D&D 3.5 Crime and Punishment

How do you guys handle it? The problem I seem to have is that compared to the average commoner, the players even at level 1 are extremely wealthy compared to some farmers. So imposing fines and such on them that would make sense to the average commoner, wouldn't make sense, and the Death penalty doesn't make sense for the majority of crimes. The example I came across was that the Ranger of the party failed a shot at a target outside a bar and smashed a window, and after the barman pissed him off by giving him an earfull of abuse, in anger and to spite him he fired again while leaving town and ended up hitting him. Now what would be an appropriate punishment for that? 200gp and ten lashes is what I decided was appropriate, but a player raised an unquestionably good point, in that 200gp for smashing a window and injuring someone, something that could happen in a drunken brawl would bankrupt the average person. How to balance this? I know there's a book, but I'd rather not fork out that much money on something that might not even be applicable to my campaign.

I belive adventurers get harsher punishments then non classed people due to how powerful they are.

WolfCleric said: I belive adventurers get harsher punishments then non classed people due to how powerful they are. But how do you role play that? Guard: "Yeah, you're really good with a sword, so we're gonna punish you more."

Don't punish them at all. Seriously. Not only does it not make sense, as you've shown, but it's not all that interesting. They pay a fine, they get some lashes, they spend time in jail: why is game time being spent on this? If having the PCs in town is going to lead to this, I recommend having goblins put the town to the torch. I think most players would agree that dealing with goblins is much more interesting and rewarding than dealing with fines.

Broken windows, petty vandalism, and injuring a barkeep - this all seems like stuff which is "below the pay grade" of a group of adventurers. Maybe it's just me getting older and wanting to spend more of the little time I have to play doing cool stuff, but I'd be left wondering why we're dealing with annoyed bartenders instead of slaying dragons and saving cities. Anyways, I'd probably let it go. Really, the consequences of petty vandalism and assault are generally rather inconsequential compared to what your characters are dealing with - it would be like having a scene in an action movie where the hero has to go pay a parking ticket because he illegally parked his car when he went running into a building to disarm a bomb. Either that, or ask your players what, if any, punishment they think is appropriate. If they think being persona non grata in the town unless they do something cool to redeem themselves, that could be cool. And, also try to advance the story with the consequences, for example, if the Ranger goes to jail for a few days, maybe he can pump some cellmates for info, or join a prison gang which can help or hinder him on the outside. If it's something boring like "you spend a week in jail," either make it interesting or fast forward through it. I know you might be afraid of them saying "I should be punished with hard physical labour - having to carry really huge piles of gold to the bank," but generally I find when I use this method as either a player or a DM, the player comes up with a harsher (and often more interesting) consequence for his character's failure than the DM would.

Paul U. said: Don't punish them at all. If having the PCs in town is going to lead to this, I recommend having goblins put the town to the torch. Agree completely - one of my rules as a DM is "never start your players in a bar, unless it's flaming"

Times like these I miss the old alignment shift dynamic of whatever version of DnD that was. Basically that was a stupid act (probably funny in character) followed by an evil act. If the PC is good aligned then that would be one step towards evil. How do you RP this? Many ways. If the world you are in is generally good, then it would make sense that the PC is now a wanted man. Bounty hunters are typically pretty ruthless.... Heck, in a campaign I am in, a cleric PC murdered an NPC. The DM did an abbreviated RP trial. That character was hauled off and our characters had to do penance by ridding the town of pirates and returning stolen property. It was a brutal encounter and darn near TPK. Now. For those that may - don't misconstrue this as punishing a player. I strive to be impartial and let game mechanics resolve most things. (Hence the pining for the old alignment system referenced above). This would be an appropriate reaction in a typical good-aligned setting. Now, if the setting is more CN, then the actions of the PC might be just fine. I would actually discuss this with the players to see how the wanted to handle it. In such situations PCs can come up with some fairly unique solutions that aren't punishing the player but presenting perfectly valid reactions to character actions in your world. Another solution - this man could now be on the radar of the local gang for injuring or killing someone that worked for them. This gang could either be grateful because the barkeep was a jerk anyway or vengeful and out for blood. That would be for a more CN world I think. You can role NPC reactions and the d100 of fate to make all this impartial. I would make the rolls visible to eliminate doubt about partiality. Heck - you could even make a rollable Crime and Punish,net table in roll20 with fines and whatnot being weighted and death penalty being weighted less so the probability is lower for rolling it (though still exists). These things happen in game. RP it and have fun with it.

If an outcome is boring for the player, or otherwise not a good use of everyone's time, then whether it's a punishment or not, or whether it was impartial or not, or whether it was "typical reaction" or isn't really likely to matter. The term "punishment" gets used, because this so often turns into a way of providing a disincentive for player actions that, coincidentally, are not appreciated by the DM. But whatever the term, if it's not fun for the group and particularly for the player whose character is being punished (for the character is, without question, being punished) consider doing something else. Pause the game, take a break, and work as a group to find a way forward. In this case, I'd retcon it so that the arrow didn't smash a window, but thunked into the side of a wagon. No harm done, no escalation, move on to the next bit. In general, if you don't want situations like this to arise, and you can't keep the PCs out of the town, try to arrange things so that some mayhem isn't going to bring the law crashing down. Take Star Wars. If they'd gone looking for a pilot in a fine, upstanding establishment, and Obi-Wan had cut someone's arm off, we'd want him taken away. As it happened, he and Luke, followed distantly by Han and Chewie were the most friendly people in that place and Obi-wan was far and away more powerful than anyone else there. No one's calling the cops, or even the stormtroopers if a couple of punks get carved up. So, for instance, the town's just not that nice. The cops are on the take and generally find ways to be on the other side of town when violence breaks out. The rules are enforced by disposable mooks that the PCs should take pleasure in mowing down. Worse stuff than what PCs might do is going on around them all the time anyway. No one would do anything if someone broke a window, because they'd all be too stunned to learn that there had been an unbroken window in the first place. For instance.

To clarify, my suggestions aren't aimed at discouraging certain player behavior. They are aimed at bringing realistic reactions (based on environment) to character actions. In an impartial way. And in a way that is hopefully fun and adds flavor to the RP. These types of encounters can be hugely entertaining if handled well - being put in the stockades and having rotting garbage thrown at you, the stench of which attracts wild beasts that rampage the town and accidentally break the stockade holding you. You then kill the beasts and save the town. But you smell so bad it is like a walking STINKING CLOUD and none of the fair maidens will even look your way. So many fun ways to deal with this!

Paul S. said: To clarify, my suggestions aren't aimed at discouraging certain player behavior. They are aimed at bringing realistic reactions (based on environment) to character actions. In an impartial way. And in a way that is hopefully fun and adds flavor to the RP. These types of encounters can be hugely entertaining if handled well - being put in the stockades and having rotting garbage thrown at you, the stench of which attracts wild beasts that rampage the town and accidentally break the stockade holding you. You then kill the beasts and save the town. But you smell so bad it is like a walking STINKING CLOUD and none of the fair maidens will even look your way. So many fun ways to deal with this! Realistic, impartial and fun don't always go together, especially if fun isn't the primary consideration of the three. These types of encounters can be fun. They can also go very, very badly. In this case, all that happened was that the players were questioning the reality of the game, but that alone implies that they're not bought in to the approach the DM is taking. If they were, they'd probably either not consider the size of the fine, or come up with their own reason for why it's so high. Another thing to do is to turn it around. If 200 gold seems unreasonably high, what do the players think would be fair? It's really pretty arbitrary, so what if they say "5 copper pieces"? That's just as realistic, and if it's applied to everyone who is caught breaking a window it's impartial, and I don't see that it has any less potential for fun and flavor.

