I'm torn and in trouble. I'm going to call my players Red and Blue. They each play two characters in my campaigns.
So in the Red corner, I have a player who wants to play fun and loose with the rules, wants to have the wolves he befriended fight by his side (2 wolves) and gain hp like a ranger's pet. After a lot of hashing out, I told him we could do 1d4+2 per level on the wolves, and they had to act only when his character was in direct, immediate danger, they had to roll initiative, his char couldn't control them, etc. But... he's been... 'joking' insistently about gaining more control over them, having them attack more, etc.He also wants at least one of every gemstone we come across. (Not for the gold value, he says, he just wants the gems). He also wants to play 'finders keepers' with all the magical loot. Period. No "well, you don't have anything, and this item suits you better". Just "Well I found it, I don't have to share."
In the Blue corner, I have a player that wants to do everything exactly by the book. To the point of holding up the game to go read back through the entirety of the PHB to find the rule.... but still wants to use some of the feat options from 3.5/4. He's very very concerned about the amount of loot we get and what's 'fair' for everyone, to the extent of wanting me to make what are essentially customized magic items specifically for each character. He doesn't think the wolf thing is fair, because he made a pact with a spectator and he 'knows better than to bring it along in fights' and leaves it at the manor he obtained in Phandelver.
He wants to sell all the items, sure that none of them are important and that they're just for flavor purposes, and break everything down into exact gp amounts and split it exactly evenly.
In response to Red, he's said "I'm playing a rogue and a warlock. If you want me to steal the items from you, I will"
I'm trying to ease us from Phandelver to Tyranny of Dragons, and Red wants me to level all the monsters up and just level the entirety of the adventure across both books. He wants the xp. Blue just thinks we should make the monsters a little harder, give more story rewards, and not give us more xp so the adventure can catch up with us and we end up at the same level the book thinks we should be.
Red heard this, and wants the bonus rewards too!.... but he wants xp also.
Obviously they've gotten into fights. Red just gave up his wolves because Blue said they were too powerful. He complained that he "knew this would happen" and said "just forget it. I knew it was going to cause a stink, because Blue is a whiny baby"
Blue thinks Red is greedy. Red thinks Blue is controlling
Short story: Red vs Blue. What's a DM to do?
In situations like these, it helps to sit the two down and share your own desires and limits. That is, let them both know (together, at the same time), that the kinds of requests/demands they are making of you are incompatible, and that some of your fun is being compromised by their conflicts. More than that, remind them that while we all basically know how to play D&D in general, you need to get a better feel of how the new ruleset works before making all kinds of changes/tinkering/etc.
Practically speaking, let the wolf player either (a) play a ranger instead of whatever he's playing and do so by the book or (b) if you want him to have the wolves, do so provisionally. That is, make it clear that you're not sure it will work, and that you reserve the right to annul the decision later (and either change how it works or get rid of the wolves entirely).
For the blue player, remind him that it's your job to make the rulings during game play. While he's welcome to check a rule later for discussion, he's not welcome to look something up in the book every time. Of course, you can use him to your advantage. If he can find the rule quickly, and you'd rather not spend the time looking, have him look it up for you. However, as far as 3.5/4 feats go, I'd make the same reply I made about the wolves, namely, that you're new to this, too, and you need to insist on going by the official options now or, if you allow a different feat, reserve the right to annul it later.
As far as treasure goes, can't you just talk to the two of them? Let them know that (a) magic items cannot just be "sold" in 5th edition, so blue's option is out, but that (b) red's option is disruptive to other players' fun. You are playing a game after all!
Finally, you can mediate the conflict at one level by making sure you are the one making the rulings, not Red or Blue. It won't be helpful to have the players blaming each other for ruining one another's fun. Take the responsibility to make a ruling on their requests, let them know that anything out of the ordinary is always only provisionally allowed anyway, and so no one should be too attached to your initial rulings until you have made them final.
I hope that helps and you can go back to enjoying your game!
