[Rant] Oh. My. God. He said no!

[dcollins]

You know, this thread just made me realize something about the whole "do you let PCs die?" debate.

I started playing D&D when I was like 10, and since I had the rulebook, I always DM'd. At the time, everyone just rolled up statistics for their characters (no "deep roleplaying" existed at that time), and it never even occured to me to change or hide dice rolls (no such thing in the rulebook).

Every single one of my friends lost their first character in their first gaming session. In hindsight, this was a good way to start for several reasons: (a) they lost little of value, since they only spent ~15 minutes creating the character, (b) it challenged and intrigued them to make a new character and try again and do a better job playing the game, and best of all (c) everything after that looked like a great success in comparison, even if a PC died down the line at some point.

The one thing I can draw from this is maybe there's a great advantage to starting off a campaign in one of those "static dungeons waiting for treasure hunters", which is playable by a sequence of PCs if early ones get killed, instead of some plot-based adventure where it's difficult to shoehorn new PCs in if they fail at some point.

At any rate, there was a time long, long ago when players didn't think to get upset even if you had a TPK right off the bat.

 

[Maggan]

Oooops!

Thats so stupid.

So you never make a mistake, or forget things, ever?

What a power-tripping arrogant ********!

I'm surprised you have any players.

Geoff.

Did you forget a smiley there? Or are you actually, seriously calling me a power-tripping arrogant whatever?

If the second is true, I think your comment is unwarranted, and mean spirited.

Of course I make mistakes. Of course I forget things. I'm only human.

The friggin point is that the group has an understanding on what goes. And what doesn't. So we avoid power tripping, or bouts of immaturity from players who refuse a rules call.

There's a difference between rules lawyering and gently reminding me of a rule.

At conventions, sure it's a power trip. I only run adventures I write myself, and I'm not spending five hours of my time at a convention DMing a group I don't like. I want to have fun, and if they don't provide that, they're out. And so am I.

Are you surprised I have any players? Then you'll be surprised to hear that I've arranged and ran some of the most popular (by sheer numbers of players and DMs) adventures for several different system at conventions here in Sweden for about 15 years. Actually, the house rule originated at convention play, just because we had to give the DMs a tool to manage unruly groups.

And you will be surprised that I have players at my table, not only regulars, but regulars who appreciate my style of DMing.

Running a tight ship does not mean being mean to the players. It means being fair to yourself, and setting a limit to what you can stand, before you abandon the game.

I stop when players levels rules lawyering at me.

If that makes me a power-tripping arrogant whatever, then so be it. I stand tall at my table, and I expect players to respect that.

Excuse me for the tone of this post, but I must say I was hurt by your post.

Sincerely

Maggan

(to get back on topic, btw. Do you think I would be wrong to teach "Bob" a lesson my way? Or do you think it is less arrogant just booting him from the group? I know what I think, and I wouldn't boot him. I'd give him a chance, but also point out what goes and what doesn't. And I'd involve the group. I don't see what's so controversial with that. You might do oterwise, of course)

 

[Kyramus]

1) I'd boot bob. he doesn't run the game you do.
2) to state an outcome other than what was in effect, doesn't meant it would happen.
3) choices make/unmake the man/character. they all chose to follow his lead, death occurred, end of story.
4) bicker bicker whine whine, BOOT.

 

[Forrester]

Re: Running a tight ship

If a player throws rules at me to prevent something from happening, I allow the change. Then, two minutes later the PC dies in a horrible and random and totally pointless encounter (like spontaneous combustion, or very accurate dragonbreath attacks, or a peasant with a grudge and a scythe, or anything humiliating. And unrelated to the adventure).

That way the player gets the satisfaction of changing the game as he wishes, and gets to feel a little bit smug about it, and then his PC dies. Horribly. Makes the shock all the greater.



Player: "But... I... I..."
DM Maggan: "Yes, do you want to call another ruling?"
Player: "Erm... actually no. Never again."

Works wonders at conventions.
Maggan

It may work wonders at conventions full of Swedes, but in general I think this is a pretty stupid way to handle the situation. In-game is in-game, out-of-game is out-of-game. I don't want my players taking in-game conflicts out of game, or vice versa. For that reason, the DM should not try to solve out-of-game problems (like player rules lawyering) in-game, especially if your "solution" is random character death.

Unless you're playing Paranoia, of course.

Better to politely tell the player to just back off, you're running things here, he isn't. And take it from there.

Forrester

Was that fast? Or is Sweden just a very small place?
--from The Quick and the Dead

 

[Maggan]

So this is suddenly about me? Nice!

It may work wonders at conventions full of Swedes, but in general I think this is a pretty stupid way to handle the situation. In-game is in-game, out-of-game is out-of-game. I don't want my players taking in-game conflicts out of game, or vice versa. For that reason, the DM should not try to solve out-of-game problems (like player rules lawyering) in-game, especially if your "solution" is random character death.

Unless you're playing Paranoia, of course.

Wow, now this thread is about me, and how awful and stupid my approach to things are. Cool. Or not.

But I liked this reply from you, Forrester, lot better than Geoff's earlier. But I still don't like the way the word "stupid" is thrown around in this discussion. It's so easy for someone to take that word as an insult, even if you phrase it with "I think it's stupid...".

Oh, well.

