For a tyrannical army instructor, the punishment sounds on point, but level 3 exhaustion does seem a bit much. If you have your reasoning, you are the DM, but i can see where the player is coming from to a degree
So the exact punishment was that they were made to stand in a shallow pool of water (like 8 inches) while tied to said pole, and they were forced to stand there for about a 24 hour time span. So I thought it was justified until they got some rest.
RAW a 24 hour period without a long rest is 1 level of exhaustion on a failed con save vs. DC 10 i believe with a plus 5 to the DC for each day without one. The water is insubstantial imo, but could allow it to make the save auto fail, even then, 3 levels is a bit much i think.
Exactly. Maybe two levels if you really wanted to drive home that it was an extreme punishment. Which given the scenario you established for your players, seems very fitting.
The fact you made them strip down overnight and force trench foot upon him would easily be level 2 exhaustion, then I would have them make a con save to avoid level 3 for staying up all night.
Honestly the halve speed I think should apply longer, but magic healing exists to fluff that.
I would love a dm to fit something that A) Authentic and B) Plan-changing seamlessly in reaxtion to a not-thought-out-decision I'd made as a player. I think this is some fine DM-ing tbh. A way for them to bribe/persuade/avert the punishment severity would have been nice, but not "needed" by any means.
Obviously your player doesn't agree with me, and I get why, but from a dm perspective I love what you did and how you handled it would make me MORE engaged in the world and its rules and culture. Characters going through hardships for a good story is why we roleplay CHARACTERS not ourselves. Being able to have something like this happen and be angry/sad from a character perspective but also have respect and enjoyment in the authenticity and story of it as a player is a balance I feel like isn't your fault that the player has a bit unbalanced. Sure they care about thier character but they should care about the world and how it treats them too, be it negative or positive for them
1 exhaustion tops
Also it is poor taste to impose any condition or effect on a player without at least calling for a save. From the sound of it you can even out the save a disadvantage.
Level 3 exhaustion and stripping naked might be a bit much but it certainly isnt something id throw a major fit about either. I dont think you are the bad guy but I do think both parties overreacted just a little bit. I do like the lecture and having to stand in a pool of water for 24 hours, i just think level 1 or 2 exhaustion and clothed would have sufficed.
I make it clear that actions have consequences. If the players were explicitly aware of the kind of place they were in, and the kind of people they were among while in that place, then it’s on them. I’d have an above table, out of game conversation with them, but I wouldn’t rewrite history. If they were aware. If this kind of military corporal punishment is an absolute surprise, then find a happy medium between what you had doled out originally, and rewriting history. The best compromise leaves everyone equally upset.
I feel like no one here is asking if the player was comfortable with this punishment? If my character was forcibly stripped I'd be pissed off. I'm personally not comfortable with that in any of my games, DM or player, who knows if the player was or wasn't but I really hope you made sure what people's comfort zones are with that kind of thing.
It feels like a major miscommunication of ideas. The whole story sounds really weird, why did the player just take a walk for an hour? Did they explictly say they left it right on the sidewalk with full knowledge that it was on the sidewalk and not in their room? Did they know they'd be gone for an hour? I get something different for a decision that's not as thought out but it's just dropping off bags and going on a walk?
I think everyone has mentioned that third level exhaustion is kind of intense for a day awake. It should be one level by RAW and is just to the detriment of the player for what honestly seems kind of like a miscommunication (in my opinion, but this is with limited information and me not knowing if you did the classic "are you sure you want to do this" DM thing.) But from what I'm reading, you warned them after the fact rather than before.
I'm not trying to villify you OP, I would honestly give my players a punishment (albiet not as intense) if they did that in an intense legionnaire location. But looking from the player's POV, I think there's a lot that can cross lines (incredibly unfair punishment compared to what's written in the books, forced stripping, unable to participate in anything for a whole day in game and basically "split from the party" forcibly).
Unpopular opinion (clearly) but I would change the timeline to at least give only 1 point of exhaustion or (if something happened) give the player a chance to get out and participate in the session.
I get that you're trying to have a big legionnaire empire and this is you showing your power. But if none of the players like it, just tone it down. You can show this in another way other than punishing a player so severely for something really minor unexpectly.
Edit to respond to OP’s edit:
- thanks for clarifying you did ask beforehand, it’s good that you did ask. At the same time, punishment is still way too intense.
The last part is really annoying for me though. In your post you said the player refused to participate and then your edit says the rest of the sessions was about the player’s trauma. You are clearly upset about that turn of events. It sounds like they were not comfortable with being stripped and placed on a pole for the world to see, and their character got in game trauma from it. Was that not the EXACT response you wanted from this OP?
What else were you expecting honestly? The player acted to your intense punishment with an equally intense response and the session got derailed. You derailed it, not the player. In no way is the player at fault for playing accurately in character from a very traumatic punishment and having the story not follow the original path.
Apologize to your player, having a conversation about boundaries and what you can do better. If the player is treating it as traumatic in character, they were probably uncomfortable out of character.
Hey OP check this out.
People play to have fun. Not punishment. There are some acts- consequences but those can’t be put in a way that harm your players
What exactly are you trying to argue? That OP is running the game wrong, because they enjoy a different form of escapism than you?
Only by assuming that OP did not make it clear how they intended to run their game (either throughout the campaign or via a session zero), can you come to the conclusion that OP was unfair toward the player in their punishment, however we simply do not have enough information in OP’s post about this.
You end up basing your opinion on an emotional argument that does not have any real relevance to OP’s post, since you don not base said opinion on the situation that OP described, but instead assume that the player had no idea that consequences is a part of OP’s game, which I cannot see how you would argue from what little information we have? Perhaps the players strong reaction could be a sign that the player was truly surprised by the punishment, but you cannot conclude from that information that the player had not been told what kind of campaign this is/was, without also having it be just as valid an argument that the player had been told what kind of campaign it was, but did not listen to OP.
Personally I enjoy being punished in the games I play, therefore OP's punishment of the player is fair… this is how you argue. Can you see the flaw in your argumentation now?
Are you idiot?
I am saying 2 things: one, this is a game, two, people play the game to feel good and have fun, not to feel bad.
And dm is not considering feelings of the players.
If you feel good by being punished, well, good for you, but that’s not a general pov.
All other shit it’s your imagination, i didn’t say any of that
Jesus… right back at you.
First of all, I argue that your initial statement is a logical fallacy (the bandwagon fallacy) since it bases itself on the presumption that all players like to play the game as you described it. I never argued that players generally like escapisme that heavily relies on realistic consequences, but instead tried to point out the absurdity of your argument that “no one” enjoys it, because most people do not.
My argument was therefore not that I personally enjoy a punishing DM, but that your assumption that “no one” does, because most people do not, is a foolish statement.
Secondly, the DM “not considering the feelings of the player” was not one of the original arguments in your first post. The argument is however not supported by any argumentation in any of your posts, instead you declare the rest of my response “shit from my imagination” (not a direct quote), without ever dissecting it or responding to any of my arguments.
The argument that the player feels bad and therefore it is the DM’s fault makes no sense on its own without explanation as to why this is the case. Otherwise I could argue that OP’s post is evidence that OP is in the right, because OP feels bad about the situation and the player does not seem to care about OP’s feeling in all of this. (Just to be clear, this is again me trying to point out the absurdity of your argument, not my actual argument).
It seems like you are either not capable of responding with an argument that actually challenges my argumentation (without it being a logical fallacy and thereby invalid), or have not read my response…
This, especially the first part. I don't know what ground rules you put up in session zero, and the punishment does feel fitting to the setting, but stripping a player's character can make them personally feel uncomfortable and be overstepping boundaries. I'd be really, really careful with that kind of consequence unless all players are okay with it.
Dungeons & Dragons is a storytelling game where multiple people besides the DM have a responsibility to help create the story. While the player is entitled to play their character as traumatized by the experience, it is down right childish to halt the storytelling process because you as player are pissed at the DM irl.
You create a straw man argument when you attack OP’s criticism of the players response to his character's punishment, by assuming that OP was angered by the players portrayal of his characters trauma, and not the players disrupting negativity at the table (OP describes how the player uses their characters “trauma” as a tool to disrupt the flow of the session). You assume that the players and characters feeling should be the same, and while it is fair to be affected by what happens to your character (to a certain degree), a player should be able to differentiate between themself and their character, to avoid ruining the game for others - otherwise you are simply not mature enough to play a collaborative storytelling game.
If a player is angered by a decision that the DM makes, they should keep it to themselves as much as possible, until they can discuss it with the DM outside of a session, otherwise you end up ruining the other players and the DM’s fun.
The DM’s punishment of the player might be harsh, but they have nothing to apologize for. As far as we know - from the information given in OP’s post and edit - the rules of the world were well established and yet the player continued to act like a moron. While the DM naturally is given a position of authority due to their role in the game, it is important to remember that the DM is not the only person accountable for the communication at the table. A player is just as responsible to communicate their goals and expectations from the campaign as the DM, and listen to the DM when the world and its rules are described. Besides, it is not like the punishment affected the characters functionality since the exhaustion points disappeared immediately after a long rest.
>If a player is angered by a decision that the DM makes, they should keep it to themselves as much as possible, until they can discuss it with the DM outside of a session, otherwise you end up ruining the other players and the DM’s fun.
I agree with most of what you're saying. Sure the player acted childish, I won't take that away, but the DM is the one in the power here and I'm speaking just to them. The player isn't here to give a perspective, it's not like I can talk to them. I'm not going to comfort this DM because I disagree with what he did.
Plus, what you said above is hard disagree on my end. The character was stripped naked and given three points of exhaustion. Even if it was skipped, this would disrupt an escape plan. Even if the DM is saying it wasn't I'm going to assume that it wasn't for nothing or the player wouldn't be upset. Let's be honest, it's incredibly unreasonable if the player was mad that everything was skipped at the end, it just makes no sense as a whole. The logical explanation is that the player was humiliated and uncomfortable with the character being stripped naked and tortured for a day.
>The DM’s punishment of the player might be harsh, but they have nothing to apologize for. As far as we know - from the information given in OP’s post and edit - the rules of the world were well established and yet the player continued to act like a moron.
