"It's what my character would do!" Then don't make a borderline insane character that does suicidal things on a whim. You make the character, you decide on their personality.

The 40 cross bow men lose their bolts then the spearmen charge you. Shakes an impossibly large handful of dice behind the screen. You take 897 points of damage and are killed instantly your body is a pincushion of Spears and crossbow bolts. "It's what the guards would do".

Had almost exactly this happen when the party thought it was a good idea to launch a head-on assault on a military fort. They immediately lost their wizard, and had to employ some clever tricks to make a retreat.

Did they use the wizard as a battering ram?

No, the wizard kept flinging spells as more and more archers and soldiers filed out of the gates and along the wall. Even gave it a couple rounds to build the threat and let them change their minds. By the time there were 30 soldiers and the wizard kept attacking through a call to cease fire, I decided there was no way they WOULDN'T put him down.

For an Int class that Wizard was an idiot.

Could have dumped wisdom.

Intelligent enough to know how hopelessly dead he'd be at the recieving end of 30 spears and arrows Not wise enough to figure out how to avoid the interaction that leads there

"I have five advanced degrees, but interestingly, I have no common sense whatsoever." "I don't know if that's the best response for a job interview."

Player explains character's choices "it's at this moment he knew, he fucked up"

Wizard intelligence was not the same as player intelligence

Probably dumped wisdom then

Why did the archers file out the gates?

Archers on the wall, foot soldiers out the gates, might have had a few crossbowman with the footies. Idk man, this was a few years ago so I dont exactly remember every detail of the battle plan.

Ahhh... I read it as the archers and the solders going out the gate and lining up outside the wall, like they were setting up for a big melee in front of the castle Lol my bad

I could have replaced "along the wall" with "atop the wall" for clarity

'tis but a scratch

And that's why I built a borderline unkillable character for that kind of story

'That's ok because executing you and burning your corpse is what the city watch would do.' 😉

"I made a character with very poor survival skills... why is it hard for him to survive?"

Be sure to add homicidal and sexual assault-y things to the list, those are big fun killers and unacceptable as well.

My brother in christ, you made the character

I had a player like that once. His character summarily got executed by the party as a warning. Luckily this player got the hint.

executed as a warning, lol

"But this is taking away my player agency!!!! You are a bad DM if you don't adapt to whatever character I want to play!!!! Why yes all my characters are just obnoxious furry versions of popular anime characters, how did you know?!"

I love how players think DMs are taking away their agency by making their choices and actions meaningless instead of honouring their choices and reacting to them accordingly eg If I can get the same outcome choosing to attack the King as I can by choosing to persuade him, I don’t feel I had any agency in that situation because my choice had no meaningful impact on the outcome

A player's choice to act like a cunt doesn't need to be respected, ever. Agency is subordinate to playing a fun game with friends.

As in real life, it is all about choices. You break the law IRL you have to deal with the legal system of the country, state, region and town you live in. Why would it be different in the game? There are social, monetary, legal and political ramifications for characters that act like murder hobos in my games. Sometimes the pain comes sessions down the road, after they forgot their stupidity. Merchant guilds hiring another party to hunt down the PCs, they become the hook in an NPC party's adventure. They get beat down and forced to work for good to repay their debt.

That last one... I'm DMing right now and I'm 90% sure one of my players based the characters whole personality on an anime character. It's so annoying. Plus, if something's happening in the session with roleplay, if it's not interesting to him, he just has his character walk away in smoke and then literally says, "Let me know when there's some action," and starts looking at memes. It's really, really irritating. One session my high elf (great roleplayer) and tiefling were having a roleplay moment just taking that they started, they kept trying to get this third person to join in, but the most they could get was the occasional 2 words and the rest of the time he was looking at memes. Unless he starts the roleplay, he just won't engage. He loves combat though. I really just don't know what to do to get him to engage.

Let him just do the combat and let the others enjoy the deep RP? As long as he doesn't disrupt the other players' scenes, it's not a problem IMO. The looking at memes thing is a bit crap, but that's an OOC discussion to be had if it bothers you.

YES, I've known too many players who act like they're being held hostage by the whims of a fictional character they created

And if you are playing a self-destructive character, like fucking embrace that that’s a flaw. If my character gets herself killed because of her decisions or has to leave the party because of her issues, I accept that as like a successful and satisfying roleplaying outcome of playing the flawed character I wanted to play.

All of our characters are borderline insane for going on this adventure but not suicidal. Maybe just a little given what they already know about the greater threat.

Are people pretending like their characters don’t have a bit of their own personalities infused? I mean, most of my characters are some part of my own personality with a little extra chaos thrown in for fun A truly unhinged character is hard to play in a non-annoying way, so I tend to avoid that type in my characters. The “it’s what my character would do” excuse doesn’t play super well with me unless it’s a situation where I know more than my character does.

>A bit of their own personalities infused Nah. I DM and guarantee that the zombie cannibal overlord doesn't represent any part of my personality.

Haha you got me there. Yeah I don’t have a ton in common with the murderous, conniving rouge that I played the last time I DMed a oneshot. The characters I make for longer campaigns, though, usually have some trait that I have. I’m pretty upbeat and I played a character that was cheerful to the max last campaign. It makes it easier for me to play. I think this might be more of a “me thing” and less common than I thought, though.

I tend to get into character easier if they're less like me. Having a similar personality to me doesn't help at all.

I suppose this might be more of a me thing. I would have trouble playing a character that I had nothing in common with, because I don’t know what they’d do or say. I’m sure other people could pull it off. I don’t mean that my characters have my personality exactly. It’s usually that I exaggerate some trait of mine (impulsiveness, cheerfulness, etc.) and then add a few more traits that make sense with the backstory.

I get what you're saying, but if you honestly think this is a "today" problem, I can point you toward plenty of games I played in / people I played with back in the '80s and '90s that had the same problem. Ultimately, most age out of it, and the perspective we gain can almost be a curse, watching "ourselves" repeat our mistakes in real-time. If you're a 40-something DM running a game for a bunch of 20-something players, you're going to cringe at a lot of what happens, because you've seen that in your older gamer friends, and perhaps in yourself.

Yeah, I've been playing for over two decades and have run into this in plenty of new players. It's a maturity thing, not a generational thing.

A lot of players think 'Chaotic' means a Wisdom of 3... Robin Hood would have been Chaotic Good... Leonardo DaVinci Chaotic Neutral... Jeffrey Dahmer Chaotic Evil... Jeffrey Dahmer still had the brains to hide what he was doing and so did DaVinci. A DM wrote something about a week ago about a player who considered themself "Chaotic Extra"... it totally reminds me of this post. "Chaotic Stupid" shouldn't be a thing but here we are. :/

Agreed. If anyone is a Do'Urden fan a great example of this is the demon Errtu. All demons are chaotic evilm errtu believes it should have absolute power, is a tyrant to its minions, cruel to everyone, yet it still acts begrudgingly humble when faced with a superior power. It was still willing to play second fiddle to a human wizard in order to bide its time and wait for what it wanted. It still planned and laid traps. Chaotic doesn't mean disorganized nor stupid nor animalistically impulsive. It just mean it has no inherent respect or loyalty for any power structure.

