Problem DM - How Should a Player Handle It?

[Lord Zardoz]

Various statements mostly disagreeing with me

Well, the post was half sarcasm. 'Less Mature' should be read as being anything but. As for the rest.

Ultimateum: Not mature at all.

I disagree. If neither if you will back down, this has the virtue of being very direct. Something about the game is a deal breaker for you. If it keeps happening, you do not play. For the player, you make your point, and everyone will know where you stand. For the DM, at least he is not dealing with a player who complains all the time and disrupts the game for the entire session. You do disrupt whatever is going on at that point, but the rest of the game will proceed just fine unless the game is too short handed to keep running. If the DM no longer wants you back, you do not come back.

Fire May Sue: This will backfire

I assume by that point you have told the DM you do not like the presence of the DMPC. You told him you do not want it there. If the NPC wont leave, and your not prepared to leave the game, what other choices do you have? One of the things I learned early on as a DM is that you do not saddle your players with an NPC they do not want. Also, I am not suggesting a Coup-de-Grace on the NPC as it sleeps. You tell Mary Sue to pack her crap and leave, and then if she does not, you threaten violence. If she still wont go, time to throw down. If the DM refused to back down and your rolling initiative, then things are bad enough that no out of game conversation will fix it. At best, you will force a discussion at the table, and deal with it once and for all. At worst, you get the pleasure of at least attempting to kill the source of your annoyance, and know you ought to find a new game.

Be Inconvenient: It is extremely passive aggressive

Yes, it is. But by this point, you are unhappy and you have already either tried or ruled out probably every other mature option you have. Your not willing to take a walk, and you cannot get the DM to change his mind. This approach is essentially a desperate attempt to create some leverage so you can bargain with your DM. But at least this way, you are not disrupting the plot of the game, and you are staying within the rules of the game.

Play at a right Angle to the Game: Still passive aggressive

I would say it is much less passive and a lot more aggressive. As above, if your at this point, your not really interested in being mature anyway. It does have a few benefits though. For one, you are at least creating your own fun. This is not something I would advocate unless you have the other players on board with you. Essentially, it is an outright player revolt handled in game. Done right, you basically run the train right off the rails, and force the DM to adapt to the players. At the worst case, you get a one or two games out of the DM that are fun, even if they are fun for the wrong reasons. The DM will no longer be having any fun himself (My beautiful, epic story, in ruins!), and then the game will come to an end when the DM gives up, allowing someone else to take over the DM'ing tasks.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Lord Zardoz]

Indeed, the player who offered me that ultimatum wouldn't get a chance to act on it, as I would boot him or her on the spot if out-of-session, and soon after the session ended if not.

Obviously, phrasing is everything. However, there are cases where a problem will not get dealt with until someone forces the issue. And sometimes you cannot effectively force an issue if you keep things between yourself and the DM. As disruptive as it may seem, I would say that the result you describe is better for both parties than having someone stay in a game they are not happy with.

Also, though I did not spell it out directly, I suppose that an Ultimatum approach assumed that you delivered the ultimatum out of game. If the player did show up next game, I would assume that the DM did not boot him on the spot and told that player he would accommodate him. If I told the DM "X has to change or I have to stop playing", and I was still invited to the next game, but X still happened, I would take a walk.

Also, in the interest of not being a total dick, I would assume that if your going to try to deal with an ultimatum of "change X or I walk", that you also let the other players know the situation.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Elf Witch]

There is no magic bullet for this.

If there are issues in the game talk to the DM let him know that you are not having fun. Have examples and try and keep I statements instead of saying you were say I was. This wahy the DM does not feel attacked. Also I thinks it helps the other person see that you want to fix the problem not lay blame.

I also think you should talk to the other players see if they have a problem because sometimes the problem you see may not really be the way you see it. For example you may feel that the DM is making encounters all the time that your character cannot particpate in fully that is your perception. But another person may see it differently and can point out all the times that you character did have the chance to shine. Sometimes you are to close to the problem to see it clearly.

In the end it comes down to being an adult if the problems can not be fixed so that you can enjoy the game then the adult thing to do is to gracefully leave.