Jordan , here's my take on the situation: The first incident (broken window) was a simple accident. The PC might have simply been asked to pay for the repairs and move on. The penalty is independent of his ability to pay, he broke it so now he must pay to have it repaired. The same would be required of anyone who caused damage to private property, rich or poor. The second incident was an assault (with a deadly weapon), plain and simple. Apparently, the barkeep didn't die, otherwise it would have been murder. The comparison with a drunken farmer's brawl is, in my opinion, irrelevant. Your PC was neither a 0-level farmer, nor was he drunk. It was a calculated, malicious act committed by someone who is recognized as being skilled with weapons, especially missile weapons. How to deal with it? Depends on the locale... It's true that we don't know anything about the nature of this settlement where the incident occurred. If it was, as Paul U suggested, in a seedy part of town then yes, probably nothing would happen. If anything, the PCs might get more respect from the locals, as they are now seen as no one to be trifled with. Or, as someone else suggested, maybe the barkeep has been paying protection money to some thieves guild and now the PCs could have a real problem on their hands. Anyone who has ever seen a mob movie knows how that works. Or, maybe a gang of street toughs come around looking for the PCs, as they believe a rival gang is trying to take over "their" turf. The possibilities are endless. If, on the other hand, the PCs were in a respectable, law-abiding place then the City Watch or whatever law enforcement you have would certainly get involved. If so, there's a whole range of penalties that fall between a small fine and death: Payment of blood money to the barkeep or his family (could be expensive) Offender is no longer allowed to carry weapons while in the town (he will think carefully before starting trouble again) Time confined in the pillory (and the results which Paul S suggested) Mutilation: removal of a finger, hand, ear, branding on the face, etc. (This could have game-changing implications for the PC) Banishment from the town ( now where will the party go?) None of this has to be role-played out if you don't want. Simply tell the players that after their arrest, a quick trial and punishment phase, they've just been dumped outside the city gate. The offending PC himself is now x gold pieces poorer and his right ear has been cut off. Or whatever you think is appropriate. In summary, I believe any actions the PCs take should always result in a reaction of some type. And it certainly doesn't have to be boring or trivial. Once incident I can recall from a game I ran long ago: The party was in a big city, some kind of fight broke out and a PC ended up seriously injuring a member of the city watch when they responded to the disturbance. He was arrested, tried and his punishment was something like being sentenced to a year on the chain gang. Well, of course, the rest of the party wasn't going to abandon him to that fate. So now the focus of the adventure became, "How do we bust him out of prison and make good our escape?" It ended up being a lot of fun for everyone. To continue the Star Wars example above, recall the whole part about Han and Luke rescuing Princess Leia from her cell and then all of them escaping from the Death Star. Only instead of the Death Star, it was the dungeons underneath the castle in which the city government was housed. It was a great, daring adventure and certainly not boring. The above is simply my opinion and some of my recommendations on how the OP might handle his situation. The OP asked for advice, I have offered mine, and now I am done. I will not be drawn into a debate with anyone else over the relative merits of my recommendations versus theirs. However, if the OP himself asks me for further details on how I would handle things, I will be glad to answer.

Brett E. said: Or whatever you think is appropriate. In summary, I believe any actions the PCs take should always result in a reaction of some type. And it certainly doesn't have to be boring or trivial. Jordan, consider asking what the players feel would be appropriate. Even in a game in which the DM is the only author and director, input from the players can be very valuable. Players love to see their actions generate a response and see that response built off of. I highly recommend this, but the reaction must be interesting to all concerned. I'm not suggesting that this event did take place in a seedy town, only that DMs can spare themselves the risk of bogging down the game with crime and punishment if they preemptively decide in the course of whatever preparation or improvisation they do that the areas the PCs visit do not, for whatever suitably plausible reason, have constabulary forces that are interested in or otherwise involved in policing the characters. (Edit: assuming, of course, that the DM and players can't think of or buy into any ways in which encounters with the authorities are fun.)

Paul U. said: Don't punish them at all. Seriously. Not only does it not make sense, as you've shown, but it's not all that interesting. They pay a fine, they get some lashes, they spend time in jail: why is game time being spent on this? If having the PCs in town is going to lead to this, I recommend having goblins put the town to the torch. I think most players would agree that dealing with goblins is much more interesting and rewarding than dealing with fines. You know, this is a really good idea... I think a lot of times the DM puts us in a town, we end up committing crimes because we're bored and just looking for some action. Maybe the DM shouldn't put us is so many towns talking to chains of NPCs or hanging out in inns. We should be out there adventuring and only using the towns to rest and recover between adventures.

Screamer said: Paul U. said: Don't punish them at all. Seriously. Not only does it not make sense, as you've shown, but it's not all that interesting. They pay a fine, they get some lashes, they spend time in jail: why is game time being spent on this? If having the PCs in town is going to lead to this, I recommend having goblins put the town to the torch. I think most players would agree that dealing with goblins is much more interesting and rewarding than dealing with fines. You know, this is a really good idea... I think a lot of times the DM puts us in a town, we end up committing crimes because we're bored and just looking for some action. Maybe the DM shouldn't put us is so many towns talking to chains of NPCs or hanging out in inns. We should be out there adventuring and only using the towns to rest and recover between adventures. Thanks. Adventures in town certainly can work, but historically they're known to lead to exactly this kind of situation. It's a cliche at this point. I don't know from the description what led to the situation as originally described, but player boredom is often the culprit when players start doing things that lead to the fictional cops showing up.

How I would handle this: 1. broke a window with an arrow fired in town? pay for/be jailed overnight while the matter is resolved. also, bow confiscated and now not allowed to carry weapons within town limits again. 2. Killed, maimed or badly wounded any townsmember with a weapon? In this case, it was not self defense, and likely lots of witnesses to tell the (local) sheriff/captain what happened. Forfeit the weapon, and, as the person is clearly a danger (losing your temper and drawing a weapon on anyone is enough to warrant this, provoked or not - thats why barfights are fistfights) removal of his index finger is not too harsh but definitely stands to leave an impression on a player. Also, imprisoned (either in stocks or a cell) until the victim is well and healthy again. The victim has the right to ask leniency, but also the right to carry out the 'punishment' if they so desire. hence the imprisonment. In game terms, this means a -2 to dexterity based skills using that hand, until it is healed and sufficient time has passed that the DM feels that the character has had enough time to become used to the missing digit and adjust its use to compensate, which is entirely possible. It also means one strike. That is, your character has lost his index finger, a (now) known punishment for unlawful violence with a weapon, and that people will know (or assume) that he is likely a dangerous (and practically criminal) individual. some places (basically at the DM's discretion) may brand the fellow with a brand to the back or front of the wrist, or to his shoulder, marking him so that everyone else knows it was a lawfully executed punishment. A second strike means losing the middle finger as well, depending on the circumstances. A victims death may result in a hanging or public execution in either case, depending on the circumstances involved, but a second offense like the first (losing temper and pulling a weapon on someone) would just as likely end up with the character simply losing another finger. a third strike ( if the DM lets it get this far - he could just as easily kill the character at either of the first two offences ) would likely mean removal of the hand entirely and/or hard labour for an undisclosed amount of time (effectively legal slavery), or a simple hanging or beheading. Of course, this drives the point home that there are consequences for actions that seem quite harsh but have little effect on gameplay for one 'slipup' on the players part ( beyond an adventure or two with a -2 to combat and some skill checks - or less depending on the DM ) while still being relatively permenant and longlasting in effect - no legit cleric would restore a missing digit if it was legal and fair punishment, especially if the person is marked with his 'crime' (branded, etc). Just so everyone knows, everything that can be done with your index finger can be done with your middle finger, When a person loses an index finger its not that debilitating, though probably traumatic enough I grant you. When you lose both index and middle fingers that you start having problems with manual dexterity - or your pinky. you can't afford to lose your pinky. That takes a long time to retrain your practically useless third finger and its never as good (try swinging a bat or heavy sword against something without your pinky if you want to see a rough example of what I mean)

