Am I being unreasonable?

[Dross]

Trouble is he's been doing this sort of thing for the entire time we've gamed together (18 years or so) and it does get me angry. He know's it makes me angry. Yet he keeps doing it. Ah well, I can't change him but I can at least make sure he plays by the rules.

I've often thought that it would be a good idea to use such a player's PC against them. File of the serial numbers and unleash to see what that player says. (BTW I noticed that my house rule document changed tone quite noticably for one DM stint to the next to combat such a player )

...are each holding a Dwarven War Axe. I let him get away with it cos their mithril and this makes things lighter. So he's already getting a sweet deal IMO.

There is the Oversized Two Weapon Fighting feat in Complete Warrior that would allow such a weapon use (but not the STR part). RAW wise mithral does not help the offhand. It's your choice, but i'd make the player take it as his next available feat.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Cheiromancer: yes he's using full str. bonus to each hand. Which, as I implied, are each holding a Dwarven War Axe. I let him get away with it cos their mithril and this makes things lighter. So he's already getting a sweet deal IMO.

So, you had already changed the rules for 2WF, and are about to change them again, midstream. And then you say to the person, '(. . .) let's just go with the rules as written.' Ouch. :\

I can see why they might be upset, too.

 

[pawsplay]

The note makes it sound like you're accusing the player of cheating... which of course he was. Whether you want to bring that to light depends on a lot of factors I don't have in front of me. But you could have taken a softer route and still followed the rules. Sometimes, though, you have to draw a line. Tough call.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

In response to accusations of rules misinterpretations: I stand guilty. When this campaign started I was brand new to 3.X. (I'd actually been overseas and away from gaming for several years.) Not so the players. I asked all the players to be honest and not rort the system on me. A pretty simple catch-all sort of thing to ask. I also said I would rely on them getting the rules for their characters right in the first place: I didn't want to have go and audit all the PCs later on.

I also got the players to explain how the various things were supposed to work. eg: said player told me that TW Fighting worked like this and he could use 2 bucklers and so forth. Actually the buckler thing doesn't bother me, although this is the first I've heard of it. He loses attacks to get a point of AC. Fair enough. The mithril weapon being treated as light was also presented to me as a rule, not a liberal interpretation.

What I said about feinting is my bad, but then no-one in the game has ever feinted: this is an area where the rules are bit skew-if IMO. I'd allow the trading of attacks for feinting. If I ever work out how the feiting rules work.

Truth be told I've learnt a lot of the rules from here on Enworld. The rule books are the same old mess they've been since for ever but unlike when I was a kid I don't have the time or inclination to plough through them all and cross reference everything. Lazy? Yes but I have asked for help with the rules from the players. It'd be nice if that help would be a bit more honest.

Anyway, before I de-rail myself further: the rules for my game were always intended to be RAW with house rulings made explicitly after discussion with all. My lack of knowledge of the rules was commonly understood and a gentleman's agreement was in place asking everyone to play fairly and not exploit my ignorance. I feel this player has not lived by that agreement. More to the point he took advantage of my easy going attitude and has been making up rules to suit himself and passing them off as genuine rules. Yeah, I'm pissed. Hence the snarkiness of the email I sent him.

EDIT: oh he gets to keep using the oversized off hand weapon, without needing a feat. It's the full strength bonus with the offhand that is going. Something I'd already told him to lose when I first became aware of the proper rules a few months back.

 

[Dross]

So, you had already changed the rules for 2WF, and are about to change them again, midstream. And then you say to the person, '(. . .) let's just go with the rules as written.' Ouch. :\

I can see why they might be upset, too.

I didn't read it as that Aus_Snow. I read it that the OP was not aware of the fact that the player was already doing things wrong.

That is an important difference.

 

[Thurbane]

Bit of back story: have a new player joining an old campaign that I'm running. New player is considering the 2 weapon fighting route. This prompted me to look at the other 2-weapon fighter in the group because I (strongly) suspected they were not following the RAW in terms of str. bonus for off hand. Turns out my suspicion was right. I'd been ignoring the guy's rules rort on account of not wanting the grief that would come with an argument but now a new player is joining I feel the need to enforce the rules equally for all.

So I've confronted the player and he is (not surprisingly) kicking up a fuss.
I'll include a snippet of the email I've sent this other player.

>>>>>So lets just go with the rules as they are written rather than any re-interpretting/re-writing you may wish to do because you wanted the 2-weapon fighting but didn't want it to be inferior to 2-handed weapons. As it is you're already getting away with using a hand-and-a-half weapon in the off hand. Many folk would find that to be a bit OTT.

ANd by the way I think you'll find the versatility of 2 weapon fighting makes up for the slightly less damage. Certainly you get the benefit of using 2 bucklers. You could also get the benefit of the extra attack in terms of hitting a different opponent, using it to feint or trip etc.

And a final point: if it IS sub-optimal you were obviously aware of it at the time you drew up the character. You're the one with the encylopdedic knowledge of the rules. I don't remember putting a gun to your head and saying "make it sub-optimal or else."<<<<<<<


So I guess what I'm really after is a bit of validation.
What do you other Enworlders think? Am I being unreasonbale?

Cheers,
Glen

Except for the inflammatory wording of the last bit of the email, I'd say you are being reasonable. If any of my group used a tone like that in an email to me, I think I'd find myself giving them the Stone Cold salute.

 

[cougent]

I am going to echo others in that when I read the email snippet, it got a bit colder in the room. Otherwise I think you are right on target.

I always tell my players that any rule, all rules are subject to review and modification at any given point in time *out of game*.

I had a similar experience with what you are having, only mine was with Psionics. I had an original player who was a psion and then later a new player joined and wanted to play one also. With the original player I had told him to read the psionics handbook (his book) and explain things to me (as I did not have the book, or the time to read his). We only looked things up together if what he told me was RAW seemed out of synch. a year goes by and the new player joins, also with his own copy of the Psioncs Handbook. I took the time to read some of it and immediately started noticing discrepencies. I asked the new player how he read certain things and found that he was usually seeing the same thing I was. I took the original player aside and without accusing him of cheating just said, "We have been doing some things wrong, but we are now going to do them right, and so will the new player. What is past is past, and water under the bridge, but from now on we go by the rules in the book." He agreed with no problem and we went forward from there.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

Dross: quite right, I was unaware. My rules ignorance is astounding. That's why I ask the others to play nice.

Well the tone of my email was pretty cold. I have been accused of being a bit frosty (understatement) in the past, including by the guy I sent that email too. We've just had a chat on the phone and we've apologised to one another for the tones of our respective emails (no I'm not posting anything from his email) and reached a friendly decision.

Thanks again to everyone for their thoughts. Always good to get another perspective.

 

[Treebore]

Bit of back story: have a new player joining an old campaign that I'm running. New player is considering the 2 weapon fighting route. This prompted me to look at the other 2-weapon fighter in the group because I (strongly) suspected they were not following the RAW in terms of str. bonus for off hand. Turns out my suspicion was right. I'd been ignoring the guy's rules rort on account of not wanting the grief that would come with an argument but now a new player is joining I feel the need to enforce the rules equally for all.

So I've confronted the player and he is (not surprisingly) kicking up a fuss.
I'll include a snippet of the email I've sent this other player.

>>>>>So lets just go with the rules as they are written rather than any re-interpretting/re-writing you may wish to do because you wanted the 2-weapon fighting but didn't want it to be inferior to 2-handed weapons. As it is you're already getting away with using a hand-and-a-half weapon in the off hand. Many folk would find that to be a bit OTT.

ANd by the way I think you'll find the versatility of 2 weapon fighting makes up for the slightly less damage. Certainly you get the benefit of using 2 bucklers. You could also get the benefit of the extra attack in terms of hitting a different opponent, using it to feint or trip etc.

And a final point: if it IS sub-optimal you were obviously aware of it at the time you drew up the character. You're the one with the encylopdedic knowledge of the rules. I don't remember putting a gun to your head and saying "make it sub-optimal or else."<<<<<<<


So I guess what I'm really after is a bit of validation.
What do you other Enworlders think? Am I being unreasonbale?

Cheers,
Glen

I think/suspect your like me and like to trust your players to play BtB and by your written house rules document.

It irritates me when I find this trust has been violated. It really ticks me off when they want to argue about their cheating.

Tell him you trusted him to play honestly. He hasn't been, but now he is going to. If he can't handle following the rules tell him to go find a DM who can accept his cheating, but if he wants to play in your game, then he goes by the rules.

A DM is never in the wrong to enforce the rules. Players are always in the wrong to violate them, just like a DM would be.

So yes, your totally validated.

 

[Thurbane]

I think/suspect your like me and like to trust your players to play BtB and by your written house rules document.

It irritates me when I find this trust has been violated. It really ticks me off when they want to argue about their cheating.

Tell him you trusted him to play honestly. He hasn't been, but now he is going to. If he can't handle following the rules tell him to go find a DM who can accept his cheating, but if he wants to play in your game, then he goes by the rules.

A DM is never in the wrong to enforce the rules. Players are always in the wrong to violate them, just like a DM would be.

So yes, your totally validated.

...assuming, of course, that the player was intentionally and maliciously cheating, and not just making the same mistake as the DM. And even if is this was the case, "stooping to his level" with a passive-aggressive email like that doesn't really solve much, it just breeds more ill will overall.

If you want to call out a player on cheating, fine, but be aware of two things:

1.) If there is the remotest chance that the player wasn't intentionally cheating, you're going to come off looking like a bit of an ass if you're wrong.

2.) If you choose to do so using a sarcastic, inflammatory email, don't be surprised if that player, and maybe even others, start to drop out of your game. And if that player is a friend outside of the game, you might also be irreparably damaging your overall friendship.