|
1) if the problem is a single player, talk with him aside and explain your position in a reasonable way, let him explain his... if eevrythign fails... let him sleep like that but tell him that his NEXT feat IS Endurance... that would let him sleep with the armor on, my cleric does so in the road, at home, she prefers just a soft bed.
2) be flexible in the rules, but not to the point of breaking them... don't let them call you names... besides even if you are the DM you are a human and has the right to forget a few things, try to have a few tables and easily called rules... but as a game master you can change rules to make the game better, just explain it to them...
3) if you make new rules, your right of course, explain them to yourplayers and the consequences... in this case a bad haggling may bring the rpice a bit upward, in other it maight move it a bit down... no merchant would give them more than 20% of discount... and that ONLY if he is really impressed with them... for example your players saved the town or the merchant daughter, the people (or just him) would readily give them the discount... aside of that... the merchants EVEN with a natrual twenty would NOT lose they margin of earnings... explain this to the players... themerchants are real peopleliving from their work, they won't lose money justfor the sake of some charismatic adventurers. (unless they pay him in another coin *wink*)
i would sayyou have LE or Ne players (at least the fighter) who wants you to remember rules... but when one affects him he cries wolf...
if you haven't game mastered for a while remember this to the people, you are remembering things, they need to gie you a little freedom... but yes don't let the muchkins overpower you
sorry if i have nothing else to add.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My initial thought would be to just stand your ground, and let the players leave if they don't like it. If you let the players have as much power as they are having, it creates an adversarial situation, where the DM is AGAINST the players, and it compromises your ability to provide a good game.
I've been in your situation though, and I know it's not a simple thing to do, especially if your players are friends outside of the game, and your friendship would be hurt if they left because you didn't let them run the show.
Another thing to do would be to let someone else DM for a while. That will not only give you a rest from their complaints, but allow someone else to see how difficult a position you are in.
Neither of those choices are easy though, especially if your players don't want to compromise. The bad news is that with the situation you are in, the only course that is going to easy is to keep doing things the same way you now, which is going to make you resent your friends and hurt your relationship with them in the end.
Good luck to you. Remember, making a difficult decision and regaining an appropiate amount of control over the table will result in a better game in the end, because you'll have the respect and eventually the trust to do things that result in a more seamless experience.
Bulette
In "The Case of the Fighter's Pyjamas", I'd probably allow him to either retroactively switch his purchase to a +1 chain shirt or to sleeping without his armour; it sounds like a case of genuinely being ignorant of the rule.
In "The Case of the Groaning Hagglers", I'd just tell them: "The rules say I don't have to give you any discount. If you don't like my house rule, I'd be glad to charge you full price instead."
So it depends on whether it's an honest mistake (in which case I'm lenient) or just general complaining about a well-known rule (in which case I'm tempted to say "hard cheese").
You might want to step back from the game context and take a look at your human relationship with this person.
When friends participate in a shared power fantasy like an RPG, a lot of problems aren't actually arising the game, but the people playing.
Take the sleeping in armor problem: is the player's umbrage taken because the rules say x about sleeping in armor? Or is it because you are attacking the player when they are at their weakest? Why are you doing that? You may have legitimate answers to those questions, but chances are your PC doesn't, and may feel you're tying to leverage the rules into defeating them. (Which is your job, but he's taking it personally)
When we play a game of chess, we agree to play the enemy to a friend. When that game is over, we walk away from the board, and we are allies again. When we play an RPG, one friend must be the enemy, and when we walk away, we know they must play the enemy tomorrow. This can have a surprising but subtle influence on relationships— and subservience can be almost as destructive as dominance.
Some players just can't help but take things personally. For these cases, the best thing is to remove the DM screen, and let them see that it's a fair deal. These people don't like surprise, so stop trying to surprise them. Thankfully, you don't need surprise in your DM arsenal all the time. This game can be really fun with no secrets at all! Run a couple of sessions with a checklist of how things will play out, and show the PC each step as it arises. After a couple of sessions with both of you playing the full-disclosure, purely tactical game, chances are this PC will trust you enough to let you start surprising them again.
