How to "punish" players that are better at roleplay than you?

[The_Iron_Lord]

Do not forget: if you get a 20 in a spot check no matter what you find you are probably still not seeing the fact that all atoms are epic level assassins hired to kill you.
Yes you are made of assassins hired to kill you.
Yes you are doomed no matter how high is your spot check.

Actually, considering that there is no Spot DC increase for tinyness beyond Fine size, it's totally possible to see atoms with the naked eye.

Seriously though, in D&D 3.5, the game is structured (in good part due to the ELH) so that nothing is truly impossible save for negating a tautology.

[icefractal]

Ex: The sorcerer was very stubborn about not taking his shift when it came to stand watch at night. The first few nights went fine, but then they woke up to find their horses and stuff stolen.

The title of this thread raised an eyebrow, and this raises another. You're a GM, not a kindergarten teacher - it's not your job to be "teaching the player a lesson". The PC seems too sure of himself? That isn't actually a problem, and you don't need to (and shouldn't) be looking for ways to "humble" them.

Now that isn't to say consequences shouldn't exist. If those bandits were already existing in the area and would have tried to steal the horses anyway, then well and good. But if they only existed because the Sorcerer wasn't taking watch, then foul ball, don't do it again.

Also, keep in mind that consequences won't necessarily change how the character acts. PCs can have disadvantageous personality traits, after all.

[Tanarii]

Also, keep in mind that consequences won't necessarily change how the character acts.

Although usually character death is a great teacher.

Sometimes you do have to point out where a player made a mistake that resulted in consequences, but smart players usually see it themselves.

Of course, some players will whine about death, or other outcomes, even when it's a direct consequence of their actions. But that holds true for people across IRL too, no reason TRPG gamers should be any different.

[icefractal]

Although usually character death is a great teacher.

Again with the "teaching" :P

If I'm playing in a way that's suboptimal from a tactical POV, it doesn't necessarily mean I don't /know/ the ideal muderhobo formula, it just means I'm choosing not to follow it.

With all the character personalities possible, why always go with the same set? If I just wanted to "win" ... well I'd probably skip adventuring and build the Tippyverse instead.
Or to stick within the dungeon paradigm, pull out some cheese and smash everything. But to what end?

I know some people are really into the "perfect your player-skill at ideal tactics" style, and that's fine, but it's not everyone's cup of tea.

[Tanarii]

If a player can't (or refuses to) learn in order to stay alive better, then that's on them.

And if you carefully note, I said "death" was the teacher. Not the DM. Which was my entire point. A DM shouldn't need to be a teacher. The game is already a teacher.

[KorvinStarmast]

For the OP;
there is no point in rolling unless failure is interesting, and failure has consequences.

[Mordaedil]

I can't tell if you're serious.

If you can't tell, then you've already lost. How unlucky!

[FabulousFizban]

if you are trying to punish your players you should not be DMing

[Calthropstu]

if you are trying to punish your players you should not be DMing

Not true. If your players do something stupid in game, you punish them with consequences.

And puns. I always PUNish my players. Their groans make my day.

[Tanarii]

If your players do something stupid in game, you punish them with consequences.

But only stupid people consider consequences for doing something stupid a punishment. For everyone else that's not a punishment, it's just consequences.

[Segev]

But only stupid people consider consequences for doing something stupid a punishment. For everyone else that's not a punishment, it's just consequences.

No, it's still punishment. You can be quite smart and feel something a punishment, based on it being something you want to change your actions in the future to avoid.

[Tanarii]

No, it's still punishment. You can be quite smart and feel something a punishment, based on it being something you want to change your actions in the future to avoid.

No, that's still just consequences.

A punishment means someone or something is trying to actively making you suffer for your actions, usually because something something justice. The universe isn't out to get stupid actions and make the perpetrator suffer appropriately.

Admittedly in FRPGs there's always the possibility that a Diety is out there punishing stupid actions. So I may be wrong in that particular case.

[jqavins]

This looks like it's headed in the direction of another thread I was involved in that ended up locked. "Punishment" to some means anything bad that happens after a person does something and that may tend to cause that person to change his/her ways. For others the word is understood to mean only such a thing that is imposed by a conscious entity for the express purpose either of forcing the behavior to change or as retribution, or perhaps both. I won't say which way I lean, and I hope I haven't tipped it (thought I probably have). One could say that the difference is summed up in this question: does the universe punish?

For some reason this disagreement is a major hot button for people on both sides (including me in that earlier case.) Add to that the fact that, in a TTRPG, there is a conscious entity called a GM deciding on consequences; maybe the GM intends only "natural" consequences, maybe retribution, and maybe the GM's motives are not as fully conscious as he or she might think.