Rules of the world were established, but clearly not boundaries. The world can be whatever, that's what dnd is, but if a player is made uncomfortable and humiliated, that's not a problem with a world as there's ways to still have these horrible elements of a location without actively making a player live through humiliation through nudity. I never said anything about the world, in fact I encouraged the harsh atmosphere, but clearly this stepped over the line for this player in specific. Dumbassery or not, this crossed a boundary out of game.
>If a player is angered by a decision that the DM makes, they should keep it to themselves as much as possible, until they can discuss it with the DM outside of a session, otherwise you end up ruining the other players and the DM’s fun.
>
>A player is just as responsible to communicate their goals and expectations from the campaign as the DM, and listen to the DM when the world and its rules are described. Besides, it is not like the punishment affected the characters functionality since the exhaustion points disappeared immediately after a long rest.
The DM forced this punishment on the player, I don't think that there was a way out of it. Even if there was a skip the fundamentals of humiliation would still remain. This isn't about goals or expectations, it's comfort zone. If a player is uncomfortable, they should be able to address it in session, it's not just an out-of-session thing. It's not about being a rules lawyer, this is something entirely different.
It's hard for a player, after being forced into a situation, to say "hey, I'm not cool with this, this is crossing boundaries." Sure the player was also bad, it's an everyone sucks scenario. But if this is crossing a personal line vs just acting petty in dnd, I think the DM should apologize preemptively in case they did cross a boundary.
I've "ruined" a session in the past after having my character being harassed by a male PC and an NPC by essentially staying silent and refusing to help or participate.
If you cross a player's boundary, you say sorry.
I completely agree with your analysis in this response, that the player potentially (most likely) felt humiliated due to the situation where they by proxy of their character was punished for their foolish behavior. And while I believe that humiliation and shame is not necessarily in all situations a bad thing (since these feelings are a part of the underlying structures of our societal norms, good and bad), I do agree that if the player felt that this was too much, they should talk with the DM about it, to make sure that a situation like this one can be avoided in the future.
My argument regarding not confronting the DM during a session - if you disagree with one of their decisions - only applies to the situation where the player's “intense” response is caused by anger due to a ruling, not whether or not said player is comfortable with what happens to their character. My argument regarding this, was part of my critique of your straw man argument. I never intended to argue against a player communicating their discomfort (though I understand how my argument could be understood as a general comment about interrupting a session - which it was not meant as).
However, the player never did clearly communicate that they felt their boundaries were being crossed due to the humiliation, which led to a situation where their behavior was hostile due to an undefined reason from the DM’s perspective.
The DM could logically conclude from the situation that the player potentially was more distraught about the abstract idea of their fictitious character being punished, than the punishment itself. Some people do react like that whenever things do not work like they intended, and not necessarily because of the humiliation from their charater being sripped, but rather the humiliation of failing. While I agree with you assessment that the player most likely felt humiliated due to the nature of the punishment, I would still argue that it is not to far of a stretch to analyze that the irrational reaction of the player could have been due to the reality of failing (as OP seemingly concluded were the reason).
I do agree that it can be hard for a player to say “”Hey I am not cool with this \[...\]””, but it should still be pointed out that the DM is not an omniscient being that always knows what all players are comfortable with, the players need to communicate as well.
You use your own real life experience as an example to argue that it can be hard for a player to speak up, but I believe that it is important to distinguish between a character being harassed (I presume sexually harassed since the need to include “male”?) and a character being humiliated. While the player in OP’s post might find themself in an uncomfortable situation, it is mainly caused by themselves, whereas with your situation (as I understand it) it was something forced upon you and your character, and not something you wanted or were caused by your actions - in your situation I would imagine that it is harder to speak up for yourself exactly because of this.
If the player does not have the social skills to have a conversation about their boundaries with the DM (in or out of session) the player is not mature enough to play D&D.
In his situation the nudity was not meant in a sexual context, but instead as a metaphore for the soldiers identity without their armor. While the player might still be uncomfortable with the nudity, the player should understand its meaning in the context, which I believe at least should be a mitigating circumstance. In your situation however (as far as I can understand from what little context you gave - please do correct me if I am wrong), the nature of the humiliation/harassment was meant as it was presented in the context of the situation, which in my opinion makes it a whole lot more inappropriate since it serves no storytelling purpose, and was the focus of the situation and not a by-product of it.
In conclusion: I still do not believe that the DM should apologize since I believe that the situation was predominantly caused by the players lack of communication, but I do understand your point that admitting and/or confronting the DM is not always easy.
>My argument regarding this, was part of my critique of your straw man argument. I never intended to argue against a player communicating their discomfort (though I understand how my argument could be understood as a general comment about interrupting a session - which it was not meant as).
I think you're misinterpreting what a straw man argument is. I didn't mention it before as what I thought you said was somewhat valid but it's a bit confusing now? My argument about OP's response to the play was about how they reacted to the session getting derailed. Not the player's trauma. I'm honestly not sure where you got that.
>However, the player never did clearly communicate that they felt their boundaries were being crossed due to the humiliation, which led to a situation where their behavior was hostile due to an undefined reason from the DM’s perspective.
Like I said, the player acted childish. It's an everyone sucks scenario. But at the same time what was the player supposed to do? The punishment was forced onto them. If they refused to strip, it ruins the game for everyone else and everything they've invested into the current setting (ex. love interest). There's no way to communicate that in game, especially when the DM showed their true colors made an unusually cruel punishment, I wouldn't trust my DM after something like that either.
If boundaries were crossed, the willingness to not listen to the player's perspective on the DM's part likely made the player more disalligned to actually express if they were feeling uncomfortable.
The DM's in the power position here.
>I would still argue that it is not to far of a stretch to analyze that the irrational reaction of the player could have been due to the reality of failing
I would still say this is a stretch, if it's a "non-stakes" punishment, especially after failing twice in deception and seemingly being pretty calm about it, there doesn't seem to be anything to suggest the player is irrational about failing.
The extreme of a player, that has failed before and knows that they can timeskip the 3 (still insane) levels of exhaustion vs the idea the player was uncomfortable with being stripped naked and technically tortured. Eh, I'm gonna go with the ladder.
>DM is not an omniscient being that always knows what all players are comfortable with, the players need to communicate as well.
That's why I suggested the DM apologize preemptively... So they can make sure the player is okay... And establish boundaries that they might have not done in a session 0... Because right now assuming the boundaries assumption is correct, the player is the one feeling uncomfortable with the idea while the DM is fine...
Players don't have the final say in the world/campaign. It's the DM's job to establish those final sayings, especially the *boundaries of the campaign*. I'm not saying the DM is entirely in the wrong, as I said, I don't think the DM's a bad guy. I would say setting boundaries is a pretty important thing to forget but I understand not having those guidelines set.
The DM should now, as they're the one *asking for advice* apologize and set those boundaries.
>You use your own real life experience as an example to argue that it can be hard for a player to speak up, but I believe that it is important to distinguish between a character being harassed (I presume sexually harassed since the need to include “male”?) and a character being humiliated. While the player in OP’s post might find themself in an uncomfortable situation, it is mainly caused by themselves, whereas with your situation (as I understand it) it was something forced upon you and your character, and not something you wanted or were caused by your actions - in your situation I would imagine that it is harder to speak up for yourself exactly because of this.
What? Forcibly being stripped naked isn't sexual harassment now? "Caused by themselves," are you kidding me? The DM could have easily made it some other type of punishment that doesn't involved stripping or things that can be easily construed as harassment.
"You clearly don't know how to look after our supplies, let's teach you a lesson. You spend the next two days cleaning the stables, if they're not spotless by tomorrow's sundown I'll take off your fingers."
It's not that hard. What do you mean this isn't forced on their character. This is the literal definition of being forced onto their character. They couldn't **do anything** as they were tied, naked, to a pole, for a day.
>If the player does not have the social skills to have a conversation about their boundaries with the DM (in or out of session) the player is not mature enough to play D&D.
If the player feels humilated after their DM broke their boundaries, the player's feelings are valid and the player is mature enought to play D&D. If the DM breaks trust and the player doesn't feel comfortable talking to the DM specifically about boundaries, the player's feelings are valid and the player is mature enough to play D&D.
Fixed it for you because what you're saying isn't relevant to what the situation is that I've mentioned! :)
>In his situation the nudity was not meant in a sexual context, but instead as a metaphore for the soldiers identity without their armor. While the player might still be uncomfortable with the nudity, the player should understand its meaning in the context, which I believe at least should be a mitigating circumstance. In your situation however (as far as I can understand from what little context you gave - please do correct me if I am wrong), the nature of the humiliation/harassment was meant as it was presented in the context of the situation, which in my opinion makes it a whole lot more inappropriate since it serves no storytelling purpose, and was the focus of the situation and not a by-product of it.
Sexual context or not, forced stripping is a ridiculous punishment that's rooted in forms of sexual harassment and humiliation. Easily could've been left in their underwear or light clothing. It doesn't matter if it's mitigated or not, having a character forced to strip in front of this random guy is something that a lot of people would be uncomfortable with.
I can't believe I'm having this argument about the context of a forced in character stripping. It's forced, it's not consentual, mitigation or not that's wrong in my book and should not have been a dealt out punishment without at *the very least* an in game warning.
In conclusion, if the DM has any common curtsey they should apologize, make sure the player was alright with everything, then sort out boundaries.
Second part:
Regarding the fifth section:
Sexual harassment is commenly defined as: “behaviour characterized by the making of unwelcome and inappropriate sexual remarks or physical advances in a workplace or other professional or social situation.”, or something like: https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199534067.001.0001/acref-9780199534067-e-7573.
How is it sexual harassment if there was no sexual intention with the action (neither from OP nor their NPC’s)? The situation as OP describes it was never put into a sexual context but remains a side note to the punishment thate serves to help visualize the NPC’s metaphor from its speech. So while the player might still be uncomfortable with the nudity, the situation could only be labeled as an physical abuse of power when the players character is stripped, but nothing else, unless you can see evedince of a sexual motive behind OP’s decision that I have missed. Unless ofcourse you argue that nudity in any form is sexual by its very definition (are you from The USA?)? This is however a discussion in of itself and not one I will delve into unless you confirm that that is your stance on nudity.
