Dealing with an obstinate player


Advice


Hey all, quick question. One of my players is a veteran, and I believe that this is causing him to be overly argumentative about rules. For instance, I had mentioned in passing how you could suppress a weapon's Merciful enchantment. He insisted that you could not despite me claiming you could. Admittedly mild, but that's the essence of a few minor arguments. Anyone have any advice for a new GM on dealing with particularly forceful players?


Sadly he needs to accept that your the GM and he can make suggestions and point out the rules, but anything you say needs to go. Try talking about how its disruptive, preferably over something sweet as to distract from any bad thoughts. Cheesecake would be my choice of dessert.

It doesn't hurt to have the choice to turn off merciful enchant. Theres probably a nice way to say "If it isn't hurting anyone why care?". Nice being an important thing.

Grand Lodge

Let him know that during game, your word is law.

He should feel free to bring his disagreements up after game.

Let him have a piece of scratch paper, so he can write down anything he would like to bring up after game.

Scarab Sages

Well in the case of the merciful weapon, its pretty clear cut. It says right there in the description that it can be turned off. Unfortunately there are a lot of gamers (or people in general) that are like this. You can remind him that in your game, rules are interpreted your way or discussed in group. Thatnin any event ambiguity is settled by you but odds are that his behavior wont change or change very little. Your going to have to tolerate it. People dont change easily and there are no magical combination of words or perfect argument to change them.

Silver Crusade

6 people marked this as a favorite.

I have a shirt in my wardrobe that says in big letters "Because im the GM, Thats why". Perhaps you should invest in one


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Generally this kinda thing goes one of a few ways in my game.

1.) Me: "Okay, and then this rule is like this"
Player: "No, that's wrong"
Me: "Is it reallY? Oh, it seems you're right. Let me fix that then."

2.) Me: "Okay, and then this rule is like this"
Player: "No, that's wrong"
Me: "Nope, see this is how I interpret it. If you disagree we can talk about it later."

3.) Me: "Okay, and then this rule is like this"
Player: "No, that's wrong"
Me: "It's not wrong in my game."

4.) Me: "Okay, and then this rule is like this"
Player: "No, that's wrong"
*5 minutes is spent in table round discussion of how it works vs how it should work and different interpretations of the rule.*

That last one is usually when the players think a rule is silly and I'm inclined to agree.

What's the point of this post? Really, that if Scenario 4 is the most common at your table, you should at the very least impress upon him that Scenario 3 is possible, and when that's not the case, that Scenario 2 should be acceptable from both ends.

Don't tell him "Don't argue with me" or be overly confrontational about it. It's nothing major (in my opinion), just a slight annoyance that needs to be worked out. That, and having someone that knows the rules very well and who can point things out you missed is very valuable I think.


Just look it up after the game.


Imperious3 wrote:
Hey all, quick question. One of my players is a veteran, and I believe that this is causing him to be overly argumentative about rules. For instance, I had mentioned in passing how you could suppress a weapon's Merciful enchantment. He insisted that you could not despite me claiming you could. Admittedly mild, but that's the essence of a few minor arguments. Anyone have any advice for a new GM on dealing with particularly forceful players?

Did you show him the rule that says you can? What was his response?


"Well spotted, but I decided to house-rule it to work that way."
You can say that even if he's wrong.


Valandil Ancalime wrote:
Imperious3 wrote:
Hey all, quick question. One of my players is a veteran, and I believe that this is causing him to be overly argumentative about rules. For instance, I had mentioned in passing how you could suppress a weapon's Merciful enchantment. He insisted that you could not despite me claiming you could. Admittedly mild, but that's the essence of a few minor arguments. Anyone have any advice for a new GM on dealing with particularly forceful players?
Did you show him the rule that says you can? What was his response?

Yeah, I don't think having a "few minor arguments" makes one an "difficult" player. In fact I've never sat at a table that didn't have a few minor arguments over rules, have you?

If he's being belittling or overly forceful even when shown he was incorrect then maybe you have something.

Nothing in the OPs post indicates the player is acting unusual in anyway and some of these suggestions for "dealing with him" sound kind of condescending. Wear a shirt with big letters, make him take notes. Those sound like they would make things worse.

It sounds like the worst thing this guy is doing is occisoinally making people point out the rules they are referencing. You say he's a veteran and by that I assume you mean a long time gamer and not an Iraq War vet, so maybe he's trying to learn the rules that are new to him?