Do you only have the two players? If not, what do the other players think? Do you have other people who would play?
Do they roleplay their characters at all, or are you running more of a tactical/strategic battlegame with each player controlling two pieces?
How old are these players? Are they actually going to respond to talking things out, or have they turned your game into a competition between themselves?
How did Red befriend the wolves? Is there a particular reason why they would improve with the character? Do you think that pointing out that you can't simply give him class features from other classes for free would have worked?
Generally, in-character disputes, such as what to do with the treasure, are best settled in character. Obviously that doesn't work if the players don't actually play in-character. As Llenlleawg has pointed out, there isn't a market for magic items, so selling them probably wouldn't work, and buying new ones from the proceeds almost definitely wouldn't.
If its basically a battlegame, as the DM you can just impose rules about treasure. Alternate picks or coin toss to see who gets what are options. Allow them to trade between themselves.
(If the players are the type who would hold onto an item that they can't use, just so the other player doesn't get to use it however, I'd suggest taking a break from that game until they agree to play together.)
In-character conflict is possible, and sometimes acceptable, but players trying to use your game to express a personal grudge against another player is just plain disruptive and has no place in a D&D game.
Lots of questions! Ok, I'll try to answer them as best I can.
Red and Blue are the only two players at the table. I unfortunately have a very very small circle of friends due to essentially being housebound most of the time. One's in his late 20's, the other is in his mid 30's.
Red is playing: an elven sorceress and a half-elven fighter
Blue is playing: a tiefling warlock and a drow rogue
I am playing: a dragonborn paladin
We do roleplay the characters, it's just that some of the disputes seems to be.... flooding out of character and into the players. And vice versa. There seems to be some trouble separating how the characters interact vs personal feelings.
Wolves: Red's sorceress actually befriended the wolves with a bizzare and super lucky sequence of rolls with the dice. I'm talking sequential crits! He uses my dice because he hasn't bought his own yet. In retrospect, I probably ought to have said "they absolutely love you, but being wild animals, they still take off on their own. You get the feeling you may always have at least two friends amoung the wolves of Phandalin"
They've taken over two structures around Phandalin and made them their own homes too... so I could have just said the wolves have to stay at one of the homes....
But I wanted to reward him, so I let him keep them, albiet with rules that they couldn't take orders from the sorceress, only protect her from time to time, and they had to stay weak, and if they died, they died. No resummoning or anything like that. After that, he kept pressing at the agreement just in little ways here and there. I finally agreed to letting them gain HP. I swear I said 1d4+2 per 'level'. He swears it was 2d4+2 (same as thier attack). Somehow, when we're all at level 4, the wolves have shot up to 28hp a peice! A monster even crit on one, and it survived! That's when I knew something wasn't working. Now he's convinced I'm trying to kill his wolves, that I'm letting Blue 'talk me into' getting rid of the wolves, and that I'm 'going back on my word'. On top of that, he kept making suggestions that maybe the wolves would bond with other party members and protect all of them, and that maybe once his sorceress reaches a certain level, she could start to control the wolves. Of course... when I said that doesn't seem fair, he says "Wow, don't get strung up about it. I was joking". Red recently decided to ditch the wolves entirely because it was 'SUCH a PROBLEM for everyone" and says he's never going to try to charm any animals ever again, etc.
Treasure: Blue and Red argue about the treasure a lot. Out of character. They're both constantly talking about how fair or unfair it is that one person got a thing and the other didn't. Blue pulled me aside once and complained because Red snapped up a figurine in the loot pile we found and 'Of course, it has the most value'. Red wants to collect gemstones. Blue thinks they should sell the gemstones and split the profit instead. Red says he 'doesn't care about the gold value, I just want the gems'. Blue's suggestion on fixing this is just to have us find only gold, no gems or figures. Red's suggestion is just to make more gems so that every character gets one.
Blue is also very "Let's all share all the treasure" and Red is very "I want it all to be Finders Keepers".
