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

[3catcircus]

You are the DM. Your campaign, your rules. You are entirely within your rights to even restrict stuff from the core books - maybe you don't want any monks in your game, or you don't want any PrCs from the DMG - so be it.

If he doesn't like it, tell him to find another group.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

His new character is fine, with the possible exception (so far it seems okay, but I've Reserved the Right to Remove It) of one ability from Races of the Dragon. If he'd sent a copy of his character sheet ahead of time, I would have okayed it as a backup PC. If he'd explained why he didn't like his original PC anymore, I would have figured out a way to kill off the old PC and get the new one to join.

Instead, the situation devolved in a very ugly way, and I rather feel like I've been trampled.

So, is this a matter of trust, or control? It seems to be a control issue to me. You want to have veto power over anything outside the PHB. Your "problem player" probably sees it the same way and doesn't like having someone have control of his character.

Your phrase "...Reserved the Right to Remove It" again sounds like a control issue. You need to get past that or you and this player are probably never going to correct this.

Why not instead say, "Looks good. I'm a little concerned about this ability, but lets give it a try. If I think it is causing problems we can discuss it." Any subsequent discussion should include why you think it is a problem, not just what to do about it. Perhaps rather than removing the ability, someone may be able to suggest another way to correct the problems you experience because of it.

My opinion is that, when it comes to players creating the characters they will play, you need to make things more of a collaboration instead of a "it is OK unless I say no" attitude. It may be your world, but it is everyone's game. Everyone needs to have some control over their particular parts.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

So, is this a matter of trust, or control? It seems to be a control issue to me. You want to have veto power over anything outside the PHB. Your "problem player" probably sees it the same way and doesn't like having someone have control of his character.

Your phrase "...Reserved the Right to Remove It" again sounds like a control issue. You need to get past that or you and this player are probably never going to correct this.

Why not instead say, "Looks good. I'm a little concerned about this ability, but lets give it a try. If I think it is causing problems we can discuss it." Any subsequent discussion should include why you think it is a problem, not just what to do about it. Perhaps rather than removing the ability, someone may be able to suggest another way to correct the problems you experience because of it.

Sometimes there's more than a little to be concerned about. Sometimes the DM isn't a genius (most people aren't) and can't guarantee they'll catch problems before they, well, cause a problem. It's a bit late to nerf an ability after it's been used to kill the BBEG, right?

The DM has to control the material going into their game. There is a lot of material, some of which will not fit into their campaign. Otherwise you might end up with (as an extreme example) Question's thread from a week or two back.

Adding new material means more work for the DM and more complication. Why isn't the DM allowed to not increase their amount of work?

And finally, the Elephant says he's new. A DM might want to learn how to run a core campaign first before adding new stuff.

If a player wants to try something not in the core rules, instead of asking for a new class or race or something big like that, they could propose a feat. That's a lot smaller and therefore a lot easier for a DM, especially a new one, to deal with.

 

[Elephant]

So, is this a matter of trust, or control? It seems to be a control issue to me. You want to have veto power over anything outside the PHB. Your "problem player" probably sees it the same way and doesn't like having someone have control of his character.

Your phrase "...Reserved the Right to Remove It" again sounds like a control issue. You need to get past that or you and this player are probably never going to correct this.

Why not instead say, "Looks good. I'm a little concerned about this ability, but lets give it a try. If I think it is causing problems we can discuss it." Any subsequent discussion should include why you think it is a problem, not just what to do about it. Perhaps rather than removing the ability, someone may be able to suggest another way to correct the problems you experience because of it.

My opinion is that, when it comes to players creating the characters they will play, you need to make things more of a collaboration instead of a "it is OK unless I say no" attitude. It may be your world, but it is everyone's game. Everyone needs to have some control over their particular parts.

Semantics. The way I wrote it here was a little more authoritarian than how it came up during the game session, I think. While talking to the Problem Player, I ventured "Would you feel comfortable with a compromise - I'll quick-review it, you play the character as written for today, and if any problems come up as a result of the "iffy" feature, we'll talk about changing it or removing it?"

... or something like that.

The PP paints me as a power-mad little dictator. I'm not; I just want a campaign that I can manage. Heck, I have an idea for a "quick & broken" campaign where the rules are "anything goes, level up after every session" where the only requirement on source material is that the proper references are available at the gaming table.

Anyway, it's come to a head. The PP decided that I'm no longer welcome in his home. I'm not yet sure what the rest of the group is going to do about it.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Sometimes there's more than a little to be concerned about. Sometimes the DM isn't a genius (most people aren't) and can't guarantee they'll catch problems before they, well, cause a problem. It's a bit late to nerf an ability after it's been used to kill the BBEG, right?

The DM has to control the material going into their game. There is a lot of material, some of which will not fit into their campaign. Otherwise you might end up with (as an extreme example) Question's thread from a week or two back.

Adding new material means more work for the DM and more complication. Why isn't the DM allowed to not increase their amount of work?

And finally, the Elephant says he's new. A DM might want to learn how to run a core campaign first before adding new stuff.

If a player wants to try something not in the core rules, instead of asking for a new class or race or something big like that, they could propose a feat. That's a lot smaller and therefore a lot easier for a DM, especially a new one, to deal with.

I understand that a DM needs to be able to control what goes into the game and why. I do it myself when I DM. The point I was trying to make (maybe poorly) is that the approach to that control makes a big difference.

When you delcare that people must check with you first, or that you have the right to remove something, the implication is that your needs as DM outweigh the player's needs when it comes to their character.

If instead you request that players work with you to make sure you can fit their character concept into your world, you give the impression that their needs are as valid as yours are. Ultimately you may still end up removing something or not approving a character, but if you are working together, the player will hopefully fully understand the reasons why, and together you can find something that works for both of you.

As for non-core rules, let the players know that is the reason why you are hesitant to allow other materials in. Let the players then make a case as to why what they want isn't that far out there. Together discuss concerns and do so again later if what you thought wasn't an issue appears to in fact be a problem.

Too many DMs, IMO, feel that they should have ultimate control over everything that happens in their world. I don't agree. The players need to have a good amount of control over creation of their own characters because it is the one piece that gives them buy-in into your world.

 

[silver_wizard]

Well, it may be better that things went like this. Now you know that either that player had other issues with you about which you had no idea (hence the attitude), or he is so incredibly immature as to lose a friend over a game (we may love RPG, but it's just a game... says so in the title: "Role-Playing Games").

Now, you will also be given the opportunity to find out where the rest of the group stands. I'd be surprised if they favour the problem player though.

 

[freebfrost]

Surely you can find an 8-year old with more emotional maturity to replace this guy...

 

[jasper]

i have to disagree with you Thornir. It does not appear to be a control issue but an issue of who has the final say in the game. the dm does. Yes always let the player know why he nixes stuff. Now some dm are diplomatic and can say no because of not fitting campaign work. Others can not layout why the stuff gets a no vote.
Some players will not take no for an answer no matter how much a dm sugar coats the reason.
On line I do cut to the chase and say no. But this comes for the experience of having players take issue will every reason I gave. Ex. Player wanted a M1 tank in WW2 game. And hated the rule that subs were visible from the air.

 

[The Thayan Menace]

Life is Short ....

Does anyone have any advice on how I can resolve this conflict?

Found a new group with your dedicated players and some new recruits.

-Samir

 

[The Thayan Menace]

Good!

The PP decided that I'm no longer welcome in his home. I'm not yet sure what the rest of the group is going to do about it.

Problem solved. Find out which players are loyal to you, locate a new place to game, and move on.

-Samir