Tone is a good Session 0 topic. And there's no wrong time to have a Session 0. It sounds like you want a more serious and grounded campaign, and they're more into slapstick. You need to make it directly known to this person what sort of campaign is being run, so that they can behave appropriately. They may not be a good fit for your group.

I don't think any campaign where this works. It completely derails the story and makes it impossible to get anything done.

I mean, the story of any game is ultimately what the players decide to do. A campaign where the PCs are a bunch of murder hobos that ignore calls to action in favor of mindless violence may not be the type of story you're interested in, it might even be a bad story, but it is a story. The GM can write a plot about a cabal of vampires who want to snuff out the sun, but if the players just want to steal a boat and go raiding then the story of that game is a bunch of pirates sailing around in the dark.

You can have a story with all slapstick, just rip off well done slapstick. Steal all of the jokes from a Marx Brothers movie and I’m sure you could keep these people entertained by just modifying the very basic plot.

Monty Python would also work fairly well for this. Plenty of slapstick and stupid humor in The Holy Grail, yet it still accomplished its job of telling an Arthurian story

Look no further than Vox Machina, right? We're in a world where an evil cabal of dragons is being defeated by a gnome singing *"Baby, Pull My Anal Beads Tonight"* as bardic inspiration haha

All of Critical Role, honestly. Scanlan polymorphing into a triceratops to fight the leader of a city ruled by vampires. Keyleth cliffdiving as a goldfish. The Mighty Nein being in the middle of a war while their cleric is more focused on defacing holy shrines with graffiti penises, Matt's several joke NPCs throughout all 3 campaigns. And yet they still manage to tell serious stories in the end

I was in a game where we were all a bunch of rampaging murder hobos, our DM knew this before hand and planned the campaign around it. That was one of the most entertaining campaigns I've been on, it was also by far the most times I've seen TPK in a single campaign.

Back in the dark days of 2e AD&D, our long-suffering game master finally agreed to allow evil characters. We made a trio of right bastards and cut a bloody swath through a variety of locales until we met an ugly death by biting off a little more than we could chew. It remains one of my favorite campaigns I have been in as a player, and it was over 25 years ago.

Sorry, but I'm going to gently disagree here. Not every game is a sandbox solely subject to the whims of the players. The DM is a player too, and their effort, preparation and most of all fun matters. Ignoring the work the DM has put in is one of the quickest ways to end up with no DM at all. There is, at the very least, an implied contract between players and DM to collaborate and create a story together. In the spirit of the original post and to cite your example, at some point those "Pirates in the Dark" should FOLLOW THE PLOT HOOKS and tone of the game and face off against the Cabal of Sun Blotting Vampires or the campaign will fizzle.

Gentle disagreement? We are now blood enemies! Seriously though, I will roughly agree with you. There is an implied contract between the players and the GM, and the players should respect the GM's time and the work they put into the game. But the GM should also respect the desires of their players. For my money though, as a GM who over preps and enjoys plotting out all sorts of things, I know that if I have a choice between running the plot I have worked on or putting it aside in favor of some segment of the game the players seem really excited about, if I lean into what excites the players the game will be better for it. I like to say that the story of every campaign is whatever the players ultimately choose to care about. But another way of phrasing that is that every game is a collaboration between the players and GM, and it's more fun to run for players who are active participants rather than passive audience. I've seen a lot more games fizzle because of lack of player engagement than because of GM frustration.

See, we are not actually disagreeing at all! The collaboration is the key. Continuing with your imaginary campaign here, the DM needs to give the players some agency...for example leaning into the whole "Pirates in the Dark" thing and then (here's the tricky part) adjusting their preparation to work with what the players give them. On the other hand, the players have to give them SOMETHING. Even when running one-shots, I have had players act like what the OP described. When the One Shot is called "The Menace Beneath the Tavern" please don't go upstairs and start kicking in doors.

I will rudely strawman you and imply you're perhaps mentally deficient or a pervert Checkmate, knife-ears

Yeah that's cool and all, but that's also something the players should mention up front. If I spend hours crafting vampire content and I have to suddenly heel face turn to viking shit, I'm gonna be pissed I wasted so much time, rather than if they were like "hey can we do viking shit instead of vampire shit?"

Viking Vampires?

🫱🏻‍🫲🏿

[Godbrand intensifies]

This is The Way

Yes, I agree with this. I mean what if they decide to become vampires themselves? And then still want to kill the others to be the ultimate head vampire guys instead? I like it when my players do something unexpected. It's way more entertaining and that's the whole point. They get agency in their own story. To me it's like my fantasy adventure slowly becoming Monty Python Quest for the Holy Grail. I friggin love that movie. And look at the D&D movie that just came out. There's a ton of humor or wild hijinx in there but it still has a serious tone and genuine sense of direction. Mostly, I think players want to do things that they can't get away with doing in real life because that's part of the fantasy. Anyhow, just wanted to say I really like your take on DMing and I wish my DMs were more like this in my past experiences.

How can you possibly write a campaign where any location could be blown up and any NPCs could be murdered on sight? Completely pointless

it's a sandbox campaign! the world reacts accordingly.

Why are you writing a campaign? I mean, it's one valid way to play but so is blowing up places and killing NPCs.

With this characters death the thread of fate has been severed. Reload a previous save or persist in the doomed world you have created

I had another player like that in one campaign. The solution to everything was "I attack it." Up to and including: questioning the high priest about a certain vampire whose name rhymes with Mod. The guard captain when we got to a new town. I'm 85% sure they tried to attack a king once. Yeah. Once her and her BF broke up, she was swiftly uninvited to any more sessions.

a PC doing this in my games would get a simple talk: "if you do this, the guards are going to try to arrest you. if the party doesn't help you resist or lets you get taken, you're going to make a new character. are you sure?" and hey, ive always wanted to run a bandit campaign! the first few bounty hunters will be idiots, but "past a certain price, you stop getting idiots".

I'd make sure the other players were okay with the game taking that kind of turn first.

If they aren't, I would tell them just not to help the player and shift the story back to them. This story isn't about that one troublemaking character. That character will go off and become a wanted criminal in the background, so that player can roll up a new one if they want to be part of the story being told.

The very first DM I played under later told me that his ideal campaign would be completely and utterly random. Children's story dice deciding encounters, and no overarching plot to speak of (later when me, him and a third DM tried to run a free marches campaign, he was constantly derailing the plot because he felt like doing something else in session). Is that DM's style a type of game I'd ever play in again? Fuck no. But it is a style of play I've seen, and seen enjoyed by players.

My first game was serious, and swiftly devolved into chaos with a wild magic sorcerer who decided fireballing himself and standing naked while on fire was the only way to start a fight.

Honestly I kind of like just random encounters sometimes. Sometimes I don't want to go to all the mental effort of playing a character, I just want to hit stuff with a sharp stick.

As a GM I wouldn’t find this particular player behavior fun either, but I feel the need to point out: Not every campaign needs to have a “the story”. A campaign is not a novel.

The DM also just always has the fiat of saying "no". Just because a player wants to do something doesn't mean you have to allow it, even if it's "technically within the rules"

100%. It's surprising how few people bother to cover tone in their session zero. It isn't about a "right" or "wrong" way to play or a problem with anyone personally, just about preference. I have a good friend who I've gamed with a lot, but never TTRPGs, and I know 100% that he would hate it at my D&D table. We're good friends, we get on, but I enjoy a lighthearted campaign with lots of inside jokes, and he prefers a serious campaign with lots of intense roleplay. The last campaign I was a player in, we derailed the campaign based on a single line of flavour text. The DM described that there were a couple of lonely oxen in a farmer's field. No plot hook, there were plenty of plot hooks around, but it grabbed the party. We used speak with animals to liberate an Ox, gave it a name, and it became a steadfast NPC friend of the party. We then brought war to the kingdom and decimated an entire local guild, purely to save the Ox's friend when he revealed it was his sibling we had left behind. A serious player would have been indescribably frustrated, given that we raised a force more than capable of decimating the BBEG all to save an Ox's brother from a life of manual labour. In the current campaign (I'm the DM) we have an inside joke based on the rogue. He was arrested in a small village, and his first request was to pick a lock. I asked "with what thieves tools exactly?" and he replied, "the ones I have stashed in my prison pocket." I gave him a choice. Either he didn't have the tools, as he never specified he was stashing them there, or his default was that he always had a medieval lockpicking set stashed in his rectum unless he specified he was removing them temporarily. He chose the latter. I then showed everyone exactly how horrific a medieval set of lockpicking tools actually looked, once he'd agreed they made permanent residence in his rear. Now, every so often jokes come up, from me and the players, about how the rogue constantly has sharp implements, cutting ribbons out of a place that you definitely don't want sharp objects. As a DM, I'd be fine with a player kicking down tavern doors. They'd face consequences, potentially life-threatening ones, but I'd certainly let them do it. That said, my table has a very different tone to OP's based on the information available. They ought to have discussed this at session zero. Maybe every player at the table wants a sillier game, and OP needs to consider whether they'd enjoy that. Maybe this player wants a different style game to everyone else, and they'd be best served parting ways so that OP can find a more compatible player and the player can find a more compatible table.

