As a Dm have you ever punished a player?

Years ago (like 12 now! geez I'm old) I started my first 3.5 campaign. We had been playing in another game, and the DM hit a funk. He asked me to take over with my own campaign till he got sorted out. I ended up running an ongoing for about 2 years in my homebrew world. There was a lot of growing pains as I acclimated from AD&D and into playing with adults. In my world, just a small set up, there weren't really monks. Also, the world was run by Orcs, who had basically taken over after a large war that left the world decimated and no one else to say No. The orcs were not the brute savages typically seen, but a highly disciplined Rome style civilization. Anyway, if monks did exist it would be with the Orcs fluff wise. I had a player who insisted on being a monk. I knew why - he is a power player and in his mind monks were the most powerful. He also wanted to be a human. Not at all something that within my world existed. He came up with the standard "left at the monastery story" and I figured I'd just let it go. Really, he just wanted the bonus feat. Long story short throughout the course of the campaign he continued to change feats, grab feats off the internet and generally just cheat. Like, recalculating dice rolls, experience and what not, :Long story, we knew it happened and we just let it go, Finally, after an encounter they were told to avoid he had died and was going to be resurrected. Now, in order for my story to work in the long run I needed as representative from each race. I did not have an orc, and the monk was the closest. So when i resurrected him (by the orcs, in his orcy monastery) he came back as an orc. He was sooo pissed. I didn't really feel like I was punishing him, though I will admit now there was some of that. It ended up, despite his protestations, working out as he got more power and in game perks (being orc is a really good thing in that world). Given the situation I would do the same thing as it made the most sense within the context of the story, his character and the world - but punishment can be a tricky and dastardly thing. I actually made a couple mistakes in the same vein over the course of the game, but this is the best example of a 'punishment' that was actually much more of a boon. So have you ever done something 'mean' to a player/group and then regretted it, or can you justify your actions? Explain below. :)\ Fee

Honestly in your given example I just would not have allowed him to play human - if something doesn't work in the world I created because it would break stuff / would not be consistent and I absolutely can't tweak the world because f.e. things have already been established and the majority of the group is for the status quo, I don't bend indefinitely to a players' will. I will try to accomodate and work together with a player regarding any wishes they may have, but I think its fair for them to meet me halfway. You allowing a monk but it has to be an ork would have been just fine, really. Anyway, on to myself. I run very character-driven sandbox campaigns and what annoys me about myself is that if a player has demonstrated that they are either unwilling or unable to 'look for their own stuff' as well as either unwilling or unable to notice the bones I am throwing them (f.e. an npc that they have a chance meeting with could be a future contact/might know something relevant) ... I will gradually stop nudging them with interesting stuff for their character. Its something I have noticed over the course of a few months, so its definitely not an immediate reaction (i.e. no "WHY YOU NO TAKE MY HOOKS" rage), after all I want my players to only go for stuff that interests them or their characters. But if neither they nor their characters show any interest in npcs, artifacts, locations or simply lore (even one would suffice, really, after all not everything interests everyone) then I just... stop caring as well and focus more on the players that actively give something back for me to work and expand on. edit: And yes I do ask players at the beginning and every few sessions if there is anything they want to see less/more of, anything they want to happen to their character or anything that annoys them. Unfortunately, in my experience you don't really get good feedback that way from most (just most) people even if you ask them directly. tl;dr: I care more about players that are actively enganging with at least a tiny part of the world, so yeah, in a way I punish players that just want to follow the main plot by offering them less and less subplots as time passes. In essence, their characters loose agency over time as the other characters drive the group forward with their opinions/desires. I wish I could care more and have the motivation to not do that.

I'm not above trying to make thins harder for power gamers. I'm talking true power gamers that milk the system hard not optimizers. Had a player who tricked me into allowing Synth summoner in a pathfinder campaign back before I knew better. He got a 31 AC at lvl 5 and he unbalanced the combat difficulty. His character needless to say became the target of a band of musketmen bounty hunters, who had no trouble hitting him. It okay to be awesome as a player, but not okay to be broken. I make sure to ban summoners out right in all my games. I also had one player in the same game who punished himself. He was Also a power gamer but in a less cheap fashion. He just love to use cheap spells to frustrate me to no end. Still he was was not min maxing, just picking spells really intelligently so I was not going to pick on him. But he got really cocky and went solo. A low level wizard cast hold person and he rolled a nat 1. He got killed and it was completely his own fault.

Feefait said: Years ago (like 12 now! geez I'm old) I started my first 3.5 campaign. We had been playing in another game, and the DM hit a funk. He asked me to take over with my own campaign till he got sorted out. I ended up running an ongoing for about 2 years in my homebrew world. There was a lot of growing pains as I acclimated from AD&D and into playing with adults. In my world, just a small set up, there weren't really monks. Also, the world was run by Orcs, who had basically taken over after a large war that left the world decimated and no one else to say No. The orcs were not the brute savages typically seen, but a highly disciplined Rome style civilization. Anyway, if monks did exist it would be with the Orcs fluff wise. I had a player who insisted on being a monk. I knew why - he is a power player and in his mind monks were the most powerful. He also wanted to be a human. Not at all something that within my world existed. He came up with the standard "left at the monastery story" and I figured I'd just let it go. Really, he just wanted the bonus feat. Long story short throughout the course of the campaign he continued to change feats, grab feats off the internet and generally just cheat. Like, recalculating dice rolls, experience and what not, :Long story, we knew it happened and we just let it go, Finally, after an encounter they were told to avoid he had died and was going to be resurrected. Now, in order for my story to work in the long run I needed as representative from each race. I did not have an orc, and the monk was the closest. So when i resurrected him (by the orcs, in his orcy monastery) he came back as an orc. He was sooo pissed. I didn't really feel like I was punishing him, though I will admit now there was some of that. It ended up, despite his protestations, working out as he got more power and in game perks (being orc is a really good thing in that world). Given the situation I would do the same thing as it made the most sense within the context of the story, his character and the world - but punishment can be a tricky and dastardly thing. I actually made a couple mistakes in the same vein over the course of the game, but this is the best example of a 'punishment' that was actually much more of a boon. So have you ever done something 'mean' to a player/group and then regretted it, or can you justify your actions? Explain below. :)\ Fee Ouch, everything about this makes me want to wince. First off, why not have monks or humans? I think it's okay to put some thematic restriction on character creation, but generally DMs should be using their creativity to justify why things can happen rather than why they can't - especially to people's character ideas. The world doesn't exist outside of things which have been said at the table, and there's usually nothing stopping you from saying "yeah, there are some humans out to the west. They've got some monks as well." Also, "in order for my story to work in the long run" makes me wince. You've planned out the whole story in advance, which is . Further, you made some serious changes to his character without his consent, and without checking with him if he thought it would be cool. This is also kind of a dick move. I'm glad it worked out in the end, but that sort of thing is something that could be consensual in the first place.

