The wizard of the group made a couple of knowledge checks, and I when I told him about the beast I tried to stress that it was not a dumb beast that they were dealing with but a cunning monster. The paladin's player either did not hear or did not care. His attitude was "I put all this time and effort into my plan, how dare you just rule that it fails?"
Does anyone else feel that this is stemming from the "say yes" rule that is all the rage now?
You should talk to your player about his expectations first. It's clear that he thought the plan SHOULD have worked; presumably he saw the creature as easily drawn out to attack. There are many creatures for which such tactics would be effective: For example, Minotaurs (despite their low cunning) would likely charge to the attack, trusting to their speed and toughness to let them evade any ambush. Giants or dragons might underestimate the abilities of smaller races.
You played the nightmare beast as more cautious: Presumably other parties had stung it badly. It had learned that charging into battle with a party of adventurers was unpleasant, the pain detracting from its leisurely enjoyment of their terror.
Secondly, I would discuss his comments about your style. He needs to understand that you won't always see things his way, but you're responsible for ensuring that they have a fair challenge. If they only win because you let the monster fall for a ruse you didn't believe should be effective, you're doing the players a disservice. If your only intent was to ensure they didn't have a "cakewalk", that might be too "gamist", but that wasn't your motive.
(And now, the Oprah moment...)
After you've achieved understanding about your underlying assumptions, then you can address his approach. Explain how you feel about what happened, focusing on your feelings and frustration. Don't focus on his behavior being rude or inappropriate or he'll feel defensive. Instead, focus on your own feelings and perceptions. Let him...
Thank you very much for the advice. However, I am done with the Oprah/Dr Phil approach. I've explained more than once to the paladin's player that his behavior is not acceptable and why him telling everyone what to do is not a good thing and why it detracts from everyone's fun. I've done so in as non-threatening manner as possible. It has not worked. He has shown himself unable to change, and doesn't seem to think what he is doing is wrong.
Two of the players that departed were due to life events, not because of this particular player. The other player that departed (about 2 months ago) had even worse habits which I will not get into. I thought that the paladin's player's behavior would improve now that he no longer had the psion's player to butt heads with. Instead he's gotten worse. I am resigned to putting up with him and trying to keep the worst of his behaviors in check until the campaign ends. I don't see any other option right now.
The main issue here seems to be that one player is telling you that he thinks that you are running the game wrong.
Was this because it was the end of a long session and everyone was getting tired?
Has the player apologised since?
What is the perspective of the other players on the issue?
1. Partially, I would imagine.
2. No, nor do I expect an apology out of him. I don't remember him ever apologizing for his behavior.
3. As I stated in subsequent posts, he was the only player who was upset about the whole issue. The ranger's player was the one taking all the risks, and he was not bothered that the beast did not chase him.
I am running a game for a group of modern day commandos. Their task is to sink an enemy battleship in port. The problem is, their equipment drop failed to happen and they are left with pistols and submachine guns. Their plan: shoot at the hull with their small arms until it sinks. If I rule that such a thing is impossible, am I being too gamist or too simulationist? What percentage would you assign to the likelihood of success?These guys need to keep it honest. If they expect that the "Say Yes" philosophy means "Play Doormat", they don't understand what it's about.
If someone wants to bludgeon me with "gamist" or "simulationist" titles, I'd have to ask them what they pictured happening. What is their vision of success? If their plan is to snipe with small arms while munitions are loaded onto the ship, dropping a pallet of high explosives into an open hatch above the ship's magazines, they have a chance. If their plan involves sinking it by shooting through 17" thick armor plates, they'll need to do some pretty fast talking.
People who sling around such phrases ought to watch more war movies and Hong Kong action films, where the melodramatic endings often involve the protagonists dramatically expiring. What fun would adventuring be if heroes never died?