Blue says if Red has his characters try to hide something, then Blue's rogue could figure it out, find it, and steal it. Red threatened that his characters would fight for it then.
Feats: Blue wants to have availability to the feat that allows Drow to ignore their weakness in sunlight so he doesn't have disadvantage everytime we're in the sun. Red thinks this is completely unfair as it comes from a different edition of D&D.
Magical Items: Red seems to want to claim all the shiny magical items we come across. His characters try to claim every one so he can examine it first, and if he doesn't like it, only then will he toss it to one of us. I try to put a cap on that by, of course, seeing if Blue or I spot the treasure first. He got very sore at me when my paladin found and identified (via rolling) a +1 longsword. He got even more bitter when I tried to fix it by giving it to him once my paladin discovered Lightbringer, the Lathander Mace (he's a paladin of Lathander). Three levels later, he still talks about it.
Blue gets sore too. He thinks Red is getting too many magical items, resents the 'cast offs', and finally asked me to make something one of his characters could use. (We weren't running into anything suitable for a rogue, besides the boots.... which Red's half-elf fighter claimed)
Red resented that.
At this point, I'm thinking of essentially labeling all the magic items we find (This item seems to respond to the drow in the party. How curious. And this one only seems to 'like' the elven sorceress. hmm.)
Rolling: Another problem I'm running into is DM rolls. Red thinks I'm cheating for my character when I make rolls he doesn't know the reason for. He just thinks I'm trying to do something with my char that I'm failing at and so I'm rerolling. I don't have a DM screen at the moment, but I feel like getting one would cause more problems. Red is suspicious of my rolls. He already thinks I'm somehow manipulating the rolls to have the monsters hit too hard too often (Despite our nearly breezing through dungeons). I've tried to explain to him that DMs roll dice for lots of things you never see the result for, but he's not convinced.
Confession: This comes into play a lot. It shouldn't.... but it does. Blue is my boyfriend of 5 years. Red is my best friend of 17 years.
For now, I would stick to the limitations of the PHB. That is the fairest arbiter at this stage of the game. Being friendly to the sorceress does not ensure the wolves will not act out against the other PCs. Meaning, some morning one of the wolves bites Red's fighter for no other reason than it is wild and the half-elf is nothing but a meat puppet to it. Wild animals are by definition wild. If Red still insists on keeping wild wolves around, have the wolves act out more and more. Have them howl at the moon, giving away the campsite's position to night time predators. Have the wolves get into the backpacks, even the sorceress's and eat all the provisions or at least much of it, while the rest of the food has dog hair and drool slathered over it. Have the wolves bark and fight each other, possibly in play, possibly in reaction to wanting to the the alpha male in expectations of being the sorceress' Number One wolf ... the fight comes at the worst possible time as the party attempts to slink up on a group of monsters. Eventually the players will want to send the wolves away, and that is what you want ... for it to be a player decision, not a DM mandated one.
Regarding the feat to eliminate the Drow disadvantage, tell Blue that he chose the Drow race fully reading the disadvantage. Give Blue two choices: 1) The drow can choose to stay with the party with the current disability and continue playing until a published feat or item shows up in the DMG or other acceptable 3rd party publication that overcomes that disability, 2) or have the Drow leave the group to go on "quest" in search of a fabled feat or item and having the player make up a new character to join the group. Do not give in to the expectation Blue has as to the availability of such a feat or item.
Playing within the published rules is what players need from their DM so that everyone knows what is acceptable and what is not. Only after you have firmly dictated that the published rules are to be abided with, can you then stretch them to fit what YOU want to have happen.
Ugh. Well, for one, you have our sympathy. That sounds like a godawful mess.
OK. Firstly, are you actually enjoying running that game? Do these issues only disrupt it occasionally, or are they dominating the game now? Are you only running it because you feel obliged to if they enjoy it? If the atmosphere is so poisonous that you feel you can't make rulings that favour one player, even if it is the correct ruling, it is directly impacting your ability to DM.
