Problem With Players


Advice


Trying to make a decision, and since I'm pretty ticked and don't want to make decisions while angry, thought I'd ask some advice before I did something, which also gives me time to cool down.

Since I moved to my current area, I have been running a RotRL game for some friends back where I came from using Roll20. They are all in the same physical location (but using different computers). This is the only game I'm involved in right now, while they had other games going as well.

Rules wrote:
Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt.

Emphasis mine.

We are all experienced roleplayers, so of course we hit our fair share of corner cases and rule ambiguities. In general, of course, they always take the interpretation that is most favorable to them. We'd have to keep stopping the game to lawyer out a given interpretation. Now, I'll admit I can be a bit stubborn. However, I also don't hold to the "rule of cool" and I'm disinclined to allow them to easily bypass every single challenge. After they started complaining about how long things were taking, and how things were getting bogged down in rules arguments, I basically instituted the following policies: One, if you don't like the way I run the game, quit, because I'd rather not sacrifice a friendship over a game (it really was getting that bad with arguments); and two, if it comes to it in the game, I'm going to make a judgement call, I have final say as the GM, and we can discuss it between games.

Now, this seemed to work well. We still had rules ambiguity. Sometimes I'd call it in their favor, sometimes not. Sometimes I'd find out I was wrong later and apologize; sometimes I'd find out they were wrong and tell them so as not to establish a rule precedent they kept using. TBH, I might be biased in my memory, but I remember many more times I was right than they were.

The problem is, apparently they were still complaining, just behind my back. Remember where I said they were all in the same location? They were complaining about it during the game, and I didn't know it. Apparently one person (we'll call him Bob) was running interference and convincing the others not to bring up this stuff. Except that, since it never got brought up, it just caused hurt feelings behind the scenes. I think Bob meant well, but now I just had a bunch of players who felt I was playing "Dictator GM". One of them has made comments that we aren't playing Pathfinder, we are playing "Derek's Game". This came to a head last night, when I made a ruling that adversely impacted Bob. He decided he was fed up, and ragequit. We played a little longer, finishing up the current fight, and then ended early.

I'm kind of feeling like their attitude is, "Don't argue during the game, and don't make judgement calls against us without research afterwards," which, really, means they are doing the rules arbitration during the game.

Add to this I found out after we started that Bob actually had a copy of the adventure path I was running (he claims he isn't metagaming) and at least at one point they were double checking monster stats on d20pfsrd.com during the game.

Now, because of my job situation, I was already going to put the game on hiatus - I was spending hours prepping for the game that could have gone to job hunting. But now I'm not even sure I want to pick it back up. Should I just drop it completely?

For the record, here are a few of the judgement calls I have made that prompted argument (or made to avoid argument):

  • Since landing properly is as much a part of the jump as jumping, you'd need Spring Attack to make a melee attack on a target on a platform several feet above your head, since the attack is in the middle of the move action.
  • If there is a shooter almost directly above you, firing down at a prone person, there's no adjacent place you can stand where you'd be in the firing line to provide soft cover. You can drop prone on top of the person (sharing space) but in that case, since the person underneath can't effectively move and avoid attacks, he's now helpless. He can try to avoid you dropping prone on him, as with a grapple.
  • A small earth elemental can understand pantomime, allowing an ally of the summoner to get him to drink a potion (actually an infused extract) of Comprehend Languages. However, his Earth Glide doesn't displace any material, so he can't dig a hole underneath a Minor Artifact to drop it into the ground.
  • Yes, revolvers exist in Golarion. (Later discovered Golarion doesn't use Advanced Firearms rules, but didn't retract it because it would have created major problems.)
  • An ally doesn't provide soft cover to enemies. (This is what they said, I later discovered it was wrong.)
  • You can't create a custom item identical to one in the book, but with race, class, and alignment restrictions, in order to get a discount on creating it.
  • The move action part of a paladin's detect evil requires the normal version to already be on. It's a modifier to the ability, not a separate way of activating it.
  • Yes, an eidolon does take attack penalties when multiattacking with three limbs.
  • Feats/traits that affect spellcasting can't apply to a summoner's spell-like ability. (Later retracted, and I apologized.)
  • Readying an action out of combat is basically making plans to act during the surprise round. If the other side is aware of you, then there is no surprise round and standard initiative applies.
  • Using the downtime rules, you cannot just blow a load of money and have a new structure up and running in a few days or even a week. There's a limit on how much capital is available each day.
  • Based on your location, and the local economy, you can't spend more than X amount on a single piece of equipment. I'll allow one item to exceed it, but it still can't be more than Y. The only other exception is when buying from this specific list of treasure the party has already found. (Replacement character creation, spending gold for initial equipment at higher-than-1st level WBL.)
  • The material and technology doesn't exist to allow a flexible straw to reach from your backpack/helmet to your mouth. Anything flexible enough would collapse under the vacuum of sucking, since vulcanized rubber and plastic haven't been invented.
  • A successful bluff doesn't mean they believe you are their god. It means they believe you *think* you are their god.
  • You cannot, in one round with two move actions, run over to dropped items in two adjacent squares, pick both up, and return to your original position. I'll generously allow you to pick up an item in the middle of a move action so you can retrieve one per round, but it'll still take two rounds.
  • I don't care what your diplomacy check is. The poor, uneducated, superstitious farmer who is nearly dead of ghoul fever cannot be convinced to follow you back to the nest of ghouls who gave him the most terrifying night of his entire existence and left him to die tied up in a field. Sweet reason isn't going to work, here.
  • A ghoul's paralysis is Ex, not Su.
  • "Presenting" a holy symbol means more than just having it out, so you cannot channel energy while paralyzed. Even if you just channeled last turn, since you have been hit (and presumably shifted to try to defend yourself) in the meantime. (This is the one that made Bob ragequit last night.)


