D&D General I need a D&D counseling session! Help! (Re: Update ("Argument-Stopping Protocols" -- please advise!))

[Man in the Funny Hat]

A "similar" document that I wrote for comparison:

Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

The DM is indeed in charge but the way the OP is phrasing it makes it sound like the players are there only to serve the DM's entertainment, rather than it actually being far more the other way around - the DM is there first and foremost to provide entertainment for the players. That's supposed to be fun for you as DM. The one thing the DM is NOT supposed to exercise reckless authority over, however, is the player characters. The PC's are overwhelmingly the domain of the players. Players are PARTICIPANTS in the exercise, not SUBJECTS of the exercise. Yes the DM has final authority - even to the extents that you say. But just say that AS DM you have the final word and leave it at that. And rule two only repeats the substance of rule one. DM has final authority. All well and good. LEAVE IT AT THAT.

It's a new one on me that "emotional serenity" would need to be called out in a written set of table rules. It suggests not just that you have ONE player who lets in-game setbacks get to them disproportionately in the real world and simply address it when and IF it comes up, but that it is FREQUENT enough that you need to have everyone reminded about it ahead of time.

Insisting that players not even comment on the DM's high rolls is what I would describe as, "being controlling," and is something I would consider a red flag regarding the DM that insisted on it. I would suggest that if the DM is aggravated by snide comments about rolling suspiciously too well then it is because the DM has not established or has LOST the confidence of the players to run a fair and reasonable game with respect to the dice. Certainly a D&D game should not need to be treated like going through screening with the TSA where you can't even JOKE about certain things because: reasons. Really, this alone would make me consider VERY seriously as a player whether participation was going to be worth it.

A DM that goes to lengths to specifically arrogate to themselves the right to retcon anything at any time to any degree for any reason you like, but effectively says the players would CERTAINLY never actually have even the option of requesting such a thing, is again, something that as a player I would consider a red flag.

Though rule nine says it's okay to correct the DM about rules the rest of the rules make it seem like it is FAR from okay to question the DM at any time. Even before getting to the "argument protocols" rules it's abundantly clear that players are ENTIRELY subordinate at the table and that they should FEAR ever questioning the DM or objecting to how they're handling the game. Despite rule thirteen saying that the DM "will aim for a gentle, moderate tone when correcting/redirecting players" the tone and actual statements throughout the rest of this document suggest that this would be ANYTHING BUT that. Rather than being encouraging and light about goof-ups, the overall suggestion is that the DM is more likely to be needlessly stern and authoritarian and react badly to any perceived questioning or criticism no matter how gently phrased by players.

It is... weird that it addresses players being tired. I can only assume that this is a particular issue with an individual at the table at the moment and not something that really needed to be addressed in terms of standing Table Rules for all to be warned about and cautious of. Addressing issues regarding A particular player is best done person-to-person and not passive-aggressively by table rules. Unless this actually IS a chronic issue at the table for some reason...?

Regarding "due process"; not even Gygax should have been handling things in the way that he often handled them, much less advised others to do likewise. In particular - keep out-of-game issues OUT OF THE GAME. If there are real-world personal issues to be addressed you're just being a passive-aggressive jerk by handing out Gygaxian punishments to a PC. In the game, actions by PC's should certainly have consequences, as should out-of game actions - but keep them separate.

I'd also suggest that if you don't want rules lawyers don't hand them a sheaf of courtroom laws about procedures for objection and appeal. It's one thing to say, "If you have objections, please state them concisely and then accept the DM's ruling and save ARGUMENTS about the rules and rulings for later whenever possible." It's another to hand them an extensive set of written procedures for even MENTIONING something. Just don't then be annoyed if they act even more like lawyers. Better remove from your Table Rules all those rules that suggest that players simply accept your rulings at face value in good faith if you're actually telling them at length how to acceptably behave like rules lawyers.

In my linked document above I initially suggested that it might be good to have players read it and sign it. I never felt like that was going to be needed in my own group. I included that more for those groups that would adopt a similar set of rules (if not mine) and which actually need to RE-establish some reasonable level of trust and understanding among themselves, whether because they never had it or had lost it. But I removed it because I felt it again sent the wrong message.

