Dealing with an argumentative player

[Rackhir]

1) Have you been clear about "the rules"?

It's a new group for you and every group tends to have their own set of house rules and assumptions. Since your's are likely to be different from theirs, have you made clear what your's are. Hand outs and/or emails can be helpful in this regard.

BUT it's also important to exhibit a certain amount of flexibility with regards to things. Nobody likes being told "Things are going to be this way. No discussion. No debate. No Argument. IE. I don't care what you think or how you like the game to be."

A good DM listens to their players and accommodates to some extent what they want out of the game. Don't be a doormat, but don't be a petty dictator either.

2) Ask the players to discuss things outside of the game not in it.

Email is wonderful for this. Gives people time to structure and think through their arguments and points. It can be done at leisure and doesn't occupy game time, but still let's people express their opinions.

Again being reasonable and moderate about things is crucial. Even if someone is putting forth an "interpretation" that you find unacceptable, they feel like they're expressing a reasonable point and will appreciate their point of view being listened to.

While you should lay down a rulling in game that the players should abide by, if you make a mistake or it turns out you missed or missread something, then fess up and fix things. Rule Zero doesn't mean you are infallible or inerrant.

 

[The_Gunslinger658]

Kill them and take their stuff...

LOL!

Actually, give them a cursed item that slowly eats away at one of their physical abilities and the only way to delay it is to buy very very expencive potions which only last a week or so at keeping the curse at bay. That might put a muzzle on their mouths if and when they get froggy again.


Scott

 

[cougent]

I had this as well, it started as 1 in 6 but after a few weeks of trying to tolerate it without lowering the hammer it turned into 2 in 6 and the 2 of the others telling me out of game that they were tired of all the arguing and were going to quit. I asked them to come to one more session, and finally I did lower the hammer.

I started the next session with a little speach where I just said there will be no more arguing, or you will be asked to leave. I then held out a pen and asked each person what would happen if I released it. They all said "it will fall" to which I said yes it would *in our world*. however in the D&D world where gods, demons, magic, psionics, outsiders, and all sorts of other mythical things are *real* you have no idea what would happen to that pen... it might fall, it might fly up, it might turn into a bird and fly away, it might turn into a worm and burrow into the ground, it might jus vanish into thin air... you *don't know*, so stop thinking that you know how things have to be and start observing how things are actually happening. There was some other stuff as well, and it took a little reinforcement to make it stick, but years later I still have former players tell me they still remember that "pen thing".

 

[werk]

It seems in the OP that the only problem is that you think it is a waste of time, not that there are screaming arguments or anything like that going on.

I don't see a problem if it's just conversation, we have a lot of OoC talk at my table, its the only time we all get to sit around and chat. If it is 'you're wrong' type discussion, then you may have a problem.

Not really enough info to offer advice.

 

[Carpe DM]

There are some good responses here.

Player arguments can be (1) a response to frustration at not being able to influence the world; or (2) an attempt to grab center stage.

Most GMS claim that (2) is what is happening. I don't think so. But the way you can tell is if the rule is simple, or marginal.

If the rule that they're arguing about is simple, or the outcome of the ruling forwards the plot from the GM's perspective, then this is what is happening: you're railroading the players by changing a basic rule of the game. They have every right to be upset: rules, and dice, are how players influence the world. Changing the rules is a source of power to the GM, but a source of frustration to players.

If the rule they're arguing about is marginal, and the outcome doesn't affect the plot (note that this is much less likely to happen) then maybe you've got a spotlight-grabber on your hands.

By the way -- I'm a longstanding GM, who has to really restrain himself from bitching about rules when my current GM (who is less experienced) is running the show.

Here's what I do, from a player perspective: I say it once. I state the correct rule, having already looked it up. I then will not further discuss it -- the GM makes a decision, and goes on.

Here's what I do, from a GM perspective: I say it once. I ask the player to look it up while the game continues, and inform me if I was wrong. That doesn't change the outcome, but it helps me next time.

And to the poster, above, who said that one of the things a GM can do about argumentative players is to say "yes" more often: you're absolutely right. It's the high-functioning, engaged players who are likely to argue about rules. These are your cream-of-the-crop people. They often don't like arguing more than you do. However, they're also not interested in playing bit parts in your mental novel. The rules are how players get to turn the tables on the GM. Don't take that away from them.

This is why, as a GM, I really try not to rule 0 a clear rule. I only decide ambiguous stuff.

 

[lin_fusan]

My recent argument

I'm hoping my buddy doesn't read this thread. But I really need to vent.

I've been running the Savage Tide Adventure Path and for various reasons I wanted to run it Core (ie. unfamiliar with 3.5, been so many years since I played 3.0, etc etc etc).

A long-time friend of mine, who loves D&D and generally dislikes anything non-d20 decided to play a bard.

A module later he was complaining that his bard didn't have access to really powerful spells. :\

So he decides to switch to a wizard. We had all agreed that there would be a kind of level-loss if there was switching (there was a weird formula for it, but we had all agreed on it). Not only was he one level behind, but he had multi-classed (only one level, but still...) to rogue.

Then he complained that he didn't have access to really powerful spells. :\

His latest complaint was the wizards needed time to prep and memorize spells. He couldn't just cast any spell he wanted and thus concluded that wizards were underpowered. :\

Recently I decided to open up the game to other material. He wanted to use the spell point variant in the Unearthed Arcana. After reading it, I OKed the choice, but asked, why not play a sorcerer if he wanted spontaneous spellcasting? He felt the sorcerer was too limited because it didn't have a wizard's versitility. :\

I'd like to note that he always plays wizards in D&D. So did all this complaining come from?

My desire to have "rocks fall and everyone dies" was mitigated by this realization that we're here to have fun. If I bend the rules so that my friend was having fun, then so be it. My only concern is if bending the rules makes the other players have less fun.

Since no one else was playing a wizard, sorcerer, or arcane caster, then I figured no one would be penalized and he would benefit.

Hopefully this will solve the problem. :\

In the OP's game, do they just like to argue like a rules lawyer, or is there something that hampers their fun? There is a lack of detail about the actual issue.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I started the next session with a little speach where I just said there will be no more arguing, or you will be asked to leave. I then held out a pen and asked each person what would happen if I released it. They all said "it will fall" to which I said yes it would *in our world*. however in the D&D world where gods, demons, magic, psionics, outsiders, and all sorts of other mythical things are *real* you have no idea what would happen to that pen... it might fall, it might fly up, it might turn into a bird and fly away, it might turn into a worm and burrow into the ground, it might jus vanish into thin air... you *don't know*, so stop thinking that you know how things have to be and start observing how things are actually happening.

This sounds like a very clear way of expressing the kind of game you wanted to run. I would never play in such a game, and putting it so clearly would give me an unequivocal signal to leave, so I compliment you on your straightforwardness.

 

[Banshee16]

It seems in the OP that the only problem is that you think it is a waste of time, not that there are screaming arguments or anything like that going on.

I don't see a problem if it's just conversation, we have a lot of OoC talk at my table, its the only time we all get to sit around and chat. If it is 'you're wrong' type discussion, then you may have a problem.

Not really enough info to offer advice.

Well, I think that some of the discussions can be valid. It *is* somewhat rules-lawyering. One of the players is a DM in another game, so he tends to question me on rules interpretations in game. That's a little frustrating. However, I want to be fair, so I'm willing to accept it to a degree, as long as it's not too disruptive, and isn't an issue with me not agreeing with a rule.

He's not trying to manipulate the rules to his favour....seems like he's just trying to make sure they're applied fairly, as they are in the books.....whereas I haven't played or run a game in months, so I'm a little rusty, and I think I'm used to being a little more "fast and loose" with the rules than he is....my personal belief is not to let rules stand in the way of a good story, and I'm not really used to following them 100%.

This I can accept as something where I'm just going to have to be aware of our differences, and try to be careful.

The other aspect though, is a habit with calling the game world into question. We're trying Midnight, and I know the players are more used to regular core settings from WotC. So it seems like every game, we get into discussions regarding whether this or that is fair within the game. Is it fair to give less items? Is the Channeler class fair, since it will be "weaker" than the other characters, and consequently less fun to play, which is bad in the game. I've pointed out that many players I've talked to on EN World and other sites maintain that the Channeler isn't as weak as it appears on paper, and let's at least try it before we throw out the idea. Opening a discussion about how the game is about a genocide etc.....I know it is....but it's also about how the characters deal with it.

Two sessions ago, the players had their dice rolling low....brutally. Mine were rolling high. Consequently, a small encounter ended up being more deadly than intended. But when they're rolling 6's, and I'm rolling 20's, that's going to result in skewed difficulty in an encounter. Which is part of the game. Then one of the players says something like "call it, TPK", and the encounter isn't even done. And they did end up surviving. But I'm just wanting to say "play it. See what happens, don't just give up because you didn't have a cakewalk".

I've tried to be open about changes, about the campaign, etc. I just don't want to be getting into these discussions/disputes in the middle of the game......afterwards, by e-mail, no problem.

I've managed to take some of the discussions out of game to e-mail...things like rules changes I've thought of implementing....and I'm fine with discussing them out of game. It would be nice if I could get a willingness to try things which lie outside of the core. Part of this is likely simply that some players are devoted to the game "as is", whereas I see a lot of flaws with core 3E, and frankly, things that I wish hadn't been done, and I'm willing to try experimenting.

Maybe it's just different players. These ones are more "hardcore" than what I'm used to. I think I mesh better with two of them, and I'm having more difficulty finding the balance point with the other two. I want to make the game work, particularly since they're all friends with each other. I don't want to "throw the baby out with the bathwater". With my last group, most of the players were pretty much willing to go along, as long as it was a good story, and they had fun, and 100% literal readings of the rules weren't as important. And that could be part of the problem....if they're used to literal interpretations of the rules, then maybe I come across as unfair. I don't know..

So, at least from my perspective, that's what I've been feeling. I'm hoping someone else might have run into a similar situation, and have advice about how to manage it.

Banshee

 

[Rackhir]

The other aspect though, is a habit with calling the game world into question. We're trying Midnight, and I know the players are more used to regular core settings from WotC. So it seems like every game, we get into discussions regarding whether this or that is fair within the game. Is it fair to give less items? Is the Channeler class fair, since it will be "weaker" than the other characters, and consequently less fun to play, which is bad in the game. I've pointed out that many players I've talked to on EN World and other sites maintain that the Channeler isn't as weak as it appears on paper, and let's at least try it before we throw out the idea.

Banshee

Ah, I think the setting is a large chunk of your problem. Midnight isn't just a little different it's radically different and it's a setting where the players are most likely going to be at a significant disadvantage a lot of the time, since most of the world is going to be hostile and friends are few and far between. If you're dropping players in who's primary experience is "We're the Heroes and the world loves us" like it tends to be in a lot of campaigns, then you're going to get a lot arguments and debates. Midnight as a setting is designed to break a lot of the conventions of your standard D&D world.

 

[Banshee16]

Here's what I do, from a player perspective: I say it once. I state the correct rule, having already looked it up. I then will not further discuss it -- the GM makes a decision, and goes on.

Here's what I do, from a GM perspective: I say it once. I ask the player to look it up while the game continues, and inform me if I was wrong. That doesn't change the outcome, but it helps me next time.

And to the poster, above, who said that one of the things a GM can do about argumentative players is to say "yes" more often: you're absolutely right. It's the high-functioning, engaged players who are likely to argue about rules. These are your cream-of-the-crop people. They often don't like arguing more than you do. However, they're also not interested in playing bit parts in your mental novel. The rules are how players get to turn the tables on the GM. Don't take that away from them.

This is why, as a GM, I really try not to rule 0 a clear rule. I only decide ambiguous stuff.

I understand......it's really difficult to express this clearly. I frankly have no desire to make the players bit parts in my mental novel. Never have. However. I'm not interested in a game where everything is dictated exactly by a set of rules, and they end up *detracting* from the story. The rules serve the story in my game, not the other way around. So, if I make a ruling, I'll explain the reasons behind it, and I don't necessarily want to have an argument about the statistical validity of the interpretation, whether it's designed well etc...because I will rule in your (player's) favour more often than not. In the same game where the player was complaining about one incident that worked against him (I ruled that rolling a 1 on an attack roll ends their action for the round, and during my description of what happened, I had him trip as a result of that 1)......I also ruled in his favour 3 or 4 times, by fudging 20's I'd rolled against him, that would have killed his character....but I didn't point out that I had fudged those rolls. I use the screen, and just say "your opponent missed", etc. I don't know if it would help to point this out to the player, so he understands that I'm not out to "get him". I've used the "rolling a 1 ends your action this round" for many years, and it's functioned fine so far.....I also use it against monsters and such.

I guess my core feeling is "if you expect me to adhere to the rules exactly, even when they don't make sense in certain circumstances, then don't expect me to bend them in your favour when the rules work against you". I want them to succeed, but I also want a dramatic, interesting game that they'll enjoy, and sometimes that means bending things one way or another.

I think that part of the concern is because core D&D comes with certain assumptions. Number of encounters per day; the whole fight, fight, rest, repeat; that you can jump in and massacre opponents, certain levels of treasure, and that the game is balanced so the characters "win". In Midnight, the balance shifts the other way....it's not set so you "win" by default. It's a harder game. And it takes a certain mental adjustment to understand that. Until you make that adjustment, it can seem somewhat unfair. So maybe part of the issue is mental buy in with the setting. I was fairly clear at the beginning about how dark and difficult the setting is....but maybe on some level it hasn't set in yet.

I'll talk to them again about it during our next game, to try and see if we can come to an agreement about when is appropriate to bring up stuff or argue.

Banshee