If you're not having fun, it may be worth thinking about something else for a bit. I think a lot could be solved with bringing more people in if possible: it sounds like your two players could do with some moderating influence. I'm really surprised to hear how old they are and behaving like that.
As the above poster mentioned, the first and probably best bet is to sit the players down and find out whether they would actually be able to play together. Personally I'd tell them that if they actually want to do Player vs Player, they should pick a game designed for it. Like chess perhaps.
Regarding loot, a method of equal distribution is generally best. Otherwise it turns what is meant to be a cooperating group into a race to grab the shinies first, and help each othwer second, if at all. If there is an outside influence who can impose a rule, such as a mercenary or adventurers guild with codes of conduct, and if the characters accept in-character. Otherwise you may need to drop in a DM rule. (And probably risk Red accusing you of favouring Blue because a fair rule would be closer to what Blue wanted.) 
If needs be, use two sets of dice; one for your character, and one for your role as DM. Announce your character rolls, but not the DM rolls. Or just point out to Red that as the DM, if you wanted to cheat, you just wouldn't roll at all.
To be honest, if there is that little trust around the table, if the other players have computers, I'd suggest doing an MMO as a group where you can all play, and no one can accuse the rules of favouritism. D&D online (3.5ish) and Neverwinter (4th ed. ish) are both sort of free. Or try Warcraft or something non-D&D based since you're leaving the tabletop behind anyway.
Captain_Kobold wrote:
I was surprised when I read that the players in question are late 20's and early 30's. I initially assumed that this was a teen group.
Seems like an uncomfortable game table. But since most DMs runs into some of your problems sooner or later, it was right to ask us. ;)
1.) It's a social game: Even if you try to sepperate the RL and the table, both mixes too well. Since one is your boyfriend and the other your best friend, every decision which favors the one or the other might send a message you don't want to. Both gaming-personalities are clashing by itself (blue as a rule-lawyer and red as a rule-stretcher) and since there is no real way to play the game, every group find a consens between or some players will stop comming, since they don't have fun anymore. So both have reasons to play and you should talk to them why they want to play and how it can be addressed.
I guess you want to be more open with the options than rules alone can provide, while still having them apply upt to 90% of the times. As long both can live with it, it's fine, but I guess you better might remember Red that a game has rules and Blue that this game has rules of bending the rules to your needs as a DM.
2.) Houserules: Every table has houserules and getting old rules (like the 3e feat) into the new system is also to be considered as a houserule. For drow light insensitivity I would go with the usual, which means: If you aren't born with it (like Drizzt), you have to use other means. It's nothing you could train, but a setback that generations of living in the underdark under the rule of the evil goddess Lloth/Lolth brought. If there were an item for this, it'll be definitely in pocession of a high priestess of Lloth, if there were a way to train your eyes to it, there would be more attacks from the drow at the surface. And if it were meant to be, Lloth hadn't transform her followers into this. She is just that sadistic.
Keeping true to the PHB for the time being seems acceptable, so don't worry too much.
3.) Fudging rolls: Show me one DM who never fudged rolls and you showed me a lier. ;) It's your right to fudge some rolls, even the DMGs of the past says it's OK now and then. That's on of the reasons why we use DM-Screens. Players don't need to know when, but sometimes they get suspecting. But don't let it bother you, if they only think you're 'cheating', because this isn't a board game, but a roleplay-game. Dice aren't the masters, the rules aren't, but the Dungeon Master is. You can't cheat if you're managing the rules.
4.) Magic Items: These were sell prizes for items in the playtest. May be outdated, but the best I can offer:
Common: 50-100gp
Uncommon: 100-500gp
Rare: 500-5,000gp
Very Rare: 5,000-10,000gp
Legendary: 10,000-50,000gp
Artifact: 50,000+gp
But never let them gain super-fitting magic items that easily. And since you'll run Hoard of the Dragon Queen next, everyone should get simply the items in that book. Because the Cult of Dragons just took every bit of treasure they could find, instead those who might interest your characters.