You want players to stick to your house rules because they make sense and because they WANT to be good players and just may not have put the same amount of time into thinking about certain aspects of things as you have. You don't want to hold their signature over their heads as whip to help keep them in line - they shouldn't want to get "out of line" in the first place. But, these kinds of table rules are written out simply to remind them of where the line really is - not to actually be a tool to CONTROL them. Don't beat them over the head with, "Comply! Comply or be cast out ye heathen! COMPLY OR BE BURNED AT THE STAKE!"

Most of all you don't want to use this kind of document as a whip or control tool aimed at ONE particular player. Again, address out-of-game issues out of the game, and apply appropriate consequences for PC's in-game actions IN the game rather than take it as a personal affront to be addressed out-of-game.

 

[Longspeak]

I would not sign this. I understand there is history in your group, but so much of it seems angry and confrontational, it taints even several of the valid points. If I was a new player and presented with this to sign, I would nope out before finishing reading all the rules.


Also, threads like this and the one which spawned this make me ever so thankful. I've had some problem players, GMs and co-players in my day. But... man... I see that I could have had it a lot worse.

 

[Charlaquin]

First, thanks for everyone's feedback, even those who felt off-put.

Context: it's not a school club, it's a house game of adults ranging from 20s to 50s. We just call it the "D&D Club."

I admit that the language is hard and confrontational and wounded (non-secure) in places, because I have felt repeatedly chafed and crazed by certain experiences. It came to a head this week, and I felt I was living in a crazening co-dependent DM's nightmare.

These Table Rules were a first draft, which I may (and probably should) further hone, thanks to your suggestions. I haven't yet shared it with the other members of the group (beyond my problem-player), and it makes sense to tone down and streamline some of the wording.

Yet I'm hoping that this ultra-frank draft will sink into the player's memory, because the player has a tendency to forget things, and to renege on agreements, and we repeatedly fall back into difficult dynamics.

I'm sorry to say: there's a reason why each point is there.

This was my attempt to salvage the group, by making a frank inventory of my sore spots, and presenting it in an actionable way.

In regard to the parts of Rule Zero which chafed the most readers in this thread:

The DM can make up rules on the spot, fudge the dice, repeatedly change rules, alter a monster's hit points and stats on the fly, retcon the story, switch to a different rules system, and even modify your character's traits, stats, and features!

Well, I have not been that way as a DM -- if you read some of the other, nicer table rules, you'll see my more usual tenor. Yes, if that was the invitational document to a new player, I can see how it'd be daunting and off-putting...yet at this point, this document is more a "medicinal" antidote and "wake-up call" directed to this specific player. The intense wording is a countermeasure, to moderate the opposite expectation--for the past year, the player has expected me to bend and sway to entertain his wishes.

For example: I told the table that I want to play 5E RAW. I wanted to spend 6 months running a straight RAW campaign, so that I have that as skill-set, and then at the end of the 6 months, I'd be open to considering new house rules, or switching to another RPG system.

So, a day or two later, the player calls me and says he saw a cool Youtube video where the DMs recommend giving out bonus feats as story rewards. At the end, he's like: "So, are you up for that?" I was like: "That's cool, but no, I'm playing RAW". And he got angry. He can't take "No" for an answer.

He was like: "But you gave us other stuff, like letting us become Knights of the White Dragon and Saints of Namyats, and we received titles from the Harpers and Lords' Alliance." I was like: "I'm glad you enjoyed those. But that's story! There were no mechanical benefits. But a bonus feat is a big mechanical boon. Gaining a feat is really rare in 5e." He didn't know what Factions and Renown was -- and he thought that those are commensurate to receiving bonus Feats. He was disappointed that I wouldn't hand out Feats as treasure, like I handed out titles for Faction rewards.

If I say "no", he pouts, and grumbles about me being a stingy, un-free, box-minded, linear DM. (At the same time, last summer, I invented a freeform LARP version of D&D which he enjoyed playing -- somehow he forgets that. But now I want to play 5E RAW.)

As for emotional serenity. He gets disturbed and has nightmares afterward. He grits his teeth and yells loudly in anger when he rolls low or makes a mistake. Which is a bummer.

At some point in the Phandelver adventure, I got tired of coddling his party with kid gloves. (At that point, we were playing one-on-one, since we hadn't found other players yet.)

So I resolved to play Cragmaw Castle with my very best monster tactics.