Michael H. said: How I would handle this: .... Forfeit the weapon, and, as the person is clearly a danger (losing your temper and drawing a weapon on anyone is enough to warrant this, provoked or not - thats why barfights are fistfights) removal of his index finger is not too harsh but definitely stands to leave an impression on a player. (my emphasis) I think in any situation like this, the DM needs to look into his soul and ask himself what his motivation is. Is he trying to create interesting and fun consequences for the characters, or is he trying to punish the player? If it's the latter, the DM needs to stop, reconsider, and have the conversation with his players that he's hiding from ("okay guys, I'd like to DM some heroic fantasy, can we move ahead with some awesome quests instead of murder-hoboing our way from town to town?"). If the DM is trying to correct player behaviour, there's no substitute for talking to the player out of game. In-game punishments for player behavior are messy, don't address the actual problem, and erode valuable trust between players and DMs.

Jordan K. said: Now what would be an appropriate punishment for that? 200gp and ten lashes is what I decided was appropriate, but a player raised an unquestionably good point, in that 200gp for smashing a window and injuring someone, something that could happen in a drunken brawl would bankrupt the average person. How to balance this? I know there's a book, but I'd rather not fork out that much money on something that might not even be applicable to my campaign. I guess it depends on how important verisimilitude is to your group. To my primary group, it is important. I would try to pick a punishment that fits the crime. A large fine might only be 10 gp, which doesn't hurt an adventurer at all. I don't see a problem with that. Adventurers are putting their lives on the line to become very wealthy and most of them die horrible deaths at a very young age. It would seem to me that people who live that lifestyle might have a tendency to act like drunken buffoons while in a town, why not? I feel as a GM, my responsibility is to create believable outcomes based on the players' actions. Occasionally they might commit a crime so heinous that they would be placed in a near inescapable magical prison (if you are playing high fantasy). You can even have them roleplay in prison for bit (perhaps some unarmed fights or diplomacy), and then have them assigned to a prison battalion where they have to try to survive and/or escape from the worst part of a war. Or you can just gloss over the non-adventure part of the game in general. There really are innumerable ways to handle it. It all depends on what you want. However, I would recommend avoiding arbitrary punishments to prevent players from doing things you don't like. Of course there are exceptions to every rule. I am considering putting together a mythical Greece based game, where the gods actually make bad things happen to you when your character acts like a jerk (this is a central theme to the genre). But these wouldn't be true punishments, more like plot hooks. Oh you murdered that priest of Poseidon? Have fun fighting through a major storm next time you try to cross the sea.

If you do decide to level an adventurer-annoying fine for whatever reason, the law have been written as X% of a person's net worth. Or maybe the punishment is "6 months hard labour tending the land in the village commons evenings and holy days...but we'll look the other way if you donate 200 gp to the local church, or follow up on quest X for the mayor."

Jordan K. said: So imposing fines and such on them that would make sense to the average commoner, wouldn't make sense, and the Death penalty doesn't make sense for the majority of crimes. The example I came across was that the Ranger of the party failed a shot at a target outside a bar and smashed a window, and after the barman pissed him off by giving him an earfull of abuse, in anger and to spite him he fired again while leaving town and ended up hitting him. Let's look at this from another angle. The ranger failed a shot at a target and smashed a window. How did that happen? I think I am safe in assuming that the player rolled a dice, failed to get the target he needed, and so the GM decided to make things 'interesting' by having him smash a window. There's your first mistake. Here's a player imagining himself as a badass archer, and you are undermining that image by having him be so bad at archery that not only does he miss the target he is aiming for, he hits things he doesn't want to. (Never mind that an archery shoot is never going to be set up in a place where local buildings can be damaged and bystanders hit, so such a result is not remotely realistic.) Then you decide to escalate by having the barman abuse him angrily. (You could argue that was realistic in the context; you could equally argue that the barman would have dared say nothing against the badass adventurers who are known to wipe out dungeons full of monsters and so must be pretty scary - but neither of those points is relevant: as GM, you decided to make this a scene and any "realism" argument is an after-the-fact justification). And then finally when the players are leaving town, the ranger fires an arrow back in anger and "ended up hitting him". Was this aimed specifically at the barman (in which case - in character - it was attempted murder), or was it another GM decision to make things 'interesting' by demanding a roll from the player, and when it got a certain result, imposing the effect that it hit the barman against the player's wishes? I dont have enough information to go on for the last question, but for the rest of it: you imposed results on the player that undermined the kind of character he was trying to play, when there was no need to do so. Said player then got irritated and took it out in game. Then you punished him for those in-game acts with a fine that was way out of proportion for the action. You used "realism" as the justification for certain things happening (a miss might cause property damage) that undermined the player, and then dispensed with "realism" (the realistic size of the fine) when you wanted to inflict a punishment on that character for reacting to something you inflicted on him. This entire situation is your own fault, and the players reactions to the situation (getting angry with the barman, leaving town in the huff) are very likely them expressing real player-level frustrations (with what they see as unfair GM decisions), and expressing them the only way they know how, in-character, in-game. It's very common for GMs to use "realism" as a way to make player's lives 'interesting' - and it's notable how often this is used to make PCs lives more miserable, or make them look incompetent, and how rarely it's used to make them look good, and competent. Note that the incident could have been fun. The exact same situation (archer misses, causes property damage, has argument with bartender or bartender cowers in fear), if you had actually handled it realistically and used it to showcase the player's baddassitude rather than treating them like children who need to be punished. My Constructive Advice would be to identify what abilities or rolls a player considers central to their character (like archery for a ranger), and make a commitment going forward to use failures in those areas to make the character look good, not bad. If the ranger fails an archery roll to hit a target, maybe describe something that makes it not the ranger's fault, like the target topples over due to the force of his hit and thus the score cant be counted. Find ways to describe such things so that they still fail to achieve the goal, without making the character look incompetent.

G G said: Jordan K. said: So imposing fines and such on them that would make sense to the average commoner, wouldn't make sense, and the Death penalty doesn't make sense for the majority of crimes. The example I came across was that the Ranger of the party failed a shot at a target outside a bar and smashed a window, and after the barman pissed him off by giving him an earfull of abuse, in anger and to spite him he fired again while leaving town and ended up hitting him. Let's look at this from another angle. The ranger failed a shot at a target and smashed a window. How did that happen? I think I am safe in assuming that the player rolled a dice, failed to get the target he needed, and so the GM decided to make things 'interesting' by having him smash a window. There were two shots, one involving a bad shot from a spell caster which caused the bar man to come out and get angry about the smashed window, the next was from the Ranger TRYING to smash the window from max range as they were leaving town. I mean I made him roll to hit and it was high without bringing AC of a large inanimate object into it. I think I imposed the idea I did, because it sufficiently explains that firing an arrow into a busy tavern is a bad idea if want to remain a good character who has no connection with the forces that impose justice in the world.