The only reason to do this is to bring it back to a game you and your friend are playing together, not against each other. If you cringe with him when the villain crits for a few sessions, he may stop viewing you as the enemy, and merely the person who enables him to play the game.
PS- There comes a point where it's not worth the effort. Be careful of that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Calling you names it inappropriate. I smell deeper issues here.
If your players do not like the way you run the game, they have three options. They can discuss their grievances maturely with you after the game. They can run their own game the way they want to. They can politely remove themselves from an intolerable situation.
Talk to your players. Does your friend know his min/maxing is taking away from your fun of the game? If he does and does not care, he is only shooting himself in the foot. If you are not having fun too, you are going to quit running. And then he will have to find some other GM to bully.
One thing that I didn't mention though that toyrobots made me realize: I'm having a hell of a time making encounters that are challenging but not so much that 1/2 the party dies. The player who has the fighter I mentioned earlier is on 4th level and basically takes any advantage he can think of to up his damage output and AC and everything else. He's got like +11 to hit and +9 to damage and 21AC. Now, I don't really have a problem with that necessarily, and of course you want your char to be powerful. But, it makes it really hard as a DM to try to come up with something that will challenge the group but not kill them. I mean with a regular party of 4th level chars I might think that 3 ogres (CR 3) would be somewhat challenging. But our dear fighter only needs like a 5 to hit and can kill either of them in a couple hits even without cleave. On top of that, there are 3 other chars to help him out. So I sent 4 ogres after them, thinking this has to be a challenge, but between bad rolls and the fact that they only need like 8 to hit it was yet another joke encounter. So when it comes down to things like "ok, I'm going to just swap out the chain mail for a chain shirt to remove one of the only weaknesses my char...
My guess is Ability Scores are the culprit. Add up the value of your PCs abilities with the Pathfinder Point Purchase system, and if they come out to more than 25 points, then by-the-book ECLs will need help to work. Even lower totals can be problematic, because context is everything. This might not be as simple as "+1 APL," you need to start thinking about the individual abilities at play.
Also, I recommend a careful reading of the Encounter-Building section of Pathfinder Beta, it is a superior system, and some of the changes are subtle so I didn't catch them the first time through. The biggest improvement they could make to this section is a way to factor a party's ability scores into encounter difficulty, in a detailed way, so that GMs don't have to struggle with the implicit variables.
Resist the temptation to exploit PC weaknesses. Try to create interesting situations the way they would unfold (within reason, it's fantasy after all), and let the PCs crash through it. Then use the ECL guidelines to make it appropriate for the PCs. In some places, they might do very well, and you shouldn't try to prevent that. It's not "GM's game vs. PC's build," after all.
The above advice should help with the game, but I stress that this sounds like a social problem between two people. This is very natural, and the first step is recognizing it for what it is.
|
|
... Well, it frankly isn't ... and that makes it sort of boring, at least to me.
Have you told him this?
Here's a bit of wisdom my dad passed onto me years back: "Sometimes jerks don't realize they're being jerks until you call 'em on it."
Perhaps your friend needs to be told that he's making the game less fun for you. You are, after all, there to have fun too.
I would totally agree that you can´t allow others to yell at you or call you names.
In my opinion this could be some sort of hierarchy struggle, especially if the ones argueing are your friends (as you stated).
They seem to try out how far they can go and how much they can get from you, not seeing how badly that influences their own game experience.
I was in the same situation and argued a lot with my GM about overpowered chars (for he had made the encounters too hard for a time). When i took the GM chair again after a long time, i better understood his point of view.
So, if this won´t stop, make clear that you don´t like how things are going (chances are your pals don´t realize how their behaviour influences the game) and offer your position to others (best the ones yelling and argueing the most).
One thing that I didn't mention though that toyrobots made me realize: I'm having a hell of a time making encounters that are challenging but not so much that 1/2 the party dies.
For that, i am in a similar situation, for my party is very well balanced and very hard to challange in battle.
