What caused the blow up...
The elf player wanted to do a "crouching tiger" style move. In the mod he wanted his rogue, to "jump" down 10 feet, make an Athletics check and land on the floor for his first move action, then make an athletics check to jump up 10 feet on the opposite side with a second move action. The gap in between was 5 squares across. The trouble started when the DM asked him to make an acrobatics check to avoid taking damage when she landed. The player asked why he had to make an acrobatics check, since his PC was "jumping" down. The DM explained that in the rules Athletics covers jumping across something or lengthways or "jumping" up onto something and Acrobatics covers falling or "jumping" down from something to avoid falling damage. The player then tried to explain that the fall is controlled and he should be allowed to use athletics. The DM showed him the rule and basically said if you want to try the stunt, you have to make an acrobatics check first. Then the player started to whine he was being treated unfairly and that the rules supported his arguement and by this point anyone who supported the DM was an a-hole and well you get the picture. It got worse when he did make the acrobatics check and came up with a 15 and the DM rolled a 9 on the d10, which caused his elf rogue to take 2 damage and to fall prone. It went on for 20 minutes and almost ended the session. I talked the DM into staying. Several people stated they would not play a game if the elf rogue player was playing in a future session.
It seems that there's always a player trying to "twist" the meaning of the rules and gain some kind of advantage for themselves. We seem to get alot of these players in our area and to be honest, I'm starting to hate playing D&D again. I'm also seriously thinking about quitting again. I'm not having fun. These sorts of gamers are litterally sucking the fun right out of the game. Even when you show these players where they're wrong in the rules, they still want to argue, which holds up the game and ruins the mood at the table. This is one of the reasons I stopped playing 3E. I look at it as cheating and I hate playing with cheaters. I feel my journey with D&D, which began in 1980, may be coming to an end.
Any words of wisdom out there?
In my second group, I was amazed at how the DM handled this. He was running a game for a hodge-podge group of guys. A new player showed up one evening, but ended up not having fun because of two problem players. After the session, the new guy thanked the DM for the opportunity to play, then said that this wasn't his type of group, and so he wouldn't be back. The DM, recognizing a golden opportunity, said, "No, wait. YOU'RE the type of player I want in my group. I want you to stay. Those other two players will not be playing in my game anymore." True to his word, the DM told the other two players, "You guys don't mesh with the type of game I want to run. It's not going to work out."
Ultimately, your fun is in your hands. You either have to find a way to have fun in your group, or alter the group. Kick the player out, or get a second game going on a different night, without the player.
Then the player started to whine he was being treated unfairly and that the rules supported his arguement and by this point anyone who supported the DM was an a-hole
At that point I would have kicked that players
to the curb. There would be no way that I would be leaving the game if I was GM but that player should would have to watch that their didn't get hit by the door on their way out.ANY argument with the GM at my gaming table (regardless of what the rules say) is ground to be booted from the game. I tell my players that if they have an issue with something I've done or a ruling I've made that they should make a note of it and bring it up after the game. If not then door... Azs...
...bring it up after the game...
For truth.
Ultimately, your fun is in your hands. You either have to find a way to have fun in your group, or alter the group. Kick the player out, or get a second game going on a different night, without the player.
Well said; I agree completely. I don't think a single player should be the cause of getting rid of a hobby that you've been enjoying for over 20 years.
Well said; I agree completely. I don't think a single player should be the cause of getting rid of a hobby that you've been enjoying for over 20 years.
I am with you on that. this is a game, a fantasy where we all go to escape the mondane real world for a time just to have fun or thats how i see it atleast.
The trouble is that (some) new players don't know the rules and make what they think is an allmighty PC and get upset when they find out they can't do all the things they thought they could. Their level 2 thinking their level 20+.
Unfortunatly the only two solutions are 1. Stick it out and teach them the rules (and better manners in your case) or 2. Ask them to leave. Its also hard when most people you play with are friends.
Hope this helps. Good luck
Well said; I agree completely. I don't think a single player should be the cause of getting rid of a hobby that you've been enjoying for over 20 years.
Well said.
Jumping over something, increase the DC by 3-5 for an Acrobatics check
Jumping down/up, increase the DC by 3-5 for an Athletics check
I have never allowed the checks to be substituted for avoiding falling damage though.
Player argues.
Someone points out the rule in the book.
If the rule favors the DM's ruling, that should be the end of it. The player may want to make one last point to try to convince the DM otherwise, but should also not expect to win that argument. Some DM's may be or feel magnanimous at that point to allow it, most won't (especially after they've already made the ruling). Then it MUST be dropped. If not, the player needs to be told to drop it, and if he doesn't he must be asked to leave.