I see. It looks like I went off on an extended rant without understanding the situation fully. I'm sorry about that :) I don't have enough to go on about the bar window originally breaking. Could you have interpreted that spellcaster's action more generously? (Of course if it was an area effect and the spellcaster was throwing spells around indiscriminately, it's another matter.) It's easy for players to take actions in the heat of the moment that don't match their vision of the character. The players are not their characters, and it helps to have an opportunity to step back and reflect for a moment. So, with the ranger, firing the arrow as leaving town, I'd have asked him before he fired, "Are you aware if you hit, you might injure or kill someone in the bar?" Thus letting him know the consequences before he took the shot, and give him the opportunity to change his mind or take a different type of shot. If he went ahead with it, and you had him hit someone (and he was aware that was possible and went ahead anyway), it would have been an opportunity for the villagers to put a bounty on the player's heads. The villagers have no way of knowing that the injury wasn't a deliberate attempt to kill someone, after all.

J I think I imposed the idea I did, because it sufficiently explains that firing an arrow into a busy tavern is a bad idea if want to remain a good character who has no connection with the forces that impose justice in the world. I don't think it really does. First of all, this is the first time you've brought alignment into it, which is a troublesome road. Second, while the player clearly thinks the punishment was too high (which is why he said it wasn't realistic), it's probably not inconvenient enough for the player to keep doing what he wants in the town, or finding other ways to behave how he wants. Why would a player want to "have no connection with the forces that impose justice in the world"? They deal with goblins and dragons, so law enforcement shouldn't be an issue for them. Not that they have to kill the cops, but dealing with them should just be another kind of adventure. Do you want the players to act a certain way? If so, explaining that to them is the only way to "sufficiently explain" it. Don't try to explain it without explaining it, and don't make up rules about where stray shots go in order to explain it. If you don't care how the players act, then make consequences interesting for the players, even if they're still punitive on the characters. You can tell at least one player wasn't interested in the consequences you imposed, because they raised the issue of realism. (It's fine to describe where stray shots go, but whether you're using a rule or making one up keep "protagonization" in mind. That's what G G's original post touches on: avoid rules and interpretations that make the players look like complete klutzes.)

It is kind of a sad day when we need to mention to players that firing at/into areas that contain groups of people might be a bad idea. Also not sure why missing means klutz. Maybe the archer was aiming for a head shot and missed by an inch and the arrow continued past the guys face and broke the window? It is easy to barely miss someone with a ranged weapon, there are many factors that could account for it. And yes, I know that it is a fantasy game so realism shouldn't apply, but honestly there is always going to be a sense of realism to the game.

Paul U. said: J I think I imposed the idea I did, because it sufficiently explains that firing an arrow into a busy tavern is a bad idea if want to remain a good character who has no connection with the forces that impose justice in the world. I don't think it really does. First of all, this is the first time you've brought alignment into it, which is a troublesome road. Second, while the player clearly thinks the punishment was too high (which is why he said it wasn't realistic), it's probably not inconvenient enough for the player to keep doing what he wants in the town, or finding other ways to behave how he wants. Why would a player want to "have no connection with the forces that impose justice in the world"? They deal with goblins and dragons, so law enforcement shouldn't be an issue for them. Not that they have to kill the cops, but dealing with them should just be another kind of adventure. Do you want the players to act a certain way? If so, explaining that to them is the only way to "sufficiently explain" it. Don't try to explain it without explaining it, and don't make up rules about where stray shots go in order to explain it. If you don't care how the players act, then make consequences interesting for the players, even if they're still punitive on the characters. You can tell at least one player wasn't interested in the consequences you imposed, because they raised the issue of realism. (It's fine to describe where stray shots go, but whether you're using a rule or making one up keep "protagonization" in mind. That's what G G's original post touches on: avoid rules and interpretations that make the players look like complete klutzes.) Making up rules? Something bad happens on a 1 isn't completely mad I hope. Drunken Archery is NEVER gonna end well, and when you roll a 1 to shoot a target outside of a bar, shits gonna happen. When you roll to DELIBERATELY smash a window, I'm gonna say you smash a window on a successful attack roll. And people saying that in a land of dungeons, magic, and dragons, realism has no place, bollocks, you always need a sense of realism for it to be an immersive experience, so what, yeah you shoot the arrow, it shatters a window, and no one gives a fuck and you go about your business, doesn't make any sense to me. The monetary punishments don't make sense other than to repair the window, HOWEVER the amount that costs to repair would likely be 1gp or less, so then it doesn't make sense if that's the only punishment since you could go on a mass vandalism spree for the small pittance of 100gp and take down every window in sight. What does make sense to me and the players, is that crime, in broad day light, deliberate, violent crime at that, should hold some consequences.

If you ask me, a world just doesn't feel real or alive when you skip stuff that "get in the way of the adventure." When I see a problem rising, I make it PART of the adventure! I had a party in a real life setting where the party had an unfortunate run-in with the police. Two of them were knocked out and arrested, while the rest fled the scene. I could see two resolutions here: Have them released cleared of all charges, because their contact likes them that much. Have them interrogated and let them make up their escape plan along with of the rest of the group. I did the second and I'm glad I did! They all showed great initiative and amazing ideas on how to escape, put these plans in motion and we had one great game. To top it off, their most vitriolic, persistant and downright fun to hate enemy was a cop I created during that incident and he made it until the last session! All because I decided to let a problem exist and not extinguish it because meh. Some of them even wanted for this whole thing to go on and have a trial where the other PCs would serve as evidence collectors and lawyers. Unfortunately, we were too young and mostly appreciated guns and explosions. Before I start rambling, I'll end this post with this: Fines exist for covering the damages AND discouragement of any future illegal activity. It makes perfect sense for them having to pay more than the cost of the window. It gives a feeling of a world that is alive and ticking, not a place that exists solely for the PCs to run around. Ergo, realism = good.

Phisto Roboto said: It is kind of a sad day when we need to mention to players that firing at/into areas that contain groups of people might be a bad idea. Also not sure why missing means klutz. Maybe the archer was aiming for a head shot and missed by an inch and the arrow continued past the guys face and broke the window? It is easy to barely miss someone with a ranged weapon, there are many factors that could account for it. And yes, I know that it is a fantasy game so realism shouldn't apply, but honestly there is always going to be a sense of realism to the game. Why not just a clean miss. We don't always bother tracking where missed shots land. It could have landed somewhere harmless, instead of somewhere that turned a miss into a major screw up.

Jordan K. said: Paul U. said: J I think I imposed the idea I did, because it sufficiently explains that firing an arrow into a busy tavern is a bad idea if want to remain a good character who has no connection with the forces that impose justice in the world. I don't think it really does. First of all, this is the first time you've brought alignment into it, which is a troublesome road. Second, while the player clearly thinks the punishment was too high (which is why he said it wasn't realistic), it's probably not inconvenient enough for the player to keep doing what he wants in the town, or finding other ways to behave how he wants. Why would a player want to "have no connection with the forces that impose justice in the world"? They deal with goblins and dragons, so law enforcement shouldn't be an issue for them. Not that they have to kill the cops, but dealing with them should just be another kind of adventure. Do you want the players to act a certain way? If so, explaining that to them is the only way to "sufficiently explain" it. Don't try to explain it without explaining it, and don't make up rules about where stray shots go in order to explain it. If you don't care how the players act, then make consequences interesting for the players, even if they're still punitive on the characters. You can tell at least one player wasn't interested in the consequences you imposed, because they raised the issue of realism. (It's fine to describe where stray shots go, but whether you're using a rule or making one up keep "protagonization" in mind. That's what G G's original post touches on: avoid rules and interpretations that make the players look like complete klutzes.) Making up rules? Something bad happens on a 1 isn't completely mad I hope. Drunken Archery is NEVER gonna end well, and when you roll a 1 to shoot a target outside of a bar, shits gonna happen. When you roll to DELIBERATELY smash a window, I'm gonna say you smash a window on a successful attack roll. And people saying that in a land of dungeons, magic, and dragons, realism has no place, bollocks, you always need a sense of realism for it to be an immersive experience, so what, yeah you shoot the arrow, it shatters a window, and no one gives a fuck and you go about your business, doesn't make any sense to me. The monetary punishments don't make sense other than to repair the window, HOWEVER the amount that costs to repair would likely be 1gp or less, so then it doesn't make sense if that's the only punishment since you could go on a mass vandalism spree for the small pittance of 100gp and take down every window in sight. What does make sense to me and the players, is that crime, in broad day light, deliberate, violent crime at that, should hold some consequences. Something bad happening on a 1 is not "mad" but it's not necessarily part of the rules. Often, a miss is just a miss. Even if, by the rules, a "bad" thing is supposed to happen, that doesn't mean that any bad thing is going to be as fun and interesting and realistic as any other bad thing. You're clearly expressing a preference about what you /want/ to have happen. Unlike some others, I don't care if a DM is not impartial, but people who think they're being impartial should take a close look at the reasons why things in their games happen the way they do. It's interesting that you mention immersion, because in the example you gave you broke your players' immersion with the size of the fine. Clearly, whether there are consequences or not is not the only consideration when it comes to immersion. Yes, you /could/ go on a mass vandalism spree and take out every window. But why would any player do that? And if they did want to, and you didn't want them to, why wouldn't you just ask them not to? Look at a movie like The Usual Suspects. Yes, there are police, but they're not the point of the movie, and no one really seems as concerned about them as about other criminals. Yet the movie is realistic enough to be enjoyable. And I already gave you the example of Obi-wan Kenobi. In other words, you're missing the point. It's more complicated than to say "a crime happened, there must be consequences." Must there? What if the cops are busy? Or corrupt? Or afraid of that part of town? What if the townsfolk don't want to cause trouble? If your players want consequences, hey, great. That doesn't mean, however that every consequence will make sense to them, or be enjoyable for everyone at the table. There's more to a fun game than just immersion, and what is "realistic" is not necessarily the same as what's perfectly correct.

Pavlos S. said: If you ask me, a world just doesn't feel real or alive when you skip stuff that "get in the way of the adventure." When I see a problem rising, I make it PART of the adventure! I had a party in a real life setting where the party had an unfortunate run-in with the police. Two of them were knocked out and arrested, while the rest fled the scene. I could see two resolutions here: Have them released cleared of all charges, because their contact likes them that much. Have them interrogated and let them make up their escape plan along with of the rest of the group. I did the second and I'm glad I did! They all showed great initiative and amazing ideas on how to escape, put these plans in motion and we had one great game. To top it off, their most vitriolic, persistant and downright fun to hate enemy was a cop I created during that incident and he made it until the last session! All because I decided to let a problem exist and not extinguish it because meh. Some of them even wanted for this whole thing to go on and have a trial where the other PCs would serve as evidence collectors and lawyers. Unfortunately, we were too young and mostly appreciated guns and explosions. Before I start rambling, I'll end this post with this: Fines exist for covering the damages AND discouragement of any future illegal activity. It makes perfect sense for them having to pay more than the cost of the window. It gives a feeling of a world that is alive and ticking, not a place that exists solely for the PCs to run around. Ergo, realism = good. If you "make it part of the adventure" then you're not letting it "get in the way of the adventure." Same result: the game is fun instead of merely "realistic." Those are really the only two resolutions you could see? What about the cops making a deal with them? What about their lawyer getting them released on a technicality? What about them making a deal? What about something else happening as they're being taken in or getting booked? Any of those things and more are common in even very realistic movies, and they're the kind of things that make the story interesting enough to watch. No one here is saying that consequences should never happen. We're saying that consequences should be fun. If you and the players can't find a way to make the consequences fun, then fast forward to a situation in which the consequences CAN be fun. Realism is not, by itself, good. It needs to be coupled with fun. Consequences that are not fun lead to players questioning their realism. Even if a set of consequences are very implausible, if the players find them fun they won't just not question them, but will actually engage with them.

Paul U: What do you mean by a clean miss? As is not coming close to the target? If so wouldn't that make them look like a klutz? Or do you mean a clean miss as merely not striking anything of importance? Just trying to figure out what it is you mean by that.

Realism is not, by itself, good. It needs to be coupled with fun. If you ask me, being sure that none of my actions will have negative consequences is a major turn-off. What good is a buffet if everything tastes the same as everything else only with a different seasoning? I want the game I play to be in a world that is alive, I want to feel the pulse of that world and ride on the waves! Streets with funny names, people and their routines, guards and jails, kings and politics, let us find them no matter how terrible they are! I'd say that fines give fire for this pulse that keeps the game's world look alive, perhaps not by a lot, but still a necessary part. Also, being unable to lose isn't really fun for me. The chance of something going wrong is what makes me and then my character try to think better and/or differently. Sure, I got my leg chopped off and now can't run very good with my pegleg, but I don't mind! I know now to be more careful and my character got a quirk that adds flavor! It rminds of a game where I was playing the medic and I still am remembered as the doctor whose nurses (partners on the battlefield) couldn't last longer than a full session. I brushed off with death way too many times and blew up a helicopter with a grenade (REALLY lucky roll), but I still had anyone paired with me dead in a few days. And I was okay with it. Paul U. said: Those are really the only two resolutions you could see? What about the cops making a deal with them? What about their lawyer getting them released on a technicality? What about them making a deal? What about something else happening as they're being taken in or getting booked? Any of those things and more are common in even very realistic movies, and they're the kind of things that make the story interesting enough to watch. Well, I was still new into GMing and my ideas where kind of limited. Striking a deal with the cop was out of the question as they didn't really appreciating him doing a fine job in interrogating them and they ended all further possibilities for a partnership via one person shattering his own handcuffs and lunging at him! Besides, they were really eager about blowing up walls, so who am I to stop them? Almost immediately after the interrogation, they come to visit them saying they are their family and lawyers (half of it was true) and gave them instructions on what to do when the bombs go off. Next session can be summed up as: Two explosions, four policemen injured, gateway through the subway. The plot resumed after that, but calling the police was now out of the question.

Pavlos S. said: Realism is not, by itself, good. It needs to be coupled with fun. If you ask me, being sure that none of my actions will have negative consequences is a major turn-off. Of course there are negative consequences - for the characters. Of course the characters lose. But the consequences for the players should always be fun. The fun of everyone at that table should never be at stake. That said, not everyone enjoys the same kinds of consequences for their characters, and GMs can't expect that players will enjoy every consequence the GM thinks of. To mitigate this, the GM can either work with the the players on what would be fun, interesting ways to fail, or be prepared to adjust on the fly.

Phisto Roboto said: Paul U: What do you mean by a clean miss? As is not coming close to the target? If so wouldn't that make them look like a klutz? Or do you mean a clean miss as merely not striking anything of importance? Just trying to figure out what it is you mean by that. Just a miss, like any other. Not a wild shot, not a shot that kills a by-stander, not a miss that shoots themselves in the foot, or breaks their bowstring, just a miss, where the final destination of the arrow is not important. If you're not sure how not to make the player look like a klutz, ask them. If there's no way to do it, then they don't. There's no point rolling for it, if there's a possible outcome that they're not into. Find a situation that they ARE willing to lay stakes for and break the dice out for that. Not everything has to be rolled for, because not every outcome for every roll is worth it.

"Not everyone finds the same thing interesting." Or course. But this swings both ways. Anyone can find anything interesting, if they have reason to be bought into it, but anyone can also find anything un interesting, and one of the ways you can tell they're not interested is if they question that thing, or act out in proximity to it.

Paul U. said: If you're not sure how not to make the player look like a klutz, ask them. If there's no way to do it, then they don't. There's no point rolling for it, if there's a possible outcome that they're not into. Find a situation that they ARE willing to lay stakes for and break the dice out for that. Not everything has to be rolled for, because not every outcome for every roll is worth it. That advice is pretty heavily play-style dependent. For someone who wants a certain degree of gamism or simulationism in their game, not having a character fail big when they roll horribly would feel like hand-holding or breaking immersion since even the greatest can klutz out now and then <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGbe_ewotVg" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGbe_ewotVg</a> . ( Before I start a flame war, this is simply how I feel when playing that sort game and not a statement about that type of game. There are a lot of gamers that feel the way I do, and there are a lot of gamers that would agree with the quoted post. The fact that different people can grab the same books, play in a vastly different ways, and still have it be one of their favorite pastimes is one of the wonderful things about our hobby.) In d20 games, the natural one or X number below target rules commonly accounts for this time of phenomenon. There are a lot of ways to handle natural 1's. Back when I played a lot of d20 games, we would usually have someone roll a d20 or d100 after a nat 1 and then the GM would decide how bad the result was based on the result. In general, high rolls would mean that it simply missed and low rolls would give negative consequences with severity depending on how low it is. There are critical failure charts that some people use. Personally, I would rather have customized and flavorful failure from a trusted GM rather than a table, but that is another thing you can look into. When I GM, I am a ruling-heavy GM, but if one of my rulings seems illogical to a player, I welcome them to raise concerns. If they can convince me that the ruling doesn't make since, I will adjust it accordingly. If a quick agreement isn't reached within a short period, we go with my original call (sort of like a football challenge), and agree to continue the discussion after the game since none of us want to get bogged down into a 3 hour debate. At least not until we're done gaming :).

Tree Ant said: Paul U. said: If you're not sure how not to make the player look like a klutz, ask them. If there's no way to do it, then they don't. There's no point rolling for it, if there's a possible outcome that they're not into. Find a situation that they ARE willing to lay stakes for and break the dice out for that. Not everything has to be rolled for, because not every outcome for every roll is worth it. That advice is pretty heavily play-style dependent. For someone who wants a certain degree of gamism or simulationism in their game, not having a character fail big when they roll horribly would feel like hand-holding or breaking immersion since even the greatest can klutz out now and then The very act of causing a character to appear klutzier than the player believes them to be is far more immersion breaking than anything having to do with arrow ballistics. And in the post that kicked this thread off, we see precious immersion being broken by nothing more than a fine that seemed excessive. What maintains immersion is buy-in, and what keeps buy-in is the enjoyment of what's going on in the game. Or movie. Or book. Putting immersion before enjoyment is, historically, an unstable arrangement. Not everything in the game has to be or should be rolled for, even in a heavily simulationist game. The rules are not the laws of physics. Modules aren't randomly created, they're constructed with the intention of bringing about a fun game for the participants. So if a DM constructs a town (even on the fly) in such a way that minor infractions plausibly don't lead to boring situations or punishments for the characters, what's so different between that arranging for implausible threats and rewards in the wilds outside of town? And, again, this isn't about hand-holding. Characters should fail all the time, it's just that when they do the outcome needs to be interesting to the players. It can be very interesting for players to have bad things happen to characters, but not every bad thing that happens to the characters is inherently interesting, and expecting it to be simply because it's "real" is one of the biggest sources of problems in this hobby. Find the stakes your players want. Maybe they actually do want to risk their participation and enjoyment of the game for the sake of realism. Just don't assume they do.

Tree Ant said: When I GM, I am a ruling-heavy GM, but if one of my rulings seems illogical to a player, I welcome them to raise concerns. If they can convince me that the ruling doesn't make since, I will adjust it accordingly. If a quick agreement isn't reached within a short period, we go with my original call (sort of like a football challenge), and agree to continue the discussion after the game since none of us want to get bogged down into a 3 hour debate. At least not until we're done gaming :). If one of my rulings seems illogical to a player, we go immediately with what seems logical. I don't even want to get bogged down in a 3 minute debate. I play with people who make a good-faith effort at the table, so I know they're not trying to wreck the game. This whole thread is solved by the GM saying, "Ok, what do you think the fine should be?" of "Why do you think it's so high in this case?" and accepting and adding on to the player's answer.

Jordan K. said: And people saying that in a land of dungeons, magic, and dragons, realism has no place, bollocks, you always need a sense of realism for it to be an immersive experience , so what, yeah you shoot the arrow, it shatters a window, and no one gives a fuck and you go about your business, doesn't make any sense to me. The monetary punishments don't make sense other than to repair the window, HOWEVER the amount that costs to repair would likely be 1gp or less, so then it doesn't make sense if that's the only punishment since you could go on a mass vandalism spree for the small pittance of 100gp and take down every window in sight. What does make sense to me and the players, is that crime, in broad day light, deliberate, violent crime at that, should hold some consequences. You'd already broken some players sense of immersion before that point, as already mentioned, so this is a moot point. No-one is arguing that you don't need verisimilitude (a sense of realism). I'm arguing that your sense of realism doesn't match the players sense of realism, and that is causing problems. Dealing with the player for shooting at the bar window is missing the issue, which is simply a consequence of what happened earlier. Something to do with a spellcaster causing collateral damage, and I don't know enough about what happened there. This 200gp fine, though? Who imposed it, and what power did they have to enforce it on the PCs? There's an area to address realism. Depending on the player's level, it's unrealistic to assume most towns would have any way to reign in the player's antics. So instead, you could show that the townsfolk are upset at the players for the breaking window, but are terrified of them and helpless to do anything about it. Or have some brave spokesman like the town healer or priest plead with the players for mercy, showing the injuries their actions have caused. Or hire out-of-town mercenaries and bounty hunters to go after the players. Or call in the king's troops to deal with the band of mercenaries rampaging through their towns. There are all sorts of ways of giving consequences for character actions, in ways that enrich the game experience and make it feel more realistic, without a simple arbitrary fine that makes the players feel punished. Note: In the hands of a heavy handed, punitive GM, some of those consequences could be bad for the game, too. That's why I say the real issue is what happened earlier to lead to this altercation - we can't understand what is really going on here, between your players and you, without knowing the full details. But it does seem like there's a mismatch of expectations somewhere. Thus, your sense of realism is not matching the player's sense of realism. That's an entirely fixable problem, with communication.

