And the old Gnome Emeritus Walt Ciechanowski speaks from the comfort of his rocking chair on the porch of the Gnome Retirement Home…
My D&D 5e group is a mix of 5 seasoned players (including myself) and 2 teenage newbies. Obviously, there’s a bit of hand-holding for the new players and it can take some coaxing to get them beyond seeing their characters as a combat piece on the grid and engage in social roleplaying. This is, of course, completely okay; I remember how difficult it was for me to make the leap.
One of the teenage players, we’ll call him ‘Tom,’ is a sorcerer with a habit of tossing fireballs into areas where other player characters are standing. Believe it or not, this is often encouraged by the seasoned players, as they’d rather soak the damage in return for battering the enemies. Generally speaking, he usually only does this when enemy forces seem overwhelming.
In a recent session, however, Tom had already pulled the trick once and was considering doing so again. Unfortunately, one of the PCs was badly injured and the affected player, Tina, was trying to call this to Tom’s attention. Tom decided that Tina (out of character) was being too annoying and decided to throw another fireball.
I called a time-out and explained that I had an issue with Tom’s reasoning, since it was based on Tom’s feelings towards Tina and not anything going on with their respective characters. Another of my seasoned players, Harold, then added that “it’s only a game.”
At first, I thought Harold was backing me up, but I quickly realized that he was actually advocating for Tom’s action. In Harold’s mind, if Tom felt like throwing the fireball, then he was entitled to do it; the only thing getting hurt was character sheets, which could be replaced.
My take on “it’s only a game,” however, is that everyone around the table has a responsibility to ensure that everyone else is having fun. Picking on other players violates that responsibility. I’d rather not game at all than allow that to happen; I’ve seen too many campaigns with great potential disintegrate early because player infighting made its continuance impossible.
So what say you? How would you resolve this situation? Are you in Harold’s camp or mine? Does “it’s only a game” give players carte blanche on their actions? Is it okay for a GM to say “no, you aren’t doing that because…”? Where do you draw the line?
It just a game but it include an implicit and possibly explicit social contract as with all games and social activities.
I agree with you a 100%. Taking out your personal frustration into the game should be excluded as part of the social contract.
Most games suffer from taking your personal frustration into it. For example, I used to play a lot of League of Legends (known for it many trolls, especially in the early days) and player intentionally gunning for one player suddenly broke the game and ruined the fun for everyone else.
If the discussed argument does not work then I strongly suggests using your GM power to have that player(s) feel the other end of the stick and then have a discussion about it. For reference, read John Wicks playing dirty books where he often pull that tricks to teach players (usually young one) life lesson about breaking social contracts and being jerk. But I’ll advice discussion first as abusing your GM power is also breaking the social contract but sadly some people only learn the hard ways.
Phil
I’m a big believer in “it’s only a game,” but only when *outside* the game. Real life always trumps game — if you have other obligations, if your kid is sick, if your grandparent died, if your spouse lost their job, if you can’t make it to the game (or didn’t do something for the game like write a backstory or list out all your equipment) because real life is getting in the way, THAT’S TOTALLY OKAY. It’s just a game. It’s something we do for fun. It’s not meant to be a big obligation or a huge responsibility or something that stresses us out.
However, that said, once IN the game, it’s more than “just a game.” People put work and thought into their characters and get invested in them. I’d have called a time-out for a talk with Tom as well in this case. Out of game feelings and opinions shouldn’t influence in-game actions. I’d ask Tom if his character would actually throw a fireball on a badly-wounded friend. This might include a discussion on character alignment. If after all that Tom insisted yes, he wants to cast the fireball, then I’d allow it, and encourage the other PCs to react accordingly, and let Tom reap the consequences of being reckless with the lives of his allies.
I agree with your assessment, Walt. It needed a timeout at least and a stern review of the consequences. This includes both in-game and out-of-game consequences. But then let Tom play it out if he’s still committed to his fireball action.
Timeout, definitely. Unless it’s a “crash n burn” style hacknslash style game (Hackmaster), the young players should be made to understand that action that affect others has consequences for alignment and retribution, esp. If it violates the social contract.
I’m with you, Walt. As an aside, I was startled to discover that tossing fireballs at your friends in order to kill your enemies was a thing. Further proof that there are many different play styles.
I’m definitely with you. I’ve seen too many games go south or have the fun leached out of them because a player took in-game actions because of out-of-game frustrations. What amazes me is the number of ‘mature’ players I see that still play this way and do stuff in-game that is counter productive because they think that’s the way they should play. Like they never grew out out of that teenage phase.
Heh heh, Fireball, hot button. I see what you did there.
I’m with you Walt. I couldn’t tell if Tina was one of the new players or not but that isn’t really relevant. Wil Wheaton rules are in effect: don’t be a dick.
One way of leveraging thoughtful play with “difficult” people might be to levy an XP penalty for killing a party member on the one who did the deed.
If you want to be a dick, play Diplomacy, Machiavelli or Junta instead, where that is sorta the point.
Tina needs Steve’s Antimagic Shell Ring – an artifact level item that automatically negates all friendly fire.
See? I can do it too.
Walt, I’d take a middle path between you and Harold. A GM should never tell a player, “No, you aren’t doing that because….” It’s reasonable, though, to warn a player when a called action would be an extremely poor choice given what the character is aware of. I’d remind Tom that his sorcerer is aware this is a life-or-death matter for an ally, making casting the fireball a chaotic evil act. If he still wants to do it, then so be it. Don’t hold back on the consequences.
