Am I an unfair GM?

[Airos]

I always find it tough to honestly answer these kinds of threads. I'm not a member of your group, I'm not your friend/relative/coworker, and I don't have the opinions of the other players that were involved.

As a DM, I know I'm not doing my job right when the players aren't having fun. If someone is upset by a ruling I've made, thinks I'm misunderstanding a rule, or using challenges that they have no chance of overcoming, then it's my job to sort that out with them. It's unfair of me to not maintain an open dialog with the players because they're a part of the game, too.

What would I have done in your situation, given the information you've provided? I would have explained to the player that his spell would not work at all in the way he was trying to use it, and to please either select a different spell to cast or to select a different action to take. If he persisted, and wanted to know why it wouldn't work, I would explain the fact that there was no line of sight/line of effect, that he couldn't see the opponents, and he had no way of knowing if they were even in that area anymore or not. Remember, it's not "fun" to do nothing for a whole round, especially when you actually tried to do "something".

Any "arguements" that continue past one of my rulings get nipped in the bud. I ask my players, "do you want to discuss this now and interupt the game, or would you like to continue using my ruling, and we can discuss it after the game?" If I'm wrong, I will freely admit it, but I haven't needed to stop a game yet to discuss my rulings. We talk about why I make the choices I make, and go over the rules together as a group to make sure everyone understands eachother.

You're only being "unfair" if everyone isn't having fun. If one player is being miserable while the rest of the group is cool, I believe it's time for a sit down with that player, either one-on-one or as a group, although the second option could lead him to think you're "ganging up" on him.

You followed the rules, the game went on, and the sun came up the next morning. I don't think you did too bad. I'd be interested to know how your gaming group felt about the situation, though.

 

[roguerouge]

Tell me, did you consider the real rat bastard thing to do: have the force cage go off when the spell hit the wall... encasing the party? 'Cause that would have been the genuinely mean option.

 

[dontpunkme]

The rest of the group thought the ruling was quite fair and consistent with past rulings. Like I said, we're generally pretty short on patience with each other (we've all been friends with each other for over a decade and it's just part of our group dynamic). It's not my preferred style and I generally try to play in a different game when there is one (one that isn't quite so harshly critical of each other). The problem really is the player, he has the books and has had the rules explained regularly to him, he just doesn't ever think. It's one thing when I have another player in the game get upset because while he is not disputing the RAW as written, but mainly the logic behind them (they are asinine sometimes). Don't even get me started how annoyed he gets when spells like dispel magic get resolved.

But to help him get better with his spells, I did recommend he do something I do with my wizards: manually type up a spellbook providing the text of every spell (mainly because I got tired of carrying 4 or 5 books to every session). This worked wonders for me as I had everything I needed in one convenient place (along with a summary page detailing which spells allowed spell resistance, relevant saves and the such). And like I also said, players in my game are allowed to ask questions if they're unsure an action will work (granted sometimes, they do get a I don't know, but that's when their question is more out of character knowledge-related). But if it's a question about the legality ruleswise or the possibility of trying something, they generally have a good idea of where I stand.

I did consider having the spell go off and encase the party, but because of the wall (and my use of interruption of the area of the spell in my multitude of reasons his spell failed) decided it would just fail. Had it been fireball, then yes, it certainly would've exploded in their faces. Part of me even misses the olden days where lightning bolts rebounded off walls coming back to fry their casters. But I think it's more a case of bad player syndrome. He'll get annoyed when enemies have abilities that allow them to escape damage (why would the bandit king have evasion) or pass saves (how did the tank pass his fort save). I can understand when rushed or when a curveball gets tossed having difficulty figuring out what to do, but at least show that you've played the game for over 15 years.

 

[akbearfoot]

You said you prefer a different style of play to being critical of each other, but then a few sentences later call someone a bad player? I think a few posts up you used the term 'idiocy'. Did I lose the plot?

Also, you said the other players are fairly 'militant' and that they are always critical of each other...So in other words, they basically have no sympathy for this other player. Why would they then object to your ruling that probably amused them more than anything since they got to see this player get pissed off. I guess IMO with this atmosphere you've described, I don't really see 'The other players said it was ok' as remotely close to a valid deciding factor. I mean heck, who doesn't think its funny when a player they don't really like gets screwed over in game?

Your ruling did nothing to solve any of your real problems...your ruling won't discourage his meta-gaming, in fact it might just make it worse. And it probably ruined the players mood for the rest of the encounter, maybe even session...from your description of his attitude he might STILL be pissed about it.

If he casts his area effect spells at the obviously agile enemies, and his fort save spells at the obvious tanks, then that suggests he genuinely does not understand some of the mechanics of his spells. It doesn't make him an idiot. It might only mean he has been playing D&D for 15 years and has 4 different versions of half his spells in his head.

 

[Beginning of the End]

So if you were the GM what would your ruling be? Was my ruling unfair? Was I being a terrible GM by not holding his hand (even though he's been playing this character from 4th to now 14th level).

I'm not sure if "unfair" is the right term, but you were certainly engaging in a confrontational style of play. IMO, that's unnecessary.

At my table we try to be open with our rules expertise. If someone knows a rule they'll offer it up. If the DM realizes that his ruling is not going to be in line with what the player is expecting (and there's no reason the character wouldn't know the outcome), he'll just explain what the ruling will be and see if that's really what the player wants to do.