Tree Ant said: Paul U. said: If you're not sure how not to make the player look like a klutz, ask them. If there's no way to do it, then they don't. There's no point rolling for it, if there's a possible outcome that they're not into. Find a situation that they ARE willing to lay stakes for and break the dice out for that. Not everything has to be rolled for, because not every outcome for every roll is worth it. That advice is pretty heavily play-style dependent. For someone who wants a certain degree of gamism or simulationism in their game, not having a character fail big when they roll horribly would feel like hand-holding or breaking immersion since even the greatest can klutz out now and then Immersion is a hard to define property. Lots of players experience it differently Some people have immersion broken just by having to roll dice and look at their character stats; others can calculate all sorts of odds and manipulate dice with no issues, but have their sense of immersion broken when the GM has things happen to their character that the player has no control over. So, discussing what breaks immersion leads us nowhere - it's different for everyone. Though, one thing definitely breaks immersion for everyone. GMs often impose the worst things they can think of on a fumble ("it's a fumble, it has to be bad!") without taking the abilities of the character who fumbled into account. So you end up with highly skilled characters making mistakes that even barely skilled characters would never make in reality, or just completely impossible results. In any kind of game, failing big should have consequences - this isn't limited to gamism or simulationism. But always, there are good ways to fail big, and bad ways to fail big. The best way to get it right to consider the players in choosing your failures. That doesn't mean ask them how they fail (though that works for many without breaking immersion). It can also mean the GM doing their homework and getting a good sense of what the player and their character are like, so when a failure occurs, the GM can narrate it in a way that is both a problem for the character and fun for the player. If the player is laughing, while also good-naturedly calling you names, you know you've probably done it right.

G G said: Tree Ant said: Paul U. said: If you're not sure how not to make the player look like a klutz, ask them. If there's no way to do it, then they don't. There's no point rolling for it, if there's a possible outcome that they're not into. Find a situation that they ARE willing to lay stakes for and break the dice out for that. Not everything has to be rolled for, because not every outcome for every roll is worth it. That advice is pretty heavily play-style dependent. For someone who wants a certain degree of gamism or simulationism in their game, not having a character fail big when they roll horribly would feel like hand-holding or breaking immersion since even the greatest can klutz out now and then Immersion is a hard to define property. Lots of players experience it differently Some people have immersion broken just by having to roll dice and look at their character stats; others can calculate all sorts of odds and manipulate dice with no issues, but have their sense of immersion broken when the GM has things happen to their character that the player has no control over. So, discussing what breaks immersion leads us nowhere - it's different for everyone. Though, one thing definitely breaks immersion for everyone. GMs often impose the worst things they can think of on a fumble ("it's a fumble, it has to be bad!") without taking the abilities of the character who fumbled into account. So you end up with highly skilled characters making mistakes that even barely skilled characters would never make in reality, or just completely impossible results. In any kind of game, failing big should have consequences - this isn't limited to gamism or simulationism. But always, there are good ways to fail big, and bad ways to fail big. The best way to get it right to consider the players in choosing your failures. That doesn't mean ask them how they fail (though that works for many without breaking immersion). It can also mean the GM doing their homework and getting a good sense of what the player and their character are like, so when a failure occurs, the GM can narrate it in a way that is both a problem for the character and fun for the player. If the player is laughing, while also good-naturedly calling you names, you know you've probably done it right. +1

Jordan K. said: The monetary punishments don't make sense other than to repair the window, HOWEVER the amount that costs to repair would likely be 1gp or less, so then it doesn't make sense if that's the only punishment since you could go on a mass vandalism spree for the small pittance of 100gp and take down every window in sight. What does make sense to me and the players, is that crime, in broad day light, deliberate, violent crime at that, should hold some consequences. You could spend some time imagining yourself as a villager in the situation. How would your world handle this problem? Do the villagers simply deal with it, and quietly clean up behind adventurers? Perhaps there is a special order of paladins that deal with unruly adventurers? Or maybe every village pays a small amount into a pool that supports an adventuring group that will come and deal unruly adventurers? Spend some time brainstorming, you could even bring it up to your players (I always clear houserules with my players, and this seems similar). Don't be afraid to wait to impose consequences (this gives you more time to think), and it reflects that not all commoners are legal experts. People can think, "the fine is 8 sp, that can be right?" So they take it to the magistrate who finds some other law that they broke. Perhaps they have a reckless destruction law on the books that was imposed after the drunken master incident from 197 CE? I definitely agree that arbitrary punishments are usually not ideal, but mistakes happen. Also, what was the player's attitude, did they seem upset, or calmly raise a valid concern? I don't see a problem with going to your player, admitting the fine didn't make sense, and explaining how you will handle it in the future to the entire group once you've decided on that. You've already levied the 200 gp fine, now let's figure why that might have happened (I see a great adventure hook here). Perhaps the local magistrate is corrupt or has a gambling problem, and imposes fines he thinks he can get away with. Even though the villagers are upset with the adventurers about the bar scene, they are willing to forgive them if they deal with the much more annoying magistrate. If the adventurers succeed then they can regain the love of the townspeople and be heroes again. Lastly, if you want to run a heroic campaign, there is nothing wrong with pulling the character aside and telling them to make sure that their concept fits into the campaign. Ex. A friend of mine used to run smuggling campaigns in Star Wars d20. The whole point was to amount wealth in the most unsavory ways, and pulling of shenanigans and trying to get away with them. He even coined the phrase "Grand Theft Star Wars." If someone wanted the play a jedi who is devoted to protecting the law of the republic, that would be inappropriate for the agreed upon game, and would have to create a fitting concept.

Tree Ant said: Lastly, if you want to run a heroic campaign, there is nothing wrong with pulling the character aside and telling them to make sure that their concept fits into the campaign. This here is key. Whether or not a GM is trying to micromanage behavior, most games have a theme to them, be it just "heroism" or something more complicated. It might seem like in-game methods can be used to keep players on a theme, but direct conversation about it is almost always a quicker more efficient way.

But also the other side of the coin and 'problem' of this hobby is GM's assuming (and then frowning on others going "your playing it wrong!") with the mindset of "roll a dice, something AWESOME always happens". Not everything and every action needs to be consequences of cliche heroic proportions, and jaw dropping fantasy epicness. Some GM's seems to want to make out like playing your game in any other way than like its the last 10 minutes of an action movie, where every camera scene and description given is planned to maximize the immersion and reinforcement of ego the player has about his character is wrong. That how even bad or mundane daily events must be played out as if epic battle music is heard in the background while slow motion explosions go off around them. Both ways is right, and both ways are VERY fun to play with the GM and players when they are into it. I much prefer to have my players play adventures, yes above the norm, better than average Joe NPC..but also real characters, real people, that some non 'epic' things can happen to. And my players also enjoy this more too, they can identify with a character if despite being the 'super hero of their creation'. they have to deal with, and actually playing out and engage now and again in things lower than 'saving the princess with one arm, while battling off a dragon with with other, all the while tightrope walking across a lake of fire.'

Sorry.was a double post somehow..then cant edit a 'delete' to point that out.

William R. said: But also the other side of the coin and 'problem' of this hobby is GM's assuming (and then frowning on others going "your playing it wrong!") with the mindset of "roll a dice, something AWESOME always happens". Not everything and every action needs to be consequences of cliche heroic proportions, and jaw dropping fantasy epicness. Some GM's seems to want to make out like playing your game in any other way than like its the last 10 minutes of an action movie, where every camera scene and description given is planned to maximize the immersion and reinforcement of ego the player has about his character is wrong. That how even bad or mundane daily events must be played out as if epic battle music is heard in the background while slow motion explosions go off around them. Both ways is right, and both ways are VERY fun to play with the GM and players when they are into it. I much prefer to have my players play adventures, yes above the norm, better than average Joe NPC..but also real characters, real people, that some non 'epic' things can happen to. And my players also enjoy this more too, they can identify with a character if despite being the 'super hero of their creation'. they have to deal with, and actually playing out and engage now and again in things lower than 'saving the princess with one arm, while battling off a dragon with with other, all the while tightrope walking across a lake of fire.' No, it has nothing to do with things being "epic" or not. It has to do with things not being a waste of the time that people are spending on the activity. If people are not bought in, and things aren't making sense to them, or otherwise are not fun, then it doesn't matter how "real" it is.