So i changed the encounters and presented more encounters without battle: try social encounters where your fighters attack bonus and AC won´t be useful. Try environment challenges like water hazards, creative traps, let them get lost in the woods...The game mechanics give you so many different possibilities, use them
|
personally, I find a 12 gauge shotgun usually ends those stupid arguments quite quickly and satisfactorily... though the mess can be a bugger to clean up!
Honestly, I assume these are your friends. I would say that before the next game take some time and ask them what the problem is. Just explain to them that you are concerned about the problem and want to solve it.
Expect there to be some whining and moaning, but encourage them to get to the root cause and to be polite about it.
The rules aren't unfair if applied evenly and any fighter should know about movement reductions and fatigue from armor. That is kind of part of their job to know about the rules that affect them.
You're right, I basically let them do 4d6 and then gave them 10 points on top of it. The 10 points wasn't a big deal but you can't do anything about high rolls ... and they got them.
Yeah, that's it right there. Depending on your actual score arrays in this party, you may want to consider throwing mostly APL +1 or even +2 encounters as your "standard" and even higher for challenging them. In this territory, encounter building is more art than science, since Average Party Level is a less than accurate measure of PC power.
Presuming that monster builds are balanced against a party of 4 PCs with the same attributes, the closer these attributes are to the "default" array (15, 14, 13, 11, 10, 9 or thereabouts), the better level is at gauging a challenge across a wide array of monster abilities. All it takes is one monster weakness (low AC) against one high PC ability that doesn't surface in the average party level (abnormally high str).
I try to nip this in they bud by keeping starting scores low. I don't know why PCs are so hungry for high scores, all it achieves is more paperwork for the GM. Unfortunately, if your campaign is already rolling, you would need very cooperative players to agree to drop all their scores just so that your life is easier. APL +2...
I disagree with a lot of other posters here. I do not think you need a mechanics change here. I think you need an attitude adjustment. The GM is just as entitled to fun as the players. Why should you be the only one jumping through all the hoops?
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I kick whiny b*@++es out of my games all the time, friends or not. I have 3 friends who I refuse to allow at my gaming table anymore and they know damn well why that is.
This doesn't help much, but... don't be afraid to be mean. If they don't like the way you're running the game, then make THEM run it.
...whiny b$@@%es...
I've tried to be up on all the rules and run things in a fair way. Example: there is a fighter in our group that chose to get some chainmail armor +1. Well, he didn't realize that this would make his movement decrease (PH 123) and that if he slept in it he would be fatigued the next day (PH 122). I basically just told him: "I'll let you decide now whether you slept in your armor or not, we can discuss the rules on this later, so we don't have to stop play." Then said: "why the heck do you keep springing all these unfair rules on me!?"
I hate to say it, but this instance sounds like a very bad call on your part. If the player is unaware that sleeping in armor applies penalties, but the character would know it, it's sort of up to you to clue him in, rather than let the penalty pop up later as an unwelcome surprise. No player will have perfect knowledge of every rule.
Look at it this way:
DM: "You still have that harm spell left; you can cast it on the vampire."
Player: "Is that a bad idea?" (Doesn't think to ask for a roll against his Knowledge: religion skill, with his modifier of +20).
DM: "Just decide whether to cast it, and we'll worry about its effects later."
In regard to the sleeping in armor issue: If you as GM are going to start enforcing a rule that you haven't in the past, you need to make an announcement to that effect before the gaming session. I actually did with the sleeping in armor thing: it was a rule we had never paid attention to before in my group. So before we began play that session, I said, "Hey, guys, I've just noticed that there's a rule about sleeping in armor that says x y & z. I know I haven't enforced that before, and that's my fault, but this is your heads-up to know that I will be enforcing it from here on out."
In regard to the haggling issue: There are actual rules about how to do this and how low a merchant will go in Complete Adventurer. I had a character haggle, and I couldn't remember where to find the rule. I didn't think it was right for a merchant to be selling below-cost, but he made the roll and I couldn't lay my finger on the rule so I allowed it. Before the next session, I said, "Hey, guys, remember when you bargained the merchant down really low on that +1 ring? I shouldn't have allowed that. Here's the rule that I couldn't find last time. It's my fault, but in the future, we'll be going by this rule."