That argument became so heated that it completely derailed what was otherwise an interesting discussion, and degenerated into such a fight that the an admin (rightly, I guess) shut the thread down.

When people start calling each other stupid, even if no sentence is ever cast in the second person, we've moved well down that road. Let's not go there again.

[Tanarii]

One could say that the difference is summed up in this question: does the universe punish?

Yeah. I don't think it does, and I find it bizarre and disturbing (or some other word expressing my instinctive hot button reaction) when others apparent do.

But that's the crux in this case, I was only looking at "punishment" meaning externally imposed and willfully so. Not as: that's the price you get to pay after the fact. Which is apparently what Segev means? That doesn't match the context of the OP nor the comment I responded to, but would explain what he meant.

When people start calling each other stupid, even if no sentence is ever cast in the second person, we've moved well down that road. Let's not go there again.

Yup. I wasn't even thinking, I just tossed it off, because I was all like, well duh. That's ... not the best way to respond. Or think for that matter.

Not the least of which because it meant I totally missed what Segev appears to have meant, as I mentioned above.

So, my bad.

[Segev]

I was only looking at "punishment" meaning externally imposed and willfully so. Not as: that's the price you get to pay after the fact. Which is apparently what Segev means?

Almost. Not all consequences are punishments. The determination of whether it's a punishment is whether or not the one "enjoying" the consequences views them as desirable or undesirable. Negative consequences are punitive, even if nobody else is around. Touching the hot stove has a burned hand as a punishment. It's a punishment because it's something you'd rather avoid, and will tend to alter your behavior to get less of in the future.

Eating your fill leads to cessation of hunger. This is a reward, because not being hungry is enjoyable (not to mention eating food can be its own pleasure), and will tend to encourage you to eat again next time you're hungry.

In both cases - burned hand and cessation of hunger - there are consequences unwilled by any external being. But the first is a punishment, and the second is a reward.


If the school cafeteria has rules about eating everything on your plate, and the principal has a reward of giving a piece of chocolate cake to any student who leaves their locker neatly organized, then if Sally dislikes chocolate cake, she is actively discouraged by the consequences of leaving her locker neatly organized. She thus will view the cake as a punishment for organizing her locker, and will strive to leave it disorganized enough to avoid the punishment. If disrespectful behavior in class is punished by denial of outdoor recess, and Billy prefers to sit at his desk and draw and hates going outside during recess, Billy will view the behavior of mouthing off to his teacher as being rewarded. Not punished.


We can have situations where we need to appear to punish, but really want to reward, and choose punishments carefully for that. Admiral Kirk was demoted for his theft of the refitted Enterprise. Demoted to Captain, and put in charge of the Enterprise-A, because his theft led to the salvation of Earth from an alien probe. Demotion is a "punishment," except that Kirk hated being an Admiral and loved being a Captain. So for him, it was a reward.

And would have been a reward even if the Admiralty had thought, honestly, that they were punishing him.

[Tanarii]

Yeah,I'm find that a rather disturbing view of what "punishment" means. Defining it based on how the person facing consequences for their own actions feels about it, is how we end up with people claiming they are being punished because they are being denied something they believe they are entitled to. Despite it being a natural consequence of their own actions.

[Segev]

Yeah,I'm find that a rather disturbing view of what "punishment" means. Defining it based on how the person facing consequences for their own actions feels about it, is how we end up with people claiming they are being punished because they are being denied something they believe they are entitled to. Despite it being a natural consequence of their own actions.

I can see the validity of that concern. Due to how I define "punishment," I would generally say, "then change your behavior." Because I define it to be independent of the agent enacting it, nobody is necessarily punishing them. Nobody is necessarily doing anything to them. Thus, "I'm being punished because I'm not getting something to which I feel entitled," ceases to have the "so somebody needs to stop punishing me, and give me what I want" logical extension. By removing the notion that punishment is done by an intelligent agent to a target, people who feel punished have no automatic rational expectation that they can alleviate the punishment by getting somebody else to "stop."

Of course, unfair, agent-driven punishment can be met with a cease order. But it doesn't automatically extend to all punishments, no matter how "fair" or not they happen to be.

[Skelechicken]

The title of this thread raised an eyebrow, and this raises another. You're a GM, not a kindergarten teacher - it's not your job to be "teaching the player a lesson". The PC seems too sure of himself? That isn't actually a problem, and you don't need to (and shouldn't) be looking for ways to "humble" them.

Now that isn't to say consequences shouldn't exist. If those bandits were already existing in the area and would have tried to steal the horses anyway, then well and good. But if they only existed because the Sorcerer wasn't taking watch, then foul ball, don't do it again.

