D&D 5E Dm misadventures. Tales of woe. How long did your worse table arguement last?

Blue · Feb 15, 2018

iserith said:
My tables rules include acknowledgement of "Yes, and..." for making decisions as a party. Someone comes up with an idea. The next person accepts the idea and adds to it with their own idea in a way that doesn't take away from the original idea. The next person does the same and so on until they're ready to execute. Because there is no debate, just ideas furthering previous ideas, it resolves into a plan very quickly.

At my table, there would be debate about who gets to start. Actually, the debate would start when this is suggested. Anything where one player has irrevocable say in spite of other player input just wouldn't fly.

iserith · Feb 15, 2018

Blue said:
At my table, there would be debate about who gets to start. Actually, the debate would start when this is suggested. Anything where one player has irrevocable say in spite of other player input just wouldn't fly.

The way it shakes out typically is that the situation that is presented will tend to suggest who might have first say. When faced with the trap, the rogue naturally steps up. When it's a fight, its the beefy melee types. When it's a talking situation, the bard or the warlock may be the first to respond. Everyone else follows that lead.

This is further mitigated by a desire to share the spotlight among themselves, so if Player A hasn't taken the lead lately, they will tend to defer to that person first. There is trust that any idea is offered in good faith with the party as a whole and the goals of play at heart. So there's not really any impetus to want to be first to outmaneuver someone else or any concern that someone is going to get shafted by going along with the first ideas proffered. Besides, even a shaky plan can be improved with further acceptance and additions to it.

redrick · Feb 15, 2018

As a kid, we could have all-day arguments about anything. I can't imagine putting up with that as an adult. I'd either ask the players to make up their minds already, or introduce an external force to move the table along. If the argument was with me about rules or similar and a player refused to let go of it, I'd either tell the player to take a hike or take a hike myself.

I remember an argument with a player about how easily they could hide to get advantage and sneak attack. I don't remember the exact situation, but it had something to do with wanting to sneak up characters in combat, make a melee attack, then rinse and repeat. I presented some options but also some limitations and the player didn't agree with them, and after 20 minutes I said, "that's the ruling, sorry, we gotta move on" and I think they logged off Roll20 at that point. These days, I'd probably try to take a less hardline attitude with players about rulings, but I don't know that I'd be playing in a group with a player who was that determined to go to the matts over a ruling either.

redrick · Feb 15, 2018

iserith said:
The way it shakes out typically is that the situation that is presented will tend to suggest who might have first say. When faced with the trap, the rogue naturally steps up. When it's a fight, its the beefy melee types. When it's a talking situation, the bard or the warlock may be the first to respond. Everyone else follows that lead.

This is further mitigated by a desire to share the spotlight among themselves, so if Player A hasn't taken the lead lately, they will tend to defer to that person first. There is trust that any idea is offered in good faith with the party as a whole and the goals of play at heart. So there's not really any impetus to want to be first to outmaneuver someone else or any concern that someone is going to get shafted by going along with the first ideas proffered. Besides, even a shaky plan can be improved with further acceptance and additions to it.

Do you often find that the player who initially suggested an idea will choose to abandon their suggestion as some of the "refinements" supersede it?

PLAYER 1: Let's rush up and kick down the door!
PLAYER 2: Yeah! Let's sneak up quietly, listen at the door, and then rush up and kick down the door!
PLAYER 3: Yeah! Let's sneak up quietly, listen at the door, check it for traps, and then rush up and kick down the door!
PLAYER 1: Yeah! Maybe we should just see what happens with those first 2 steps. I'm good with holding the "rush up and kick down the door option" as a backup.

iserith · Feb 15, 2018

redrick said:
Do you often find that the player who initially suggested an idea will choose to abandon their suggestion as some of the "refinements" supersede it?

PLAYER 1: Let's rush up and kick down the door!
PLAYER 2: Yeah! Let's sneak up quietly, listen at the door, and then rush up and kick down the door!
PLAYER 3: Yeah! Let's sneak up quietly, listen at the door, check it for traps, and then rush up and kick down the door!
PLAYER 1: Yeah! Maybe we should just see what happens with those first 2 steps. I'm good with holding the "rush up and kick down the door option" as a backup.