If the rule favors the player, the DM should thank him for pointing it out and either reverse his ruling or state that though he is aware of the rule (and please next time point it out after the game when it's not disruptive) his original ruling still stands. The rule's been pointed out, the ruling is made that trumps the rule (Rule 0 always wins), end of story. The player has no further argument because his position was based on the actual rule. If the DM decides to ignore the rule, there's nothing at that moment to be done about it. Again, that's the point at which it MUST be dropped. If the player presses the issue, as above he should be asked to leave.
The player should later ask the DM to clarify all rules that he's going to change or homebrew that will be different than the books so everyone can have the same understanding, but for that moment there is no more argument to be made.
now im playing an assassin3 monk 2. yes we knew that you are supposed to be level 5 before you can go into that prestigue class but this worked with the Charactors background and he said yea just run with it..
yesterday the same guy who had a problem with my old Charactor suddenly got all jumpy when he realised that with two daggers my attack bonus was 7/5 two weapon fighting,weapong finesse,focus,and magebane dagger.. i rolled a 14 knew I hit but he threw a hissy fit and decided that he would look through my charactor to spot any mistakes I made.. Gotta say I lost it said he was ruining the game for me and killing my fun..... .. said to my DM you have to give him the altamatum shut the (censored) up or leave the game.. not make me rewrite a well thought out charactor.
After several incidents in a 3E campaign (one rather ugly one in particular) I started to make such a list for myself to give to every player I have from that point on. I call it my D&D Manifesto. It's a page and a half, maybe 2 pages total. I think it's one of the smartest things I've ever done with D&D.
The great majority of problems that arise in D&D can be boiled down to one issue in particular - COMMUNICATION. Or really, the LACK of communication between players and DM. Sometimes it's as if players feel they aren't ALLOWED to even question the DM because the DM is a jerk with a god complex. Sometimes players (as in this case) don't know when to shut up because for one reason or another they expect to always get their way. DM's should operate as much as possible with transparency - that is, don't just DICTATE to the players, explain WHY you are ruling the way you are. It's generally not a secret! Neither players nor DM's have ESP. Nobody can magically sense what someone else at the table is thinking and why - SO EXPLAIN IT TO THEM. It is the single best thing you can do for any D&D game.
In the case of the OP the complaining player should simply have been told, "Look, I've made my ruling. I appreciate that you don't agree and that it bothers you but at this point the discussion is over. We can resume discussion on it LATER, but for now we are not going to continue to waste time arguing about it." If the player then persisted in arguing he should have been told, "Alright, that's it. You're being NEEDLESSLY disruptive at this point. You have two choices: shut the hell up about this and continue to play; or pack your gear up and get out so that the rest of us CAN play. We will then later go over the manifesto and find out what it is about it that you didn't understand, or refuse to accept. If, however, you feel that strongly about what is a trivial element in the larger scheme of things you can just go suck an egg because nobody at this table needs to put up with any more of this crap."
Any words of wisdom out there?
The RPGA-games have a lot of nice and decent players. But unfortunately a small group of people is inherently disruptive. It's hard to change this behavior, because there are no lasting social consequences. You could try to find one or more DMs that can deal with situations like you described. Chances are you will find a disruptive player at your table every now and then. So try to end up at the 'good DM' tables.
I run the occasional LFR game, and I know some players prefer certain DMs over others. There's no shame in that: I prefer certain players over others as well. ;)
Alternatively, you could try to get a regular gaming group together, possibly with some close friends. Teach them the game if you have to. 'Replace' disruptive players and in the end you'll have a great game going.
This Saturday there was an arguement at the gaming table. It involves our friend who plays his 2nd Level Female Elf Rogue in our LFR games. The arguement occured over the use of Athletics and Acrobatics.
In my opinion, the Athletics/Acrobatics skill division is really dodgy, and more importantly, not intuitive. It's an easy place to get stuck in the rules. Not that this makes your time any less wasted, but it's definitely one of those mid-fight minefields to watch out for.
To anyone playing with someone who's planning to make a flippity character, I suggest making sure they know which skills are which during Character Creation. I think this whole mess would've been avoided if the Rogue player had been clearly told about this particular skill interaction prior to the game.
It went on for 20 minutes and almost ended the session. I talked the DM into staying. Several people stated they would not play a game if the elf rogue player was playing in a future session.