I had to do that in the Eberron game I played in. My character was not getting any magic items because the party rogue and druid were stealing them and of course we were never allowed to make a spot check because that would be metagaming. What items they could not use they secretly sold and kept the money for themselves. I talked to the DM and pointed out that as a party we were not even that the two players weath and migic items were higher than for their level and that the rst of us were lower than where we should be at our level.

I also tried talking to the players and pointing out that when the rst of us found out what was going on there was going to be trouble.


The final straw for me was when I realized that the DM didn't care about my fun at all. I had this fantastic bow that did extra damage against elves. In over a year of play time I never encountered one elf until we went up against these drow. We had battled our way through this dungeon and the DM knew I had only two arrows left. I had many shot and I fired both arrows at the one drow cleric. I rolled two natural 20s and then confirmed that crit on both arrows. I rolled this huge amount of damage. I could feel myself grinning like a fool. After a year I finally got the chance to do something cool.

Umm no. The cleric had some magic item that protected him from arrows.

I talked to the DM after the session and he was like well I am sorry but I planned for that cleric to have this magic item if you had attacked one of the others it would have worked. He really could not understand why I was unhappy.

So I left the game. I told the DM that I felt that our playstyles were not in synch and I stayed long enough to let him write out my character.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Obviously, phrasing is everything.

I believe that everyone, whether they know it or not, has "deal breakers" where it comes to games (as well as other types of relationships). It is perfectly fair to say, "This isn't what I want from a game; this is a deal-breaker for me." It is perfectly fair to decide that something is a deal-breaker, and that it makes the game not worth playing. It is perfectly fair -- and mature -- not to compromise on things you believe are "deal breakers". You are under no obligation whatsoever to play in (or run) a game that you are not enjoying.

However, the same is true for everyone at the table, including the DM. There really are cases where what the DM/other players want from the game is incompatable with what you want from the game. There really are cases where what you need "fixed" to make the game work for you is the very reason that everyone else is there. It is equally true that there really are things that need fixing in some games, because they are detracting from everyone's enjoyment -- including the DM's. Sometimes the DM just doesn't know what the problem is, or how to fix it.

Talking about this stuff in a mature manner is, therefore, always valuable.

Damaging the game because you are not enjoying it is not, IMHO, ever valuable. Leaving in the middle of a game is a tactic designed to damage the game, as is an attempt to sabotage the game to "force" an issue. IMHO, when you sit down to play you agree (like the hypocratic oath) "above all, to do no harm" intentionally to the game, no matter what chair you sit in (DM or player).

Violate that agreement, and I have no sympathy for you at all.

(And that is a general "you" that applies to anyone, not "you" in particular.)

RC

 

[Lord Zardoz]

Damaging the game because you are not enjoying it is not, IMHO, ever valuable. Leaving in the middle of a game is a tactic designed to damage the game, as is an attempt to sabotage the game to "force" an issue. IMHO, when you sit down to play you agree (like the hypocratic oath) "above all, to do no harm" intentionally to the game, no matter what chair you sit in (DM or player).

I suppose a lot of this depends on perspective. I freely admit that many of my suggestions are not what I would call good ideas. All of them are made under the pretext that the situation has evolved to a point where the suggestions that make the most sense are not going to be taken. If your DM sucks, you either step up yourself or find a new game. But that is not always an option for whatever reason, especially when the situation has evolved to the point where it is turned into a thread on an internet message board. By that point, I am pretty sure that talking it out has either failed or is just not going to be tried. To my mind, the game is broken. One or more people in the situation is just not inclined to be reasonable.

If you as a player have a bad DM, and your not willing to leave the game, and either will not or can not take over as DM, something has got to give. Leaving mid game is absolutely an escalation and in many cases is not a reasonable response. But by that point, it is no longer a reasonable situation either. You can try to pretend it is, but that wont work out very well. The end point of all of the suggestions I have given is that the game in the form that you find unacceptible ends. Either your DM makes the changes you need, or you get kicked out, or you become the DM, or you start to actually enjoy messing with your DM.

