prosfilaes
Adventurer
der_kluge said:
But why should that matter to the DM? As long as all the players are happy with it, why should the DM get unhappy about whether it's an effective character or not?
When Players don't respect the DM's rules - Help!
- Thread starter Elephant
- Start date
But why should that matter to the DM? As long as all the players are happy with it, why should the DM get unhappy about whether it's an effective character or not?
frankthedm
First Post
Becuase when the DM presents the problems PCs are expected to be able to overcome and the oddball PCs can't, he becomes the badguy who throws "impossible" challenges at the party.prosfilaes said:
Last edited:
Elephant
First Post
IRT Odhanan:
The campaign is the World's Largest Dungeon, so I don't have the option of simply changing out creatures with higher-CR ones without a TON of work - work that I'd rather avoid.
As to allowing non-core stuff, I've tried to be reasonable about approving requests...I don't mind adding new things in modest doses. I do need to know what I'm getting myself into, though.
IRT Kunimatyu:
Yeah, it's possible that I'm being too uptight. I REALLY want to avoid a campaign crash & burn due to option overload, though.
The player himself has not historically been a problem player with respect to munchkinism, so I'm not worried about that. It's more about feeling in control of things that I'm running, really. I want to know what I'm dealing with - and have the option to say "I'm NOT dealing with that."
IRT TresGeek: LOL, you DID tell me so!
IRT Nightfall: Great, I'll roll up a cleric
IRT Rodrigo: Yep, experienced player and semi-noobish DM. I'm hoping to cut my teeth on something close to core and avoid getting in over my head.
IRT happyelf: He started with a human rogue with flavor text "Quarter orc". He also talked about a disgraced paladin who couldn't use his order's favored weapon (longsword) until he'd redeemed his honor. Then he changed his mind and statted up a Dragon Shaman from the PHB II instead (character died after two sessions of play - the WLD is DEADLY).
Then he wanted to reincarnate the Dragon Shaman into an Orc body. I didn't like that, so he went with a Kobold instead...a Kobold rogue. He used a couple of things from Races of the Dragon (which, after perusing in the bookstore, looks pretty cool to me. I might end up buying it if I think I can get some more use out of it).
IRT Graf: The other players suggested that I go and talk to him, actually. Given the lingering tension in the room, I felt that it was the only reasonable course of action.
IRT The Shaman: Already done. One of his first characters died in the session before the problem arose.
IRT ShinHakkaider: That's an excellent summary of where I'm coming from. Thank you.
IRT ShadowRaven: Done and done. Excellent suggestions, thank you.
IRT Jester: I've asked another player to host for next week. Also, the rules aren't Absolutely Core-Only, they're "Start with core, if you want something else, check with me first and send me stats in advance, so I have a chance to review 'em".
IRT Shadowslayer: Heh, I'd rather find a cooperative solution than see the group break up. I do enjoy playing with this guy normally...I just don't like what he's doing in *my* campaign so far. He kind of has a history of saying "This character sucks, I want to bring in a different one" within a few sessions of a new campaign starting, actually.
IRT der_kluge: Yeah, I think he's being kind of childish. I want to run an easier-to-run game to have an easier time DMing as I gain more XP, then go with a more open-options campaign later, when I feel more confident that I have a handle on all the crazy stuff.
The campaign is the World's Largest Dungeon, so I don't have the option of simply changing out creatures with higher-CR ones without a TON of work - work that I'd rather avoid.
As to allowing non-core stuff, I've tried to be reasonable about approving requests...I don't mind adding new things in modest doses. I do need to know what I'm getting myself into, though.
IRT Kunimatyu:
Yeah, it's possible that I'm being too uptight. I REALLY want to avoid a campaign crash & burn due to option overload, though.
The player himself has not historically been a problem player with respect to munchkinism, so I'm not worried about that. It's more about feeling in control of things that I'm running, really. I want to know what I'm dealing with - and have the option to say "I'm NOT dealing with that."
IRT TresGeek: LOL, you DID tell me so!
IRT Nightfall: Great, I'll roll up a cleric
IRT Rodrigo: Yep, experienced player and semi-noobish DM. I'm hoping to cut my teeth on something close to core and avoid getting in over my head.
IRT happyelf: He started with a human rogue with flavor text "Quarter orc". He also talked about a disgraced paladin who couldn't use his order's favored weapon (longsword) until he'd redeemed his honor. Then he changed his mind and statted up a Dragon Shaman from the PHB II instead (character died after two sessions of play - the WLD is DEADLY).
Then he wanted to reincarnate the Dragon Shaman into an Orc body. I didn't like that, so he went with a Kobold instead...a Kobold rogue. He used a couple of things from Races of the Dragon (which, after perusing in the bookstore, looks pretty cool to me. I might end up buying it if I think I can get some more use out of it).
