| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| #1vipLinkJan 13, 2015 4:19:57 | Hi,
I've started running D&D 5th Edition for a group of friends, and we've generally had a lot of fun with the Starter Set. Now we're a pretty large group (6 players + me) and I've only really had experince as a 3.5 Edition player.
That said I personally feel like I've managed to start off everything nicely and 5/6 players seem really engaged in they're characters and have been telling me how much they like the game and that to me sounds at least as if I'm doing a good Job.
Now I've noticed that I struggle a bit when the Players do something unexpected, but as long as they can explain correctly what they're trying to do I let them do a roll and think of someway for it to make sense. But one player in particular breaks the game a bit.
He's a bit of a "it's all fun and games" type of player, which is great I'd never want to disallow that, but this also breaks certain situations (like meeting the nothic for the first time, he was basicaly ruining the atmosphere to an incredible degree). But he'll take his turns in combat and basicaly take about 15m to come up with some convuluted mess of an attack that doesn't make sense and tries to tell me how this should do atleast double dmg. for no reason what so ever.
Now I'd love to award his inventive play, but he tries this every turn, never makes a normal attack and as a said half the time his "moves" won't make sense. I also don't want to let the players actually playing the game feel like they're beeing outclassed by an argumentative player.
As an example: He was trying to tie a rope to his arrows to pin an enemy to the wall. So basically tie one end to two arrows and fire them into the wall. stone walls by the way. So I explained he'd need at least 4 turns (one turn tying each end, and one per shot) and even then it would be hard for him to create enough force to smash his arrows into the walls and after that the "trapped" enemy would find it easy to escape his binding. But he immediately felt as if I was crippling his creativity, as "we're supposed to be able to do what ever we want in the game". Discussions errupted progress was stiffled and rinse and repeat at the next session.
Now I'd love to allow things like this, but he'll also as try to fire a rope arrow into a running bugbear and force it to the ground... with a strength value of 7. At some point it just turns into a drag trying to explain why this can't work.
He also shows little to no interest in learning the actual mechanics of the game. At level 3 I talked to him outside of the group about what Fighter Path he'd like to take and the anwser was just "pick the first one".
Now we've talked to him outside of playing and we mentioned that he was ruining the fun a bit for all of us and maybe this just isn't the game for him. Now he said he'd change his behavior, but he hasn't and this isn't the first time we've mentioned this to him. He really wants to keep playing with us, but it's more about being with us as a group than playing the game. So what am I to do if he keeps ruining the game this way overall?
I'd like to keep him at the table, he'll do some funny quirks at times which enhances the game, but overall he's sapping especially my enjoyment of the game. How do I deal with his sometimes non sensical turns, while keeping the other players involved? Am I crippling his creativity or should they're be these rules to keep the game from going crazy? And how do I explain to him what he can and can't do?
I've thought about forcing at least a few members at the table to read up on the rules (atm we'd just started messing about with the starter set and I explained to everyone how turns work, etc.), because atm I'm the only one who's really read it. Part of the problem is that I'm the only one of us who's fluent in english (live in germany, but my parents are british) and nobody really has the time to read through it all. Do you expect players to have read the rules when playing? It seemed like we were doing fine without it but maybe that's just part of the problem at hand.
Thanks in advance for any advice, vipLink |
| #2transcendantviewerJan 13, 2015 5:00:22 | My advice, and I'm not trying to sound like a jerk or anything, but I would simply pull the DM card. If I state that something can't happen, I'd offer a reasonable explanation as to why it wouldn't work, then, if that failed, simply state "I'm DM, this isn't happening, it makes no sense, even in this fantacy setting, so no, it's not going to work. I'm sorry." I've actually had a player like this, though I wasn't DMing for them, (Thank Pelor, I can say I wasn't doing that!) Didn't know the rules, refused to learn them, was after merely the "It's a fantacy, we're all out to have fun." sort of vibe, just like your player. However, unlike your player, whenever she was told no by the DM, she would get upset, like we were trying to just blatently tell her "You're not allowed to do things. Sit down in the corner." and she'd get all bent about it. She was a good role player and I enjoyed having her in the party, but when she didn't like something, she made all of us dislike everything.