First comes first serves is a terrible way to split the loot. You're a party of adventurers and not treasure hunters, everyone should be able to entrust one's life to each other. Because someone will die, if a character is just pissed off enough, so better keep everything fair.
5.) Starting Tyranny of Dragons at 5th level: Here is, what Mike Mearls suggested:
Mike Mearls wrote:
Assuming that the OP has talked this over with the players in question and the issue is still persisting:
In no edition anywhere, and I assme the 5e DMG won't break the trend, does it say the DM is a babysitter. That means, you, the DM, and your other players (if any) don't have to put up with these antics. Tell these two to "grow up" or get out.
Should they not change their ways, either charge them the prevailing rates for nannying in your area or have them leave the group.
Ok, we did some talking, then played some more. Overall, the action and story were pretty epic! Player interactions were... better than last time.
Blue is settling down, or at least biting his tongue. He gave up the Drow daylight feat thing.
Red gave up his wolves.... he's still making snide remarks ("Your rogue got to do how much damage? wow... THAT's not overpowered. nope. not at all") claiming all the magic items, etc.
Blue and Red are still.... untrusting. Red doesn't like that because Blue has so many miniatures to use, I kind of have to give blue a heads up on what general sorts of minis to bring. Red wants Blue to just leave all his minis with me. Blue doesn't trust that Red will leave them alone if Red visits me while Blue isn't there.
Red also said something very revealing when I mentioned that some sections of this adventure were less fighting based and more interaction based. I assured him there was still plenty of fighting though, and he said: "Well, I hope so! Otherwise we'd just be a bunch of dorks sitting around pretending to be elves and crap!"
Red just found out today that our chars missed out on a hidden Ring of Protection in Phandelver (because he downloaded the pdf to look it through) and he talked about wanting to 'go back for it' because he couldn't stand not having it. He also absolutely hates it when enemies run away/scatter/retreat. Even if he gets HP for them.
On the Half-dragon champion mission, I was... kind of selfish, and wanted my dragonborn to duel Cyanwrath (it made the story really cool). Red wanted his half-elf to ("but he wants to prove himself!"). We talked about it for a bit (I was going to have red or blue play my char for the scene). I realized I was in the wrong, and told him he could do the challenge instead. Only to get "no, no. I don't want to anymore. YOU do it." and he wouldn't budge on it after that, so I couldn't fix it. Blue played my char and we did the fight and it was cool but... yeah. So I screwed up there 
But then Red got to do probably the best stuff during the Camp mission. He really shone there! He even managed to role-play his way into places I don't think the adventure planned for the characters to go.
Blue is trying to tell me that Red is manipulating me.
We found more treasure, of course. I slipped in a few 'strange vials of liquid'. Red tried to claim them all but I had it so that each potion 'seemed to whisper' to only one member of the party and that seemed to work out well..... though Red is still holding onto all of them for safe-keeping, at least he seems to know that we each get one. I don't know if that will work in the future.
I admit, while I sat down with each of them, I didn't sit them down with each other. There's so much tension and I'm honestly a little afraid of it. I keep thinking if we just see how the next game goes, it'll get better, especially if I talk to them separately. I feel like they're both going to launch into full on raging at each other if they try to bring anything up between them.
Do I enjoy running this game: I do! Especially this pregen one. Coming up with my own is hard D: At the same time... I don't. It's just... The players can both be creative and clever and fun.... it's just when we hit a point of contention, the whole thing grinds to a halt and then everyone gets.... well... you know those awkward family dinners? Yeah.....
Using different dice for DM rulings and DM character: I do that actually. Red still wants to know what I rolled. And he uses the dice as kind of.... the Law. He thinks if he just rolls high enough, anything he wants to do is absolutely possible, even storming up to a guard and demanding that since his char is a noble, that the guard should listen to him even if what he's saying directly counters what the guard's commander said.
This conversation happened:
Red's Noble: you, guard. I'm a noble in this army. I need this prisoner. Let him go.