Above all else, the Rule Omega of D&D is that it is meant to be fun. If you are not having fun, your doing it wrong.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Raven Crowking]

If your DM sucks, you either step up yourself or find a new game. But that is not always an option for whatever reason, especially when the situation has evolved to the point where it is turned into a thread on an internet message board.

I admit that I intend to assume that, by the time your situation has become a thread on an internet message board, you probably already know what you should do, and are just seeking some support in doing it.

However, I don't believe that walking away is ever not an option. Better to have no game than to have a game that you are not enjoying.

If you as a player have a bad DM, and your not willing to leave the game, and either will not or can not take over as DM, something has got to give.

Actually, if you as a player are not willing to leave the game, then something has already given. You have. You just might not be willing to accept that you've given. If we accept as a given that communication and resolution is the most desireable outcome, we are free to look at how to proceed when this outcome fails.

Ultimately, when you become certain that the DM in question isn't going to change, you either accept that or you don't. If you accept that, accepting that brings with it the agreement that you aren't going to try to make the game worse. If you don't, you should simply leave the game without attempting to make things worse.

Likewise, if you are a DM and you have a problem player, when you become certain that the player in question isn't going to change, you either accept that or you don't. If you accept that, accepting that brings with it the agreement that you aren't going to try (without any hope of success) to make the game worse for that player to force him to change. If you don't, you should simply ask him to leave the game without attempting to make things worse.

I think that this is a pretty simple principle: If you agree to play, you should always attempt to make the game better. If you do not agree to play, you should leave without making the game worse.

Accepting responsibility for your choices -- good or ill -- can help one make peace with suboptimal choices....at least you know you are getting something out of it, and you can always play with that in mind. (And, if you aren't willing to leave a game, you are getting something out of it.) Also, approaching even a bad game with a good attitude can help make the game better.

And, if you're sticking around, making the game better is what you should be doing, right?


RC

 

[jmucchiello]

Well, the post was half sarcasm.

I realize that. Still, I felt they needed to be addresses seriously.

I disagree. If neither if you will back down,

This is the part that makes Ultimatums immature. We're not talking about a prisoner swap here. No felonies are being committed. It's a game, a social gathering. Everything should be negotiable. Only after talks break down should you get to the point of capitulating or leaving. But your suggestions was skipping the negotiation phase (Or I missed it somewhere.)

One of the things I learned early on as a DM is that you do not saddle your players with an NPC they do not want. Also, I am not suggesting a Coup-de-Grace on the NPC as it sleeps. You tell Mary Sue to pack her crap and leave, and then if she does not, you threaten violence. If she still wont go, time to throw down. If the DM refused to back down and your rolling initiative, then things are bad enough that no out of game conversation will fix it. At best, you will force a discussion at the table, and deal with it once and for all. At worst, you get the pleasure of at least attempting to kill the source of your annoyance, and know you ought to find a new game.

Presumably a DM who saddles the party with a Mary Sue has not learned the lesson you have. Your character will die. A Mary Sue by definition is immune to death and destruction. Now, having a dead PC is a great excuse to leave the game. But I don't think you were looking for excuses to leave the game.

But by this point, you are unhappy and you have already either tried or ruled out probably every other mature option you have. Your not willing to take a walk, and you cannot get the DM to change his mind. This approach is essentially a desperate attempt to create some leverage so you can bargain with your DM. But at least this way, you are not disrupting the plot of the game, and you are staying within the rules of the game.

I think the fun of the other players could be collateral damage to this. Just because the DM is violating the social contract for playing a game doesn't excuse you to do the same.

At the worst case, you get a one or two games out of the DM that are fun, even if they are fun for the wrong reasons. The DM will no longer be having any fun himself (My beautiful, epic story, in ruins!), and then the game will come to an end when the DM gives up, allowing someone else to take over the DM'ing tasks.

Again you are having fun at the expense of someone else's fun, violating the social contract of playing a game. This is not a mature response. If you failed all attempt to right the game that you are left with this choice, not participating is the mature response.

In fact you are attempting to destroy the game. This goes beyond My way or the Highway and straight into Taking Your Ball and Leaving, or If I can't have it, no one can. The important difference in TYB&L is that no one can play if the ball is gone.

