During my group's session yesterday, my players were up against a particularly difficult encounter.
It wasn't an unfair encounter, or unbeatable, as it was from the Rise of the Runelords AP, but it can be quite difficult. The specific encounter is below in the spoiler.
They know the game well enough at this point but for whatever reason, instead of fighting it, they tried every tactic EXCEPT fighting it. The amount of turns wasted not doing anything useful, I could have killed all of them with this one encounter. I didn't, because I'm not a jerk and I don't find it satisfying or fun to kill people for making stupid mistakes (though I probably should start doing that so they learn what effective tactics are).
Anyway, if you're familiar with the encounter I mentioned above, you know that guy can be pretty brutal, what with the DR, the massive static bonuses to-hit, his buffs, and so on.
Anyway, my "problem player" -- I'll call him Mal -- decided he was going to take control of the situation. Mind you, the party had the tools and the abilities needed to defeat the encounter, he just decided he didn't want to face it. So Mal decides he's going to bullrush another member of his party to push him out of the room so they can shut the door and run away.
He didn't just do it first, though, he asked me if he could. He asked me if he could. Now I, as the GM, have a decision to make. Do I lift my ban on PvP temporarily for what is a borderline "rule of cool" move, or do I consider that Mal's actions have now affected the agency of another player who, at the end of his turn, ended in the square he was in presumably because he wanted to do something in that square the next turn?
If I allow Mal to bullrush the player, I'm allowing PvP and allowing one player to directly affect another player's character without giving that other player much of a choice. If I don't allow it, then I'm removing some player agency on Mal's part, though his specific problem can be resolved in other ways, such as simply asking that player to move out of the room, and it really wouldn't change anything since there was only one enemy in the intitiative and he had already taken his turn that round.
What did I do? I said no. I told him he can't bullrush his party member to push him out of the way, because it's not by his choice. And then Mal's player raised his voice at me. He shouted at my, cussed in my face, told me that I keep telling them I won't punish them for trying cool stuff but that I keep doing so anyway (this hasn't actually come up before so I don't know what he's talking about). And I mentioned GM Fiat. And he argued some more. Nevermind that he asked me if he could do so, then argued when he didn't hear the answer he wanted.
Anyway, since he raised his voice and made a scene, and since I'm a good-natured person who doesn't like to raise his voice or make a scene, I got really uncomfortable, fumbled for words for a few minutes, and sheepishly gave in to him, with the caveat that I guess I would allow it if the player he was bullrushing consented.
Now, aside from all the obvious problems with the player, the arguing, the shouting, the cussing, etc (I'm ready to ask this player not to come back to my games, even though he's a good friend and has been for a long time), how would you handle the decision to allow or not allow that player to bullrush the other? I saw it as an effort to exert his own control over the game and the other players' actions (he's always telling them what to do in combat anyway), and I just don't see a situation where that is a reasonable action to take when there are other, less confrontational, solutions to the same problem.
The way you ultimately ended up doing it. "Don't ask me, ask (player) if it's cool with him." I loathe PvP as well, but this wasn't PvP at all ... he was pushing a fellow PC to safety, right? I wouldn't even have made him roll if the rush-ee was consenting.
"I want to grab (name) and shove him out of the room, then close the door behind us."
"(Name's player)? You good with that?"
"Yes."
"You snag him by the collar and tug ... he stumbles out of the room just before the door slams shut."
The way you ultimately ended up doing it. "Don't ask me, ask (player) if it's cool with him." I loathe PvP as well, but this wasn't PvP at all ... he was pushing a fellow PC to safety, right? I wouldn't even have made him roll if the rush-ee was consenting.
"I want to grab (name) and shove him out of the room, then close the door behind us."
"(Name's player)? You good with that?"
"Yes."
"You snag him by the collar and tug ... he stumbles out of the room just before the door slams shut."
That is how I ended up running with it, and for what it's worth I didn't make him roll it either, but it still rubs me the wrong way. Honestly, it wasn't so much pushing the other PC to safety so much as it was "I want to run away and I'm going to make you do that too without communicating that to you."
As I mentioned, Mal's player has a habit of trying to control everything that is occurring and telling other players what they can and cannot, should and should not do; I did see it as an attempt to force that other player to do something he may not have wanted to do. The other player involved is pretty quiet and shy, and I didn't want him to feel obligated to that action, either.
Explain to Mal that just because he pushes the other PC out of the room, nothing can force that PC to run and not fight on his own, so it is kind of a pointless action. Then you should ask the players if they are ok with actions like this as long as nobody is harmed by it. Another example would be tripping a party member so that party member could not attack an NPC.
I say let them decide because of Mal is allowed to do this, and another player is denied PVP later on it will seem unfair, but by discussing possible exceptions it reduces the amount of drama. You might also want to say everyone has to agree to change the rule.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You should approach Mal away from the game and address this specific issue with him, then. Tell him that he's being too controlling and that he needs to let the other characters do their thing. It's only fair to give him a warning before resorting to the boot.