By the way, those consequences are both in character and in person. In character, the sorcerer’s alignment would shift to neutral or even evil, if not there already. Good aligned characters in the party, if there are any, would shun him. In person, I might go so far as to disinvite Tom– and possibly also Harold– from the game. Folks who’ve mentioned social contract are spot on. PvP strife will destroy most games unless the group has agreed to it (or understood it’s part of the game setting) in advance. As GM you’ve got to act to protect the integrity of your game.
Well I don’t know if there can be any discussion about this topic at all. If someone is killing a player character because he is annoyed with the player, there’s something fundamentally wrong which has to be discussed ASAP. I’ve had my PCs killed by other PCs for ingame reasons and I’m totally fine with that but if there is an out of game problem than this problem can never be solved within the game. In fact, this most probably would make things even worse.
And to be honest, I think that Harold is kind of a jerk here. I mean, as you describe it, Harold chimed in AFTER you had already explained what the problem was, so there’s basically no way he could have misunderstood that what Tom was actually doing was happening for an ingame reason. As I read it , it seems as if he intentionally stabbed you in the back with his comment. Hope I’m wrong here because you left out some details, but if something like this happened at my table exactly the way you described it, then Harold and I would have a serious talk about him being even more disruptive than Tom.
Sure, it’s only a game. But it’s a game where you devote a lot of time and effort to building a character and interacting with each other. That said, this is clearly a case of “live and learn.”
Tom decided to ignore Tina’s plea (and the GM’s caution) and cast the fireball anyway. Just like any character, Tom (a newbie) needs to learn that his actions have consequences. His mild irritation with Tina resulted in an irresponsible action. I’m sure the other players had a lot to say about this out-of-game and I’m sure that Tina thinks less of Tom. What was purely a lark for Tom became a major annoyance to everyone else and this will be remembered.
If Tom continues to play, he will find that this action will rebound on him. One day, his character will need help from Tina’s character – or find the character’s life totally dependent on a decision by Tina’s character. Will Tina be magnanimous and/or merciful? Well, that’s the drama of the game isn’t it?
Of course, there is the social dimension of RPG games. If Tom acknowledges that his action was hurtful to Tina and decides to be more responsible in the future, great. If this becomes a more serious personal disruption between two players, as opposed to two characters, then the GM may have to take a hand in resolving it.
I endorse your conclusion wholeheartedly.
I would resist trying to manage the situation through in-game mechanisms such as alignment change, DarkSide points, attitude changes, and so on. Let me see if I can describe why:
RPGs are build around something called “potential space” – which is premised on the idea that the character isn’t you. A wall is maintained by the group between in-game actions and out of game social norms. Behavior in the game isn’t behavior in life.
In the situation you describe, behavior on the real-world level is seeping into the game, and vice-versa. That’s to be expected. Maintaining potential space is difficult and the walls tend to crumble under stress. So I would take a time out, and ask people how they are feeling, not in the game, but in life, in themselves. This can be hard for everyone, but it’s worth it. Both Tom and Tina, I think, were having trouble maintaining walls. So a time out to help them re-establish the walls seems appropriate.
But giving in-game sanctions for such behavior does not highlight the existence of the walls, it sort of pretends they don’t exist, and that our feelings as players around the table don’t exist.
Well….. I will say that you handled this correctly. But I will also say that Harold is technically correct. This IS just a game. But the game he’s advocating for (the game where his teammates kill each other and he gets to watch the world burn) is not the game everyone signed up for. If everyone WANTS to play that game, by all means go ahead. And it sounds like two of your players are on board for it. But those games usually require MORE maturity to handle and not crash and burn than your standard game, so the chances it ends in disaster is high.
However, let me suggest that you make this discussion moot in the future by suggesting Tom learn Wall of Fire, which is a fireball with a hole in the middle (or in a line) that last as long as he concentrates, only hurts things on one side of it and is opaque, which means the PCs have a round or two to catch a breather, heal up, buff, take ranged attacks through the wall at disadvantage, etc… while the foes who WOULD get hit by a fireball get hit at first and then either fall back and have to get hit again to get through OR push through immediately and then face the whole party without their allies. In addition, an ally with an attack that can move opponents (like a warrior with the pushing attack maneuver) can repeatedly toss foes into the wall for an extra 5d8 damage every time.
This is a far more tactically interesting setup and makes everyone at the table think more and has potentially much more satisfying results.
I’m going to take a different tack on this. You mentioned that “Tom decided that Tina (out of character) was being too annoying and decided to throw another fireball.”
It sounds like in some fashion, Tom was blaming Tina for the outcome – if she hadn’t been so annoying, there was a chance he wouldn’t have done it. Furthermore, his choice was also supported by another, more “experienced” gamer. That in turn suggests Tom could have been trying to make Tina responsible for his choice (she was annoying me – that’s why I did it). That would likely have the effect of making Tina less likely to speak up at games, especially in critical situations, because has been proven to get other characters killed by annoying Tom. If I were Tina, I’d be pretty pissed off – to the point where I might quit the game (I’ve done so in other games where I felt I was on the receiving end of some unnecessary behavior). It doesn’t matter if the action was ‘technically’ correct or not prevented by the rules. This was poor treatment of one player by another player, even if a fictional construct (i.e. a PC) was the one to bear the consequences. The blame for the consequences was laid at her feet by her being “annoying”.
The gaming community already has a problem with females on the receiving end of poor behavior and this seems no different. We don’t know what would have happened if Tina hadn’t spoken up – but we do know what *did* happen when she did. I think you need to have a talk with Tom separately, and with the rest of the group – you need to lay out some ground rules or social contract for both how other players treat each other and what kinds of actions are acceptable in-game.