I'm moving this over from another thread because it go way off topic there (and, I guess it's really not STAP specific, so slam me if you must)
Those are the best fights [Referring to a particularly brutal, resources expending epic battle]. They give the players a sense of pride. And the DM too :-)
I agree 100%, but all it takes is for one player to grouse about a DM call or rules interpretation to kill it. Most of my players, no matter what the situation, even if we’ve (I’ve) done something completely wrong, based on the rules, are like, “Whatever. It was still cool!” But I have one player – a rules lawyer (who unfortunately is the weakest in the party on rules knowledge) – who recently told me that he doesn’t agree with the way I calculate difficulty for skill roll tasks. I’m like, sorry, that’s what a DM is for. That’s why it’s called a “difficulty” rating. It’s not an “easiness” rating! “Yeah, well, the book says the difficulty should be xyz.” Sorry, this isn’t a typical situation. Pick your reason why, it just isn’t.
Boy was he ticked when they tripped a trap last week. The thief in the party (my character before I became DM) is gone (good story reason, btw) so they just blundered into it. All of the PCs and one NPC almost died … but nobody actually did! Still he was grousing. The only thing that appeased him was that I told him I played it exactly the way the STAP had written it. Oh, suddenly because that’s how it was written, it’s okay. If it’s in print, it must be fair and balanced, but the DM’s judgment is suspect.
So what about the time he went unconscious while using a Levitate spell? Does he fall 40 feet to his certain death? No. I ruled that concentration wasn’t required to keep the spell functioning, only to move, so the other players had the remainder of the spells duration to figure...
I feel ya Troy, I've been there more times than I should. And have had various issues like this ranging from "But my alignment is CG!" (it may have been written thqat way, but definately not played that way) to the old standby pain of *dice rolls and is snatched up before anyone can see it* "I got a 28", to which I respond "On a 20 side, with a +3 bonus... and how exactly is that?" *insert convuluted answer here...* "Nope that just makes it a 25 at best with a nat 20 and you said you rolled a 19...* I hate those :P
Here to make you feel better I give you free Internetz!
Wow, I feel bad saying this, but misery really does enjoy company. I think that’s actually worse then what I was complaining about. That’s just outright cheating. I mean, it’s one thing to disagree (just about every) DM call, but that’s a matter of opinion. But that stuff you describe … grrr! Yeah, my guy never cheats on dice rolls, but he does do “faulty math.” Plus, he never keeps track of his spells. I know he’s using more than his daily allotment and he’s somehow always prepared the exact spell he needs. Yeah, like you thought to memorize Rope Trick this morning. The thing is, there is so much a DM has to keep tract of, I can’t babysit one person. I’m thinking of making him use spell cards or something.
What started the whole situation I was complaining about above was he wants to “rest 8 hours to get his spells back” after every encounter. I was a bit annoyed with the very concept, but when I looked in the Magic section of the PH, I didn’t see any reason why he couldn’t. Then, the following day, someone pointed out that the Mage character section specifically says you are limited by how many spells you get per day. I know, a rookie mistake, but when you have a jillion other things to keep track of, you can’t always sit and flip through a rule book to prove a point. Anyway, I pointed it out to him – not saying I was changing anything, just “going forward” – and he responds (actual quote) “Sometimes I think that we get far too wrapped up in the rules. Every game session is unique there is no way to have a rule for everything.” What? I was like whatever, but seriously? We’re not talking about ‘What do you do when your spell caster goes unconscious while Levitating?’ This is the most basic Player’s Handbook character rules. That’s like complaining about how many hit points your character class gets.
Thanks, all. I appreciate the little support group moment.
As gamers, I believe the only correct response is to kill him and take his stuff.
(Just kidding, do not kill players...it gets messy and there's often a lot of dry-cleaning involved.)
As gamers, I believe the only correct response is to kill him and take his stuff.
(Just kidding, do not kill players...it gets messy and there's often a lot of dry-cleaning involved.)
Are you still hanging around these boards?! I thought you'd abadoned us for prettier and more huggable prospects.
Are you still hanging around these boards?! I thought you'd abadoned us for prettier and more huggable prospects.
Hey...gotta pass the time at work somehow, right?
Word...Troy, I'm scared of your avatar
What started the whole situation I was complaining about above was he wants to “rest 8 hours to get his spells back” after every encounter. I was a bit annoyed with the very concept, but when I looked in the Magic section of the PH, I didn’t see any reason why he couldn’t. Then, the following day, someone pointed out that the Mage character section specifically says you are limited by how many spells you get per day. I know, a rookie mistake, but when you have a jillion other things to keep track of, you can’t always sit and flip through a rule book to prove a point.