Well, you're playing Pathfinder, but you're also playing "Derek's Game". Players have to accept your rulings, or as you suggested, walk. The DM/Player relationship is all about trust, and it would appear your players don't trust you. There's not much you can do in that regard, as you've made a generous effort, it would seem, in adjudicating rules. The policy of discussing rules after/between games is a good one. Any time the players contradict you at the table, they become less immersed, as does everyone else. It virtually kills the game. That said, you might find that playing with these people just won't work out (good friends don't necessarily make good players).

Liberty's Edge

Either your players trust you or they don't.

We have a hard and firm "No table argument" rule.

If you want to talk after, preferably by e-mail, we'll work it out.

Even character death can be dealt with in the context of the game, but shutting down a table is a non-starter.

If you are making someone the GM, you need to let them GM. If as a player you can't find someone you will allow to run the game, you may be the issue, not the GM.


They have to be willing to play their part and let you play your's.


That's quiet a few rulings. I think I could have something to say about each one, but that would be a lengthy list(You were playing with both a summoner and a gunslinger!?). Something to remember is nerfs are never taken well, and its hard to speak up for some people because they may not want to create an issue or know how to communicate their problems(Socializing is complicated after all). There's no way for people on a forum to see how things were handled or what exactly happened, so its hard to make commentary.

Another thing to think about is that outside stress can make your leisure harder on you, especially if you think your gaming is making your real life hard. Its meant to be a fun side gig, but your constantly socializing and that stress can show even if you don't think it does.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I believe that your best option is probably just to let the game die... (I hate to say that, but I believe it's true. Your players don't trust you, and thus you can't effectively do your job - as others have already pointed out.)

It sounds like too many feelings have been hurt already and since players have resorted to cheating (checking monster stats and looking at the adventure path is exactly that), it's not a situation I would continue. As for your decisions, they sound generally acceptable. Many of them are not the clearest in the rules or are in very obscure places, so getting them wrong at times is normal as a GM - it happens.

GMing for a group when you're not present is very difficult, it encourages the sort of metagame behavior that your players seem to have taken up. Also, it's more difficult to properly handle conflict when you're not physically present - remember that something like 90% of all communication is non-verbal. I wouldn't take this too personally, all GMs make mistakes and a few here and there shouldn't cause the kinds of problems you've had. I believe the situation is mostly to blame, and not you or your players.

All that said, my opinion is that most of these problems are not in-game problems, but out of game problems. My recommendation for any future games would be to handle things with a bit more care between sessions. Ask your players for thoughts on your rulings and allow them to look into them fully in between sessions. You have to be willing to back pedal for their sake if you later realize that you were incorrect, even if it offends your senses as a GM. Table top gaming is a cooperative experience, and we all know what they say about a single bad apple...

Just my 2 cp.

After re-reading this post before hitting submit, I realized that I really need to take my own advice on this, lol. None of us are perfect, but I can speak to this issue from a position experience. I have a hard time making the right call during a session (I get upset sometimes too), so I always tell my players that if the answer can't be found in 1 minute, I'll make a call on it. After the session is done, we'll look into it fully and if I was wrong, we'll make changes as necessary. It's worked fairly well for me, though I've eaten more than my fair share of crow, probably. But if that's what it takes to keep everyone at the table happy, then it's worth it.


I think you need to sit down and talk to them about it, have a chat and explain your side of it and see what theirs is and if there is anything can be done to salvage the group/game and if not drop the game. A game that is not fun is not worth playing.

Also it isn't really about if you are more right than them it is the perception of evil overlord that needs to be changed and if you do sit down avoid getting too caught up in a minor detail as like a single ruling but keep focusing on the bigger picture "Dictactor GM".


Generally, these aren't judgment calls, these are just rules issues you guys didn't know.