In short, if you provide fair notice what the rules are going to be, and if you own up to your failure to know the right rule at the right time instead of blaming the characters for taking advantage (assuming that they weren't taking advantage), most reasonable groups should respond well. If your group is unreasonable, I can't help you. :)
I was saying: I'll give you the choice, but if you leave your armor on you will be fatigued the next day as the rules state."
I misunderstood your intial post then. It looked like you weren't telling him about the penalties in advance, and made him decide to wear armor or not, without mentioning them. If you did, in fact, specifically tell him about the penalties before he made the decision, then he has to live with them. If you didn't, he shouldn't.
Well, I basically let him retroactively decide whether his character had his armor on or not after seeing a gargoyle coming at them. So, I was being a litte nice there =)
But you're still dodging the question...
|
Well, I basically let him retroactively decide whether his character had his armor on or not after seeing a gargoyle coming at them. So, I was being a litte nice there =)But you're still dodging the question...
I feel for you Takilla, as the DM, but it does sound a bit like you sprung it on him once they were attacked. I realize things get hectic, but you should make a point to bring up gray areas in the rules before there is a conflict.
DM: "Okay, you are making camp. What is the watch order? What are your light sources? What is everyone sleeping in?"
Then, give your players a chance to respond. Remind them if they seem hesitant of some rules, like vision and fatigue from armor. It is the burden of the DM to be master of all the rules, even though it kills you when players might know one particular rule better.
|
Contributor
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In reading your original post, my thoughts turned in the direction of some things that Daidai has already touched on. In order to get a better picture of things, I'd need to know how things worked when you were "just a player" and how your group dynamic works outside of gaming. Still, I'll offer some thoughts that you can either put to use or ignore. You don't know me from Adam, but as a 35-year-old husband, father of twins, and a Naval officer with 13 years in service, I've had some experience dealing with groups of people--at the gaming table and elsewhere.
The big clue for me, here, was your indication that the problem is with the people you are friends with away from the table and not with the gaming-only associates.
If you are running into a lot of these problems during play, it sounds like your friends aren't used to seeing you in an authoritative role. My guess is that, in other social situations and as a player, you're pretty easy-going and don't usually assert yourself.
If that's the case, then your friends are having a hard time adjusting to the fact that they can't control you. They're used to getting their way and come up with any excuse to maintain control when you're the GM. I see this as most likely because they're attacking you at the one point where you admit you're weak...your knowledge of the rules. If they can remove the main thing that supports your authority as the GM, then they don't have to move out of their comfort zone and allow you to be in charge.
They may not even realize that's what they're doing. In this case, you're going to have to simply continue to assert your authority. You don't have to be a jerk about it...calm and firm gets a lot more respect than raving and dictatorial. Just don't let them control you or the other players are going to start accusing you of playing favorites. Your friends will either get used to your role (and gain a bit more respect for you outside of the game, too) or they'll continue to gripe and complain until your stint as GM is over.
Regardless, you'll need to guard against passive aggressiveness. When a person is used to going along with a group, it's easy to abuse a newfound position of power. Your goal is to maintain control of the game without overdoing it. Even if your friends don't come around, at least know you maintained your dignity through the whole thing.
Alternatively (and here I must state that I'm not accusing you of anything...I just don't know you, so I'm trying to cover both sides of this), it may be that you are a bit bossy away from the table and that you're a "difficult player" who your GMs have dealt with for a long time. It may be that, now that you're the one behind the GM screen, they're getting revenge (intentionally or not) for all the trouble you've been in the past.
That's definitely not the "grown-up" way to handle things, but it's also not unheard of. In this case, you need to be honest with yourself and with them. Examine the situation and, if you have been hard to run games for, admit it to them. Tell them that you understand now how hard it is to run a good game and ask them to be patient while you all learn the new rules together.
