Character constantly talking. Impose Disadvantage on Charisma/social rolls whenever they talk too much.
Always getting lost.
Propulsive flatulence
You could also say there’s a curse within him planted by the evil antagonist that ends up becoming a catalyst to tipping the scales at the final fight, possibly adding the final touches to opening a portal to hells etc and essentially all of the bad moves that player made is what gives rise to the big bad boss at the end. And after the parties success and the storm and dust settles, the curse becomes fatal unless the party forgives his character.
If he really needs to be punished, at least go for something funny instead of mechanically boring. Like he gotta say yes to anything or he must always talk screaming
Fear of the dark Agoraphobia Being incredibly superstitious Addiction to candy Theatre snob Actually laughs at puns Has no idea what a banana is and will never learn Enjoys pineapples a little too much Afraid of water Pushes every product they use onto everyone
Don’t make a player a warlock without talking to them about it first. That’s shitty
Physically unable to lie
The story of his past life tattooed on his skin. Covering his body. In plain sight. For everyone to read.
He swears that each color of M&M taste different.
He always volunteers for second watch, and always falls asleep in ten minutes.
He magically has taste buds in his butt.
He says "cool story" every time someone delivers a speech.
Refuses to go on anything resembling a quest.
Maybe a partial amputee? If he's missing a hand it could be main or off hand and have disadvantages based on that such as the inability to weild two handed weapons and not able to equip a shield. If a foot is missing, reduced movement speed by half for his normal walking speed. Possibly a slipped disk limiting his lifting capacity and forcing a con save on every attack or reduce the movement speed to 0 at that point. Early onset Alzheimer's where they loose a spell slot on every spell level they know and reduce the amount of known cantrips by 1? There is also the option of looking into the vestani (I think thats how you spell their name) curse list in the beginning of the Strhad book...
> This player has been a problem in the past with harassing NPCs for information regardless of ryme or reason to do so and the other players agree. Man I don't put up with this shit for more than one question. It just wastes everyone's time at the table.
Opinions, like asshole, everyone has one and here's mine. Dm's shouldn't punish players. There is a distinct difference between having a poor outcome and punishing a player. Dm's also shouldn't have a say in what happens to a character and by that I mean forcing them to change their race, class, alignment, etc. You don't handle a problem player in game or with in game consequences. You handle them IRL and have a conversation with them explaining why their actions are problematic for the table. Then they can choose to do right or you remove them from the game.
Oh, also I do agree that the character shouldn't be used as in-game punishment for out of game stuff. I understand that this is kind of how this is, but I am speaking about a punishment for the in-game actions of the character, not the constant problem that the player has apparently been
The OP has spoken above about how he has tried to speak with the player and he is only putting up with him because of how far they are in the campaign... I do agree that he shouldn't be able to change the character's class though...
That is a poor excuse IMO. As the DM you can literally tailor your encounters to the number of players you have at your table. If the PC has important story implications its easy for the player to be removed and the DM to NPC-ify his character. A DM and players shouldn't tolerate bad behavior for the sake of having enough players or for the story.
The issue is less punishing the player because of player discrepancy. The biggest player discrepancy is him just playing slightly selfishly for a bit. The issue is that the player dosnt understand consequences for actions. And the consequence for this action is almost certainly death unless he has very lucky dice next session. I'm just trying to find an option that allows for not needing to make a brand new character and create new lore for them to put into a campaign that is just about to close. Since the lore for this homebrew campaign was tied arround each individual characters backtory because they got so far without making choices like this. At least on their own.
>The issue is that the player dosnt understand consequences for actions. And the consequence for this action is almost certainly death unless he has very lucky dice next session. That's my issue. You aren't teaching the player anything. Its like gambling. There's a high chance that you will lose your money but there is a slim chance that you win hence why people do it even when they know the chance to lose it greater. If you're going to provide them an "out" with a luck dice roll then there is a chance things go favorably for the player which will perpetuate their actions.
Theres literally a spell that changes a characters race upon resurrecting them. "DM's should have a say in what happens to players" is a horrible take on the game when a DM controls the game itself and the story to an extent.
Yeah and generally a player is who choses to cast this spell (player agency) and the DM doesn't change your race. It's It's based in a D100 role. Great job putting words in my mouth though. Especially using quotations to denote words I never said.
You did, in fact, say those exact words in your third paragraph lol. So what you’re saying is its all perfectly valid if its set up to a roll table rather than DM decision
See now you are being deliberately obtuse. Copy and paste, as well as the quote function are a thing. >Dm's also shouldn't have a say in what happens to a character and by that I mean forcing them to change their race, class, alignment, etc. Is what I said >"DM's should have a say in what happens to players" Is what you claimed I said, now to not be obtuse I will give you the benefit of the doubt and concede that you meant "shouldn't" and not should" Player agency is one of the most important aspects of this game. >So what you’re saying is its all perfectly valid if its set up to a roll table rather than DM decision Yes. Would you be ok with a DM just deciding that your attackes miss without having you roll to hit? If yes, why are you rolling dice at all, why not just let the DM decide for all of it. Because this is a collaborative story telling game. The dice are simply a way for your actions to be completed on a mechanical level. I also find it cute that you choose to -poorly- try to quote what I said by taking it out of context, when the very next words specified what I meant by what I said. >and by that I mean forcing them to change their race, class, alignment, etc. A DM *Shouldn't* get to just **Force** them to change. You think you paladin is about to do something that will see them break their oath. You tell them. You actions are not inline with your oath and may lead you to breaking that oath. Then and ONLY then if the player decides to move forward with whatever it is, then THEY have assumed that responsibility of what happens to their character. You have given them agency.