Derek Vande Brake wrote:
Since landing properly is as much a part of the jump as jumping, you'd need Spring Attack to make a melee attack on a target on a platform several feet above your head, since the attack is in the middle of the move action.

That is correct.

Derek Vande Brake wrote:
If there is a shooter almost directly above you, firing down at a prone person, there's no adjacent place you can stand where you'd be in the firing line to provide soft cover. You can drop prone on top of the person (sharing space) but in that case, since the person underneath can't effectively move and avoid attacks, he's now helpless. He can try to avoid you dropping prone on him, as with a grapple.

You can't share a space with someone unless one is helpless, so I understand where this came from, but basically, the prone guy would have had to allow the other guy in there. You're correct about there not being anywhere to stand to provide cover, though. Even grapplers don't occupy the same space.

Derek Vande Brake wrote:
A small earth elemental can understand pantomime, allowing an ally of the summoner to get him to drink a potion (actually an infused extract) of Comprehend Languages. However, his Earth Glide doesn't displace any material, so he can't dig a hole underneath a Minor Artifact to drop it into the ground.

Elementals are intelligent, and Earthglide does not create a tunnel (though burrow, does), so this was right. The elemental could have just grabbed and pulled the item down underground with him, though.

Derek Vande Brake wrote:
Yes, revolvers exist in Golarion. (Later discovered Golarion doesn't use Advanced Firearms rules, but didn't retract it because it would have created major problems.)

That's a story element, not a rules question. Anything you do should be fine.

Derek Vande Brake wrote:
An ally doesn't provide soft cover to enemies. (This is what they said, I later discovered it was wrong.)

You already know this one.

Derek Vande Brake wrote:
You can't create a custom item identical to one in the book, but with race, class, and alignment restrictions, in order to get a discount on creating it.

There's nothing against the rules to prevent them from doing this, but it was a wise decisions anyway, as it is in your rights to veto. The entire magical item creation system is up to GM fiat by RAW, so no issues there. I would do the same.

Derek Vande Brake wrote:
The move action part of a paladin's detect evil requires the normal version to already be on. It's a modifier to the ability, not a separate way of activating it.

This is wrong. It is a separate way of activating it quickly.

Derek Vande Brake wrote:
Yes, an eidolon does take attack penalties when multiattacking with three limbs.

If they are weapon attacks, yes. Natural attacks wouldn't beyond the normal Secondary weapon penalty (assuming any were secondary). The Eidolon could just take Multi-weapon Fighting, though.

Derek Vande Brake wrote:
Feats/traits that affect spellcasting can't apply to a summoner's spell-like ability. (Later retracted, and I apologized.)

You're actually correct in your first ruling, it's just a common sense houserule 99% of people apply and those on the board agree is something that should be done.

Derek Vande Brake wrote:
Readying an action out of combat is basically making plans to act during the surprise round. If the other side is aware of you, then there is no surprise round and standard initiative applies.

I disagree--I think they are readying an action for the first round, whether it's a surprise round or not. That said, if the other side is aware of them, then they should also being readying actions...

Derek Vande Brake wrote:
Using the downtime rules, you cannot just blow a load of money and have a new structure up and running in a few days or even a week. There's a limit on how much capital is available each day.

There is no limit to the capital you can buy or earn, but page 80 of Ultimate has a spending limit per day. In a thorp or hamlet, you can't really build anything in a day, but in a Metropolis, you should be able to.

Derek Vande Brake wrote:
Based on your location, and the local economy, you can't spend more than X amount on a single piece of equipment. I'll allow one item to exceed it, but it still can't be more than Y. The only other exception is when buying from this specific list of treasure the party has already found. (Replacement character creation, spending gold for initial equipment at higher-than-1st level WBL.)

The rules for higher than first WBL is that you can't spend more than half your total WBL on a single item. Any other restrictions are houserules (probably smart ones, but houserules nonetheless).

Derek Vande Brake wrote:
The material and technology doesn't exist to allow a flexible straw to reach from your backpack/helmet to your mouth. Anything flexible enough would collapse under the vacuum of sucking, since vulcanized rubber and plastic haven't been invented.

Er, what? Why would this even come up? The only thing I could come up with is answered by, "No, you can't cheat the action economy of drinking a potion by building a long straw."

Derek Vande Brake wrote:
A successful bluff doesn't mean they believe you are their god. It means they believe you *think* you are their god.

If you succeed on a high enough Bluff check, with an extremely high penalty for that kind of bluff, they'd believe it, by the rules. Any other outcome and it moves into "what is Bluff even for" territory, since bluffing to make them think you think you're their god doesn't carry any benefit.

Derek Vande Brake wrote:
You cannot, in one round with two move actions, run over to dropped items in two adjacent squares, pick both up, and return to your original position. I'll generously allow you to pick up an item in the middle of a move action so you can retrieve one per round, but it'll still take two rounds.