Basically, appeal to their connection to their friends. Tell them that they're sucking the life out of the game for their friends. If they really value spending time with their friends as much as they say that they do, they'll at least be willing to pick up the book and start reading. If they've still got the nonsensical ideas, let one or two of them go through and when it fails, show them exactly why they failed, maybe after a few times, you'll start to see a distinct decline in silliness. Or at the very least, somewhat more thought going into their plans instead of the "Tom & Jerry" style cartoon physics that they're trying to shove down your throat. |
| #3iserithJan 13, 2015 6:51:04 | It's good that he's engaged and creative, but it sounds like there are two things he needs to understand which are found on pages 2 and 3 of the Basic Rules. Perhaps you can translate this into German for him.
First, he needs to understand the "win conditions" of D&D. Paraphrased from page 2, that's (1) have a good time and (2) create an exciting, memorable story as a result of play. If by virtue of the scenes the DM presents, the choices the players make, and the results the DM narrates, those two goals of play are achieved, then you "win." If you fail to achieve those goals of play, you "lose." While he may be making choices that he's enjoying, it sounds like he is failing to take into account the enjoyment of other people at the table which is a critical part of a cooperative group activity. Before we move forward on something "my character would do" or that is mechanically optimal or uber-"creative," we must ask ourselves: "Is this choice going to be fun for everyone at the table? Is it going to lead to the creation of exciting, memorable stories?" If we can honestly say that the answer to either of those questions is "No," then it is not a good choice. We should choose something else instead. (And, of course, prior to playing we should discuss what kind of game the group finds fun and what kinds of stories they want to create.)
Next, it's important for him to understand and respect what I call the "basic conversation of the game," which is outlined very clearly on page 3 of the Basic Rules. That is: (1) The DM describes the environment; (2) The players describe what they want to do; and, (3) The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions. Sometimes (sometimes!), the DM will bring the dice and mechanics into play to help him determine the result of an action with an uncertain outcome. Most of the time, however, the DM will simply narrate the action as working or not working. We as players should be respecting the DM's call in these matters so that play can run smoothly (remember the first goal of play) and DMs should be open to player ideas more often than not. But hey, nobody's perfect, so everyone should be understanding of each other in this regard and try to do the best they can, keeping the goals of play in mind.
Finally, the rest of my advice is for you, the DM. The ideas of our players are gifts. Wherever possible, it helps game play to accept them as the gifts they are and try to figure out a way to make them work. Of course, sometimes, because of established context, what a player wants to do just doesn't work. Perhaps the player missed or misinterpreted some vital detail when you described the environment or is choosing to ignore what you established. Listen to the idea, explain why it doesn't work in this case, and make a counteroffer. You might offer a precondition ("You'll have a shot at doing that, but first you need to do this other thing..."), make it cost something ("You can do that, but it costs you this..."), or offer other ideas ("That's impossible given this particular situation, but you could try something like..."). Saying "No" to a player's idea offered in good faith can be detrimental to their game experience which means the DM is failing to contribute to the first goal of play in much the same way the player at your table appears to be doing by arguing. Saying "Yes, but..." is better than "No." Saying "Yes, and..." is better still.
Here is how I would handle the example situation you presented:
Player: I want to tie a rope to my arrows and pin that enemy to the wall. DM: Okay, how do you go about doing that? Player: Basically, I tie one end to two arrows and fire them into the wall on either side of him. DM: Yes, you can try that, but in order to get the rope and arrows ready to loose on your next turn, someone is going to need to help you on this turn. When you loose the arrows, it'll be with disadvantage because you're firing two in rapid succession and trying to aim for the seams in stone where they will stick. But if you hit, the target will be restrained as if hit by a net. Player (to other players): Quick, I need your help! |
| #4bawylieJan 13, 2015 6:46:46 | With all due respect, I believe you're responsible here.
1.) It falls on you to make the players actions work. 2.) The rules exist for you (not them) so you can make their actions work. 3.) It's on you to properly train them.
And I truly do mean all this respectfully.
First, the player has the idea that he ought to be able to try anything he wants - and he's right. Which means you need to find out 2 things every time he takes an action: WHAT he wants & HOW he's trying to get it. (You need this from every player, every action). So when you get a convoluted explanation of stuff, raise your hand, wait a beat and ask "What do you want to happen here? And what are you doing to make it happen? If I can't understand it, I can't help you."
Thats the start. You may not get good answers at first as they keep trying to convince you something should work. (And let's face it, you've created an environment where the players feel they must convince you of outcomes before they try anything).
The next thing you need to do is find ways to make their action work. In other words - they're not responsible for strict adherence to the rules and action economy. You are. The player wants to fire two arrows with a line between them. Fine - he's a wacky guy already, let's say he's already cooked up this idea and wants to field test it. That gives him the arrows & rope already set up. Now all he's doing is aiming and firing. At a stone wall. You have your doubts, but unless you know this will fail (or know this will succeed), he gets a roll.