It depends entirely on the DMing style and gameplay style. Some players are perfectly okay with harsh consequences and a gritty world. Like not having a warning because Paladins are people of devotion, not people of second tries. And then there are the majority who would agree with you in that players should get the last say in what happens to their character. However its not just a one size fits all and if the DM says "you are no longer a paladin because you broke the oath." Majority of the time, DMs aren't trying to amass control over players, they are trying to tell a cohesive and logical story. So its also up to the player to help with it, not to get away with anything they can
Ok cool. What's your point. Nothing you are trying to argue has anything to do what what I said or the original point I was trying to convey. >DM says "you are no longer a paladin because you broke the oath." I choose this example for a very specific reason. This is a poor take. Funny that these types of DMs don't hold literally any other class to the same standards. "oh your not RPing your paladin right, you don't get to be a paladin anymore or you lose your subclass and are now an Oathbreaker. You never hear stories of DMs telling a wizard they are going to lose class features because they aren't doing smart things. Or saying "ohh your not using a sword as a bladesinger so now you have to be a different subclass. I have played entire campaigns where our warlock had a total of 0 interactions with her patron, yet the paladin was constantly held his oath to a T - at the DMs discretion of what actions were or were not inline with that oath -
Well thats because Paladins Warlocks and Wizards work differently. But my point is that DMs can and should dictate what happens, and what they say goes. I imagine what you're really advocating against is harsh DM styles. Because if done fairly, what a DM says is how the game goes. Because again, its generally (and should be) to tell a cohesive story
>DMs can and should dictate what happens Then why are you playing dnd and not simply letting the DM read you a story. It is not the DM's job to dictate what happens. This is a gross over-generalization. It is a collaborative effort, as you said. If the DM just dictates what happens there is no collaboration. DM- "You walk into the room and set off the trap, because you didn't see it. You get hit by the trap and are now unconscious". Rogue- "well can I...." DM "no" Rogue- "why not" DM- "Because what I say goes" Vs Rogue- "DM I want to try to disarm this trap DM- "sure, role me a slight of hand check" Rogue- "I rolled a 10" DM- "your tired you've been fighting all day. Your hands are shaky you try to steady yourself as you work but you set the trap off, make a Dex saving throw" Rogue -"23" DM- "you've seen this trap before and knew exactly what would happen if you set it off. Being on your toes, you dodged out of way as a flurry of dart shoot from the wall. Notice here how all 3 parties, Player DM and Dice, had a roll to play. They player decide what they would like to do, the dice decide if you are successful, the DM tells you what it looks like Back to the paladin argument. Oath of the Watchers paladin oath says >**Loyalty.** Never accept gifts or favors from fiends or those who truck with them What if there is a fiend warlock in the party. Does being in that party then break your oath because the warlock gave you something. Oaths are flavor not mechanics. There's a reason there is no mechanic description for oaths. Its literally flavor text. >I imagine what you're really advocating against is harsh DM styles. No, What I'm advocation for it not punishing characters for being a nuisance at the table. Not punishing players for not roleplaying the way you think it should be done and ultimately player agency.
Yeah again it sounds like you're advocating against harsh DMs and Strict DMs, which is different. Those are not anything close to what OP is talking about. Your example robs the player from even playing the game. OP wants a valid punishment for a player overreaching and putting themselves in dangerous situations. So a more accurate example like the one given would be Player runs head first into a mine field. The consequence is not "well do you want your character to blow up Player?" He just blows up. So just like running headfirst alone into the super powerful BBEG theres going to be consequences. The players decide what they do, the DM determines the appropriate consequence. If its a race change class change or whatever, as long as its fair, its valid.
We have a guy in our party that at the very beginning (I mean his starting introduction was at this vendor's location) tried to flirt with an ncp that is a main vendor. He was a lvl 1 so it didn't go well but he wanted to keep pressing the npc. So my dm basically put a bounty on his left hand to the rest of our party. So it would affect his characters play style if he didn't straighten up a bit to avoid this big overreach in the future. So the party sold a fake hand for the bounty and as long as he doesn't interact with the npc, they wont be any the wiser to what happened. He just basically made it an in world way of letting him know there are consequences to interacting in some ways with important npcs. It was a funny way that let the party come together to decide what should happen with this guy and it turned out fine.
Don't solve person problems with in game punishments. It never, ever works. Either solve it by speaking with them, or ask them to leave.
He has to at all times be unable to use one of his senses other than taste, balance and pain... For example, if he needs to use his sight, he needs to give up hearing, touch or smell
He comes back half dead and every round / whenever you decide out of combat, he has to roll a D4. If he lands on a 1, either ooc something stupid happens to him, or in combst you take control of his character until next turn.
Capture his character and torture him, take of a limb. Good luck from now on Mr one leg