When Players don't respect the DM's rules - Help!

[Shadowslayer]

I love how the otherwise mild anti-authoritarian streak among a lot of gamers explodes into this "Down With the Man!" attitude in these threads. Really, I do. I love the loaded language (like "ramrodded") that gets used, I like the flase emphasis employed to make it seem like the GM/DM is some kind of ogre for wanting a game that's controllable, which is especially important for a new DM...like Elephant, say. This isn't a 'control' issue, nor is Elephant being some sort of iron-fisted dictator.

I've GM'ed for most of my 20 year gaming history, and the lesson I've seen repeated again and again is don't bite off more than you can chew. A first-time/inexperienced DM is perfectly within their rights to lay out the house rules - things like a core-only game, for example. This is neither unreasonable nor dictatorial. Maybe when they pick up the rules better, it's reasonable to introduce extra rules beyond Core. But at the beginning? Get outta town.

Folks like you, Shadowslayer, seem to expect the DM to roll over and blithely accept kitchen-sink games, even though it's pretty well-established that a lot of kitchen-sink games are a PITA to adjudicate, let alone keeping track of the rules that players introduce. Even myself, as an experienced GM, got to 'enjoy' the horror of a kitchen-sink game and what effect broken or untested rules have. It wasn't fun for me, and it was only fun for the powergamers and min-maxers at my table, which left half the group scrambling for an even playing field, which ended up wrecking the campaign.

In the meantime, for Elephant's critics, I direct you here:

http://sean.chittenden.org/humor/www.plausiblydeniable.com/opinion/gsf.html

Compromise, it's said, is everyone giving up something so nobody's happy. Listening to player wants is one thing; letting them wreck the game and make things difficult for the DM is another entirely. And that, IMO, is what kitchen-sink games do most of the time.

I'm not sure how "talk it over with the boys" became "Down with the man" but whatever. Also, ramrodded was Elephant's word, not mine. Maybe you should go back and read.

Kitchen sink? Is that the term for an inclusive game? If so, then we're guilty as charged. We have fun. Like I said, D&D isn't rocket science.

 

[The Shaman]

(...some good points that are removed solely for reasons of brevity...).

I don't know that a D&D game is inherently less subject to setting constraints, but since I'm an inveterate homebrewer, it's fairly easy for me to say, "No, doesn't exist, sorry," given that I am THE authority on the game-world. Playing in a published setting with a number of supplements (sometimes a very LARGE number of supplements!) does remove the "easy out" as you say.

Still, it's the game master's call, whether for reasons of setting or campaign management or personal experience or whatever.

It's not like you have to accept the character 100% as he is in order to compromise....Then he says, "Well, what if I..." and finishes with by suggesting a change to his character that solves most of your issues.

Which is in fact what I did - I agreed that a character with strong religious convictions would be an asset, and that perhaps he could consider a character with a different connection to a religious institution, and suggested as a starting point examples such as a former priest or minister who left the church, or someone who was contemplating entering the seminary, et cetera following a stint in the Legion.

In any case, the onus for change was on the player, where, IMHO, it belongs.

And he also suggests a slight change to the campaign that makes the rest of your issues go away.

Like what?

Be specific - what changes would YOU make in this case to make the "rest of the issues go away?"

...brush aside any control issues...

Your repeated use of the phrase "control issues" comes across as a backhand slap at those who choose to limit what material goes into their games.

Wanting to play in an internally-consistent world is not about "control," Shadowslayer - it's about fostering that suspension of disbelief I referred to earlier. Most "kitchen-sink" settings strain my credulity beyond the breaking point with their lack of internal cohesion. It takes me out of the game - I stop seeing the world through my character's eyes, and start seeing it as an encounter table with window-dressing.

 

[Jim Hague]

I'm not sure how "talk it over with the boys" became "Down with the man" but whatever. Also, ramrodded was Elephant's word, not mine. Maybe you should go back and read.

Kitchen sink? Is that the term for an inclusive game? If so, then we're guilty as charged. We have fun. Like I said, D&D isn't rocket science.

Actually, I did, and you use the word as a pejorative, whereas Elephant specifically said that what he didn't want to do.

And "kitchen sink" refers to a game with sourcebooks from all over the place with nary a rhyme or reason, an attempt to shorehorn in every 3rd party supplement that someone wants so they can have their Uber Character. That ain't inclusive, that's madness. There's no oversight beyond the GM, Shadowslayer, so don't try to construct the strawman of "Well, if they don't let every book into the game, it's not fair to the players!" That's a jake argument, and I think you know it.

 

[Chimera]

One problem is the "Core only, anything else, ask me first" policy.

I know, because that used to me my policy. It's a huge pain in the.. err.. neck.

The following is all things that happened to me under said policy.

The quickest solution is "The default answer is No."