I don't believe in punishing players. I did a bit of punishing players when I first started as a DM. It was one of my many mistakes. As one example, I had a player who really rubbed me the wrong way. He was playing a sneaky rogue type, wasn't really working with the party, and was doing a few things that frustrated me as a DM. So, when he rolled a 1 on a thievery check to pickpocket a random nobleman, I used that as my opportunity to punish him. I had guards come, brought him down to 1 hp, had him on the ropes, and he wound up sitting out while the rest of the party explored the town so he would have time to rest. Anyways, that campaign ended, and I'm glad to say the next time I DMed for him, I really changed my DM style and upped my game, and he turned out to actually be a decent player. But trying to punish the guy was one of the regrets I had in that game. For bad behaviour at the table (being a dick, cheating, cell phone use, incredibly bad hygiene, etc), the only way to deal with that is to talk to the offending player out of game. And if it remains a problem, at some point, you may have to go separate ways. As for powergaming, there's nothing wrong with powergaming, so no reason why it needs to be punished. Now, if you're playing a system where game balance is horribly broken, you may need to have a talk with your player about that out of game. Trying to address it by singling out and killing off his PC is the worst way to deal with the problem. In game, I also don't believe in punishing players either. Yes, actions should have consequences, but the DM should work with the players to make those consequences into interesting and fun challenges and complications, rather than boring and frustrating punishments for rolling a 1 or "doing something stupid"

B L. said: For bad behaviour at the table (being a dick, cheating, cell phone use, incredibly bad hygiene, etc), the only way to deal with that is to talk to the offending player out of game. And if it remains a problem, at some point, you may have to go separate ways. This has worked wonders so many times, I can't help but quote it because I myself failed to mention this very important rule. Chances are, everyone is misunderstanding everyone and would be just fine if people just... you know, talked. :) Of course, this can also lead to people parting ways, but honestly, if they (or I) are not a good fit, then its not a good fit. *shrugs*

"Being mean" is kind of a matter of perspective, I mean have I done things that players have not liked and openly called me out on it? Yes, yes I have. Did such actions have some regret? One did, but that was because I let my emotions get the better of me ,but it was that or let the game fail and lose the entire group, I eventually asked the player to leave he was too much for me and I honestly wasn't having fun with him around so overall....I don't really feel that bad.

As far as the world building and no monks it basically went like this: Each of the main races had been mentored/sponsored/raised by a divine dragon. They each took on the traits and powers of each of the dragons. So the orcs who were taken by the most powerful dragon (gold) were the most powerful race, and most disciplined. The humans were the youngest race, and had the youngest dragon (blue) who basically never taught them anything, so they were reckless, lawless and barely civilized. He wanted to be human simply for skill points and feats. I wouldn't have punished him alone for that, and I don;t think I did. It's just after all these years I still wonder if maybe there wasn't some of that subconsciously, and if maybe he didn't think that at the time. And as far as monks, it's just a pet peeve of semantics for me. Being Buddhist and having been raised around monks I don't like thinking of them going out to whoop ass on some kobolds. lol In my world the monastics were the second half of the political power, and not part of a war. Had it been a "martial artist" I would have far less trouble with the karmic aspect of it. lol I know this is a whole other debate though. :) His cheating was unfortunately just something we lived with. There were things like pre-rolling if he knew we were going to be asking for a check or initiative or something, and if he liked it he kept it. "Oh look, I already rolled", on a good roll, or "oops, do you want me to roll, cause that was just a slip" on a bad roll. He would also randomly have feats that never appeared otherwise like "Oh yea, my new feat allows me an AOO against anyone that charges me, or jumps near me, or has green eyes." So part of me making such a big change to his character was t force a hard reboot. Part of it though was story driven. Eventually they would all have become Draconic Incarnations and been their patron dragons incarnation in the world, He needed to be orc though for that to happen. It would have probably happened anyway, but the resurrection just gave me a good excuse (I thought) for it. Hindsight I could have been much more open about it. I love my secrets as a DM though. lol I have a couple others from the same campaign... Players were tasked to find a cure to a disease in a town. They were asked to A. Go to main orc city to talk to healers there (told flat out best choice) B. Go to the elves for healing (too far away and elves don't like to help) or C. Go to a dark, mysterious old tower from which no one has ever returned, but might have the answer (they were told not to go here). Well... they went there. lol And it was rough. One of the players ended up possessed by a dark spirit, and much of the next few months involved his slow descent into evilness and them trying to save him... which they did, but it led to the death of the monk above, and started a whole new arc. Also, horses... they never, ever kept horses. Stolen, killed or lost. Horses just didn't work. lol

I try to be as fair as possible, in every game I run, and remain neutral, except for the generation of plots and conflicts.

Power-gaming is such a problem. Or rather, it can be. At a certain point, blaming the system just doesn't cut it anymore. Honestly, power-gamers are the reason I won't go near 3.5-finder. But the only problem I've ever had that wasn't easily handled by talking to the player privately was a new player that kept us from starting at the beginning of a game. When I took him aside (digitally) to ask if he could reign in the unrelated chatter for 20 minutes or so, he basically ranted in his native "young-person" for a few minutes and left. I felt really bad about it, like I should have explained it better, and it cast a shadow over the rest of the game. Other than that I've found that people aren't particularly aware if they're doing something disruptive or unhelpful, and are more than willing to either stop doing it or do something else when they find out.

Billy R. said: Power-gaming is such a problem. Or rather, it can be. At a certain point, blaming the system just doesn't cut it anymore. Honestly, power-gamers are the reason I won't go near 3.5-finder. I don't necessarily agree. If someone wants to make a powerful character, it's no skin off my back as a DM. Besides, DM's have basically ultimate control over the difficulty level - I can decide in putting together the encounter whether the players are up against six orcs or twelve - so it's not like DM's can't adjust for the power level of their PC's if they are so inclined. Although, I generally don't give a crap about what's on my players' character sheets - if they want to build awesome characters that can slay anything and are happy curb-stomping encounters, and enjoy doing this, more power to them. Also, I can challenge them in different ways with alternate goals besides "kill everything before they kill you" Of course, maybe it's because most of my experience is with 4e, a system that doesn't have horribly broken class balance and a glut of third party stuff with, shall we say, varying quality control. Generally, I'm able to just say "yeah, use anything in 4e put out by WotC" and it will be all right - I don't even bother looking at players' character sheets. I play with a group that regularly brings some pretty powerful characters, and we never run into problems and have sessions chock full of both interesting character interaction and bringing the pain on the grid. Anyways, if a problem does arise out of powergaming and poor game balance, the best approach is to talk about it out of game with your players, not punish them by singling out the powergamer for some in-game wrath. Trying to solve it by having rocks fall on the guy with the 31 AC isn't a good approach because the DM is sidestepping the issue and trying to punish someone's character to address an issue he has with the player.