Regarless of which side of the coin you're on, the bottom line is that, for the time when you're the GM, you need to be in charge. You need to show them that, while your main job is to facilitate a good game for everyone, you're still running the game. When it's their turn to GM again, they can interpret the rules as they see fit. In the meantime, you have the final say on all rules.
You still need to allow them to provide suggestions or point out aspects of the rules that you may not know about...and you should show gratitude when they do. 3.5e is a complex set of rules and we can all use some help to remember key points and interpret nuances. I've been playing 3e since it came out and I STILL don't have everything down. However, I've got a great bunch of players who are willing to let me make mistakes and offer help when they can, while continuing to respect my role as the GM.
If your friends aren't willing to do that, then (a) they need to choose a different GM and (b) they may not be such great friends. Keep your cool, respect yourself, and respect them. Most likely, they'll come around. And even if they don't, you'll have learned something valuable about what you're capable of.
If that's the case, then your friends are having a hard time adjusting to the fact that they can't control you.
Or they might just like to argue?
I have seen very reasonable social types devolve into I-must-be-right-yah! folks in a gaming context. They can't stand to lose.
When we play a game of chess, we agree to play the enemy to a friend. When that game is over, we walk away from the board, and we are allies again. When we play an RPG, one friend must be the enemy, and when we walk away, we know they must play the enemy tomorrow.
This is philosophy gold by the way. I thought it worth calling attention to again.
Point your gaming friends who argue with you to this thread. You might find a different perspective once they post here. You may all benefit!
You're right, I basically let them do 4d6 and then gave them 10 points on top of it. The 10 points wasn't a big deal but you can't do anything about high rolls ... and they got them.
Actually you can - you can choose to go with point buy. Possibly in future you should more strongly consider this option since the high rolls of some of the players seem to be damaging the game for you.
There are a ton of good reasons to roll up characters using a random method but play balance is not one of them. If some significant semblance of play balance is important to you for a fun game then you should stay away from this mechanic as its inherently unbalancing.
Also 4d6 drop the lowest +10 is something like a 38 point buy on average - and with a little luck a character can easily get into completely unbalanced territory. In fact I'd say 38 was pretty unbalanced to start with, but I suspect your friend has far better stats then that.
This is part of the reason why your CRs are not working. If you acquired a race that gave these kind of stat bonus it would be probably +2-+4 level adjustment and yet the characters just don't have the hps to take the kind of punishment they can dish out. Anything that will really challange them by being able to live a few rounds has a very good chance of killing them when it lays into them. Your going to have to walk a really fine line to balance the game with characters with these sorts of stats. It will also be a bit of a moving target - characters with great stats tend to get more powerful as they gain levels since you get access to feats and magic that give you abilities 'usable X number of times per day equal to your stat bonus' and they have really high stat bonuses so they can use these really powerful abilities a lot.
Some great advice.
This is some really good stuff for all DMs to consider.
I feel for you Takilla, as the DM, but it does sound a bit like you sprung it on him once they were attacked. I realize things get hectic, but you should make a point to bring up gray areas in the rules before there is a conflict.
DM: "Okay, you are making camp. What is the watch order? What are your light sources? What is everyone sleeping in?"
Basic things like these are good to run (and our LARPers do point out that nobody sane sleeps in medium or heavy armor, and preferably not even in light one).
Just remember to do this regularly, not just when something odd is going to happen (our group usually have these as standing orders, that unless not mentioned otherwise our watch order will be this etc.)
And the ones who are sleeping have their weapons close by but often are without their armors.
Nevertheless, I would find yelling and calling me stupid unacceptable behavior. Disagreeing about rules is acceptable, and I have pointed out rules which don't work that well and how they would work better, but one can do that in polite and civilized manner.
|
You're right, I basically let them do 4d6 and then gave them 10 points on top of it. The 10 points wasn't a big deal but you can't do anything about high rolls ... and they got them.Actually you can - you can choose to go with point buy. Possibly in future you should more strongly consider this option since the high rolls of some of the players seem to be damaging the game for you.
also, look at the paizo encounters for the current level. Especially the adventure paths. They have been known to be difficult for their ECL. Look at not only the monsters, but the time of day (would the fighters have armor off?), atmosphere (plane of rust? or water environment?), and tools (does the bad guy quaffe a potion of fly or mage armor as the PCs approach? is there a wizard or cleric buffing him during the fight?) things like these can make more challenging encounters, without the extremity of another creature
Interesting topic.
