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

[ShadowRaven]

You now what. I think this is hitting a point where it's time we all mutually agree to disagree and shut our metaphorical 'pie holes' and quit the argueing

 

[Shadowslayer]

You now what. I think this is hitting a point where it's time we all mutually agree to disagree and shut our metaphorical 'pie holes' and quit the argueing

Best idea I've heard all day. The bases have pretty much been covered.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

One player approached me about joining the game and indicated that he wanted to play a chaplain character.

Couldn't he just take the Religious occupation? You're allowed to be a soldier and a priest.

 

[happyelf]

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.

Yeah, I think the player's behaviour and reaction to the issue is a bit problematic. To me, that really tips the scales and IMO makes the OP's concerns quite reasonable. Sure, people have bad days, but this could also signal further problems. Elephant notes that he hesn't seen the player as a problem in previous games, so that's promising. I think the best bet is for him to wait and see, but I don't see any reason for him to compromise his position or offer further concessions on the guidelines he's set out, at least until he's conferred with the group.

 

[Barak]

Couldn't he just take the Religious occupation? You're allowed to be a soldier and a priest.

Well yeah, that's one of the definitions of chaplain. But the point Shaman was making was that such a character wouldn't really work on the game, since they do not go on missions/patrols with units, but remain at the basecamp and do their thing there. Which would sucks as a player.

As a matter of fact, one of the characters in the game is a doctor, and that's about as far as you can go without totally breaking the suspension of disbelief. Because even small units have medics, if not full doctors. But.. A 5 men unit with a chaplain?

 

[the Jester]

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

Whatever.

Well, my apologies if I came across as sarcastic or offensive or anything- I really tried not to. It just sounds like you're convinced that your style of gaming is the "best" way. I think it might be the best way for you, but not for everyone.

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

Now I call that fair advice.

I do think you have a point, in that player input can really improve a campaign. I just think we differ as to where and how much player involvement. I don't think that it is the place of the players to set the "ground rules"; that's the dm's province. The players are welcome to offer input within the context of those ground rules.

But enough of all that.

 

[The Shaman]

Couldn't he just take the Religious occupation? You're allowed to be a soldier and a priest.

Not in the French Army - French chaplains were not members of the armed forces due to the constitutional separation of church and state.

Even if I ignored the historical aspect, there simply was no plausible in-game reason for a chaplain to be accompanying the same section over and over in the field. There are only two adventures in the campaign - Musketeer (the Anglo-French attack on Suez in 1956) and Ghosts of the Sahara (Operation Ecouvillon in Western Sahara in 1958) - in which a chaplain could reasonably expect to be found alongside the paras in action.

It also monkeys with the adventure dynamics to have a non-combatant character - it requires me to add another NPC to their section to make up for the missing legionnaire. We already had a combat medic who was outside the normal structure of the section - even if I could justify including the chaplain, that would mean that a fire team nominally of five paras would have only two player characters. Structuring the encounters to give the players the best opportunity to work together would pretty much go out the window.

For both setting and metagame reasons, the chaplain was not a good character concept for this campaign.

 

[Shadowslayer]

Ok Jester, I'll make peace.

I'm curious about something though (and genuine curious, not snarky curious) where I ever even wrote what my "style" is. I never actually voiced that anywhere.

I just think its interesting how sometimes these threads deteriorate because of assumptions. (maybe assumptions carried over from other threads?)

In fact my/our games have never been "wide open". They're actually closer to core-only. But there seems to be an assumption that if the group itself comes up with the guidelines, rather than the DM, then it's a wide open game. (or kitchen-sink game as some have called it)

Just curious where this assumption comes from. Cuz it sure isn't from me.

 

[LostSoul]

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

Hmm, I guess I was mostly responding to your last statment, which I thought was unfair. Turns out I was being unfair! Sorry man.

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

I think that's interesting. Why would it fall on one of the guys in the group more than another?

I see it this way: your group has decided to empower the DM, giving him the ability to say No. Which is cool.

I don't see a problem coming up if a group doesn't give this power to the DM necessarily - I think the entire group could come to a consensus on what's cool for the game and what isn't. (The way I see it, that's what they've done anyway, by saying that the DM has that control.)

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

I have no idea. I don't play in your game! If I did, we'd have to sit down and hash something out.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Not in the French Army - French chaplains were not members of the armed forces due to the constitutional separation of church and state.

I didn't know that

It was the non-combatant angle that caught me. I don't know why someone couldn't design a fighting priest. (Alternatively, a Charismatic Hero who tries to inspire his buddies with religious fervor. I mean, I've done that with NPCs!)