For me a game is a game. I don't require full immersion by my players at any time, that's just my style. So in-game and out-of-game tends to be meshed. Which, incidentally, is what I believed is the way most people play. I might be wrong though, it might just be here in Sweden it works like this.

And from that follows that I use whatever means available to me to make sure the group have a good time, in-game and out-of-game. And contrary to what you think, it works.

And that means killing PCs at a whim, or telling someone to shut up if they are blubbing when I or someone else speaks, or fudging the rolls if I want to, or smacking someone if the lean to close to the DM Screen. Or whatever.

I mean, what is more disruptive to a session and to a group, a player arguing with the DM halting the game, or a player reprimanded and the game then continuing (with or without that player)?

And the PC death is far from random. The way the PC dies might be random, but the death is far from random. Mess with the DM, transgress the rules of conduct to much, and your PC dies. Simple, non-random.

But I feel that you are making too much of my little advice here. It is a tongue in cheek solution, that works as long as people are informed of it before play starts. And I think the original poster would have had less problems with "Bob" had he used some of my approach to the matter. Call it a preemptive rule, if you will.

Or, to lend a Hackmaster term, a grudge rule.

At least, with my solution, you point to the problem, and adress it, leaving an option for the player to remain in the game. Of course, it's a bit cruel, but then after you sit through a lot of DMing at conventions, you develop a tendency towards a cruel, unforgiving style. Try it, it might be fun.

And to put this little discussion in perspective, if we are to follow the vote of the majority in this thread, we should boot the guy ("Bob") out of the door. Some even suggested killing him. Is that a better solution?

And are those solutions really less stupid solutions?

As an aside, I have had to use this rule once. Once. One time. When I read your horrified condemnation of my style of DMing, I feel like a killer DM, and begin to suspect that I should switch from heavy intrigue based investigation roleplaying to... let's say... Hackmaster.

But alas. I'm a soft guy at the core. I will still ask my group what they think, and I will still tell them what I think, and we will still play without anyone rules lawyering, because we have agreed that we don't like that. And if anyone ever forgets... it makes for a fun moment for the others. And for me.

And as long as we're having fun, I don't think our approach is stupid.

Cheers

Maggan

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

They decide it's time to run, but "Bob" (in an amazingly blatant act of metagaming) convinces the rest of the group that I'd never let them die here and they turn back into the fight.

This alone is worthy of a big DM-smackdown. Sigh. Idiot player.

 

[Cedric]

I'd drop Bob like 3rd period French

 

[coyote6]

Re: So this is suddenly about me? Nice!

But I feel that you are making too much of my little advice here. It is a tongue in cheek solution, that works as long as people are informed of it before play starts.

I think the disagreement may be partially a misunderstanding; if everybody knows up front what your reaction to "rules lawyering" will be (and, of course, knows what constitutes "rules lawyering" to you!), you do it in a tongue-in-cheek, fairly lighthearted way, and everybody's on board with that, that's one thing.

OTOH, if you just do it out of the blue, with little, no, or poorly defined warning beforehand (e.g., you say "rules lawyering gets it", but it isn't clear what is "rules lawyering" in your eyes), it sounds like petty one-upsmanship. Which, IME, rarely works, in gaming or other areas of life; it tends to just infuriate people, and furious people don't communicate well. And ya can't game without communication, right?

As for the actual topic. I of course don't know the whole scoop, but it sounds like Paradoxish is handling this fairly well. He's not flying off the handle, at least.

I do certainly hope the problem player's name isn't really "Bob", 'cause he sounds like a blight on all of us Bobs.

 

[DDK]

Re: "One move and the idiots get it!"

You have been the subject of a gambit that I call "One move and the idiot gets it!" (Well, actually I call it something unprintable, which you will be able to guess if you have seen the movie Blazing Saddles. But we have to take care of Eric's grandmother's delicate sensibilities.) And you have responded correctly.

On a totally unrelated note to the threads topic, I'd like to say that I totally adore this movie

"Telegram for Mongo! Telegram for Mongo!"

"See this hand?", "Steady as a rock...", "Yeah... but I shoot with this hand..."

"It's HEDLEY, not HEDDY!"

"Oh, de camptown racetrack five miles long, doo da, doo da..."

"Pie FIGHT!"

"We dun need no steenkin' badger!"

"I love a happy ending..."

Mel Brooks is a legend

 

[Maggan]

True

I think the disagreement may be partially a misunderstanding; if everybody knows up front what your reaction to "rules lawyering" will be (and, of course, knows what constitutes "rules lawyering" to you!), you do it in a tongue-in-cheek, fairly lighthearted way, and everybody's on board with that, that's one thing.

OTOH, if you just do it out of the blue, with little, no, or poorly defined warning beforehand (e.g., you say "rules lawyering gets it", but it isn't clear what is "rules lawyering" in your eyes), it sounds like petty one-upsmanship. Which, IME, rarely works, in gaming or other areas of life; it tends to just infuriate people, and furious people don't communicate well. And ya can't game without communication, right?

True, and spoken with clarity and insight.

But I'm sad to say that even though I try to be the person you describe first, I sometimes turn into the second person.

Don't we all?

But then again, that's life. We're only human after all, and there's no use denying that. Players and DMs alike make mistakes.

And sometimes that mistake is punishing someone for making a mistake. And sometimes that is not a mistake.

Cheers and good night. I should have been in bed hours ago.

Maggan