You're even being generous, because you normally couldn't take any move action (like picking an item up) as part of another move action. So it would really take 3 turns to do what you're describing. Move to item 1, pick it up (turn 1). Move to item 2, pick it up (turn 2). Move back to starting square, plus another standard or move action (turn 3).

Derek Vande Brake wrote:
I don't care what your diplomacy check is. The poor, uneducated, superstitious farmer who is nearly dead of ghoul fever cannot be convinced to follow you back to the nest of ghouls who gave him the most terrifying night of his entire existence and left him to die tied up in a field. Sweet reason isn't going to work, here.

The only requests that auto fail (by the rules), are those that are against the creature's values or nature. I doubt either applies to going to see some ghouls. Other requests have a DC based on their attitude and how dangerous/difficult the request is.

Note that I don't like the Diplomacy system, but those are the rules.

Derek Vande Brake wrote:
A ghoul's paralysis is Ex, not Su.

Unless they had an anti-magic field, I don't see how this is relevant (and if they did have an AMF, how are they at risk to fail against such a low DC anyway?). For what it's worth, I don't see how it could possibly be EX over SU, though. If it was EX, that would imply it was natural, somehow, like a poison or whatever, and there's no indication of that. I'd love to know the relevance of this, though.

Derek Vande Brake wrote:
"Presenting" a holy symbol means more than just having it out, so you cannot channel energy while paralyzed. Even if you just channeled last turn, since you have been hit (and presumably shifted to try to defend yourself) in the meantime. (This is the one that made Bob ragequit last night.)

Technically, Channeling doesn't require you to actually present your Holy Symbol, it requires that you are able to present your Holy Symbol. You are not able to present anything while paralyzed, so yeah, you can't Channel. He ragequit because he didn't like the correct ruling. Amusing.


Detect Magic wrote:
(good friends don't necessarily make good players).

Never considered that before, but you are right.

MrSin wrote:
(You were playing with both a summoner and a gunslinger!?)

Luckily, not at the same time. I had an original party that included a summoner. One of my players wanted to change her character, which prompted others to want to change theirs. In the end, 4/5 players decided to change. The summoner was lost and the gunslinger/paladin was one of the new characters. I don't think the gunslinger is much of a problem except for the revolver, but to be fair he's only got one level of it - he's primarily going paladin.

Zouron wrote:

I think you need to sit down and talk to them about it, have a chat and explain your side of it and see what theirs is and if there is anything can be done to salvage the group/game and if not drop the game. A game that is not fun is not worth playing.

Also it isn't really about if you are more right than them it is the perception of evil overlord that needs to be changed and if you do sit down avoid getting too caught up in a minor detail as like a single ruling but keep focusing on the bigger picture "Dictactor GM".

I think part of what's getting to me is that we already did talk about it. Or at least email about it. I thought things were resolved, that they'd talk about their problems between games. Instead, apparently they went from arguing during the game to resenting me without communicating, which is ultimately why I'm at the point I'm at now.

As for the ruling list, it wasn't so much to focus on specific rulings as to give an idea of the quality of them so that if I'm making bad calls, someone can say, "Hey, it might be because you suck as a GM." It would give a reason for them not to trust me.

I appreciate all the advice. I think, ultimately, I'll probably double check with the others on what Bob said after the game, and if true, I probably will end things and find a new way to spend time with my friends.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Indeed. A talk is in order.

When you address them, focus on using "I" more than "you".

This will keep you from seeming accusatory.

Also, literally, ask what they need, to trust you, as this is the main issue.


Derek Vande Brake wrote:
I think part of what's getting to me is that we already did talk about it. Or at least email about it. I thought things were resolved, that they'd talk about their problems between games. Instead, apparently they went from arguing during the game to resenting me without communicating, which is ultimately why I'm at the point I'm at now.

I have to admit, I've been on the other side of this...with pretty much every single GM I've ever PCed under. I run 95% of the games I'm involved with, and I guess I have really high standards for GMing, I don't know.

So, yeah, I would rather quietly resent your game (not you specifically, you in general) than tell you what's wrong with it because:
1) I think you're too fragile a person to handle the criticism and I don't want to crush your feelings
2) as #1, because I don't want to damage our friendship
3) as #1, because you own the place we game, so if you're upset with me/the group and quit, we have nowhere to play
4) as #1, because I think you'd pretend to be cool with it, but then totally resent me when I started running a better game and you would slowly ruin my game with passive aggression because you're upset the group hates your game and wants mine instead
5) as #1, because I don't want to discourage you from running games because you definitely have potential to be a good GM and I just think you need more practice, even though the practice isn't very fun to play through

In general, I'd rather play your bad game than play no game, because I really enjoy roleplaying in general, and, if I grin and bear it, there's a good chance I can run a game with you in the future and either take over GMing duties or teach you how to run better games by example. Bad gaming is NOT worse than no gaming, for me at least.