I agree %100. I can think of at least half a dozen plans that would have worked with little to no risk to the players that I would have given a reasonable chance of succeeding. I am not going to post them here as I know at least one of my players reads this board (the paladin's player does not). I got to thinking that I should have told the paladin's player that his plan was not going to work and why, but I figured I'd let him find out for himself.
Now that I think about it, during the planning session, he was doing a lot of "selling" of the plan, exhorting to everyone how cool it would be when the beast would rush right into the prismatic wall and dying spectacularly. He may have trying to sell the plan to me on how cool it would be and why I should have ruled in favor. Sorry, I don't care how cool your plan is, if it doesn't work it doesn't work.
Does anyone else feel that this is stemming from the "say yes" rule that is all the rage now?
I'd say thats more a 4E forum question but feel that this interpretation of the 'say yes' rule of thumb is essentially flawed. If the players says "I sprout wings and fly away" thats not something the DM should say yes too. I believe the intention of the rule is to insure that the Dm does not get so caught up in the basic mechanics of the game that he fails to allow viable plans to function.
For example a player that can't reach a flying creature might suddenly sprout off with "I jump on the table in the middle of the room! - does that give me an extra 5'reach" I feel that a good DM answers such a question with - "Yes, yes it does."
The point of the rule is to insure that combats and encounters are dynamic and really memorable. Its a rule of thumb meant to make the game fun and to remind DMs that ultimately making the game fun is their job. Don't follow the rule if it won't improve the game.
I think you pretty much made the right call in part because super easy kills of unique and powerful monsters is NOT good gaming. Its not actually fun. Furthermore the players rarely recognize this - they want to succeed and they hate being foiled so they get all invested in their insta kill plans but its not the cheap kills that they actually remember fondly after the fact.
If your players need some cathartic 'we kick ass and take names' encounters don't use cool unique monsters for that. Have them bust up an Orc war party or something once in a while.
Yeah, I only have 25 years dming under my belt (30 total with the game in February), but I wholeheartedly agree. Players should learn to roll with the punches, and b) not take everything so seriously. It's just a game, after all...
Beyond this I'd say that its basically always better to allow the DM to run his game his way even when your not 100% on board. Reality is a hissy fit is hardly fun for anyone and it accomplishes nothing but souring the mood of everyone at the table.
The DM has all the power because that just makes the game run better.
I'm tempted to go and look up the KodT strip where B.A. is reading from the Hackmaster DMG and its introduction is along the lines of "The DM screen is a wall that separates the DM from the players. A good DM is unwavering in his calls. It is the players unstated goal to chip away at the authority vested in the DMs Screen and the DMs job is to thwart them...."
Its over the top and I'm just paraphrasing but I think the point is essentially true. I also believe that if the DM can take and maintain what amounts to tyranny at the table its almost always a better game. The players opinions, if they are presented respectfully can be considered by the DM but the final call always rests wit the DM. Questioning how the DM runs a game is way out of line - its completely beyond the pale.
Hi all, party artificer in the OP's game here. I think everyone pretty much touched on the sentiments I have on this matter. I've spoken to quite a few gaming friends on the matter, and almost all of them have echoed the thoughts here. [sarcasm] As the prevalent bat-shiat crazy plan maker, I'm kind of taken aback at the intrusion into my territory. I may just have to make use of that [/i]Tenser's transformation[/i] scroll and be the beefy melee combatant and see if he likes it... [/sarcasm] But I digress. The funny thing is, while the paladin was making the, rather needless in my opinion, plan, the cleric and I spent the entire time buffing the hell out of ourselves preparing to fight the beast with the knowledge we had. The paladin is a one-trick pony, and when he can't get his trick to trick, he gets annoyed. Heck, take it from me, do not even think about blocking his line to charge. All you get is heavy sighs and "Well, maybe you should've held your action instead...". I have no problem with the "say yes" mentality actually. I use it in my Pathfinder game with no trouble whatsoever. My halfling rogue wnats to try and charge through some sparse forest? Cool, make an Acrobatics check to be able to move your full speed. The PCs tell me that they should be able to weave through the trees because it'd be cooler than possibly botching a roll? That's nice, roll your d20. I'm going to press the Submit button before this turns into me venting all over the place.