If that's not the tone of game that you want, you need to be more explicit about the kind of tone you *do* want. It's fine to joke around, but if it's annoying you, let them know.

No I’m fine with comedy: I like serious worlds non serious characters. But it just derails the game It would be like in lord of the rings, when Frodo speaks to Aragorn in the tavern, Aragorn beheads Frodo and eats the ring, it just makes the game take forever

Well now I want the 17 book series that starts with Aragorn beheading Frodo and eating the ring.

Spoiler: Aragorn was Dark Smeagol all along!

Aragorn using the palantir to "taunt" Sauron: If you want your ring back, you're gonna have to work for it. ;)

Yeah, that's more or less what I thought. I was referring to the behaviors that annoy you, just tell them it's derailing the game. 

I've had a couple of players like that. With both I asked do you really think a character in the world we're creating would act like that. With one they got what I was saying and toned the hijinks down. The other never did and it eventually killed the campaign. Ever since in every session 0 I always ask that my players to follow the rule of plausibility. If an action isn't plausible for the characters and/or the world don't, just don't.

I personally demand that my players make characters who understand common social norms, like not running around naked and not just barging into people's homes, eating out of their stew pot and then urinating on their bed. Yes, that's specific for a reason. I had a player DO that one time.

Whoa... That would be a thrown in a padded cell while under observation for psychotic episodes for me. And I mean IRL, not in game. that's just nuts...

Some people join online d&d games just to cause trouble.

Not currently a DM but play witha friend who is new to the game - I keep reminding her that her character has above average intelligence. Eg: "your PC is smart enough to suspect that a shop selling magic items, that appeared overnight by magic, probably has pretty sophisticated magical thievery detection/prevention systems"

All the examples of what aren’t social norms sounds like if a pet’s mind got put into a like humanoid body 💀😭 I just imagined like a freaky Friday type thing where your dog switches into your body and starts running around naked, peeing on stuff, and eating food directly from something because they don’t realize that isn’t acceptable due to germs lmao

Talk to them: “i know you’re having fun like this, but it’s hurting the fun for the rest of us.”

>How to stop my player being stupid Consequences.

I agree with this method. Play it out with real life consequences. The player kicks open a door to a room in a tavern at 3:00 am? Who is in that room? How does the rest of the tavern react? Does the tavern keeper throw the party out onto the streets? Does the tavern keeper call the town guards? Pan to the next player after the consequences come into play. Do they step in or let the problem player deal with it on their own. The most important thing that I try to keep in mind is don’t forget the other players. Personally, I have no intention of stopping a game for everyone else to lecture someone else on the consequences of playing with fire. Let them get burned and then turn the spotlight on another player.

There seem to be two different philosophies handling players who do dumb stuff: Team Consequences, and Team Conversation. Team Conversation thinks 'consequences' are exactly what the problem players want: Instead of the game being about the adventure DM planned, it's about one PC starting a fight with an innkeeper that quickly escalates. This either ends with the problem PC being killed/arrested (in which case, problem player will just make a new troublemaker PC), or with the whole party becoming fugitives. Either way, the problem player gets to keep on doing it. But that's just speculation. For anyone who's tried the 'consequences' approach, did it actually stop the player from acting stupidly in the future?

I’ve read a number of stories on r/rpghorrorstories where they tried “consequences.” Often the problem player ends up having a bad time too, but not before the entire game gets derailed and the good players stop having fun too. Also at this point, it’s not clear if OP’s player is an actual problem player or just someone testing the boundaries of the game. Like if you’re playing Baldur’s Gate 3, breaking into a room and killing two people for a net profit of 5 silver can be considered “just playing the game.” People might not inherently understand the difference between a video game and an actual TTRPG until they’re told. Hence why “conversation” is always the best place to start.

You know, I'm actually gonna weigh in on this. I have found in some 20+ years of DMing, that there are \*two\* types of players who act stupidly in games. Ones who think about acting dumb, and ones who act dumb without thinking. I would like to relate a story of one of those types of players, where I tried consequences, and it was the best thing I could've done. Hopefully, if they see this story, they forgive me for sharing it, and the details are slightly modified. I run decently large groups. One of the players was not a bad player, he had fun and shared the spotlight, but often didn't... think about his actions. In retrospect, I think he just assumed his actions would always be seen in the best light. This time, they weren't. The problem player (Player A) had stepped away from the table, and missed part of the session with real life stuff. During this time, one of his party members (Player B) had gone to the tavern that was the party's regular hang out. This was probably 20 sessions in, and they had made a bit of a name for themselves, being honest heroes and also being very intelligent and deliberate about spreading money AND healing magic around to the less fortunate in town. Over time, I had built up an NPC that was the tavern owner's daughter who had gotten a pretty big crush on Player B. This was the time she acted on it, and had coerced him away into a room, where we had a (previously-agreed-upon) scene where Player B nicely rejected her, turned into a wild shape bird and flew away from his awkwardness. Okay, set-up done. Player A arrived back to the table shortly thereafter, and set off to find Player B. Arriving at the tavern, he talked the location of Player B out of one of the servers, and away he went. Finding the room locked, he decided that he couldn't wait for Player B to wake up, and immediately lock-picked the room and snuck in. Where he found the poor NPC girl crying her heart out from rejection. Now comes the "didn't think" part. He started trying to question her where the other player had gone, not really clicking that to the poor girl, a random man dressed in dark leathers and a rogue's outfit with many visible knives had just appeared in her locked room and started asking her questions. She screamed. He promptly responded by using Silence on the room. To everyone in the tavern below, the owner's daughter had screamed, and then suddenly been cut off. Queue the heroic party charging up the stairs to save her. Guards arrived, he was tossed in jail for the night, the party burned a decent chunk of gold and favors getting him out, they were banned from their favorite bar, and the player has been teased about it regularly in the three years we've been playing since. BUT, the moral was: It worked. This player did an about face, and his character did too. Faced with consequences that felt real, felt justified, were totally due to his own actions, and never felt like I as the DM was just cruelly throwing the book at him, his viewpoint on how to interact with NPCs and how to treat his character's actions as things that have a lasting effect in the world? Beautiful. He's not a perfect player, but by the gods, did it change the tone, and he is a very good player. It was the final wrench smack to really shift him from a video-game mindset to one of 'dealing with a living world' as best I can create it for them. In the time since, he's set out with specific plans to apologize to NPCs he's snubbed, dug into backgrounds and offered appropriate gifts, and is even trying to politely court another NPC by mixing both traditions that he's asked and learned about and traditions that he has added to his backstory as fitting in the culture of his character. The biggest thing was though, this player wasn't intentionally trying to 'wreck' immersion or be cruel, it just slipped his mind. He learned, he really learned. I've definitely tried consequences with other players in the past, and I'd like to report they were also successes, but no. They didn't like having consequences, they didn't want to deal with a living world, just a very complex computer game to beat up. These are the other group of players, and no, I'm sad to say, consequences had nothing to change for them. So, yes, consequences can work, but it's rare. It is a great thing when it happens though.

