Player Discipline

Just as players may find certain DM decisions unwelcome, so will DMs find certain player activities unwelcome, and as unpleasant as it may be, dealing with these activities is a fundamental part of the job.

Duty of DMs

ALFA places a premium value on immersive, quality role-playing and DMs play a critical role in realising this. As well as making sure that their own activities are as well-prepared and well-designed as possible, DMs are also responsible for encouraging those players whose activities fall short of what ALFA expects. DMs who neglect their duty to uphold ALFA’s spirit and rules have an impact much wider than merely their own sessions: by legitimising poor behaviour through inaction, problems that could have been dealt with at an early stage are allowed to develop until they pose a major difficulty.

Dispute Resolution Methods

ALFA has two streams to resolve questions of player discipline. Less serious offences are handled in-house by DMs, while more serious matters are dealt with formally by the Player Administrator, who has the power to issue formal disciplinary punishment against players.

The Role of the Player Administrator

The ALFA Rulebook sets out the grounds that a formal complaint can be made.

The Player Administrator is responsible for investigating formal complaints and, where wrongdoing is found, for censuring players.

The Role of DMs

At the lowest level, a DM’s disciplinary role does not involved seeking to punish players for their errors; rather, the role of the DM is to provide players with the opportunity to learn from their errors and to smooth out the rougher edges on their playing style. In almost all circumstances, this will be best handled by a friendly discussion, although it is recommended both that this is done after consulting server colleagues and outside of the game engine, i.e. via IRC or forum PMs. This allows you to get some useful feedback on both your approach and the player’s behaviour in the past, as well as helps to relax the player: you are no longer the individual spawning the creatures that are trying to kill their beloved PC, but instead a fellow member of the ALFA community. You can also ask one of your colleagues to participate in any IRC discussion you have with the player, although make sure that you keep the logs of any IRC-based conversation.

Example: You have concerns over a player’s behaviour, specifically that they are regularly metagaming information. You start a thread in your DM forum setting out your concerns, and two of your colleagues post that they have also had similar minor concerns in the past. You discuss the matter between you and then PM the player to ask them to attend an informal chat in IRC. You and another DM meet the player and set out your concerns. A log of the conversation is then posted in the DM forum thread.

It may not always be appropriate to delay taking action: if something is particularly immediate or you believe it to be a one-off then it may be best to have a word with the player concerned right away. Do be careful, however, to prevent this derailing the flow of the session currently underway; a quick word followed by a longer chat at the end of the session might prove to be the best solution.

Low-level Metagaming

See also: Rulebook

The ALFA Rulebook defines 'metagaming'. In its more extreme iteration, metagaming can be easily identified.

Example: PC A dies in a remote and dangerous location. PC B logs in and proceeds directly to the location of PC A’s death, recovers the corpse, and brings it back to a temple to be resurrected. There was no IC way for PC B to know of the location of PC A’s corpse. If the the player of PC A has told the player of PC B where PC A’s corpse is, then both parties are vulnerable to a charge of metagaming.

Low-level metagaming, however, is an ever-present. Even the most committed player may, at times, find themselves adjusting their behaviour to take account of their own OOC knowledge. Sometimes this is simply an inevitable side-product of playing a role-playing game; sometimes it is exploitative and should be addressed by DMs. One common form of metagaming is using certain types of attack or defence based on the strengths and weaknesses of a monster that the PC knows nothing of.

Example: PC A encounters a medusa and proceeds to trick her into looking at her reflection in a mirror. PC A has never encountered a medusa before, nor does he have any IC knowledge of medusae, or their strengths and weaknesses. The player of PC A has metagamed this information and used it to the benefit of their PC.

Another is assuming that an item mentioned by the DM or highlighted by the game engine must have some plot relevance, and immediately searching or examining it while ignoring other furnishings or objects that are most likely there as well.

Example: Our party has reached the treasure-room of the ogre magi ruling the dungeon they were exploring. Ten chests are set around the room, but only five are usable placeables: the other five are dummy chests. PC A runs to the usable chests and flings them open, searching through the contents, while ignoring the presence of the dummy chests. The player of PC A has metagamed the information and used it to the benefit of their PC.

Other common examples of low-level metagaming include:

• Adjusting a character's behaviour towards other player characters based on real-life relationships with other player
• Assuming that something that appears to be wrong or unlikely in the game world is a mistake of the gamemaster rather than something that could be investigated.
• Using knowledge of the game's mechanics to gain an advantage in the game.
• Deciding on a character's course of action based on how the game's mechanics will affect the outcome.

It is important that DMs take note of, and action over, metagaming. Metagaming, at its lowest level, undermines the suspension of disbelief without which role-playing becomes meaningless; at its highest level, it is little more than cheating. DM action over low-level metagaming should take two forms. Firstly, XP awards should be adjusted to reflect the use of OOC information.

Example: A habitually secretive and suspicious PC surprisingly welcomes a new arrival with open arms. The only reason is the out-of-game relationship between the two players. You reduce the RP XP award for the session from 30 XP / RL hour to 10 XP / RL hour to reflect this metagaming.