Lets say you know it will fail. You tell him. "The idea is sound but you know you'll never embed those arrows into the stone wall. What do you do?" Instead - you told him he'd have to spend 4 turns (FOREVER) just to try something.
Which brings me to this point. Do not use the system against the players. It is unfair. You know it better. You have the authority. And as i said, it's for you - not them. So when you use it to shut down their idea, it really is a punishment. The merit of the idea isn't dependent on the system mechanics. This is why your players feel they have to convince you of an outcome before they try anything. So when you know what they want and how they go about it, be honest about the apparent difficulty and requirements. But don't use the system to talk them out of trying something. "It's risky - would be easy enough if you weren't in the middle of a fight. Give me a [whatever] check vs DC [whatever], if you make it, blah blah. If you fail, blah blah. What do you do?" Or "Its a good idea but it'll take time to pull it off properly. If you want to do it now give me a [whatever] check vs DC [whatever] with disadvantage. If you take the time to do it right, you can make the check next round without disadvantage. Or if someone comes to help, that'll cancel out disadvantage - what do you do?"
And that's the crux of it. Instead of being punitive about what it takes for something to happen, you just identify the player's goals and set the obstacles between them and their goals.
Once you have their trust and they're no longer playing the "convince the dm" mini-game, they'll take "No, that won't work" much easier. So tell them what the character knows, not what the system permits.
For further reading on this, see DM 101 & How to Train Your Players on my blog. Link in sig.
Very best of luck to you! |
| #5NoctaemJan 13, 2015 8:49:00 |
|
| #6iserithJan 13, 2015 9:28:25 |
|
| #7feartheminotaurJan 13, 2015 11:43:43 |
|
| #8Archon007Jan 13, 2015 14:59:47 | I think instead of telling him what won't work, tell him what he needs to make it work.
You can do that..... In order to succeed you would need a DC20 rolling with disadvantage. I find it best to let the player come to the conclusion that what they are trying to do extremely difficult instead of the GM saying its too difficult.
He is right as a player he can TRY anything that by no means that what is being tried will succeed. |
| #9ImaculataJan 13, 2015 16:50:58 | 6 players is a pretty big group. Thats a lot of players to manage. And if one player is constantly slowing the whole combat down, with convoluted plans, that can be really bothersome. It seems though, that he is an otherwise fun and engaged player.
When you sit down with a bunch of players to play DnD, you do so with the agreement that the DM makes the rules. What he says goes, and everyone respects the same rules. You can agree with your players to respect the standard rules of the game, and not have any ludicrous over the top plans. Or you can choose to allow what ever plans the players come up with, and add penalties for things that seem difficult. At no point should the player try to ref his own attacks, and decide how much damage it should do. That is your call, and yours alone, unless you open it up for discussion with the other players.
My own players occasionally come up with weird plans, and I try to allow it in a way that feels like it could happen. So I tend to ask my players for details, and extra rolls. For example, normal arrows would break if shot into a brick wall, so I would tell the player that he would need to craft or buy arrows made for this purpose. I would also remind him that there are other more efficient none-lethal ways to take down an enemy, if that is his goal (such as a grapple, disarm, or maybe knockout gas combined with an arrow). If possible, I would involve the other players in his plans. Maybe some of them have the necessary knowledge or craft skills to help him with his plans.
On the other hand, maybe what you really need to do is just have a talk about it with all of the players. Get their opinion, and discuss it openly together. And make an agreement about what sort of game you all want to play. Will you stick strictly to the rules, or will you allow improvisation? |
| #10grendel111111Jan 13, 2015 16:56:15 | It sounds like he might be plying a different game to the rest of you. In his mind he is playing a superhero/ anima game, where as you are running more of a heroic setting. Did you sit down before the game started to find out what kind of game everyone wanted, or tell them what kind of game you are wanting to run?
When he says he wants to fire 2 arrows with a rope between them to immobilise the target, that is very acceptable in a game based on a batman type character, but if your game is set more in a game of thrones (from what I understand) or lion the witch and the wardrobe type setting, those type of things don't happen (or not as reliably).