SPOILER ALERT:

So he went up to the side door and found it locked. He was running multiple characters, one of which is a thief, with proficiency in lockpicks. But he said: "Well, I guess there's no other way than through the front gate." Long story short: after a long attricious fight in the entryway, one thing led to another, and the doppleganger drew him into the central room...where he was surrounded by dozens of goblins + the big boss and his pet, and the doppleganger. And his entire party was felled. Total Party Loss. I played it totally straight.

Two characters made their death saves and were made slaves of the Cragmaw boss. I was ready to move on -- I was planning to pick up a Slavers adventure. But he was like: "I don't have time to make up a new character! I didn't sign up for this!" I'm like: "You didn't sign up for the possibility of your characters dying in D&D?!"

He was emotionally bent out of shape. So basically, I felt I was at the mercy of his wishes and emotions and distress - like I'm just there to entertain him and make sure that his PCs don't die, no matter what. So I let him replay Cragmaw Castle, and retconned the previous TPL to be a dream-sequence.

And I even flat out told him: "Okay, for the rest of this adventure, so let's just play that your characters can't die." And he was happy with that. And I even said: "If you don't like how a scene went, you can either replay the scene, or just retcon it yourself, and tell me how the story actually went." haha - I thought was being pretty generous as a DM. But seriously, I was trying to be 'therapeutic' when faced with some major emotional troubles.

In regard to the Cragmaw TPL, he even admitted later that "I was testing you to see how far I could go."

***
Last adventure, I just gave up, and decided to fulfill his wildest dreams. He had repeatedly griped that he should have a +2 weapon by now (he was 4th level), and that since the Lost Mine of Phandelver is rumored to have a magical forge, then the module is dumb for not having magic weapons lying around, and that I should change whatever magic weapons are in the adventure so that it matches his own character (e.g. instead of a magic sword, it should be a magic pole arm -- which is not a terrible idea, but I simply prefer to play the module-as-written, like I did back in the old days of BECMI. And he doesn't like it.)

Anyway, for the final room of the Lost Mine, I filled the treasure room with 101 magic items, including a vorpal sword, and all the specific magic items he'd asked for (ring of protection, cloak of protection, girdle of giant strength, etc).

Result? As I read the list off, the player's face drooped and he became emotionally distressed. He was totally unhappy. Afterward he said he "hated that", and said I was being "vindictive". I was like: "Vindictive is a strong word. My jest was no more intense than your repeated griping."
***
Another example: he would get angry that I don't accept his proposed changes to the class features of his character (to make them more powerful) -- for example, he wanted me to house-rule that a Fighter could take more than one Fighting Style, and switch between them, from round to round. I'm like: "Dude, I told you I want to learn to play RAW." And he pouts and gets angry, and labels me as being "constrictive of player freedom."

He'll read some article online, and then swear by it. Even though he hasn't read the PHB or DMG himself. Ever since he read someone who questioned the presence of traps in D&D, he wants me to delete all traps from D&D adventures. I'm like: "Dude, it's D&D! There are going to be traps!" He portrays me as a crotchety DM for not going along with his wish that there be no traps in D&D!
***
In regard to Shield Master. He made up a character with Shield Master feat- and before the character entered play I ruled for the latest (revised) Sage Advice on that feat; but he pouted and wouldn't play that character. Then, as a sop, I wrote up a new ruling which salvaged the original (pre-revision) Sage Advice, but required the Shield Master to actually follow through with their declared attack (no matter what), if they took the bonus Shove before the attack. He didn't like that, and so he wrote his own version.

I even provisionally agreed to the intent of his Shield Master hack, but when I asked for clarification about his wording, it all unraveled. He offered various explanations: "If I fail on the Shove, I suffer Disadvantage to attack that creature for the rest of this turn, or maybe there'd be four different degrees of success or failure on the Shove." He suggested that we playtest the various proposals. I became frustrated with the lack of firmness and contour. And didn't relish drawing it out even further by a playtest. I said that if we are going to totally homebrew the Shield Master feat, ideally we would first gather all the various online hacks of the feat which others have written, so as to see ways others have done it, as due diligence. But he lightly dismissed this as being uncreative, saying: "We should just trust our own creativity." This happened a couple days ago. We had spent months wrangling over this feat, just because he wouldn't really accept either of the Sage Advice rulings which I adopted.

At the same time as he was proposing these changes in how feats and fighter styles work, he didn't even know the rules well enough to roll ability scores. His character had a wild array of numbers: like several 18s and 17s, and some like 3s or 4s (or something like that). I was like: "What method did you use to roll up your character?" And he was like: "d20s."

