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

[Phion]

...but you repeat yourself.

How many paladins does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

Just one. He plugs it in, and the rest of the world revolves around him.

I wish I could give this comment more xp

 

[iserith]

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

Cool. I find the best way to sell it is to explain how it's of benefit for each individual player to engage in this manner. By setting aside your ego about whose idea is better, you instead get to have your idea included alongside and in support of others, meaning your idea is always part of the plan. Plus you move the game along faster thereby earning more XP and gold per session by covering more content. That equates to faster character advancement.

(Some people apparently don't care about how fast character advancement goes or prefer it be slow, but in my experience, that's pretty rare. Still, it's good to know what motivates the players so you can tailor your pitch accordingly.)

 

[Warmaster Horus]

Somewhat on the topic, I like it when someone in the party takes up the mantle of group leader. It's best when this person is direct but keeps everyone else involved and part of the decision making. The worst are those who just assume power and leave the rest of the party behind as they dominate the action.

I've had parties where my standard DM, "So, what do you do now?" is tossed around like a hot potato for 20 minutes because no one steps up to be the arbitrating executive. Then some ideas start to come out, but no one takes it up to make a coherent plan of action, so it's just sort of a flaccid non-plan that has little imagination and Lord knows, no risk or panache. To me that just makes for a flat game.

 

[Lanefan]

One of my worst, involving both a dick player and a weak, enabling DM, happened back in the '80s. Our party was playing City System in Waterdeep and discovered that one of the players (the dick in question) was actually playing a Drow priestess and causing woe to the party behind their backs. The DM knew this and let it happen. The person who discovered the masquerade was able to capture the Drow and bind her in our townhouse.

We then had a 3-hour argument over what to do. On one side, my player, a gray elf thief, wanted to slit her throat because, well, Drow priestess! On the other was the paladin (yes, one of THOSE paladins) who wanted to turn her in to the authorities and rehabilitate her ("I arrest you on the charge of being a Drow!"). The PC playing the Drow tried to kill herself by Enlarging inside her bounds and strangling but was stopped. The DM offered no good resolution and of course we were young and full of 'what our characters would do' obstinance.

In the end, I wound up unilaterally walking up and slitting her throat with a sneak attack. My character then shook his head and said, "What happened? The last thing I remember was looking into her eyes..."

The paladin player was furious. I told him that since she had attempted suicide previously, my story that she controlled my actions to kill her made good sense and he had little to use to assert that I did it willingly. He persisted and called my character a coward (like calling Marty McFly a chicken...). So we dueled, him a 7th level paladin and me a 5th level thief. I got good rolls and dropped him.

We made up later but that instance showed me how a D&D session can really go wrong. I had been playing for years at that point but had good groups and DMs. Live and learn!

That's not a session going wrong - that's a session of excellence, and a story you're still telling 30 years later!

How it got to that point is likely open for criticism - why did the DM allow a Drow PC in the first place, for example.

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 ...

As a player I'd never go for this, if for no other reason that sometimes that first idea (that by the sound of it everyone else is supposed to go along with) is plain stupid. Other players/PCs have to be able to step up and outright say "No. We're not doing that; and if you still want to do it you're on your own."

For my own experience, I've found two factors contribute to the increasing length of planning discussions:
- the increasing age and therefore wisdom of the players
- the increasing level and therefore complexity of the characters

Lanefan

 

[Blue]

[MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION], you always have great comments, and I enjoy your adventures & encounters. This is surprising to me because of just how incompatible it would be at my table.

The two big problems I have is that (a) players shouldn't have the right to declare actions for another player's character that that other player doesn't agree with and (b) characters may get interrupted by other characters.

Can yu tell me how it would go down for a scene with player conflicts like this?

Here's the scene: The group has a developed a procedure of checking a chest for traps before opening after hitting several that exploded. The barbarian (not the barbarian's player) is bored and would want to just throw it open, but they are out in the hall with several people between them, all who have had a bad experience in getting blown up. The rogue is also out in the hall.