Also, Boss Man DM, if you could bring the GPS back next game, I'd most appreciate it. The missus and I just got ourselves a new car and we'll be needing it soon. Thanks!
I think you made the right call for the reasons you already stated. period.
Hi all, party artificer in the OP's game here. I think everyone pretty much touched on the sentiments I have on this matter. I've spoken to quite a few gaming friends on the matter, and almost all of them have echoed the thoughts here. [sarcasm] As the prevalent bat-shiat crazy plan maker, I'm kind of taken aback at the intrusion into my territory. I may just have to make use of that [/i]Tenser's transformation[/i] scroll and be the beefy melee combatant and see if he likes it... [/sarcasm] But I digress. The funny thing is, while the paladin was making the, rather needless in my opinion, plan, the cleric and I spent the entire time buffing the hell out of ourselves preparing to fight the beast with the knowledge we had. The paladin is a one-trick pony, and when he can't get his trick to trick, he gets annoyed. Heck, take it from me, do not even think about blocking his line to charge. All you get is heavy sighs and "Well, maybe you should've held your action instead...". I have no problem with the "say yes" mentality actually. I use it in my Pathfinder game with no trouble whatsoever. My halfling rogue wnats to try and charge through some sparse forest? Cool, make an Acrobatics check to be able to move your full speed. The PCs tell me that they should be able to weave through the trees because it'd be cooler than possibly botching a roll? That's nice, roll your d20. I'm going to press the Submit button before this turns into me venting all over the place.
Also, Boss Man DM, if you could bring the GPS back next game, I'd most appreciate it. The missus and I just got ourselves a new car and we'll be needing it soon. Thanks!
What? No rant? But Golarion, it's so much fun when you rant... :-0)
In fairness, if all you get is a heavy sigh from the paladin when you block his charge line, you are lucky. If you are not lucky he will pout and say something to the effect of "I can't believe you just did that..."
BTW, the missus is getting her own GPS for Xmas, so you will have your GPS by next game.
|
The horrible extension of calling for rolls on everything is the reverse - not allowing the players to act on information without rolling (which seems to be what the Paladin player wants to avoid).So you've never had a situation like the following?
DM: A large giant humanoid shaped creature stands before you. It's hands have large claws and its skin is warted.
PC1: I get out my back-up flaming sword.
DM: Why?
PC1: It is obviously a troll, we all know fire or acid is needed to kill it.
DM: How does your character know it is a troll and what hurts a troll?
PC1: Everyone knows that.
DM: Make a knowledge check, if you make it I'll let you draw your back-up weapon otherwise you should stick with your standard weapon.
PC1: You mean I have to make a roll to take an action that I as a player know is obviously the right choice.
DM: Yes.
I'm just catching up on this thread...
Yes, that has happened in my games. And I did exactly as you describe - no Knowledge check, no drawing the sword.
But that is a heck of a distance from telling the player they cannot attack the troll without a Sense Motive check because they don't know that trolls are vicious killers. The DM should treat NPCs as their own character, the only special rules that apply are Diplomacy and Intimidate.
|
|
I am reluctant, however, to kick him out of the group, as he is the only one who has been with the campaign from the beginning. Everyone else were late joiners due to people dropping out (most have over a year with the game).I wonder if the loss of players over the last year might have something to do with the Paladin's continued attendance? Coincidence? You be the judge.
I am just sayin'...
I was thinking the same thing, then I read your post. :)
|
His argument was that I should have ruled that the creature charged after the ranger and blundered into the prismatic wall because it made for “good story.” When I explained to him the reason...
Dear Player:
While your plan may have made for an okay story, I felt it was bland and unreasonable to expect a fairly cunning creature to fall for your antics.