How have you presented yourself? Are you capable of receiving criticism and reacting appropriately? If the whole group is unhappy with your game, your game needs to change, even if you're technically correct.


mplindustries wrote:
Derek Vande Brake wrote:
A small earth elemental can understand pantomime, allowing an ally of the summoner to get him to drink a potion (actually an infused extract) of Comprehend Languages. However, his Earth Glide doesn't displace any material, so he can't dig a hole underneath a Minor Artifact to drop it into the ground.
Elementals are intelligent, and Earthglide does not create a tunnel (though burrow, does), so this was right. The elemental could have just grabbed and pulled the item down underground with him, though.

In this case, the artifact takes the form of a large basin, several squares in size. A small elemental can't drag it under ground. Also, the floor was stone, so earthglide didn't work anyhow. In the end, they realized why they couldn't do what they wanted, but it did prompt an argument at the time.

mplindustries wrote:
Derek Vande Brake wrote:
You can't create a custom item identical to one in the book, but with race, class, and alignment restrictions, in order to get a discount on creating it.
There's nothing against the rules to prevent them from doing this, but it was a wise decisions anyway, as it is in your rights to veto. The entire magical item creation system is up to GM fiat by RAW, so no issues there. I would do the same.

I actually did find a thread on this where SKR said it was "basically cheating." But even this didn't stop the argument, which was between games at least.

mplindustries wrote:
Derek Vande Brake wrote:
The move action part of a paladin's detect evil requires the normal version to already be on. It's a modifier to the ability, not a separate way of activating it.
This is wrong. It is a separate way of activating it quickly.

There's actually long threads on this in the rules forum. It has never been resolved. The last time I saw it, both sides agreed it could be interpreted either way, so it was up to the GM in the absence of an official ruling.

mplindustries wrote:
Derek Vande Brake wrote:
Based on your location, and the local economy, you can't spend more than X amount on a single piece of equipment. I'll allow one item to exceed it, but it still can't be more than Y. The only other exception is when buying from this specific list of treasure the party has already found. (Replacement character creation, spending gold for initial equipment at higher-than-1st level WBL.)
The rules for higher than first WBL is that you can't spend more than half your total WBL on a single item. Any other restrictions are houserules (probably smart ones, but houserules nonetheless).

Not entirely true - there's also the gp limits of the community itself. Technically, that only applies to magic items, but I'll admit it was a houserule to include expensive nonmagical items as well. (Masterwork mithril/cold iron weapons and armor for example.) Though I did allow these items to be crafted at 1/3 cost with the relevant skills at high enough levels (since you only pay 1/3 for materials when using crafting skills) which still made plenty of them affordable.

mplindustries wrote:
Derek Vande Brake wrote:
The material and technology doesn't exist to allow a flexible straw to reach from your backpack/helmet to your mouth. Anything flexible enough would collapse under the vacuum of sucking, since vulcanized rubber and plastic haven't been invented.
Er, what? Why would this even come up? The only thing I could come up with is answered by, "No, you can't cheat the action economy of drinking a potion by building a long straw."

It was actually beer for a drunken brute barbarian, but yes, it was an attempt to cheat the action economy and get infinite free rage.

mplindustries wrote:
Derek Vande Brake wrote:
A ghoul's paralysis is Ex, not Su.
Unless they had an anti-magic field, I don't see how this is relevant (and if they did have an AMF, how are they at risk to fail against such a low DC anyway?). For what it's worth, I don't see how it could possibly be EX over SU, though. If it was EX, that would imply it was natural, somehow, like a poison or whatever, and there's no indication of that. I'd love to know the relevance of this, though.

A character got a bonus to saves against supernatural abilities, but not extraordinary ones. (I think it's a barbarian rage power, but I'd have to double check.) They rolled right at the point where they'd fail against an Ex, but succeed against an Su. I actually started a rules forum question about it after the game, because I wasn't sure myself. I could see it being either. Someone in that thread did point out that in the 3.5 version, ghoul paralysis is Ex, not Su.


mplindustries wrote:
How have you presented yourself? Are you capable of receiving criticism and reacting appropriately? If the whole group is unhappy with your game, your game needs to change, even if you're technically correct.

I like to think I'm a pretty calm and reasonable person, capable of taking criticism. However, I think most people involved in arguments see themselves as more reasonable and the other as less reasonable, so I can't say for sure. Having said that, I'm an INTJ and while the MBTI has it's problems, I think it is fairly descriptive of me. I tend to be dispassionate and logical most of the time, though I have worked to develop my empathy.


... They were double-checking monster stats with the SRD?

