Hey guys,
Let me cut right to the chase, I am a New DM and have been running a campaign for 6 months now; starting a few months back my players started questioning my decisions and challanging the rules; I will admit, some of the time I have been wrong in some cases and I try to learn from my past mistakes; that is not the issue.
The issue is when I make a HUGE choice/ruling; such as: not allowing leadership in my game, should destiny points be used, how is XP handled, etc. A few of the players tend to be VERY vocal and challange my decisions; a few of them try and presure me into changing my mind; and it is getting to the point where I get VERY stressed out when they do this. I seem to have a hard time saying, "No" to my players because I want to make everyone happy. Any advice? Is it ok for the players to question the DMs authority? When should they be aloud to do so? What should I tell them? How should I handle this? Is it my fault?
Thanks!
Thoughtful and considerate discussion among friends is fine. If your players feel strongly about something as a whole, then consider adding it. If you do not want to add it, explain why and let them know that in your world as a DM that for now the issue is settled.
Suggest if anyone would like to start DMing as well, then you could have your group run two games and switch off where you play some of the time in their world, and you DM your own world.
The players have the right to voice their opinions, but must remember that you as the DM put more towards the game than any of them and should respect your rulings (remember rule 0).
Also, if they complain constantly making the game no fun for you, tell them. If they don't understand, the game may need to change hands.
Both players and DM must work together for a game to work out.
Thazar hits a good bit of it. What age range are your players? Do you have time to sit down, aside from game nights and discuss optional rules and why they will or will not be making an appearance in your games?
Is gaming your only interaction or are you friends outside the game den?
these things can shape how best to discuss this with them.
Is it ok for the players to question the Dungeon Master's authority? I would say yes. I downright encourge it.
However it should be said that I reject the idea of the Dungeon Master being the unquestionable lord of the game and haver of the last say. I prefer to run games as a sort of democratic system where major rule decisions are left to majority agreement and the game is played by the book whenever possible. Rule 0 was long ago striken from my games.
I would ask that whenever a player is having an issue with one of your ruling try seeing it from their side. I've been in games where the Dungeon Master sees him-self as just that, a master over the players, and it was not enjoyable. I would rather see my-self as a player that just happens to have a great deal more characters that the rest and a better knowledge (sometimes) of the game world than the master.
Additional I have a strong dislike of being told that rule decision can be talked about after the game. If it's important enough to press the issue in the middle of the game than likely it's something that's going to have a major effect upon a character that will be of little good to discuss when the current moment passes and the damage has been done. It's also been my experience that when brought up after the game it receives a response along the lines of "What does it matter now? We're past it and I've already made up my mind." from the Dungeon Master.
Don't take any of this personally, there is no perfect method for every group and I've played with many people that need a stricter hand than I care to provide.
Just remember it's a game and games are meant to be fun for all.
Hey guys,
Let me cut right to the chase, I am a New DM and have been running a campaign for 6 months now; starting a few months back my players started questioning my decisions and challanging the rules; I will admit, some of the time I have been wrong in some cases and I try to learn from my past mistakes; that is not the issue.
Rules questions are unavoidable. Give the player 1 minute to make their case at the table, make a ruling at the table for the night and make it clear that its "what we're going with for now" Then double check the rules, ask the nice neurotic people over on the rules boards , discuss it via email with your group, and make a permanent decision.
The issue is when I make a HUGE choice/ruling; such as: not allowing leadership in my game, should destiny points be used, how is XP handled, etc. A few of the players tend to be VERY vocal and challange my decisions
Use email (its toneless and easier to have a rational conversation) If you've already put your foot down about an issue thats going around in circles you can tell them no.
a few of them try and presure me into changing my mind; and it is getting to the point where I get VERY stressed out when they do this. I seem to have a hard time saying, "No" to my players because I want to make everyone happy. Any advice?
Threaten to hit their characters with crumpets.
Is it ok for the players to question the DMs authority?
Yes, it happens a lot. I'm better with rules than the usual DM so i usually call the dm on that, but he's much better with people. The DM might want to change something about the world (like the magic level) without realizing the effect that that sort of thing has on the game.
As long as its out of session and its not driving the DM crazy it should be fine. You may be getting to the point where you're being driven crazy and need to tell the players to start picking their battles before the next encounter is with vampire treants.
When should they be aloud to do so? What should I tell them? How should I handle this? Is it my fault?
Depends. On the issue of leadership you're definitely in the right. Its a horribly abusive feat that can step on other player's toes when you make a better version of them, or you make yourself your own magic item factory. It also slows down combat when everyone has A pet a cohort their character and a summoned monster. For everything else you'd have to be more specific.
Additional I have a strong dislike of being told that rule decision can be talked about after the game. If it's important enough to press the issue in the middle of the game than likely it's something that's going to have a major effect upon a character that will be of little good to discuss when the current moment passes and the damage has been done. It's also been my experience that when brought up after the game it receives a response along the lines of "What does it matter now? We're past it and I've already made up my mind." from the Dungeon Master.
I tend to disagree with you on this point - I've known players who press really silly issues for minor, situational tactical advantages (e.g. "My barbarian doesn't fall out of rage when the dryad uses sleep on him because the spell says it makes you fall asleep, not unconscious!") Sometimes the GM has to be able to lay down the law when players try to get away with shenanigans. Hopefully, OP doesn't have players like this, but if he does... well, things can get challenging.
