Help please. Complaints by players!

[Shallown]

What DC you set the bridge at is irrelavent in my opinion. What the problem is the fact the player looked it up in the book and made an issue of it. If he had looked it up and commented then I would have said yea that's what the book says this is tougher and he can accept it or argue after the game. Even after the game I would be fairly upset they questioned it. Yea if I made it a 35 then he may have a reason for complaint.

I don't subscribe to the I am GM and God mode of play but the reality is the players have to trust the DM to be fair, not neccessarily correct. I screw things up but my players have faith that it was intended that way. I think the player lacks faith in you and that is the problem. I mean you know all the circumstances that are pertinent and the player doesn't. Admittedly the player/character noticed that this bridge is tougher and instead of using that as a clue to the fate ahead he chose to argure about it.

Trust and communication are the two most important things in running a game in my experience and if you have those you can enjoy even mediocre games more so then the best run game were mistakes and misunderstandings can rip it all apart.

My advice talk to the player in a reasonable and as non-confrontational as possible way and see what is the real problem.
(Issues are for weenies I have problems in my life not "Issues". I can beat a problem and solve it but what the heck do you do with an "Issue". I hate pop psychology BTW. Mini rant off)


Later hope it helps

 

[Gallo22]

Do you want to stick to the rules when there are set rules for a situation? If so, the rules do, technicaly, say that a DC15 is appropriate for this type of encounter.

Now, regarding it being a challenge for a 9th level rogue with 20 dex...

This is one of those "How much does the world morph to accomodate your players" questions... I mean, why should everything ALWAYS be a challenge for them? Does nobody ever pick a fight in your world that they aren't ready for?

I ask this honestly... I've played under some GMs who will have our PCs stumble upon challenges far beyond our abilities, and tell us "The world isn't tailored to you alone, sometimes things will be too hard for you", but never explore the logical flipside of that and have things that are too easy for us.

I mean, if your only concern is "Is it a tough DC check", then fine, DC 20. Run with that. No need to ask us. But you did ask us for opinions. So...

Honestly, I can see the players side here... There is a book-set rule for this. While DMs are free to change these rules as they see fit, that doesn't mean they *must* always change these rules. There are times when the rules are fine as they are. Otherwise it turns into a GM/PC arms race... The world (as a whole) starts becomming more dangerous just because PCs can now handle more. In that case, why level, ne? Getting better at stuff *should* let you do stuff easy at times, doubly so when it actualy counts for something. Not always, but I'd be pretty upset if the only advantage to gaining levels was just the level gain itself... It's nice to feel that "Hey, I can do some stuff now without much worry!", once and a while.

One question, you didn't answer: Were the PCs holding onto the rope-rails? If so, I *definetly* think that you should have either lowered the DC check, or given them a fair sized bonus for that.

Your thinking too much on this one friend. I'm talking about one situation. Everything you said I do! Everything gets pretty balanced. Somethings are easy for my group, some are hard. Just before this happen the rogue disabled a magic trap DC25 with the flick of his wrist, he go a 35 and very easily. And I don't do the DM god thingy. I didnot complain to him when he scored that high. I always make sure to listen to my group. I learn from them, they learn from me. Thats why we have had the same people for 3 years, every monday!!

Its just that as soon as the player threw open the book shoving the numbers in my face the whole situation/feel/atmosphere was shot.

Also my original post stated the rogue was holding a rope and did not fall.

 

[D'karr]

I heard a good one the other day but can't recall who said it.

"Shoot one player every hour until they stop complaining." That will teach them...

 

[TiQuinn]

By some schools of thought, yes.

Of course, we know very little about this bridge.

How long was it?

How well built?

What were the planks like?

Was it windy that day?

IMO, it's a judgement call. I would say the rope bridge would be more difficult than the wood bridge, hence DC 20 is reasonable. My point is it's the DM's call, and arguing about it isn't going to make the game any better. After the fact you can debate about it just as we are doing now, but I wouldn't want to do this during the game.

 

[Gallo22]

By some schools of thought, yes.

Of course, we know very little about this bridge.

How long was it?

How well built?

What were the planks like?

Was it windy that day?

My goodness you over think things. Why can't things just be.

Here is the download for those that care:

a 30' long, 4' wide, wood plank & rope bridge with a 1/2 inch cover of slimy wet vegitation. it has been raining most of the day and (the players did not know this) they are in the middle of the witch-druids grove/domain. The bridge sits 2 feet over a stagnet slime (again) covered water.

 

[Aaron L]

Once I played in a game where I was a 6th level ranger with max ranks in climb, and my partner was an assassin who was at least as competant at climbing as I was. So, we came to a wall that we had to climb up. There happened to be a knotted rope hanging from the wall from our advance group who had already climbed the wall, so we started to climb the rope. Our DM told us the DC to climb the rope was 20.

20, we asked?

It was a knotted rope hanging against a stone wall. We looked it up in the book, and sure enough, the listed DC for climbing a knotted rope while bracing yourself against a surface was something like 5, or maybe 0. But we just held our comments and tried it his way. Needless to say, we spent about an hour of game time trying to climb the rope with a DC of 20.

My point is that sometime DMs don't know what they are doing, and it is anyones right to question them. If their is a rule in the books for a situation, then unless the situation is extremely out of the ordinary, the rule sould probably be followed. What is the purpose of the rules if we ignore them? Altering reality on the fly just to make things "more challenging" is not a good answer.