What would have made for a GREAT story full of all sorts of cinematic glory, would have been for you to stop telling me how the game should be played, and come up with a complete off-the-cuff plan B action. Unfortunately, while I set the stage for some stunning role-playing activity, your poor gamesmanship and lack of imagination ended up ruining the "night capper" for everyone else.
<Insert further appropriate comments here>
What? No rant? But Golarion, it's so much fun when you rant... :-0)
In fairness, if all you get is a heavy sigh from the paladin when you block his charge line, you are lucky. If you are not lucky he will pout and say something to the effect of "I can't believe you just did that..."
BTW, the missus is getting her own GPS for Xmas, so you will have your GPS by next game.
No rant, but all I know is that thanks to all the "half-rogue" and "if only we had a real wizard" comments, someone's not getting any more magic vestment spells for his flying glue factory...
The Missus had a way to deal with the paladin in my previous Pathfinder game; Tell him he's right and keep doing what you're doing regardless. I think the quote that shut him up the longest was "Would you like to roll my dice for me too?".
1. Never game until 1:30 in the morning. Everyone's behavior gets worse and their patience goes down after the witching hour.
2. You've lived with this guy for two years. Finish the game and then make him DM next. You won't even have to retaliate: he'll learn simply from being on the other side of the screen.
1. Never game until 1:30 in the morning. Everyone's behavior gets worse and their patience goes down after the witching hour.
1. I wish we had a choice. The ranger's player does not get off work until late, as he is the photo editor for a metropolitan newspaper, and he pretty much has to stay until his job is done. He does not show until around 7:30-8:00 and we don't get started until at least 15-20 mintues after then. I have tried to move the game to another day/time and we can't do it because of everyone's committments.
2. You've lived with this guy for two years. Finish the game and then make him DM next. You won't even have to retaliate: he'll learn simply from being on the other side of the screen.
2. At least 2 of my players have told me privately that they will not play in another game with the paladin's player, especially if he's running it. I actually think he would do better as a DM than as a player. At least he could run the game as he saw fit and not boss other players around. But the bad feelings toward him are so strong that no one wants to give him a chance. Not that I blame them, he's only recently tried to tell me what to do. He's been doing it to the other players for over a year now.
|
2. At least 2 of my players have told me privately that they will not play in another game with the paladin's player, especially if he's running it. I actually think he would do better as a DM than as a player. At least he could run the game as he saw fit and not boss other players around. But the bad feelings toward him are so strong that no one wants to give him a chance. Not that I blame them, he's only recently tried to tell me what to do. He's been doing it to the other players for over a year now.
Hmm if its gotten to this point I think you will have to cut your losses and let him go (although he wont really be much of a loss)
|
|
Hmm if its gotten to this point I think you will have to cut your losses and let him go (although he wont really be much of a loss)
2. At least 2 of my players have told me privately that they will not play in another game with the paladin's player, especially if he's running it. I actually think he would do better as a DM than as a player. At least he could run the game as he saw fit and not boss other players around. But the bad feelings toward him are so strong that no one wants to give him a chance. Not that I blame them, he's only recently tried to tell me what to do. He's been doing it to the other players for over a year now.
It sounds like you have a pretty good idea of what needs to be done. Talk it over with your other players and then be brave and do it - but be sure to do so with no hard feelings.
On the topic of playing until 1:30 . . .
A few years back I had a really wonky work schedule, and played with guys that were either in school or also had wonky work schedules. We would start playing at 6 pm and often go until midnight or later.
Several sessions were great, but I also noticed that we had a few sessions that had some real peaks and valleys, and sometimes the "rush to finish" a given adventure when we realized that we had been playing until nearly 2 am often flattened the memories of the "highlights" of a few hours previous.
While I wish I had more time to game, now that I've been running games at the local game store instead of a private home, and I've been limited to 3.5 hours more or less for most sessions, I've noticed that overall, the sessions seem to be of a more consistent quality.