I too have a limited setting (houserules, etc). I had a player who was considering all sorts of options. I simply waited him out, then dealt with the combination that he eventually came up with.

We had a bit of a problem with his idea for a second PC, as I felt he was getting too far afield. Eventually we mutually agreed that he wouldn't play a second PC.

If you can't just say no up front, then tell your 'options freaks' that you're too busy to consider their manifesto and you'd like it cut down to a pamplet. Works great for management: "I don't have time to read your report. Give me a summary. Bullet points."

 

[Chimera]

What I'm seeing here is a real disconnect (snip rest)

*stands up and cheers*

Bravo, man. Well said.

 

[Shadowslayer]

Look guys, we're getting into the realm of questioning one another's motives and its not cool. Jim Hague has even done us the favor of trying to put words in my mouth and then thoughts behind my words.

I see I'm the odd man out here. Fine. I'm used to that. But this isn't about supplements or what rules are allowed or disallowed, or the pluses and minuses of my game vs your game.

The bottom line, and the OP even said so, was that he felt he'd been undermined and possibly disrespected. (So yes, Shaman, it apparently IS a control issue...I didn't make it up.) I'm saying if you put it to the group ahead of time, that whole issue becomes a non-issue. My group is proof. Thats it. That's all I'm saying.

Please don't try to translate for me.

I'm done arguing. I have a game to get ready for.

 

[ThirdWizard]

The problem I'm seeing isn't any of the technical stuff. It's that the Player knew that the DM had said Core Only and then blithely ignored it, for whatever reason. He didn't go to the DM and tell him beforehand he would be using non-Core material, and he didn't try to talk to the DM about the non-Core stuff he wanted in. He just did it. That's not right.

He brought up during a session what should have been discussed long before the session started. That is inexcusable. It wastes everyone's time, the DM, the other Players, and his own, with trying to figure out what to do with his problem while the game is going on. That is totally not cool. He is in err there.

Whether or not the DM is within his rights to say Core Only or to enforce a playstyle or whatever is completely unimportant. What is important is that if he had a problem, he should have brought it up long before he did, and since the session is not the time to be discussing this kind of thing, he should have sucked it up and played the NPC and talked about it later.

 

[Chimera]

I'm saying if you put it to the group ahead of time, that whole issue becomes a non-issue. My group is proof. Thats it. That's all I'm saying.

Not trying to argue with you, just telling a different perspective.

When you put it to the group, you lose your vision. Assuming that you had one.

If you have a vision of what kind of campaign you want to run, if it requires certain limitations, then by all means, you should run it. Your "friends" should understand that this is what you want to do and, if they care at all and are less than completely self-absorbed and selfish, they should either give it a go, or give it a pass.

It's the passive-agressive resistance and/or flat out "But I insist on playing a Transvestite Half-Dwarf/Half-Hutt Jedi Hooker in your Dark Sun game and you should let me!" that completely crosses the line and is not something that you should "compromise" about.

Unless you're willing to surrender your vision.

When you always surrender to the lowest denominator, the loudest voice of dissent, then you lose everything. Flexibility becomes Weakness.

Now, there's a difference, of course, if you play with a small group of people and you're always trying to please everyone. Although eventually you might discover that, underneath the superficial pleasantness, some of the people at the table are secretly mourning that they never get to play Game X, or Setting Y, because Big Mouth always gets his way.


Just another way of looking at it.

 

[the Jester]

ANyway, try it my way. I guarantee you a better time and a more cohesive group if everyone gets a say. Provided its a mature group of course.

Wow, so you're saying that if your style doesn't fit another group, they aren't "mature"??

Your "guarantee" is simply a declaration of the style of game that you prefer. It isn't "better" than someone else's game. It doesn't necessarily lead to a more cohesive group. It might for your group, but I think it is a little arrogant to assume that your gaming style is right and others are wrong. I don't want to sound snarky, but perhaps different groups enjoy different styles of games...? I have a group of c. 10 players, and a waiting list of people waiting to get into my game about a dozen folks long, and I severely curtail what options are available from various books.

What, you want to play a goliath? A wu jen? A dragon shaman? You want to use the radiant servant of Pelor prestige class? You want to use the orb spells?

No, no, no, no and no.

Does this make my group "immature?" I don't think so. We've been playing in my current campaign for about a dozen years, and we're still going strong. Some of the pcs have been around since 2ed; hell, some of the npcs have been around since 1e.

To me, the real issue here has barely been touched on: the problem player was dishonest about his second character. If he's starting the game off by lying to the dm in order to make an end run around the already-established character generation rules for the campaign, there can be only trouble on the horizon, imho.

 

[Shadowslayer]

Ok, In the time I've been gone, this has become about style and maturity?

Whatever.

Fine then how's this. "Take my advice, then tell me I'm fulla s* if it doesn't work."

That better Jester?