Haha, no. These "additions" are actually negations. That'd be a no-no and, when you're used to the game flowing in the way I described, these things are super obvious and grating in play like nails on a chalkboard. Acceptable responses would be along the lines of "Yeah, and I stand back a good distance to avoid any traps..." and "Yes, and I nock an arrow for whatever beasts may be on the other side..." or "Go for it - I cast a guidance spell on you as rush past me so you have a better chance of kicking down the door."

redrick · Feb 15, 2018

iserith said:
Haha, no. These "additions" are actually negations. That'd be a no-no and, when you're used to the game flowing in the way I described, these things are super obvious and grating in play like nails on a chalkboard. Acceptable responses would be along the lines of "Yeah, and I stand back a good distance to avoid any traps..." and "Yes, and I nock an arrow for whatever beasts may be on the other side..." or "Go for it - I cast a guidance spell on you as rush past me so you have a better chance of kicking down the door."

Ha, fair. Well, moving away from the, "My character does something impulsive," scenario, what happens in a situation where a player suggests a course of action for the group, that is clearly the first idea, but not the best idea, and suggestions from other players illuminate this? Do you find that players have a way of moving on to a better, second idea? How does that go down? And how does this work with players who struggle with social cues? Asking out curiosity, not to challenge the suggestion.

iserith · Feb 15, 2018

redrick said:
Ha, fair. Well, moving away from the, "My character does something impulsive," scenario, what happens in a situation where a player suggests a course of action for the group, that is clearly the first idea, but not the best idea, and suggestions from other players illuminate this? Do you find that players have a way of moving on to a better, second idea? How does that go down? And how does this work with players who struggle with social cues? Asking out curiosity, not to challenge the suggestion.

Generally speaking, an idea can evolve into something else, but that tends to be because the person with the first idea bought into a change from the original idea for some reason. This doesn't happen all that often though. There's really no "best idea" in a given situation, especially when there are plenty of variables and unknowns. Therefore the best process as we see it is to minimize discussion on the matter in favor of moving forward by not letting the Perfect be the enemy of the Good Enough.

I don't have a lot of experience with players who struggle with social cues to my knowledge. Or I haven't noticed it. I have seen shyer pick-up players in one-shots go from quiet to engaged because it's pretty apparent early on that their ideas aren't going to get shot down or debated. It's pretty encouraging when four other players latch onto your idea and run with it instead of tell you all the reasons why they think it won't work or say why they think their ideas are better.

lowkey13 · Feb 15, 2018

*Deleted by user*

Ralif Redhammer · Feb 15, 2018

I do have one player that loves to argue about anything. He'll argue the rules if he thinks he can get one iota of extra power out of it, even when the rules are perfectly clear. He'll argue with an NPC on the justice system of the city they're in. He'll argue with the rest of the group as to a course of action for 30+ minutes. In our Out of the Abyss campaign, at one point he tried to argue that the group should just go do something else, after fighting the demon menace for a year.

I think he loves doing all this because the game, for that period of time, revolves entirely around him. It's a problem, and to be honest, I've reached the limit of what I can put up with at this point.

But most the time, rules-wise, the arguments/discussions don't last that long. I give it no more than five minutes or so, then say "okay, we'll rule like this today, but I'm going do some research and have an official ruling next week." If a course of action decision takes too long, I call for a vote between two or three choices by show of hands.

Phion · Feb 15, 2018

iserith said:
My tables rules include acknowledgement of "Yes, and..." for making decisions as a party. Someone comes up with an idea. The next person accepts the idea and adds to it with their own idea in a way that doesn't take away from the original idea. The next person does the same and so on until they're ready to execute. Because there is no debate, just ideas furthering previous ideas, it resolves into a plan very quickly. It means an idea that maybe isn't great initially is made better in a way that doesn't discourage throwing out ideas. As a result, my game (and indeed the games of the DMs in my network of players) moves a lot faster than most games I've seen. We compare our progress in official modules to actual play vodcasts and we are always way ahead of them for the same amount of time spent. I can't recommend it enough.

Prior to learning about this and implementing it, I can remember (vaguely) plenty of times where players would butt heads over one course of action or another, often basing their reasoning on pure speculation and contingencies until everyone was annoyed, including the DM. Often the defense for being argumentative or an obstacle to forward progress was "I'm just doing what my character would do." I'm not up for that anymore. Ain't got the time.

I might give this a go actually if I get a tougher group to manage, been pretty lucky because my players get along and can agree on most things so far but there have been times this could have been handy in previous campaigns

D&D 5E Dm misadventures. Tales of woe. How long did your worse table arguement last?

Blue

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal

iserith

Magic Wordsmith

redrick

First Post

redrick

First Post

iserith

Magic Wordsmith

redrick

First Post

iserith

Magic Wordsmith

lowkey13

Guest

Ralif Redhammer

Legend

Phion

Explorer

Similar Threads