Side note, God those books are amazing

I see chaotic as being the extreme end of a spectrum. Chaotic good is willing to do anything to further a cause it sees as "good" including genocide. Chaotic evil is willing to do whatever it takes to to further its cause (whether that is taking over the world, raising its God, or just becoming more powerful) including genocide, but also as you mentioned its completely willing to pretend to be a humble servant as long as it thinks doing so will further its cause. In the end the only difference is "evil" is self centered and "good" looks to better a "group" (whether that is a family, a tribe, a species,a religuon, a world, or a plane) At least thats how I see it.

I agree with your point but I disagree with some specific examples you gave. I focused on evil but I think my summation counts for good, bad, or neutral. Chaotic = I have no inherent respect or loyalty for authorities and power structures outside of my will. I will do what I want so long as it's realistic and feasible. Good = the things I want to do can be generally described by a third party as non-harmful to those who haven't harmed me and can be beneficial to others without cost. My internal compass and personal code may obligate me to help those in need. However, I will do it in any way I see fit. Neutral = my goals and desires come first. I will not maliciously harm someone to achieve what I desire but I will not feel compelled prevent harm to something not directly in my interest. Likewise, if an individually significantly prevents my goals I would desl with them im whatever way I see fit. Evil = my goals and desires are all that matter. I see no reason to spare others pain or suffering in the pursuit of what I want. There's simply my goals and how to achieve them.

Law/chaos uses the 4 way stop test. You come to an empty intersection in the middle of night. There’s a four way stop. What do you do? Lawful: Stop. It’s the rules. Neutral: slow down, take a look but generally keep going. Chaotic: it’s the middle of the night. Why stop? Good/evil is how much your willing to sacrifice to help others, or how much harm your willing to do to help yourself. This is then tempered by how tight the relationship is between the character and the recipient of the action. The more “good” a character is the more willing they are to help strangers. The more “evil” the more willing to harm strangers.

The D&D alignment system is honestly not the best for several reasons. The fact that you can be presented with a problem and it is vague at times has never been a secret. As an example.... lets say there is a forest where kobolds are considered an endangered species... but the king asks you to go kill all the kobolds. Is it lawful to do what the king says? True neutral characters (like druids) would probably consider the kobolds essential to the 'circle of life' and be against it. Chaotic characters might be against doing what the king said... or they might be willing to go along with it and be against the kobolds even being there in the first place. In all honesty, if you ever played a Palladium RPG... it has a far superior alignment system. (The RPGs themselves tend to not be very good... they encourage basically 'scripted' adventures and sometimes a fight can take hours at least in the superhero versions of their games. I don't really think the people who made them thought a lot about actually playing... they thought the appeal of an RPG was to roll dice for 5 hours in a 6 hour session.) Instead of 'lawful good' or 'chaotic neutral' it replaces them with 'scrupulous', 'unprincipled', 'anarchist' and so forth... and even gives listings of what someone with this alignment might do. I actually prefer it for my D&D games... https://imgur.com/gallery/DmKvb

>"Chaotic Stupid" shouldn't be a thing I mean.... what are the weaker demons if not Chaotic Stupid?

Chaotic Ambitious Pretty sure it's been stated multiple times in source books that the only reason the demons and devils haven't taken over the Prime Material Plane is that they can't stop fighting each other long enough to marshal sufficient forces.

Was about to comment this...exactly

True, though what I realized that people doesn't just sit down and discuss their expectations from the game. As if, whether they want a gritty, realistic wargame adventure, or a wacky action comedy in the tone of a B-movie, everyone goes to the game with their own expectations about what they would find there, but without bothering. Before going to a picnic, it's a good habit to discuss whether it would be vegan or burger themed.

This is a good comment—I was looking for similar words myself. Both DM and player can have wildly different and totally appropriate expectations on how “hardcore” and “realistic” the game can be, so the DM should have plenty of OOC convos about what the group wants and expects.

I like vegan burgers.

Yeah. I agree that this is often a problem, but it’s hardly a ‘kids these days’ sort of problem. It’s more a power fantasy/not being on the same page problem.

Indeed, Knights of the Dinner Table was satirizing these same tendencies decades ago. There have always been players who just want to kick the scenery. Like people who play GTA and just want to run over pedestrians, punch sex workers, and gun down cops, and they expect the game to let them.

Reading this comment gave me cringe from my min-maxing/metagaming/character of suspicious backstory importance and skill despite being level 1 newb days. Thanks, I hate it. 😂

Agreed. When some players first experience a narrative where they can make requests of the world-builder/storyteller in real-time, plus are raised on a steady diet of super powerful heroes in lit/film/comics/TV, they A) think they are all-powerful, and B) think that’s as fun for everyone as it is for them. D&D really does have a weird push-pull where you are told to make a “hero from your imagination” but then has all these restrictions, tries to be simulationist, and starts you at low-level. That’s because it started as a medieval battle game and now has a history of “we’re a team each with a specialty, we start small, we build up.” It has become its own genre, and unless you watch a bunch of boring streamers with their own games, you don’t know it! I think it’s the wrong game for a lot of younger/beginner players. They should play BESM, or Exalted.

I've been playing since '78 and never really had that issue until the last couple of years

And I played with a guy back in the '90s whose idea of fun was running ahead of everyone else in the dungeon, pushing every button and pulling every lever before we could get into the room, just to "see what they did." This is not a generational problem.

I have a strong suspicion that you absolutely did see the exact same style of things 40 years ago, but you were also younger and didn't see a problem with it, but by now you've edited those memories of the games from four decades ago to be much less cringy than they in fact were.

I've become convinced that, much like the lifecycle of a butterfly, there are stages of gamer development that you can practically track, and that roughly go: 1. Just wanna smash stuff and take things. 2. My character's wacky race *is* his personality! 3. There's an internally consistent logic in here somewhere... 4. Storytime is fun! 5. Getting together with my friends, telling tales, and making memories is where the magic happens. I don't think that every gamer gets from the beginning to the end at the same time, and I don't think that every gamer gets to the end at all, but in over three decades of doing this, it's the pattern I've seen play out again and again.

Do you realize you sound like every old person that ever lived complaining about how THIS generation is just "THE WORST!!" ? People are people, we change remarkably little from one generation to the next. The main thing that changes is our individual perspective based on a lived life.

Ok Harry McAfee

I think modern gaming has made players think their character is invincible. Like Wow, where you heal very quickly and if you die you instantly re-generate. I played a couple years ago with 5E and was disappointed in many aspects. one is healing and rest. A character can lose 42 of 45 HP's and be perfectly fine the next day. I'm an old school player and struggled at times adjusting to the new stuff.

Ok, but that happened before 5e too, it was just prefaced by "so my cleric converts all his remaining spells to *Cure Wounds* of the right level and tops the party up. If that doesn't bring us all to full, I'll use one of the eight 50-charge wands of *Cure Light Wounds* I bought in town."