That's insane. As GM it's well within your prerogative to change any stats you want, in fact it's better to do so sometimes to discourage players from metagaming with knowledge of the canon stats (as long as it isn't something contradictory with what they're aware of in-character, obviously. The ghoul paralysis thing, for example, shouldn't have any issues whatever you decide it is)

Making a call during the game and sorting any rules queries out afterwards is always the way to go. Nobody wants a game to stop while people cross-reference the rulebooks. It's not really necessary to make up for any mistakes after either - if you did get it "wrong" (and my own opinion is that as GM you overrule the rulebook anyway so you can't ever be wrong), it was your call at the time, and the next time you'll know the correct rule.

Sounds to me like their play style is clashing with yours, not to mention there's at least one person there who seems determined to stir up trouble, made all the easier by the fact they can all chatter at the other end of the connection without you knowing about it. The fact that nobody wanted to bring up the issues to you in person is the worst problem of all - unless people talk about these things they'll just fester and explode later (and sounds like they already did).

The group as a whole (including you) needs to get together and talk about the issues, and decide whether you all still want to be a group or not. Perhaps it's a case of having someone else GM (although I can see how that could be problematic if they're all in one location sharing a screen), perhaps a player or two will have to go, or perhaps you'll need to decide whether making the changes they want is worth it to keep playing.

Whatever happens, getting together to talk about it is the important thing now.


A long easy talk is called for. Being in a separate location just increases your disconnect from the others, but I've had players pull the same 'talking behind the back' ruse in order to sabotage the game, so I'm likely too opposed to Bob from the outset. What you need is a common chat system that auto-flags everyone. I have always trusted one of the players to handle that and it mostly worked. Mostly...

I'm fine with the players having the books online or on the table. I pass off rulings to them, and they can get mean to each other. All know I torque my critters and several have provided their own alterations (I try to use these variations on the hapless soul that came up with it).

Nice list!
1)Since landing: agreed, I have made the same ruling concerning flying too.
2)If there is a shooter: I assume your body would provide the soft cover?
3)A small earth elemental: I don't run mine very bright, but grabbing the item wouldn't work? Just read you latest post: I can see where that might cause a stir.
4)Yes, revolvers exist in Golarion: Part of why I have odd limits on firearms...
5)An ally doesn't provide: Strange how many people get this wrong.
6)You can't create a custom: Not really RAW or RAI, but its a good call, one I need to get into my house rules.
7)The move action part of a: No
8)Yes, an eidolon does take: Only with Weapons, not natural attacks.
9)Feats/traits that affect: They don't, but I've acquired a number of feats that duplicate with SLAs.
10)Readying an action: I agree with you, but have no idea if its RAW or RAI.
11)Using the downtime rules,: My last GM equated this with Crafting items, plus a few restrictions, bonuses, etc.
12)Based on your location: WBL is the rule you're looking for, but I agree with a limitation.
13)The material and technology: A nice fiat ruling, but in fact we had such things a long time ago; expensive, brass and usable a time or two at most. It could be a great way to lighten a purse or three! Good for roleplaying, too! Fragile, too!
14)A successful bluff: Your negatives on that roll probably need to be higher.
15)You cannot, in one round: I count 3 rounds, but if this kind of thing happens often, consider a special feat. Something along the lines of spring attack.
16)I don't care what your diplomacy: I agree, but the rules don't, just look to those modifiers.
17)A ghoul's paralysis:I run Ghouls all three ways, just to keep players edgy.
18)"Presenting" a holy symbol:I blew this one, Ruling you have to present. Another house rule I gotta make.

Liberty's Edge

If players talk together behind the GM's back, it will usually be because they cannot talk directly to him about their concerns/bad feelings.

The distance is certainly a factor, but it is likely not the only one. I feel that by trying to streamline the gameplay, you have closed their opportunity to communicate their feelings and share them with you.

Check with them if they feel something like this. Help them express their real thoughts and express yours too, as serenely as possible. This will need effort from everyone. Show them that you are willing to make this effort because they are important to you and it should help them do the same.

Of course, this can only work if you are really determined to salvage the situation.

Liberty's Edge

MrSin wrote:
That's quiet a few rulings. I think I could have something to say about each one

Which is exactly the problem he is having.

Liberty's Edge

Detect Magic wrote:
They have to be willing to play their part and let you play your's.

Being a GM is kind of like running a store. In that store you sell your GMing.

People can come to that store and buy that, or they can decide to buy from another store.

What doesn't work is when people come into the store, complain about the product, demand you change the product to what they want to buy despite the fact that others like your product the way it is.

You can't custom design a game to a single players wishes unless you are running for a single players. And if the GM is not enjoying running the game, that is just as big a problem (if not a bigger problem) than any one player being unhappy.

In this scenario, several players are unhappy. The store isn't doing well in this market. Could be the store, could be the market.

