Hello Community,
I am having an issue in my game with a particular player. Whenever I make a ruling, be it right or wrong (I can admit when I am wrong), the player wants to debate the ruling.
For instance, he (a cavalier) was on a mount and he failed his save against a web attack from a spider. I told him that because of this, he couldn't charge. He began to argue saying that his mount wasn't webbed so his mount could charge. He then pointed to a rule that said if the mount was charging he was considered charging as well. This is the type of thing that I am having to deal with. It takes up time during the game and ends up being a point of contention within the game. These types of arguments are happening more frequently. I have taken him aside and told him to just accept the ruling and if I am wrong I will admit it and we will try to make it right later, however the disagreements continue.
Another thing that I am working with for this particular player is his flightiness. He is the "tank" for the party. However, if the party comes to an encounter where he feels like they are at a disadvantage (which is just about all the time) he will basically tell the party that he is walking away from the encounter. An example of this is last game. They were given a quest to defeat a CR4 turtle. The party is level 7. When they came to the encounter I told them that the area surrounding the turtle's lair was covered in foliage and thus was difficult terrain. He, as a mounted character, refused to get off his horse and attempt the encounter. He is basically becoming a one-trick-pony in that if he cannot charge in an encounter, he wants nothing to do with it. I told him when he created the character that there would be times when he could not have the mount with him. Yet this type of senario seems to come up again and again.
The player is a friend of mine and one of only a few people I know who plays pathfinder. I don't want to kick him out of my game, but it is getting to that point. What should I do? Am I even right in being frustrated with this type of behavior?
|
Talk to the player outside the game and tell him that having rule debates slows down the pace of the game. Offer to discuss rulings after the game while everyone is cleaning up, or off-line in email/etc. Make it very clear that you want to make a ruling and move on, but the the ruling can be revisited later if needed.
Basically, I think it would be best to give your player a way to debate rulings that doesn't interfere with table time.
-Skeld
This type of attitude should be expected of a twelve year old. If he is twelve, be patient with him, he will calm down in time.
If he is older than this, he needs to act it.
Show him this post. :P
Seriously though, if he is going out of his way to be a pain, you can choose to accept it, attempt to change it, or kick him out.
You already said you don't want to kick him out.
Keep trying to change it.
Tell him that no character is awesome all the time, and that you aren't going to base the game around HIM, as that starts getting a bit creepy...
Why would he want all that attention from you?
Are you a cute girl?
As for his interpretation of the rules regarding mounts, clearly that is wrong.
If the mount was in the area of effect of a web, it would be webbed too. If just the rider was webbed, then he suffers the effects of the web.
NOWHERE does it say that charging negates the penalties, so it doesn't.
|
I think you are right to be frustrated. The mount issue is well known with Cavaliers and it takes a lot of work on the player and the GM's part I think to make it work. Sounds like the player is dead set on making it work himself though.
Sometimes rules questions can bog a game down. I look to the GM (which is often myself) to be the final arbiter. I know, I know, "GM is not god" and all that but I think somebody needs to keep pace with the game and I look to the GM to be that somebody. The only time I think a table should really dig in is if a PC death is part of the issue. Otherwise rule it and move on. If its a nagging issue take it between sessions. Sounds like your player wont let this go.
Seems like you know these those things too. Sounds like you also have talked to the player about them. I think the only other avenue is to try and get some of the other players to mention it too. Dont dogpile the guy but let people air their frustration. Make it a bonding moment and not a threatening one. If you cant work it out at the table you might have to ask the player to leave. Its unfortunate but sometimes play styles and personalities are just incompatible.
Take some of your future adventures inside. Underground. In deep woods. This guy needs to get out of his comfort zone, and getting him off his mount is an important first step.
Mind, I'm not saying to completely negate his class feature of having a mount. Just that there ought to be many situations where he has to work around not having it. Once he gets over it, toss him another bone in the form of an open terrain outdoors skirmish he can shine in.
FWIW, Alexd's comments seem spot on.