Simply from the information given, I think your DM is also at fault here. Not in creating the problem, obviously, but in letting this drag out for 20 minutes. Trouble players can only cause as big a mess as the DM allows. It's too easy to put the squash on arguments like this. Something like:
[INDENT]"We can talk about this after the encounter, but this is how I'm ruling it right now. If this changes your action, that's cool, please go ahead."[/INDENT]
This is one of the reasons I stopped playing 3E. I look at it as cheating and I hate playing with cheaters. I feel my journey with D&D, which began in 1980, may be coming to an end.
First: I think you're overselling it, and that you shouldn't let one bad apple get to you. You had a table full of people who clearly didn't agree with the rogue player, so why not just play with them?
Second: in my opinion, that's not cheating. Cheating is lying: something like faking a die roll or intentionally using a power that hasn't recharged. This is not understanding the rules, then arguing them -- notably because he was allowed to argue them. The deragatory comments were out of bounds, of course. The end result is a bad time, but not because of cheating.
Third: Here's the part where I devil's advocate for the Rogue, as it can get screwy from a mechanics point-of-view. Again, simply from the information given, the rogue was trying to cross a 25-foot wide, 10-foot deep gap in 2 move actions.
What Happened: The rogue opted for the fun, flashy "crouching tiger" maneuver, which was ruled an Acrobatics check + an Athletics check.
What Could Have Happened: The exact same ground could have been covered by climbing down the first wall, then moving across and jumping up to the other side: 2 Athletics checks.
So a question to the group, was the rogue punished for being flashy?
Second, in my school the DM is LAW, at least while the game is on. You want to argue something that has been ruled against, state your case AFTER or BEFORE the game has started. The Dm may not be RIGHT all the time, but he is NOT to be argued with during game play. If you feel wronged voice your objections politely, allow the Dm to rule, then move on regardless. Shouldn't take more than a minute or two of time at most unless rules are being looked up BY THE DM.
This isn't 24 and none of us are Jack Bauer, it's a game.
Rule #1: Have fun
Rule #2: DM is LAW (during game play)
Rule #3: Respect everyone elses right to have fun as well.
My 2 cents... Have fun and allow others to have fun people.
fairdady
www.midwest-gaming.us
A. It becomes undead?
Q. What happens when all the fun is sucked out of a game?
A. It becomes undead?
Amusingly (or not), this is fairly accurate.
First, I think that the players should really attempt to openly communicate to the argumentative player. Tell him that you don't want to play in games with them as a player, and why. Don't be abrasive or confrontational, but just matter-of-fact. Some people can fool themselves into thinking that something is OK, but will adapt when the choices are in front of them.
Second, if possible, point out to the player in question that playing D&D is a social contract. The player, by agreeing to play in the game with this DM, has already agreed to abide by this DM's rulings. If you don't agree with this, don't play the game.
Third, these sound like pick-up games at a local store. Is it possible to run "invitation only" games? Perhaps your DM could run some Dungeon Delve one-shots to "weed through" problematic players, and invite people to "regular sessions". It might even be a house rule. Anyone wanting to play in the regular campaign has to have played 1 (or 2) Delves, and then be invited in by the campaign group unanimously (first player gets in by DM invitation, second by DM and first player, etc).
Finally, regardless of the "right" or "wrong" in this situation, D&D, like all social interactions, isn't guaranteed to work with any particular group of people. This doesn't need to be about rudeness, or being argumentative. Sometimes, certain players don't mesh with others. I had a former group that I played with, and I just didn't enjoy the dynamic. I invited a few of the players to my current group, and we have a LOT of fun, and very little "drama". The other players were really angry about it, but I wish I could have gotten them to understand that while I liked them as people, I didn't enjoy gaming with them very much. It wasn't a character judgment. You don't date people you don't like romantically, even if you like them just fine otherwise. Why should gaming be different?
Sometimes I will spot a rules discrepancy and point it out. The DM mentions he's aware of it, but there's a mitigating factor applying I couldn't possibly have known about. I hated it, in a good way, when I figured out the evil cleric had casted Divine Power on himself, my old stereotypical trick when I played a cleric in previous campaigns. :D There was also the joy, when an NPC ally got at least 10 attacks (I lost count) on his turn, the lightbulb went on and I realized he used Time Stands Still. Probably also had a Tiger Claw boost in there as well for extra attacks.
Nevertheless, it's point out rule break or DM asks for rule clarification, rule dilemma patched, then continue the game. A final rule fix will be determined after the game. Sometimes the DM finds the patch was the correct answer. Othertimes he finds he was in error and uses the correct answer for all future such rulings. Once in a while he just likes the patch better and fiats it to be the "correct" answer.
If a player is sucking out the fun, he/she's outta there.
