Maybe it's just because I'm relatively new to this, but I feel like any time I DM I'm up against a group that doesn't want to play with me, but against me. Maybe it's all in my head, but I feel like I'm at odds with the group most of the time, despite wanting to work with what they have in the confines of the rules. I feel like a lot of the arguments made outside of the game are in bad faith, and I don't feel like it's an unfounded feeling.

I do set rules up for my campaigns, generally I like to stick to RAW and RAI, and I let my players know this. I blanket statement them for all my stuff, one shots and otherwise. Anything extra, like anything homebrew, I have them listed as bullet points so they know what to expect and not be overwhelmed with information. I try not to stray too far out of the realm of the rules set up, because it makes it easier on me to set up games. All I ask is for the players to just follow the rules as written, and if there are any questions just ask me and I'll give my interpretation of those rules.

My recent campaign hasn't been going so great. I've had a couple arguments with some players about seeing in darkness and whatnot, and how rolls are made out. And they keep trying to "fix" their bad rolls.

One example I can give is that a player will roll a nat 1 on a stealth check, and I'll say, "Well you believe you snuck up to a spot but you knock over a candle or book without noticing." And they'll respond, "Well I definitely know that I knocked over the book and I'm not as stealthy as I think I am, so I'm going back down." Like okay, my bad, maybe I shouldn't have flavored it like that, but if I can't flavor a description of a bad roll like what's the point? Just feels so bland, "You believe you are hidden, NEXT."

I had a similar incident when trying to explain that I wanted to use darkvision the way it was intended, not as a free vision in the dark, but to encourage them to use their torches and lanterns, and light cantrips more.

And my most recent bog has been between a friend and me pettily arguing over stupid stuff like reflavoring climbing gear as ninja climbing gear, but he also wanted to use it as a weapon. I told him he could, but that it'd be an improvised weapon and probably do a d4 damage because it's shorter than a dagger(which already only does a d4). He started arguing this with me in-game and I didn't feel great about shutting it down, but I had to tell him, "Hey I'll look into it but for right now I am setting it as this, if it changes I'll let you know in a private message before the next session." I still stand by my ruling, and that should be okay...

But I feel like any in- or out-of-game argument is just an exercise in seeing how many times they can ignore my final ruling on something and just try and make it happen anyways. I've had my players basically try and work around a ruling despite me clearly stating the intentions of the rule, and them going, "yeah but what if..." I'm growing weary of it all, it's all honestly making me depressed. I feel like a bad guy for saying no to most of it, but I also feel like if I say yes to anything that's completely breaking a rule in order to let someone do what they want, then it's no longer my ruling, and why am I playing with these people if that's the case?

I feel like it's a lose-lose situation. I'm either an ******* for saying no or I'm letting them dictate the rules and break whatever they want just to "tell a story," and it's like well what's the point of it all then? Why play 5e? Why not play something that's bare bones and allows for that kind of gameplay?

And I'm not saying you can't be creative inside the confines of the rules. Toss a fireball into an exploding barrel and I'm not just going to be like "well they can take the fireball damage or the gunpowder damage, but not both." Or maybe a player wants to cast Create Water to do weird Chinese water torture(no that anyone's done that) or rehydrate a dying plant, or create drinkable water for everyone in a desert so they can avoid heat exhaustion for an hour or two. Using the spells, actions, and rules to do creative things is a joy to see. And always asking if that's possible is great! I love it.

It's just contrasting that with people who play like rolling bad is undoable, and justifying not finding anything in a room as "suspicious" so they have their bud search as well, only for them to legitimately also fail and still be suspicious. It's less about the worry that they might have "missed" something and more with the fact that they are blatantly ignoring the call that their character didn't find anything and believes there is nothing there. Or that a spell by my ruling cannot do something. Maybe another DM would allow it but ultimately this game is run by me. We all collaborate but I have to be the one to make the judgement calls.

There's a lot more to it but I feel like I'd just be writing a sob story at that point. The point and question I'm trying to ask is, I feel like my players are asking to break rules because they suspect if they push me enough I'll just cave in out of depression(not wanting to constantly argue). I haven't said yes to much but it feels like they just keep doing it rather than just not looking for something to exploit. I'd like to think I'm a fair person but I feel like I'm arguing with my friends over dumb shit that they just won't let go of, and if the roles were reversed I know I'd just accept their ruling despite not agreeing with it.