That is a rookie mistake that I still occasionally make even after checking the rule several times. I hate the 15 min adventuring day. What's even worse is that when I tell my players that 8 hours is just rest time, not renewal time, they just say they will rest 24 hours then.
"Annoyed with the very concept" is putting it mildly for me. I usually try to have effects caused by this action, such as the baddies escaping with the treasure, setting traps, or gathering their forces and assaulting, but usually in the end it ruins the adventure. I almost feel like I am trying to punish them for their actions, maybe to some extent I am, maybe to some extent they should be. Either way, I don't like it.
Bob
"Annoyed with the very concept" is putting it mildly for me. I usually try to have effects caused by this action, such as the baddies escaping with the treasure, setting traps, or gathering their forces and assaulting, but usually in the end it ruins the adventure. I almost feel like I am trying to punish them for their actions, maybe to some extent I am, maybe to some extent they should be. Either way, I don't like it.
Bob
Yeah, I pretty much decided to think through the remifications of speding 24 hours in one place. The old "wandering monsters table" concept seems to work. I don't think it's punishing, it's just playing a realistic game. Actions have consequences - even inaction.
Yeah, I pretty much decided to think through the remifications of speding 24 hours in one place. The old "wandering monsters table" concept seems to work. I don't think it's punishing, it's just playing a realistic game. Actions have consequences - even inaction.
"Annoyed with the very concept" is putting it mildly for me. I usually try to have effects caused by this action, such as the baddies escaping with the treasure, setting traps, or gathering their forces and assaulting, but usually in the end it ruins the adventure. I almost feel like I am trying to punish them for their actions, maybe to some extent I am, maybe to some extent they should be. Either way, I don't like it.
Bob
Yea I've dealt with my fair share of sorcerer wizards and clerics. Theres a player in the game my friend runs right now is a spontaneous casting druid (not by the rules he just casts x spells per day/level and has a list of his favorites that get chosen as he casts) the Dm doesnt really care, so I let it slide even though as a player these things bother me. Another player we used to game with, while an awesome guy, had a nice set of d20s from when he started playing D&D back in 1e, and they were the crystal fill in the numbers with crayon dice. You couldnt tell what he rolled if you sat in his lap and he was very fond of "Just enough to hit, or Nat 20" when needed but non consequncials "a miss" The man never rolled below a 2 and always rolled good when needed. Of course we teased him endlessly but we're evil we can't help it! But seriously back on point, I don't mind mistakes of ignorance, we all make them. and I can forgive just outright stupidity (sometimes) outright cheating always burns me up, not because I spent time on the adventure or anything like that, its because in a way that makes me feel like they're saying I dont respect you enough to trust that you wont screw me over so I'm screwing you over first.... That and no one else cheats why is this yahoo special? :P
but to avoid sounding too cynical I have known some great players over the years who help fend off the random pain in the keyster.
|
OP said, "Oh, suddenly because that’s how it was written, it’s okay. If it’s in print, it must be fair and balanced, but the DM’s judgment is suspect."
Yes. This is the current phenomenon around the world I believe. I can speak from experience on this. I've pushed through the pain on this one. This happens with regularity in the gaming community and is an honest and sensible extension of what the game materials have become IMHO.
Consider: Back in the day, circa 1980s and 1990s, there was trust in the DM because the players were forced to see the game world through her eyes. Yet, with the advent of wotc and other publishers putting DM information in front of players ad nauseum, the players have been "trained" to become rules-lawyers.
Consider how much money had been made in prior years when the DM would buy six books and a player would buy only one. I can confirm this through many wize gamestore owners and fellow game historians that the fundamental shift from GM and player to Players as GMs came when so much of the rules were $old to players. By putting everyone into contact with the rules, everyone felt empowered to build ever more complex characters - and the munchkins were born, and the players began buying all the books alongside the DM. Hence, what was good for the writers and publishers wasn't necessarily good for our game.
But life goes on. Everyone has to eat. So if we accept that this is what happened, then the issue of control becomes increasingly paramount at a modern table. The key to this is to take control - own the game, stand by your rules. This takes time, and some adjustment, especially if you're a particularly facilitative GM and a nice guy or girl to begin with. Its kind of like putting on the "managers" hat at work, i.e. sometimes you might have to be a dick, because that's your job. Trust me, I am not hardwired to take a hardline on anything.