I think it's important to be upfront with your players, particularly if you're going to remove something from the Core (no matter how controversial it may be). A lot of players plan their PC's future well in advance, and if you've decided that a certain PrC or feat isn't going to be available, they can feel pretty cheated.
But as others have said, you do the majority of the work for the game - I think it's fair to calmly explain that certain feats/classes/etc. make prepping/balancing the game too difficult/time-consuming for you, so you'd prefer to leave them out.
When I was young, and my players where as well, everything was a constant battle of wills. I found that with age this problem just ceases to be a big issue. Most of the time even older players will allow the DMs call to be the final word at least for the moment - the alternative usually being a long and in depth search of the rules...which not only eats up game time but often comes to the wrong conclusion because some critical component was missed and won't be found until after the game when a more careful perusal of the rules is possible.
I've also found that the DM needs to draw a line between griping and arguing. I rarely have to deal with a rules argument these days as a DM as my interpretation, during play anyway, is not usually questioned...but unless everything is going the players way there is inevitably griping. I just let the players gripe.
As for dealing with this issue with a younger DM and younger players. I think this is just a difficult time. The DMs authority is absolute but only really if the players agree that this is so. Rotating the DMing around the group is probably the best way to make it clear why the DM has such power to the entire group but that really just speeds up the maturing process - it does not instantly stop the issue.
I think the most important thing is to be decisive. If someone argues too much and/or gets disruptive, I start rolling a D6 and removing hit points from their character. (I don't recommend that with every group.)
It's also a great idea to have more than one person DM. It's amazing how quickly your perspective changes once you know what it's like to run a game and have people urinate all over an adventure you spent ten hours working on.
Welcome and Welcome to being DM.
It's the only *job* at the table, and one that has few benefits and no pay...
However, Do your players have "I want" objections, or, "The game will be better if..." suggestions? I ignore, or sideline "I want" requests that I deem disruptive, or something that unbalances the game (such as recent player that wantedwantedwanted to play a Half-Celestial...).
Let's take that as a specific exmaple: "Monstrous" Characters. The player had a *very* specific image of what he wanted to play, in short a Greek Demi-God. Right down to the super powers and general uber-ness of being a son of Zeus. No other player was going to play a 'super' but the player insisted he should be allowed. I told him "no." The player quit the game.
Did I like telling a player no? Not really-it is after all *our* game, not *my* game. But, given the situation, his player would have drastically upset the game's balance so it had to be denied. He was given many options for how to work the concept into a regular PC, but he was set on being half-celestial.
Being a good DM is finding the balance between good gaming and corraling silliness. (Though sometimes silly is good for it's own sake!) You are the arbiter of the rules and the stage director of the groups 'play'. Work to give the Players their game, but remind them from time to time that you are the one doing the work to present the setting.
GNOME
|
With my group, we have 8 regular players (including the gm), only two of which havent taken turns as GM. We try to play as close to RAW as we can, though occasionally we will throw in a house rules if we really feel it makes the game flow more smoothly.
Me personally, unless I can find my point made in the book, I dont expect it to change the DMs mind. If Im DMing, which I am now, if they want to challenge a ruling, I tell them to find it in the book. if Im wrong, then we can change it.
I tend to disagree with you on this point - I've known players who press really silly issues for minor, situational tactical advantages (e.g. "My barbarian doesn't fall out of rage when the dryad uses sleep on him because the spell says it makes you fall asleep, not unconscious!") Sometimes the GM has to be able to lay down the law when players try to get away with shenanigans. Hopefully, OP doesn't have players like this, but if he does... well, things can get challenging.
Honestly I don't have much problem with stuff like this. If there isn't a clear rule in the book on the subject, as I would imagine there won't be for something that silly, I open it up to a group decision. Everyone get to chose what interpation of the ruling they think makes more sense and we go with the majority. Normally takes less than five minutes.
Also has the benefit of easing possible tensions between me and a given player by making it a group choice rather than a from on high command.
I think you have been handleing i very fair from your description.
My DM does not allow Leadership either because the followers are always NPC's that compliment the leader such as a cleric that spends all their time healing the PC because it's his follower or a fighter devoted to bodyguarding the mage pc, in short abusive use of the feat.
he also is very stingy with the money because of the abuse player can do with even a little cash. Case in point 1 player 7 belts of healing, use one switch out or the warlock with 6 pairs of boosting gloves for his eldritched blast. Now we have to be accountants and the item creation feats are something all spellcasters take in order for us to have magic weapons and armor and wands and stuff.
If we question a ruleing we look it up and if the DM decides he doesn't like it he says NO!, prime example the energy aub and energy admix feats he says flat out you can't have opposites in the same spell no fireballs with fire AND ice damage and no double damage from the same type, example you chose fire and wanna boost your fireball up with fire for more dice he won't allow it because he thinks it's dumb he says it's already a fireball how is adding more fire going to help.
He's a good DM and we enjoy playing with him but those are examples of his rules to make the game fun for him as well as us. Sure we as players would like more money or being able to us reserve feats or luck feats but a strikt game is better than no game.