Who gets to declare first? The rogue who would be the oen most would want to agree? The person closest? The barbarian because they are the most impulsive?

If the rogue declares spending time to carefully look for traps, does that lock the barbarian out of walking over and opening it up even though that would take less time?

If the barbarian goes first, can she declare going over and open it, even though there are several other characters in the way that would try to stop it?

Now, I could see this working if the players work with really small time steps and respect each other. The barbarian's player declaring "The barbarian strides impatiently towards the chest" could get a lot of ANDs tacked on, and it won't get negated if he chooses to stop before opening it since that was not declared. But that seems like people who always be declaring just a short next action and it would be unwieldy for getting things done.

 

[iserith]

As a player I'd never go for this, if for no other reason that sometimes that first idea (that by the sound of it everyone else is supposed to go along with) is plain stupid. Other players/PCs have to be able to step up and outright say "No. We're not doing that; and if you still want to do it you're on your own."

It depends on what you mean by "stupid," I suppose. Was the idea offered in good faith? Was it put forth given a reasonable understanding of the current situation in-game? Because in my experience, when you can say "No" to either of those two questions, that's when it's deemed "stupid." In my view, it's not stupid. It's either the player making a joke or being intentionally disruptive or simply acting under a misapprehension. In those cases, I don't think the answer is "No, we're not doing that." Instead, that's the time to clarify before you move forward.

 

[Lanefan]

Longest/worst discussions I've seen:

Planning discussion: in a 3e game the party had got to a door, behind which were assumed to be extreme dangers and threats. Detections, listening, etc. pulled nothing but that didn't matter - it was certain death behind there, we all knew it; and nobody wanted to be brave. So, three hours were lost in planning and discussing how to open a door...until a player who had been working late and was thus late for the game walked in, got a quick rundown of the situation, and said "Screw it, my character just walks up and opens the door". Done.

There was never any danger behind the door.

Player argument: in a game I was DMing a situation got ugly - in hindsight I should never have let it happen but at the time it seemed to be all in fun until suddenly it wasn't. It was a two-party campaign - different players on different nights - and a player from one game had stopped by to visit during the other party's session. One of the players jokingly said to the visitor "Hey, roll up a character so we can kill it!". Visitor, intentionally ignoring the implied threat, rolled up a character thinking he could use it in his own party later....and within an hour it was dead at the hands of the PC whose player had first joked about rolling one up. (note the victim's player wasn't blameless here; he intentionally rolled up a Paladin-like character that they'd have a hard time finding an excuse to kill...which in this case was the rough equivalent of waving a red flag in front of a bull)

The resulting arguments went on for over a month, both in and out of game - both players involved were stubborn types, and pretty much everyone else involved (even including friends outside the game) chose a side; kind of like a bench-clearing brawl in hockey. And to add to the mess the victim was revived in-game and the killer PC was charged with murder, resulting in a drawn-out trial spanning several sessions.

Result: I eventually (and far too late) put my foot down - in-game the killer was forced to pay for the victim's revival, the victim was banished from the land for being a nuisance, and out-of-game I made it clear that hearing one more word about it would shut down both games. All complied, end of story.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

It depends on what you mean by "stupid," I suppose. Was the idea offered in good faith? Was it put forth given a reasonable understanding of the current situation in-game?

Stupid ideas come up all the time - they're a hallmark of playing low-wisdom characters...or of low-wisdom players, always the best and most entertaining kind!

Party gets to a bridge guarded by several giants, and beyond the bridge are other enemies. Party might be able to take the giants in a straight fight but most likely can't; and will for sure be overwhelmed if any help comes from beyond the bridge. Low-wisdom Fighter whose solution to everything up until now has been to go in weapons-hot sees this as a martial situation, takes the lead, and says "We charge".

A wiser member of the party should probably very quickly reply with "No we don't, you fool!"

Because in my experience, when you can say "No" to either of those two questions, that's when it's deemed "stupid." In my view, it's not stupid. It's either the player making a joke or being intentionally disruptive or simply acting under a misapprehension. In those cases, I don't think the answer is "No, we're not doing that." Instead, that's the time to clarify before you move forward.