Assume ignorance before you assume arrogance or malice. Maybe he is inquiring out of honest curiosity?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

In my group we have two very seasoned D&D and Pathfinder veterans, along with the rest of us who all started playing about a year ago. I'd say approximately once per game session, gameplay will grind to a halt as the veterans argue over rules. We've devised the following system to keep gameplay going in spite of rule disputes by putting them on the "back burner" while play continues, and instituting a risk vs reward mechanic if the players feel that play needs to be interrupted while the rule is looked up:

Text of the Rules Dispute system:
In the event of a rule dispute, the matter will be settled in one of two ways: 1) GM Ruling or, 2) Player Dispute.

1) GM Ruling: Without disrupting the flow of the game, the GM adjudicates on the disputed rule; Players may look up the rule in question while not acting (as in a Combat round, or during Roleplay). If the GM ruling is shown to be incorrect, all gameplay and outcomes related to the rule already played will stand, however gameplay going forward will use the correct rules. The player who finds the correct rule will be awarded a re-roll on any single die roll (be it for an attack roll, skill check, damage roll, or saving throw) to use during the game session.

2) Player Dispute: Gameplay temporarily ceases while the correct rules are found; this can take the form of a) Player vs GM dispute, and b) Player vs Player dispute. Once the dispute has been resolved, play will continue, using the correct rule.

  • a) Player vs GM dispute: If a Player disputes a rule with the GM, and the Player is determined to be correct, he/she will gain a +1 bonus to a Stat of their choosing for the duration of the gaming session. If the Player is determined to be incorrect, they will suffer a -2 penalty to a Stat of the GM's choosing for the duration of the gaming session.
  • b) Player vs Player dispute: If a Player disputes a rule with another Player, whichever Player is determined to be correct will gain a +1 bonus to a Stat of their choosing for the duration of the gaming session, and whichever player is incorrect will suffer a -2 penalty to a Stat of the correct Player's choosing for the duration of the gaming session. In the event that both players are determined to be incorrect, both players shall each suffer a -2 penalty to a Stat of the GM's choosing for the duration of the gaming session.

Our system encourages disputes to be settled without disrupting the game with a minor but useful boon, while discouraging disruptive disputes by instituting a high risk/reward ratio.


Ejector seat?

Liberty's Edge

Walking Puple Worm him.

Shadow Lodge

yeah when i gm i end arguments by saying "until the end of the game it works like this, once the game is over you can prove me wrong."

im usually correct, but i do make mistakes. so by using this method you dont invalidate the rules, and you dont sound like a prick. you just sound like a gm who wants the game to continue going smooth.


This is actually why about half of our players and the GM have various devices with an SRD app on them open most of the time. Not because we love to argue, but because some of us are veteran players but semi-newbies to Pathfinder, some of us rolled our first Pathfinder character and then found out that the non-beta rules changed the way it worked, and some of us are veteran 3.5 players who still haven't caught all of the ways Pathfinder changed things. We catch each others' mistakes, including when doing so would be detrimental to the players (or even our own characters!)*, and then move on with life. If we didn't have that, we'd definitely have to go to either "we'll go this way for now and fix it after lunch/between sessions" or determine whether or not it was worth looking up right then and there (if a mistake would kill a player, we always - even back when all we had were books - looked it up to make sure).

The one time one of us pulled "GM Fiat" to override RAW and RAI solely to mess with the party, it ended with the entire table leaving angry (especially since it could have led right that instant to someone dying). I'm not saying "don't use GM Fiat". I'm just saying that if you're not being a jerk about the way you handle rulings, the entirety of the problem is on your player. If he doesn't care that he's holding up the session for the rest of the players (that's your job!), invite him to a solo game, with himself as the GM and the player, without you or the rest of the party present, at the same time your normal game runs.

*We figure that if we say "no, the rules say you can't use that spell/ability/feat to do that thing here" to our fellow player, it means the GM can't do it either. ;)


Is your player trying to help you because he knows (or thinks he knows) the rules better than you or is he just trying to be a dick? If he's trying to help you by letting you know that you were mistaken for your own benefit, then I wouldn't take it personally. If it really bothers you or it escalates into a "stop the game we need a ruling!" situation, then tell him you're going to houserule it.