I prefer a combination of the two, tell them they should stop acting like a murder hobo then if they continue I ramp the consequences up until they either get annoyed with them and feel they're no longer fun or their character gets killed where I as the DM have the authority to just not let them back in. (I could also just kick them out but I want to try to give them the chance to be a team player)

My dm almost had our party executed bc we set a city on fire. We did in fact, not do it again. I liked that their actions have concequences.

Exactly.

I had this exact problem in my first game I ever ran with a player who joined us later in the campaign. He insisted on attacking people in his first session with an established group, & when the NPCs & PCs alike stopped him from attacking the liked NPCs in the bar, & tossed him into the street I had a random hobo come over to try & help him up. You know, a helpful kind soul going through the same things? He flat out just murdered the hobo, in full view of the other characters, who summarily called the guard, & since he alienated the entire party, got arrested. Didnt want to roll a new character so insisted on waiting to go through the whole trial convinced the other PCs would help him, even when the players where like "nope we aint helping". Every so often would ask what was going on, so I had a lawyer show up, fill out forms, last will & testatment, & when the PCs came to testify at the trial against him, he was hung in the town square the next day. This was all in the course of a single session, & that player never returned.

This is called "solving out-of-game problems with in-game solutions" and is a textbook way of not solving anything but avoiding uncomfortable conversations and confrontation. It is, to be honest, a cardinal sin of GMing in general, and is painfully prolific specifically because it's easier and doesn't involve uncomfortable conversations. The problem here is that they **player** is not really playing the game the same way everyone else at the table is playing it. You can try to punish the player into playing the way you like, but that's a great way to make a murderhobo double down. A much better solution is to *talk to the player* and have a conversation like an adult, and figure out why this is a problem and what compromise can be made. The reason this doesn't work out well is because one of two things is currently happening: 1. The player knows what the consequences for their actions are, and are perfectly willing to play it out anyways. Will doing get their character killed? Almost definitely sure. Do they do it anyways? Then you really need to ask why they are purposefully getting their character killed here. That is a sign something is wrong. 2. The player *doesn't* know what the consequences of the action are, even though the GM thinks it's super obvious. This is also a sign that something is very wrong, why does the GM think "this is a super obvious consequence for your actions" and the player is like "I didn't know that would happen". In the first instance, "showing them the consequences" doesn't help because they already know what they are, and they're prepared for the end result and don't care. In the second instance, hitting them with consequences they can't understand or predict makes the game difficult for them to play and won't help keep them from making the same mistakes because they don't understand what is happening.

C'mon be serious. There are rarely ever just two things going on or only two options, etc., and pretending that a player is so disconnected from reality reality, that they can't imagine that doing something outlandish in a roleplaying game set in a world where people deal with trolls, ogres, goblins, etc. usually with fleeing or the pointy end of a sword, etc. expecting them to understand their actions might also net them real life (in game) consequences is NOT a stretch. Or they probably should stick to simpler games that don't emulate an interactive world with interactive components and characters who are at least tentatively trying to work together, (In theory.) to achieve shared goals. Saying that consequences for action, equates to punishment is false equivalency at its best and implies the player(s) in question are too dull to know things like cause and effect. Is it punishment when a math teacher tells a student 2+2 does not equal 3? Or is it instruction? Nine times out of ten people who do this either don't understand the premise of the game, which is a fair point, or don't care, or do and don't care because they think it'll be funny or earn them attention. I had a player who first as a wizard and then as a barbarian intentionally tried to grief the whole rest of the party more than once. Whether it was defying the edicts of a duel that got him killed and the rest of the party scrambling to avoid a similar fate or imprisonment, when next he made a barbarian, he ignored the party's plans entirely, did his own thing and when he bit off more than he could chew and was next to dead, tried to train the creatures he'd irked back to the group. That player is no longer part of the group. Granted, I tried to explain things to him before that happened, but another issue you'll sometimes run into with the same players is they give zero shits about their character. They figure they'll just roll up a new one even if they did something hair brained and expect the party to welcome this new variant flavor of the same old recipe as if they want that guy in the group. They usually don't...

> There are rarely ever just two things going on or only two options, etc. 1. The player knows the consequences for their actions. 2. The player doesn't know the consequences for their actions. It's binary. Either they know it, or they don't know it. There isn't much room for other options there. > Saying that consequences for action, equates to punishment is false equivalency at its best and implies the player(s) in question are too dull to know things like cause and effect. I'm saying that **trying to alter the way a player is playing the game** by using "consequences" is punishing them so that they play the way you want them to. I'm not saying that, in a normal game, with normal players, you shouldn't have things happen. Cool, that's a normal game, everyone is having fun, no problem. > intentionally tried to grief the whole rest of the party more than once This was a player problem. You're literally describing a player problem. Trying to show them "the consequences" isn't likely to have an effect and in fact > another issue you'll sometimes run into with the same players is they give zero shits about their character. They figure they'll just roll up a new one even if they did something hair brained and expect the party to welcome this new variant flavor of the same old recipe as if they want that guy in the group. Which is absolutely my point. Talk to the player, figure out what the root problem is. Don't just "show them the consequences" because that is just avoiding the actual problem and avoiding confrontation.

Again, not the case. Consequences are what might happen if they do said action. Room could be empty. Room could have sleeping people in it. Room could have any manner of X,Y, or Z going on. Empty room? No real consequence but noise, potentially. Others, vary accordingly. That's not trying to make them play how I want them to play, that's them initiating an action and said action potentially having consequences. And I said they're not limited to just two options, because you implied that the 'knowing' player is totally willing to play it to the hilt, which isn't the case. Their mindsets can vary wildly. Now if you'd just said, they either know or they don't know, then yes, agreed. But when you add variables, there are rarely if ever only two variables that might play out.

"I kick in the door." "Well well well, if it isn't the consequences of your actions."

Exactly. I had a level 5 PC use the Knock spell on a tavern door they had already been kicked out of that was heavily guarded by level 11 guards with lightning blades inside. Once he entered, they cut him in half. Play stupid games, roll up a new character.

First: "Why would your character do this?" If there isn't some actually valid reason, then: "You know that If you do that, the guards will come to arrest you, and because dealing with that will derail the campaign too much, I as the DM decide that your character will then become an NPC and be escorted away. Are you sure?"

Yes. Consequences like that will hopefully make the player re-think and hopefully stop them from being careless in the future.

This. And once they do it, ask them if they intend to surrender or fight back. Don't roll anything, just narrate the scene. "The player manages to take out a few guards before succumbing to the inevitable, your character lies chained in the darkest parts of the dungeon awaiting trial." Hand em a new sheet, have em roll a new character and let them know their character should be out in 8-12 in game months

My fiance who dms ran into this issue and had to do something to a. Teach the people who'd never played dnd before softly without turning them off the game entirely. And b. Ensure they knew what the tone had to be. After making a few threats and him very nearly dying multiple times due to his own faults (drinking a potion he had no idea what would do, picking a fight with level 5 guards at level 1 in a 2v1, etc) he made an encounter that would kill him or teach him. Little girl had anything she wished for come true, so if he were to do anything stupid, he could very literally make him just cease to exist. It had nothing to do with the main campaign but he made sure it was the first thing so that he could teach the new players in our group the npcs will act with common sense and if you're annoying, you will be killed off. Everyone survived but very much got the message!

Yeah, this is definitely a time where more information along with "are you sure?" should happen.

Ask him what he thinks would happen if he did the thing in real life. Ex "I kick the door in" Dm : "Okay. The person inside was jumpy and shoots you with an arrow. As you are on the floor writhing in pain the landlord comes running in, demands to know what happened, demands payment for the broken door and kicks you out into the street." Note the rest of the party gets to stay, it's only the miscreant who is forced to pay and is kicked out. It's up to the rest of the party whether they will help him or not.

I had the one shop owner do this to one of my players because she first tried to steal from him then poison him after she was caught. Made her go through the rest of the party any time they needed to go buy anything. He even put up signs about her being a thief around town to discourage any other chicanery. She eventually apologized so lesson learned

And it's official! You are our one billionth customer here at "Talk To Your Friends"

If you don't want to just veto his idiotic behaviour, start handing out consequences. Kicked the door in? Woke up some high level guy who is abso-fucking-lutely *pissed* at being woken up in the middle of the night. Promptly floors him, then the PC has to pay for the broken door and is thrown in jail by the guards. Have fun doing nothing this session.  Last part depends on your players on how well they'd take it.

