Hoo boy! This is a doozy. OK, the problems exist on many levels here. I am going to try to snip liberally because this is going to be long as it is.
Morbog of Ghetto D said:
Anyway. Seems to me that the campaign is just getting out of hand with non stop meta gaming, arguments, of all things 2nd GUESSING THE DM!
At the core, this is an issue of trust. The players don't trust that you know what you are doing, or that you won't arbitrarily screw them over, or that you are not interested in running a game that will cater to their desires. Unfortunately, trust is generally earned, not arbitrarily given. This is why it is so important that the first adventure or two of a new campaign are top notch.
As we all know DMing is a thankless job, and requires a big investment in time.
Sadly I have players counting move squares and telling me what i can do and cant do. Of course its all through the players perspective, and they assume that the rules are applied 100% the same for monsters and such.
Well, see this is part of the problem. Why aren't the rules the same for NPCs and PCs? 3.x gives you a great toolkit to twist and break the rules when you need to. Namely in the category of feats. If there is something that is "broken" about your monsters/NPCs, be sure you back it up with a game mechanic that allows it to be "broken". Arbitrarily applying different rules to NPCs than you do to PCs breaks the trust that you know what you are doing, or won't arbitrarily screw over the PCs, or both.
Allow me to reiterate. Apply the rules exactly the same. Just be sure you provide an in-game reason why this particular NPC can twist those rules. Just be prepared for your PCs to look for a way to do the same trick if it was a particularly interesting gimmick.
My response has been a swift dismissal of question or concern, mainly because If I indulge the player, we have 5 arm chair DMs (who have never dmed) hypothessizing about decisions that they arent required to worry about.
Agreed, this is very annoying. Make it a habit of spending a little time out-of-game to address these concerns. Do not dismiss the question, postpone it until a non-game time. Heck, you have a month between sessions? Make a yahoo group and delegate all rules questions to there. This does not mean you need to spill all the secrets in answering them. It can suffice to say "It's a feature of a PrC you are not aware of." Or "There are certain feats that are available which allow something like that. Unfortunately, many of them have a prerequisite of being undead."
Arbitrary secrecy creates distrust. Once your players trust you more, they will question things less.
Im a "narative" minded DM, and several of the players are heavy "mechanical" players.
its to the point where Im saying," Well youre so F%$#@#$% smart why dont you run the game!. Buy the books,paint the leads, draw the maps, create the prestige clasesses..etc.etc.etc.
It sounds like you also have some playstyle differences. Narrative styles do not preclude a strong mechanical understanding of the game. DnD 3.x provides a very strong mechanical baseline. Some deride this as being too video-gamey. Whatever. There is a strong benefit to that baseline in that it provides a baseline that we all begin from. With that baseline in place, you can empower the players by delegating many tasks off to them. Previous editions were a bit more open-ended and it wasn't uncommon for players to develop a habit of arguing their perspective so they can do nifty things. With 3.x, there are the rules. Then there are feats, which can break the rules.
Classic example: You can only use one AOO a round. Combat Reflexes gives you more AOOs if you have a higher dexterity. You have your rule. You have your feat that breaks the rule. If a PC wants to be fast on their feet and always able to take advantage of an opening when an opponent drops his guard, that PC had better have a good dex and take combat reflexes.
They so badly want to apply 2nd edition knowledge, it kills them. especially with "known" monsters. I have therefore started using "non Traditional" monsters, or archetypes. 3.5 rules give old monsters new capabilites as feats... The players just want to know WHY?
My thinking is"well solve this problem in game, and in character. Maybe the PC can research undead types in the church/librabry. Maybe you can seek out a sage?"...It just blows my mind. Especially when a PC is telling me how to run a MONSTER that I CREATED!...
First, you have a copy of each PC right? Including skill bonuses right? Start each encounter with a brief description. Then ask everyone for a d20 roll. If they ask why, and they will, tell them it is for a knowledge check. Remind them that Knowledge skills can't be used untrained. Do
NOT tell them what kind of Knowledge check you are looking for. When they roll, and give you the results, then apply any applicable skill bonuses and tell them what they know about the monster. They may buck the idea initially. "Everyone would know what that is." Why? There is a mechanic in the game to reflect that knowledge. If you want to know what "everyone" would know. Take a rank, or half-rank. One skill point is enough to get you a die roll that would tell you the basics if you roll high enough.
Use odd monsters. Might I suggest the Tiefling template on your trolls? That energy resistance 5 is pretty tasty. Half fiendish is nice as well. Hell, make all your trolls tieflings and make it a campaign element. Is it fair? Maybe not. But it does emphasize how 3.x allows you to easily change monsters.
My plan is as follows.
1. Meta game penalty increased to 1000 Xp or 1 level per offense!!
2. Only use non standard monsters, and change up the old ones
3. Outline at the beginning of the session that NOONE should tell the DM how to run a encounter
4. More closely enforce the "table the argument" till the end of the session...
1 - Nah, if you really feel the need to penalize them, then just don't give them exp for that encounter. But why do that at all? Change your style a little bit and the problem goes away.
2 - Non-standard monsters, templated monsters, monsters with class levels, advanced monsters and the like are all good options. Take it step further though. Stop using monsters entirely. Why not use humanoids? It's hard to metagame what an evil humanoid can do.
3 - Better yet, laugh when they tell you how you should run an encounter. Politely remind them that you are not a video game server and they aren't the DM. You have NPCs that they have not learned the capabilities of yet.
4 - Definitely!
One of my players even called me a M.F.er which is totally out of hand...
Don't invite this player back. Explain that you put in a lot of time and effort into the game and if he can't respect that, you don't need him at the table.
I have had players say similar things to me, but always in the manner of jest. Within one of my circles of friends, when I was younger, we all spoke to each other like that. I occasionally get similar responses from my players. They are always in the same vein as a rat-bastard DM exclamation when I have pulled off something they did not expect. Especially when it was with thier unwitting help and they now have something new to deal with in the game. I have never had a player say something like that and mean it.
To be honest, you hold the solution to many of these problems in your hands. Yeah, that sounds harsh, but it is true. It isn't always fair that the DM has to handle these things. But there you have it.
As a final suggestion, I would encourage you to frankly speak with the players. Tell them how you feel. Tell them why they are wrong about some of the monsters. Tell them that they need to seek ways of applying knowledge in-game and that metagame knowledge will either change the encounter (It's easy to slap a template on something if you need to) or will result in no exp for the encounter. All the risk with none of the reward. Explain that the game isn't you vs them. Then sit back and
listen to what they say. If you are lucky, they will be honest with you and you will be able to quickly determine where the problems stem from. Have a thick skin (Natural Armor bonus of +3 or more) and don't get embroiled in an emotional outburst. If you really want to make your game better, then you need to know what the players really think.
In a land where council is not spelled counsil. 
).
