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

[JediSoth]

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.

That is so true. I've been running WLD for over a year and a half now, and they're having a pretty easy time of it in regions where they're the appropriate level for several reasons:
* non-core characters--I've got a warmage, a sorcerer using spells from a Sword & Sorcery book (rituals & relics II, I think), a dwarven deep rift defender, a pseudodragon rogue
* more than 4 characters regularly--even the notes on increasing the challenge sometimes makes no difference. Adding Mage Armor and Resistance to 3 CR2 creatures does not help when they're hit with a 9-die lightning bolt.

Hmmm...that's only two reasons, but I have to head to work.

JediSoth

 

[Lord Ipplepop]

I'm going to add me voice to the crowd that says you could have made better choices.
First, It is YOUR mission, not his. When you are running your game, it is (to steal a phrase) your way, and there is no highway option. As you told them ahead of time what the deal was, and they had time to create characters and hand them in to you, then this player had more than ample opportunity to discuss his concerns with you before game night.
It might have been his house; however, (again) it was YOUR game. That is akin to the American Marine Base at Iwakuni Japan being in Japan's house, however it was America's rules on that scrap of landfill. IF he didn't like the way it was being runm, then he could havae not played, played and discussed it with you, asked you to play it elsewhere... he is being a spoiled brat who is showing you that HE is in control, no matter who is actually in charge.
Within the very recent past, I ran a (designed) short campaign where I attempted to bring 3.x into a 1ed feel. complete with dungeon crawls, and all the trimmings, and using monsters that the party had never seen before (most of them). I told them a month ahead of time that it was going to be such, and that there would be NO non-standard classes (no warmages, wu-jen, or anything else not in the PHB, and no, you cannot have a paladin/ thief) and that there would be NO non-standard races. I also imposed various 1ed race restrictions (no, you cannot have a Dwarven Mage). I also instituted the 1ed minimum requirements for class (17 Cha for Paladins, etc). Two of the players are almost as old-school as me, and were happy to partake. A couple of others didn't understand the deal, yet went with it anyhow as it was my game. One player was slightly miffed that he couldn't have a Dwarven Barbarian/Cleric/Warmage, however when I stood firm and told him absolutely not, he was fine, and got a Dwarven Barbarian (I capitulated on this one small area.)
These players who at first could not understand why I had gone so far off the deep end (as I am a professional wrestler, they understood that I had certain brain imparements lol), ended up having an absolute blast. Now, two of them are going to run a Dragonlance campaign with 2ed characters.

Small advice: treat your players as you would treat a child. Before you laugh me out of the building, read on and see what I mean:
My kids know that there are not that many rules (I basically follow the last part of the 10 commandments). They also know that when I tell the to do something, or I say that "This is the way it goes", they are not to argue with me, and theya re to do whatever it is I have asked them to do. If they have something they didn't like, or something that uipset them, I am more than willing to sit down with them and sincerely discuss the issue without the parental standby's (Because I said so) AFTER they have finished the task at hand. On the very rare occasions where something has sincerely set their hair aflame, or there were mitigating circumstances that I was unaware of that had a definate and important impact on things, I am willing to listen and will occasionally alter my instructions. Either way, my kids know that I am the adult and that it is ultimately my decision. And they ahve grown up healthy, happy, and productive. My gamers are treated the same way, even though we play at someone else's house. If there is a challenge, let me know, and we will discuss it; however ,it is ultimately my decision, and they are all willing to abide by them, as we are with every DM in our group. If you have a player that is demanding his way,then very simply, find a new location to play and don't invite him to join untilhe realizes the rules of the road.

 

[Shadowslayer]

Compromise makes for a great game.

Heartily agree.

A couple things (a closing argument if you will)

-Remember that this guy (the offending player) is one of the boys. Sometimes even your best buds have bad moments. Sounds like this guy is usually a good guy. Would it be worth it to actually get rid of a pal just to avoid having to allow supplements? Anyway, it sounds like you're on the right track.

-I hate psionics. Really, really do. Didn't ever want to have to deal with them in game. But I had a guy (who's still with us) who bought the psionics book and really wanted to use it. I was torn, but ultimately what decided it for me was the thought that "here's this guy...he works for a living, got a wife and kid. My D&D game is HIS night out. I figure if he wants to drop what little fun-money he has on a shiny new book, he's probably looking forward to using it. So why the heck would I not let him use it?" And it wasn't a game breaker.

As a side note, I learned the psionics rules this way. Still could do without em', but I'm not averse to using them if a player really wants to play a psion either.

I see about half the posters here see it as the DMs game where he has sole say in what rules get used. All I'll say is that I disagree. It's been my experience that DMs with a "my way or the highway" attitude usually get shown the highway. That's just a huge attitude throwback to the old "DM is God" dark ages of D&D. (most of the guys I play with hated that even then)

So you're not ramrodding them into a rule-set when you sit down with the group and say "what should our rules be?" As a group, you'd define the rules, then as the DM (you or any of the others) would apply them. This'd be the ideal solution from my end. This way you eliminate the control issues that are getting in the way of the group's good time.

 

[Thunderfoot]

At the next session strategically place a shovel and a shotgun behind your DM station and place a sign that says "Rule 0" above it. Should clear things up quickly...

/For those folks that have low "spot sarcasim" checks - this ^ is what it looks like./

 

[Rothe]

This may sound odd, but how old is this guy? And exactly how did he leave the room?It's one thing to pout/storm out and another to reasonably say "hey guys I'm not interested in this character go ahead without me." The former behavior was not uncommon when I was in high school, and the whole host-guest dynamic was just being learned. As people get older pouting and passive-aggressive disruption become increasing less acceptable behavior in my book; especially from a host even if he is doing you a favor.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

What I'm seeing here is a real disconnect between a few people who are basically saying that a DM has no right to tell a player what kind of character he is to play in a game that the DM is running and people who understand that as a DM he/she has the right to establish certain guidelines at the beginning. I get the whole co-operative thing I really do and in play that's pretty much the way that it should work. But I'll say this again and it bears repeating because it's a point that was for the most part ignored in this discussion, the DM CARRIES THE BRUNT OF THE "WORK". From setup, to establishing guidelines, to creating NPC's to even just running the game, he/she does more "work" than any one player.

So in my eyes that DM has the right to set certain guidelines at the outset. Now these are things that can be talked about and changed as the game progresses, but at the outset, the DM has to be comfortable with his/her own ability to run the game. Point Blank. and if that comfort lies within core only then so be it. If a player doesnt like it, they can talk it over with the DM but not after it's been clearly established and then all of a sudden the player has problems with core only.

I'm an old school DM having played from Red Box basic up through 3.5, so while I'm not beyond comprimise, I'm gonna set certain guidelines to maintain a semblance of consistency and order ESPECIALLY with a new unfamiliar ruleset or people that i've never gamed with before. And I explain that to new groups that I start with. I also tell them if that's really going to be a problem for you then my game is not the game for you. It takes a certain level of maturity to say "You know what, this is not what I want for my fun" and move on. I've done it. I've left groups I didnt mesh with and personally had the OP's offending player been in my group, I'dve asked him to sit this session out so that we can discuss his issues later possibly pulling him in to be a co-DM or to run an NPC. Friend or no, what that guy did in my eyes wasnt very respectful and reeked of passive agressiveness.

Also as an old school DM who's been running games of all types off and on for over 20 years, I've never been shown the highway. I've disbanded troublesome groups and ejected problem players but never been ejected. It has nothing to do with ego and everything to do with maintaining a good playspace. Comprimise IS important, but what D00d, did wasnt comprimise he was browbeaten into submission, which honestly kind of sucks, especially if it comes from a so called friend.

 

[The Shaman]

Compromise makes for a great game.

It can also play havoc with verisimilitude when a character doesn't fit the milieu.

It's the game master's call what's in and what's out - anyone who doesn't like that can give up a seat at the table or pick up the screen and run a game.

 

[The Shaman]

*snipped* an insanely great post

Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

ShinHakkaider is spot-on.

 

[Shadowslayer]

anyone who doesn't like that can give up a seat at the table or pick up the screen and run a game.

Whatever.

Maybe if you're playing with a new group, cobbled together from the want ads at your FLGS then that attitude might work. Among friends, with rotating DMs, it doesn't fly. I've been there too. And, if it matters, I've been DMing since the late 80s. (since we seem to be trotting out our qualifications...as if it really means anything.)

Sure, the DM does most of the hard stuff, etc etc etc, but the way it sounds to me, this group has already had others in the DMs chair, The OP's just the latest. Maybe things'd be different if he was the sole all-DMing-all-the-time DM. But it isn't. Its just his turn to DM.

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.

 

[The Shaman]

Its just his turn to DM.

Which means it's the players' turn to make characters that work in the setting that the game master brings to the table, under the rule books approved by the game master.

When it's someone else's turn to sit behind the screen, then the player will have the opportunity to create a different character, perhaps one incorporating material from a wider range of sources.