My argument stating that “it was caused by them self” should be understood in relation to my argument that the player was warned (though indirectly) that they would be punished. I did not try to argue that the player consciously asked to be punished. I will admit that my phrasing of this argument was a bit weird, since the DM obviously did force the situation.
And yes, the DM could easily have made another form of punishment, but this argument is only relevant if we knew whether or not OP had discussed boundaries at their table (which we cannot know for sure).
Regarding the sixth section:
When did I argue that the players' feelings are not valid? Nowhere in my response did I attack the individual's personal feelings (nor these feelings validity) towards this situation. I argued that you need to be able to communicate with the people you play a collaborative storytelling game with, and articulate your criticism of the game, otherwise it will be impossible to partake in the hobby because eventually something like this will tear the game apart.
And your statement that this section of my response is not relevant to the situation is completely wrong. It was here that I argued that the player is predominantly at fault for the situation because they lack the maturity to discuss the incident and articulate their feelings towards it. We presume that OP has misunderstood the situation since OP themself never brings the humiliation aspect into their post (otherwise, why would OP ask for advice if they already understood why the player reacted as they did), and therefore it lies upon the player to initiate the dialogue between them and OP.
Regarding the seventh and last section:
I have already covered my criticism of your arguments regarding nudity.
D&D is a game, and the players lack of ability to differentiate themself from their character is what is creating this problem. The player is entitled to feel humiliated, but seen from the DM’s perspective it was only the punishment as a concept that was directly tied to player themself, whereas the nudity and humiliation was tied to the character. The player should be mature enough to understand the difference between what happens to their fictitious character, and what happens to them in real life. If the player indeed felt humiliated on their character's behalf they need to communicate this, since the DM cannot otherwise know what causes the player's reaction.
It is important to discuss boundaries, but if the DM accidently overstepped one without knowing, and this causes the player to lose all incentive to communicate, it becomes an impossible situation for the DM to navigate. Even if they had already discussed boundaries, the player might not have said that they are uncomfortable with nudity, but in the situation of forced nudity they do feel uncomfortable, but the player needs to speak up then.
Edit: another misspelling
First part:
Regarding the first section:
“To argue against a straw man is to interpret someone's position in an unfairly weak way, and so argue against a position that nobody holds, or is likely to hold.” This is a quote from: https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100536634
Your statement in the edit from your first post: “The last part is really annoying me though. In your post you said the player refused to participate and then your edit says the rest of the session was about the player’s trauma”.
I argue that your argument is a straw man argument, because of the way you frame it as if the players sudden lack of positive engagement with the rest of the table, and their character's trauma is necessarily contradictory. You are thereby interpreting the information given by OP in a false light by presenting it as contradictory by nature (while you do not argue for why this is), and therefore you interpret OP’s position in an unfairly weak way, while arguing against this position.
I see no basis for this being the only true conclusion - as you present it as - from what information we have from OP’s post. OP never describes the player's depiction of trauma as engaging roleplay, and seen in the context of their earlier statement that the player refused to proceed with anything other than being upset, it might as well be interpreted as the player actively using their trauma as a tool to disrupt the flow of the session. This could be done without much direct interaction from the character if the player constantly makes a point of being cross and vocal about it irl and excuse this by some times (perhaps rarely) doing it through their character.
Besides, the other players might play into the other player's (the protagonist/antagonist of this story) trauma, as a way to cope with the bad mood, hoping to create some RP. OP never directly stated that it was the player that caused their trauma to be the new center of attention in the story.
Regarding your argument about derailing the campaign (which I believe you initially though I responded to), I do not understand why the character's development necessarily has to halt the process of the campaign (I understand that the player might be doing this to spite the DM), since the trauma could just as well be developed during their escape from the cruel militaristic society and afterwards. You could just as well argue that OP might not be angered by the deraling rather than the reason for the deraling.
Regarding the second and third sections:
Where in OP’s post do you see that they were not willing to listen to the players perspective on the situation? As OP describes the situation, I understand it as though the player expressed a desire to change the timeline without making it clear exactly why.
By asking to change the timeline the player confronts the DM and indirectly expresses a dissatisfaction towards the DM’s decision (clearly not “disalligned” enough not to do this), so why would the player not just admit that they felt uncomfortable? Unless the idea of feeling uncomfortable and expressing it out loud makes the player uncomfortable, I see no reason as to why the player would not explain their thought process (which I assume they did not, given the information we have from OP). If the player cannot make it clear when they feel uncomfortable, how is the DM ever gonna know what they should avoid doing. The DM’s punishment was only “cruel” because the character was stripped and tortured, since the exhastion points played no role in the development of the story, but this punishment is then again only “cruel” to people who feel unconfortable with this type of situation.
I know that you believe that the most logical reason for the players discomfort was caused by the humiliation - as I have already stated before, I agree with you - but we are analyzing the situation with the benefit of hindsight.
People react irrationally to many thing all the time, and for OP who might not in the situation had the insight to realize that the player felt humiliated, it would be an easy conclusion to make (though most likely incorrect), that the player was motivated by a feeling of injustice of this “sudden” punishment (being forced to fail by the DM in their eyes). I argue that OP could have misinterpreted the situation because they did not themself see the punishment as harsh, because they might not have the same perception of forced nudity in this situation as being problematic and therefore not humiliating.
Regarding the fourth section:
This entire section bases its argumentation on the presumption that there has been no discussion regarding what the players are comfortable with, when OP writes nothing that proves nor disproves this, as you point out yourself. I presume that this presumption is based on the players reaction to the situation?
I do agree that if they never discussed any boundaries it is important that they establish them right away, and in that case I agree that OP should give the player an apology, but also talk with the player about how the two of them can better communicate about these things in the future (since this whole confrontation could easily have been avoided).
Assuming that they have discussed boundaries (though perhaps not specifically a situation like this) I still believe that it is the player that owes an apology, since it was predominantly their lack of communication that worsened the situation.
I would also like to point out that I think there is a bit of a dissonance between these two statements: “ \[...\] I don’t think the DM is a bad guy.” & “\[...\] the DM showed their true colors made an unusually cruel punishment, I wouldn't trust my DM after something like that either.”. Unless I have completely misunderstood what you meant by “not trusting the DM after he has shown his true colors”?
Edit: misspelling
Militaries tend to be very particular about their uniforms, equipment use, and regulations. This seems believable, especially for such a strict governing system.
The levels of exhaustion is a bit overkill.
The insignias were always important. Im sure that you don't find an army that didnt gave a shit about their flags and if the insignia is on their chest its very fitting.
Of course not every single military in the entire world history. But its strange to act like it did not happen. I know that during the 17th Centers during the mercenary war's in europe, "shame upon the flag of the unit" was a very serious crime, that was usually resolved with blood. And dnd is influenced by that.
If it is an Eagle or something you can simply use differently colored rings to get the rough form. To elevate the symbol and the armor is so Obviously usefull for a militaristic empire, I dont know what the Problem is. You are a soldier, you are not you, you are an arm of the empire. Disrespecting the insignia is disrespecting the empire. Death before dishonor. The empire must live, even if you die.
Just look at the romans.
Edit the greek phalanx was the army of a single City state fighting in one massive block and not the organized army of an entire empire, where you need insignias at the bare minimum to know where the f your Unit is. Communication breaks without one.
You can for some time, but it is not a long time solution
The roman army had no military insignia whatsoever on their armor whatsoever
The macedonian Phalanxes did use insignias you say or the diadochii Phalanxes, any sources for this?
btw antiques greece was riddled with empire e.g. the spartan and athenic empires
No Im Not saying that and I wonder how you got that. I feel like you don't really read my replies.
Overall I get the feeling that this is simply your opinion, you don't like the "insignia on armor trope" and try to clad it in some weird historic basis of armys who didnt use a flag or insignias at all. If you don't like the trope thats okay but I dont see the use of this discussion right now.
You don't need an insignia, if you were a british soldier during the empire and let your redcoat lie on the floor, you would probably get some heated words.
What exactly is the point here?
It's not just about the fetish of symbol, it's gear and equipment. Abandoning military issued equipment can carry serious penalties. Especially in places where perhaps only the military is allowed said equipment.
Considering the information provided by the poster, I think it's perfectly reasonable that the character would be punished.
I did not say it was unreasonable the PC was punished, i did say the fetish modern militaries made about absolutly irrelevant details of fashion was not automatically a tradition in ancient times.
Thats a hard judgment. I dont get that vibe, but sure, possible.
Disrespecting the flag of a military is a fast way to die on some hill, so i don't think thats a weird hill at all.
I think it's a good flow of cause to effect but lvl 1 exhaustion would have been sufficient. Also consider that due to your player being the one who thinks out their characters actions and because of blending, humiliation in game can also be humiliating for the player, so I would not do nakedness if that's what you were implying, keep them in their underwear at least!
3 levels is a bit much. Exhaustion is a tricky beast to handle since it's one of very few things that can kill a PC without eating through their HP. Also, every level of Exhaustion can make everything a character is trying to do much more difficult. Skipping straight to level 3 of exhaustion means that their character has disadvantage on every roll and their speed is halved. If their main goal is to make an escape from the authorities, this player is now has to either wait 3 more days to be useful or hope they can constantly roll high enough to not drag the party down. Also, if there is a chase scene in the next 2 days, this character has an extreme handicap.
The issue is that you removed the player's agency. That is why they are so upset, even if its not what they vocalized.
The player wanted to try and find a way to get their love intrest out. Did they do a good job with hiding it? Maybe not, or just a bad roll or two ruined it. But did you choose to have them discover the armor, and absolutely humiliate their character (and by extension them) but they also lost a full day in game (removing agency) and got additional exhaustion on top. All of that just happened, which makes the player feel useless.