Its hard to figure out your "breaking point" where the game starts feeling more like something you have to finish than something you really love doing. I don't know if this is a contributing factor, but I have to say, it felt counter intuitive at first, but there is something to be said about "leave them wanting more."
|
|
On the topic of playing until 1:30 . . .
A few years back I had a really wonky work schedule, and played with guys that were either in school or also had wonky work schedules. We would start playing at 6 pm and often go until midnight or later.
Several sessions were great, but I also noticed that we had a few sessions that had some real peaks and valleys, and sometimes the "rush to finish" a given adventure when we realized that we had been playing until nearly 2 am often flattened the memories of the "highlights" of a few hours previous.
While I wish I had more time to game, now that I've been running games at the local game store instead of a private home, and I've been limited to 3.5 hours more or less for most sessions, I've noticed that overall, the sessions seem to be of a more consistent quality.
Its hard to figure out your "breaking point" where the game starts feeling more like something you have to finish than something you really love doing. I don't know if this is a contributing factor, but I have to say, it felt counter intuitive at first, but there is something to be said about "leave them wanting more."
This is a helpful rule I developed after reflecting on similar occurences in my own games:
If you find yourself asking "Do we want to keep going?" then don't. Chances are you will want to stop in the middle of whatever you start next. Better to call the game and give everyone a chance to refresh for next session.
On the topic of playing until 1:30 . . .
A few years back I had a really wonky work schedule, and played with guys that were either in school or also had wonky work schedules. We would start playing at 6 pm and often go until midnight or later.
Several sessions were great, but I also noticed that we had a few sessions that had some real peaks and valleys, and sometimes the "rush to finish" a given adventure when we realized that we had been playing until nearly 2 am often flattened the memories of the "highlights" of a few hours previous.
While I wish I had more time to game, now that I've been running games at the local game store instead of a private home, and I've been limited to 3.5 hours more or less for most sessions, I've noticed that overall, the sessions seem to be of a more consistent quality.
Its hard to figure out your "breaking point" where the game starts feeling more like something you have to finish than something you really love doing. I don't know if this is a contributing factor, but I have to say, it felt counter intuitive at first, but there is something to be said about "leave them wanting more."
This is a helpful rule I developed after reflecting on similar occurences in my own games:
If you find yourself asking "Do we want to keep going?" then don't. Chances are you will want to stop in the middle of whatever you start next. Better to call the game and give everyone a chance to refresh for next session.
This is a little off topic, but it goes into one of the possible reason for mr paladin's outburst.
I understand what both of you are saying. However, I probably keep going longer than I want to for a couple of reasons
1. Due to the distance that I drive to get to the game (well over an hour drive time to and from) and family obligations I am only able to run the game once every two weeks. Since we game so infrequently I feel obligated to squeeze in as much gaming time as possible. I try to quit around 1 or so to have time to wrap up, dole out XP, address any issues, etc, and still have time to get home at a decent hour. I am sometimes guilty let the players talk me into running one more encounter. This was not a problem in lower levels when I could run an average encounter in less than 10 minutes. Now that the players are 16th+ level, the average encounter takes close to 40 minutes to run. The paladin, with his aforementioned harpoon missle tactic, (cast rhino's rush and find the gap+full power attack+holy smite+mounted charge with lance+spirited charge and ride by attack feats=more damage than the average ship-killing missle) can take up to 5 minutes to calculate his damage. Same deal with the ranger with his 5 or 6 shots per round. Neither of these are the players' fault or a problem with them making decisions, they are just a consequence of doing so much math. So encounters are taking a lot longer partially due to all the math the combat oriented characters have to do, and as a result we have fewer of them in the time I normally play (and BTW, the extended quadratic formulas needed to calculate damage at higher levels is NOT something I will miss when I switch to 4th edition!)
2. The ranger's player is now on a timetable. His wife recently gave birth and is taking 13 weeks of maternity leave. Once that expires, he will pretty much not be able to play any more and he is going to have to watch his little one friday nights. So we are trying to finish the campaign before that happens.