I think making mistakes is part and parcel of being a GM. I made a lot of mistakes early on. Regarding your situation about the setup of your game - world run by orcs, monks can only be orcs, player wants a human monk - I can see both sides. There are games I have run, and will run in the future, where I will say, "these options are not available in this game. Agreeing to play the game means you accept that. If you really don't like it, let's discuss it and see if there's a solution we both like." So i can agree that saying he couldn't have a human monk is a valid choice. That said, the story idea is fairly classic: being left at a monastery to be raised by among people not of their kind, and this is rife with roleplaying properties. So in that case I might have allowed it. The problem here though is not what happened in the game, but the decisions both you and your player made out of game. You let your player have something he wanted, but you really didn't want him to have it, and I imagine, that rankled throughout the game till you got the opportunity to "fix it" ingame. Fixing player problems in-game is impossible. You had a problem - the player didn't buy into your setting, forced you to compromise on your vision, and you didn't talk it out with him away from the table and find a compromise that worked for you both. Your other problem: the player was constantly changing his character and grabbing new feats, etc. In some groups, being able to change your character between adventures is acceptable and encouraged. In others, it's seen as cheating. The problem is when players of both camps play together, and don't talk about it. I'm guessing you suggested many times that he not do that, but failed to come out and say, "Look, this unacceptable in this group. Stop it." Instead I am guessing you did what many people did, and undermined his choices in game with behind the scenes dice fiddling or situation framing to try to 'teach' him he was making a mistake. (I've been there, I've done that. I now know better.) Or maybe you just fumed silently and impartially. Whatever, the point is, you didn't address it at the real-person level, the player level. Player problems cannot be fixed at the character level (punishing a character to try to change a player's behaviour does not work, and usually makes things worse). The things that happened in-the-game, like being resurrected as an orc - I see nothing wrong with that, as long as the motivation is to make for a more fun game and not to punish a player. I could easily see myself doing that in a world like yours: the orcs bering him back as an orc, thinking they are helping him, and the campaign could develop in interesting ways. but always on the table would be the opportunity for the player to get his human identity back. That would make a great quest. And maybe, somewhere along the quest, his character might decide he didn't want it back (or he may npt decide that). That's the kind of campaign story that can develop when you have player trust and engagement, which you get among other things by treating their choices as valid, and if they want something that is inappropriate somehow, you try to work with them to make sure what they get is even better.

No, I always try to be neutral. Most of the time I will design my world around "logical" core concepts and place the player within an environment in which I feel like their characters can prosper. I will never go out of my way to kill the party or a specific character but I will sometimes do the opposite and offer them a bit of an "opening" if I fell like the situation they are in is too tense, especially if the party is new to my games/low level or if I fell like I faultily misdirected them into doing something too dangerous. "Power gaming" might indeed prove difficult with the way I run games and thus I avoid any edition higher than 2e and homebrew a lot of stuff into my games to try and keep it relatively varied but also very "low power" until the players are actually able to get their hands on in-game items.

I do not punish characters, I respond to player. I have had players that were inappropriate and normally all it takes is pausing the game and asking if they forgot were the door was, because obviously they need to leave. If the player is just weird or something then, I talk to them privately and let them know, "Hey is is generally considered poor form to stare at another player, you should stop or we will have to let you go." I have removed about 3 player from my table/house and had one player, who committed 3 suicides by NPC, but I do not kill the characters or punish the players.

The player I am referring to is a friend from high school.We've been gaming for over 20 years together. There is no talking it over. lol He's gotten better, but the first step is of course admitting a problem, which he will not do. It was never game breaking, though sometimes annoying. In this campaign it was a relatively brutal, low power game. There just was not a lot of magic items etc. so a lot of the time I felt NOT giving them items was kind of a punishment too. We have always had a very balanced and precarious group, keeping players who may not be so dedicated. We couldn't afford to lose anyone, and so my later games I have in many ways overcompensated by giving away lots of stuff and allowing the players a ton of freedom. Every once in a while though I do feel the urge to smack em down if they get too full of themselves. Never enough to outright kill someone, but definitely remind them there can be a serious challenge.

Feefait said: So have you ever done something 'mean' to a player/group and then regretted it, or can you justify your actions? Explain below. :)\ Fee No, and there is no justification whatsoever for this sort of behavior from a GM (or anybody). If there is a problem with the game, people deserve the courtesy of a polite but direct out-of-game discussion to resolve the issue or part ways, not get-backs and attempts at behavior modification through in-game means. This is part of having respect for other people and applies to more than just RPGs. On the issue of "power-gaming," you're playing a game and in some games there are optimal choices relative to the default dramatic question of the system being played. Power-gaming is thus smart and fair play just like it's fair play to seek out rules-legal edges in games that are not RPGs. ( Cheating , of course, is a separate issue.) If your game is being "ruined" by power-gaming, then your game needs work or, as above, a direct conversation is required to get on the same page with regard to expectations about the level of challenge that will be presented in the game. Really good post above, G G. Nice work.

I don't punish players. However, players must live with the consequences of their character's actions. Just because there's an army knocking on your door demanding your surrender, doesn't mean I'm out to get you for something you did. It means you pissed off an army.

Yeah that's the toughest part, implementing consequences within the game setting. A PC murders someone robs a bank and goes off on a shooting spree. Then when the in game police set up a roadblock and he "DECIDES" to run it, and gets gunned down, cries of unfair get tossed around. But there was no unfair when he murdered the NPC teenage boy for his motorcycle. I once ran a Conan (Mongoose) game where the party were of the flavor of Viking warriors, and were really effective in combat. so much so that they got a reputation, when travelling along a road bandits would see their distinctive horses, and armor and flee. Much to their chagrin, they were then "Notorious." "Now, how do we make money?" They decided to set up a protection racket of a few villages in Vendiya, to collect tribute. At one point NPCs begged them to relive the opressive taxes, and they made an example of a villager child, stoning him to death to stop this "silly uprising. Now taxes are doubled, If anyone else refuses, we'll kill all your children." At that point, they were all villains and I ended the game. Score one for the bad guys. That was 2008.

I refrain from "punishing" players in my games. Usually, when something bad happens, the players have brought it on themselves through their actions in-game. If you leave a trail of bodies wherever you go, don't be surprised if the guards are onto you. That said, I have punished a player once. I don't think it will ever happen and even then the circumstances where... special. It was the 1st game I've ever GM'd, a new World of Darkness campaign that turned into Vampire the Requiem after a while. One of the few people willing to come over for the game had brought a character full of warning signs: He named him Light Yagami. His point allocation made him terrible at everything. He made a backstory that included Aeris from FF7. I should have him burn the sheet and leave forever, but I figured he will stop being such a scrub after a while. Long story short, his personality changed mid-game without any indication to why, he always tried bullying beings more powerful than him even if he could barely operate his own fists in combat and he had a disturbing fondness of killing people out of the blue. The last drop was when they decided what clan they will turn into, he chose Nosferatu (really ugly and with penalties to social rolls) and then started throwing a hissy fit over him loosing his magnificent mane of hair and looking like he had a terrible cheese grater accident. At that point, I decided to talk with him when the game was over for the day. I explained that with the way he is acting the other players had started avoiding interactions with his character and some even hated him, urging me to kick him from the game. He promised me that he was going to stop and he will start behaving a better and cause less trouble from now on. Next game, he became even more of a raging jackass, trying deliberately to piss of everyone and doing things that he had no conceivable reason for doing them (beating his retainer to death, provoking his Sire into attacking him, refusing to get blood after a critical on the feed roll.) It must be the first time I lost my cool with a player and decided I had enough of his antics. When he wandered of the group he was supposed to help, I sent two feral ghouls to attack him. He did not survive the encounter and he was kicked out of the house. That was the first and last time I punished a player. I haven't done anything like that ever since and I don't think I'll ever do it again. When a player is problematic even after you talk with them about it, just send him along his merry way.

Pavlos S. said: He named him Light Yagami. Well his guy was going to die of a heart attack anyway.

B L. said: maybe it's because most of my experience is with 4e, Generally, I'm able to just say "yeah, use anything in 4e put out by WotC" and it will be all right That's true.