Guard: Uh.... my commander said she wants to question him. I wouldn't want to cross her at ALL D:
Red's Noble: you don't want to cross me!
Guard: ....She's scarier. She's the commander.
Red's Noble: I have fireballs
Guard: ....;_; she'll kill me. No way ma'am.
Red's Noble: I'LL kill you!
Guard: .... but... it's not what the commander wants.... won't you get in trouble too?
Red's Noble: I'm a noble!
Red: Hah! I rolled a 20! I win! He's free! I let him go walk out of camp
Me: uh... without escorting him?
Red: I don't have to
Me:.... you think the whole army is just going to let him walk unimpeded away from the camp without supervision?
Red: They'll think his spirit is broken and he won't need supervision!
Me: ....
It definitely sounds that some sort of personal rivalry for your attention, favor, or affection is taking place here. Do these two individuals hang out and do things together often? Are they usually this hostile towards each other when they do? If so it sounds like there's some other talks that need to happen outside of the game.
If the player truly believes that you are favoring your own NPC character with your rolls it might be best to just drop your played character from the group. However if they don't really trust you to be fair and adjudicate a gaming system i'm not sure why they're playing it to begin with. Even if you choose to continue to play your NPC you should invest in a DM screen and explain to your players they are not entilted to see DM rolls. If they have ever played any edition before they already know this and are just pushing you around.
Speaking of pushing you around, this sounds like the root of the problem. I understand that both players are very close to you, but in order to run a fair and fun game for everyone you need to start making the decision that sounds the most fair to YOU. If you let either player wear on you and convince you to change your mind its going to happen because you care about both players and want to make them happy. Just tell them all decisions made will be final and stop it before it starts.
Also you might consider linking both players to this thread so they can consider how childish they are being.
PS: It might just be that my attitude towards the game more closely resembles Blue... but Red sounds like a very toxic player to me. Someone i wouldn't want to be playing anything with.
You are not having fun with this game, it sounds like. You enjoy the concept of the game when it's working well, but the personalities of those involved are turning the game toxic.
Read this article about the 5 Feek Social Fallicies, and see if any of them apply to your situation (I'm leaning towards GSF3 and GSF5). Then you need to have a long talk out of game with your players. Zagzax has mentioned some of the possible issues that might be going on--this sounds like there's some passive-agressive rivarly going on here.
One way of getting either Red or Blue to shut up is handing them the DM materials and saying "Here. I don't want to deal with this anymore...I just want to play. YOU run. Oh? You don't want to run? Then please, pretty please, stop bickering when I make a ruling." Or, if they DO want to run, make sure you all start a brand-new camapign with new characters, rather than continuing on with the current ones. DMing is hard, hard work, and these players need to realize the sort of stress that they've been putting on you.
Yeaaaaah.
This is a personal issue, not a D&D one. I'd suggest talking to them about it, and telling them that, if they can't get their act together, neither of them get to play anymore (assuming you have enough of a player base to keep going despite their departure.)
It's about that simple: either you agree to play nice and be friendly, or you get the hell away from the table.
That group will not end well. End it before it will end a friendship or relationship, or both.
I don't know any of the people involved.
I will tell you, I had a situation wherein two players were a married couple and they split up. Wife invited a friend to play and Friend had the hots for Wife. Friend spent all his time, in game and IRL, undermining Husband. That marriage fell apart in a few months.
Obviously, there was other stuff going on. I didn't witness any of it. I can only really say what I saw.
Nevertheless, I see so many red flags in your situation and I'm afraid you may be in denial about them. (Again, I don't know you. And this is just supposed to be friendly advice from a stranger, since you asked. Feel free to ignore it, if I've crossed the line).
I know this game is fun. But your group has fundamental trust issues. Die roll results, questions about impartiality, snide comments, distrust over fictional property claims, distrust over real property claims, motivations, etc.
its easy for us to say "Get out while you can," but that's messy for you to do.
