When Players don't respect the DM's rules - Help!

[Elephant]

I'm currently running a game for my D&D group, and I'm running into attitude issues with one of the players.

There are seven people in the group, and three of us are comfortable running games on a fairly long-term basis. Another (the problem player) has run a couple of one-shots. I have very little experience with running games (perhaps 6 months worth between the two groups I game with), and I'm trying to avoid problems I've seen pop up in past campaigns.

The initial DM for our group said "Anything WOTC is fine, anything else, check with me." ... and never veto'd material from other sources when I asked. He ran into issues where he statted up "CR-appropriate" encounters that had no chance of challenging the party.

The second DM was also quite generous in material he allowed, and he later told me that he ended up using higher-CR creatures vs. the party in order to keep up the challenge.

I want to avoid this sort of nonsense, so my initial restriction is "PHB only, anything else, check with me, first."

I also requested that players get their character sheets (or at least a statblock) to me via email. I wanted a chance to review characters before the game in order to get an idea of what the party would be like.

Most of my players have been really good about both of these things, but one has a serious attitude problem. Everyone was supposed to bring in two PCs at the beginning; he only sent me one set of stats before the game (and this *after* the deadline I'd tried to set). This degraded the game because his character was undefined (and I had all characters present for the initial scene).

Later, after one of his initial characters died (first-level PCs fighting a fiendish owlbear is NOT pretty - they stumbled into the wrong part of the dungeon), he told me that he tore up both character sheets and couldn't play his backup. While reviewing the new PC he wanted to play, I noticed that he still had that set of stats - he had used that printout as a template and written notes for his new character on it. Some of the numbers were partially obscured, but it looked usable to me.

During the most recent session, I told him that his new character was not usable in that session and offered him an NPC to run so he could still take part in the game. He got very upset and said he didn't want to run the NPC, he wanted to run his (unreviewed and unapproved) character, and he went upstairs, out of the gaming room. Since we were gaming at his house, I didn't feel comfortable going on without him, so I followed him and talked to him.

He basically said that he couldn't have any fun running a core-only PC, that people enjoy having a lot of books and using material from them, and gave several examples of people using non-core material. He also said something like "If I can bring in a deck of many things into the game I ran to make things fun for the PCs, you can handle extra material in your game."

I ended up caving in and allowing his character for that session (I took 10 minutes to review it before starting the game, and the stats didn't bother me), and it ended up being a lot of fun. His character played a key role in the game that day, and it was a lot of fun for the whole group.

However, I feel like I should not have caved. It's not about character stats, it's about this player not respecting me or my rules. I don't want to be unable to keep up with new material, especially new material from books I don't own.

The most awkward part is, the problem player hosts the games, so I don't feel like I can lay down the law as much as I'd like to. If necessary, I can probably see about someone else hosting the game, but I'd prefer not to do so.

Does anyone have any advice on how I can resolve this conflict?


UPDATE: It looks like the matter has come to a head. I posted more at
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?p=2890379#post2890374

UPDATE 2: The problem player has very definitely stated that I'm no longer welcome in his house. He's also been directing his replies to my emails to the full group, painting me in a bad light.

 

[Odhanan]

My advice: get over it (don't get me wrong: I want to help you).

Basically, you solved the situation, people around the table had fun during the game, so the issue's over and done with. Seems like that's your ego that doesn't get it.

Rules function only when they are making sense to the people who are are supposed to support and apply them. The initial issue is the core/non-core control, and how strict it has to be for the players and yourself to both enjoy the game, it seems. And here's IMO the bottom-line: there's nothing wrong with allowing options for PCs, and nothing wrong with using higher-CRs creatures to keep things challenging. That's the contrary of nonsensical to me. It just makes sense.

So to keep your players happy, allow a number of options you feel comfortable with, while trying to be flexible so they can have fun and feel okay with their characters. Meanwhile, don't feel restricted by the CR and EL rules of the DMG: tailor the XP gains to your group's efficiency. If they're really strong, use APL+2 (or more) creatures for middles CRs instead of straight APL=middle CR, and give amounts of XPs as if CR+2=CR in the DMG.

 

[Kunimatyu]

After reading that, my gut impression is that you're being somewhat....uptight about all this. In fact, while there are some legit issues here, it sounds like there's a power issue here as well, and perhaps an unecessary one at that.