If you go to the GM store and you don't like the product, shop elsewhere. If you can't find any stores in your area that you do like, make your choices.

But don't ruin the store for everyone else. If your GM closes up shop...


ciretose wrote:

Being a GM is kind of like running a store. In that store you sell your GMing.

People can come to that store and buy that, or they can decide to buy from another store.

What doesn't work is when people come into the store, complain about the product, demand you change the product to what they want to buy despite the fact that others like your product the way it is.

You can't custom design a game to a single players wishes unless you are running for a single players. And if the GM is not enjoying running the game, that is just as big a problem (if not a bigger problem) than any one player being unhappy.

In this scenario, several players are unhappy. The store isn't doing well in this market. Could be the store, could be the market.

If you go to the GM store and you don't like the product, shop elsewhere. If you can't find any stores in your area that you do like, make your choices.

But don't ruin the store for everyone else. If your GM closes up shop...

The issue I've had, and that this GM's players appear to be having, is that there's no evidence that anyone else likes the store. At that point, the store needs to change or close.

Liberty's Edge

mplindustries wrote:
ciretose wrote:

Being a GM is kind of like running a store. In that store you sell your GMing.

People can come to that store and buy that, or they can decide to buy from another store.

What doesn't work is when people come into the store, complain about the product, demand you change the product to what they want to buy despite the fact that others like your product the way it is.

You can't custom design a game to a single players wishes unless you are running for a single players. And if the GM is not enjoying running the game, that is just as big a problem (if not a bigger problem) than any one player being unhappy.

In this scenario, several players are unhappy. The store isn't doing well in this market. Could be the store, could be the market.

If you go to the GM store and you don't like the product, shop elsewhere. If you can't find any stores in your area that you do like, make your choices.

But don't ruin the store for everyone else. If your GM closes up shop...

The issue I've had, and that this GM's players appear to be having, is that there's no evidence that anyone else likes the store. At that point, the store needs to change or close.

You aren't wrong.

If this were my group I would say that I'm not enjoying GMing this way and that someone else can do it.

And that may be the best outcome for everyone.


I think that one of the most underrated and under discussed skills used in GMing is the psychology of dealing with your players at the table. Its a skill that noone really writes about in depth, and noone buys books on - and yet it is something that enhances your game far better than any extra book of monsters will ever do.

Personally, I dont think any of your rulings are badly wrong per se - but the way in which you present your rulings is very important...as others have noted , it looks like you've lost your players trust (at least for now) .

Players are after all a diverse bunch. Personally I find players that frequently check the monter stats , and other rules lawyers,,deeply irritating. I deal with this in a number of ways , and unfortunately theres not space to deal with them all here.

Also, the players maturity may be an issue. Would I be right in assuming that none of them are over 30?

One way is to say something along the lines of :ok, do a (dex ? con? str? etc) roll, if you succeed you can do it they way you'd like, if you fail we do it the way that is less beneficial to you.

Unfortunatley pathfinder/d&d being typically an entry game, many players havent discovered yet that the point is to tell an entertaining story, not to stick to the rules or to succumb to their every power gaming whim. Some never do. You say that the players are " experienced"... Bt how many non-D20 systems have you played ? How about indie games? Cthulhu ?
The very fact that one of the players feels the need to check stats out on the srd speaks volumes about their attitude to rpgs , I'm afraid.

I'd probably loosely agree with ciretose here; tell them you're not enjoying GMing and that someone else should take over for now. Give it a rest and try again another time.

Also, bear in mind that different groups all play in different ways- and indeed different games do. You may find other games are more suited to your gming style for example.


Welp, sounds like you already have plenty of help with the 'player interaction' part of this conversation. Let's talk employment.

Currently you sound like you're either out of work, or working a job that you wish you weren't. Even with advantageous education background, work history, willingness to relocate, connections, etc. job hunting can be a long and unpredictable process. It's easy to focus on the negatives of job hunting, the rejection, the resume rewrites, the constant evaluation, the time devoted.

Think about the positives. Imagine how great it would be to have a job that pays you real money, that challenges you without draining you, that has potential for advancement and raises, that surrounds you with people that are your intellectual equals. You may feel burdened sending off those resumes and interviewing when you don't get the job, but remember, you only have to succeed once. You need to start thinking about your priorities. This is where your focus should be.

Make clear to your friends when you put the game on hiatus that whether or not the blow up happened when it did, this is about taking care of yourself, getting a job, not a retaliation. They are your friends, they will understand. You don't have to quit gaming altogether, gaming is a great release, but it sounds like this game isn't that for you anymore. Be a PC for a while, let someone else run a game. You don't win anything, it's not them versus you. You did some things, they did some things, let it go. You'll feel better, and you'll need to feel good to focus.