Also, talk to the "good" players in your group. Maybe there are enough of them to continue on without bringing in any new players. If not, then maybe all of you can take a break and take up some other activity or game. (Have you tried Aces & Eights the western RPG? I hear it is pretty good.) Another option is to form a new group with the good players and just put in place a screening process. Any prospective new players for my group are met for lunch by me and a couple other players before they ever game with us. If we cannot stand them while just having lunch we will not stand them playing D&D. We also can talk about the game and size them up to get an idea of their playing style and such. You can try the same thing, maybe pick a few examples of bad players you have gamed with (such as your original post) and tell them to the prospective new players and guage their reaction.
The bottom line is that if it ever gets to the point where you dread going to a D&D session more than look forward to it then you should definitely STOP PLAYING D&D. I am not saying to stop playing permanently, but just to stop for a while. Why go do something for entertainment and enjoyment when it is no longer entertaining or enjoyable?
The best advice I can give is to know when you have a player who's going to be trouble. They are the same with everything they do: annoying cry babies. And if you keep running into them, it makes you not want to play a game where they conjugate.
Skalgrimm is correct:
Rudeness is always worse when it is encountered in our favorite pastimes. If you hate going to the grocery store, it's pretty minor if someone is rude there. But if you love D&D, it's really bad when it happens.
But I think it's a mistake to give up something, especially D&D. We need sensible and thoughtful people being our representatives than rude, childish, and annoying people. Lets not let them define the game and the community!:D
In this case, the DM is right.
As a player in the same game, tell dude to suck it up and play or walk. He's wasting everyone's time.
But anyway.
Have you ever _SEEN_ someone fall off a 10/20 foot ledge? If they use Athletics (plonk their legs down, try to use their muscles to absorb the blow) they're going to be in a serious amount of pain. Get to 30/40 feet, and their legbones will be scratching their ears.
An acrobat knows how to fall. They absorb some pressure with their legs, then let the legs collapse; they involve their arms; they involve rolling. True, you can't be an acrobat without a bit o' muscle, but... as I said above.. Acrobatics has a much higher weight in the situation than Athletics.
As for arguing with the DM? I allow players to present their arguments. I consider the arguments. I might amend what I've done based on them. If I decide against them after considering the options, they'd better shut up =/
The player, of course, was a whiny little bunk-wad. It is equally stupid for the player to gripe for 20 minutes over 2 damage.
The DM made a pretty bad call, IMO. The player wanted to jump down, and proposed using the jump skill (Athletics). If the DM had simply said OK roll, it sounds like the game would have gone on just fine. Instead, the DM let the whole escapade drag on for 20 minutes, ultimately all for the sake of 2 damage.
The player, of course, was a whiny little bunk-wad. It is equally stupid for the player to gripe for 20 minutes over 2 damage.
Following the rules is "a pretty bad call"? That is a pretty harsh statement. The DM is there to try and create a fun and entertaining game for the players, but he has to do it within the milieu of the rules. The player proposed the WRONG rule. In that situation the job of the DM is to tell the player that it is the wrong rule and to then tell them which rule is the appropriate rule. Additionally, players generally are not supposed to propose what skills to use. The DM is the rules arbiter. The players state what they want to do and the DM then tells them what skill check to make. If this had been a case of the DM not knowing that soliciting player advice is good. But the DM apparently knew the rules and said which skill check to make. I do not think the DM is at fault for making a rules decision and sticking to it. That is one of his jobs.
As for letting the escapade drag on for 20 minutes, I think that that is the fault of the player in question, a player who was too immature to accept that he was wrong.
I had enemies with huge reflex defense and another Mr.Whine kept attacking i with reflex attacks. I think sometimes they just make things to whine about.
At the 5-minute mark, I would have that player start getting hit by 1d12 lightning bolts until he dies or shuts up
Additionally, players generally are not supposed to propose what skills to use.
Methinks we have completely different playstyles. My players have always proposed which skills/rules to use every bit as often as myself as DM.
In the heat of the action, I am willing to pretty much let things go as they will. After the heat of the action is over, if I or any of the players felt that the wrong call was made, we will come up with what we will use in the future to cover the situation.
In this specific case, the player would have been allowed to jump down with Athletics and play would have continued. Assuming the other players would grouse something about it being the wrong call, we could have that discussion after the battle/after the game session.