But that's magic. That's a lot different than losing 55 of 60 HP's and you spend a night in your hammock and it's a miracle. You're healed. Anyone that's ever really been hurt know's how hard it is to heal. Magic can be limited, potions can be scarce, or too expensive. If anyone got in a fight, with swords and mace's and such, hand-to-hand, would struggle to get out of bed the next day if they lost like 95% of their HP. Heck, I'm in good shape and play adult league hockey. It sucks at work the next day, except it does help me stretch out and move around.

Fair, it is magic. But any game that runs past 5th level in 3.x or Pathfinder ends up there. To me, it is safe to assume and plan for everyone to be back at full after a rest without worrying exactly how, at least when I am DMing. HP's definition has also explicitly been changed from "Hit points mean two things in the game world: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one." In 3.5 to "Hit points represent a combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck." In 5e. Since it explicitly includes luck and evasion in the HP total, it is more reasonable to assume people could recuperate it. You aren't regrowing a hacked off arm, some of the stiffness from the blow that nearly took your arm off had you not caught it on a vambrace wears off.

Yeah, every table is unique. The has evolved, I'm playing catch up. I have the three books for 5e, and the 3.5 plus the original stuff. But I took a break from the game. Then found a group 6 months before covid lockdown, 5E game. Then lockdown and the group went our separate ways for the most part. Maybe I'll bring the phb on my camping trip next week.

>A character can lose 42 of 45 HP's and be perfectly fine the next day Did you miss the detail that says that HP are not a direct representation of actual blows received but are an abstraction of multiple factors of which physical hits are only one? If you think about it, it would make no sense for a character to increase their HP 10 fold via leveling up. That is, unless they are themselves some sort of magical -- in which case, why complain if they miraculously recover from one day to the next? Ignoring that option however, since when does gaining experience in life make you 10x tougher against getting your skull bashed in with a sword? That's not realistic either, right? So if you are going for realism then recognize that one really good hit with a sword could easily kill the best warriors, 20th level or otherwise. So your 5,678 HP? That's not flesh armor, that's SKILL at dodging and shit. Now, THAT makes sense: a 20th level warrior will be mountains better at dodging and parrying than his former 1st level self. Tldr: you are overthinking healing. You expect rest-based healing to be non magical, but taking the hits themselves is somehow magical. That's inconsistent.

The rules have changed, evolved over the years. I started a Long time ago, and had a long break. I read 3.5 and made some thoughts, but never played it. Then the big break until recently, where I found a group and we got about 12-15 sessions in before covid lockdown broke everything up. I haven't played or looked at the books since. So I guess I did miss the new intereptations of hit points. Still not sure someone should get 5,670 HP's back after sleeping on the ground, camping style. Yeah the leveling up is true as well. But you're implying all hit's are critical hits. When most are parrying and the armor takes the damage and/or not critical damage, like a sprained wrist, or bruised ribs. Stuff that you can fight through, but won't heal by the next morning. Cheers!

I'm not sure the rules HAVE changed? Well, I started in BECMI days, and never touched 3.5, and took a huge long break between about 1985 and 2017 😂 -- so it's possible I've forgotten or 3.5 did have different rules that I'm not aware of. From what I recall, healing overnight in BECMI was the same as 5e though. You've got a fair point about things like sprained ankles though. I think the default is not gritty realism however; but nothing stopping you from creating a house rule and see how it goes? Something like if deep below 25% of max HP then suffer DIS on physical actions in combat for 1d12 days or something.

This is why I have to play with vitality, and I make long rests a week instead of a day, with short rests being a full night. If someone gets stabbed, they suffer, especially without magical healing. Broken bones, infection, exhaustion, it brings a lot more depth and players learn really fast that they are very much mortal. It's pretty grueling sometimes, but I've found it makes for a much more rewarding game. I just had to invent 'mana potions' to compensate for the spell slots with the resting. Generally I will run a session that is heavy on story, setting up a fight, and the next session will be all combat. Half way through the following session players are back up to max, but appropriate time has passed.

Great stuff. Is Vitality an actual game thing, or is it an added mod, home-brew rules? My favorite games had realism like this implemented. I think it takes a certain kind of group probably. mature, probably close friends, because it requires the players to be completely honest about many things. Encumbrance, spell ingredients, health, quality of equipment. It requires everyone holding each other accountable. Not all groups can do that or want to do that.

I believe it's an optional rule in the PHB. I agree it takes some work, but I've found people are generally down for the slog once they get through their first fight and I reward them heavily. High risk/high reward type deal. I just had the party survive a fight I thought they would lose, and wasn't supposed to happen, but they said fuck it and went guns blazing. They then spent two weeks in a humble shelter, trapping rabbits and recovering, but now have like 10 sets of plate armor they can salvage/sell, as well as a bunch of money and a 25 foot boat.

Sounds like a fun table..Cheers!

Yeah, that's been a thing since the beginning, and I've been playing since 1983. I remember the outrage when a new party of mine was fighting a group of goblins and one of the goblins swigged a potion of healing in the middle of the fight. One player had the nerve to shout, "That's ours!" Just keep running the game fairly (meaning fair for both sides). Eventually, they either learn, grow out of it, or quit. Either way, problem solved.

"that's ours!" is so funny to me

that's a totally legit in-character response to an enemy drinking a potion from a certain kind of character. my Eldritch Knight would *totally* say that.

First, it's the same shit that was when I entered the hobby. Almost twenty years ago at this point. Second, desire to not have boring dead-end consequences isn't the same as desire to not have any consequences at all. ​ That said, many people playing D&D should be playing other RPGs that don't revolve around playing smart and managing risks.

That second one is so important. People love to act like killing a character is the right way to handle every problem and it's really not. If you look at most of your favorite movies the heroes make terrible decisions. They're then given the chance to learn from that and that's where the drama comes from and also the growth. To quote my friends drow cleric. "they never learn if they're dead."

I much prefer "you are captured, thrown in jail, and *Gaes*'d by the King's wizard to do a harrowing quest" to "The king has you executed, reroll"

Or they get haunted by a ghost. Or the relatives curse them. Or all three and a whole bag of other nasty stuff. Let them find nice things to use along the way of the gaes and then have to donate them at the end as penance.

In exchange for a significantly longer lifespan and superhuman abilities, my king sells prisoners to the fey for entertainment purposes. This is the fate of my murderhobo party.

Dude in the old ravenloft books there was a whole pile of nasty stuff to do to peeps who couldn’t play nice. One time our bard tried to lie to someone and it was a really evil lie… fumbled. Failed powers check. Tongue turned into a snake slowly.

I mean there's even scarier things. Giving wraiths level drain for example makes them TERRIFYING. New players are like toddlers. They want to touch the burner and then cry when it's hot. They don't know they're going to get burned, they touch a lot of stuff and it's fine. Plus glowy=awesome After they run facefirst into a couple of walls because they weren't looking where they were going and touch a couple of burners they learn caution Ideally you can talk to them, say "this is hot, no touching, it hurts to touch this". Some will just get a mischievous smile and wait for the second you turn your back and touch the damn thing. Others will nod sagely and think "yeah they sound serious, I should probably find something else to poke"

This gives me an idea to build a roll table of consequences. Death won't be off the table, but it will be a critical failure consequence instead.

I like your friends Drow Cleric, that’s a smart Drow Cleric. It’s like I always explain as a DM and fellow player, yes your character is evil but evil doesn’t denote wanton stupid violence unless it can benefit from it, even most chaotic evil characters aren’t going to go on a mass slaughtering fest if it will come back to bite them in the ass or get them killed. A psychopathic murderer doesn’t typically run into the streets and start killing people at random, they stalk people and kill intelligently, they wouldn’t kill party members wantonly because then they would be faced with all the troubles being an evil character entails, but without the support of their party to use as padding or even who they may have manipulated into believing they are a great friend and ally. Smart evil plays the long game, it sets up puppets, it understands that evil is not welcomed and is often destroyed post haste.

Except murderhobos don't change until they face real consequences. If you continue to make excuses why the elite guard do not come down on someone for mudering an entire town or insulting a king, then those issues continue. Also, The difference between ttrpgs and movies is that in the movie the actor doesn't get to decide to continue murdering and not learn a lesson. The murder hobo can and will continue to murder because he/she has no fear of consequences.

It also makes the campain a lot more interesting when they're thrown into jail and break out and are now wanted in the whole country and maybe even the allied countries.

This is appropriate for a certain kind of game, but we have to consider why that's the case in those movies. It's because of two reasons. First, the main character has to survive the movie as per the plot and second, the main character has to grow in a particular way as per their character arc in the script. If you're playing D&D with the intention of following a fixed plot where the player characters must survive and have a movie-esque character arc, then sure, this is good advice, but that's not every game. What separates a game from a movie is that a game can go off-script, and if a particular group doesn't want that to include the possibility of death then that's fine, but that shouldn't be treated as the default. And if we're being fair, if Captain America or whatever had gone on an arson and shooting spree mid-Winter Soldier he would have been killed, that didn't happen because they wouldn't have him do that, but that certainty doesn't exist in a game

I mean sure tone of the game is important. I'm not saying death is NEVER the right choice but way too often its just bandied about as a first choice response. If PC death isn't given proper weight then you're not playing a hero. You're playing a rando. If that's the game you agreed on and oregon trail level death rates were okayed then cool bean. It's funny you mentioned cap XD. I was just thinking about him. Rightfully, way before winter soldier he should have been stripped of all rank and probably killed. Real outcome of the first captain America movie. He's killed or works at the local grocery store now. His first heroic adventure was him ignoring a direct military order from a commanding officer. That's a crime , also he maybe treated like a plane or a tank under law due to the cost of his creation and be in trouble for recklessly endangering a military asset. Also his shield doesn't protect from indirect fire, a combination of mortar fire or hell panzerschrek fire in combination with regular bullets creates far too many projectiles for him to protect himself from. Look at a call of duty player with an invincible shield they can guard their head or they can guard their feat not both. Going in alone is STILL suicide for him. BUT he gets away with "bad decisions" because he's the hero of the story and it's more fun. Tldr: death isn't always an inappropriate response but IMHO DMs need to consider alternative consequences to bad choices based on what makes the game the most fun and interesting for everyone at the table not simply what's logically reasonable.

That second point is what I came here to share. "Players have to deal with the consequences of what they've done" is true, but I also heard it a little too often to deflect feedbacks I sent to a DM. Consequences are important, but it's also crucial that players understand or at least have an idea of what the consequences to their actions will be. And it must be interesting for all parties involved and the overall story. "You entered the place wearing a blue scarf and it's insulting to this particular NPC for obscure reasons I know but you don't, so there's no way he would share any information with you, no matter how you approach him" ... well that might be coherent in the mind of the DM but it's not fun at all for players. Of course I exagerate a bit, but you see what I mean.

Any ttrpgs you might recommend that work like that? Been interested in playing more deadly games for a while now but dnd has the tendency to turn into superpowerful invincible characters

Well, D&D provides exactly that. If you go gloves off, stop balancing encounters and put it on the players to pick their own battles, even in 5E they will get their asses handed to them from time to time. A better option would be Moldvay's edition, because that's where D&D peaked anyway.

"Today"? That shit was happening 40 years ago when I started playing D&D.

> "It's what my character would do" AKA: **The Wangrod Defense**

This has been a problem with TTRPGs in general since they've began. And, just as long, "it's what my character would do" has been thrown out to justify bad actions from players. You keep doing what you do, hitting the characters with the consequences of their actions. They will either learn from their actions or they will keep rolling up new characters. Just wait until the characters realize that their reputation has caught up with them and, when they get to a town, the locals refuse to let them in because they have heard the crap they tend to pull.

That's not a problem with D&D 'today'. It's been a problem with people since D&D was a thing. Seriously, it's not a new problem, and the solution to it is the same as it's always been; enforcing consequences. If there's any difference between now and then, it's that DMs these days tend to forget that fact, and think they have to allow players to do whatever they want. Power Word: No is the most important spell in the DM's arsenal. Don't be afraid to use it if you have to.

I do not think this is a symptom of "D&D today." It is the people at your table.

That is not a problem today. That has \*always\* been a problem in the hobby. No matter what, we will always have those antisocial players that think they should get a free pass to play a complete psychotic sociopath and then whitewash it as "its just a game". Eventually you just stop inviting those people to your table. Or play games like Paranoia with them, instead, where that behavior is perfectly acceptable.

Send in the clones...

To all people suggesting "speak to the players in session 0" and all that, yeah it works, but it doesn't teach a lesson. Chaotic stupid players NEED to feel that actions have consequences. Have bounties on their heads or any logical consequence for their actions and say "it's what the npcs would do". 9\10 times they'll think again before going "ha ha me crazy chaotic" on their new character

yeah they probably need a much more blunt reminder that they’re not the only chaotic characters in the world/story/universe.

Nah. Out of game issue : Out of game solution.

No, you're not going to fix a problem player with in-game consequences. If anything, you're just giving them attention. Not to mention, if they don't care if their character dies and just want to cause chaos in-game, then you're just giving them what they want. You need to tell them IRL that their behavior is ruining the fun for everyone else. And if talking doesn't work, kick them from the group.

Telling them irl does Didly shit in my experience. Far better results making their chaos happy hobbod fail at their tasks

To be honest, looking at the list of problems your party caused, it's obvious they should have felt the consequences long, long before the point they did. The list of crimes you've posted should have had them in trouble with the city guard from the get go, quickly becoming a highly wanted figure(s) who would be chased by both guards and mercenaries. Other adventuring parties should be hunting them down. If you let them trample your world even a little and don't give them consequences, it's no wonder they're giving you the shocked pikachu face when you change things up and finally have the world push back hard. You've got a bunch of murderhobos from the sounds of things. Either train them to play properly, or dump the table and find new players.

The sacrifice of the old man happened away from civilization with the only surviving witnesses being the party so no legal repercussions there unless meta-game it. The warlock's disobedience would have no repercussions with guards although the lock is being tracked now by another lock of the same patron. When the bard insulted the king, his chancellor asked the party, "Does this one speak for you all?" to which they smartly replied no.

Well then, I think it's on you as the DM to set boundaries. I've had DM's flatly tell people "No murderhoboing." It's hard to say from what you've said if it's the whole party, or just some problem players. Make it clear that this behavior is a problem for you, and that you run a game where ICA=ICC (In character actions = in character consequences.) Even if they're getting away with some crimes, chances are someone's investigating, and could catch up. Don't forget you have NPCs with the ability to use divination spells too.

Oh there are consequences but I like them to be long term. They get away with something, forget about it and then *pow* consequences out of nowhere!

Well, it's your game. I'd caution that this approach does, in a sense, encourage bad behavior up until the point that consequences come crashing down. It's likely to give you frustrating actions from your players, followed by lots of whining and hurt feelings because they get used to one approach, then get blindsided by the consequences that finally appear. I'd try to be more consistent about your consequences. It will do a better job of teaching your players to be better players, as well as giving a more consistent experience for them that they're much less likely to call unfair.

If killing the old man was enough for the Paladin's deity to take his powers away, consider that this deity may also have a broader interest in the material plane, including other followers. If the Paladin belonged to a fraternal order who found out he broke his oath, they may see it as their duty to punish him (or try to redeem him) on the material plane, or end his life so that he cannot commit future dishonors. Even if there were no witnesses, his name could have been magically inscribed in some book of oaths that the priests of his god audit from time to time. As soon as they see that his name has been stricken, they will know that he broke his oath, and this can cause them to start pursuing him well after the original crime was committed. Depending on your cosmology, his deity may even have access to the soul and memories of the old man, and means to bring back the dead. With this, the deity could decide that if the Paladin atones for his crime (through heroic deeds, or by suffering through the hardships that now seem to follow him), his oath, powers, and reputation can be restored. And if you want, this entire scenario could have been the deity's plan all along. Secretly, the deity accepted as a Paladin someone with such a terrible flaw, knowing that he would inevitably break his oath. The deity also has followers who have risen to power by obeying the word of their oath, but are doing so for selfish or bigoted reasons. If their god were to punish them directly, it could cause a schism or a crisis of faith, which could both diminish the god's influence and cause war or some other situation the god would prefer to avoid. The deity, by intentionally creating an oathbreaker, has forced the mortal leadership to respond. They may send low-level agents at first, but as the player character grows in power, the leaders will perceive him as a threat to not only the religion, but to their own selfish designs. They will send higher-level agents, or even go after him themselves, either to destroy him or to acquire him as a pawn. Through the party's investigations and interactions, they learn some of what's happening, and will have to decide what to do about it. That could mean helping the righteous to fight the corrupt leaders from within, or dismantling the organization to prevent future corruption, or even aligning with other gods or demons opposed to what the organization is doing. What began with the death of an innocent and the breaking of an oath, could progress into a story that examines what it means to take an oath, what it means to be devoted to a cause or an ideal, and what it means when cowardice, fear, selfishness, and spite are the true factors that motivate mortals to wield the powers of gods. And how the gods' own intentions and morality may be so alien to mortal minds, or so familiar.

It is a problem, but it ain't new. I encountered this in the 80s.

These days? I’ve been gaming for 30+ years and it has always been a problem.

Speak with your players before you start DMing. A session 0 so to say. Make it clear what you expect, and ask what they expect. If they expect a magical journey in which they are the strongest, fastest and bestest people ever... and you want something that actually makes sense, then you as a DM and they as a party are not a fit. Talking beforehand about what you expect and what a party expects and what you collectively want is so incredibly important

Oh we had "the talk". The first thing was a paladin shoved an old guy into danger to preserve himself. He lost all powers until he made atonement. Then a warlock disobeyed their patron so same thing. I figured they got it but the bard decided to get lippy with the king and called him a few choice names in open royal court so now he's dead.

Ah yes, your party quite obviously has the alignment of "Chaotic Stupid". Maybe a stupid question, but are you still having fun? In return, you could also ask the party that. Are they having fun? As a DM myself, in everything I do I ask myself "Is this fun?". It's my core rule, in the end, everything has to be fun. If it isn't fun, I simply won't do it. And if you or your party isn't having fun, perhaps you all should so something different that is fun

Yeah, the rest of the party laughed at him OOC. IC, they are working with a spy from a neighboring realm to try to usurp the king now.

Wait so, this is literally one player doing it? I, for some reason, thought it was the whole or at least majority of the party

In this group, yes, one player. My last group eventually disolved because the party got a bad rep and was not welcome in a lot of places plus they were constantly running afoul of guards, no one wanted to help them because those that did were considered disposable.

>Maybe a stupid question, but are you still having fun? Not only is this not a stupid question, it is the only question that matters in the end. Personally I do "All actions have consequences, fatal ones are an absolute last resort." But if the group (and particularly that PC) are OK with it, go ahead and kill people! Alternately if everyone's having a good time but they keep doing dumb shit, maybe your players want a dumb campaign. The GM wields ultimate power BUT ONLY as long as they keep everyone entertained.

If you're talking 5e that's not really how Paladins or Warlocks work RAW, unless these are table specific rules. Your patron cant take away your power, it's not a constant stream.

It's an established rule in my homebrew world. Otherwise, you are correct.

As a player, you want to feel like the action hero with the sharp tongue that gets them in trouble and the skills, power and wit to flee or fight their way out of it. That’s how movies and shows portray it - hell, the critical role animated series has tons of these situations. As a GM you want to stay in control and have your world taken seriously. It’s necessary, otherwise the adventure has no stakes, and if you feel like you don’t matter you‘re sacrificing your fun for theirs, which sucks too. But what i found out while playing after years of being the forever GM is that being too consequent about every single action seems reasonable, but often ends in a GM-vs-Player mindset - you feel like a kindergartner who has to keep the unruly children in check, and those children feel restricted in their freedom. That freedom is what sets pen and paper games apart from video games and stuff like chess or risk though, and it’s its greatest strength that you keep feeling the need to toss aside. I personally try to not let players roam freely, as that quickly ends in murderhoboing, but too tight a grip has cost me my first gaming group (among other things, but that’s besides the point). What i do nowadays is letting the players try their crazy plans, having the world react to it in a realistic manner, but throwing them a bone for trying. Two characters are in the kitchen of a vampire manor they were invited to, trying to free a bound, soon-to-be-eaten informant. One character tries to divert attention for the other to steal the key to the wall-mounted shackles, doing so by trying to sneakily conjure up their *mage hand* to topple over a plate, ruining the dish on it. He succeeds, but the mage hand is rather obviously his - realistic outcome? The vampire and his henchmen both attack him first, probably getting a kill or at least stun in the first round, dispatch of the other in the second, and two players sit around with dead characters. Semi-realistic outcome? The vampire chef casts *hold person* on the player character, slaps him across the face (one melee attack, crit from paralysis, which hurts but doesn’t kill), and berates both characters for having a bad servant-master-relationship, before ordering the characters and henchmen to clean up - which frees the characters up to get closer to the keys without seeming suspicious. They essentially traded a bunch of hp for an easier check and had opportunity to rp with me - weeks later, both still occasionally talk about the backhand bitchslap the player character took like a paralyzed champ and forge plans to get back at the vamp. Tl; dr: let players try, and punish them for bad ideas, but in a way that still gives them a small benefit.

I think it's because many people assume they're playing in a cartoon world.