IRT Graf: The other players suggested that I go and talk to him, actually. Given the lingering tension in the room, I felt that it was the only reasonable course of action.
IRT The Shaman: Already done. One of his first characters died in the session before the problem arose.
IRT ShinHakkaider: That's an excellent summary of where I'm coming from. Thank you.
IRT ShadowRaven: Done and done. Excellent suggestions, thank you.
IRT Jester: I've asked another player to host for next week. Also, the rules aren't Absolutely Core-Only, they're "Start with core, if you want something else, check with me first and send me stats in advance, so I have a chance to review 'em".
IRT Shadowslayer: Heh, I'd rather find a cooperative solution than see the group break up. I do enjoy playing with this guy normally...I just don't like what he's doing in *my* campaign so far. He kind of has a history of saying "This character sucks, I want to bring in a different one" within a few sessions of a new campaign starting, actually.
IRT der_kluge: Yeah, I think he's being kind of childish. I want to run an easier-to-run game to have an easier time DMing as I gain more XP, then go with a more open-options campaign later, when I feel more confident that I have a handle on all the crazy stuff.
Elephant
First Post
Shadowslayer said:
Eh...I don't want to ramrod everyone into a one-size-fits-none ruleset. Besides, I fully intend to run a much more liberal campaign when I have more DM XP under my belt. I'm bothered by the fact that no one complained that my rules were too restrictive until FOUR SESSIONS INTO THE CAMPAIGN. And then it only came up because I didn't want the player's existing life character to simply disappear in favor of a new one. I put a fair amount of work in trying to get the party together, assuming that it makes for a better game experience that random people don't just appear and disappear from the party roster. Then I have that work spit upon? No, thanks!
Ouch. Yeah, it's an authority/respect issue. I feel like, if I'm going to run this game, I need the respect of the players in that they'll openly say "That rule bothers me, can we go with this alternative?" rather than try to undermine and steamroll me into just letting them have whatever.
I'll start chatting with the rest of the group about the rules more.
Deuce Traveler
Adventurer
Elephant, most posters here are players of the power-gaming variety. That said, they are of course going to say that your player's behavior was totally acceptable. It absolutely was not.
A referee should run his game within the boundaries he is comfortable with. He should allow extra rules to be used only if the are pre-approved by him. Caving in for group unity is not always a bad thing, but you rewarded a juvenile bout of pouting and now will have to beware that the player won't act childish in the future.
Also, now everyone knows that your rules are 'flexible'. They also have learned that pouting and whining will get them far. You will now have to watch out for the 'slippery-slope' as they'll push to see how much more they can get away with. Not the mature ones, but the juvenile ones will definitely be a problem from here on out.
The proper action would have been to move the game somewhere else or resign as DM until you had a group willing to play by your rules. If you ever resign, though, don't have a childish pout. Just step up and talk like a man, and offer the DM chair to someone willing to run a quick one-shot. It's more fun being a player, anyway.
A referee should run his game within the boundaries he is comfortable with. He should allow extra rules to be used only if the are pre-approved by him. Caving in for group unity is not always a bad thing, but you rewarded a juvenile bout of pouting and now will have to beware that the player won't act childish in the future.
Also, now everyone knows that your rules are 'flexible'. They also have learned that pouting and whining will get them far. You will now have to watch out for the 'slippery-slope' as they'll push to see how much more they can get away with. Not the mature ones, but the juvenile ones will definitely be a problem from here on out.
The proper action would have been to move the game somewhere else or resign as DM until you had a group willing to play by your rules. If you ever resign, though, don't have a childish pout. Just step up and talk like a man, and offer the DM chair to someone willing to run a quick one-shot. It's more fun being a player, anyway.
IamTheTest
First Post
Compromise makes for a great game.
prosfilaes
Adventurer
frankthedm said:
Is everyone else running around with perfectly balanced parties? My players have spent a lot of my current campaign running without any arcane support at all, and I believe the cleric only has about half her levels in cleric. Even with a Core arcane caster, a sorceror or specialist wizard may well not be able to cast dispel magic or other key spells.
The DM should already be shaping the adventures to players and the characters, and you either have an option to remove those things that they can't overcome, or tell the players that they will have to make up for their deficiencies through magic items or scrolls. I don't see how allowing non-Core classes changes that.
delericho
Legend
As DM, you are entirely within your rights to constrain character creation however you want. If you want to insist everyone plays a 1st level Commoner built with 20-point buy, you can. The players have the option to try to talk you out of it or, if you are unwilling to budge, to play something else. (I don't recommend the Commoner campaign just described - I expect you'd find it hard to find players.) You can't be expected to run a campaign you're not comfortable with, and neither should players be expected to play in a campaign they're not comfortable with.
Saying "Core-only" is an entirely reasonable thing to do. And what another DM would do in the situation is really irrelevant - you're running the game, and you'll do it your way. Again, the players can try to talk you out of it, or play something else.