I strongly urge you to keep these two separate from each other and you. and to find a different game. Your DM-ing is fine. You make mistakes, you learn, you do better next time. But your group has toxic trust and boundary issues that nobody can fix. (And I wonder if you're unwittingly pitting your players against each other in a battle for your affection).
There is no game advice, no rule, nor DM trick, that will fundamentally change your relationships.
I sincerely wish you and your group the best of luck and fantastic gaming.
Umachica wrote:
The two are... well, they're my friends.
Blue is my boyfriend of 5 years.
Red is my best bud of 17 years. May as well be siblings.
I can definitely pick up on tension between them.... I was just hoping we could all play a fun game together.
Why not pick different friends/kick these two out of the group, etc? Because I only really have these two friends.
I'm housebound. Due to certain issues, I can't drive myself anywhere. These are the only two friends that visit me or take me out places. I live a 15-20 minute drive from the nearest game store.
I'm also very. very. very. shy in person. And awkward. Even with other geeks.
....I guess there's just not much hope for the group, huh? Bummer. I was just really hoping we could play.
Umachica wrote:
Umachica wrote:
Umachica wrote:
D&D is a social game, so by its very nature it only works as long as the players can get along out-of-character. As a DM, you can't control that. Help mediate minor disputes, sure... but this seems to be a growing personality conflict that is going to get worse if youguys keep trying to force it.
Some people can be friends but just can't game together. It's a hard lesson, but one worth remembering. I have a very old friend whom I get along with great until we try to play D&D or Warhammer together. Then it just falls into resentment and frustration. It is what it is.
It's a shame that will likely preventyou from gaming at all, as you describe your circumstances. It may be worthwhile to try and contact others in the lcoal gaming community and se if you can get involved that way and Dm either for other people, or join someone else's group.
I am going to go through and comment on each of your points, I am going to tell you that I have been playing D&D in one form or another since 1981. I started with the old Basic D&D Red box set. So I have LOTS of experience here. I hope none of this comes off as harsh, if it does I apologize.
I am going to say a couple of things ahead of time here.
A) you are the DM, the players have to understand one thing, what you say goes. They are not to question your interpretation of the rules all the time, they are not to ask why you are doing something, they are not to question why you roll the dice. If they do not like that, they can play elsewhere. I know that is harsh and your situation is different, but without that line of respect for you being the DM and you putting a lot of WORK, into the game what happens is what you have going on now.
2) Red seems to be the real problem here. I will address certain things inline below, but coming from a guy and a therapy background, it sounds like Red really is interested in you. He might have been harboring feelings for you for a long time or something and he is now taking that out on Blue. Just a quick heads up on that, because that is how it feels to me from what you are saying.
III) I have been DMing for years, I am currently writing my own 1-20 campaign arc. I know many things that come up as a DM and I know how to handle many things, DMing for 30 years gives you tons of confidence in this area. You will get more comfortable and better at it with time. You will feel better about telling your spouse and friends NO when you need to. My wife and son play in my D&D game, I have to tell them NO often (well my son anyway).
Umachica wrote:
Assuming you actually want or need to continue the game (which I join the other voices in advising against):
Award bonus experience points and/or inspiration dice when the two players play nice with each other and you.
Dock them experience and confiscate their inspiration dice when they are whiny, passive aggressive, treacherous cheating weasels.
Do the first whenever possible; do the second as infrequently as possible. The carrot is a better motivator than the stick, as long as they know the stick is there.
Umachia - wow, what a tangled web you're in. I think it could be possible to salvage the D&D game. However, if there are deeper rooted issues, that's something that can't be helped here... makes sense?
I wish and hope more confidence to you as a DM, making it clear that what happens IN GAME by you is not to be taken "personal" and be sure you are not taking it personally either. Be clear to yourself on what you will allow or not allow in game, and stand with your fair judgement and ruling. You are the DM, you create and make up the world and story, and although the players can input or make suggestions, you are the one who is the ultimate arbiter of the game.