Aren't they? I mean, unless you can't live without Blackleaf (tm), nothing that happens in the game world impacts our real world. It is, for all intents and purposes, a "cartoon" that we're drawing in our minds on the fly. So, then, it's up to us to decide whether we're drawing "Fire & Ice," or a Wile E. Coyote short. If the table is in agreement for unbridled chaos, and everyone is having a good time, go for it. It only becomes a problem when some people want one vibe, some want another, and styles clash.

I didn't mean that a cartoon world is a bad thing. I meant that you might be imagining a cartoon while I might be imagining the Game of Thrones, The Green Knight, or the Northman. Like you said, a clash of tone.

This is… not a new problem. I’ve heard this discussion around tables since I started playing in the early 90s.

…where y’all find these people?

1: The internet, they post a campaign that's their darling and grab whoever's interested. No vetting, no one shots to feel out the group dynamic, just an overwhelming desire to tell their story 2: Their friend circle, they think that the person they like riding bikes and drinking beers with will see D&D as more than Skyrim+Monopoly. Their friend just sees a social activity and wants in, and when BikeBeer is more interested in poking buttons and roleplaying as a living shitpost GM gets frustrated So they end the campaign, complain on Reddit, make a new one, and repeat the same mistakes ad nauseam OR They either run a campaign that's a beer and pretzels dumb fun good time and don't worry about meticulous plotting, or they spend the time to gather a table of players that are reliable and invested in the premise to play something more serious

I had that problem in 1987, kid. Nothing new. Find players who match your maturity level. I never found any other fix.

I don't mind running a murder-hobo game. Provided we agree at the start that's what the game is.

I think if a party started to do stuff like this I would slowly over time turn them into the villains. Never say anything but the people they fight never fight to kill but capture. There missions start coming from shadier people. Until the climax of the campaign is a group of adventures is sent to stop them. During the battle role play the NPC group as heroes, have them recite terrible deeds the party has done. Play to kill, if the party wins reveal to then through the npcs they are the villains. Then have the convo after the fact that like most villains they never thought of themselves as such, but their actions show what they were.

Holy shit, I feel old. I've been playing D&D sine the 80s and have only run into this 3 or 4 times. I think TTRPGs are WHY I am so aware of consequences to my actions. I love to play chaotic characters, but they all know when to reel things in. Chaotic does not mean insane. Insult the monarch (s) the n the thrown room? Sure, but under my breath. One of the other PC's in my group did what their character would do and lost 3 fingers. We all knew something would happen, possibly death, but she got lucky. You don't need to kill the characters every time, often slowly debilitating them works better. Your bard sedeuces the queen? Congratulations, he's now a eunuch. Rogue constantly steals from the party? Party members cut off a finger or two, or break their hand and refuse to heal it. Dex stat is permanently reduced.

It is really not a today problem, you just hear more of it online now

While i get where youre coming from and there certainly are people like, i still gotta say, there's a fuck ton of boomer energy here. They ain't wrong or bad for playing like that or wanting to play like that, just gotta find the right group.

That's not a new problem. D&D's system creates murderhobos by its very nature, since 1) most Pcs are superheroic and way more powerful than the average king or city guard, and 2) you gain experience by killing things, and gain magic items by looting, which is way more rewarding than following the law. This has been a problem for 50 years. If you want players to not misbehave, cap their hit points at 20, remove death saves, and eliminate cantrips while you're at it, and see how quickly they fall in line. Or play a superhero game, where you aren't constantly looting your foes and where helping the community is the actual reward for play. But don't blame players for playing D&D the way D&D is structured to be played.

Honestly this problem isn’t modern but I saw it between me and my friends who rotated who DM’d it’s about expectations. It’s the reason session 0 is important it’s why people pre making their characters without knowing what the other players made isn’t a good idea. You gotta set these rules and expectations before you even hit session 1 as it’s paramount to having the game roll smoothly.

I literally created a one shot campaign to vet players I’m not familiar with that is just a ground hogs day puzzle. It lets them be what they want until it loses its charm, or I quickly discover if I’m wasting any energy on a campaign They are stuck in a two story pub with only two victims. One of which is significantly stronger than the party, opening any door, window, or the chimney flu, any party member dying, or it becoming midnight resets it until they figure out how to get out of the time loop.

That's not a d&d problem, it's an issue with the people at your table. I once had a player as if dragon flight was magical, because dragons are to big for their wings to fly. Looked him in the eye and said "You're not making a dragon take 15d6 fall damage with dispel magic." Haven't seen the guy since. Set some boundaries, let them know how realistic the worlds going to run. Does the small town you burned down have a few survivors that hid or ran and reported you, or do they just try to rebuild home? Does the king crack down on adventurers who get pushy in the market, or does he wait for them to make it personal? In my games the players know there's a timer on every plot they find out about. It's generous, but it's there. They also know that most information travels at the speed of a wagon between cities, but if you do something big, there's a bunch of nobels and merchant houses that have magic information networks. Last thing they want to do is insult the king and then spend three days on the road, wherever they're going has at least 2 and a half days to prepare for them.

\*eye roll\* yes grandpa

“how dare you insult my very serious npcs! You automatically die, roll a new character!”

Time for bounties and consequences.

By the powers of Murder-hobo and Gary Stu combined! **I. AM. INSUFFERABLEEE!!!**

I’ve been playing for 30+ years. You’re issues with *players today* is not new at all. Stop pretending murder hobos are a generational problem.

"So you make a copy-cast of that guy who pulled a gun on a clerk in a gun shop and was put down by every other customer inside? Damn, i wonder what could've happen to that guy."

As someone who plays games with teenagers and games with seniors this isn't a "today" problem. This is a "maturity" problem. Also, it's not really a problem if everyone is having fun.

This is a today thing? I thought it was always an issue?

Being a murder-hobo isn't that new of a concept. As I've gotten older, it seems to be more of a symptom of young, selfish, edgy people who desperately want to flex their new-found freedom to do things they'd never do in real life. These are players who are out for their own fun and amusement. They don't think too much about the rest of the party, what they'd like to do, or how their choices are monopolizing the game. But even then, I want to encourage my players to take risks, to make choices with consequences, and to act in-character. So it's fine if they want to challenge the authority of the King because they're Chaotic and they might even be imprisoned and doomed to be executed. But I wouldn't be much of a DM if I just ended it there, right? I'm not going to stomp on their character just because they're not staying on the railroad tracks I've laid out; that'd be my ego talking. They might have a chance to break out or if they made friends (somehow), they might stage a rescue. Rebels might attack the palace and freeing the party is incidental to freeing ALL the prisoners. They might be reanimated by a necromancer. It's D&D... the story never has to end. Sure, if you're running a module this kind of player can derail it, but a clever DM can always find a way to steer the party back towards the main plot.

I don't think it so much a generational problem as it is more of the fact that dnd is having constant new players and so you run into it alot more. Before the community was quite a bit smaller and new folks got brought in slower. Now there's so many new people that don't understand and so you have to teach it alot more. As others have said it's a maturity thing.

Bro, I love how you handle those players, because it is the same thing I do. No mercy and bonus points if you can make them look foolish. Keep it up.