This is my 2 shillings. If you don't agree I respect that. Please feel free to disregard any or all of it. I agree that punishing in game is a no-go. Use game mechanics. Up CR so fights are appropriate (not instant death but not "curb-stomping" easy). If your PCs want to curb-stomp every encounter - have them play WoW. But don't make it so tough that they are rerolling characters every session. Then leave it to luck of the dice. However, this player in question... I would have kicked him out. Reasons: 1) Its my world. I created it. If I say there cannot be monks - guess what. No monks. Don't like it ... hmmmm where's that door? Don't let it hit you. So I completely disagree with the above assertions that you should work with the PC to find some way to accommodate them. Your world, your rules. 2) Cheating. Sorry. Give you a pass 1 time. Mistakes in math happen. Twice? How many times will you bounce when I kick you out the window? As a DM you are not not NOT beholden to your players. You are doing a lot of work to create a world and create story(stories) for the players. There is an unwritten contract between player and DM (sometimes this unwritten contract becomes written - as in my Roll20 campaign Rules of Engagement). As a DM you will provide a world for the players and stories to keep things interesting and provide opportunities for advancement while being impartial and allowing game mechanics to solve/resolve issues. As a player you will interact with this world and not be a douche. If, in character, you roleplay a douche bag (Char 6, CN, egotistical rogue for example) character, I am happy to award XP for good RP ... .I'm talking about deliberately being a douche to break the world/campaign/party/etc.... If either side breaks this unwritten contract, things go poorly for the game and for the group. If you, as the DM, break the unwritten contract, you should not be DM'ing. If a player breaks the unwritten contract - bye.

What a wallop 100% truth. +5 of Nomythslaying, right there.

Paul S. said: 1) Its my world. I created it. If I say there cannot be monks - guess what. No monks. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOUksDJCijw#t=921" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOUksDJCijw#t=921</a>

Paul S: Would you be willing to share your Roll20 RoE? I would be very interested in seeing what you've come up with. GM Mu: Is there a particular point in the timeline of that video we can fast forward to so we can see the point you're making? Not trying to be a douche, I really want to know, but man I don't have 1:45:28 to spare to look for it.

The embedded vid doesn't track time that well. Click on the link directly.

Paul S. said: This is my 2 shillings. If you don't agree I respect that. Please feel free to disregard any or all of it. I agree that punishing in game is a no-go. Use game mechanics. Up CR so fights are appropriate (not instant death but not "curb-stomping" easy). If your PCs want to curb-stomp every encounter - have them play WoW. But don't make it so tough that they are rerolling characters every session. Then leave it to luck of the dice. "Use game mechanics" can be the very definition of "punishing in game." There is a fine line between keeping up with the GM's traditional role of filling the characters' lives with challenges, conflict, and adventure and using said role to curtail player behavior. It comes down to GM intent and player perception. The latter is particularly important since a player can perceive a response as punishment even if the GM does not intend it. To that end, collaborating with players acting in good faith on what fun consequences might ensue from particular courses of action diffuses this potential problem. I recommend GMs always consider their intent before establishing new fiction that can be seen as a consequence for PC action or inaction and ask the players what interesting things they think might happen. Their responses come with inherent buy-in and with no effort required by the GM, so it's win-win to use those offers. However, this player in question... I would have kicked him out. Reasons: 1) Its my world. I created it. If I say there cannot be monks - guess what. No monks. Don't like it ... hmmmm where's that door? Don't let it hit you. So I completely disagree with the above assertions that you should work with the PC to find some way to accommodate them. Your world, your rules. To what end? What do we gain by holding fast to this, provided the player is acting in good faith? I agree that preset genre expectations are necessary and creative constraints important, but not so important that a player's wishes shouldn't be taken into consideration. This is especially true of the original post since anyone choosing to play anything other than a druid, cleric, or wizard in 3.5 has already failed. As a DM you are not not NOT beholden to your players. You are doing a lot of work to create a world and create story(stories) for the players. There is an unwritten contract between player and DM (sometimes this unwritten contract becomes written - as in my Roll20 campaign Rules of Engagement). As a DM you will provide a world for the players and stories to keep things interesting and provide opportunities for advancement while being impartial and allowing game mechanics to solve/resolve issues. As a player you will interact with this world and not be a douche. If, in character, you roleplay a douche bag (Char 6, CN, egotistical rogue for example) character, I am happy to award XP for good RP ... .I'm talking about deliberately being a douche to break the world/campaign/party/etc.... If either side breaks this unwritten contract, things go poorly for the game and for the group. If you, as the DM, break the unwritten contract, you should not be DM'ing. If a player breaks the unwritten contract - bye. GMs are not "beholden" to players and they are not "beholden" to GMs, no matter how much work a GM thinks he needs to do or what illusory control to which he thinks that entitles him. We are only beholden to the actual agreements we make with each other and "unwritten contracts" don't apply here. Also, rewarding XP to a player for "good RP" isn't actually being impartial since it relies upon pleasing the GM and not actual game mechanics. I bring this up because you mention a GM should be impartial.

I used to offer xp for roleplaying, which was part of the cause of problems with said player. Not that he was a bad player. Not at all. He just liked to be the best. However, awarding varying xp at the end of the sessions meant everyone was not even. So for instance one week where we ended up finishing close to a level (say within a couple hundred) he wanted me to just give him the extra xp to level. I was not willing to do this, so the rest of the week ended up with calls/emails of him 'recalculating' and checking his math till he magically found the extra xp. That ended up being an issue as everyone, even with different xp, pretty much levelled together. As it was he levelled a session early as I did not take it away. However, I no longer passed out varying xp. In a sense that could be a punishment for the rest of the group for ones behavior, but a punishment by a removal of a benefit. Again, I do not think in normal circumstances just removing a player is the answer. I think communication is the most important thing, but failing that I do think that using game mechanics to "prove your power" is important with a player that thinks they can get away with anything. It's a very tough line. I think now, even though we haven't gamed with him in years, the repercussions are still felt. I no longer give out varying xp, though I do have a system for players to award themselves. I also have given up a lot of the idea of controlling players. I am way more generous with items and xp now than I have ever been, and perhaps give out too much. However our current group only consists of me and three friends (my wife and 2 others I have known for 20+ years), so we have a pretty good dynamic. I like to believe my worlds and games have a certain defined realism, and they know if they act like dumbasses then something will happen to call them out on it. Say in one of last sessions where they had finally cornered a boss level character they had been tracking. I set up the perfect scenario for them to ambush, trap, exploit or destroy him without much direct combat. They had been warned numerous times that he was more powerful than them. Instead of any planning they charged directly into the keep and confronted him in an enclosed area. I could have "punished" them by having the keep fully manned and the boss whomping on them. Instead I kept to my patrol schedules and they got in safely, and had a fair combat they won by the skin of their teeth. Had even one of them died though the party would have been done as it took their combined might to win. Had they lost I think it could have been seen as punishing their poor choice, but sticking with the world consistency I think benefitted everyone without being cheap.