Do you require balance checks to walk across the road because it is more "challenging"?

 

[Henry]

I heard a good one the other day but can't recall who said it.

"Shoot one player every hour until they stop complaining." That will teach them...

The actual quote was, "shoot one player each hour until they accept your authority as DM." I should know.

But seriously, it's one thing to discuss a ruling after the game, or to ask a quick, "are you sure?" during the game, and then move on. But a player demanding that their interpretation of a given situation MUST be the correct one is counterproductive and unfair to all the players involved, INCLUDING the DM, who is due the authority as final arbiter of the game that he is running.

My take on it is the following:

Unless you have a group that is EXCEPTIONALLY harmonious in thought and action, there will come arguments that each person will see differently, and brief discussion will not solve it. A group needs a final authority on the scene who rules decisively, and allows the social event to keep running without bogging down into a discussion. That final authority is the DM - the rules themselves make that clear (DMG introduction).

The NFL had this same argument back in the 1980's when instant replays became available and popular. The discussion arose - what should take precedence, the final call of the referee, or the scene that the instant replay seemed to show? If technical accuracy is desired, then the rules should take precedence, e-mailing the Sage, posting the question to the Rules Forums here and elsewhere, etc. But if a smooth game is desired, the DM should listen to any disagreements, make a final ruling based on his experience, and talk about it later, moving on.

 

[Gothmog]

Originally posted by Tsyr:

This is one of those "How much does the world morph to accomodate your players" questions... I mean, why should everything ALWAYS be a challenge for them? Does nobody ever pick a fight in your world that they aren't ready for?

I ask this honestly... I've played under some GMs who will have our PCs stumble upon challenges far beyond our abilities, and tell us "The world isn't tailored to you alone, sometimes things will be too hard for you", but never explore the logical flipside of that and have things that are too easy for us.

I agree Tsyr, it is much more fun to have a world that is NOT always tailored to the characters. I throw something at my PCs beyond their capabilities every 4-6 adventures, and something much easier for them every 2-3 adventures. It creates a more believable world, one where the characters need to weigh their actions more carefully. While the EL/CR system is good for DMs to get a rough estimate how tough an encounter should be, too many DMs think that you MUST go by it for a functional game.

 

[Gallo22]

Once I played in a game where I was a 6th level ranger with max ranks in climb, and my partner was an assassin who was at least as competant at climbing as I was. So, we came to a wall that we had to climb up. There happened to be a knotted rope hanging from the wall from our advance group who had already climbed the wall, so we started to climb the rope. Our DM told us the DC to climb the rope was 20.

20, we asked?

It was a knotted rope hanging against a stone wall. We looked it up in the book, and sure enough, the listed DC for climbing a knotted rope while bracing yourself against a surface was something like 5, or maybe 0. But we just held our comments and tried it his way. Needless to say, we spent about an hour of game time trying to climb the rope with a DC of 20.

My point is that sometime DMs don't know what they are doing, and it is anyones right to question them. If their is a rule in the books for a situation, then unless the situation is extremely out of the ordinary, the rule sould probably be followed. What is the purpose of the rules if we ignore them? Altering reality on the fly just to make things "more challenging" is not a good answer.

Do you require balance checks to walk across the road because it is more "challenging"?

Oh boy! This example is sure close to mine

You can always tell the players from the DM's.

What would you have done if the DM had the "bad guys" find the rope and cover it in a greasy substance or magicly altered the rope. You would have ruined the encounter by having the DM explain "the rope has been tampered". Now, out of character you know whats going on because you complained about the situation.

Yes, your example sounds crazy, the DM should be shot...BUT, sometimes player don't know what they are doing by arguing with the DM. Then the DM has to explain why and it ruins the encounter. Not everything is as it seems.

Is it not the purpose (or part thereof) of D&D for the players to be given surprises and challenges to make it fun. To have them work as a team to accomplish the goal or task. What fun would it have been for the whole party to walk across a trapped slippery bridge as if they were walking on a paved city walkway? Sounds boring to me!

The player(s) should wait an see what happens, then complain(if need be) at the right moment.

 

[WizarDru]

Call me crazy, if you will, but I thought the point here was to have fun. When such issues arise in my game (and I have no problem with my players questioning an issue politely), we stop, briefly review it, possibly discuss it for a moment and then I make a ruling and we move on. If there is a disagreement, I still make a ruling, and we decide to research it more in depth....LATER.


This isn't a game of player-versus-DM, at least not to me. I enjoy challenging my players, who look to me to provide encounters, NPCs and stories to excite their imagination and give them a chance to both kick butt and marvel at a shared story. I think Shallown made an excellent point: there must be trust. I have to trust my players, and they have to trust me.

I think this issue is as much about communication as it is about the actual incident. The player felt that he should have been able to reasonably perform the task in question, and the DM had already set a (IMHO reasonable) DC for the task. However, I think the whole situation could have been avoided if maybe Gallo22 had described the failure in a different light (assuming he didn't). Perhaps he needed to emphasize more how the PC almost suceeded at his task.

That the player demanded to know the DC is problematic, but not totally unreasonable. However, the books are a reference, not absolute law, IMHO.