The problem is that there are so many rules and errata out there for Pathfinder and even the smartest and most veteran of players get things wrong. My group tends to do what most of the rest of you guys do; the GM makes a quick decision and we go with it, we look it up after the game or during downtime in-game with someone who's character is sleeping or studying and then if we find that we did something wrong we will correct it the next time it comes up. Interrupting gameplay to argue over the rules gets vexing and tiresome, so keep things going as smoothly as possible while in the heat of combat and/or skill checks.


That's why I always try to have a laptop or computer available. A quick search of the PRD or SRD will usually get me the results I need for the greatest accuracy with the least time devoted. Only if it requires more than that like a search of the FAQ or forums would I settle for the "Ok, just houserule for now and we'll fix it later if need be," approach. That's a contingency plan, not a first-response.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This might be of use to you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Imperious3, may I offer a suggestion? Do NOT get into discussions with players about rules that aren't even currently relevant to the game table. You say this rule was 'mentioned in passing' and it led to a protracted discussion. When a player disagrees with something you mention offhand - perhaps because, as a new GM, you're still getting your head around the hundreds and hundreds of rules in this game - just say, 'Hmm, we'll have to look that up before the next game. Now, back to the game!"

If the rule is currently applicable to the game table - Player Y has a merciful sword and wants to turn off that special quality - then you have a couple of options. If you think you know the answer is yes/no, then say 'for now let's say yes/no and I'll check for certain after the game' [or during the break if your group takes them]. If you aren't sure, you can ask the table if anyone knows for sure and say 'we'll go with that for now and I'll check after the game.' If you ask the table and no one knows for sure, then say, 'let's say yes for now and I'll check after the game.' [Try ruling in the direction that gives players more options until you're sure it's not in line with the rulebooks.]

My advice to you as a new GM. Strive to get your players into the atmosphere or mood of your game world - be it silly, scary, wondrous, horror-laden, dark and moody, sunny and optimistic, or whatever - and reduce or avoid everything that distracts them from that.


When he gets truely obstinate and normal bounds of discussion have ended or a particular time frame has elapsed, GM bolt, no save, no SR.


This is pretty normal really. It's even fun sometimes. ;p


The guy is a long-time gamer, so it's possible that he's still adapting to the PF system. In any case, I don't think he's trying to be a dick, just saying how he interpreted the rules. I realize that I sounded like I was saying he was a belligerent player when he really wasn't. The conversation merely made me think that I was unprepared to deal with someone disagreeing with a rules interpretation.


I don't see it as an issue as long as the player is just saying how he thinks a rule works and requesting a double check on part of the GM.

If the player is stopping the game and arguing for 5+ minutes and refusing to go forward because they don't like the ruling even after the rule has been double checked, then it's an issue.


When in doubt kick 'em out.

Shadow Lodge

I've figured out there's a near-perfect way to deal with this.

1. Player calls out bad rule
2. GM makes a decision on which way to go "for now"
3. Player accepts temporary ruling (this is the part you're having trouble with, but explain this process out)
4. Game ends
5. Now, let's look up how that rule should work


6. Spend an hour making new characters because bad ruling got them killed, oh well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
6. Spend an hour making new characters because bad ruling got them killed, oh well.

7.) They have plenty of time to get over it or come up with a way to bring their character back since it's probably a week to the next session.

Look at it this way: Unless the ruling was "Yeah this enemy can instakill you with no save", if you die that means you were probably in a situation where death would be possible to begin with.


If you're in a situation where death is possible, that's all the more reason to take 3 minutes to get the rule right then and there, rather than having to come up with nonsensical retcons or redo hours later.


Ninja in the Rye wrote:
If you're in a situation where death is possible, that's all the more reason to take 3 minutes to get the rule right then and there, rather than having to come up with nonsensical retcons or redo hours later.

No kidding. I'll never understand why so many people are seemingly averse to to actually, you know, knowing the rules of the game they're playing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So you know every possible rule off the top of your head and know exactly what the RAI is for them all?

Well yippee for you.


Rynjin wrote:

So you know every possible rule off the top of your head and know exactly what the RAI is for them all?

Well yippee for you.

Yeah that is what I said isn't it. Wait what?

No, I'm talking about the kind of groups that will shout you down for daring to interrupt the "flow" of the game by pointing out when the GM gets something wrong that is very obvious and clear-cut, and not a house-rule either, like for example, the shield spell protecting someone's character from magic missiles. Really happened btw.


A different (but related) situation that came up for me recently, which is less about player obstinacy as it is another GM's obstinacy that was impressed upon one of my players.