Once the rules for character generation are fixed, any player who is still playing should follow them. No excuses and no exceptions. To do otherwise is just plain rude. The kind of nonsense described by the OP is totally unacceptable.
Now, how to handle the situation going forward...
Having approved the character, even for the one session, I think you're stuck with it now. You can try to argue the point, but I suspect it'll just kill your campaign. Better to accept it and move on. I strongly disagree with any suggestion to kill the character. Either accept it and move on, or force the issue. Going out of your way to kill the character is a cowardly way to deal with it.
Should the character meet with death during the normal events of the campaign (or any other character meet with the same), enforce your initial rule regarding "PHB-only". If called on it, state that the one character was an exception you reluctantly accepted to keep the game together.
Note: IME it is better for the DM to provide a list of available options (or, alternatively, a list of banned options) up-front, rather than doing the whole "check with me" thing. Having a fixed list means that you know the entirety of your 'option space' ahead of time, and can plan accordingly. It also protects you from charges of favouritism, so that when Bob asks if he can play a Psychic Warrior and you say no, he can't turn around and complain, "But you let Bill play a Goliath Swashbuckler". I also find that a fixed list of options makes it easier to build the flavour of the campaign to suit myself, since I choose those options appropriately, where the players probably don't know what I'm aiming for with the campaign.
About the Host: the host of a game has a couple of priviledges that don't apply to any other member of the group. He can choose who is on the guest list for the campaign. What this means is that if he wants a player gone, then that player is gone. Likewise, if he wants his buddy/girlfriend/boss there on game night, you're stuck with it (you do not, however, have to let them play). And, if he wants to remove the game from his home, he can do so. (The host also cannot be removed from the game group for obvious reasons. In theory, you could not let him play, but doing so would as a practical matter require finding a new host.) Being the host, he is free to exercise these rights at any time, and does not have to justify himself to you. If he wants Bob gone, then Bob's gone, and although you can ask why, the host does not have to tell you. You can try to talk him round, but if you fail you either play on without Bob, or find a new host.
The host does not, however, have any right to control the internal handling of the campaign. He can't tell you to use specific supplements, to move the campaign to Ravenloft, or declare that his character has just found a Holy Avenger. Those things are the DM's to control.
Saying "Core-only" is an entirely reasonable thing to do. And what another DM would do in the situation is really irrelevant - you're running the game, and you'll do it your way. Again, the players can try to talk you out of it, or play something else.
Once the rules for character generation are fixed, any player who is still playing should follow them. No excuses and no exceptions. To do otherwise is just plain rude. The kind of nonsense described by the OP is totally unacceptable.
Now, how to handle the situation going forward...
Having approved the character, even for the one session, I think you're stuck with it now. You can try to argue the point, but I suspect it'll just kill your campaign. Better to accept it and move on. I strongly disagree with any suggestion to kill the character. Either accept it and move on, or force the issue. Going out of your way to kill the character is a cowardly way to deal with it.
Should the character meet with death during the normal events of the campaign (or any other character meet with the same), enforce your initial rule regarding "PHB-only". If called on it, state that the one character was an exception you reluctantly accepted to keep the game together.
Note: IME it is better for the DM to provide a list of available options (or, alternatively, a list of banned options) up-front, rather than doing the whole "check with me" thing. Having a fixed list means that you know the entirety of your 'option space' ahead of time, and can plan accordingly. It also protects you from charges of favouritism, so that when Bob asks if he can play a Psychic Warrior and you say no, he can't turn around and complain, "But you let Bill play a Goliath Swashbuckler". I also find that a fixed list of options makes it easier to build the flavour of the campaign to suit myself, since I choose those options appropriately, where the players probably don't know what I'm aiming for with the campaign.
About the Host: the host of a game has a couple of priviledges that don't apply to any other member of the group. He can choose who is on the guest list for the campaign. What this means is that if he wants a player gone, then that player is gone. Likewise, if he wants his buddy/girlfriend/boss there on game night, you're stuck with it (you do not, however, have to let them play). And, if he wants to remove the game from his home, he can do so. (The host also cannot be removed from the game group for obvious reasons. In theory, you could not let him play, but doing so would as a practical matter require finding a new host.) Being the host, he is free to exercise these rights at any time, and does not have to justify himself to you. If he wants Bob gone, then Bob's gone, and although you can ask why, the host does not have to tell you. You can try to talk him round, but if you fail you either play on without Bob, or find a new host.
The host does not, however, have any right to control the internal handling of the campaign. He can't tell you to use specific supplements, to move the campaign to Ravenloft, or declare that his character has just found a Holy Avenger. Those things are the DM's to control.
prosfilaes
Adventurer
Elephant said:
You can always advance or add templates to the creatures. You're going to have to if you run through the entire setting; there's no way the players are going to run through the dungeon in exactly the right order and stay at exactly the right level.