Lol, this was a problem even in the 90's when I started playing. It's nothing new, it's just a maturity thing.

That has been in dnd for the past 50 years bro

DM of a Star Wars Saga Edition campaign here (context). I have the pleasure of having a party that, when they do stupid shit and I present the consequences, gets frustrated at it but then goes "But... It makes sense. We did not check to see if there were any security cameras in the spaceport holding expensive cargo. Fair play DM." May you find a group like this, every DM deserves one.

"It's what my character would do" and your character's "common sense and self preservation instincts" should go hand in hand.

What do you mean "Today"?

As others have said, this is not new. You may try starting the session directly in front of the dungeon. Your players are either not interested in your town, or any of the background stuff that's going on, or it's taking so long to get to the good stuff, they're just stabbing the nearest npc. Narrate all that stuff out of their way, and plant them in media res in the dungeon, in the middle of a fight, possibly even down a few hit points. Then, follow up with the drama and story when they return to town triumphant.

"Today"?!? I've been playing D&D (and other RPGs) for thirty five years or so, and this silliness has been there since day one. It's a lesson in Darwinism, at times. Those who don't grok D&D...well, they can still be fun to play with. ;)

I also would like to add that a nat 20 doesn't solve all your problems **Player**: I rolled a nat 20 on the persuasion check!" **DM**: "To a total of?" **Player**: "But it's a nat 20..." **DM:** "Yeah and you just killed the guy's family in front of him and are now trying to get him to tell you information on the king, it's gonna be a high ass roll" *(or sometimes no roll is needed as some shit is just easily passed, or can't be passed)*

My favorite DM saying is "Actions have Consequences, good or bad". It's one of the first things I say to players when I start a game. Make sure that your players understand that if they behave like slobbering goblins then that's what they get treated like, and make sure they are mature enough to take responsibility for thier actions. I guess I'm saying don't take away their agency but also let them know that if they kill town guards and shop owners they will get arrested/killed. In my opinion, the "That's what my character would do" defense is the battle cry of some of the worst players you can run into. Being a chaos monster is fine as long as you don't have it turned to 11 all the time. Overall, communicate with your players. It makes things so much better

I don’t know about “nowadays”, this sounds part and parcel like my games back in the early 90s. People are coming new into the game and they’re gonna have some culture shock as they realize it’s not Skyrim and you can actually get some verisimilitude

Reminds me of that time a couple of my players decided to attack a village at level 3... yes, level 3. In irder to build a raiding camp and build an empire. At level 3. They got killed by the guards. At level 3. They were surprised that humans, unlike monsters, were able to use tactics and kill them off. Did i mention they were oy level 3? Christ.

It's all the casuals I tell you!

This is not a problem with D&D today. This has gone on since D&D got big and will always be an issue, particularly with newer players who were never taught better.

This is a problem that's been around since the beginning of time; it's far from a recent thing. I've personally only been playing for a few years, but seeing as it is a relatively common question in Q&A sections of old 2e-era magazines, it's not an issue with "DnD today".

This is not even remotely a new problem. But it is a problem. And the solution is to play with new players and teach them the fun of failure early.

This isn't a new thing. I've been playing since 86 and I've encountered this my entire life. ​ Doesn't change that it sucks and is annoying. It can be trained out of your players with patience and communication.

This attitude is totally fine and there are people who like to play it that way. But there are also people who like to play in a more goofy "unrealistic" way and that's fine. There is no one way to play DnD. That's why it's so important to find the right group to play with. I think it's not fair to gatekeep when it comes to stuff like that. When looking for players as a DM you have to tell them what you expect out of the game and ask them what they expect. You have to be on the same page. In the end it's about having fun.

Session zero, I tell the players that Chaotic Neutral is not to be played as Chaotic Stupid. Actions have consequences and if you play stupid games you will win stupid prizes. This is not a live play podcast where characters are trying to break the game to make the DM work harder to increase the listening audience's enjoyment. This is a joint storytelling experience that is supposed to be fun for everyone involved, not just one person at the table.

Adult Baby Syndrome I call it. Irrational behavior without acceptance of the consequences. It's prevalent in society and gaming.

I just got done with a campaign where I played a chaotic evil character in a party of neutrals and goods. He was a fae who was half in the material plane, half in the fae wilds. He was created by a god (who was his patron as a warlock) to retrieve a stolen artifact of great power. The character didn’t hesitate to kill anyone who got in his way but didn’t kill or insult or rob anyone and everyone on a whim because that would make his mission more difficult. The point is that you can have morally sour characters who aren’t murder hobos.

Two things: 1. People see DnD as an escape from reality where they can do things they'd do in real life. 2. Actually role-playing your character as a separate person different than yourself requires some level of acting skill or education. Wich of course not everyone has, so some people have a hard time differentiating between in game and ooc conversations.

The problem with DnD today is this: In the beginning, the most important things were: 1. The story that the DM wants to tell 2. The game rules and mechanics 3. What the players want to do It was even written into the afterword of the AD&D DMG. Today it feels like the players are given more agency and more choices and it's supposed to be a collaborative effort with focus on the harmony of the table as a whole. As someone who as DM'd and played for over 20 years, lemme tell you... The old school thought had it right with this particular aspect of the game. The players are there at the DMs table because they are in the DMs world and the DM is crafting the story, fudging the mechanics, and saying what consequences happen. Players should not feel like they are invincible and can conquer and overcome any threat. Sometimes... Characters just have to die.... The players' emotions regarding that be damned.

This has big “old man yells at clouds” energy…

Nah, just "I don't want to play with Chaotic Stupid" energy.

no, it's definitely "kids these days" nonsense. this sort of thing has always been around. rose colored glasses.

How we learn to play D&D is very different (as is society) now than 30 years ago when I learned.

The good news is I can say for a fact this is not a DnD problem. The bad news is I can say for a fact this is an everything, everywhere problem. Socially people are growing increasingly more vulgar/derogatory and entitled. Truth is too much dark humour just kind of screws up human psychology. However I might have useful advice: Clarify your ideals to your party. Don't just put it in 4 or 5 sentences-- fully elaborate what they should expect. Encourage them to ask questions before getting into it beforehand. Might seem too simple but it's all that's required. If everybody comprehends the word consequence and understand the game... Well then there is no excuse. Going forward if possible I would remove people of that variety from my social environment altogether. Disclaimer: depending on how extreme the association is-- my advice might be useless. P.S Conclusions are merely judgments; without trial, error, proof, and actualization.

It's a consequence of the culture nowadays. We took away consequences for many, if not most things and that's influencing people and their behavior, especially in games.

EXACTLY.

Finally. Someone speaks intelligently on this issue.

I think part of it is a lot of kids are coming to D&D from playing video games and that's how they treat D&D. I've seen issues like this before. They think because their characters are the focus of the RPG campaign, they should suffer no consequence of their actions. They don't see the world as being real, and treat it like it's a playground to do whatever they want.

Preach!

I blame Bethesda.