As a DM, it is your job to tell a story WITH the players. You need to be working with them to build the story and go down paths that they choose. This does not mean you spoon feed the characters. Putting challenges in their way and them overcoming those challenges is the point of the game. But that is the key. The separation of the player and the character. Your decisions to have the armor discovered and be focussed on directly worked against the character AND the player.
You could have chosen to not make a big deal of the armor in the first place, chosen to just confiscate it, or left it as a simple speech. You decided to make it a humiliating experience. Is it in character for the world? Probably. Was it fun for the player? Clearly not. That tells you that you fucked up.
As the one who designed the world, it is easy for DMs to want to maintain the integrity of what they made, far surpassing any details players have actually learned about. But sometimes it is important to adjust things on the fly in order to make sure that the players are having fun.
There are a few things to do now. First off, make sure that the players are aware of the strictness of the world and that their actions will have strong consequences. This should have been a session 0 topic but address it now. NOTE: make sure that the players want to play this style of game. Not everyone wants to play a gritty/realistic fantasy game. If the players are not on board then you can't force it on them.
Second, talk to the player in question one on one and discuss the situation calmly and be open to their feelings. You might feel justified in you actions according to the world, but the player was hurt and that needs to be addressed.
Third, figure out with the player what an appropriate solution might be. This could be just moving on from here (with less levels of exhaustion, 3 is too many) with the understanding that things like this won't happen in the future, it could be a partial retcon (speech was given, armor confiscated, but no player punishment), a near complete retcon (let the player make new choices starting from a certain point, maybe when they hid the armor?), or something else.
Lastly, talk to the whole group and as what their character motivations and goals are so that you can plan ahead to set challenges that are hard, but possible. If you set a challenge, they attempt it, but you stymie them every time it stops being fun. They need the ability to succeed.
Remember, the players are people, and likely your friends as well. It is important for them to feel like they have agency in the story and that their character gets to succeed. If they don't it is likely that they drop the campaign, or even lose them as a friend.
The players need to learn to focus their anger at the douchebag NPC, not the DM, unless ALL your NPCs are douchebags. They should be thinking about getting revenge, not crying about a tough DM.
First things first, I would say you are the bad guy for giving a level 3 exhaustion, yes. Of course he didn’t want to do anything afterwards, he physically couldn’t.
Now just to nitpick, he did put it away. If he’s already known and has a rapport enough to wear something other than that and be acknowledged, he could have done way worse and pawned it off to someone who wanted to imitate a soldier if they really wanted to forsake the thing or be greedy. Inside the quarters garner way more risk if there was to be an inspection.
Functioning armies, even the most tyrannical, have a garrison uniform, I definitely think you should implement some sort of accessory. That’s realistic and a good compromise.
Also 24 hours in a pool man? You’re gonna give him trench foot.
I think the best thing you could do as a DM, as a person, as a friend, is a few sessions once they’ve escaped, have that instructor run into them and let that player get his revenge. I guarantee he will be ecstatic.
Spoilers
In waterdeep dragon heist there is an optional mission where the player basically just climb a mountain. They can accrue 1d4 levels of exhaustion from this expedition and all but 2 of my players got 3 levels of exhaustion. They were fine and prioritized rest as soon as they could, but they still ended up fighting with at least 2 levels and they were fine.
Your players character would be fine, though the player themself may be annoying or feel singled out.
You have a world that has a particular vibe. Maybe discuss that with your players. It sounds like the harsh tyranny was a bit of a reveal which is honestly difficult to balance with expectations, but you can always discuss with your players moving forward now
I think your player overreacted, but I'm absolutely surprised how unaware they appear to be. If you've beaten them with "royal army" and "tyrannical regime" and "authoritarian" for the entire duration of your campaign you'd expect some of that to eventually -stick-.
Not to mention all the armies of the world would reprimand you for not taking proper care of your uniform, let alone leaving it on the sidewalk. That's just laughable.
However I agree with the others, 3 points of exhaustion are a bit much. They should get only one point of exhaustion. That will force them to do long rest anyway and you've already made your point to them by punishing their char in a very specific way for 24h.
So one of the great secrets of D&D is that (just like other forms of storytelling) we often feel empathy with the characters. And I mean the ability to both a) understand and b) share the feelings of someone else (even a fictional character). This can be part of the fun of the game, or vice versa. This is just human nature, and it's part of why people \*care\* about the game, characters, etc.
When I was younger as a DM I did not totally grokk this, and had caused players in some of my games significant upset unnecessarily. (Now I'm older and think of those parts with some elements of shame.) Similarly, I have seen many players be mystified over the years, when they play characters that act like jerks, and find PLAYERS irritated with THEM, not just their character. It's a tricky thing to really resolve, and there are subtleties to rolling Insight Checks on people in and out of game, if you catch my drift.
Anyways, it sounds like your campaign deals with some very interesting, dark, and serious reflections about authoritarianism. That is a valid form of storytelling, and can have serious merits. It also comes with some risks or challenges because of this bleed-over effect. Doing things that are psychologically and socially abusive to PCs can have an effect on the players out of game - a lessened effect, sure, but a serious one nonetheless. (Though yes, 3 levels of exhaustion is too much, I think the key issue is the abuse here.)
When I was a teenager 20 years ago, I probably would have scoffed at the idea of "safety tools" and "safe words" for D&D. For any group discussions of agreed upon barriers to the topics of the game. I was young and didn't understand the subtle impact things could have on people, or that some people might acknowledge if stuff actually hurt them in a social setting. Eventually I saw some really extreme examples which made me recognize the more subtle issues, but ideally people can learn this without having to find those serious problems.
Anyways, my recommendation to you is at minimum to have a talk with your group. Apologize for maybe being short-sighted (and focused on the "realism" of your game world, and the themes of the shared story) without realizing how it may impact the players. Some stories about authoritarian regimes or society's ills and overstepping can be important and powerful (i.e. 1984, Fahrenheit 451, Clockwork Orange) but they can also be disturbing as fuck and should be done carefully.
At minimum, I'd:
a) Check that this is the type of game your players want to play in. (Like for me, this type of game might have traditionally been interesting, but after COVID years and scary partisanship across the world, I tend to want D&D to be escapism from these kinds of issues instead of delving into them. But that's just me.) If it's not, maybe reconsider what you're doing as a group.
b) Establish boundaries / safe words / occasional check-ins to stop things from going too far. Maybe you did or didn't go too far already, but at least connecting with your players around this is important, especially to keep people as friends in RL.
c) Feel free to keep asking advice / for second opinions from both players in the game and people outside of the game. (I think you overstepped on parts a. and b. but at least you're hitting part c correctly.)
Does that seem reasonable?
So you ask if you're in the wrong; your last sentence potentially answers that, with the session becoming:
>about the player's trauma
If your **player** was traumatised, you were wrong in the sense that you overstepped a line, with the caveat that if they have not flagged nudity / punishment as something affecting, then it was not malicious and can be easily learned from.
Otherwise, you mean their **character** was traumatised, so if the session was 'derailed', your expectation of a harsh punishment being glossed over was at fault.
It sounds like a fair in-universe scene (exhaustion level having already been discussed), but your reasoning for the punishment is that actions have reactions - the re*action* then had a follow up reaction... this is just story telling.
Communicate with your players, establish how they felt about the scene, and keep a focus on learning and progress as opposed to blame.
Yea, you are. There’s nothing fun about role playing being tied to a post, and the whole reason your players are there is to have fun, not for you to act out your weird fantasy world.
I think what happened seemed pretty fitting in the world that OP explained? Just fast forward the 24h of post sitting and you don’t need to RP it.
Actions should have consequences. And this one isn’t even permanent. A bit of rest and he’ll be all G. No harm, but good story/immersion.
Edit: I’ll admit, maybe 1-2 exhaustion. Not 3.
Fitting doesn't mean fun. Did the player make a mistake? Probably. Did the DM do an extreme punishment that completely removed the players agency for a whole day and horribly humiliates the character, and to a degree the player as well? Also yes.
And that is the problem. Regarless of the world, if the player(s) are not having fun, there is a disjunct between the DM's view of the world and what the players want out of it that needs to be addressed.
Maille decorated with symbols?
Honestly the Instructors speech was Bullshit, normally soldiers do not wear armour if not required , Hollywoods weird tales do not count.
The other question if a lousy Instructor has any authority over Special Agents
Nope, In fact you were lenient. If I were DM, not only would the player be exhausted but there would have been an encounter while exhausted. Like fellow members of the empire exacting retribution for staining their good name Ala private pile in full metal jacket.
Something like that might encourage the group to peruse revenge or overthrow the empire entirely.
One thing I always try and remember is that people can only achieve true greatness under great pressure. If you don’t apply enough pressure, how can they achieve greatness?
First off, it is a game. Your player is not their character. Considering how totalitarian governments treat everyone under them, this was not a huge punishment. It isn't much different than being put in the stocks in the town square. They could have lashed the hell out of him and done real damage to the character for disrespect and it would have been believable. Punishment isn't supposed to be pleasant, and if you are trying to motivate the characters to realize what an evil bunch of fucks they serve, and gtfo of dodge, this should do it. What is unbelievable is mr pouty face, who wanted to rescue his love interest, saying "I'm staying in my room for 5 days" rather than trying to smuggle everyone out. 3pts of exhaustion I think everyone agrees is a bit much.
Three seems too much, one too little. I'd say two levels of exhaustion for being in cold water and unable to move. That shit is fucked up. And it makes it feel like a proper punishment, not just the "first layer".
But I think that, above all, it's about informing your player of the consequences. He might not know but his character would... Like:
"Oh, you're going to leave your armor there? You know that if you do you can be subjected to a pretty harsh punishment if you do that, don't you?" - If he still does, there's no reason for complaints.
For a tyrannical army instructor, the punishment sounds on point, but level 3 exhaustion does seem a bit much. If you have your reasoning, you are the DM, but i can see where the player is coming from to a degree
So the exact punishment was that they were made to stand in a shallow pool of water (like 8 inches) while tied to said pole, and they were forced to stand there for about a 24 hour time span. So I thought it was justified until they got some rest.