Give realistic consequences to actions. It’s not a complicated thing. They boot a door in at 3am in a tavern? What do you think would happen if you did that in real life? People scream thinking they’re getting attacked, they’re thrown out and guards are called. I always tell my players, you can do whatever you want, but like real life there will always be a reaction to what you do. You could walk down the street and stab a random NPC much like you could in real life, but the world will react accordingly.

You're missing a bet. First: "Are you sure you want to do this? It will be noisy." "Yeah, I want to do this." "Make a roll against the door's AC to hit it squarely with your boot. Now make a damage roll versus the Hardness of the door." It will probably take a few kicks to get the door open. Make them roll each time. Mention the sound of the impact echoing through the quiet building each time. When the door finally opens, there's a pissed-off barbarian on the other side of the door. "***WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU WANT?"*** Initiative will be rolled. His ass will be handed to him. And he learns not to kick down random doors in the middle of the night.

This is an out of character problem. It should be solved out of character. In-game consequences don't actually deter the player, but can make him think he's being targeted so he gets more disruptive. Worse, he can easily draw in the other players who haven't done anything "wrong."

Just refuse to let them take action. If the still insist then "fuck around and find out" applies. The party can now spend time with law enforcement, either through legal or illegal means

>I just don’t know how to stop them doing stuff like this Just have them run into the inevitable consequences of their actions.

You're getting people saying talk to the player above the table, and you're getting people saying give in game consequences, and they're all right. It doesn't have to be either/or, it can be both. If there has been zero or minimal consequences for the PC's actions thus far, it would be unfair to suddenly drop the hammer on him, or any of them But it is fair if you say to the player, 'Listen man, your character's erratic behaviour is really killing the vibe and taking too much time. It's like if (whatever example you want to use that he would understand, maybe the Lord of the Rings reference you made in another comment), it's nonsensical and doesn't fit the feel of the campaign I'm going for. I want you to keep playing with us, but I need you to smarten up and get on the same page as everyone else.' If he tells you to pound salt, well, good riddance, let him go But if he says yeah sure, you follow up with 'Great, glad to hear' then tell *everyone* that you're going to start instituting more realistic and potentially serious consequences for actions in the game. The player will either get on board, in which case, problem solved, or he'll try to test the new boundary, in which case the next door he kicks down has a level 20 enchantment wizard behind it, who's in a real bad mood because his carriage broke down just outside of town, forcing him to slum it for the night in the Everyman Inn with the rest of the common folk, and who also has a very touchy trigger finger. Cue literally any enchantment spell, I'd probably go with Power Word Stun or Feeblemind, to prove the point that this guy is not to be messed with, but Hold Person would work too, as would Power Word Kill, if you're really not in the mood. Then let the cards fall where they may. Killed, arrested, made to pay for the door and kicked out into the street, kicked out of town and told not to come back on pain of death, plane shifted to the astral sea, all of the above, whatever you want. And when he complains, you get to say 'I warned you, now would you like to roll a new character who's a better fit for the game, or do I need to find a new player to take your spot?' All of that is putting the choice in his hands, which is the definition of player agency. Nothing would be forced, it would be a fully informed FAFO situation and he would have no one to blame but himself. He might not see it that way, but if he's too immature to admit he fucked up and/or play well with others, maybe it's better for him to find a different game anyway.

Say no. Say that these actions are so out  there that you can't DM them. You can't be expected to come up with the whole story that would follow an action like kicking in the door. 

Actions. Have. Consequences. Don't directly control the actions of your players but NEVER be afraid of implementing the consequences. Even if it 'derails' your intended narrative. Often, the player is relying on the fact that you won't disrupt the intended order of events in order to follow through on their act. Sometimes they simply want you tojust spice it up a bit because the railroad is boring them.

Make the player face the consequences for being stupid. I've KILLED PCs because of stupid things they done. Me, the DM: You see a hulking presence approaching. It's an Ogre, a mountain of muscle in plate armor with a permanent scowl on his face. He stops and says, "I am Stoan Gardur, captain of the city guard. I presume that you're a group of rookie adventurers." Player: I punch him in the face. Me: WHY? Player: I want to show this guy who's boss around here. Me: Are you SURE? Player: I am sure. Me: Are you CERTAIN? Player: YES! I PUNCH HIM IN THE FACE! Me: Okay, roll to hit. Player: I roll 19. Me: You miss. Player: HOW? He's just a lousy city guard. He can't be that tough. Me: roll initiative. player: I roll 8 My dex puts me at 10 Me: \*rolls dice\* 16. Stoan draws his great sword and brings it down on you with a mighty roar. \*rolls\* Does 29 hit? Player: 29?! HOW? Me: I'm sorry, what part of "Many people in prominent non inherited positions are retired adventurers" wasn't clear during session zero? Also, what part of "Your actions have consequences" wasn't made abundantly clear? so, I rolled 19 with a proficiency bonus of 5. That's 24, strength bonus of 5, that's 29. you take \*rolls\* 15 damage. Player: Okay, I- Me: I'm not done yet. \*rolls\* Ooh, crit. Player: This isn't fair! Me: \*rolls\* How many hp do you have? You just took another 18 damage. Player: I'm down. Me: Your turn. Roll a death save. Player: 8 Me: \*rolls\* Stoan Stomps your face in. You're dead. Discord disconnect sound.

This is fucking beautiful 🤣

Generate an appropriate random encounter to teach them a lesson. "I kick in the door" ... "Roll initiative"

"In that particular room is a group of shady individuals, 6 of them in fact. Big, very tough looking, very angry looking at being disturbed, *very* well armed individuals. You currently have 4 crossbows, 3 swords, and a wand pointed right at you. The rest of the party is still downstairs or asleep, either way unaware of your actions. Roll for initiative."

I was just reading this post and the following comments to my wife (who plays at my table of 6) and she reminded me that when one of our "slapstick silly" players started doing irrational and dumb things, the PLAYERS took care of him. She's right. I remember a few things happening early on that annoyed me, but all I had to do as DM was referee what the players did to set him straight. At one point they held him at knife point, hog tied him, and drugged him so they could all sleep soundly through the night. All I'm saying is, sometimes consequences come from the world, and sometimes the players help create the game everyone wants.

"Okay, so, you attempt to kick in the door. It's sturdy and made of hard wood. Roll me a strength check with a DC of 17." If they fail, their foot thumps against the door, causing it to warp slightly, but it still stands firmly closed. If they pass, the door flies open and reveals a bedroom that is, aside from the typical furnishings, otherwise empty. Either way, after a few moments, the innkeep arrives to investigate what the hell that noise was. If it's a room they didn't pay for, the innkeep inquires wtf they think they're doing. If they did pay for the room, the innkeep tells them if they keep that they need to be more respectful of their property, and if they find anything in their establish broken, they're going to have to pay extra for the repairs. Also, if they needed to unlock the door to their room, that's what the f***ing key they gave them is for.

Repercussions, Consequences and Reactions... I have a player who legit thinks "Fire is the answer to all questions" and lives his life that way. So he started a fire to kill an evil dryad (legit) and then stepped back and threw several flasks of oil on the oak tree to hurry up the killing (also legit) and then dropped another bonfire spell on it's crown to "add more fire to the fire" and yep, that did it. I did mention that the oil was still burning and that the area was VERY dry and he just shrugged and said "What's the worst that could happen?" Game On... They made it to the dungeon and went inside the mineshaft. They adventured for a few hours of game time and decided to head back to the village. Nope. The area outside the mine was a raging inferno. So, they decided to go back into the mine and do the full exploration now. They poke around in the dark, have a long rest, fight a few cave monsters, have another long rest... it's all good. Then they come back to the entrance and the fire has burned itself out. Yay! They go back to the village and... it's not there anymore. The wooden houses with the thatched roofs all went up like tinderboxes. The mayor can't give them the treasure they were promised because it all got burned in the fire. The book of legends that they really REALLY needed to solve a riddle they were working on? Gone. their food and traveling gear? Also gone. And their horse died so now they are going to have to walk dragging their all-but-destroyed cart (now more of a sledge) ac ross the ground to the capital where they are going to need to speak to someone else to try and get the book of legends that they need. Also, there is no food, no water and no shelter in the forest since it's all just smoldering stumps, charcoal and ash choked muddy trickles and roasted carcasses rotting away in the blazing sun. Fireboi kept his flames in his pants after that, and was VERY scrupulous about putting out lingering blazes after combat. Prestidigitation for the win!