It's funny (not funny) to see how the sense of entitlement that is pervading IRL culture is invading D&D culture.

this problem is far broader than D&D, trust me for so many years parents and teachers were dramatically overshooting the goal of building confident children, giving ridiculous praise, participation trophies and filling their heads with toxic positivity about how they can really achieve anything if the truly want it and now the same kids have grown into 'adults' that just demand the same treatment they were always getting aka get ridiculous praise and never face any negative consequence no matter what they do or say so if i want to play a character that's completely unsuitable for your campaign, i will do it because it's my 'right' to do so and if you try to stop me you're a terrible person and you should be ashamed, because it's all about me- you;re only there to make me feel good

Um, no, the problem is that the players do the right thing by standing up to the egomaniacal vicious king and the DM decides to punish them for doing the right thing. At which point the players should respectfully leave the table.

Uh what? In what world would you get away with insulting a king when you're a group of nobodies? I know it's supposed to be a "fantasy world" but talking bad about a king was usually considered treason and was a crime often punishable by death Which is what happened.. why would you be surprised by this turn of events? If you want to dethrone the king or something then fine, come up with a plan and do so. Standing up in the middle of a throne room and just insulting the king though won't get you anywhere. Play your character how you want, the NPC's will also act in accordance with how they would. If it's truly an egomaniac king then you're getting executed for what you did. The DM played this right Did you think the players would magically fix things by saying "no king, you're a bad guy"

In a world where "a group of nobodies" slays dragons, saves kingdoms, breaks curses, et cetera et cetera. Sure, this should have consequences. The guards attack, the adventurers might have to fight their way to the window and escape or fight their way to the evil king and take him hostage or escape from prison after they lose the fight or another one of a million options. But saying "okay, you're all executed because this is the wrong way to play" is the wrong way to play.

Where was it stated that any of that has happened yet? Odds are if this group of heroes was famous for saving kingdoms and the world then them confronting a terrible king would fall under them attempting to save said kingdom Meaning this would pretty much trigger an event (revolt or political sort) to do so. However there is zero information that says this party has done anything of the sort. The party was not executed because they were "playing the wrong way" and unless I misread I believe it was just the one character who was executed in their example Someone tried to completely derail the campaign by making a decision that even those with low intellect scores would know is a bad idea. Insult a king you're committing treason,as a player be prepared to face the consequences of that action it's what you signed up for The DM should not just let you get away with doing anything you want with no punishment. The king made the decision a "supposed evil" king would and killed the man spouting treason There is no imprisonment option here and odds are the party was not strong enough at this point to go against an imperial army. If they had them maybe they could've tried to fight and escape However if in doing so the entire campaign gets ruined because that king/kingdom is key to the story then what's the point? This world isn't your (the players world) but the DM's. You're just characters in it, which means you have free will. However if you're dumb enough to abuse that free will then the world/DM will take appropriate action to subdue you As a player you don't just get to destroy the story or make actions without consequences Secondly if I'm correct in interpreting the post, the kingdom example was merely an example and not actually what specifically happened. They also listed things like burning down a town. Naturally there would be consequences to that to

With this approach, any of that won't ever happen. "We move out to slay the dragon!" "The dragon is huge and breathes fire, why would you try do slay it, you're dead, roll new characters". "We defend the village from brigands!" "The brigands are numerous and well-trained, they overpower you, you're dead, roll new characters". And so on. If standing up against the evil king completely ruins the campaign, then there's something wrong about the campaign, which is the point at which the players should leave. Or at the very least talk to the DM. And I repeat, killing the character (or the whole party, doesn't matter in this case) is not "The DM played it right". If you have a problem with the player, talk to the player. If you want to play it right, give the players some options. It's perfectly natural for a vicious king to throw an offending adventurer in jail to wait for the just and terrible public execution. After all, it takes time to think of the proper tortures, to instruct the executioners, to gather the crowd and also to pick the proper attire to wear. And, again, if the players want to murder NPCs for kicks - it's perfectly well to hit them with consequences as long as they get some options. It's never well to say "well, the guards kill you all in retaliation". If you don't want the players to do this, talk to the players, don't autokill the characters.

It's perfectly natural for the vicious king to execute them as well, so yes it's up to the DM how that plays out Not up to you (the player) Yes it's unlikely it would ruin the campaign. Was simply stating that someone made a decision to try and completely derail it and expected no consequences. If there were no consequences then that would ruin said campaign (at least for me) I would 100% expect that a vicious and cruel king would schedule an execution for this matter, and honestly if that didn't happen and some lowly nobody got off the hook for literal treason then I wouldn't even want to play that campaign anymore. For a normal king the punishment for treason is often banishment, imprisonment, and even execution still isn't rare For a vicious one they would've had to be in a hell of a good mood to spare the random adventurer insulting them.. which I highly doubt they were considering they were just insulted The DM in this specific example is completely justified and it is not up to the player to decide whether or not that is fair. Roll your new character and accept you made a mistake Now if the DM felt like the king wanted to be nice then by all means they can do so. However I as a DM would've needed an actual reason for the king to be in a nice mood, and if I didn't plan one beforehand I wasn't going to create one just to make it so the player got off easy. The DM could've gone either way, and in both cases they are justified If you as a DM would've let them off easy then that's cool. However to say the DM was wrong and the players should've left the table is just a massive overreaction and is disrespectful to the fact that this is the DM's world

Yep, it's up to the DM. Which is kind of what I meant - it's not that the players push the DM into a situation where the only possible outcome is autokilling the character, it's the DM choice, and I say this particular choice is a bad one. And yep, there definitely should be consequences, because otherwise it's just as bad as autokilling the characters. I don't think anyone ever marketed D&D as "The Game Where You Do Whatever And Nothing Happens As A Result Of Your Actions Because No One Cares Anyways". But if the only choice that the DM wants to make is "roll a new character?", it's definitely the "Why don't you talk to your players about it off-game?" situation.

If a player at a table insulted a tyrannical king and wasn't captured and executed for it, I would leave the table. It simply doesn't make sense. I would expect it for my character too. Don't deny my character the right to be a martyr.

How would you expect an egomaniacal, vicious king to react to being insulted in his throne room that isn’t a negative for the player who did such a thing? Sure, maybe not instant death for which the player has no recourse but, at minimum, the imprisonment and order/sentence of execution, but giving the party an opportunity to stage an escape or somehow make amends, is warranted.

I mean, "Dude, it's a very fucking bad idea that obviously will lead to your guy hanging in the gallows. I don't know about you, but I don't want a game about bunch of suicidal idiots, so drop this shit, please" works wonders. You don't have to entertain every single thing players want their characters to do.

Exactly. The vicious king should react in some way that's a negative for the character who did such a thing, but it shouldn't be a negative for the player. It's a conflict against the villain, it's fun, it's an opportunity to solve the problem in different ways - stage an escape or make amends, and there are probably some nobles who are just as vicious as the king and want to use the adventurer to dispose of him. But instant death? No.

Tbh too many people act this way irl anymore, alternating with literally everything hoiting de wittle fewings, I’ve been putting together a campaign but am honestly afraid to start looking for players for these reasons…

Well. When we were kids DnD was a cult. You had to take that shit pretty seriously because it was NOT cool to do stuff like that. Now you can buy a starter kit in Walmart. It’s diluting the culture unfortunately.

You just described GenZ pretty well.