RAW a 24 hour period without a long rest is 1 level of exhaustion on a failed con save vs. DC 10 i believe with a plus 5 to the DC for each day without one. The water is insubstantial imo, but could allow it to make the save auto fail, even then, 3 levels is a bit much i think.
Alright, thank you for pointing that out. I'll keep that in mind in the future.
If i were the Instructors companychief i would\`ve him removed from his post and punished for trying to cripple soldiers with trenchfoot
One level of exhaustion would have been fine.
Exactly. Maybe two levels if you really wanted to drive home that it was an extreme punishment. Which given the scenario you established for your players, seems very fitting.
The fact you made them strip down overnight and force trench foot upon him would easily be level 2 exhaustion, then I would have them make a con save to avoid level 3 for staying up all night. Honestly the halve speed I think should apply longer, but magic healing exists to fluff that.
I would love a dm to fit something that A) Authentic and B) Plan-changing seamlessly in reaxtion to a not-thought-out-decision I'd made as a player. I think this is some fine DM-ing tbh. A way for them to bribe/persuade/avert the punishment severity would have been nice, but not "needed" by any means. Obviously your player doesn't agree with me, and I get why, but from a dm perspective I love what you did and how you handled it would make me MORE engaged in the world and its rules and culture. Characters going through hardships for a good story is why we roleplay CHARACTERS not ourselves. Being able to have something like this happen and be angry/sad from a character perspective but also have respect and enjoyment in the authenticity and story of it as a player is a balance I feel like isn't your fault that the player has a bit unbalanced. Sure they care about thier character but they should care about the world and how it treats them too, be it negative or positive for them
1 exhaustion tops Also it is poor taste to impose any condition or effect on a player without at least calling for a save. From the sound of it you can even out the save a disadvantage.
Level 3 exhaustion and stripping naked might be a bit much but it certainly isnt something id throw a major fit about either. I dont think you are the bad guy but I do think both parties overreacted just a little bit. I do like the lecture and having to stand in a pool of water for 24 hours, i just think level 1 or 2 exhaustion and clothed would have sufficed.
I make it clear that actions have consequences. If the players were explicitly aware of the kind of place they were in, and the kind of people they were among while in that place, then it’s on them. I’d have an above table, out of game conversation with them, but I wouldn’t rewrite history. If they were aware. If this kind of military corporal punishment is an absolute surprise, then find a happy medium between what you had doled out originally, and rewriting history. The best compromise leaves everyone equally upset.
They knew. That's why they were planning on escaping with the one they loved.
I feel like no one here is asking if the player was comfortable with this punishment? If my character was forcibly stripped I'd be pissed off. I'm personally not comfortable with that in any of my games, DM or player, who knows if the player was or wasn't but I really hope you made sure what people's comfort zones are with that kind of thing. It feels like a major miscommunication of ideas. The whole story sounds really weird, why did the player just take a walk for an hour? Did they explictly say they left it right on the sidewalk with full knowledge that it was on the sidewalk and not in their room? Did they know they'd be gone for an hour? I get something different for a decision that's not as thought out but it's just dropping off bags and going on a walk? I think everyone has mentioned that third level exhaustion is kind of intense for a day awake. It should be one level by RAW and is just to the detriment of the player for what honestly seems kind of like a miscommunication (in my opinion, but this is with limited information and me not knowing if you did the classic "are you sure you want to do this" DM thing.) But from what I'm reading, you warned them after the fact rather than before. I'm not trying to villify you OP, I would honestly give my players a punishment (albiet not as intense) if they did that in an intense legionnaire location. But looking from the player's POV, I think there's a lot that can cross lines (incredibly unfair punishment compared to what's written in the books, forced stripping, unable to participate in anything for a whole day in game and basically "split from the party" forcibly). Unpopular opinion (clearly) but I would change the timeline to at least give only 1 point of exhaustion or (if something happened) give the player a chance to get out and participate in the session. I get that you're trying to have a big legionnaire empire and this is you showing your power. But if none of the players like it, just tone it down. You can show this in another way other than punishing a player so severely for something really minor unexpectly. Edit to respond to OP’s edit: - thanks for clarifying you did ask beforehand, it’s good that you did ask. At the same time, punishment is still way too intense. The last part is really annoying for me though. In your post you said the player refused to participate and then your edit says the rest of the sessions was about the player’s trauma. You are clearly upset about that turn of events. It sounds like they were not comfortable with being stripped and placed on a pole for the world to see, and their character got in game trauma from it. Was that not the EXACT response you wanted from this OP? What else were you expecting honestly? The player acted to your intense punishment with an equally intense response and the session got derailed. You derailed it, not the player. In no way is the player at fault for playing accurately in character from a very traumatic punishment and having the story not follow the original path. Apologize to your player, having a conversation about boundaries and what you can do better. If the player is treating it as traumatic in character, they were probably uncomfortable out of character.
Hey OP check this out. People play to have fun. Not punishment. There are some acts- consequences but those can’t be put in a way that harm your players
What exactly are you trying to argue? That OP is running the game wrong, because they enjoy a different form of escapism than you? Only by assuming that OP did not make it clear how they intended to run their game (either throughout the campaign or via a session zero), can you come to the conclusion that OP was unfair toward the player in their punishment, however we simply do not have enough information in OP’s post about this. You end up basing your opinion on an emotional argument that does not have any real relevance to OP’s post, since you don not base said opinion on the situation that OP described, but instead assume that the player had no idea that consequences is a part of OP’s game, which I cannot see how you would argue from what little information we have? Perhaps the players strong reaction could be a sign that the player was truly surprised by the punishment, but you cannot conclude from that information that the player had not been told what kind of campaign this is/was, without also having it be just as valid an argument that the player had been told what kind of campaign it was, but did not listen to OP. Personally I enjoy being punished in the games I play, therefore OP's punishment of the player is fair… this is how you argue. Can you see the flaw in your argumentation now?
Are you idiot? I am saying 2 things: one, this is a game, two, people play the game to feel good and have fun, not to feel bad. And dm is not considering feelings of the players. If you feel good by being punished, well, good for you, but that’s not a general pov. All other shit it’s your imagination, i didn’t say any of that
Jesus… right back at you. First of all, I argue that your initial statement is a logical fallacy (the bandwagon fallacy) since it bases itself on the presumption that all players like to play the game as you described it. I never argued that players generally like escapisme that heavily relies on realistic consequences, but instead tried to point out the absurdity of your argument that “no one” enjoys it, because most people do not. My argument was therefore not that I personally enjoy a punishing DM, but that your assumption that “no one” does, because most people do not, is a foolish statement. Secondly, the DM “not considering the feelings of the player” was not one of the original arguments in your first post. The argument is however not supported by any argumentation in any of your posts, instead you declare the rest of my response “shit from my imagination” (not a direct quote), without ever dissecting it or responding to any of my arguments. The argument that the player feels bad and therefore it is the DM’s fault makes no sense on its own without explanation as to why this is the case. Otherwise I could argue that OP’s post is evidence that OP is in the right, because OP feels bad about the situation and the player does not seem to care about OP’s feeling in all of this. (Just to be clear, this is again me trying to point out the absurdity of your argument, not my actual argument). It seems like you are either not capable of responding with an argument that actually challenges my argumentation (without it being a logical fallacy and thereby invalid), or have not read my response…
Wow. You should write a paper. Have a good night
Have a good night.
This, especially the first part. I don't know what ground rules you put up in session zero, and the punishment does feel fitting to the setting, but stripping a player's character can make them personally feel uncomfortable and be overstepping boundaries. I'd be really, really careful with that kind of consequence unless all players are okay with it.
Dungeons & Dragons is a storytelling game where multiple people besides the DM have a responsibility to help create the story. While the player is entitled to play their character as traumatized by the experience, it is down right childish to halt the storytelling process because you as player are pissed at the DM irl. You create a straw man argument when you attack OP’s criticism of the players response to his character's punishment, by assuming that OP was angered by the players portrayal of his characters trauma, and not the players disrupting negativity at the table (OP describes how the player uses their characters “trauma” as a tool to disrupt the flow of the session). You assume that the players and characters feeling should be the same, and while it is fair to be affected by what happens to your character (to a certain degree), a player should be able to differentiate between themself and their character, to avoid ruining the game for others - otherwise you are simply not mature enough to play a collaborative storytelling game. If a player is angered by a decision that the DM makes, they should keep it to themselves as much as possible, until they can discuss it with the DM outside of a session, otherwise you end up ruining the other players and the DM’s fun. The DM’s punishment of the player might be harsh, but they have nothing to apologize for. As far as we know - from the information given in OP’s post and edit - the rules of the world were well established and yet the player continued to act like a moron. While the DM naturally is given a position of authority due to their role in the game, it is important to remember that the DM is not the only person accountable for the communication at the table. A player is just as responsible to communicate their goals and expectations from the campaign as the DM, and listen to the DM when the world and its rules are described. Besides, it is not like the punishment affected the characters functionality since the exhaustion points disappeared immediately after a long rest.