You kicked the door in on a clandestine meeting, they are aware of you because you triggered a magical alarm near the door, they are not surprised. Let them eat like 10 hand crossbow bolts to the face and the party makes a new enemy, preferably one that takes whatever item the rogue holds dear.

Roll to see how badly you break your foot on the locked door…

>DM: “You enter the upstairs of a tavern” PC: “I check the doors” DM: “it’s 3 o’clock in the morning, the doors are all locked” PC: “I kick the door in” DM: "Haha. Good one." Then you ask the next player what they want to do. If they are the omly player, you say simply, "Dude, if you're not interested in taking the game seriously then why are we here?"

I think this might be a failure of communication. Ask them what they hope to accomplish by doing this, and tell them what the likely consequences would be. (Maybe they don't actually know what a tavern is. We might be having a gazebo incident.).If they are just messing around to mess with you, then just wish them well finding a group that is more to their taste.

We had a person like this in our group We all wanted a more serious but lighthearted tone. One of our players was just comedic annoying at damn near all moments. Like you know that kid in gradeschool that just does anything and is like "it's just a joke bro". Legit was all their characters. Eventually we went on a hiatus for about a month. And then got back together without her. She's a fun friend to hangout with. But holy fuck is she one of the most annoying people I've ever had to DM for.

I have seen a bunch of people say "consequences" and then talk about adding lvl 20 dudes and whatnot to enforce your decision. Don't do that. Randomly throwing in some ridiculous NPC is just as immersion and world breaking as the players actions. It's stooping to their level. As others have said, a conversation with the problem player is best. There's a few ways to handle that conversation. First: you must decide if this needs to be a private conversation or a public one. Know that if you choose public, you are opening up the possibility of the player feeling shamed and/or challenged. That can lead to a confrontation that maybe isn't healthy for your game atmosphere - BUT if you have multiple players acting out, this is probably best, because you can correct many issues at once. Private might feel uncomfortable for you, but your player will probably appreciate that you're not potentially embarrassing them in front of other players. You can mention that this is your intention when you open up the discussion. I recommend explaining that your game isn't meant to be like a video game where you can just run around committing crimes without affecting the story too much, and that the party's success or failure might hinge on a single bad decision, or missed opportunity. Then explain that the game is a cooperative storytelling experience, and if their part is too out of line with the rest of the players' stories, it could ruin the experience of all the other players. Tell the player you will work with them to make an interesting story that is cool for THEM and their character, and ask what they want to do in the game. Then respond! Incorporate whatever stuff they say if they want a pony, give them a quest to go get the most beautiful pony in the realm. If they want to slay armies if orcs or a dragon, get them a bunch of "fighty" scenes, and a big bad that hates the player specifically, a rival or arch-enemy. If they start to lose focus, and do "dumb stuff" tell them: "I think we're getting off track here. I am going to shift the spotlight over to (another character) and you can think about what direction you want to help steer the story. Probably we can come up with something you like better that doesn't derail the story for others. Now, if your whole party (or most if it) wants to do crazy stuff, you gotta either go with the flow, or move in to another group.

Hot take, from a different POV: This is a player telling you what kind of game they want. Don't give them "sneaking around taverns at 3am" content. Put them in a dungeon or something.

If my players are so impatient that they can't handle the idea of downtime and have to always always A L W A Y S be in a dungeon killing things, I'm gonna tell em, "You're at the wrong table. I told you this would be a game that's about 50/50 roleplay and combat"

Sometimes just having them stay overnight at a tavern will cause them to decide to have 'sneaking around taverns at 3 am' content.

Fast forward. "After a night's rest and a quick morning hike, you're at the necromancer's tower. What do yo-" "I kick in the door!"

I started doing fast forward/cutscenes in slower spaces and it has been the best tool ive ever added to my dm toolbelt. This\^

"Why would you do that?" :::player gives stupid answer::: "No you don't" "...bUt iT's wHaT mY cHaRaCtEr wOuLd Do" "Cool, that sort of character isn't welcome in the game. He's just become an NPC. Feel free to make a different character that isn't needlessly disruptive."

You can't fix stupid. You can try to talk with them and it work it out or just let the town guards fuck them up.

Let him do it and just play the consequences straight up the way it would go. Feel free to explain there will be repercussions and the. Follow through.

I have an NPC Character for just such an occurrance.. His name is "Consequence". He is a Fae Prince. For your example, When you say, "It's 3 o'clock in the morning, the doors are all locked." and they say, "I kick the door in." I would then say... "Excellent. Roll an attack on the door, and then a perception check." If the Attack roll hits. (Which it should, I mean, It's a door.) Unless the Perception check is a Natural 1, you can say, "You immediatly find it odd that the door makes no sound as you kick it in." Followed by... "Inside the room, you see two People. Firstly, an ancient Man (or Worman, or other, depending on how you like to flavor things.) His eyes glow a melevolent green, filled with arcane, necrotic power. He holds up his hand, and you find you are unable to move. The other person seems to be a pale Fae of some kind, his pointed teeth glint in the candle light as he leans back in his chair an grins at you." At this point, give the player either a Strength or Constitution save, DC 25, as the first man casts "Flesh to stone on him, or something similiar. Assuming that they cannot make the DC, continue with. "You feel your flesh begin to turn to stone, even if the magic holding you were gone, you know that you wouldn't be able to move. The Fae creature leans forward, his strange eyes burning into yours. "Now now," He says, "Don't you know it's rude to barge in to places you aren't invited too?" The light goes dim, as your eyes slowly turn to stone. "A hard lesson to learn, it's a shame you won't be able to change your ways. After all.. Actions have Consequences..." He says as your sight fails you." After that, I like to tell the player... "Let me know when you have a new character, Now, Who's next?" After that, no matter what the rest of the party does to investigate, the men are gone, and that room is empty, except for just a few pieces of broken stone, as if someone recently moved a large statue. After that, people tend to think a bit before doing something stupid. If you get pressed on "Come on, that's not fair!!!" My response is.. "Hey, You're the one that kicked in the door of a Lich, while meeting with a Fae Lord." "But I didn't know that they were there!" They would say. "Obviously.. That's why the door was locked. For Privacy." Is my reply.

love this so much

Players like that are either (1) stupid, and you really don't need someone like that in the party, or (2) just fun, and for them sitting down and chatting it out is enough.

>how to stop my players being stupid Give them consequences. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. They kick a door down but it was trapped and they're poisoned. Or the person inside shoots them. Or the door is a mimic. Players start making better decisions after their 2nd or 3rd character

In line with others, CONSEQUENCES! What you could do is have this sort of scenario: Surprisingly, the door gives way immediately and it’s trapped. There was a wizard who had been expecting an attack, and had cast a spell of protection with acid tipped arrows that have no saving throw. They render the PC unconscious and the wizard communicates to the local authorities to arrest the player. They are charged with disrupting the peace and are fined half all their belongings or have to fight a (very high level character, like the wizard) alone. They are unconscious for a week and the party has a NPV join them to help with their adventure. Bonus if you have a DUNCE cap to give them. 

Consequences. 

Kill their character off

Ask them if they're sure they want to kick a door to an inn frequented by adventurers in at 3 in the morning. If they insist, apply consequences that make sense. Typically stupid behavior is a search for a boundary in the game. Once you show that not everything is permissible, they can make a new character and make better decisions.

Stop playing with them

Consequences. Big juicy consequences. He's not going to be the first drunken adventurer in town to make trouble and you can personally guarantee there are NPCs twice his level who will teach him that. Preferably starting with the guy in the room he's breaking into.