For my part I've experienced fair sailing when:
1. I'm running a game from a position of 'power'. For example if I know the system the best or the players are new to RPG's or the group dynamic is in my favour.
or
2. When the whole group are very familiar with the system rules and house interpretation thereof.
And I've had problems like yours when:
1. Someone wants to sabotage the game.
and/or
2. Others are markedly more familiar with the system/rules.
Which is never going to be easy. My own approach was to say; 'I'm not running <system>, I am running a house version of this. I will be consistant in my approach - but I won't taken to task over bylaws in the core books'.
However it's worth noting that for some gamist players, finding a clever little rule/loophole is all part of the problem solving challenge of the game and not a personal attack on the GM.
BUT - if someone does want to mess you up, then they will find a way to do it whether or not it involves rules-debates. Like killing the other player characters for example : P
Which is never going to be easy. My own approach was to say; 'I'm not running <system>, I am running a house version of this. I will be consistant in my approach - but I won't taken to task over bylaws in the core books'.
That's a good approach, but as a player I can feel disconcerted if a DM makes up too many rules on the fly. It can be a little bit like playing in some kind of "Twilight Zone" where the laws of the universe keep changing. :-)
That's a good approach, but as a player I can feel disconcerted if a DM makes up too many rules on the fly. It can be a little bit like playing in some kind of "Twilight Zone" where the laws of the universe keep changing. :-)
Agreed. As a GM, I use house rules VERY liberally, but only if they are presented before the group and agreed upon in advance; I never just "sneak them in" during play, and I don't like to just "declare" them ("dealer's choice!") without putting them to a discussion/referendum/vote.
Even shifting houserules does not merit name calling. I believe the larger issues of respect need to be addressed first.
Yeh total agreement Hogarth, Kirth. And my suggestion is certainly far from perfect - not an easy situation however you cut it.
I guess the more everyone is having fun, the more good-natured the game, the less likely these problems are to arise. But out-of-game dynamics have a way of arising at the play table.
My own current issue is slightly different to the one discussed here. It's unconstructive rivalry between players. But again I can trace this back to real life dynamics between the personalities gathered.
Warning ... GM venting ahead =)...
Hey, your name looks strangely familiar to me...
What I'd like to know about your situation is: do you like being the group's DM, aside from your friends bickering with you? Or are you only DMing because everyone agreed to take turns doing it? If you enjoy DMing for its own sake, I suggest the same thing that most posters have suggested: you need to tell your twerp friends in no uncertain terms that their constant bickering is not fun for you even if it is for them. And if they don't change their attitudes, you need to either walk away from the game, kick them out of it or simply refuse to DM for them. If you're only DMing because it's your turn, your choices are similar but it'll be a bit easier for you to follow through with one of them. If you'd rather be a player you can use that to your advantage: "If you think I'm such a shoddy DM, be my guest! Do a better job yourself, if you can." "You know I'm just DMing as a favor to the group, and if you can't appreciate that, I'll find a group who can." "If you don't like how I DM, you can wait until the next DM's turn to play in the game. Goodbye!"
TS
When we played in the army, I found that there was no rules problem a good punch in the throat couldn't solve. At times the games degraded to a full room brawl, but the issues were settled and we moved on with the game.
Now, I won't suggest that violence is always going to be the best answer, but consider this. DnD is very mentally stressful, it is you against someone with absolute power. (Or you with absolute power required to make the game challenging but fun for those without it.) Stress needs release. Us soldiers achieved that by beating the crap out of each other. Maybe you guys need to go out and play a game of basketbrawl or something before you go back to sitting down at the table and building back those stress levels.