This said, why was his mount not webbed while he was webbed? I dunno how you play it, but I wouldn't give his mount a separate saving throw against effects like that. Treat the cavalier and his mount as a single unit, with only one saving throw for that kind of stuff. After all, the mounted combat rules are complex enough as it is, and you don't want further unnecessary complexity thrown into the mix.
No, YOU are arguing!
As for the guy walking away. Fine, he does not get loot or XP for the encounter. Eventually, he will be unable to contribute when the party faces an epic challenge. In game, he refused to practice his epic skills against a turtle, so how can he expect to be able to perform vs the Dragon.
Yes, this.
Take your player aside. Explain to him that he IS slowing the game down, and slowing the game down makes it less fun. If he keeps this up, it's going to harm the morale of your other players; and I've found a lot of gaming groups break up because of players like this.
Most game tables don't have a whole day to play a game, so when a player wants to bog the game down with rules debates, it's time to say "I'm the GM and I have made my decision. We are moving on." If he wants to keep debating, tell him he has ONE rules debate per session and only two minutes in which to make his point. If he wants more after that, too bad. He can take it up with you after the session.
If he won't act like an adult, then you either A) make it clear he can't play unless he does or B) include him in the game but make sure he gets NO rewards when he does something like this.
Try talking to the other players. Get them to approach this guy individually, not all at once, with some thought about how he's slowing the game down. If you approach all at once he might feel like he's being ganged up on and psychology suggests he might see you guys as a single entity. Approaching him individually over the course of a week would give the impression that multiple entities independently came to the same conclusion: that this is disruptive. (This should be true, too. If he's bogging every game down with these arguments, the other players should be upset.)
I'd be seriously tempted to have something eat his horse while the party is way too far away from town and they have a limited amount of time to grab a McGuffin. That's probably bad advice.
Thanks, as I said, I enjoy hanging out with the person, but his disruptions are making the game not fun for me. I don't mind a discussion and I don't want to seem like a tyrant, but when I get so mad that I have to step away from the table, something needs to change.
I have a guide called optimizing your GM. That and the GMG might be good reads for the both of you.
What I see lacking is trust and respect for you as a GM and an equal. Every GM should be able to field objections from their players on the spot. However every player needs to understand objecting doesn't mean it will go their way.
Agree with the suggestions to talk to him outside of the game and straighten these things out. It sucks when you potentially might scare someone away from the table, but if they're bringing the game down, it needs to be done.
You need to get him to agree to accept your rulings and leave the debate for after the session has ended.
In my opinion, heretical to many on these boards, friends are more important than any game, and keeping a friend is much more important than keeping a game going.
That said, not enjoying the activity you are doing together is a real problem. If you have talked to him about the discussing rules issue and he hasn't changed his behavior, then it is unlikely he is going to change. You have to accept that, and then decide how you want to deal with it. The options range from resigning yourself to tell him (over and over) you have already made your ruling and you will talk about it after the game to giving up the game entirely and finding an activity you all can enjoy. One possibility might be to take a break from running the game, and let him by the game master. (and absolutely don't try to sabotage his game...that way lies madness.)
As far as the issue of him not contributing for any fight he can't get his charge on, well, honestly that isn't your problem. You are the game master, you set up the world and build a story, but it most certainly isn't your problem to make players contribute or work together to achieve their goals. That is their problem, and your other players can (or can choose not to) deal with that issue. Don't take that extra worry on yourself.
One last bit of advice, I know you said you talked to the player, but sometimes what you say (or think you said) isn't what is heard. If you think there is any chance that the other player may not have fully understood your issue, you might want to give that another chance. One useful tool can be turning the problem around. Rather than telling the other player to change, explain that you find stopping the game for a lengthy rules discussion to be disruptive to the flow and that it really bothers you, and then ask him if HE has any ideas or suggestions on how to deal with this problem. Making him in charge of fixing it can have some positive results of investing him in solving the problem. However, for a certain level of social development, this may still prove unsuccessful.
TrustNo1, you've got two issues happening here, I think.