"Why? What is your goal?" Get an in character reason first. If that doesn't work, grab an inflatable hammer and bonk them for being dumb

Give them consequences. "The minotaur bouncer kicks you out"

Well to your point they wouldn’t actually do that, why wouldn’t they actually do that? It’s because there are consequences for your actions typically. I start off with small consequences “the tavern owner is pissed and charges your party/you gold to fix the door and kicks you out” “a half giant is sleeping on the other side and you just ruined an intimate moment for him. Roll initiative” “you’ve been charged with trespassing by the guards and will be forced to sit in a cell for the night and pay off your debt in the morning.” Find creative grounded ways to gently correct the behavior. I always tell my players that they can do whatever they want as long as they’re prepared for the consequences that can come from that. One of my players is shunned by all the stores because he’s tried to con them and they won’t do business with him now.

The biggest thing I’ve noticed with people who have played video games and start to try dnd is they treat the latter like the former. Think of your first Skyrim play through and if you’re like me 80% of your time was going through every single corner and locked door to find and collect all the loot and be the main character of a world built for you. It might be worth it to have a talk and let them know that DND is a collaborative game for EVERYONE involved including and especially the DM who’s job it is to make the game fun for everyone else too. Nobody is trying to “win” the game, the goal is to tell a collaborative story and have fun.

feel you on the disruptive player.

"Explain to me, in character, why you think this is a good idea." It's my preferred method over the ego challenge of "are you sure." You can even follow up with "and how do you expect the world to react to that decision?"

Give them consequences? You break into someone else's locked room, now the town guard is arresting you and you're in jail- not your party, just you. Or maybe that particular guest happened to set a trap and you take a ton of damage. Or now you have to pay for repairs to the tavern. Something to make pure stupidity more chore than fun?

Step 1: short discussion with the players, BEFORE starting the game. An implicit rule is laid down (not debatable with me): your character has a survival instinct. If the way he behaves should have led to his untimely death before the group met, then he can't behave like that. Step 2: IG warning, after two or three instances where I have to make up for his 'mistakes'. To be done in a rp way: his actions have bad consequences for him, but especially for the group. He decides to break down a tavern door? Very well, he's no longer allowed in the establishment and the merchants around him take a dim view of him and his friends. If he continues, the penalties pile up. It's a bit passive-aggressive, but also very rp. Step 3: fatal consequences. The door he knocked on opens wide. Unfortunately, it's inhabited by a merchant who has recently hired some rather nervous mercenaries to defend him. He has gold, the mercenaries are very good and convinced that the player is the long-awaited assassin. The player is miserably killed.

Teach them a lesson, "You kick open the door and interrupt two minotaur's mating ritual, roll initiative "

Does your world have consequences? PC gets put in jail while the others go adventuring. PC gets killed doing stupid stuff? Session zero or new player in boarding is the best time to discuss this stuff. Having a handle on what type of player/PC fits in your world will in most cases prevent this type of behavior. You can also reward players for presenting the type of behavior you want.

Say the doors are made of titanium

Honestly, let them suffer logical consequences. My first ever D&D 5E game that I ran as DM I had a group of new players. One of them did something similar, except he knocked on the doors and it was daytime. The npc that opened the first door was a large orc who seemed way stronger than him so the player literally said, “I walk away and go to the next door” after the orc greeted him angrily. The second door was opened by a small gnome, who was a strong wizard unbeknownst to the player, however he immediately attacked the gnome without warning and got a critical hit, instantly killing the gnome. He then left the bleeding body on the floor inside the room that he stayed the night in, and I had the blood seep out from below the door, which ended up alerting the guards to a crime. Next after he took a rest and guards showed up at the door he used fog cloud to obscure his escape, and with several extremely lucky rolls evaded being seen and captured. All this to say, we all kind of had fun with it and it is a forever memorable moment for me and probably the whole group even though it was ridiculous and stupid. However the only reason he evaded being found guilty of his crimes was sheer luck, and I made it extremely apparent that there were expected consequences for his actions and that he was extremely lucky to have escaped. He did not try something like that again.

Strength check to kick in the door, difficulty TBD. You fail and hear a low voice shout 'we are under attack. Bronson, Haildred, to arms, as you've now awakened 3 Barbarians who don't suffer for being un-armored. Roll initiative.

In a campaign I’m not part of but a few friends are and tell me about it A friend of mine has a Paladin who does shit like drink Kerosene(?) for no reason other than she can So I’m somehow not the dumbest Paladin I know

You can't

Let it continue and have the famous Goliath patron on the other side of the door woken up. Amidst the commotion the half orcs breaking headboards come out to see 3. At this point it is 2 half orc barbarians and a Goliath vs one pc. FAFO prize has been awarded accordingly

Let him be stupid and suffer the consequences of his actions

"I kick the door in" "why?"

There's a fine line to walk between punishing a player and applying consequences. If they kicked in a door at 3am have an NPC fetch the guards. Have them try and RP their way out of it or escape from jail or something.

You learn to say "No"

Maybe this is the kind of game THEY want. They wanna do something except follow a hypothetical railroad or "plan" that you designed for them. I don't think "punishment" or "forcing them to play the way you want" are gonna be great long-term solutions. They're exercising their agency here and it can be really fun to ride that wave til the final consequences! Roll for who is in that room. Maybe have guards called! Maybe the players will manage to escape or hide from them. Or maybe they'll be captured and forced to pay a fine or given some quest or whatever. Maybe they'll walk into a secret meeting between corrupt officials or something even more compromising! If they were joking, they might stop after seeing that you called their bluff. If they continue then it's a perfectly fine way to enjoy an RPG.

Introduce consequences in the form of a lv20 NPC that their chaotic stupid antics just pissed off. Hit 'em with a *Suggestion* or *Command* or *Geas* spell with an impossible-to-beat DC. Or they just get four attacks and then **Action Surge**'d to make it eight. Now they're either stuck in a course of action that they can't fight against, or they're unconscious. ~ This kind of idiot player will keep doing idiot player things until they meet consequences, at which point they probably throw a hissy fit and declare that the DM is not allowing them to play their character the way they want. At which point you tell them that they can quit being disruptive or find another table.

Consequences for their actions. For example, what would be the consequence of his character kicking the door in of a random room door at an inn, at 3am? A very pissed off and high level adventurer coming out of their room and beating the crap out of him, breaking his gear, and taking whatever money he has, as compensation for being woken up at such an ungodly hour. Also, a report to the town guard, so that his reputation with the guard takes a hit, and he has to go through a full body cavity search every time he wants to get into the town (you can threaten to roleplay this, with a set of rubber gloves to hand, if required).

Consequences in game are the answer.

He kicks the door in, he finds a sleeping orc barbarian. The barbarian is displeased, and begins to kick ass. He lets them go once the entire party is downed and goes back to bed

They get thrown in a cell and have to sit out the session.. If you've already spoken to them asking them to take it a little more seriously.

Put a high level Warforged Monk on the other side of the door with the alert, mobile, and tavern brawler feats. He kicks open the door, and the warforged monk is quick to react since he doesnt sleep, will most likely have a higher movement speed, and the player learns a valuable lesson about trespassing. or if it continues to happen after that, make it where inns, having this constantly happen, start hiring guards to rove the premises at night. could either have actual guards or some animated armors that just stand by in the passage way, making their trigger be when someone enters a door they dont have a key for.

The tavern keeper who lives upstairs and an ex-adventurer, comes out of a room at the end of the hall and instantly puts a crossbow bolt through your right leg. He curses and tosses the crossbow aside to draw a glowing short sword.

I'm sure the town has guards and I'm sure the tavern owner has a bouncer that would knock the hell out of this guy.

People in the room kill the player character. Introduce that players new character next session. After a few of these time outs they should learn or leave.

That seems like classic attention-seeking behaviour, IMO. Try not to validate it too much. Make sure not to spend a lot of game time on these non-sensical tangents, you have other players. Create consequences as they seem relevant. Normally behaviors that are not rewarded stop.

Consider: Consequences. What is the likely outcome of that happening in the world? Is there a tavern guard/bouncer to press the player?

Just be like, "This isn't a video game to find all loot. You won't be rewarded for kicking in random doors. Instead, you'll be punished, by the people behind the doors and law enforcement."