I had one player who wanted to jump from a pegasis onto the back of a dragon, kill it, then jump back onto his pegasis. He was anoyed that it required skill checks to do (he thought it should all happen as narrated and no skill checks needed because it looked cool. The other players were annoyed because they thought is was just too silly, for what for them was a failry serious game and they didn't want any of that superhero rubbish in their games and thought it should just fail outright. Interestingly the player who wanted the free pass on the action never lets things like that happen in games that he runs. |
| #11alienuxJan 13, 2015 17:59:08 |
|
| #12El_CondoroJan 13, 2015 20:48:29 | In an ideal world at an ideal table the DM and players would work this out to everyone's satisfaction but let's assume that doesn't happen and, after long and intense discussion the player cannot be convinced that the arrow and rope trick is likely to fail or that the articulately described attack won't do double damage. He seems disheartened and sour.
The DM says yes the rope trick works and yes the attack does double damage and then automatically succeeds with a hidden roll Strength check to break the rope and ignores the extra damage in his hidden monster hit point tally.
Would the table be a happy one? |
| #13ImaculataJan 14, 2015 3:10:08 | What I sometimes do, is be really open with my players. If they are trying to do something very difficult, I will explain to them why it is difficult, and what penalties I would add to the DC. Normally I would keep the DC a secret, but on rare cases I want to give my players some insight into what is going on, so they don't feel like I'm outright calling a failure on one of their plans. So I tell them what DC I expect them to beat, and why it is that high.
For example, a player is trying to shout commands during a heavy storm. I tell the player that I will add a -4 to the listen check that the other player needs to make, in order to hear what he is shouting. |
| #14iserithJan 14, 2015 5:39:34 |
|
| #15alienuxJan 14, 2015 7:17:30 | I think sometimes people get so worked up into the Role Playing that they leave out the Game part. No matter how much we enjoy the role playing or how much effort we put into it, it's still a game. It's not a board game, but it is a game. That's why we use dice to determine results when appropriate.
If it was just someone descibing what they want to do and it just happening regardless of what an arbitrator decided, it wouldn't be an RPG, it would be simply collaborative role-play story telling and not much else (which is fine, but that's not what constitutes a RP Game). |
| #16NoctaemJan 14, 2015 7:19:04 |
|
| #17iserithJan 14, 2015 7:28:47 |
|
| #18alienuxJan 14, 2015 7:58:05 |
|
| #19iserithJan 14, 2015 8:07:49 | Okay, thanks for clarifying. I can see that. I think it might be more basic though: A character can try anything, but according to the basic conversation of the game, it's the DM that narrates the results. If the player was clear on that expectation, then the objection would have no basis. |
| #20Archon007Jan 14, 2015 14:33:12 |
|
| #21NoonJan 14, 2015 23:21:12 | Does it matter if he pins things or stops things running fairly often, game balance wise?
Or do you want it to not work because it breaks your sense of realism?
If it's that, he's not finding your sense of realism that fun.
When the GM 100% sticks to his idea of what is realistic, with no compromising that - it can get very boring for others at the table. |
| #22El_CondoroJan 14, 2015 23:39:28 | There is a kind of "realism" in a fantasy RPG and it is not a dirty word, IMO. If a player says he wants to trip up an adult dragon with some twine strung between two trees I have a problem with that, even though the dragon is not real and in a fantasy world "realism" is a rubbery term. If the DM likes realism (I'll stop putting the word in quotation marks now) and has expressed that to his players and they have accepted that, then I would expect them to accept his decision that a line of twine is not going to be strong enough to trip a dragon. The player should still be allowed to try it, but in most cases it will fail and I would indicate that ahead of the attempt. The night might be plied with liberal doses of mirth and a dragon tripping on its nose might be a great scene and that's fine, too.
A player who constantly bends or ignores all concepts of physics and always wants to be front and centre because he or she has the wackiest ideas can also be very boring after a while. A balance can be achieved where a degree of realism is allowed and a degree of whacky creativity is encouraged. Of course, those two terms are extremes and most of us play somewhere in the continuum. |
| #23NoonJan 15, 2015 17:17:29 | I think you're missing the point that it's just your subjective idea of realism.
It's a creative activity - but when one person insists their idea of realism is 100% used (not even compromising at 95% used and 5% is from the players perspective), then it ceases to be a group creative activity. |
| (Reply to #23)AaronOfBarbaria |
|
| #25El_CondoroJan 15, 2015 18:36:05 | I agree with you (both) that a D&D table is a group/team effort if it is going to work as intended i.e. have fun creating a narrative story etc. A DM who always says "no" is surely going to sap the fun out of a game. My point is more about it being legitimate to effectively say "no" sometimes. Use terms like "yes, but", "yes, although", "OK, that's fine but have you considered" but however you say it you are still trying to telegraph a high or even certain chance of failure. There is no requirement for a DM to accept every idea that gets presented as being a viable option with a good chance of success if he determines it has a low or zero chance of success.