This hits home because I've done the game destruction thing in my youth and nothing good came of it. Being older now I see how juvenile it was. We (the rebelling players) should have just quit since other players were fine with playing the game.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

I realize that. Still, I felt they needed to be addresses seriously.
This is the part that makes Ultimatums immature. We're not talking about a prisoner swap here. No felonies are being committed. It's a game, a social gathering. Everything should be negotiable. Only after talks break down should you get to the point of capitulating or leaving. But your suggestions was skipping the negotiation phase (Or I missed it somewhere.)

I was not as direct about it in my initial post, but I tried to make the point in a later post. To be clearer, Ultimatum is not Step 1, assuming your trying to be reasonable to begin with. At some point, if something is a deal breaker though, you put your foot down and live with the consequences.

Also, though I did not spell it out directly, I suppose that an Ultimatum approach assumed that you delivered the ultimatum out of game. If the player did show up next game, I would assume that the DM did not boot him on the spot and told that player he would accommodate him. If I told the DM "X has to change or I have to stop playing", and I was still invited to the next game, but X still happened, I would take a walk.

Yes, I quoted myself. Whohoo!

Anyway jmucchiello, I think the big disconnect between our points of view is that you seem to be interpreting this thread differently. You seem to be trying to find ideal solutions to the problem. I viewed it as what to try after all the reasonable options have failed.

From the very first post:

Whining is counter productive, complaining may prove useless, or the same problems keep happening in spite of talking to the DM in question - so what should they do, except vote with their feet?

In that situation, I think an Ultimatum is the most effective way to vote with your feet, since it does at least create one last chance for the DM to give in. Other than a flat out ultimatum, the only other option is to try to lead a player revolt and subvert the game.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[jmucchiello]

Anyway jmucchiello, I think the big disconnect between our points of view is that you seem to be interpreting this thread differently. You seem to be trying to find ideal solutions to the problem. I viewed it as what to try after all the reasonable options have failed.

No, I'm actively saying that some of your suggestions are more disruptive then just standing up and leaving. Two wrongs don't make a right is where I'm coming from. You don't have the right to give the DM a hard time just because you don't like how the game is going. You can discuss how he could improve his game but if he is unable or unwilling to do this you shouldn't stick around to sabotage the game.

The ideal solution is that the first time you point out his shortfalls as a DM, he smacks his hand on his forehead and utters "what a dink I've been!". This is least likely result of course. But as an adult member of society your only real options are civil discourse or removing yourself from the social gathering. There are few exceptions to this "rule" that are not disruptive, negative and ultimately immature.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

No, I'm actively saying that some of your suggestions are more disruptive then just standing up and leaving. Two wrongs don't make a right is where I'm coming from. You don't have the right to give the DM a hard time just because you don't like how the game is going.

What I will say in response to that is the following:

1) Expecting all sides of any disagreement to act rationally is not an assumption a rational person ought to make.
2) Attempting to act rationally in an irrational situation is not in any way guaranteed to be the most optimal strategy.
3) Bacon is tasty.
4) Adults are indeed permitted to give one another a hard time and hurt each others feelings.
4a) Adults are also held responsible for their actions.

People can and often will get away with exactly as much as the people around them are willing to let them get away with. None of my suggestions are ones I would advocate in anything resembling a rational situation, except perhaps the Ultimatum. And even then, getting up and walking out mid game is the last step of a process that has a few previous points of escalation along the way. Walking out midgame would only happen if the DM basically lies to you about being willing to fix the problem and then does not, or if the DM is enough of an idiot to fail to realize what you were talking about when you described what would cause you to get up and walk away.

If I was to walk out in the middle of a game, it would be of course be rude, and much more disruptive than it needs to be. You will very probably ruin that particular playing session for the rest of the players. You would certainly piss off the DM. You may well find yourself without a group for quite a while as a result of it. On top of that, you run a high chance of damaging some out of game friendships.

However, walking out midgame and carrying out an earlier ultimatum is going to be let the DM know in no uncertain terms what you are no longer willing to let him get away with.

Anyway, I think this would be a good point for us to let this thread get back to its original topic. You and I disagree about what is and is not an appropriate response to a hypothetical situation.

END COMMUNICATION