Feefait said: I set up the perfect scenario for them to ambush, trap, exploit or destroy him without much direct combat. They had been warned numerous times that he was more powerful than them. Instead of any planning they charged directly into the keep and confronted him in an enclosed area. I could have "punished" them by having the keep fully manned and the boss whomping on them. Instead I kept to my patrol schedules and they got in safely, and had a fair combat they won by the skin of their teeth. Had even one of them died though the party would have been done as it took their combined might to win. Had they lost I think it could have been seen as punishing their poor choice, but sticking with the world consistency I think benefitted everyone without being cheap. World consistenty is so, SO important though... Players can feel it if you fudge things heavily in their favor and they will not trust you afterwards... A game without any risks is more of a story than a game (why roll dice at all if there is no chance of failure), and broken trust is incredibly hard to earn back. I think you made the right choice there and it was not punishing at all as long as it was set up that way originally. Had the same thing but the other way around with a sewers encounter in my campaign where the party got in good with the city guard and convinced them to investigate together instead of separately - this turned the encounters down there into something that was relatively easy (though some things still managed to get to the party ;) ), but the players still loved it specifically because I didn't magically add more stuff in there just because. However, if anything down there had actually been sentient, organized and somehow heard of the groups plans... well, obviously they would have gotten reinforcements as well. Always actions and reactions. edit: I don't give bonusxp anymore either, which saddens me somewhat... it always causes drama :-(

Feefait said: I used to offer xp for roleplaying, which was part of the cause of problems with said player. Not that he was a bad player. Not at all. He just liked to be the best. However, awarding varying xp at the end of the sessions meant everyone was not even. So for instance one week where we ended up finishing close to a level (say within a couple hundred) he wanted me to just give him the extra xp to level. I was not willing to do this, so the rest of the week ended up with calls/emails of him 'recalculating' and checking his math till he magically found the extra xp. That ended up being an issue as everyone, even with different xp, pretty much levelled together. As it was he levelled a session early as I did not take it away. However, I no longer passed out varying xp. In a sense that could be a punishment for the rest of the group for ones behavior, but a punishment by a removal of a benefit. Experience points are designed to be a reward and pacing mechanism. Unfortunately, as a reward mechanism they are rather flawed since they are typically given out for doing things players will choose to do anyway because, well, that's the game everyone's agreed to play (kill monsters, resolve quests, earn treasure, etc.). Thus they are more like a pacing mechanism where advancement is meted out by taking on a given amount of game content. Taken on that basis they work well enough. As a reward (and as designed in the more popular games out there), not so much. You appear to have figured this out through trial and error; I mention it here for the benefit of others who may be reading. Again, I do not think in normal circumstances just removing a player is the answer. It's the answer when there's no compromise possible or if the player is not acting in good faith. I think communication is the most important thing, but failing that I do think that using game mechanics to "prove your power" is important with a player that thinks they can get away with anything. It's a very tough line. It's not a tough line at all if you choose not to do it. Could you give us an example of "a player that thinks they can get away with anything" and where they are also acting in good faith? Because if they aren't acting in good faith, talking with them respectfully outside the context of the game to resolve the issue is what is prescribed. I like to believe my worlds and games have a certain defined realism, and they know if they act like dumbasses then something will happen to call them out on it. Say in one of last sessions where they had finally cornered a boss level character they had been tracking. I set up the perfect scenario for them to ambush, trap, exploit or destroy him without much direct combat. They had been warned numerous times that he was more powerful than them. Instead of any planning they charged directly into the keep and confronted him in an enclosed area. I could have "punished" them by having the keep fully manned and the boss whomping on them. Instead I kept to my patrol schedules and they got in safely, and had a fair combat they won by the skin of their teeth. Had even one of them died though the party would have been done as it took their combined might to win. Had they lost I think it could have been seen as punishing their poor choice, but sticking with the world consistency I think benefitted everyone without being cheap. I'm not sure why this is an example of the players "acting like dumbasses." It sounds more like an example of a GM setting up the One True Solution, then when the players inevitably choose something else, you had to roll with it which you could have just done at the outset instead of setting up the other contingencies. Enemies are often "more powerful" than PCs and more numerous. I'm not surprised they chose to take him on. I'm not saying this to suggest you're doing it wrong, but oftentimes we as GMs have all the answers or a clearer picture of all the angles and the "solution" is obvious to us. Players aren't privy to that information, have a different perception of it, heard it wrong, forgot it, or any other number of things that cause them to "act like dumbasses." The response to such a declaration, in my view, is not "punishment" but rather directly asking the player if they have a clear view of the situation and, if they do, what they see as fun consequences for whatever they intend.

Headhunter Jones said: Paul S. said: This is my 2 shillings. If you don't agree I respect that. Please feel free to disregard any or all of it. I agree that punishing in game is a no-go. Use game mechanics. Up CR so fights are appropriate (not instant death but not "curb-stomping" easy). If your PCs want to curb-stomp every encounter - have them play WoW. But don't make it so tough that they are rerolling characters every session. Then leave it to luck of the dice. "Use game mechanics" can be the very definition of "punishing in game." There is a fine line between keeping up with the GM's traditional role of filling the characters' lives with challenges, conflict, and adventure and using said role to curtail player behavior. It comes down to GM intent and player perception. The latter is particularly important since a player can perceive a response as punishment even if the GM does not intend it. To that end, collaborating with players acting in good faith on what fun consequences might ensue from particular courses of action diffuses this potential problem. I recommend GMs always consider their intent before establishing new fiction that can be seen as a consequence for PC action or inaction and ask the players what interesting things they think might happen. Their responses come with inherent buy-in and with no effort required by the GM, so it's win-win to use those offers. However, this player in question... I would have kicked him out. Reasons: 1) Its my world. I created it. If I say there cannot be monks - guess what. No monks. Don't like it ... hmmmm where's that door? Don't let it hit you. So I completely disagree with the above assertions that you should work with the PC to find some way to accommodate them. Your world, your rules. To what end? What do we gain by holding fast to this, provided the player is acting in good faith? I agree that preset genre expectations are necessary and creative constraints important, but not so important that a player's wishes shouldn't be taken into consideration. This is especially true of the original post since anyone choosing to play anything other than a druid, cleric, or wizard in 3.5 has already failed. As a DM you are not not NOT beholden to your players. You are doing a lot of work to create a world and create story(stories) for the players. There is an unwritten contract between player and DM (sometimes this unwritten contract becomes written - as in my Roll20 campaign Rules of Engagement). As a DM you will provide a world for the players and stories to keep things interesting and provide opportunities for advancement while being impartial and allowing game mechanics to solve/resolve issues. As a player you will interact with this world and not be a douche. If, in character, you roleplay a douche bag (Char 6, CN, egotistical rogue for example) character, I am happy to award XP for good RP ... .I'm talking about deliberately being a douche to break the world/campaign/party/etc.... If either side breaks this unwritten contract, things go poorly for the game and for the group. If you, as the DM, break the unwritten contract, you should not be DM'ing. If a player breaks the unwritten contract - bye. GMs are not "beholden" to players and they are not "beholden" to GMs, no matter how much work a GM thinks he needs to do or what illusory control to which he thinks that entitles him. We are only beholden to the actual agreements we make with each other and "unwritten contracts" don't apply here. Also, rewarding XP to a player for "good RP" isn't actually being impartial since it relies upon pleasing the GM and not actual game mechanics. I bring this up because you mention a GM should be impartial. You miss my point of using game mechanics. If a game is mechanically balanced then a "power player" won't be an issue because encounters will scale to appropriate level. This is not punishing. It is making the game balanced you and I have vastly different views on DMing and world creation. If I create a world without monks there are no monks. I don't care if that is your favorite character. I can also make a world without magic arms and armor. I can make the world anything I want. If a player doesn't like it,they are free to go play elsewhere. It's simple. I'm not sure I understand you response to my unwritten contract. But if you make agreements with your players about how a game session will go, as your response seems to indicate, then you have unwritten contract with those layers and they with you. It seems, again, our unwritten contracts differ. And if you've RP'd for as long as I know you have, you know what is and what is not good RP. Therefore you are capable of rewarding good RP. If you are consistent in XP rewards for all PCs then this is a very fair system. And if it is outlined in your Rules of Engagement then it becomes very clear, transparent, and yes, impartial. And this system clearly mirrors XP rewards as presented in Adventure Paths. As stated in first post, this is my opinion. You are free to disagree and disregard this. I responded to try and clear up any misunderstandings and will not respond further. Forgive typos and run-ons. On iPad. Typing ... Difficult.