Secondly, DMs should bring incidents of metagaming to the attention of the player concerned. Sometimes this will take place during the course of a session.

Example: Observing our mirror-happy PC, our DM pauses the game and enquires as to his prior experiences with medusae. A check is required and the PC fails it. The DM tells the player that his PC has no prior knowledge of medusae and he should not try to use any reflection-based tactics during the encounter.

Sometimes this will take place out-of-game. When this is the best approach, as ever, it is recommended that DMs act, where possible, in concert with the rest of their team.

Example: After observing the ninja-looting antics of a PC, the DM notes his concerns in his server DM forum. Two other DMs comment that they have noticed similar behaviour in the past. The three discuss the problem and nominate one to approach the player in question and explain their concerns. A record of the discussion is posted in the server DM forum.

It is always important to remember that the player in question may have a justification for their PC’s behaviour that the DM has not considered. Make sure that you solicit that information from the player before coming to any final conclusion regarding their PC’s actions.

Finally, any DM action should be – at least initially – couched as helpful advice. Do not warn or threaten players the first time you suspect their PCs of acting under the influence of metagaming. If a player continues to metagame after being counselled by DMs, then consideration should be given to bringing a formal complaint before the Player Administrator.

Low-level Powergaming

See also: Rulebook

The ALFA Rulebook defined ‘powergaming’ as:

Powergaming is the pursuit of experience points (XP) or wealth (either in gold or in items) at the expense of roleplaying. Sometimes it is IC for your PC to choose the most gainful option available. Other times it is not; if you still choose the most gainful option in those cases, you are powergaming.

In its more extreme iteration, powergaming can be easily identified.

Example: A Selunite Paladin takes part in a static quest that involves selling slaves to the Church of Shar for no reason other than profit. At the very least, there’s going to be IG consequences relating to a loss of paladinhood, but there is also potential for a charge of powergaming – there is no IC reason for the behavior.

However, in its lesser incarnations, powergaming is both the most common and the most contentious area of player discipline, as it directly involves judgment on the question of PC motivation. DMs are encouraged to always enquire into PC motivation: you cannot assess the quality of an individual’s roleplay if you do not know why their PC is behaving in the manner they are. It is also worth noting that players do not have absolute autonomy over their PC’s actions: DMs are entitled to make judgment calls about PC behaviour, and are entitled to conclude that the motivation behind it was OOC – or, in other words, belonged to the player and not the PC.

DMs should be extremely circumspect about making any public accusations of powergaming. If you have concern over the behaviour of a PC, discuss the matter with your team and agree on a collective approach to the problem. Do not, however, be scared to start that discussion: many players may not regard what their PC is doing as powergaming, but will be happy to correct their behaviour after this is brought to their attention. A small amount of early intervention can save an awful lot of grief further on, or, in more game-specific terms – a level one PC is more likely to change their behaviour than a level twenty.

PC Builds

The question of PC Builds and how they relate to the concept of powergaming is significant enough to merit its own discussion. So it’s got one. Er, here. First, a statement: It is a form of powergaming to employ skills ingame that a PC does not possess but which are available in the game engine.

Example: Roleplaying a PC as a talented musician without any ranks in the Perform skill is powergaming.

Example: A PC with an Intelligence score of 8 solving complex logical puzzles is powergaming.

PC abilities are represented by their character sheets, and players should roleplay them appropriately. This is particularly important where a PC is representing skills that are included in the game but have little engine function – typically the ‘soft’ social skills. Players that make the choice to invest their attributes, feats, and skills into ‘hard’ engine-function areas must not be permitted to roleplay their PC as having the same level of competence in ‘soft’ skills as have PCs whose players have focussed on them.

Example: PC A is Level One, has a Charisma score of 8, and has invested all of their feats and skill points in ‘hard’ areas, but the biography provided by the player indicates that they are a smooth-talking travelling merchant with an eye for the ladies, a reputation as a charmer, and a leader of men. Problem. The player must either remake their PC to fit the biography or rewrite the biography to fit the PC – and the player must then roleplay appropriately.

It is important to act when such situations arise. It is much easier for a new PC to adjust their behaviour to a non-powergaming paradigm than it is for an established PC to sudden change their personality.

Example: PC B is as PC A, above, but Level Ten. The player expects that the PC’s innuendo-laden overtures will be successful and that they will be able to inspire their loyal NPC allies with righteous fervour – because for ten levels that is how they have been treated. It will now be much harder to even raise the question of appropriate roleplay, let alone convince the player to alter their character’s behaviour – and a rebuild will be out of the question.

The reason why this matters is quite simple: PCs that focus on one area will necessarily be weaker in others – this is one of the key balance mechanisms of D&D. Allowing PCs to be role-played in a manner that cannot be supported by their engine existence effectively penalises all those PCs whose players are more consistent, as well as undermining ALFA’s stated goal of being a high-quality, immersive RP world.