But I also agree with CourtFool. I'm pretty open to criticism AFTER the game when I DM. In fact, I encourage it. But I absolutely won't tolerate disrespect. Not from people I barely know and certainly not from friends. DMing is hard and you don't deserve to get tons of flak in addition to the challenges that the job already holds.
Stick of Pain.
When we played in the army, I found that there was no rules problem a good punch in the throat couldn't solve. At times the games degraded to a full room brawl, but the issues were settled and we moved on with the game.
Now, I won't suggest that violence is always going to be the best answer, but consider this. DnD is very mentally stressful, it is you against someone with absolute power. (Or you with absolute power required to make the game challenging but fun for those without it.) Stress needs release. Us soldiers achieved that by beating the crap out of each other. Maybe you guys need to go out and play a game of basketbrawl or something before you go back to sitting down at the table and building back those stress levels.
But I also agree with CourtFool. I'm pretty open to criticism AFTER the game when I DM. In fact, I encourage it. But I absolutely won't tolerate disrespect. Not from people I barely know and certainly not from friends. DMing is hard and you don't deserve to get tons of flak in addition to the challenges that the job already holds.
/sigh
I prefer not to comment, out of respect for some people in the army...
|
DnD is very mentally stressful, it is you against someone with absolute power. (Or you with absolute power required to make the game challenging but fun for those without it.) Stress needs release.
D&D shouldn't be stressful. Never in my years of playing or DMing have I felt "stressed" at the role. I play RPGs to relax and to have fun (of which stress is not a component of said fun). Every so often somebody does need to remind the group "it's just a game, relax," but in general nobody I play with walks away from the table more stressed out.
People should welcome the criticism, even at the table. Yes the DMs word is final, but you can bet your right arm I'm going to call the DM on being unfair, and I expect my players to do the same when I run the game. Disagreements can be handled respectfully during the event, but the key here (as others have noted) is the respectfully part.
I'm not even going to try to comment on the rest of this post...
|
|
To the OP, I'd have spiked this game a long time ago and told them to get out of my house or left their house. I posted a thread about where I was dealing with a power gamer and it was slowly devolving into what it sounds like you have. I spiked that and, luckily, found new players. You don't have to put up with insults and cry-babies. when you're not having fun, what's the point?
/sigh
I prefer not to comment, out of respect for some people in the army...
And yet you decided to anyways. Quite uselessly too, since you only managed to convey a rather vague disdain of my post without really contributing...anything. Other than some CO2.
D&D shouldn't be stressful. Never in my years of playing or DMing have I felt "stressed" at the role. I play RPGs to relax and to have fun (of which stress is not a component of said fun). Every so often somebody does need to remind the group "it's just a game, relax," but in general nobody I play with walks away from the table more stressed out.
I know when I play I'm very relaxed, but DMing is a totally different story. I feel a ton of pressure to make the game fun for everyone, plus I'm not that great at it to begin with. On the flip side, I've seen players who take the game really personally. Maybe not Black Leaf the Thief personally, but similar. As long as the game goes their way, they have fun and it is enjoyable for them. As soon as something bad happens, they snap.
People should welcome the criticism, even at the table. Yes the DMs word is final, but you can bet your right arm I'm going to call the DM on being unfair, and I expect my players to do the same when I run the game. Disagreements can be handled respectfully during the event, but the key here (as others have noted) is the respectfully part.
I'm of the opinion that a player has a right to object to or suggest a clarification of the rules. And that the DM has the right to make her own call on the matter if she has to to keep the game moving along. When both player and DM use their rights responsibly, the game is fun for everyone. DnD always ran best when everyone was focused on making the game go smoothly. In many ways, it was a team effort. Although until I had to DM myself, I never realized how must more the DM puts into the game than the players.
I'm not even going to try to comment on the rest of this post...
And yet, similarly to your buddy Seldriss, you decided to anyways. Why lie?
DnD is very mentally stressful, it is you against someone with absolute power. (Or you with absolute power required to make the game challenging but fun for those without it.)
For you, maybe. I have never subscribed to that approach.