Also, keep in mind that consequences won't necessarily change how the character acts. PCs can have disadvantageous personality traits, after all.

This is a very valid point. Make sure you aren't singling someone out for playing their character.

The first character I ever played was in 5e, and not being a confident role player I decided to roll random Flaw/Bond/Ideal for my character from the book. I ended up with a character whose flaw was "thinks he's the smartest one in the room at all times. Surprised when he is outsmarted."

As the game went on I decided he was going to take a Nale-like approach to planning. Most times the plans I tried steering the party towards were needlessly complex, but my character was convinced this was a hallmark of his intelligence. Usually my party rejected these preposterous plans, but sometimes I was able to convince them of things like how a 3 person stack with a trench-coat and mustache was the only way to sneak into an ogre camp.

I would have gladly accepted if in the course of executing one of these plans my character died. I would be fine with an interaction that is clearly designed to put my character's general strategy at a disadvantage. I would have had a much harder time accepting it if one day my DM decided my occasionally building preposterous solutions that my party inexplicably still sometimes went with meant I was a problem player that needed to be punished, and started directing special encounters or NPCs at me specifically designed to target my character.

Let the lies have natural consequences. Don't divert resources or change planned interactions specifically to make the character who likes to lie suffer. Definitely don't retroactively put NPCs in a place where they weren't to accomplish any of these goals. Bad behavior tends to have natural negative consequences. Think about what those might be, and you will find there's plenty to do without breaking reality to target one person.

[jqavins]

Let the lies have natural consequences. Don't divert resources or change planned interactions specifically to make the character who likes to lie suffer. Definitely don't retroactively put NPCs in a place where they weren't to accomplish any of these goals. Bad behavior tends to have natural negative consequences. Think about what those might be, and you will find there's plenty to do without breaking reality to target one person.

Oooh, back on subject; I love it!

This is very good, bang on target advice. But, there's one issue here. As DMs we often ignore these natural consequences of things the party members do rarely. We forget about it or let it go, even though the real universe doesn't, and the in-game universe really shouldn't, but we all accept that it does. The unspoken agreement is that players usually don't do this stuff enough for our letting it go to make much difference.

Now along comes a player who's character lies a lot. Now just letting it go the way we so often do becomes a problem. So now, because of this one character, we change our behavior to enforce natural consequences that we've always ignored before. It's a very thin line between that and going out of the way to punish said player.

[Skelechicken]

Oooh, back on subject; I love it!

This is very good, bang on target advice. But, there's one issue here. As DMs we often ignore these natural consequences of things the party members do rarely. We forget about it or let it go, even though the real universe doesn't, and the in-game universe really shouldn't, but we all accept that it does. The unspoken agreement is that players usually don't do this stuff enough for our letting it go to make much difference.

Now along comes a player who's character lies a lot. Now just letting it go the way we so often do becomes a problem. So now, because of this one character, we change our behavior to enforce natural consequences that we've always ignored before. It's a very thin line between that and going out of the way to punish said player.

I tend to agree. Adventurers get away with a lot, both because the DM is simply unable to map every potential consequence in the world the way they would occur naturally, and because trying to do so would almost certainly remove a lot of the players' willingness to engage in creative and bold problem solving (I have never considered bluffing my way past anyone in the real world, for fear of the myriad consequences that may arise). This does create a sort of fine line between following natural consequences and targeting a player.

That said, the more a character lies and takes half measures, the more lies they will need to keep track of. I would suggest that letting things go should be your default, but if a character has told 10 NPCs 10 different things, they had better be able to act the part properly or they will be caught for a liar. And when they are caught people talk. These are easy enough consequences to map, and natural responses to lying. If a character lies their way out of every encounter, leaving behind NPCs who are potentially hostile and who have talked to and learned about the character, I don't think it is singling them out to have that information come back down the line. It is literally the world they are building interacting with them.

No one should have to be unduly punished for playing their character. Some people are more attracted to the ability to bluff their way into ridiculous situations in D&D than they are combat. These people shouldn't be targets. HOWEVER, as with combat the fun in D&D comes from risk. If my DM refuses to kill me in combat, the thrill of combat vanishes. Likewise, if my +15 to bluff means I will never run into problems with my stories, the thrill of constructing a social character largely dissolves.

[Tinkerer]

In line with the above couple of statements might I recommend keeping a list of the top 10 things which the players did which impacted the world after each session? I've found it to be quite the handy tool in keeping track of the consequences of the characters actions. At 10 items it is super quick to scribble down and by restricting it to the top 10 things which they did it allows you to focus on the actual consequences and weed out the shenanigans.

[FabulousFizban]

MWHAHAHAHA! I derailed the thread.