DnD being a social game, you are going to have players who don't know the rules, you will have players who think they know the rules but are wrong, you will most absolutly have, no matter what way you go... a "bad" player.
same thing with any mmo, you will fall in the same rut, you will have rule chat hogs "barrens chat", you will have ninja looters, you will have others who one way or another "ruin your fun"
the only way to control this is by not participating in social games.
without being there and giving you the advice from the information presented, the player is in the wrong. the dm is more in the wrong.
the best advice i can give you is to take some time away from the game, if you choose to do so. you must be heard, seveeral members who already posted mentioned communication being aat fault for your poor time and i agree. explaain without being interuppted what your problem was.
best case scenario, the dm will learn from this and become a better dm. the player however will in all honesty not learn as much as the guy behind the screen. the player isn't much of a concern as the dm is.
personally i think you making a stand will be the best thing for this party to get thier head out of the clouds.
My tastes have evolved, and the players in that game are acting in ways I find detract from the fun of the game.
I am giving them a last try but it is very likely I will be quitting that game.
Times change tastes change, people change. Sometimes they just aren't the type of gamers that you can have fun with anymore.
We seem to get alot of these players in our area...
Out of curiosity, where is your area?
So not only was he not cheating, he was right. The DM was being unfair(though clearly not on purpose.) Even though the person was being difficult, I wouldn't hold it against him. If you knew you were right, and people insisted you were wrong, most people would argue over it.
Of course some times you do need to just step back, and go on with the game. We have all been there though, when there are so many rules to remember, no one can be perfect.
Actually I should ask what you are playing. In 3.5 that is how it works, I am not sure if that changed in 4E. If you are playing 4E, then you should give the guy a break since that often confuses people who are used to playing 3.5
Then the player started to whine he was being treated unfairly and that the rules supported his arguement and by this point anyone who supported the DM was an a-hole...
Aboslutely not. If this ever happens again, ever, call him out...
YOU: "Dude, I am not having fun with you acting this way. You're making me think of not playing anymore."
Do not let up. No matter what he says, stick to your guns. The other players and DM might just back you up, forcing the problem player to make a decision.
Then I feel my journey with D&D, which began in 1980, may be coming to an end.
Absolutely not. Do not let one person mess up your fun. If you quit, I will have very little respect for you.
Any words of wisdom out there?
Absolutely. Contrary to the common adage, you can win or lose at D&D. If you tuck your tail in and walk away, you will have lost. If you take a stand and not allow the problem player to act out, you will have won, because then you can start having fun.
At that point I would have kicked that players
ANY argument with the GM at my gaming table (regardless of what the rules say) is ground to be booted from the game. I tell my players that if they have an issue with something I've done or a ruling I've made that they should make a note of it and bring it up after the game. If not then door... Azs...
Do you make this standard clear before the game starts? Your game is your game, but I'd vote with my feet before the game started if given the chance. If I disagree with a ruling you make in game, I'd expect to be able to voice it.
As a DM, I can think of no reason to push ahead when there's a rules dispute without at least saying "I'd really prefer to move forward with the story... can we discuss this later?"
If you intend to discuss it after play, it might even be practical to rule the way they see it, since you're going to discuss the way silimar situations will be handled in the future. If you're really intending to be fair during that later discussion, you ought to be assigning a 50/50 chance either rule will wind up becoming the standard for your table.
I would've beat them over the head with my DMG, then beat them over the head with cheesy chinese fighting movies. That might take a while, since I'd have to go find someone who had some...
But anyway.
Have you ever _SEEN_ someone fall off a 10/20 foot ledge? If they use Athletics (plonk their legs down, try to use their muscles to absorb the blow) they're going to be in a serious amount of pain. Get to 30/40 feet, and their legbones will be scratching their ears.
An acrobat knows how to fall. They absorb some pressure with their legs, then let the legs collapse; they involve their arms; they involve rolling. True, you can't be an acrobat without a bit o' muscle, but... as I said above.. Acrobatics has a much higher weight in the situation than Athletics.
As for arguing with the DM? I allow players to present their arguments. I consider the arguments. I might amend what I've done based on them. If I decide against them after considering the options, they'd better shut up =/
On your point about leg strength and falling distance:
I've been an airborne army soldier for fifteen years. That's parachuting out of airplanes if the jargon is unfamiliar. Most people will warn you that landing from parachuting with our equipment is equivalent to jumping from a third story window, or 24-30 feet.
The way the Army prepares you for this is not acrobatics, they make you run long distances at a low pace, working to shore up the leg muscles, particularly connecting muscles around the knees and hips. This has been the common practice since World War I.
I'm not saying an athletics check is the only right answer, but your "proof" that acrobatics is the only correct answer is debateable.
Moreover, in the end the debate is only meaninful for the group and DM in question. Whatever they agree on should work fine, so long as it's consistent.
My two cents.