1} I think you might have a RulesWeasel. With only one example, it's hard to tell. But, in the example you give involving web and a charging mount, my recommendation is to just roll with things at the table. You only have as much authority as you act like you have. As a DM, your job is to adjudicate more than the rules, but the interaction between various rules.
"Yes, player, your mount can charge, and yes, you as a rider are considered charging when your mount charges. That said, you as a rider are webbed and immobile, so what's going to happen is your mount is going to spring away from you and you are going to fall on the ground. Since the horse is charging, you'll take a -2 penalty to your Ride check to dismount and stay standing. Fair? Seems fair. So. Still want to spur your mount on?"
There's a difference between being unapproachable and rigid with rules and being... a door-mat. You don't need to be either.
2} Encounter-avoidance. If a player has a "chicken" character, so be it. As others have said, that's not your problem, it's the party's problem. I'd deal with it in-character. A character that doesn't carry its weight is for the other players to address. Or not. If the cavalier talks the whole party out of doing encounters, well, sounds like a bunch of not-heroes, who won't be invited to further heroics. I'd illustrate this in-character as well, by having not-a-lot go on for a session. Nobody approaches them to give them tasks, etc. Force the players to engage the topic in-character, and eventually have an NPC explain things.
"Look guys, I appreciate your business here drinking and eating and renting rooms in my inn, but you know... you've got a reputation, right? Word's got around. There's these um... other guys... who've been doing things for the town and well, they get things done where you... don't. I know, I know, pot, kettle, black, what with me being an innkeep and all instead of an adventurer, but facts are facts. Folks just don't think of your names when there's danger and daring-do to be done. Now... I might be able to get you a little work, but I'd be sticking my neck out for you, so I'd be needing some promises that you won't be letting me down. Or... I could go get you some more bacon?"
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
If you've told him that you'll revisit table rulings after the fact and he's not taking you up on it, then one of two things is the case:
1) He doesn't believe you.
2) The table ruling makes the game not fun to play, and fixing it later doesn't give back the fun he already lost four hours of, so he feels the need to get the right ruling now, while the evening can still be salvaged.
How often is he obliterating something with an unobstructed charge, compared to how often the two of you are arguing about why he can't?
How often are you going to him after the game (even if he refused to table it at the time) and saying "Hey, turns out you were right"?
How often do the other players have primary class features invalidated? (For example, if he's having to give up the benefits of his mount more often than the enchanter is having to face mindless creatures, then it's no mystery why he wants to argue.)
People fight when they feel threatened. If you want him to stop fighting, you've got to let him experience—repeatedly, consistently—things working out okay.
It would be better if common sense were to prevail. Webbed? Can't move. The horse might be able to but doesnt web impede movement speed? Would it stop a charge? I could see the guy who was webbed stuck in the webs while the horse kept moving.
Even if you succeed the save vs. web the entire area is considered difficult terrain so he still would not be able to charge. So there's that.
I am basically running straight out of the book. So I am not limiting his character any more than the AP suggests.
I think the problem is that he is an argumentative person. He has a difficult time conceding a point. This usually happens in the thick of combat which is already cumbersome.
I have spoken to the other players and asked them to speak to him. Hopefully something will work. I am tempted, as you mentioned, to just end the game and tell the players that I am not having fun anymore. I will allow one of them to run a game.
What AP are you running? I've noticed that Paizo content is often times pretty prohibitive for mounted combat, with a lot of stuff happening in doors and in close quarters. I wouldn't want to run a Cavalier unless my mount 1) is medium size and 2) has either a fly or a climb speed.
Kingmaker adventure path
Don't argue. Give him a brief answer and move on. You don't need to be able to accurately adhere to 100% of the rules without fail (I don't think thats even possible, as the rules assume a certain amount of interpretation), but you do need to be able to provide rulings that are impartial and allow the game to move forward. The two of you can discuss the intricacies of the rules at a different time.
The impression I get is that he is fishing for loopholes. It is the GM's place alone to interpret the rules - not a player's.