Not sure if this is the best forum for this topic, but here's the situation:
I'm a player in a Final Fantasy d20 game over Discord, helping the GM where needed because they're relatively new to GMing.
During the last session, there was a situation where player A wanted his character to stop player B's character from doing something. So the GM did the usual, "Alright, both of you roll initiative to see whose action goes through first." Aaaand that's when the issue started.
B (who is relatively new to tabletop games) started complaining that it's not fair that other players are potentially able to interrupt his character's action, regardless of whether they or their characters think what they're about to do is a bad idea. Everyone else at the table tried to explain to B why this rule was generally considered the norm for adjudicating PvP actions outside of combat (3.5e DMG pg 25 under Combat Actions outside Combat is the citation I usually use), but B wasn't having any of it.
The GM ultimately overruled B, and A won initiative. The GM ruled that B had to make an overrun CMB against A in order to proceed with entering the room and B succeeded. Even though B ultimately accomplished what they set out to do, they were still complaining that they had to make any rolls at all and that players should "just be able to do things without restriction even when other characters try to stop them. Otherwise what's the point of playing?"
This isn't the player's first offense with this sort of thing. The conflict is further amplified in that B is in a relationship with the GM and has major FOMO, and this isn't the first campaign B has derailed with these kinds of complaints.
My GM would like some advice in how to go about resolving this kind of issue.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You cannot resolve out of character problems with in character solutions. This is a conversation that needs to happen between the players, and trying to offload the responsibility onto the game mechanics not only won't work, it will just create more bad feels.
Player B has a different idea of what the game should be than everyone else. This isn't an unsolvable problem, but it does need to be addressed or else this will just keep happening. It may be that what Player B wants out of the game is incompatible with the rest of the table, in which case they're a bad fit for the group and should find a different campaign that is better suited to them. That will suck in the short term, but it will be better for everyone that doesn't have to play in a game with an undercurrent of resentment between players.
Sounds like a bad situation, the GM and the problem player being in a relationship. It’s cool that you want to help, but because the relationship, this is probably a thing they need to work out between themselves. My significant other is in a game I run and is not on my list of problem players. Having read this post, I am actually pretty grateful for that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would use initiative rules even out of combat. If a fighter runs into a terrible trap because they didn't let the rogue go first, too bad.
|
|
It might sound a bit mean, but perhaps the GM should let them do something in the realm of a bad idea, and give them consequences for the action that they could earn.
Of course preferably without inconveniencing the group as well. But depending on the level of "Bad Idea" that might happen as well.
I find Monkey Paw's effects quite useful in some cases.