But here was my great experiment: From March of 2006 to October 2007, I ran 53 sessions of a campaign during which I announced we will discuss all the 3.5 rules at the table with the DM making the final call. This worked - but man, this was a drag. It amazed me how "normal" it is in a modern d&d game for players to "rules lawyer" or think that they can argue the right adjudication.
Now, I never begrudge logic. Therefore, I listened, used tact, and made my own adjudications using a good deal of interpersonal communication skill. But man-o-man, this was a drag.
What I learned from all of that, is that good DMs are hard to find. And since I happen to be one of them (so they say) I must trust that players will keep coming back, no matter how I rule, what rules I use, or what reasons I give for adjudications.
This, then, is my remedy to the situation that the OP posed. 1) First recognize that rules lawyering is something nourished by the way the game has been evolving this decade 2) Second, set expectations for your players, keep them away from rule books, acknowledge their knowledge but be abundantly clear that the GM IS THE RULEBOOK 3) When there is debate, remind them of step number 2, i.e. The GM is the rulebook.
You won't hurt feelings. If you game is a good one, they will keep coming back. My evidence: I started a whole new campaign in a homebrew campaign world this past May - and after 20 sessions, all five players showed up for each session without fail, all five players are having a good time, and all five players have learned to respect the GM's rulings.
These players are the very same ones as in my previous campaign with only one exception - AND HERE IS THE CAVEAT.......
I "released" the greatest "rule-lawyer" offender from the game. Ooops, I guess I should have mentioned that earlier. When he had to leave, I didn't invite him back.But in the end, you can take command, but as needed, you may want to give that single-troublesome player you describe, an ultimatim.
Nobody likes to be a dick, but as the GM you must do as Gygax himself recommended: Serve the overall campaign first, the story second, and the players third - and never let the players master the game; the Gamemaster (Dungeonmaster) is the first and last master of his game.
Good luck.
Lots of stuff I can relate too...
See I pretty much agree with you there. I remember when I first started every DM I knew used the old "Golden Rule"
- The Dm is always right
- If the Dm is wrong see rule 1
Now alot of players grew to despise this kind of thing and sure enough it did become a generation of rules lawyers, and that is somewhat ok in my opinion. If as a DM i make a mistake with a little rule that I forgot/didn't know/ or even just knew wrong (and I have) then I'm all for it being pointed out. I'm happy to be fix the ruling and move on. However, if I institute a house rule, and present it as so, I don't want an argument, although I welcome discussion after the game. I think this is where things get bad is when people can't find the line between the super rules lawyering mongreloid, and the SadisticDM. There needs to be common ground for both to have a fun game and hash out rules junk later and maybe make house rules in everyones interest. Thankfully I have gotten my group to accept my rulings and house rules, and if something does bother me they bring it up after the game and if it is a problem we fix it. The few people who were problems are gone, or "let go" for quite sometime now. And for the record (not that anyone asked :P) I have only ever kicked 3 people out of my groups, 1 because he was socially inept and verbally attacked people he didnt knwo (other players) and then accused them of being thieves because he misplaced his nintendo DS. Another becuase he spent every game session essentially betrayinga nd getting everyone killed and really made the other players upset (not to mention the fact we couldnt get a game off the ground with thses things happening) and the last because he antagonized the other players in rl (arguing, and generally being a jerk) before a very large and angry member of my group threatened to choke him, it was at that time we had to let him go for his own safety (and the group pretty much asked that he leave....) Sometimes you do gotta let the problem players go and wish them well....
I couldn't agree more.
I have a table rule that rules discussions are held after the game, not during. Mostly after the game the discussions turn out to be not important anymore, especially if everyone has had a good time.
If I am in doubt about a rule during play, I just improvise and tell my players I will look the rule up for the next session. And then I do look it up and tell them the next session.
I have only kicked out one player in my 20+ years as DM. The reason was that he wanted to play against the other players, not with them. And he did not care if their characters died because of it. And he took up too much screen time, doing things which had nothing to do with the adventure or the campaign and were not interesting at all for the other players to watch.
When I confronted him with his playing style, he said: "But I like to play the game that way." So I suggested him to find a D&D campaign more to his liking.
|
See I pretty much agree with you there. I remember when I first started every DM I knew used the old "Golden Rule"
- The Dm is always right
- If the Dm is wrong see rule 1
I always played under this and assumed it was an unwritten rule, but with everything having to be in print now a days I guess I'll have to add this to my list of house rules.