At the same time, he was busting my chops for not going along with his proposals to change the RAW . He seems to think that just because he read it online, and he thinks it's a good idea for his character (i.e. makes his character more powerful), then it's ingeniously inspired, and I should adopt it. And that I'm a mephistophelean gear-head for trying to play the RAW.

In hopes of salvaging things, I recently announced that I'm starting a new campaign, where everyone is going to start on a level playing field. Partly because, when we first started playing, he would roll multiple sets of ability scores, and choose the highest. And I have another player whose character has suspiciously high scores (IIRC, the scores are all 14 or higher) So I wanted to head off that temptation. So I was like: if you want bring an old character into this new campaign, I need you to redo their ability scores using the Standard Array or Point Buy. But he was like: "I rolled an 18 for the druid, and I don't want to give it up."

That blew my fuse. I felt I could literally not make any rulings or table parameters without being endlessly challenged and pushed and prodded.

I said: "Well, photocopy the sheet, and keep its stats for use in another campaign."

But I went to bed feeling like I was trapped in a crazed codependent DMs nightmare.

The next morning, I wrote up and sent the Twenty Table Rules. Which was just yesterday.

So you see I'm still in the thick of some tumult - that is why some of the wording is too hard and harsh.

You guys are right that this player-constellation may not be salvageable. These "Twenty Table Rules" are really a last-ditch effort, in hopes that my dynamics with this player would truly and lastingly change.

Lastly, believe it or not, we are best friends. His wife warned me that he has emotional trouble when playing games. That is something to consider.

Well, I've gone and "aired the laundry" in public, and "called out the cavalry" in this thread.

-Travis

Frankly, if all this trouble is focused around one player, I think a far better solution than creating this in-depth document of rules for everyone at your table to read and sign, would be to tell the problem player they’re no longer welcome to play in that game. I understand he’s your friend - your best friend, as you say. But clearly his participation in the game is seriously harming your enjoyment of the game, and I would be very surprised if it wasn’t similarly harming the other players’ experiences as well. I know how hard it can be to have to tell a friend that they just aren’t the right fit for your D&D group (some DMs won’t run games for friends at all for this very reason). But in this instance I think it’s necessary. It doesn’t mean you can’t be friends, it just means that your gaming styles are not a good match.

 

[Lanefan]

Though I wouldn't be 100% in agreement with all of it, @Man in the Funny Hat 's 'manifesto' is far better worded in terms of "we're all in this together" tone than that of the OP.

The only point I'll raise here about it is that the last two clauses (#22 and #23 I think) seem almost in direct disagreement with each other. One says in effect "here's what you can't do with your PC" and the next says in effect "your PC is yours to control and do with as you like". Were it me, the latter would trump the former.

 

[jasper]

If you need 20 rules for your table, you just need a new group.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Though I wouldn't be 100% in agreement with all of it, @Man in the Funny Hat 's 'manifesto' is far better worded in terms of "we're all in this together" tone than that of the OP.

And of course it includes notes at the outset that it isn't expected that everyone agree with everything as written therein. It's a starting point for people to work out their own issues, create their own "manifesto" that includes the things that they think need to be mentioned.

The only point I'll raise here about it is that the last two clauses (#22 and #23 I think) seem almost in direct disagreement with each other. One says in effect "here's what you can't do with your PC" and the next says in effect "your PC is yours to control and do with as you like". Were it me, the latter would trump the former.

Well the penultimate one is intended to address what I see as the inexplicable practice of LETTING the game fall apart because of certain otherwise unacceptable choices and actions... and only THEN getting upset about the fallout of that. Example: for no reason and out of the blue a player says, "My character is going to kill the shop keeper." The DM then assumes the shop keeper is dead and there follows hours of arguments and heartache because the player did unacceptable things. Well -I- say that the DM should have stopped the game before assuming the killing actually took place and BEFORE permitting it finding out WHY the player is doing this disruptive thing and if it is determined that it is being done for no good reason but being disruptive, rather than LETTING it disrupt and trying to fix it afterward, simply not letting it happen in the first place. It is common to see DM's wail about, "The players did this and then did that and the whole game fell apart!" Yes, the players are wrong to have done that - but the DM LET them do it while knowing it was pointless and disruptive and is therefore not without blame for the aftermath.

Maybe I should rewrite that one to make that clearer. I haven't touched the thing in general for years.