I feel like being a DM is just a lot of hassle and squabbling for nothing, at least when I play as it. As a player I always defer to the DM even if I know for a fact it's a bad call. I might ask them what they think about a ruling. But I never push past that. I just accept it, and I feel like that's not reciprocated with this group. The question is, should I just quit? Is it worth trying to keep the players in check when all of them clearly don't want to follow the rules anymore? 

I just wanted to talk about two points that you've raised.

One is that partway through, you start talking about how they're not getting into character. It's frustrating. He other day, I was DMing a game and the characters were clearing out a mine in a published adventure. They reached the mine proper, and saw a bunch of offshoots, which have thoroughly explored. They went through each one and each one was quickly a dead end. They searched each one and kept finding nothing. After doing this 4 or 5 times, one player got frustrated. I ended up pointing out that this was a mine, where miners would create offshoots like these looking for new veins...what were they expecting? Orcrist? A miner's life savings? 

Part of the problem was expectations. Previously in the other quests and adventures we've done, side passages were there for a purpose beyond establishing atmosphere. The player had come to expect a game type logic of there's something, so there must be a real reason for it, like a treasure or quest item. They'd inadvertently started metagaming. Frustrating for me, because their own expectations degraded the experience for every one. 

This leads into the second point. I like to flavour things, but I only tell the characters what they would know. You give the example of the sneak gone wrong. Personally, I'd have handled it differently, but I'll run with you set out and assume you don't want to fundamentally change the narrative at all (ie, the character sneaks down a corridor, brushes against an item that makes a noise and doesn't realise that they've given themselves away). I think you would have been better served had you not told the player what the character didn't know. I'd have narrated it like this:

"You are sneaking down the corridor, trying to be quiet as you go past a doorway with a bookcase either side...[insert appropriate amount of time/turns]...you turn around and see one of the henchman with a drawn sword looking at you bemusedly. Too late, you realise that you'd knocked over a book as you passed the bookcase earlier".

No narrative cues to tell them that they'd failed until after the situation is resolved, it makes it painfully obvious when they're metagaming then (so how did you know that you'd been detected, then?) and that helps encourage them to stick to role-playing.

Personally, I'd go a step further. That kind of narrative is for when they fail the check but don't know it yet. Say it's a DC15 and they roll an 11, they don't know that they've failed, so that kind of narrative works much better. For a crit fail or very low roll, then they know that they've failed as a player, so I shape the narrative to match. In that case,.I'd.say that their clothes snagged on the bookcase,.which was already unstable, and pulled it over in their haste. In both cases, there is no room for metagaming. When they know they have failed, the game doesn't give them space to manipulate the situation with that metaknowledge. When they don't know they've failed, the narrative doesn't tell them that they have until the character knows anyway, so they can abuse the metaknowledge.

Obviously, that doesn't solve the problem, they can use metaknowledge in other ways too. However, it can help and there are usually ways of helping to reduce metagaming. However, knownthat while you can and should implement ways to help reduce metagaming, it's notnyour responsibility to prevent it. Ultimately, its up to the players to do that. You're there to assist them in having a good time, not to enforce it.

I know those don't really address your main points, which I'll leave to someone who is more capable of doing so, but those were the points I felt I could address.

Sometimes people just have different expectations, and the best way to resolve it is to sit down and talk it out.  Explain your frustrations and how you want to work with them within the confines of the rules, and ask them what they want from you as a DM.  The outcome may be that you don't DM this group any more, but that's better than arguing with them over every little thing and feeling miserable.  But there's also the chance that you will all be able to reach an agreement and improve matters.

Or you could let one of them take over the campaign and see how they like it when they're being constantly challenged...

Quote from Linklite >>

I just wanted to talk about two points that you've raised.

One is that partway through, you start talking about how they're not getting into character. It's frustrating. He other day, I was DMing a game and the characters were clearing out a mine in a published adventure. They reached the mine proper, and saw a bunch of offshoots, which have thoroughly explored. They went through each one and each one was quickly a dead end. They searched each one and kept finding nothing. After doing this 4 or 5 times, one player got frustrated. I ended up pointing out that this was a mine, where miners would create offshoots like these looking for new veins...what were they expecting? Orcrist? A miner's life savings? 