Getting back to the OP's point, I believe it is legitimate to say something like "Your attempt to pin the creature against the stone wall will take preparation time (your movement), great skill and a huge dose of luck to hit tiny cracks in the wall and stay in place - twice; once on each side of the creature. Also, it is more than likely the creature will break out but that may account for its next move. Do you still want to attempt your action?" It's situational, of course, too. If a player has been having a bad night - rolling badly, enemy hitting him often, etc, or taking a ribbing from the other players/characters for some reason - I might just allow it to make him feel like a hero again.
My main point, which may be so obvious as not to warrant expression, is that the DM should not be expected to guarantee every character's action a good chance of success to avoid being labelled a kill-joy. Some players find their joy in enacting more plausible (in real-world terms) solutions - they have a right to enjoy the game, too. |
| #26ZalbarthemadJan 15, 2015 19:42:32 | Eh, let him do what he wants. When it falls flat on his face, that's his problem and he'll either learn or continue to fail in what he tries.
I don't tell my players what to do, I tell them the outcome of what they did. |
| #27BoldItalicJan 15, 2015 23:50:38 |
|
| #28NoctaemJan 16, 2015 2:56:47 |
|
| #29AzylynneJan 16, 2015 3:14:15 | One thing I usually look out for is that a player character's "creative action" does not overshadow game mechanics powers/abilities that characters have to "invest in". So for example, if a player constantly wanted to do something spectacular, and is asking for a bonus chance to crit when his character does XYZ (a creative yet, not all that costly manuever), I generally won't give him an improvement to "Crit" ala Fighter/Champion bonus to crit. Does this make sense? I may reward a player for creative actions, but I won't let those actions equate powers and abilities that already exist in the game, at least not without a significant cost. |
| #30ZalbarthemadJan 16, 2015 7:23:21 |
|
| (Reply to #28)AaronOfBarbaria |
|
| #32Devils-AdvocateJan 16, 2015 13:55:01 |
|
| #33BRJNJan 17, 2015 18:16:59 | OP: If nobody but you has read the rules, you need to invest some time in writing a translation and passing that out to your players. The group will not be able to create a cooperative tale if everybody is making it up as they go along. Then a group discussion of themes and atmosphere. If one player wants to simulate cartoon gags but another wants a dark gritty survival tale, they won't be able to do both at once. There are ways to work the problem out - discussed above - but it may turn out that you will have to stop inviting one person to sessions.
I hope your group can continue together, but also prepare for a different and more difficult answer. |
| #34NevvurJan 18, 2015 19:16:04 | I'd like to hear more examples of this 'inventive (but flawed)' player's actions. The arrow/rope idea should have been shot down because it's stupid, not inventive. So many things wrong with it that while I'd allow the player to try, I'd also describe why its going to automatically fail (arrows can be snapped like twigs, fletching cannot impede the knot from slipping off, etc).
Creativity should be rewarded, inanity should not. |
| #35NoctaemJan 19, 2015 8:31:02 |
|
| #36NevvurJan 19, 2015 12:19:03 | Every iteration of the rope arrow I've seen in fiction has been prefabricated, unlike the improvised version in the OP's example, and still lack verisimilitude (IMO). People listed other reasons why the idea is implausible -- shooting two arrows is hard enough, shooting them with any degree of accuracy while dangling rope between makes it harder, landing both arrows in the tiny cracks of a stone wall makes it even harder -- and I could probably think of more issues if the idea didn't give me a headache... It's the combination of all those elements that launch it into the realm of inanity.
The player seems to want to bring a laser gun into a game of cowboys and indians. But D&D isn't even that, it has rules for a reason, as alienux discussed above, and it sounds like the player is trying to subvert the rules at the expense of others. That's why I asked for more examples, to get a better idea whether this player is being creative or disruptive.
|
| #37Devils-AdvocateJan 19, 2015 12:38:41 | Again though, depends on the genre you're emulating. If its a swashbuckling Errol Flynn style adventure, I'd totally buy that the rope arrow trick works. If it's a grim and gritty George R. R. Martin type game, not a chance. Realism is relative in fantasy. |
| (Reply to #37)grendel111111 |
|