Paul S. said: You miss my point of using game mechanics. If a game is mechanically balanced then a "power player" won't be an issue because encounters will scale to appropriate level. This is not punishing. It is making the game balanced It's using in-game means to modify behavior if your intent is to discourage the "power player" from optimization in some fashion. Which was my point. you and I have vastly different views on DMing and world creation. If I create a world without monks there are no monks. I don't care if that is your favorite character. I can also make a world without magic arms and armor. I can make the world anything I want. If a player doesn't like it,they are free to go play elsewhere. It's simple. How about I make a monk character mechanically but describe him as a former bar brawler turned ascetic cleric? How about I make a fighter that's good at grappling and brawling and say he's a monk? Should I take a hike and find another game, even if my ideas are cool? I'm not sure I understand you response to my unwritten contract. But if you make agreements with your players about how a game session will go, as your response seems to indicate, then you have unwritten contract with those layers and they with you. It seems, again, our unwritten contracts differ. "Unwritten contract" generally means implied or assumed and my point was that making assumptions about how others will think game play should go is risky. We all know what they say about assuming. And if you've RP'd for as long as I know you have, you know what is and what is not good RP. Therefore you are capable of rewarding good RP. If you are consistent in XP rewards for all PCs then this is a very fair system. And if it is outlined in your Rules of Engagement then it becomes very clear, transparent, and yes, impartial. Having gamed for as long as I have, I know what roleplaying is . An impartial GM doesn't judge whether it is "good" or "bad." It's either roleplaying or it isn't. If you're rewarding players for dramatic acting, impersonation, in-character interactions, histrionics, or the like and calling this "roleplaying," then you're still rewarding them for essentially entertaining you, even if you write down what does entertain you. That's fine with buy-in, of course. But let's not call it impartial. This ties into punishment as well as framed by the original post. An impartial GM doesn't reward or punish; he facilitates, collaborates, and adjudicates in accordance with his role as defined by the game. It's fine if you won't be responding. My responses above are for the benefit of others who may be following the thread.

Feefait said: I had a player who insisted on being a monk. I knew why - he is a power player and in his mind monks were the most powerful. He also wanted to be a human. Not at all something that within my world existed. He came up with the standard "left at the monastery story" and I figured I'd just let it go. Really, he just wanted the bonus feat. Long story short throughout the course of the campaign he continued to change feats, grab feats off the internet and generally just cheat. Like, recalculating dice rolls, experience and what not, :Long story, we knew it happened and we just let it go, Generally these types of players aren't interested in the campaign setting and the game world you worked so hard to build; they just use your game as a platform for their own brand of character narcissism. You don't punish these players; you boot them. There is no shortage of replacements and many will focus on the campaign setting especially if you set that expectation beforehand. .

Ahhh, but there is a shortage of replacements. Seriously, there is. Booting the player is NOT generally an option. Not to say it hasn't happened. We had one guy who came in at the invite of another player and he just didn't fit synergy wise. I don't think I booted him specifically but neither him nor I made any mention of coming back. Unfortunately he came in right as they were resurrecting the hotly debated monk, and so it was an 8 hour roleplay session where the players were just coming to grips with everything that had happened to their characters, and becoming more familiar with the world. There was no combat, but all roleplay and catch up with mentors, contacts, etc. Plus buying new horses. The scenario in question of them being "dumbasses", and i use that term lightly, was not in the plans really. I had it prepared just in case, but they had been meant to be farther north. I had actually removed the boss from the dungeon to go get more troops as they had killed a lot of his patrols. Instead of zigging to his now open fortress they zagged to his supply station. This was an issue because I like to keep my world "living", with people continuing to move beyond the window the players see. The party, unfortunately, had just lost 2 players due to time constraints just as they pulled up to the tower he was staying at. Knowing they 99/100 times solve the encounter with violence I set the scene for them to have multiple paths to set the encounter as they wanted. He was in the basement of said rickety, run down guard tower in the middle of a very dry drought. Kindling was aplenty. Ropes, chains, etc etc were all available. They chose to fight their way in, and confront him head on despite being down 2 players and having alternate solutions. In this case I say yes, they were kind of dumb. However it all worked out, so I guess that's my fault for underestimating them :) Now I could have punished them and gone full out as intended with what was supposed to be a major antagonist. Instead he "forgot" he had a feat, he didn't use a certain ability and overall he fought hard, but not deadly. This is not a group where I am comfortable killing a player right out. We cannot afford to lose anyone. I play with a guy who once had frost giants throw crystallized rust monsters at us in 2e at about 12th level, destroying everything we had just because he thought it would be funny. He still tells the story years later. It was not cool, and punishing. He basically wanted a hard reset as he was feeling like he had given us too much stuff. I think 'punishment' can work... if done right. Sorry if there are any typos. It's really late and my computer is going nuts. Thanks guys. Great conversation as always. :)

I'll be honest. With my players I usually set down, at the very start, that I won't punish without reason. If a player cheats, i'm not going to yell at them, their character will receive the punishment in some way. If the player is causing problems with other players, their character/s suffer the consequences of that. I find that problematic behaviour and cheating tends to end quickly when it is their uber-badass of doombringing stormcaller who is the one copping the penalty instead of ending in a shouting match. Shouting matches get nowhere. Applying the penalty to the character allows you to end the argument/discussion and move things on by perhaps even offering up new opportunities. Mouse said: edit: I don't give bonusxp anymore either, which saddens me somewhat... it always causes drama :-( In my current Dark Heresy Campaign I have been experimenting with, to great result, giving bonus XP, not for doing specific actions (though some objectives do award bonus XP to those who participate in it. But in awarding what I've called "MvP" Most Valuable Player. At the end of a session (or series of sessions depending on length) the player whose character has clearly contributed the most is awarded an extra 50XP. If there is no clear candidate, I pick the most likely candidates and let the players vote on the MVP (or if close enough, award a double MVP) I've never had drama or complaints with this approach.