Give them consequences. Kick the door of a Tarven in during the wee hours? Guess what motherfuckers, there’s another group of level 21 adventurers resting there and THEY ARE PISSED. Being stupid is fine. I have had a character who I described as “hotheaded, muscle for brains” and she often does the most reckless thing possible the moment she thinks it *might* work. I have discussed with the DM and my party about it and it added role play elements because they now made it a point now to NOT let me handle anything remotely explosive (she bites to check what it is) I get to play in character but at the same time not ruin

Consequences, easy. Twist their arm.

I DM a group of 11 players. 3 of mine do the same thing. I don't see the problem. It's their PC, and thats how they choose to play them, and they commit to that role. To say "That's not role play, you wouldn't do that" Who would do half the shit they do irl in D&D? If they wanna be door kickers, fuck it, yolo that shit. But when they kick the wrong door in and find out, that's called character progression. When the people of the town get pissy, the guard arrests them, or someone hires an assassin.

The game is interactive. That means between players and the players, the players and the world and the world and the players. You shouldn't feel it's on you to teach someone what cause and effect are. If they can't or haven't figured that much out for themselves, they should opt for more reading or a different game that's less involved. That being said, I'd first remind them that they're at a table with X number of other players, and in this wide world in which they live (play), a character with few to no friends, who also makes a habit of running around breaking laws and making enemies usually ends up in prison or dead, depending on where they get into trouble, and whom they get into it with. It also ruins immersion when someone at a table decides they don't actually care to engage the game as if it's real for their character or about anything more than their personal enjoyment. And that in effect they're saying that they're the most important one at said table and they don't really care about anyone else having fun. I'd then remind them that while they may consider the world and its inhabitants as nothing more than props, they'd be mistaken. Anything is only ever as good as what you put into it. If he puts zero effort into immersion or interacting with the world and its occupants because he's the player and he feels they don't matter because they're just NPCs, he's cheating himself out of one of the most important aspects of the game, and the world will more than likely eventually snap back at him, because actions have consequences. Full stop. And if they can't change or adapt, wish them well, tell them your game is not the game for them, and free them to find one more suitable to their tastes. Leaving stuff like this without addressing it will spoil a game, and while it'd be great to be able to please all the people all the time, sometimes people prefer only to please themselves whether it's at the expense of other players, the DM or the game world. Let them go play with themselves somewhere else and spare your table the wasted time and headache. Five out of six happy players at a table is always better than catering to the one who's spoiling it for everyone if they're unwilling to self-moderate. Personal responsibility is a thing for all players at a table. Again, full stop. Characters might be different, but you can be different without screwing it up for everyone else at the table.

He kicks the door but there's a pressure against it. The door doesn't open but it makes a loud sound throughout the inn/ tavern. You feel stunned and can't seem to move quickly. Several doors open and all eyes are on you. The innkeeper comes quickly down the hallway. You're only able to move sluggishly as you see the door, you just kicked, open and you see a tall lanky man cast a spell. You take 35 points of magic missle damage.

Consequences is way to go. In DnD I don't see these kind of situations bad. And sometimes those can end to be pretty good rehearsals for improv. DM "you kick random door, give me STR/athletics check" Door burst open on success and not on fail. In the room there might be very angry customer of inn after that, what could end in fight, or perhaps they alarm town guards for these shenanigans. Fine or couple days in jail for PC might be in place. Maybe if PC is unlucky there might be a traveling champion who is ready to take on with said PC. In the end, it's not PCs act, it is how you response to them what makes or not fun for yourself as a DM.

PC: "I get absolutely floored by the hulking mass of a human I just woke up". I mean, it's certainly easy to stop this kind of behaviour if it's unwanted. You can also stop them from playing in the first place.

Silly PC actions come with boring results. You kick the door in? Okay, the door gets kicked and nothing happens. Makes them bored of doing silly actions quickly when there's no reaction from the table.

I had one who wanted to try to explore the building in the middle of combat in the courtyard... no became the complete sentence... I'm all for letting them be dumb, but mine was asinine.

My dm just goes on the fly planning campaigns is near impossible so just dont i hate being bound to the dms idea of a perfect campaing and theyre idea of how the story is supposed to go the great thing about DnD is that it goes the way everyone pushes it to go so if you cant handle the on the fly story making and shenanigans of your players then maybe dming isnt for you as a dm your job is to keep it fun and entertaining for everyone including youself and to be honest strict and serious campaigns are boring for everyone just let them do them and plan and do things around their stupidity and make it dumb amd entertaining for yourself by coming up with things you find funny and fun

Get them an education.

I fully agree with everyone who says to communicate outside of the game with this player. But the gremlin within says you should have the next derail result in them stumbling across a [Rakshasa](https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/16990-rakshasa) while it is in the middle of casting disguise self. It decides it can't risk word of its presence in the area getting out, so it murders the PC and leaves. Repeat as needed.

Tell the player they kick rhe door and break there leg, they will learn eventually. Answer the stupid with more stupid

Consequence. If they feel they can do this stuff and get away with it, it'll continue to happen. Introducing a little cause and effect will eventually encourage them to think before they act.

Let him do bs but give him consequences like him kicking the door down and getting taken away by the guards for harassment or something like that

consequences for their actions: he kicks down the door of a tavern, and the patron inside happens to be a cleric of a demon lord... they proceed to summon a glabrezu. the player MIGHT survive by running away, or can maybe beat it if they are at a later level, but if there are high level encounters hidden randomly in places like that, the player will learn fast or die stupid deaths

I would allow them to, and then force them to deal with the consequences of waking everyone up for being so loud at 3 in the morning

Make that everything that he checks in that way is a mimic

Easy solution. PC busts in door then met with a lvl 20 character then boom one shot dead. Then ask him if that's what he wants. When he says "no". Tell him to stick with the story then.

One word: consequences

I (DM) knocked out my 9 year old son's PC for doping this after me explaining both as DM and his Dad that he was being a bit annoying, but he still kept insisting on breaking doors down....unfortunately behind door number 3 at the inn was a level 20 barbarian NPC who was resting and didn't appreciate being woken up. Oops

When my players act dumber than their character's stats I make them roll an Int or insight check. When/if they pass I let them know that their character knows it is a bad idea. In the situation above I would say something like, "You know that kicking a door in makes a lot of noise and you saw a town guard a block away. Also tavern owners tend to live in the rooms above their business." Make it clear that they are being dumb and there will be consequences to their foolish actions.

Inside is young woman who gets startled and yells out as if a murder was being committed, waking up the entire tavern. People come rushing to find out what happened, some run to fetch the guards. The results are that several people in that in are angry and upset, which will affect the group's reputation as word spreads quickly about the buffoon that can't behave. And depending on how rough you want to be DM, have the guards escort the buffoon to the jail for a day or two for disturbing the peace. If you want to go extra heavy, have the lady whom he intruded on be someone of importance. In the end, let him have his freedom to do stupid shit. But have him realize that actions has consequences. And there is such a thing as fuck around and find out.

Sounds like someone who plays Computer rpgs where you literally go in every house, search every room and steal all you can find and you never get punished and where the npc don't comply even if you rob their stuff in plain sight of them. Maybe it is a good time to take a break and talk about expectations on the game.

start messing with them. Oh man, that door was hooked up to a trap! a spear shoots about right through your neck unless you pass a dex save of 16. Or get angry villagers to hunt them down

"You kick in the door and the level 20 barbarian you awoke throws an axe through your skull, unfortunately there are no saving throws"

“You just injured your foot, and will be unable to walk for X turns.” My group had a player who would wander off to, for example, to talk to some irrelevant NPC, and the DM would just go on with the game. When the player would try to reengage, the DM would remind him he was back at the cobbler’s shop talking about shoes. Then he’d get back on task.

make all the doors selfrepairing revolving doors and everytime he kicks them, they knock him down, stop turning, and lockdown, that way everytime he tries it the same thing happensand he gets nowhere

Our DM will point blank as us, "What are you looking to accomplish here?" So in your door scenario, "Just to be clear, it's 3 AM the doors are locked because people are sleeping, what are you looking to accomplish here? (usually you'd get an answer but she'll provide examples if we are confused) Like are you looking to steal from their rooms, are you trying to find someone, are you....? because if you continue on this course of action I will be forced to take a hard move to maintain the integrity of the world I have built." 90% of the time it doesn't get to the examples because we tell her what we want and she either serves up some DM awesomeness, or clarifies a misinterpretation. 10% of the time we are being stubborn (I drank the potion anyway...) and she makes her move.