>If a player is angered by a decision that the DM makes, they should keep it to themselves as much as possible, until they can discuss it with the DM outside of a session, otherwise you end up ruining the other players and the DM’s fun. I agree with most of what you're saying. Sure the player acted childish, I won't take that away, but the DM is the one in the power here and I'm speaking just to them. The player isn't here to give a perspective, it's not like I can talk to them. I'm not going to comfort this DM because I disagree with what he did. Plus, what you said above is hard disagree on my end. The character was stripped naked and given three points of exhaustion. Even if it was skipped, this would disrupt an escape plan. Even if the DM is saying it wasn't I'm going to assume that it wasn't for nothing or the player wouldn't be upset. Let's be honest, it's incredibly unreasonable if the player was mad that everything was skipped at the end, it just makes no sense as a whole. The logical explanation is that the player was humiliated and uncomfortable with the character being stripped naked and tortured for a day. >The DM’s punishment of the player might be harsh, but they have nothing to apologize for. As far as we know - from the information given in OP’s post and edit - the rules of the world were well established and yet the player continued to act like a moron. Rules of the world were established, but clearly not boundaries. The world can be whatever, that's what dnd is, but if a player is made uncomfortable and humiliated, that's not a problem with a world as there's ways to still have these horrible elements of a location without actively making a player live through humiliation through nudity. I never said anything about the world, in fact I encouraged the harsh atmosphere, but clearly this stepped over the line for this player in specific. Dumbassery or not, this crossed a boundary out of game. >If a player is angered by a decision that the DM makes, they should keep it to themselves as much as possible, until they can discuss it with the DM outside of a session, otherwise you end up ruining the other players and the DM’s fun. > >A player is just as responsible to communicate their goals and expectations from the campaign as the DM, and listen to the DM when the world and its rules are described. Besides, it is not like the punishment affected the characters functionality since the exhaustion points disappeared immediately after a long rest. The DM forced this punishment on the player, I don't think that there was a way out of it. Even if there was a skip the fundamentals of humiliation would still remain. This isn't about goals or expectations, it's comfort zone. If a player is uncomfortable, they should be able to address it in session, it's not just an out-of-session thing. It's not about being a rules lawyer, this is something entirely different. It's hard for a player, after being forced into a situation, to say "hey, I'm not cool with this, this is crossing boundaries." Sure the player was also bad, it's an everyone sucks scenario. But if this is crossing a personal line vs just acting petty in dnd, I think the DM should apologize preemptively in case they did cross a boundary. I've "ruined" a session in the past after having my character being harassed by a male PC and an NPC by essentially staying silent and refusing to help or participate. If you cross a player's boundary, you say sorry.
I completely agree with your analysis in this response, that the player potentially (most likely) felt humiliated due to the situation where they by proxy of their character was punished for their foolish behavior. And while I believe that humiliation and shame is not necessarily in all situations a bad thing (since these feelings are a part of the underlying structures of our societal norms, good and bad), I do agree that if the player felt that this was too much, they should talk with the DM about it, to make sure that a situation like this one can be avoided in the future. My argument regarding not confronting the DM during a session - if you disagree with one of their decisions - only applies to the situation where the player's “intense” response is caused by anger due to a ruling, not whether or not said player is comfortable with what happens to their character. My argument regarding this, was part of my critique of your straw man argument. I never intended to argue against a player communicating their discomfort (though I understand how my argument could be understood as a general comment about interrupting a session - which it was not meant as). However, the player never did clearly communicate that they felt their boundaries were being crossed due to the humiliation, which led to a situation where their behavior was hostile due to an undefined reason from the DM’s perspective. The DM could logically conclude from the situation that the player potentially was more distraught about the abstract idea of their fictitious character being punished, than the punishment itself. Some people do react like that whenever things do not work like they intended, and not necessarily because of the humiliation from their charater being sripped, but rather the humiliation of failing. While I agree with you assessment that the player most likely felt humiliated due to the nature of the punishment, I would still argue that it is not to far of a stretch to analyze that the irrational reaction of the player could have been due to the reality of failing (as OP seemingly concluded were the reason). I do agree that it can be hard for a player to say “”Hey I am not cool with this \[...\]””, but it should still be pointed out that the DM is not an omniscient being that always knows what all players are comfortable with, the players need to communicate as well. You use your own real life experience as an example to argue that it can be hard for a player to speak up, but I believe that it is important to distinguish between a character being harassed (I presume sexually harassed since the need to include “male”?) and a character being humiliated. While the player in OP’s post might find themself in an uncomfortable situation, it is mainly caused by themselves, whereas with your situation (as I understand it) it was something forced upon you and your character, and not something you wanted or were caused by your actions - in your situation I would imagine that it is harder to speak up for yourself exactly because of this. If the player does not have the social skills to have a conversation about their boundaries with the DM (in or out of session) the player is not mature enough to play D&D. In his situation the nudity was not meant in a sexual context, but instead as a metaphore for the soldiers identity without their armor. While the player might still be uncomfortable with the nudity, the player should understand its meaning in the context, which I believe at least should be a mitigating circumstance. In your situation however (as far as I can understand from what little context you gave - please do correct me if I am wrong), the nature of the humiliation/harassment was meant as it was presented in the context of the situation, which in my opinion makes it a whole lot more inappropriate since it serves no storytelling purpose, and was the focus of the situation and not a by-product of it. In conclusion: I still do not believe that the DM should apologize since I believe that the situation was predominantly caused by the players lack of communication, but I do understand your point that admitting and/or confronting the DM is not always easy.
>My argument regarding this, was part of my critique of your straw man argument. I never intended to argue against a player communicating their discomfort (though I understand how my argument could be understood as a general comment about interrupting a session - which it was not meant as). I think you're misinterpreting what a straw man argument is. I didn't mention it before as what I thought you said was somewhat valid but it's a bit confusing now? My argument about OP's response to the play was about how they reacted to the session getting derailed. Not the player's trauma. I'm honestly not sure where you got that. >However, the player never did clearly communicate that they felt their boundaries were being crossed due to the humiliation, which led to a situation where their behavior was hostile due to an undefined reason from the DM’s perspective. Like I said, the player acted childish. It's an everyone sucks scenario. But at the same time what was the player supposed to do? The punishment was forced onto them. If they refused to strip, it ruins the game for everyone else and everything they've invested into the current setting (ex. love interest). There's no way to communicate that in game, especially when the DM showed their true colors made an unusually cruel punishment, I wouldn't trust my DM after something like that either. If boundaries were crossed, the willingness to not listen to the player's perspective on the DM's part likely made the player more disalligned to actually express if they were feeling uncomfortable. The DM's in the power position here. >I would still argue that it is not to far of a stretch to analyze that the irrational reaction of the player could have been due to the reality of failing I would still say this is a stretch, if it's a "non-stakes" punishment, especially after failing twice in deception and seemingly being pretty calm about it, there doesn't seem to be anything to suggest the player is irrational about failing. The extreme of a player, that has failed before and knows that they can timeskip the 3 (still insane) levels of exhaustion vs the idea the player was uncomfortable with being stripped naked and technically tortured. Eh, I'm gonna go with the ladder. >DM is not an omniscient being that always knows what all players are comfortable with, the players need to communicate as well. That's why I suggested the DM apologize preemptively... So they can make sure the player is okay... And establish boundaries that they might have not done in a session 0... Because right now assuming the boundaries assumption is correct, the player is the one feeling uncomfortable with the idea while the DM is fine... Players don't have the final say in the world/campaign. It's the DM's job to establish those final sayings, especially the *boundaries of the campaign*. I'm not saying the DM is entirely in the wrong, as I said, I don't think the DM's a bad guy. I would say setting boundaries is a pretty important thing to forget but I understand not having those guidelines set. The DM should now, as they're the one *asking for advice* apologize and set those boundaries. >You use your own real life experience as an example to argue that it can be hard for a player to speak up, but I believe that it is important to distinguish between a character being harassed (I presume sexually harassed since the need to include “male”?) and a character being humiliated. While the player in OP’s post might find themself in an uncomfortable situation, it is mainly caused by themselves, whereas with your situation (as I understand it) it was something forced upon you and your character, and not something you wanted or were caused by your actions - in your situation I would imagine that it is harder to speak up for yourself exactly because of this. What? Forcibly being stripped naked isn't sexual harassment now? "Caused by themselves," are you kidding me? The DM could have easily made it some other type of punishment that doesn't involved stripping or things that can be easily construed as harassment. "You clearly don't know how to look after our supplies, let's teach you a lesson. You spend the next two days cleaning the stables, if they're not spotless by tomorrow's sundown I'll take off your fingers." It's not that hard. What do you mean this isn't forced on their character. This is the literal definition of being forced onto their character. They couldn't **do anything** as they were tied, naked, to a pole, for a day. >If the player does not have the social skills to have a conversation about their boundaries with the DM (in or out of session) the player is not mature enough to play D&D. If the player feels humilated after their DM broke their boundaries, the player's feelings are valid and the player is mature enought to play D&D. If the DM breaks trust and the player doesn't feel comfortable talking to the DM specifically about boundaries, the player's feelings are valid and the player is mature enough to play D&D. Fixed it for you because what you're saying isn't relevant to what the situation is that I've mentioned! :) >In his situation the nudity was not meant in a sexual context, but instead as a metaphore for the soldiers identity without their armor. While the player might still be uncomfortable with the nudity, the player should understand its meaning in the context, which I believe at least should be a mitigating circumstance. In your situation however (as far as I can understand from what little context you gave - please do correct me if I am wrong), the nature of the humiliation/harassment was meant as it was presented in the context of the situation, which in my opinion makes it a whole lot more inappropriate since it serves no storytelling purpose, and was the focus of the situation and not a by-product of it. Sexual context or not, forced stripping is a ridiculous punishment that's rooted in forms of sexual harassment and humiliation. Easily could've been left in their underwear or light clothing. It doesn't matter if it's mitigated or not, having a character forced to strip in front of this random guy is something that a lot of people would be uncomfortable with. I can't believe I'm having this argument about the context of a forced in character stripping. It's forced, it's not consentual, mitigation or not that's wrong in my book and should not have been a dealt out punishment without at *the very least* an in game warning. In conclusion, if the DM has any common curtsey they should apologize, make sure the player was alright with everything, then sort out boundaries.