So... Red player downloading LMoP and wanting to go back to get the Ring of Protection - total meta-gaming, Red player SHOULD NOT be doing that... Even if said Red characters go back to Phandalver and try to find the ring, guess what, you can easily, as DM, not have the ring there... does that make sense? Also, you can change the magic items rewards, or remove them, or add more. It's up to you. This is not Adventurer's League, this is your home game. One thing I often do is tweak to add magic items for specific characters, that way as DM, I cheat and kinda reward magic items a bit more "fairly" to a party of characters. I don't always do that, but I do cheat, as DM, in that way. If that makes sense.
Although I understand why Red and Blue play two characters each (for a lack of players I'm assuming) - personally I would not be all that comfortable with it as a DM. If each player have TWO characters, it creates a bit more of a team vs. team, Red vs. Blue, mentality, at least to me. Personally, I would have each player pick a "main character" while the other becomes a glorified NPC. as DM, you should give will, motive, ambition, etc. and roleplay these PC NPCs. In this way, they are no longer "extensions" of your players, but rather of you as DM, and you can use them to alieviate some of the tension that has built up in game between the characters. Now, when Red wants to do XYZ as his sorceress, the fighter might object, or lay comment about how the situation does not seem fair to him. Likewise, when Blue as drow wishes to divide up the magic items and sell them off, the warlock might argue otherwise and want something else altogether. I would still allow the players to control the characters during combat, but you as DM can ultimately make judgment calls if you feel it goes against the character's persona.
Likewise, your DMPC, I honestly would make your pally more into a DMNPC or just a NPC. There always are fairness issues etc. that can easily break your trust with players if your character keeps doing amazing things or finds the hidden treasure etc. even if you make solid dice rolls. Does that make sense? I would personally play your pally as support for Red and Blue (tank with support heals). I would tone down the "will" of the pally, and have her become more passive letting the Red and Blue main characters make most of the "decisions" for the group. What I mean by that is having the players make meaningful decisions, not you as DM. So for example, your party defeats a big boss character and knocks him unconscious. Red and Blue argue and decides what to do with big boss. This is not a three way split decision between Red, Blue, and Pally yoou, but rather a two way decision, if that makes sense. If they are stuck and defer to your pally, I almost would roll randomly, thus not showing favoritism for one player or another. I probably would "weight" the roll if one decision or another is more favorable or alignment with the pally. So again, say if your pally would rather jail the boss vs. killing him, on a d8 roll, 1-5 the pally would vote to jail the boss with 6-8 for an execution. Does that make sense? Let the dice ultimately decide for your pally, so the players don't feel slighted. Let the players KNOW what your pally is thinking, and how weighted the dice are for one outcome over another... and roll in front of them so they know (or have one or the other roll the die so they can't blame you for the fate of the pally's decision).
If you really want to seal a unity thing for the two players, stage and force your character's death. That may unite them.
Red seems to be playing World of Warcraft - kill all to get xp, loot everything, he seems to be a completionish. Eh. Blue I think is reacting to Red by wanting treasure split.
Ultimately, I think you can use this game to really build friendship and comradery between Red and Blue. Use the story, the drama of the situation, and the game to your advantage, not as a pawn between Red and Blue fighting over you. Makes sense? I believe in you, and honestly think you can possibly pull it off, unless of course out of game issues is way deeper and damaging than my hopes for your D&D game.
Wow.
I'd like to say that this is a new and unique situation, but I can tell you that it's not. My League game has the same sort of tensions and poor sportsmanship.
But I can offer this: You have to sit these two down and hash this out in a non-game situation. This can't go on, because the three of you will become the two of you in a very short order, and I won't wager who the two are.
I also support the concept of finding a group online. I'm sure that your shyness will melt when you realize that your fellow geeks can be just as shy as you, and we all welcome a chance to game with you.
Folks this thread is *5 Months Old*
The OP has not been back to the site since then.
No idea why arthurrw decided to Necro it....
Kentus wrote:
Coredump00 wrote: