Dealing with an argumentative player

[Banshee16]

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.

You posted before I did.... I'm starting to think that's part of the problem.

I've been really eager to try running a Midnight game, and the players had expressed that they were interested.......but maybe saying you're interested, and then the reality of actually playing in setting are two different things.

Some of the stuff, like Channeler strength, I think legitimately needs to be resolved. I haven't run the game before. I've no playtest experience on how strong channelers are. I hear from other people who have played that channelers are great...but from what I understand, many games end a few adventures after Crown of Shadow, when the PCs are about 7th lvl.....and statistically, that's where I think the Channeler might start to suffer. So I'm trying to find out if there are players out there who've run a Channeler to like lvl 15 or something...and find out what their experience was like, in comparison to the other characters in their party. I'm not afraid of beefing the class up a bit, if it is too anemic. I'm just not sure if it *is*.

Banshee

 

[Kahuna Burger]

How much did you discuss the switch to Midnight? Because it sounds to me like at least some of your players are not having fun in that setting. One bit that sticks out is the "Call it, TPK" comment. From my personal expereince, that is NOT a player giving up because it's 'not a cakewalk' that's a player thinking "Oh joy, on top of everything else, the dice are out to get me too, and this game just isn't worth slogging through this kind of night."

 

[cougent]

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.

Exactly the idea as well. I have interviewed potential new players and had them tell me what they like / dislike in a game and then told them flat out, "You won't like my game, you need to find another". We all have our personal preferences and no one's are better / worse than anyone else's; but some are incompatible. I think it is better to learn that early and keep everyone happy.

My goal is to get 4-8 people together to have fun, not be the "World's Greatest / Most Popular / Best Adjudicated / Insert Title Here DM"... whatever the hell that is anyway!

 

[Rackhir]

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.

Did you establish this "No more actions on a roll of a 1" rule ahead of time or was it something that came up in the combat. If you made this clear as a house rule ahead of time and then got arguments from the player that would be one thing.

If it was something where the DM told me in the middle of a turn "Oh, you rolled a one and don't get to take any more actions as a result." I'd be pretty pissed at the rules being suddenly changed in the middle of the game.

If you are going to be changing basic rules of the game like this, you ABSOLUTELY need to tell people about it ahead of time. This is precisely the sort of thing I was talking about for making sure that everyone knows what the rules are ahead of time. You might have been using this rule for years, but the other players have not and it's not even a common house rule.

As far as "cheating" in favor of the characters goes, from what you said, they don't know you've crocked any rolls in their favor. As far as they can tell you've introduced an arbitrary rule that screwed them and not introduced any compensating factors. So yes, if you are going as a matter of policy going to be "adjusting" things in their favor you need to make that clear as well.

Like in any relationship, you need good communication. You NEED to make clear to the players what the rules are and NOT to make changes in the middle of combat without at least telling people about it before hand.

(As an aside this is also it is the kind of rule that tends to screw certain types of characters more than others. A mage or cleric is only going to be casting one spell a turn and many of them don't involve a roll other than damage. By contrast a fighter who by their nature depends on multiple attack rolls for their effectiveness, is going to suffer disproportionately from this rule, since the greater the number of rolls, the greater the likelyhood they're going to get screwed.)

 

[Kahuna Burger]

(As an aside this is also it is the kind of rule that tends to screw certain types of characters more than others. A mage or cleric is only going to be casting one spell a turn and many of them don't involve a roll other than damage. By contrast a fighter who by their nature depends on multiple attack rolls for their effectiveness, is going to suffer disproportionately from this rule, since the greater the number of rolls, the greater the likelyhood they're going to get screwed.)

Hubby played in a game where the DM introduced a fairly harsh critical fumble rule. He dropped his rapid shot archer and started a wizard with no ray spells the next week, I believe. And I can't say I blamed him.

 

[Black_Swan]

If it's arguments about the world that are slowing the game down then I really do believe it's the setting, as others have mentioned.

I just started playing in Midnight and have had to get used to having my "heroic" actions get slammed back in my face by the followers of Izrador. It seems like the more you try to be a hero the more your actions get your friends and loved ones in trouble.

Your players have to be understanding about the setting and have some trust in you that even tho things are horrible that it will be worth it.

Talk to your players. If the issue can't be solved with communication then it's time to leave or change games.

I've had groups of really good friends break apart because people refused to communicate intelligently.

Hug it out and move on.

 

[Banshee16]

If you are going to be changing basic rules of the game like this, you ABSOLUTELY need to tell people about it ahead of time. This is precisely the sort of thing I was talking about for making sure that everyone knows what the rules are ahead of time. You might have been using this rule for years, but the other players have not and it's not even a common house rule.

You're probably right. I've GMed with 2 of the players before...so they're aware of my interpretation of the rule...but come to think of it, I didn't mention this in advance of doing it.....I'm so used to my interpretation, that I didn't even stop to think that somebody might not be aware of it....particularly since the 2 players I've had before have been under that "system" with me for several years.

And no, I didn't point out that I'd fudged rolls in their favour, because I didn't necessarily want to rub that in their faces. Maybe it would help if I pointed out that I had in fact favoured them.

I usually try to keep it somewhat descriptive, without doing anything crazy...ie. 1 doesn't mean you stab your buddy, but it might mean that your sword gets stuck in a door frame while you're fighting someone trying to come through the door. It just lasts until the beginning of the next round, when you start your next action.

I am making a conscious effort to discuss some of the other alternate rules with the players, before I implement changes...I've been doing that via e-mail between games. That way everyone will be aware of any changes when I make them.

I know that in the situation where the player called a TPK before there actually was one (he did this previously in another campaign, which I also didn't like), I talked to the players afterwards and just explained "here, these are the stats for what you faced. They were in the same range as you are for CR. But look at the rolls I was getting. It wasn't necessarily the encounter.....it's just there was some pretty bad luck going on.

I'm not sure why, but for some reason I get encounters with creatures that should be easy turning lethal, and then creatures that should be hard are a cakewalk. In that previous TPK reference, a party of lvl 4 characters were demolished by a group of CR 1/2 creatures on a night where it seemed like my dice were all rolling 18 and higher, and the players couldn't roll over a 5.

Banshee

 

[Banshee16]

How much did you discuss the switch to Midnight? Because it sounds to me like at least some of your players are not having fun in that setting. One bit that sticks out is the "Call it, TPK" comment. From my personal expereince, that is NOT a player giving up because it's 'not a cakewalk' that's a player thinking "Oh joy, on top of everything else, the dice are out to get me too, and this game just isn't worth slogging through this kind of night."

The intention to play Midnight was very clear from the start. When one of my ex players approached me, and expressed an interest in playing in a game again, and said he had some buddies from another game who were tired of a hack and slash campaign where there was no roleplaying, I talked to him about my desire to run Midnight, and he said "awesome, I've wanted to try that forever". He then presented the idea to the other guys, and I introduced myself to the group, explaining the parameters of the setting, what it involves, how it differs from regular games, etc.

So we did all of that right at the beginning.

The player who called the TPK....I don't know....this is the second time he's done it (previously, it was a completely different campaign).

Banshee

 

[Doug McCrae]

I'm not sure why, but for some reason I get encounters with creatures that should be easy turning lethal, and then creatures that should be hard are a cakewalk.

Happens to everyone. It's the nature of D&D. One of my favourite parts, in fact.