Part of the problem was expectations. Previously in the other quests and adventures we've done, side passages were there for a purpose beyond establishing atmosphere. The player had come to expect a game type logic of there's something, so there must be a real reason for it, like a treasure or quest item. They'd inadvertently started metagaming. Frustrating for me, because their own expectations degraded the experience for every one. 

This leads into the second point. I like to flavour things, but I only tell the characters what they would know. You give the example of the sneak gone wrong. Personally, I'd have handled it differently, but I'll run with you set out and assume you don't want to fundamentally change the narrative at all (ie, the character sneaks down a corridor, brushes against an item that makes a noise and doesn't realise that they've given themselves away). I think you would have been better served had you not told the player what the character didn't know. I'd have narrated it like this:

"You are sneaking down the corridor, trying to be quiet as you go past a doorway with a bookcase either side...[insert appropriate amount of time/turns]...you turn around and see one of the henchman with a drawn sword looking at you bemusedly. Too late, you realise that you'd knocked over a book as you passed the bookcase earlier".

No narrative cues to tell them that they'd failed until after the situation is resolved, it makes it painfully obvious when they're metagaming then (so how did you know that you'd been detected, then?) and that helps encourage them to stick to role-playing.

Personally, I'd go a step further. That kind of narrative is for when they fail the check but don't know it yet. Say it's a DC15 and they roll an 11, they don't know that they've failed, so that kind of narrative works much better. For a crit fail or very low roll, then they know that they've failed as a player, so I shape the narrative to match. In that case,.I'd.say that their clothes snagged on the bookcase,.which was already unstable, and pulled it over in their haste. In both cases, there is no room for metagaming. When they know they have failed, the game doesn't give them space to manipulate the situation with that metaknowledge. When they don't know they've failed, the narrative doesn't tell them that they have until the character knows anyway, so they can abuse the metaknowledge.

Obviously, that doesn't solve the problem, they can use metaknowledge in other ways too. However, it can help and there are usually ways of helping to reduce metagaming. However, knownthat while you can and should implement ways to help reduce metagaming, it's notnyour responsibility to prevent it. Ultimately, its up to the players to do that. You're there to assist them in having a good time, not to enforce it.

I know those don't really address your main points, which I'll leave to someone who is more capable of doing so, but those were the points I felt I could address.

 

No I appreciate it, it's good to have some feedback and insight. I only have my perspective to go off of, even when I'm stepping in someone else's shoes. Whether it's me as a poor orphan child, or me as a wealthy noble, it's still coming from my perspectives of those kinds of people.

I particularly liked the "miner's life savings" bit, made me laugh xD

But going off dead end situations, I have an issue where two players who are actually friends of mine do play their characters consistently as a doubtful, interrogative type of character. They don't just do this in my game, either. They've consistently done this in every game we've played. Any character I or another DM introduce has to be important to the story, wring them for all the information they're worth, and then leave. Do the same with the next one, and the next one. Shop keeper I'm trying to set up as a potential magic item seller? Well they must be an information dump, wring them out.

I try to play off all of my NPC's as genuine people who just want to go about their day, who don't like being questioned about everything in their lives, and who even in a moment of a charisma success won't give away personal information. But they suspect every NPC and it turns every dialogue into something that feels almost hostile in nature. Stepping into the shoes of my NPC, I'm no longer a shopkeeper offering to sell them items, I'm being judged on my decor, prices, and goods by a gang of strangers who are convinced I have information on the criminal they're looking for. Not trying to take it that seriously, but it definitely leads to moments where I feel like I can't improv an NPC because the moment I introduce them, they're suddenly on the chopping block. There's no back and forth, no "yes and" improv, nothing. And I as a person do not do well with that kind of attitude. I just feel stifled, I'm already super self conscious of my poor attempts at getting in character, I feel like I can't even get in character when the interactions immediately turn into a sort of officer Karen interaction.

I dunno do you have players who just consistently doubt everything every NPC says?

Quote from Kotath >>

So open a session by summarily killing them all off. Then have them all brought back just as summarily. 

And then have a little chat with them as to why it isn't Player vs DM.

The DM always has that level of power. Taking an adversarial role against the DM is literally taking on all of creation, even the friendly parts. It is like picking a fight with the air you breath. 

Things like natural 1's may be obvious immediately or may not be noticeable until it really matters. Technically there is no need to even check at all until it matters. 