Haven't posted in this forum I think in a while, thought I would toot my own opinion heh. Before game, I have probably rejected ten times over the amount of interested players over the years for games I have run. But, punishing a player in game, I can't say I have ever done that per say. I have always believed if there is a problem with a player, whether its, clear abuse of a mechanic of the game (intentional or not), disruptive behavior (OOC or IC) enough to upset a player or more, no shows, consistent tardiness enough to impact game time, or even cheating/general uncalled for unpleasantness I pull em aside and have talk with em. To me, communication is the only road for me. Sometimes it works, other time folks do not agree and part ways. It happens, not everyone is gonna agree, and you find another for your game. Life goes on. The only time I ever had to -punish- someone, was when I had a guy who I caught cheating. A player who decided to feat swap, and failed to tell me about it. Now, the rule I set down before anyone ever plays is this: If you need to change, anything on your character sheet it needs to run by me first before it can be made official. As with many other things I discuss with players before we even role play or roll dice. Well I thought, maybe he forgot and he wants to tell me before session. Of course I would have told him we would have to settle that business after session as I do not do character changes in game, slows things up. The game day came, still no email, no message, and before the game started, I asked everyone if they had any changes to their character sheets before we start? I kinda threw him a bone there, Everyone said no. So being concerned I may have a cheater, we proceeded with game. Well during the game play, a combat happened and he specifically utilized these -newly acquired feats- in question. Well at the end of the game in private, I told him he had to leave, that i do not tolerate cheating. Cheating to me is a pet peeve, if you noticed. Its a breech of trust, as to me trust goes both ways. You can't tell the truth, you don't have a place in my games anyway. That's probably the only time I had to enforce a rule of mine, I guess you can call it a punishment to the extreme. For a good reason. One other little tidbit, I do not enjoy fathoming about punishing players, or exerting these measures. I just like to run a game that's fun for not only myself, but for the players I have as well. Its a mutual thing, I have fun, and they have fun. But never at the expense of others. I hope others have the same thing I do, having a great group of guys I have.

Kadaeux S. said: In my current Dark Heresy Campaign I have been experimenting with, to great result, giving bonus XP, not for doing specific actions (though some objectives do award bonus XP to those who participate in it. But in awarding what I've called "MvP" Most Valuable Player. At the end of a session (or series of sessions depending on length) the player whose character has clearly contributed the most is awarded an extra 50XP. If there is no clear candidate, I pick the most likely candidates and let the players vote on the MVP (or if close enough, award a double MVP) I've never had drama or complaints with this approach. Been there, tried that, didn't work. Other players (not all of them) still complained and whined why they didn't get the bonus. *shrugs*

Feefait said: The scenario in question of them being "dumbasses", and i use that term lightly, was not in the plans really. I had it prepared just in case, but they had been meant to be farther north. I had actually removed the boss from the dungeon to go get more troops as they had killed a lot of his patrols. Instead of zigging to his now open fortress they zagged to his supply station. This was an issue because I like to keep my world "living", with people continuing to move beyond the window the players see. The party, unfortunately, had just lost 2 players due to time constraints just as they pulled up to the tower he was staying at. Knowing they 99/100 times solve the encounter with violence I set the scene for them to have multiple paths to set the encounter as they wanted. He was in the basement of said rickety, run down guard tower in the middle of a very dry drought. Kindling was aplenty. Ropes, chains, etc etc were all available. They chose to fight their way in, and confront him head on despite being down 2 players and having alternate solutions. In this case I say yes, they were kind of dumb. However it all worked out, so I guess that's my fault for underestimating them :) Now I could have punished them and gone full out as intended with what was supposed to be a major antagonist. Instead he "forgot" he had a feat, he didn't use a certain ability and overall he fought hard, but not deadly. This is not a group where I am comfortable killing a player right out. We cannot afford to lose anyone. What if instead of punishing or not punishing them, or fudging (as appears to be your solution here), you simply played for stakes that everyone bought into? For example, what was this villain attempting to accomplish when he was confronted? The dramatic question of the scene could have been about the PCs stopping him from doing that and, if they failed to stop him, the scene ends with the PCs' loss and the villain's win. The villain is completing work on the Doomsday Apparatus and he'll complete it and fire it at the moon unless they stop him. His goons try to keep the PCs busy while he makes 5 full round action skill checks, attacking or moving only if he must. If he succeeds, he sets off the device and escapes and the repercussions ensue and the PCs aren't dead. It's clear you didn't really want death on the table (fudging is a clear sign the DM isn't bought into the stakes of the scene), so it's a simple thing to reset the stakes of the scene to something else that is just as exciting. Something to consider, anyway. I play with a guy who once had frost giants throw crystallized rust monsters at us in 2e at about 12th level, destroying everything we had just because he thought it would be funny. He still tells the story years later. It was not cool, and punishing. He basically wanted a hard reset as he was feeling like he had given us too much stuff. I think 'punishment' can work... if done right. Anything works with buy-in and nothing works well without it. I make sure I have the buy-in of players as to the stakes of the scene. If they want death or loss of property on the line, we collaborate on that before the scene begins. Kadaeux S. said: I'll be honest. With my players I usually set down, at the very start, that I won't punish without reason. If a player cheats, i'm not going to yell at them, their character will receive the punishment in some way. If the player is causing problems with other players, their character/s suffer the consequences of that. I find that problematic behaviour and cheating tends to end quickly when it is their uber-badass of doombringing stormcaller who is the one copping the penalty instead of ending in a shouting match. Shouting matches get nowhere. Applying the penalty to the character allows you to end the argument/discussion and move things on by perhaps even offering up new opportunities. I find the opposite is true. A direct but polite conversation about problematic behavior is all I've ever needed to resolve an issue and if it can't be resolved, it's easy enough to part ways. I see attempts at behavior modification through in-game means as a waste of everyone's valuable game time. Adam S. said: Haven't posted in this forum I think in a while, thought I would toot my own opinion heh. Before game, I have probably rejected ten times over the amount of interested players over the years for games I have run. But, punishing a player in game, I can't say I have ever done that per say. I have always believed if there is a problem with a player, whether its, clear abuse of a mechanic of the game (intentional or not), disruptive behavior (OOC or IC) enough to upset a player or more, no shows, consistent tardiness enough to impact game time, or even cheating/general uncalled for unpleasantness I pull em aside and have talk with em. To me, communication is the only road for me. Sometimes it works, other time folks do not agree and part ways. It happens, not everyone is gonna agree, and you find another for your game. Life goes on. Cool. I find that's the most mature and respectful way to approach these situations. I wish more GMs would take that tact.

Punishing the character for the player's poor decisions is never a good idea. In fact, thinking that you need to be the group's LEO, judge, and jury is a bad habit to get into at any point. If the player is cheating or being disruptive, then deal with the player as a person. Trying to enforce social norms with a game is more likely to result in more disruption, rather than the desired results.

IF the player is cheating and is disrupting the game then take him to the side and tell him in no uncertain terms that if he continues to cheat and disrupt the game he is gone. Make sure he knows this is his only chance. If you have to spell it out in simple words then do so but make sure he does understand and knows the consequences then keep your word on that. Sounds harsh but it does work. I'm not saying not to let him back in but give him some time to think it over and understand he only gets so many chances. In time if he wants to game with the group again then let him back in but he has to reroll and create an all new character that obeys the world setting. Also make a copy of his sheet so that you have a reference to compare to. My opinion on the rest has been expressed in various posts so there is no need to hammer on it anymore.