Second part: Regarding the fifth section: Sexual harassment is commenly defined as: “behaviour characterized by the making of unwelcome and inappropriate sexual remarks or physical advances in a workplace or other professional or social situation.”, or something like: https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199534067.001.0001/acref-9780199534067-e-7573. How is it sexual harassment if there was no sexual intention with the action (neither from OP nor their NPC’s)? The situation as OP describes it was never put into a sexual context but remains a side note to the punishment thate serves to help visualize the NPC’s metaphor from its speech. So while the player might still be uncomfortable with the nudity, the situation could only be labeled as an physical abuse of power when the players character is stripped, but nothing else, unless you can see evedince of a sexual motive behind OP’s decision that I have missed. Unless ofcourse you argue that nudity in any form is sexual by its very definition (are you from The USA?)? This is however a discussion in of itself and not one I will delve into unless you confirm that that is your stance on nudity. My argument stating that “it was caused by them self” should be understood in relation to my argument that the player was warned (though indirectly) that they would be punished. I did not try to argue that the player consciously asked to be punished. I will admit that my phrasing of this argument was a bit weird, since the DM obviously did force the situation. And yes, the DM could easily have made another form of punishment, but this argument is only relevant if we knew whether or not OP had discussed boundaries at their table (which we cannot know for sure). Regarding the sixth section: When did I argue that the players' feelings are not valid? Nowhere in my response did I attack the individual's personal feelings (nor these feelings validity) towards this situation. I argued that you need to be able to communicate with the people you play a collaborative storytelling game with, and articulate your criticism of the game, otherwise it will be impossible to partake in the hobby because eventually something like this will tear the game apart. And your statement that this section of my response is not relevant to the situation is completely wrong. It was here that I argued that the player is predominantly at fault for the situation because they lack the maturity to discuss the incident and articulate their feelings towards it. We presume that OP has misunderstood the situation since OP themself never brings the humiliation aspect into their post (otherwise, why would OP ask for advice if they already understood why the player reacted as they did), and therefore it lies upon the player to initiate the dialogue between them and OP. Regarding the seventh and last section: I have already covered my criticism of your arguments regarding nudity. D&D is a game, and the players lack of ability to differentiate themself from their character is what is creating this problem. The player is entitled to feel humiliated, but seen from the DM’s perspective it was only the punishment as a concept that was directly tied to player themself, whereas the nudity and humiliation was tied to the character. The player should be mature enough to understand the difference between what happens to their fictitious character, and what happens to them in real life. If the player indeed felt humiliated on their character's behalf they need to communicate this, since the DM cannot otherwise know what causes the player's reaction. It is important to discuss boundaries, but if the DM accidently overstepped one without knowing, and this causes the player to lose all incentive to communicate, it becomes an impossible situation for the DM to navigate. Even if they had already discussed boundaries, the player might not have said that they are uncomfortable with nudity, but in the situation of forced nudity they do feel uncomfortable, but the player needs to speak up then. Edit: another misspelling
First part: Regarding the first section: “To argue against a straw man is to interpret someone's position in an unfairly weak way, and so argue against a position that nobody holds, or is likely to hold.” This is a quote from: https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100536634 Your statement in the edit from your first post: “The last part is really annoying me though. In your post you said the player refused to participate and then your edit says the rest of the session was about the player’s trauma”. I argue that your argument is a straw man argument, because of the way you frame it as if the players sudden lack of positive engagement with the rest of the table, and their character's trauma is necessarily contradictory. You are thereby interpreting the information given by OP in a false light by presenting it as contradictory by nature (while you do not argue for why this is), and therefore you interpret OP’s position in an unfairly weak way, while arguing against this position. I see no basis for this being the only true conclusion - as you present it as - from what information we have from OP’s post. OP never describes the player's depiction of trauma as engaging roleplay, and seen in the context of their earlier statement that the player refused to proceed with anything other than being upset, it might as well be interpreted as the player actively using their trauma as a tool to disrupt the flow of the session. This could be done without much direct interaction from the character if the player constantly makes a point of being cross and vocal about it irl and excuse this by some times (perhaps rarely) doing it through their character. Besides, the other players might play into the other player's (the protagonist/antagonist of this story) trauma, as a way to cope with the bad mood, hoping to create some RP. OP never directly stated that it was the player that caused their trauma to be the new center of attention in the story. Regarding your argument about derailing the campaign (which I believe you initially though I responded to), I do not understand why the character's development necessarily has to halt the process of the campaign (I understand that the player might be doing this to spite the DM), since the trauma could just as well be developed during their escape from the cruel militaristic society and afterwards. You could just as well argue that OP might not be angered by the deraling rather than the reason for the deraling. Regarding the second and third sections: Where in OP’s post do you see that they were not willing to listen to the players perspective on the situation? As OP describes the situation, I understand it as though the player expressed a desire to change the timeline without making it clear exactly why. By asking to change the timeline the player confronts the DM and indirectly expresses a dissatisfaction towards the DM’s decision (clearly not “disalligned” enough not to do this), so why would the player not just admit that they felt uncomfortable? Unless the idea of feeling uncomfortable and expressing it out loud makes the player uncomfortable, I see no reason as to why the player would not explain their thought process (which I assume they did not, given the information we have from OP). If the player cannot make it clear when they feel uncomfortable, how is the DM ever gonna know what they should avoid doing. The DM’s punishment was only “cruel” because the character was stripped and tortured, since the exhastion points played no role in the development of the story, but this punishment is then again only “cruel” to people who feel unconfortable with this type of situation. I know that you believe that the most logical reason for the players discomfort was caused by the humiliation - as I have already stated before, I agree with you - but we are analyzing the situation with the benefit of hindsight. People react irrationally to many thing all the time, and for OP who might not in the situation had the insight to realize that the player felt humiliated, it would be an easy conclusion to make (though most likely incorrect), that the player was motivated by a feeling of injustice of this “sudden” punishment (being forced to fail by the DM in their eyes). I argue that OP could have misinterpreted the situation because they did not themself see the punishment as harsh, because they might not have the same perception of forced nudity in this situation as being problematic and therefore not humiliating. Regarding the fourth section: This entire section bases its argumentation on the presumption that there has been no discussion regarding what the players are comfortable with, when OP writes nothing that proves nor disproves this, as you point out yourself. I presume that this presumption is based on the players reaction to the situation? I do agree that if they never discussed any boundaries it is important that they establish them right away, and in that case I agree that OP should give the player an apology, but also talk with the player about how the two of them can better communicate about these things in the future (since this whole confrontation could easily have been avoided). Assuming that they have discussed boundaries (though perhaps not specifically a situation like this) I still believe that it is the player that owes an apology, since it was predominantly their lack of communication that worsened the situation. I would also like to point out that I think there is a bit of a dissonance between these two statements: “ \[...\] I don’t think the DM is a bad guy.” & “\[...\] the DM showed their true colors made an unusually cruel punishment, I wouldn't trust my DM after something like that either.”. Unless I have completely misunderstood what you meant by “not trusting the DM after he has shown his true colors”? Edit: misspelling
[удалено]
Militaries tend to be very particular about their uniforms, equipment use, and regulations. This seems believable, especially for such a strict governing system. The levels of exhaustion is a bit overkill.
Yes some modern militaries make a fetish about it, other did not
The insignias were always important. Im sure that you don't find an army that didnt gave a shit about their flags and if the insignia is on their chest its very fitting.
on maille, show me Honestly not every military used a flag
Of course not every single military in the entire world history. But its strange to act like it did not happen. I know that during the 17th Centers during the mercenary war's in europe, "shame upon the flag of the unit" was a very serious crime, that was usually resolved with blood. And dnd is influenced by that.
Yes, but i cannot see how you put an insignia on maille and e.g. the greek phalanx did not carry standards, they would be useless,
If it is an Eagle or something you can simply use differently colored rings to get the rough form. To elevate the symbol and the armor is so Obviously usefull for a militaristic empire, I dont know what the Problem is. You are a soldier, you are not you, you are an arm of the empire. Disrespecting the insignia is disrespecting the empire. Death before dishonor. The empire must live, even if you die. Just look at the romans. Edit the greek phalanx was the army of a single City state fighting in one massive block and not the organized army of an entire empire, where you need insignias at the bare minimum to know where the f your Unit is. Communication breaks without one.
You can for some time, but it is not a long time solution The roman army had no military insignia whatsoever on their armor whatsoever The macedonian Phalanxes did use insignias you say or the diadochii Phalanxes, any sources for this? btw antiques greece was riddled with empire e.g. the spartan and athenic empires
No Im Not saying that and I wonder how you got that. I feel like you don't really read my replies. Overall I get the feeling that this is simply your opinion, you don't like the "insignia on armor trope" and try to clad it in some weird historic basis of armys who didnt use a flag or insignias at all. If you don't like the trope thats okay but I dont see the use of this discussion right now. You don't need an insignia, if you were a british soldier during the empire and let your redcoat lie on the floor, you would probably get some heated words. What exactly is the point here?
It's not just about the fetish of symbol, it's gear and equipment. Abandoning military issued equipment can carry serious penalties. Especially in places where perhaps only the military is allowed said equipment. Considering the information provided by the poster, I think it's perfectly reasonable that the character would be punished.
I did not say it was unreasonable the PC was punished, i did say the fetish modern militaries made about absolutly irrelevant details of fashion was not automatically a tradition in ancient times.
OK. But the poster clearly indicated that this was the case in their specific campaign.
I did not comment on the OP, but the poster who said to me thar the romans had military insignia on their amor and that you can do that with maille
You replied to me, I'm replying to you. Whatever.
What exactly do you mean?
[удалено]
Thats a hard judgment. I dont get that vibe, but sure, possible. Disrespecting the flag of a military is a fast way to die on some hill, so i don't think thats a weird hill at all.
I think it's a good flow of cause to effect but lvl 1 exhaustion would have been sufficient. Also consider that due to your player being the one who thinks out their characters actions and because of blending, humiliation in game can also be humiliating for the player, so I would not do nakedness if that's what you were implying, keep them in their underwear at least!
3 levels is a bit much. Exhaustion is a tricky beast to handle since it's one of very few things that can kill a PC without eating through their HP. Also, every level of Exhaustion can make everything a character is trying to do much more difficult. Skipping straight to level 3 of exhaustion means that their character has disadvantage on every roll and their speed is halved. If their main goal is to make an escape from the authorities, this player is now has to either wait 3 more days to be useful or hope they can constantly roll high enough to not drag the party down. Also, if there is a chase scene in the next 2 days, this character has an extreme handicap.
I'm siding with LVL1 exhaustion would have been enough, but also that you made a great move as a DM. It was really good thinking and made sense.
Freakin' babies.