As for the arguing, start running with a rule that there is no debating rules during adventures. DM makes a temporary ruling, permanence can be sorted later, between sessions. 

At the end of the day, though, you do need to take their suggestions with at least some level of seriousness. Otherwise they will not take you seriously. It sounds like you generally do though. 

 I'm not so sure killing them off will have the intended effect I want it to have. Rather than have their attention, I think it'd just piss them off and make them leave. Which maybe in the end that would be for the best, but I think it would be for all the wrong reasons--I'd come off as throwing a tantrum and killing everyone rather than being able to play it off and get them to listen.

I do take their suggestions seriously, but I feel like a lot of it ends up being, again, an exercise in how many times they can ignore my final ruling before they get the ruling they wanted. I do take it seriously, but sometimes I feel like I'm the only one having the conversation in good faith, because if they don't like my ruling they don't just accept it, they just keep arguing until they get me to side with them and then agree with their interpretation of the rule/scenario in question.

Maybe I should just ask them to try it in game and see how it works.

Quote from Gruntler >>

Sometimes people just have different expectations, and the best way to resolve it is to sit down and talk it out.  Explain your frustrations and how you want to work with them within the confines of the rules, and ask them what they want from you as a DM.  The outcome may be that you don't DM this group any more, but that's better than arguing with them over every little thing and feeling miserable.  But there's also the chance that you will all be able to reach an agreement and improve matters.

Or you could let one of them take over the campaign and see how they like it when they're being constantly challenged...

 I laid out expectations in the beginning, but maybe I need to reiterate them.

We're like one and a half chapters away from completing Dragon Heist, I think we could probably knock it out before New Years, but like part of me just wants to end it now. I think I'll stick it out just so I can say I finally finished a campaign, but I'm just growing more and more dissatisfied.

Quote from Estrahl >>

Quote from Gruntler >>

Sometimes people just have different expectations, and the best way to resolve it is to sit down and talk it out.  Explain your frustrations and how you want to work with them within the confines of the rules, and ask them what they want from you as a DM.  The outcome may be that you don't DM this group any more, but that's better than arguing with them over every little thing and feeling miserable.  But there's also the chance that you will all be able to reach an agreement and improve matters.

Or you could let one of them take over the campaign and see how they like it when they're being constantly challenged...

 I laid out expectations in the beginning, but maybe I need to reiterate them.

We're like one and a half chapters away from completing Dragon Heist, I think we could probably knock it out before New Years, but like part of me just wants to end it now. I think I'll stick it out just so I can say I finally finished a campaign, but I'm just growing more and more dissatisfied.

That's a bit away, and a miserable campaign under belt isn't going to make you feel accomplished. I would reinforce Gruntler's post with just the ye olde Colville saying "No D&D is better than bad D&D". No need to do all that prep only to feel miserable. Ultimately though you know your situation.

I would have a talk with them about balance, and how the DM's job, aside from running the game, is to ensure the game is balanced so it's never too easy and too hard. Explain how difficult that is to maintain when the players are pushing for all these character buffs, or not accepting roll results when they're failing rolls. 

You can even feel free to throw yourself under the bus if they push back on this. If they insist on special buffed extra-damage climbing daggers and truesight darkvision and what not, take the blame; "sorry, I'm still new at this, I don't know yet how to run that in a way that is still balanced and challenging. Can we stick to the rules for my sake, for the time being?"

Most players are incredibly appreciative of all the extra work a DM does to make their game work, and they might not have thought about their demands from your perspective before, and might be more amenable to keeping with the rules if they understand that they'd be making your job a little  easier if they did. 

I had a player when my group was starting out who exclusively makes joke characters and takes nothing seriously (which is fine, I knew that would be the tone of any game with this friend group and prepared accordingly), but when he said he wanted to play a "rich d-bag" with no skills, spells, abilities, or character class, who just "had a ton of money that they threw at any problem", I just told the player no, because frankly, I did not know how to run that.  He backed down and now is playing a Wild Magic Sorcerer chef and having a great time. 

Tldr; remind your players that you're a player at the table too and that you're also figuring out how to keep the game running smoothly. You might be all-poeerful in game, but you're still mortal. 