@HHJ: The scenario involved the boss trying to get a step ahead of the pc's. He was working for an organization the PC"s are trying to stop. In this branch of the campaign he was in charge of the chapter so to speak. He had a base of operations nearby that he was trying to find something in for his boss, and the pc's job was to sneak in and steal it before he found it.Instead, they decided to confront him head on. I didn't really fudge, but I also didn't use everything he had. part of it was me just forgetting he got +x damage on the first round I think, and a feat he could have used. I chalked that up to him being taken by surprise, and the pc's doing a good job keeping him (me) off balance with some really solid group work once they were in combat. There was one point where he probably could have ended a player, but since it was pretty close anyway I went with Attack A which might have ended up killing them instead of Attack B which would definitely have killed at least one of them. :) As far as changing the character once written I do think that's a major positive of 4e. I know that's another debate, but I like the built in retrains. I know it's daunting to look at feats, as limited as the slots are, and pass them up or get them 'wrong'. I always wished 3.5 had just 1 or 2 more feats or skill points per character anyway. I am currently playing a Lizardman Cleric. i love the character, but I took Extend Spell at level 3 for the future and have been staring at it, useless and mocking me, for 4 levels now. It wasn't the smartest choice at the time, but it's one I knew wasn't going to be a mistake in the long run so i went with it. What i ended up implementing in my games was 1. No more feats from online resources and 2. Any new skills, feats etc. had to be character driven and explained. For example if a fighter spend level 4-5 using a longsword and then decides to take Weapon Focus: Bludgeoning it didn't really make sense. I would veto that for WF:Slashing. Now, I would allow them to "hold" a feat or skill points if they wanted to train. So say they wanted to add points to Use Rope but hadn't done anything rope wise in a few sessions they could spend the session after leveling learning rope tricks and adding it on. This was partly to build character and partly so I knew what they wanted or were doing with their characters.

I punish Lawful Stupid paladins. Bad habit I know but still irks me to no end. Give them a choice with no morally right answer and with both alternatives going against his god.

Joshua H. said: I punish Lawful Stupid paladins. Bad habit I know but still irks me to no end. Give them a choice with no morally right answer and with both alternatives going against his god. I punish Chaotic Stupid anythings by letting them do whatever they want. Sooner or later the rest of the party tips off the fuzz and leaves him to rot in a cell. When they cry about "yes, and..." I say, "Yes, and... your decisions were stupid and these are the consequences. Let's hear it for emergent collaborative storytelling!"

GM Mu said: Joshua H. said: I punish Lawful Stupid paladins. Bad habit I know but still irks me to no end. Give them a choice with no morally right answer and with both alternatives going against his god. I punish Chaotic Stupid anythings by letting them do whatever they want. Sooner or later the rest of the party tips off the fuzz and leaves him to rot in a cell. When they cry about "yes, and..." I say, "Yes, and... your decisions were stupid and these are the consequences. Let's hear it for emergent collaborative storytelling!" Why punish? Them dealing with the results of their actions is not a punishment but a result if it is realistic for that result to happen.

Sometimes a healthy dose of realism is seen as punishment. One guy also thought it was punishment when I threw him out of my house for being a massive jerk. I'm starting to like this "Yes, and..." thing.

An impartial DM (I'm referencing D&D specifically here, hence "DM") doesn't present morally ambiguous situations as a trap for alignment-restricted characters because that's (1) not fair and (2) not what that genre is about, especially editions that have actual alignment mechanics. Ethics and morality are not "gray" as far as alignment mechanics are concerned in the context of the D&D fantasy world. As well, alignment does not determine actions; actions determine alignment. An impartial DM also does not make determinations as to whether a player's choices are "stupid" or not. That's for dice, mechanics, and context to decide. As in life and art, sometimes great plans fail and "stupid" ones succeed. An impartial DM knows that "realism" needn't apply in an imaginary heroic fantasy world, but consistency with the genre and established fiction does. The exception is if "realism" is an agreed upon genre expectation; however, that would not be in keeping with D&D as designed anyway which is a heroic fantasy action/adventure game, not a simulation of reality. "Yes, and..." is an improvisational acting technique used to build scenes collaboratively by accepting and adding onto the offers made by the GM and other players without negation or contradiction. In acting it is used within the context of the scene; in RPGs, it is used within the context of the game. As such, it is not a means by which you deal with out-of-game problems. Players behaving in disruptive ways as in the examples of "Lawful stupid paladins" or "Chaotic stupid anythings" are dealt with by having a respectful conversation outside the context of the game to get back on the same page with one another like mature adults, or failing that, parting ways if a compromise cannot be found.

In my game I don't have a disruptive player but the player is making poor choices for his character in my opinion. I won't tell him that because it is his character and his choices but he made a choice for his 1st level mage to sleep away from the safety the group twice in a row. Both times his character got lucky not to be killed by the encounter that wandered up on his character.

In my view, you should tell him what you think, outside of the game. Why is he sleeping outside the safety of the group? Do you have other players that are engaging in anti-social behavior and messing with him by proxy by having their characters steal from him? Did this player make an anti-social character e.g. lone wolf orphan type and he's trying (and failing) to play up that trope? These are things that are not in-game problems. They are player behavior problems and can be easily handled with a conversation. He may just say that's what he wants to do, and that's perfectly fine; however, it costs nothing to ask and see if there aren't some underlying issues. On your end, was your wandering monster encounter randomly determined? Was it consistent with every other time you've rolled for a random encounter, or did you do it specifically because he was sleeping off on his own?

Headhunter Jones said: In my view, you should tell him what you think, outside of the game. Why is he sleeping outside the safety of the group? Do you have other players that are engaging in anti-social behavior and messing with him by proxy by having their characters steal from him? Did this player make an anti-social character e.g. lone wolf orphan type and he's trying (and failing) to play up that trope? These are things that are not in-game problems. They are player behavior problems and can be easily handled with a conversation. He may just say that's what he wants to do, and that's perfectly fine; however, it costs nothing to ask and see if there aren't some underlying issues. On your end, was your wandering monster encounter randomly determined? Was it consistent with every other time you've rolled for a random encounter, or did you do it specifically because he was sleeping off on his own? He knows it is dangerous for his character. None of the group is being anti-social or messing with him. In the wolf encounter they rescued his character. He is playing a highly intelligent mage like he is brain damaged and those are his choices. If he was abusing the rules or playing with out of game knowledge I would say something but I will not influence his actions yet. That was a random encounter that I rolled prior to the start of this adventure. I rolled an encounter then rolled what they would encounter and where it would happen. He took his nap near that area so I gave the wolves a chance to smell him.

It doesn't sound like you're punishing the player here so long as you're executing the mechanics of random encounters as you always have done regardless of his choices. My GM radar is going off though (admittedly without all the information you have since it's your game). I wonder if this player isn't telling you something by his choices. I would take this to mean he's signalling that he wants more action in the game, "daring" you to have at him by wandering off by himself. Some GMs most certainly would punish him for that particular "stupid" choice, perhaps some in this very thread, by sending encounters in. For someone who likes encounters (like I do), that's not such a bad way to get what he wants and it's easy to justify by way of being "brain-damaged." Personally, I'd ask him what he thinks about the pacing and tension in the game and if he wants more action. There's some kind of disconnect here (though it could be I just don't have enough information).