You handled it best you could with the best of intentions. Personally, I'd ask the permission of the player being bull rushed. But again, you were thinking about your players and I commend you for it.
I'd suggest talking to him about the outburst and let him know that A) it was uncalled for, B) constantly throwing temper tantrums like a petulant child will not work next time, and C) next time, explain his case in a much more reasonable manner.
You're a nicer guy than I. Personally, I don't suffer being strong-armed into making a decision in a player's favor.
I guess I should have read the entire post. Take my above advice and also add that if he does not learn more self control he might find himself uninvited.
As I mentioned, Mal's player has a habit of trying to control everything that is occurring and telling other players what they can and cannot, should and should not do; I did see it as an attempt to force that other player to do something he may not have wanted to do. The other player involved is pretty quiet and shy, and I didn't want him to feel obligated to that action, either.
At a table, we had a player similar to this one. It doesn't sound as though Mal is as bad--the end result though, was because of this attitude, people started not showing up.
Unfortunately, he feels as though it's okay to yell at you as well.
I might try speaking with the other players individually and getting a better gauge of the situation. If he's as disruptive to them as he seems to be, then it is time for a larger step.
I was in a game with someone like this once as well ... to the point where if the party separated in town, he was somehow with everybody wherever they went.
Fortunately, the rest of the group was experienced and weren't susceptible to being pressured.
I was in a game with someone like this once as well ... to the point where if the party separated in town, he was somehow with everybody wherever they went.
Fortunately, the rest of the group was experienced and weren't susceptible to being pressured.
Maybe you played with Mal's player! That's exactly the type of thing he does, constantly.
Is his real name Doug?
|
Definitely talk to him outside game, this isn't a game problem, it's a player problem. Tell him you're not there to be yelled, bullied and cussed at, if he disagrees with a decision he can calmly state his points, then accept your ruling, if that's too much for him to accept or he can't control his outbursts then I think telling him he's no longer welcome at your table is probably the only solution unless you're willing to put up with it.
As to the ruling, I think you did fine, I also disallow PvP in my games, with the exception of consensual non damaging things exactly like the 'bullrush/reposition a friend to safety' if the other player agrees. I may or may not make them roll depending on the reasoning, i.e.; bullrushing the raging barbarian to safety... you bet you roll. If it's the Wizard who just realised he's in mortal danger and *wants* to get out... no roll.
The way you ultimately ended up doing it. "Don't ask me, ask (player) if it's cool with him." I loathe PvP as well, but this wasn't PvP at all ... he was pushing a fellow PC to safety, right? I wouldn't even have made him roll if the rush-ee was consenting.
"I want to grab (name) and shove him out of the room, then close the door behind us."
"(Name's player)? You good with that?"
"Yes."
"You snag him by the collar and tug ... he stumbles out of the room just before the door slams shut."
This is how I would handle it.
If player 2 was not willing to move I would make them roll.
If it happened more than every once in a great while or if it was part of a pattern like dominating tactical discussions. Then I would have "the talk."
Thanks for the feedback everyone. Rub-Eta, it is the controlling player who won't play without anyone else from that post, not the other problem player.
I'm beginning to realize, though, that my choice of players perhaps was not a good one. I really am getting good at GMing, especially my understanding of the rules, but two of my players are really getting beneath my skin at this point.
The player of Mal -- I should clarify, Mal is actually the character's name -- is constantly trying to wrest control of the game away from me and undermine my plans, going so far as to intentionally avoid plot points so as not to advance the plot.
It IS time to have the talk -- it has been time to have the talk for several months. The problem is, the player, a long time friend of mine, seems to have developed some serious anger issues, and I don't know how he'll react to ANY sort of criticism. I know him quite well and I know he can be quite unpredictable. This is beginning to be more of a personal problem at this point and it's sad that it's come to this, but I can't go on with this guy acting this way.
In addition to the problem mentioned in my original post, some other incidents from yesterday:
- I rolled for a monster to attack Mal and declared both of the rolls hits. He asked if I knew what AC I was rolling against. I replied that of course I do, because I have his sheet in front of me. He asked if I knew what spell buffs he had up that would be providing additional AC. Of course, I knew that too. Then, of course, when I told him all of this, he snorted and said, rather snidely, "Just checking." Well, bud, thanks for checking if the GM is doing his job.
- Another player, playing a barbarian, declared he was going to move 40 feet. I stopped him and said, "Are you wearing medium armor?" to which he replied, "Yes, but I have fast movement," to which I replied, "Fast movement doesn't overcome armor movement penalties, it only adds +10 to your base movement speed before any armor penalties" to which he replied with "Nuh uh." Then Mal's player stepped in and told me, flat out, "The book does not say it gives a +10 movement speed, it says a barbarian's movement speed is 40." I was flabbergasted by this sheer display of absolutely wrongery. Then, it came out that the player was only moving 20 feet anyway so it didn't matter!!! Anyway, I was so flustered by the conversation and shocked by their audacity to argue with me, I just wanted to get on with the game and let it go. I can't wait to hear their stories when I bring the actual wording of the Fast Movement barbarian ability to their attention, which, by the way, explicitly grants a +10 to the racial speed before armor penalties. Look, I'm only trying to enforce the rules here, not limit your options or take away player agency.