So, in this case, there's really no reason to think that the character wouldn't be aware that the spell wasn't going to work the way he wanted it to. So just tell the player that.

And, yeah, maybe the character was being a jerk, trying to metagame, and pretending not to know the pertinent rules. Or maybe there was just a misunderstanding about the circumstances. Giving him the benefit of the doubt is hardly going to signal the end of the world.

I can understand the impetus to punish him for the perceived metagaming and attempt to cheat. But in my experience this kind of confrontational environment at the gaming table actually encourages metagaming and "rules ellision" type of cheating. You setting up an environment of DM vs. players -- the DM always has the power advantage in that situation, and players will naturally try to find every advantage they can pry out for themselves.

 

[ACBluto]

Play WITH your players, not against them.

So if you were the GM what would your ruling be? Was my ruling unfair? Was I being a terrible GM by not holding his hand (even though he's been playing this character from 4th to now 14th level).

I think one of the problems here is what other posters have already said. You are attempting to punish his metagaming with your ruling.

Let's me clear on my thoughts on DMing. You are not his parent, his boss, or any other authority figure. Punishment is not your domain. You are the DM - your role is to adjudicate the game in a way that makes it the most fun for everyone to play. Who had more fun because his spell failed? He did not. The party probably did not - their wizard had become less effective for the next encounter. So that leaves just you.

The DM is ON the side of the players. You should always want them to succeed. Sometimes they won't, but it shouldn't be your goal to ensure they don't. As many others have said, you knew what he wanted to do, you knew why it couldn't work. There is no "hand-holding" in telling him it doesn't work that way, move on. If a player is metagaming - tell him so, let him know that this only takes away fun for everyone.

If the player is actually doing this on purpose, and detracting from the fun of the game - then don't play with him.

D&D is a communal game. Everyone needs to play WITH each other.

 

[Casey-13]

Based on the OP, this sounds like how my DM would have handled it. The phrase "are you sure you want to do that?" is always used as code for "this won't work" or "this will have some consequences you won't like." The other PC's are usually quick to stop this kind of thing also (we're all experienced enough to know better....and we all know that we might have mental lapses, so friendly reminders are ok).

 

[dontpunkme]

I guess I could have handled it better or more civilly or possibly given him a spellcraft check, but I typically try to make quick adjudications to keep combats moving along. I think the problem might be more the player and his lack of maturity (he's 28). He tends to be easily annoyed and quite vocal when any encounter isn't grossly easy. He'd rather me throw squads of goblin warriors just so he can get the enjoyment of blasting them to pieces without any real challenge. You don't even want to hear the complaints I endure when they're faced with an iron golem or something else with resistance to magics. Or even worse, when something else has the ability to cast spells and he fails a save (I still haven't heard the end of the 2 times he's been subjected to wrack). The rest of the group seems ok with the way we play. Enemies may have feats like deathblow and even those without it will coup-de-grace helpless targets if no better targets present themselves. As such a downed ally is usually bailed out first chance by any player who can.

The campaign also makes it very difficult to find an appropriate challenge, they're gestalt and the goliath fighter/barbarian typically does 150+ in damage every round and the dwarf fighter/cleric rolls his AC in the 40's almost always, so I walk a fine line between throwing pushovers at them and having the dreaded TPK. The player in question has a rogue/wizard/abjurant champion. Given a round or two of prep time, the entire party is typically in the 35+ AC range with fantastic saves (low save might be in the mid-to-high teens).

 

[Starbuck_II]

You don't even want to hear the complaints I endure when they're faced with an iron golem or something else with resistance to magics

There aren't really that bad:
Glitterdust, grease, Orb spells (from complete arcane)

Really, as long as the wizard is prepared for possible magic resistace enemies: he can do it.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

So if you were the GM what would your ruling be? Was my ruling unfair? Was I being a terrible GM by not holding his hand (even though he's been playing this character from 4th to now 14th level).

The ruling was fine except in how it was brought down on the player. I prefer to draw distinctions between what the character will know and what the player should know. Even though the player should have been more knowledgable about the LOS and LOE rules it should simply not occur to the character to even TRY to forcecage things he can't see, much less affect. You should have told the player flat out that BECAUSE of LOS and LOE the spell WILL fail and would he now like to change his mind about his characters action?

That's not handholding because you're not making his character decisions for him - you're simply enforcing rules of the game. There's no reason to make that into a game itself. It seems a little like saying, "I'm thinking of a rule between 1 and 10 that makes your action a bad idea and if you can guess which one I'm thinking of then I'll let you make a different choice." No, you tell the player, "Hey! Rule x applies and makes your action a bad idea. If you proceed it WILL fail so now what are you doing?"

Playing D&D is not supposed to be a pop quiz on rules memorization - it's supposed to be FUN. Okay, the player really should be more aware of the rules but TELL him what he should know rather than play a guessing game about what - if anything - is going to happen. After all, the very same attitude can be put forth by a DM who is simply trying to suggest that it MIGHT work, or might not. If the character has no reason to know if his actions won't work but the player needs to understand there is a significant chance of failure THAT's when you ask, "Are you SURE you want to do this?" If the character should know better (even if the player doesn't) then just say so and don't keep it a secret WHY the character should know better.