I feel for you my friend.  First off, you have the right to have fun as much as they do.  Your players are confusing roleplaying with board games like checkers and chess where there are clear rules and the only goal is to win, if you don't try to win, it's no fun.  The opposite is true for D&D, sure there are rules of course but gameplay is pretty wide open and your goal is to roleplay your PC to the best of your capability.  If the players actually try to win and they actually suck the fun out of it.  Heroes are known for their actions, not their results, the real world is full of examples of this.  Sh*tty die rolls are part of the game and dealing with them in a realistic matter makes it more fun not less, once they learn that, they'll come around. Also, last I checked, bad guys make sh*tty die rolls too.  

Sure, try to sneak in the Necromancer's room while she is still in it, but if you fail, what do you think is going to happen?  You ready to deal with that?  If not, come up with something else, use a silence spell, create a distraction and then sneak in, or just go for it and cast some buff spells, ready the holy water, and head in.    

• Stick with RAW as much as possible at least until they come around
• Discuss the implications of failure ahead of time, after a while, I doubt this will be needed
• Make a clear distinction between player knowledge and PC knowledge, after a while, this will be second nature... Don't ask them what they will do but instead call their PC by name and ask "What is Sir Braveheart's next action?"  If they do something that is clearly metagaming, I would call them on it.  
• Do not engage with people trying to nit pick or parse your words.  It will just make you tired and it rewards bad behavior.  Instead, iterate the implications of their roll (The necromancer notices you, she commands the skeletons to attack, and now she is casting a spell...roll for initiative...) and ask what is their next action? 
• Discuss rules and such after the session is over as much as possible.  
• I have given up on most NPCs, I have to call them Totally Honest Joe, stab you in back later Bill, doppleganger Beatrice, and all that so we can move on.  The backstabbing NPC has been overdone so much it's all the players expect now.  :-(  I am only slightly kidding.  

Quote from Kotath >>

Quote from Estrahl >>

 

 I'm not so sure killing them off will have the intended effect I want it to have. Rather than have their attention, I think it'd just piss them off and make them leave. Which maybe in the end that would be for the best, but I think it would be for all the wrong reasons--I'd come off as throwing a tantrum and killing everyone rather than being able to play it off and get them to listen.

I do take their suggestions seriously, but I feel like a lot of it ends up being, again, an exercise in how many times they can ignore my final ruling before they get the ruling they wanted. I do take it seriously, but sometimes I feel like I'm the only one having the conversation in good faith, because if they don't like my ruling they don't just accept it, they just keep arguing until they get me to side with them and then agree with their interpretation of the rule/scenario in question.

Maybe I should just ask them to try it in game and see how it works.

 

 

You have to bring them back before they can react and get annoyed. But if they really are showing that little respect and it is having that kind of effect on you, it is likely best to just let them walk. 

 I agree. In game solutions to these kinds of problems rarely work. You can't 'teach them a lesson', you need to talk to them like grown ups.

I agree with you on the climbing gear. If it's not classed as a weapon, it's an improvised weapon, unless it closely resembles a weapon. A climbing pick is not a war pick.

Regarding the stealth roll, you're doing the stealth roll at the wrong time. You should only make a stealth roll at the moment when a creature has an opportunity to notice the creature that is moving stealthily. If they pass the roll, they are unnoticed; if they fail, they are seen, and it really should be exactly this binary. There is no purpose in a stealth roll for which nothing can notice the stealthing creature, and it creates exactly the situation you describe: "I rolled a 1, so I know I'm not stealthy regardless of what the DM says." What was that character rolling stealth against? The universe? Make them roll only when they can be seen.

Part of the issue may just be that you want to play what you see as RAW/RAI whereas that's not the path to a good game in many players' minds. Page 4 of the DM Guide tells you to deviate whenever you see fit. So when my Barbarian player seized hold of an Animated Broom and began attacking an enemy with it, I let him use it as a quarterstaff, but with disadvantage on attacks due to the broom protesting. He was more than happy with it: he'd asked to do something, so I gave him a way for it to happen. Maybe they do just want to "tell a story" and rigid adherence to rules that are not meant to be adhered to rigidly isn't going to be as fun as allowing someone to smack some fey down with an angry broom.

It sounds like your players have been traumatized by an adversarial kind of DM and they're passing that on to you. I've played games where the behavior you describe is basically the only way the players can keep their characters alive or accomplish their goals. What they need is probably therapy, but that's not your job, lol.