I dunno - this kinda sounds like forced co-operation to me, which for me as a chaotic-aligned player would never fly.

Lanefan

 

[iserith]

[MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION], you always have great comments, and I enjoy your adventures & encounters. This is surprising to me because of just how incompatible it would be at my table.

Sure, I get this a lot. I've addressed forum objections about "yes, and..." mostly on the WotC forums for, I dunno, 8 years now? It's generally centered around a misunderstanding of how it works. When people actually see it in play, then tend not to want to do anything else at that point. The benefits far outweighs any downsides in my experience. I'd struggle to imagine downsides even, unless players really enjoy the debate. And that's fine. I just don't, neither as a player or a DM.

The two big problems I have is that (a) players shouldn't have the right to declare actions for another player's character that that other player doesn't agree with and (b) characters may get interrupted by other characters.

Players can't declare actions for other players' characters under the proposed method. Players would not, under this method, interrupt another player's character. Or rather, such an interruption would have to be essentially invited since the outcome of any hindrance by one character upon another in my games is decided by the target of the hindrance.

Can yu tell me how it would go down for a scene with player conflicts like this?

Here's the scene: The group has a developed a procedure of checking a chest for traps before opening after hitting several that exploded. The barbarian (not the barbarian's player) is bored and would want to just throw it open, but they are out in the hall with several people between them, all who have had a bad experience in getting blown up. The rogue is also out in the hall.

Who gets to declare first? The rogue who would be the oen most would want to agree? The person closest? The barbarian because they are the most impulsive?

If the rogue declares spending time to carefully look for traps, does that lock the barbarian out of walking over and opening it up even though that would take less time?

If the barbarian goes first, can she declare going over and open it, even though there are several other characters in the way that would try to stop it?

Now, I could see this working if the players work with really small time steps and respect each other. The barbarian's player declaring "The barbarian strides impatiently towards the chest" could get a lot of ANDs tacked on, and it won't get negated if he chooses to stop before opening it since that was not declared. But that seems like people who always be declaring just a short next action and it would be unwieldy for getting things done.

I definitely appreciate the thought you put into this. However, I don't want to get bogged down in specific examples because long experience in discussing this topic in writing has shown me that's the worst way to achieve understanding. Not because it proves anything one way or another, but because the context of the scene really matters and goal posts get shifted around to support objections based on misunderstandings and it goes sideways from there. I'm not saying it will happen or that you're not discussing in good faith - just that it's a once bitten twice shy scenario for me.

What I will say is that for this sort of thing to work, there mustn't be competition among the players for the supremacy of their ideas and, if there are existing modes of doing things that everyone has agreed upon previously, those things should be respected. Under this method, it would be just as bad to unilaterally break those agreements as it would be to try to tell someone their idea is no good. As mentioned upthread, the players must also have a desire for their comrades to share the spotlight more or less equally. A healthy disdain for bogging the game down with debate also helps.

 

[iserith]

Stupid ideas come up all the time - they're a hallmark of playing low-wisdom characters...or of low-wisdom players, always the best and most entertaining kind!

Party gets to a bridge guarded by several giants, and beyond the bridge are other enemies. Party might be able to take the giants in a straight fight but most likely can't; and will for sure be overwhelmed if any help comes from beyond the bridge. Low-wisdom Fighter whose solution to everything up until now has been to go in weapons-hot sees this as a martial situation, takes the lead, and says "We charge".

A wiser member of the party should probably very quickly reply with "No we don't, you fool!"

Notably, I'm referring to discussions between players, not necessarily between characters. If I'm playing a character that has a flaw that causes him to make bad decisions, then I'm going to make it known, by some means or another, that it's my character's bad decision, not mine and that the other players are free to ignore his stupidity. More commonly, especially to get Inspiration, I'm going to make those bad decisions when it doesn't directly impact the rest of the party in any serious way.

I dunno - this kinda sounds like forced co-operation to me, which for me as a chaotic-aligned player would never fly.

Lanefan

It's not forced if everyone agrees to it.