Ugh. Thinking about what I've just written only makes me think that I really just need a new group of players. I just can't help but feel like I'd be throwing away the past 6 months of gameplay. Then again, it'd give me a chance to run all those encounters again much better than I was able to before...
Regarding the original ruling: If there is a "no PvP" rule in effect, (which everyone has been informed about and agreed to beforehand), then then 'Mal' would need to other player's permission, and everything is fine. Agreed with the handwaving of the check even. If the other player says no, then you stand by that, and say that 'Mal' agreed to forgoe any PVP right as part of the social contract of the group. Isolated, this type of thing can make an interesting story moment mid-combat.
Regarding a player trying to control others players: I might play devil's advocate here and say, this is, in itself, not a bad thing, especially if the other players are having fun with it. Some players are more reserved, or don't feel as confident in their RP skills, but still enjoy being at the table and having the story unfold and to see interaction between other players and the GM. While a GM should encourage all players to RP, there is nothing wrong with being more passive to another players will and it is a valid way to play. Furthermore, it is not wrong to give other players advice on tactically strong actions for combat. Some players are not as rules savvy, and appreciate being more effective even if someone else is telling them what to do. However, if the other players are not having fun with the 'controling player' being in the lead and limelight, or do not appreciate being given tactics, then it is time to sit down with that player and tell them to back off a bit. When it comes time to game, be firm in saying your asking for the player's action in combat, not the controlling player. And making sure to ask specifically where the controlling player is going in town, and when they try to pop up elsewhere, remind that you've already established they're at the tavern, not at the bakery with the party member.
Regarding Players disagreeing with rules mid-game: This is where you need to be firm as a GM. Rules discussions can really interrupt a game. After your last post, you may need to start the next session with a brief discussing. Something along these lines:
-As the GM, you have the role of rules arbitrator. You have taken the time to learn them and become familiar with both the PCs abilities and the enemies, and while you can make mistakes, you would appreciate it if players gave you the benefit of the doubt, trust, and respect in your rulings.
-If there is a rule conflict, it will be dicussed no longer than 1-2 (whatever your tolerance is) minutes, and if a solution is not found, you will make a call and the game will move forward. After the game, the time can be taken to further look into the ruling, and either find a solution, or resolve a permanent rule that will be used going forward.
-You run the game using the Core rules, and any house rules which you will make clear to players ahead of time and abide to. You are not using 'grandfathered' rules from past editions, or other GM houserules that players have played with in the past. There may be some adjustments when needed, however you will try to work with players so that rule assumptions that are incorrect do not cause too much harm to characters.
If players are reasonable, this shouldn't be too much to ask, but the first few rule debates be willing to have someone pull out a watch to time it, and then enforce your decision and have it continued after the session. Typically, an on-the-fly GM ruling won't result in a Character death or party failure, so it's really not such a big deal. However, if there is such a matter at hand (character death), it may be prudent to bend the rule and go into a longer rules look-up so that a player won't be upset that their character died due to sudden GM ruling instead of adherance to the rules.
Regarding a player yelling and cussing at a GM: I've played with some hot-headed people. I've had bad moments at my table. This is not something that should happen, nor is it something you need to put up with. Assumedly, you're all mature, and you do this for fun, and as GM you put in a fair bit more effort and work into it than the players, and you do not deserve abuse. Now, getting heated in a rules debate, I don't back down myself, so I don't mind if it gets a bit loud as opinions and evidence are quoted, as long as the discussion is about the rules and game still, and not personal. That's me personally, that's my tolerance, it doesn't have to be yours keep in mind. But if it gets personal? That session is over. Apologize to the other players, but say that you can't GM under these conditions, and you'll contact them about next week, and leave (or ask them to leave as the situation may be). If the instigating player isn't immediately apologetic within a day (or whatever you think is appropriate, but it is important they feel, under their own volition, that they were innapropriate in their behavior), and I mean a sincere and proper apology, say that they are not invited to the table. You run the game for fun, you try to run it fairly and by the rules, you try to make sure other people have fun too to the best of your abilities. And you do not appreciate them behaving in such a way towards you for your efforts. If they are apologetic afterwards, well, stay firm, it's difficult to say how sorry they are versus a reaction after the 'stick' has been cast against them.
If you are worried about asking this player to leave due to their anger issues, don't undervalue phone or e-mail. You've said he's a friend but, well, you have to consider how he is treating you in front of other people too. I truly hope that you do not fear violence from this player if you attempt to kick them out. If that is the fear you have from their reaction to booting them from the game, I guess I can only say to check with police or, here's hoping it really isn't this bad, a restraining order. Admittedly I don't know anything about those options myself, but I dearly hope that's not what your worry is.