How do we know if what is happening in the game is a waste of the players' time? Hopefully they'll be honest, and take advantage of open lines of communication, or at least not hide their feelings. It's common, though, for players to resort to either questioning of whether something should happen a certain way ("200 gp would bankrupt an average person.") as a way to bring the game back in line with what they enjoy - while at the same time wasting even more time in discussion; or they'll begin trying to waste the GM's time, by acting out and deliberately avoiding anything the GM appears to have in mind. This can and does happen whether what the GM wants is epic action, or true-to-life truthiness, as long not everyone at the table is interested in the course things are taking.

William R. said: But also the other side of the coin and 'problem' of this hobby is GM's assuming (and then frowning on others going "your playing it wrong!") with the mindset of "roll a dice, something AWESOME always happens". Not everything and every action needs to be consequences of cliche heroic proportions, and jaw dropping fantasy epicness. You're misunderstanding how the word AWESOME is being used in these discussions. As Paul U mentioned, it's not about making everything epic, it's entirely about avoiding the tedious stuff that isn't actually playing the game. Things like arguing over the value of a fine, when what's really going on is a disagreement between players and GM about what is acceptable behaviour in the campaign. I run down-to-earth low-fantasy games most often, where the players are definitely not superheroes, and spend a lot of time involved in investigations or political intrigue. I still say, ""roll a dice, something AWESOME always happens". Because AWESOME is being defined as "something with matches everyone's expectations of what can happen, and which moves things forward in exciting and interesting ways, whether it's a success or fail."

Ah my mistake then. I was coming from the viewpoint I had tossed at me at lot at gaming shops, or conventions and was reading it wrong..sorry ;) I think we are on the same page here then, just approaching it differently is all. Too many times DM's I've met at these, that unless it was on the level with being an action movie trailer scene, they skipped it with a few words, a 10 second description of what happened, and moved on, or don't mention at all for fear of distracting from the 'big picture'. I say anything can be interesting..given it in the right light for the players. So he shot the barkeep's window out, and the bar keep wants a fine paid. Then he shot the barkeep by accident while fleeing the town..It seems some people telling him to avoid having it happen seems pushy to have him play it how you run your games. instead of giving him advice on how to play it out since it seems he DOES play that way. Now its went from bad to worse, what about the barkeeps family? he runs a bar, surely he knows some underhanded thug types that aren't happy hes dead, they used his bar as a meeting grounds with his permission, now the party has a itching suspicion anyone following them might be out for revenge. Or It could be a month or 2 in real time before they even get wind that that simple window they broke, and barkeep they shot is coming back to haunt them. Do they decide to go back and make amends? avoid that town even though a major contact is there? Maybe they go back and spend an hour trying to sneak around the town, not being noticed just to reach that contact, to have to sneak back out again..what if they fail? and caught? A simple bad roll, and a broken window, now has made an entire new layer to the town and how they approach it. I was arguing just because a minor indecent happened, it doesn't have to be skipped or wrote off as inconsequential. Anything can have consequences that work out where the players enjoy it. I play with the "the devil in the details' type DM style..butterfly effect. I note down everything they do...most mean nothing, some can turn into something...A player drops his plasma cannon in the forest while fighting a monster and runs away? Some low tech guy might find it, then 4 months later they ride past the area, and this guys used this 'gun of the gods' to take over his farming village, and 3 around it and declare himself dictator. Do they feel responsible and try to help the situation? do they move on and ignore it? All this from a simple fumble on the players part, and forgetting to go back and get his weapon. If we would have skipped those 'petty' details, or not had the option of a 'hero' dropping a weapon by playing on a bad roll (and heros drop things, or do stupid things in movies and book all the time, it doesnt make the story any less epic and enjoyable to read/watch, usually just the opposite), none of that could have happened. None of it was pre planned to happen, or part of the basic outline of the story, but something that randomly happened by chance, and got added. So me avoiding having little things like that happen, makes less ripples to play out into depth of the world.

William R. said: I say anything can be interesting..given it in the right light for the players. That's what everyone here is saying, with the caveat from some of us that it's inadvisable to assume that just because it can be interesting that it will be interesting. The original poster is in a situation and they're asking how to deal with it. One valid way to deal with it is to avoid it entirely, since the consequences leading up to it are entirely within the DM's control, and the players don't seem interested in it anyway. It's cool to remember things that happened an reincorporate them, but that's not all there is to it: the players have to be interested in that reincorporation. If they are, you no longer have to note anything down, because the players themselves will remind you of the cool stuff they want to see come back. Anyway, I very much doubt that the point of everything that happened in the original post has anything to do with "ripples" or "realism." It really appears to have a lot more to do with trying to teach the players a lesson about acting counter to the DM's expectations. The DM wanted more in-town freedom than one gets in a video game, but assumed the players could be trusted with it. They couldn't, so the DM has to provide numerous disincentives to try to prevent it from happening again. The player, however politely, is bucking those disincentives. A fine? At 200 gp, a player acting out will quickly end up behind the rest of the group, but at 10 sp it has no teeth. A tongue lashing from a nobody NPC? If the player has to just take it or risk a fine or a murder charge, they'll probably try to stay on the good side of the townsfolk, but if the PC can shoot at him and intimidate him the player still gets to keep their status. It's a complete ego game, as far as I can tell.

But wouldn't it be acting in accordance to the NPC expectations? If you treat every NPC as just a PC you run..they would act somewhat in the way the GM made them. Its not as if hes making up random 'invisible borders of punishment' to scold his players. Like the window vs wagon thing..both are likely hit targets of a stray arrow..why should the GM pick the wagon just because it makes it less friction ingame? That would be forcing outcomes by DM choice also, the same as you saying hes doing..just in the opposite direction. Even if its a wagon..someone owns that wagon. If they are in sight of it, I know I wouldn't appreciate someone shooting at my wagon accident or not. Not arguing the way it was played out right or wrong. Just saying the reactions to it seem natural for some townsfolk that sees people fighting in their streets, and less like a gm punishing behavior he doesn't like. My players are so unpredictable I have no expectations of how they act in anyplace. But I do have the NPC's reaction to their action fit how they would based on the personality I gave them. If in a quiet little town they started shooting at people, and missing..SOMEONE in the town would care, they wouldn't be just 2 dimesional faceless cardboard cutouts that are neutral to all actions taken. Again not arguing the decisions made was good, or that your approach is bad. Just saying the ' 200gp for smashing a window and injuring someone, something that could happen in a drunken brawl would bankrupt the average person." IS true, the average person that smashed a window, and killed someone would be pretty much 'end of the line' for them..life over, jail time and negative stigma in the town to them. And is a reasonable expectation of a average joe's live to be ruined after that. Why should random travelers in town expect less, just because they are controlled by other people. The fact that it didnt bankrupt them, goes in line with the idea of them being more than just averarge peasants, the same fees that would ruin a villager, didn't ruin you. I think it comes down to me you and are just different sides of a GM style. I like to do the "OK you shot an arrow and it missed, let pick 5-6 things in that direction, roll and see where this leads". I'm all about the entropy and randomness of actions leading to unknown avenues. That nothing in the world is static, and no details nudged by the GM, or planned beyond the world and NPC's, GM determines nothing other than the setting of the world and characters in it, and lets see where the ball rolls. Its like a pinball game, the ball can go anywhere, I just setup the playfield that the ball runs into things on. While you seem to like more a controlled, GM guided, hand of fate type, rich story telling that focuses on the tale at hand it seems.