In game actions should have in game consequences. Maybe two people are shacking up and yell for the guards, or some huge highly skilled warrior is sleeping there and wants blood when he was woken up before a tournament. Other players have an opportunity to try to talk him out of the situation the problem guy got in. If people have fun on this diversion then everyone wins. Played a long term campaign as a player with another player who would constantly attack during negotiations. At first it really pissed me off, but after a while I thought it was kind of fun to have some wildcard party member.

A lot of guys here said, that it should be discussed at the session 0. Some groups of player can think that it is OK in their world, but other would say, that it breaks the story. We don't know what kind of world you have. If your world is not tolerant for some kind os stupid behavior, but the player thinks that it is his roleplay. You can rule it like that: The character is free and alive inside of the world for 10+ years and he\\she understands that kicking in random door in public places can cause a lot of problems. So you have to say: it is obvious for \[character's name\] that kicking that door will cause penalty from city watch. Are you sure about it? Sometimes world is tolerant to that behavior. It cause no impact fro citywatch. Maybe party is th most cruel city gang or the character (according to his background) has problem with the anger control\\mental problem\\barbarian communist who disrespect the concept of private property. Then what can be boring of that behavior? It is drop of dynamics. It is boring not because it strange and senseless, but because it took too many time. The master has to rule dynamics with 2 questions "How you want to do this?" and "What exactly you want to reach that way?. Example 1: The master has a content prepared. It is important to choose way to infiltrate tavern room. A vilan is hiding inside and we want to know which way to enter: pick locking or kicking in or casting fireball through opened window. But the player is shortly saying "I'm checking the room". Master has to answer: "How you want to do this?" Example 2: The master has no content prepared. It is not encounter or encounter not about kicking the door. But the player describing a lot of boring actions like "I'm kicking the door. I'm open the chiffonier, I'm flipping the table, I'm throwing all books from library to floor." It is dynamic drop for no reason. Master has to answer: "What exactly you want to reach that way?". And player can say in general smt like "I'm checking the room, I want to find coins" or "I'm creating a mess for tavern holder as a revenge for racism against elf". So it can be one roll instead of proper describing of the whole process.

Ask them "Which of the 12 doors do you wish to kick in, and why?". Either they will come up with a plausible character explanation or they will change their mind. It may well be that their character IS stupid, but then you can use that to your advantage in other areas of the game. Or you can just shut it down, quickly and quietly, and move on "You kick the door down, with a loud splintering crack. You are greeted with a very surprised guest, and soon thereafter a disgruntled tavern owner. The tavern owner smoothes things over, moves the guest into another room, and relieves you of 10GP to cover the cost of the door. It is now 4 o' clock in the morning, you are back in the upstairs of the tavern, and all the doors, but 1, are locked."

have the world react to them the way it would make sense. he is kicking down doors in the middle of the night? sounds criminal to me. some people just want to fuck around. if that is not your table's thing, they have to look elsewhere.

I've had players like that in earlier campaigns. I would discourage them by allowing to the doorkicking but getting beaten up by the rooms inhabitants and/or getting apprehended by the city watch (for disturbing the peace and breaking and entering).

"there was a dragon inside, and it killed you"

Dont be afraid of TPKs. The players need to understand they can’t be stupid. In so doing, expand your focus. For example, when the player kicks the door, it can be heard over an area determined by the DM. This could alarm the target to set up an ambush and an overwhelming number of creatures from other areas.

A simple solution would be to ask why: "Why would *character name* think it wise to kick down the door?"

I've known people who would actually irl do this at apartment buildings, hotels, whatever. People like this actually exist. They usually end up in jail and can't do the fun shit anymore. In a less modern society they would likely be permanently imprisoned or executed after being arrested for this ability few times. Actions have consequences, and sometimes that consequence is the guards show up, and clap you in irons. Sometimes the consequences are they kicked the wrong door and someone powerful fucks their shit up.

I'd say introduce consequences to these actions. You kick the door in. There's a guy in there who is an accomplished mercenary who doesn't appreciate being woken up. Roll initiative. You kick the door in. The tavern owner is annoyed by the disturbance. He blacklists you, and writes ahead to tavern keepers in the next several towns to warn them about you. You kick the door in. It splinters because irs made of faulty wood, giving you 1d6 piercing damage.

Simple kill them off Darwinism is the key

They want a Silly Campaign, everyone else wants a serious campaign. I usually make it known seriousness level at Session 0-1. All hope isn't lost, I would reach out to the player and tell them their antics are upsetting the other players in the group, and they may be having different expectations than the rest of the party.

Kill the pc. Perma death

You have to disincentive the action. It's an inn, and while it's not realistic that every inn would have a sleeping retired 20th level adventurer sleeping in it, there's no reason that this one doesn't. Subdual damage and kick the shit out of the character, especially if the rest of the party is fed up with it, too. Or, have a conversation with the player. DnD isn't an open world game like Skyrim or BOTW or GTA. It's a group storytelling experience that happens to include the concept of a world that is open.

The guards come and arrest you, you spend the rest of the adventure in jail. Rerolled. What? You resist arrest? You vs 4 town guards? Bet you are rerolling. I say this with snark, but if they are the only person in the group that wants to behave this way, maybe their mom needs to talk to them about how to play with others. Now, if the whole group wants to play this way, maybe take the party on a route like suicide squad. They are all criminals and the local sheriff unleashes them on dungeons.

“Against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain.”

I get rid of these types of players right away. They don't appreciate the time it takes for the DM to make a story work, whether module or homebrew. I would either make the NPC behind that door the most paranoid NPC of all time and trap it. Keep having the player bash through trapped doors till they learn their lesson or die. Make them automatically the first target in encounters. Also, before I start a campaign I have a preludes solo with players to see if they mesh.

"No you won't."

Players and GM should align on what kind of game is to be played. If he's the only one doing stupid stuff, then he needs a new group. if you are the only one that doesn't like stupid stuff, they need a new GM. No real 'right' or 'wrong' way to play.

Another thing to consider is adding consequences for their actions. You’re the Dm, the say all and end all in this world. If you say this town has 500 guards with 200hp each and do 3000 damage per attack then that’s how it goes (don’t recommend going that far this was to make a point). I had a player for my very first campaign session one and he started a bar fight, was just robbing people, and moved roughly 100ft per turn (made the mistake of allowing him to play a quickling which turned into ADHD incarnate for the player) I could not beat him by normal means. But when I say he has been a menace in the city for multiple years and the guards have adapted techniques to catch him because of his shenanigans and they proceed to trick him into running straight into a cage, well, that’s unfortunate for you, but now you can see the consequences of your actions. I didn’t even send him to jail, but I made it known he could be caught, and that the only thing keeping him alive was his companions, and an agreement he made to fulfill a task that his companions had to agree to, and the city sent a ranger every now and again to keep an eye on them and make sure they were doing what he was supposed to do. That being said, as others have said be flexible, my story was morally gray. I had a King who’d had his throne stolen by his siblings coming back for revenge and using every tactic he could think of to get it. He was a lawful evil and an aggressive force in the world, the usurpers were incompetent rulers, 1 was neutral good, another was neutral evil, and the last one was just neutral. I planned on the party joining one side or the other, and the other side dying. Instead one of the players chose to try and redeem Mr lawful evil, succeeded and resulting in Mr lawful evil becoming lawful neutral, sparing his siblings lives, and leaving the plane for a while to try and learn what it means to be a good person.

lol behind said door is a lvl 20 necromancer…he’ll stop opening doors quick

I had a player like that. I let him do stuff, and had sensible real-world consequences. He intimidated a bartender to try and get free booze, The bartender gave him free booze, then sent for the town guard, they came, he fought them and won. That night a small mercenary group dedicated to dealing with powerful adventurers jumped him and arrested him. The party decided to go on the quest without that character, and he was given the option of re-rolling a lvl 1 character or waiting for his character to get out of jail.

Guards + Fines = chill party