See if you can do nine complete job submissions each day. If you use an Objective statement, incorporate the name of the company and their mission statement into every resume. Each resume needs to be different, identify key words from the job listing and respond to them directly in your resume. This will be more work and feel like a dramatic slowdown, but the average job listing on a monster.com style website costs a company in the range of $400 to post, the words they use are not a coincidence.


Derek Vande Brake wrote:
Add to this I found out after we started that Bob actually had a copy of the adventure path I was running (he claims he isn't metagaming) and at least at one point they were double checking monster stats on d20pfsrd.com during the game.

Absolutely not ok. That is unambiguous cheating.

I read all the rest, but I am summarizing it at that, because how can they complain about you when they are ****ing CHEATING?


I appreciate all the advice, everyone. I have decided I am going to go ahead and end the game, and find another way to spend time with my friends.


Dr. Guns-For-Hands wrote:

Welp, sounds like you already have plenty of help with the 'player interaction' part of this conversation. Let's talk employment.

Currently you sound like you're either out of work, or working a job that you wish you weren't. Even with advantageous education background, work history, willingness to relocate, connections, etc. job hunting can be a long and unpredictable process. It's easy to focus on the negatives of job hunting, the rejection, the resume rewrites, the constant evaluation, the time devoted.

Think about the positives. Imagine how great it would be to have a job that pays you real money, that challenges you without draining you, that has potential for advancement and raises, that surrounds you with people that are your intellectual equals. You may feel burdened sending off those resumes and interviewing when you don't get the job, but remember, you only have to succeed once. You need to start thinking about your priorities. This is where your focus should be.

Make clear to your friends when you put the game on hiatus that whether or not the blow up happened when it did, this is about taking care of yourself, getting a job, not a retaliation. They are your friends, they will understand. You don't have to quit gaming altogether, gaming is a great release, but it sounds like this game isn't that for you anymore. Be a PC for a while, let someone else run a game. You don't win anything, it's not them versus you. You did some things, they did some things, let it go. You'll feel better, and you'll need to feel good to focus.

See if you can do nine complete job submissions each day. If you use an Objective statement, incorporate the name of the company and their mission statement into every resume. Each resume needs to be different, identify key words from the job listing and respond to them directly in your resume. This will be more work and feel like a dramatic slowdown, but the average job listing on a monster.com style website costs a company in the range of $400 to post, the words they...

They already knew I was looking for work, and that the hiatus was initially about that. I mentioned it even before things blew up at the end of last game session.

Thanks for the job hunting advice. Though I'm finally employed again, I'm not well-employed, so I'll be keeping at it.


Seems to me that trust has degraded in this group. I would suggest gaming elsewhere, or seeing if one of them wants to GM. One of two things will happen- you may learn a more humane way to GM, or your players will develop more sympathy for your position when they see how hard it is. It seems most of the technical rules have been hashed out, but I do want to weigh in that overall, you seem quite hung up on limiting the power of your players.... In the case of bluff and diplomacy, I would say you are especially harsh, going as far as no creature in your world not behaving exactly as you hope. -- GM fiat is there to fall back on, but it shouldn't be the rule in communication checks. If you read the rules, if you overcome sufficient modifiers you should be able to convince people of what they Know patently to be false. To say that a bluff is not a bluff (just convincing as truth) is being extremely narrow and heavy-handed as a GM.

Players don't want to feel they need to fight the GM just so they can fight a monster. In the future, next time you're in a position where a rule can go either way, apply "the rule of Solomon" -- given two choices, choose the benevolent one. Even if you must by saying "I'll let you get am Away with it this once because y'all are the heroes in this story, but after the game we're going to hash this out and you might never get away with this interpretation ever again -- as such, you are giving something to the players as well as asserting your rulings once you've got documentation to back up your claim. Also, if your players think they'll only get over on you once for a ruling, they might learn to lay off the lawyering unless they really feel they need it.

Lastly, some of the stuff they were pulling is likewise ridiculous, like the straw thing and cheapening magic items. They might have started pulling crap like that after they decided you were too adversarial, but only you know the timeline.

All in all I'd just say maybe your perfect group is with other people. That, and try to give more power and agency to your players..

I salute you!


No prob, I'm always happy to help, I will be rooting for you Derek Vande Brake and I genuinely wish you the best in your efforts to become reemployed. You deserve better. A good company deserves you.


Strangely enough, I have to agree with Ciretose. Never argue rules at the table. Never.

"We don't argue rules at the table. I make a ruling and we go with it. We can discuss it later."

That being said, I almost always rule in favor of the players until I can double-check the rule. And my players know this.

As for your game, yeah, the whole trust issue is up in the air, isn't it? I'll probably agree with others that the relationship has soured, and it's become "them versus you". Let the game slide. Pursue your career opportunities and maybe everyone will chill out and you all can game in the future. Good luck.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Problem With Players All Messageboards

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