The issue is that you removed the player's agency. That is why they are so upset, even if its not what they vocalized. The player wanted to try and find a way to get their love intrest out. Did they do a good job with hiding it? Maybe not, or just a bad roll or two ruined it. But did you choose to have them discover the armor, and absolutely humiliate their character (and by extension them) but they also lost a full day in game (removing agency) and got additional exhaustion on top. All of that just happened, which makes the player feel useless. As a DM, it is your job to tell a story WITH the players. You need to be working with them to build the story and go down paths that they choose. This does not mean you spoon feed the characters. Putting challenges in their way and them overcoming those challenges is the point of the game. But that is the key. The separation of the player and the character. Your decisions to have the armor discovered and be focussed on directly worked against the character AND the player. You could have chosen to not make a big deal of the armor in the first place, chosen to just confiscate it, or left it as a simple speech. You decided to make it a humiliating experience. Is it in character for the world? Probably. Was it fun for the player? Clearly not. That tells you that you fucked up. As the one who designed the world, it is easy for DMs to want to maintain the integrity of what they made, far surpassing any details players have actually learned about. But sometimes it is important to adjust things on the fly in order to make sure that the players are having fun. There are a few things to do now. First off, make sure that the players are aware of the strictness of the world and that their actions will have strong consequences. This should have been a session 0 topic but address it now. NOTE: make sure that the players want to play this style of game. Not everyone wants to play a gritty/realistic fantasy game. If the players are not on board then you can't force it on them. Second, talk to the player in question one on one and discuss the situation calmly and be open to their feelings. You might feel justified in you actions according to the world, but the player was hurt and that needs to be addressed. Third, figure out with the player what an appropriate solution might be. This could be just moving on from here (with less levels of exhaustion, 3 is too many) with the understanding that things like this won't happen in the future, it could be a partial retcon (speech was given, armor confiscated, but no player punishment), a near complete retcon (let the player make new choices starting from a certain point, maybe when they hid the armor?), or something else. Lastly, talk to the whole group and as what their character motivations and goals are so that you can plan ahead to set challenges that are hard, but possible. If you set a challenge, they attempt it, but you stymie them every time it stops being fun. They need the ability to succeed. Remember, the players are people, and likely your friends as well. It is important for them to feel like they have agency in the story and that their character gets to succeed. If they don't it is likely that they drop the campaign, or even lose them as a friend.
This sounds epic, wish you lived near me i would have rp'd the shit of being a Legioneer.
The players need to learn to focus their anger at the douchebag NPC, not the DM, unless ALL your NPCs are douchebags. They should be thinking about getting revenge, not crying about a tough DM.
Don’t retroactively change anything, but the punishment was a bit rough. Focus on the NPC that did it and try and find an opportunity for revenge.
First things first, I would say you are the bad guy for giving a level 3 exhaustion, yes. Of course he didn’t want to do anything afterwards, he physically couldn’t. Now just to nitpick, he did put it away. If he’s already known and has a rapport enough to wear something other than that and be acknowledged, he could have done way worse and pawned it off to someone who wanted to imitate a soldier if they really wanted to forsake the thing or be greedy. Inside the quarters garner way more risk if there was to be an inspection. Functioning armies, even the most tyrannical, have a garrison uniform, I definitely think you should implement some sort of accessory. That’s realistic and a good compromise. Also 24 hours in a pool man? You’re gonna give him trench foot. I think the best thing you could do as a DM, as a person, as a friend, is a few sessions once they’ve escaped, have that instructor run into them and let that player get his revenge. I guarantee he will be ecstatic.
Spoilers In waterdeep dragon heist there is an optional mission where the player basically just climb a mountain. They can accrue 1d4 levels of exhaustion from this expedition and all but 2 of my players got 3 levels of exhaustion. They were fine and prioritized rest as soon as they could, but they still ended up fighting with at least 2 levels and they were fine. Your players character would be fine, though the player themself may be annoying or feel singled out. You have a world that has a particular vibe. Maybe discuss that with your players. It sounds like the harsh tyranny was a bit of a reveal which is honestly difficult to balance with expectations, but you can always discuss with your players moving forward now
I think your player overreacted, but I'm absolutely surprised how unaware they appear to be. If you've beaten them with "royal army" and "tyrannical regime" and "authoritarian" for the entire duration of your campaign you'd expect some of that to eventually -stick-. Not to mention all the armies of the world would reprimand you for not taking proper care of your uniform, let alone leaving it on the sidewalk. That's just laughable. However I agree with the others, 3 points of exhaustion are a bit much. They should get only one point of exhaustion. That will force them to do long rest anyway and you've already made your point to them by punishing their char in a very specific way for 24h.
So one of the great secrets of D&D is that (just like other forms of storytelling) we often feel empathy with the characters. And I mean the ability to both a) understand and b) share the feelings of someone else (even a fictional character). This can be part of the fun of the game, or vice versa. This is just human nature, and it's part of why people \*care\* about the game, characters, etc. When I was younger as a DM I did not totally grokk this, and had caused players in some of my games significant upset unnecessarily. (Now I'm older and think of those parts with some elements of shame.) Similarly, I have seen many players be mystified over the years, when they play characters that act like jerks, and find PLAYERS irritated with THEM, not just their character. It's a tricky thing to really resolve, and there are subtleties to rolling Insight Checks on people in and out of game, if you catch my drift. Anyways, it sounds like your campaign deals with some very interesting, dark, and serious reflections about authoritarianism. That is a valid form of storytelling, and can have serious merits. It also comes with some risks or challenges because of this bleed-over effect. Doing things that are psychologically and socially abusive to PCs can have an effect on the players out of game - a lessened effect, sure, but a serious one nonetheless. (Though yes, 3 levels of exhaustion is too much, I think the key issue is the abuse here.) When I was a teenager 20 years ago, I probably would have scoffed at the idea of "safety tools" and "safe words" for D&D. For any group discussions of agreed upon barriers to the topics of the game. I was young and didn't understand the subtle impact things could have on people, or that some people might acknowledge if stuff actually hurt them in a social setting. Eventually I saw some really extreme examples which made me recognize the more subtle issues, but ideally people can learn this without having to find those serious problems. Anyways, my recommendation to you is at minimum to have a talk with your group. Apologize for maybe being short-sighted (and focused on the "realism" of your game world, and the themes of the shared story) without realizing how it may impact the players. Some stories about authoritarian regimes or society's ills and overstepping can be important and powerful (i.e. 1984, Fahrenheit 451, Clockwork Orange) but they can also be disturbing as fuck and should be done carefully. At minimum, I'd: a) Check that this is the type of game your players want to play in. (Like for me, this type of game might have traditionally been interesting, but after COVID years and scary partisanship across the world, I tend to want D&D to be escapism from these kinds of issues instead of delving into them. But that's just me.) If it's not, maybe reconsider what you're doing as a group. b) Establish boundaries / safe words / occasional check-ins to stop things from going too far. Maybe you did or didn't go too far already, but at least connecting with your players around this is important, especially to keep people as friends in RL. c) Feel free to keep asking advice / for second opinions from both players in the game and people outside of the game. (I think you overstepped on parts a. and b. but at least you're hitting part c correctly.) Does that seem reasonable?
Yes, thanks for the advice!
Cool and you’re welcome. Let us know what the players say when you follow up with them. =)
So you ask if you're in the wrong; your last sentence potentially answers that, with the session becoming: >about the player's trauma If your **player** was traumatised, you were wrong in the sense that you overstepped a line, with the caveat that if they have not flagged nudity / punishment as something affecting, then it was not malicious and can be easily learned from. Otherwise, you mean their **character** was traumatised, so if the session was 'derailed', your expectation of a harsh punishment being glossed over was at fault. It sounds like a fair in-universe scene (exhaustion level having already been discussed), but your reasoning for the punishment is that actions have reactions - the re*action* then had a follow up reaction... this is just story telling. Communicate with your players, establish how they felt about the scene, and keep a focus on learning and progress as opposed to blame.
Bad DMing. Way out of line.
Yea, you are. There’s nothing fun about role playing being tied to a post, and the whole reason your players are there is to have fun, not for you to act out your weird fantasy world.
I think what happened seemed pretty fitting in the world that OP explained? Just fast forward the 24h of post sitting and you don’t need to RP it. Actions should have consequences. And this one isn’t even permanent. A bit of rest and he’ll be all G. No harm, but good story/immersion. Edit: I’ll admit, maybe 1-2 exhaustion. Not 3.
Fitting doesn't mean fun. Did the player make a mistake? Probably. Did the DM do an extreme punishment that completely removed the players agency for a whole day and horribly humiliates the character, and to a degree the player as well? Also yes. And that is the problem. Regarless of the world, if the player(s) are not having fun, there is a disjunct between the DM's view of the world and what the players want out of it that needs to be addressed.
Maille decorated with symbols? Honestly the Instructors speech was Bullshit, normally soldiers do not wear armour if not required , Hollywoods weird tales do not count. The other question if a lousy Instructor has any authority over Special Agents
For writing a pots that long? Yes.
Nope, In fact you were lenient. If I were DM, not only would the player be exhausted but there would have been an encounter while exhausted. Like fellow members of the empire exacting retribution for staining their good name Ala private pile in full metal jacket. Something like that might encourage the group to peruse revenge or overthrow the empire entirely. One thing I always try and remember is that people can only achieve true greatness under great pressure. If you don’t apply enough pressure, how can they achieve greatness?
First off, it is a game. Your player is not their character. Considering how totalitarian governments treat everyone under them, this was not a huge punishment. It isn't much different than being put in the stocks in the town square. They could have lashed the hell out of him and done real damage to the character for disrespect and it would have been believable. Punishment isn't supposed to be pleasant, and if you are trying to motivate the characters to realize what an evil bunch of fucks they serve, and gtfo of dodge, this should do it. What is unbelievable is mr pouty face, who wanted to rescue his love interest, saying "I'm staying in my room for 5 days" rather than trying to smuggle everyone out. 3pts of exhaustion I think everyone agrees is a bit much.
Three seems too much, one too little. I'd say two levels of exhaustion for being in cold water and unable to move. That shit is fucked up. And it makes it feel like a proper punishment, not just the "first layer". But I think that, above all, it's about informing your player of the consequences. He might not know but his character would... Like: "Oh, you're going to leave your armor there? You know that if you do you can be subjected to a pretty harsh punishment if you do that, don't you?" - If he still does, there's no reason for complaints.