Oh, my biggest problem is that everything written by WotC is perfectly balanced, even the stuff that contradicts other stuff, and be allowed, or if I (as DM) use a book it must be allowed for players to pick races/feats/classes or skills from including the monster manuals. "You used an Swindlespitter Dinosaur (MM3) in the last adventure. I want to make a Warforge, I know you said no eberron but it is in the MM3."
I seem to remember that the DM has a little rule somewhere that information in the three core rule books always takes precedence over information in any other books. Perhaps you can use that rule as a lever :-)
Our homebrew isn’t set in any officially licensed D&D setting. As such, we are free to create the world as we go. So, I can say this monster from this book exists, but this other from the same book doesn’t. In fact, there are many monsters I’ve reworked from the core MM because I never liked how D&D dealt with them. In our world, a “gorgon” is a chick with snake hair and a flesh-to-stone gaze attack, not a big metal ox. Oh, and since it’s a game taking place in my basement, not being published, they are “Hobbits” – “halfling” is a derogatory racial term. No “vampire spawn” – either you are a vampire or you ain’t, and that only happens if the vampire wants you to turn (giving you some of its blood), otherwise you’re just dead.
Sorry, none of that really adds to the topic. I’m just sharing.
But, I will say, that I think it’s a good idea to keep a printed copy of the “house rules.” This way you always have something in print to refer to. Further, it is generally assumed that house rules have been agreed upon by your group, so nobody can argue them later.
Oh, and all irony and sarcasm aside, I don’t care what edition of D&D you use, it’s not perfect. Most of us have played long enough to know that. That is why house rules exist. I will go out on a limb, however, and say that the Pathfinder extension from the 3.5 ed probably is the best I’ve seen. That’s probably because it was created with so much player participation.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
There's been a shift the position that Wizards has taken about the interplay and relationships between DM and player.
See this article on DM's and rules as an example.
Honestly, I think this is a result of (a) the RPGA, (b) the "living X" organized play, where players bring their characters from one DM to another, and the DM is not supposed to "get in the way" of delivering the adventure, as written, to the party, and (c) the overuse of RPGA feedback to the Wizards' Design team.
|
In our world, a “gorgon” is a chick with snake hair and a flesh-to-stone gaze attack, not a big metal ox.
Indeed, that's why people should check out Khalkotauroi.
There's been a shift the position that Wizards has taken about the interplay and relationships between DM and player.
See this article on DM's and rules as an example.
Honestly, I think this is a result of (a) the RPGA, (b) the "living X" organized play, where players bring their characters from one DM to another, and the DM is not supposed to "get in the way" of delivering the adventure, as written, to the party, and (c) the overuse of RPGA feedback to the Wizards' Design team.
Well, first, we are not, nor are we ever going to, switch to the 4th ed rules. As such, anything WOtC has to say on the matter they can just keep to themselves, for all our group cares. The whole "DM is alwasy right" rule was actually written into the 2nd ed rules, and it has remained one of our "house rules" ever since.
I mean, seriously, if the DM doesn't have the right to change stuff, make up, or just flat out ignore the rules for the sake of story, then why have a DM at all? The 4th ed modules should just be written like Choose-Your-Own-Adventure books and you resolve combat BY THE RULES, no do overs, no "cocked die" and no referee.
Yes, thank you, I did read the article. It turned my stomach. "Call me a relic call me what you will. Say I'm old fashioned, say I'm over the hill. Today’s gaming ain’t got the same soul. I’ll let my DM be the judge of the roll!" (Hey, that was fun)
In our world, a “gorgon” is a chick with snake hair and a flesh-to-stone gaze attack, not a big metal ox.Indeed, that's why people should check out Khalkotauroi.
First, dude, when I saw your avatar I was like “Oh, frack. I’ve offended someone.”
But, yeah, you just added a new house rule to our game. From this day forward, the metallic bull formerly known as a gorgon shall henceforth be called a khalkotaur! Thank you very much!
|
|
From this day forward, the metallic bull formerly known as a gorgon shall henceforth be called a khalkotaur! Thank you very much!
Huzzah!
I am honoured!
And so, so pleased.
No, really, I am pleased.
See how pleased I am.....
From this day forward, the metallic bull formerly known as a gorgon shall henceforth be called a khalkotaur! Thank you very much!Huzzah!
I am honoured!
And so, so pleased.
No, really, I am pleased.
See how pleased I am.....
That's good. I'm guessing, though, that they're not dancing to "I'm Still in Love with You."
More like 'Wooly Bully'.
Snorter - Wooly Bully! HA!!