Now, a few thoughts:

Allowing all WotC sources -can- make for an overpowered game. You know this already. It's even more of a problem if the DM -- like you -- doesn't know the non-core material well enough to screen the broken from the just different. Additionally, an all-core game can be just as bad. Really. There are plenty of Living Greyhawk parties, using only core equipment, spells, and classes, that could wipe the floor with a more diverse party.

The key here is intent. If the "problem player" is attempting to put together really broken combinations and outshine the rest of the team, you've got a problem. If they're just someone who's tired of core material and wants to play something different, even if it's no better or in fact worse than core, it's not really an issue.

You probably know by now which of the two it is. If he's just being a munchkin, there's no need to do anything but lay down the law for your game.(do it politely, though!) If he just wants a few different options, tell me that you're not that familiar with non-core stuff, and let him use a few non-core things(a new non-spellcasting class, a few feats you've looked at, or a straightforward prestige class) that you look over beforehand, that's not entirely unreasonable.

 

[Kesh]

The only real resolution here is to either open up your rules a bit more, or to no longer play with that person. From what you describe, he doesn't want any restriction on what he can play, which sounds unreasonable to me. If that's what he actually wants, I would no longer invite him to sessions you run.

 

[TresGeek]

Boot him out. He knew your rules ahead of time.

See, I told you someone would say it. Someone had suggested allowing one non-core book per player, which I think is a great idea. Try talking to him and the rest of the group and see if that's agreeable to everyone -- if that's something you would want to do.

 

[Nightfall]

Elephant,

Quit that game and join my IRC Scarred Lands game!

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

If it's an experienced player and a noob-ish DM, the player has an obligation to play along while the new guy gets his feet wet. He can always ask you to consider opening things up a bit once you've gotten more experience under your belt.

And considering how many people have played plain vanilla D&D and enjoyed it, it's not exactly a hardship. Kinda makes me long for the days when all we had for 3.x was the Core Three.

 

[happyelf]

*Look for a new place to play . . . quietly. You may find that you will need it if things go poorly.

*Keep a close eye on how the other players are reacting to the situation, for instance wether they feel it's unfair, ect. You might consider talking to them in private, via email maybe, although in person conversations are better since they carry less risk of people misinterpreting them.

*Keep the issue in mind but unless there are further problems, it's no big deal. If new problems develop, then it is.

*New problems can take a lot of forms. Don't look for them, but keep in mind that there is a power issue here, and somebody may end up abusing it, and that can take many different forms.

*If you feel that further problems are occuring, you need to talk to the group as individuals, and then assert that, as the GM, you have the right to call the shots. You provide the game, in exchange, you have the right to maintain control over it on your terms.

*Since you're playing at his house, that could be an issue and if he rejects the game again, you might need to raise that issue. That could lead in all sorts of . . interesting. . directions, so it's best to keep things in perspetive unless serious problems arise.


*In specific terms, this guy sounds like he has an element to his playstyle whereby he's interested in character novelty. Like most issues of play style, this is fine, but it also has a less positive equivalent. For instance, a lot of people like playing wierd characters, and do fine with them. OTOH some people like playing wierd characters because it allows them to monopolise the spotlight or use it as an excuse for disruptive behaviour.

*If he is focused ore on stats, the same general logic applies as the above. Many players like getting a certain kind of advantage or ability, or are interested in new, novel combinations of abilities and stats. OTOH some people take min-maxxing or powergaming to an extreme where it is disruptive to the game or they use it as a way to exert unfair influence over the group.


As an aside, more detail would be useful. What class/combo did he end up using? I mean. . . how bad is it?

 

[KenM]

However, I feel like I should not have caved. It's not about character stats, it's about this player not respecting me or my rules.

I agree with you there. The minute a player I have playing disrepects how I run the game, I ask him to leave the table.

 

[Graf]

He got very upset and … he went upstairs, out of the gaming room. …I followed him and talked to him.

And here we have the problem.
Never follow someone who throws temper tantrums around.
Letting someone, who has avoided taking the chance to proactively talk to you and resolve the situation (despite giving them opportunities to do so), dominate the game and ruin it for others.

Doesn’t really matter where you’re playing, all the players (in terms of the game) deserve equal treatment.

He chooses to leave, you should let him. If everyone is having fun then you are maximizing the enjoyment of the group. If he can get over himself and begin to communicate successfully then that’s good; if not then he’s made a decision to leave and you should respect that and NOT REWARD BAD BEHAVIOR.

DnD works best when played… having extensive OOC debates about whether this-style is better than that-style never ends well.