This guy who goes to a university near mine, Call him Abe. Abe worked with a friend of mine who goes to my school, and he was invited to our Gaming Guild last year. He tells everyone how he's been playing DnD for 9 years, how he has run tables with 15 players at conventions, and how he has every Pathfinder book and most 3.0 books. I joined the game he was running in addition to running my own along with some freshman. Long story short: I, and several of my new friends that were in the group, left his game because of his arrogant behavior at and away from the table, but a couple stayed, one of whom was my pal Jay.

A few weeks ago, I was planning to run a one-shot with Jay and some other friends, and everyone was doing their sheets at home before sending a copy to me to double check before we played. Jay wanted to play a sorceror (new for him), and when he sent me his sheet, he had far too many spells per day as a 3rd level character, and a couple other things were off. I brought this to his attention and he said that Abe helped him make his character and "really doubted" that Abe would make a mistake, and had Abe (who I had no interest in speaking to again) call me.

It turned out that Abe had Jay build his character based off of some "Paizo Recommended" rule for oneshots that gave additional spells per day, and I'm not sure if the other discrepancies on his feat were honest mistakes or more of his personal houseruling (he had Bloodline Strike without improved unarmed strike, for one). I have no idea if this is a real thing or not, I didn't bother to look it up, but basically this was Abe having Jay build his character based on his own version of the rules without making it clear to Jay that these were RAW and that other GMs might not necessarily implement them. TBH I wouldn't be surprised if Abe assumed every GM did things his way or would as soon as he told them about it, but I let him no in no uncertain terms that that was not how I was running things.

The situations ended up resolving fine (although Jay was a little disappointed that his character was notable less powerful) and the game went fine, but the exchange left a sour taste in my mouth.

I wonder how many other people have dealt with similar situations of GM obstinancy?


Chagi wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

So you know every possible rule off the top of your head and know exactly what the RAI is for them all?

Well yippee for you.

Yeah that is what I said isn't it. Wait what?

No, I'm talking about the kind of groups that will shout you down for daring to interrupt the "flow" of the game by pointing out when the GM gets something wrong that is very obvious and clear-cut, and not a house-rule either, like for example, the shield spell protecting someone's character from magic missiles. Really happened btw.

I figured you were chiming in on what Ninja was responding to.

Which was a GM making a call mid-game when nobody knows the rule or where to find it off the top of their head instead of interrupting everything to go look it up.

To which he responded that it would be bad if that got a player killed.


Rynjin wrote:

So you know every possible rule off the top of your head and know exactly what the RAI is for them all?

Well yippee for you.

I think the point is that everyone doesn't know the rules off the top of their head, but, (and especially if you've got a laptop with internet access or an app on your smart phone) it usually doesn't take that long to look up the actual rule for most things.

I find that while there are often issues of interpretation of a vague or poorly worded ability, it's at least as often that someone is just flat out wrong about something that is pretty black & white.

If two level 9 characters are killed by a Circle of Death in the first round of a "boss fight" that is probably going to take 45 minute to play out, is is really an issue that a player tells the GM that they think the characters were immune and asks him to look up the spell?


Rynjin wrote:
Chagi wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

So you know every possible rule off the top of your head and know exactly what the RAI is for them all?

Well yippee for you.

Yeah that is what I said isn't it. Wait what?

No, I'm talking about the kind of groups that will shout you down for daring to interrupt the "flow" of the game by pointing out when the GM gets something wrong that is very obvious and clear-cut, and not a house-rule either, like for example, the shield spell protecting someone's character from magic missiles. Really happened btw.

I figured you were chiming in on what Ninja was responding to.

Which was a GM making a call mid-game when nobody knows the rule or where to find it off the top of their head instead of interrupting everything to go look it up.

To which he responded that it would be bad if that got a player killed.

I was. Sorry, but that isn't the situation Ninja was talking about.

Avatar-1 wrote:

I've figured out there's a near-perfect way to deal with this.

1. Player calls out bad rule
2. GM makes a decision on which way to go "for now"
3. Player accepts temporary ruling (this is the part you're having trouble with, but explain this process out)
4. Game ends
5. Now, let's look up how that rule should work

That's what Ninja was responding to. Notice point 1.


Point 1 I interpreted less as "Player calls out rule as bad and knows what it should be/where to find it" and more "Player has a bad feeling about the rule but has nothing concrete, so GM makes an on the spot ruling and says they'll figure it out later".

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Dealing with an obstinate player All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Advice