The last point, of course, I think still stands as is.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

If you need 20 rules for your table, you just need a new group.

And if you need 500 pages of rules from manuals at your table to play your chosen RPG you need a new RPG.

I don't think there's anything wrong with a solid list of table rules. EVERY time you read another post about how this or that game fell apart because someone did one of those things that you read about A LOT, I think at least SOME of those issues could have been prevented or kept under control by a formal set of table rules.

 

[jasper]

Holy Frack you telling me all you are adults. This sounds like a toxic group. It took me twenty years to learn not to play with toxic groups. And long house rules, begging, bribing, or talking with them did not help.
Here is my revision of your rules.
1. I am starting a new campaign raw which is similar to the former campaign but it is entirely my own.
2. Please buy a PHB and know the rules to your pc.
3. 3 minute rule challenge. Then I make a ruling which is effect for the rest of the session. I will research the rule after the session to make sure which one of us is correct.
4. Unless a dead pc is on the floor, all rules flubs, extra damage, etc, stand. I will correct off board the dead pc.
5. No drinking, and keep language PG.
6. Play nice with each other and the dm.
The end.
On number 14 in high school I remember getting yelled at for not playing the module as written. I just flipped two locations.
Also with your you tube player who is testing you. Drop him. Invited him to taco Tuesday and bad video Friday but drop him. I had a toxic player in the early 2000s. When I was dming we butted heads a lot. He was 80% of time challenging me about everything. Strangely he did not do to other dms. I finally total him he was welcome to the house when I was dming but not at table.

 

[Lanefan]

And of course it includes notes at the outset that it isn't expected that everyone agree with everything as written therein. It's a starting point for people to work out their own issues, create their own "manifesto" that includes the things that they think need to be mentioned.

Well the penultimate one is intended to address what I see as the inexplicable practice of LETTING the game fall apart because of certain otherwise unacceptable choices and actions... and only THEN getting upset about the fallout of that. Example: for no reason and out of the blue a player says, "My character is going to kill the shop keeper." The DM then assumes the shop keeper is dead

There's the error.

The DM needs to play out the mechanics, for one thing - get the player to describe what the PC is doing and how, roll the shopkeeper's surprise, roll to hit, all that stuff - if only to give any other nearby PCs or NPCs a chance to react. Somewhere during all this, if it doesn't become apparent through play (IME it often does), a question might be raised as to the character's motivation for doing this - or for doing it now - particularly if it's significantly out of pattern from what the character has otherwise generally done.

That said, "just for the hell of it" is a valid answer to such questions; and of course in-game there probably will be consequences e.g. at the very least being run out of town (along with the party?) as a murderer. Meta-game, if your system has penalties for alignment violation this is where they might make an appearance, unless the PC was already prone to such random acts of violence.

and there follows hours of arguments and heartache because the player did unacceptable things. Well -I- say that the DM should have stopped the game before assuming the killing actually took place and BEFORE permitting it finding out WHY the player is doing this disruptive thing and if it is determined that it is being done for no good reason but being disruptive, rather than LETTING it disrupt and trying to fix it afterward, simply not letting it happen in the first place. It is common to see DM's wail about, "The players did this and then did that and the whole game fell apart!" Yes, the players are wrong to have done that - but the DM LET them do it while knowing it was pointless and disruptive and is therefore not without blame for the aftermath.

Depends on a host of factors, but to me stopping the game is the absolute last tool I'll use as long as things are being done in-character; I'd far rather let things play out, and if that means the PCs end up throwing down against each other then so be it.

(says he, who ten years ago DMed a party selling - well, actually, donating - two of their own members into slavery in response to those two (quite legitimately) reporting the party to the authorities as slavers! The players, through all this, I don't think stopped laughing once; and neither did I - it was just one of those absurd sessions where one thing led to the next until nobody was quite sure how things got to where they ended up. Yet if I-as-DM had stopped the game when I realized the party were actually intent on selling their captives as slaves I'd have denied us all what turned out to be one of the best and most hilarious sessions I've ever seen, along with the memories and stories of that night that are still told to this day.)

 

[Dungeonosophy]

4. Unless a dead pc is on the floor, all rules flubs, extra damage, etc, stand. I will correct off board the dead pc.

Could you unpack this one more? What do you mean by correcting off board?

BTW, that's a great and helpful condensing you did - thanks!