I’m still a fairly new DM who’s been only running games for just little over a year, but I’m starting to hit a wall with some of my players who just started DND a year ago (I’ve been playing for 4+ ).
The other night at my table, one of the characters rolled a natural one for their saving throw and was restrained. That wasn’t the problem. The problem came with the other NPC cast Suggestion on them. They rolled a 7 or an 8, so a fairly substantial fail. In this situation they were in a capture the banner esque competition, so the NPC said
”I think you should give me that banner of yours.”
and my player said,
”That’s nice that you think that way, doesn’t mean I will.”
despite rolling poorly on their save. I tried explaining to them that they’ve been charmed, and so they would actually listen since like the spell says— if it doesn’t bring their PC into harms way, it’s a reasonable request. But that’s not what their CHARACTER would do. And I can’t make them do what their character would so strongly be against. They’re still fighting me on it, so I offer to read the spell description. And immediately they start listing off loopholes
- It’s not their banner ( I explain it is because it’s on their person, it’s not their team banner but now their’s )
- The wording of ‘ I Think ‘ ( nowhere in the description does it say you have to be extra careful with the way you word it. No harm, and no more than two sentences. DM’s decision )
- Their character would never in a million years do such a thing, so it’s a harm to her person ( I got nothing for this. It’s pretty clear in the description that this doesn’t matter )
At this point one of my other players are jumping in saying that I’m right, and that the irritated player should listen to their DM.
“ I refuse to do something so against my character.”
and I try to explain that it’s not their character making the choice, it’s the power of the magic. It’s like you’ve been hypnotized! And that the roll they did means that they’re a victim to it. And that I really don’t want to pull the line of, “ well DM rules” and if the roles were reversed I would be listening to them.
”well I would never have worded it the way you did. I would have been more direct.”
And as they set their jaw and looked at me with an expression that said “yeah, just try me.” I broke and I deflated and said, “ Fine. Whatever you want, nothing happens.” Because I have a past issue with temper that spikes my anxiety that this player knew very well about. This player has been in a similar situation with another player that pulled the same stunt and said how outrageous it was the way he had reacted. And is constantly miss wording or not saying something, but I’ll still allow if it’s within means because I understand that they’re still learning. We all are.
I like to think that I’m very fair to a group with little over a year of experience, and cater a lot to them to make their time enjoyable.
And the worse part of it all was this was a new players introduction to the group and I’ve been in knots ever since.
so if any of you read through all of this,
1. Was I completely wrong? And my Player right?
2. How do you guys handle this kind of situation?
3. Players with bad tempers? And always have to be right?
DM (as NPC): ”I think you should give me that banner of yours.”
Player:”That’s nice that you think that way, doesn’t mean I will.”
DM: "Actually, because you are charmed, it does mean that you will, and as the rest of you watch, ____________ hands over the banner".
If the Player continues to fight, you put it to the table that you're the DM, and it's your job, right, and responsibility to make calls on the rules. They can protest your ruling, but in the end, either they adhere to it, or the game is over, and you can all play Monopoly instead.
And be willing to walk away from that Session. Frankly, I wouldn't be willing to run a table of Players always arguing with the DM rulings. It's not worth it to me; I just wouldn't play with that group.
You do need to listen to your Players, and consider their positions ( sometimes they have actual good points ), but in the end, it's the DM's call.
You either need to nip this issue in the bud, or ease this Player out of the group. It's going to be 10x harder next time, because this Player has already bullied you out of a ruling once.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I used to run a DND club at a local community center. We had a code of conduct we would pass around at the beginning and everyone would read one bullet point from it. One of the points said something like "Composure. When I encounter bad rolls, unfortunate outcomes, or inconvenient rules, I will accept it gracefully. If I cannot accept it gracefully, I will remove myself until I may."
We never had issues with people arguing with the DM. I think that regularly reading the code of conduct helped, particularly that part. I also think it helps that the kids just had generally good attitudes. But even if they didn't they also got into this awesome habit of asking me (the DM) "Can my character do X?" Which showed they were actually seeing my word as some sort of final authority on the matter. Not sure if I was doing anything specific to earn that trust, or if the kids just came that way. It may have helped that this was the first time playing DND for most of them, making me (the DM and club leader) responsible to make sure they were taught how to play correctly. So they probably got into the habit of following my direction.
Also, thankfully, when they checked the rules as written, my decrees were always in line with them. When I first started playing, I quickly learned to stop accepting my DM's memory and explanation of rules and gameplay, because his memory was often wrong and explanation usually poorly phrased.
And yes. You were in the right. The final portion of our code of conduct said "Rule of thumb: don't be a buttface." Your player was being a buttface.
I've been a player who had a bad temper and always had to be right. More specifically, I hated it when my DM did things wrong. In retrospect I had a bad sense of humor with it all, plus the DM was also DMing in a way I have sworn to not do. I'd throw a fist-sized fireball at someone using the Produce Flame cantrip and it would do 1d8 fire damage, but dousing someone in booze and lighting them on fire only did 1d4. Whether or not that's rules in the book, that's just illogical damage distribution. Or one time my character (an opportunistic urchin) tried to loot a body. The DM said I wasn't allowed to do that. I asked why. He didn't have an explanation. But then the local police chief (in the game) said I couldn't take it. My character asked him why. "Because we don't want you to." My character, who didn't care for law enforcement, looted the bodies anyways. The DM said I took fire damage because we had just toasted he bodies to a crisp and the loot was still hot. "I'm a tiefling. I'm resistant to fire damage." He kept trying harder and harder to keep my player from looting the dead bodies. Now then, should I have listened to my DM when he said I couldn't loot the bodies? Definite maybe. Should he have tried so hard to come up with reasons why I wasn't allowed to, when it became clear he didn't have any good reasons besides "Because I just don't want you to"?" Probably not.
So in that specific story I just told I think my DM and I were both at fault. But I think he was the one mostly at fault. I think the best outcome would have been if he had just let my character loot the dead bodies. It would have been fair and realistic and true to character. The character/player you described having a hard time with, I think it would have been fair and realistic and true to character if they had just handed over the dang banner.
I agree with Vedexent on this. Nip it in the bud. Set a firm precedent: your character can be overcome in strength, in wits, in force of personality, and in free will, when in certain situations. To paraphrase my favorite DND YouTuber, Zee Bashew, if the idea of conforming his character to the play style of your group just makes his skin crawl, maybe he has the wrong group.
One thing I would point out is to be careful when ever it's a player vs a player. It tends to make hard feelings.
If a dm controlled bad guy did what happened it is not personal just a case of the storyline. A player does it, even cause it was bad rolls the player will often feel he was screwed over by a fellow player. So be careful pitting player against player.
It sounds like the player is confusing the command effect with the charmed effect. Charmed means you regard the person as a trusted friend and they have advantage trying to persuade you of things, but your character is still your character and some persuade DC's are just too high if the thing they're trying to persuade you of is anathema to your character.
Command magically COMPELS a character to obey, they do not get to interpret, and their personality is not taken into account. And when it says you can't make someone damage themselves, damage means damage, not metaphorical "but my character wouldn't do that!"
As Matt Coville might say, you cannot Wangrod Defense your way out of a failure against the Command spell.
Other than echoing Vedexent, I will answer your questions as well.
1. You were completely in the right. The player was absolutely in the wrong.
2. I would just say "this is how I'm going to rule Suggestion works right now. We can discuss it later." and leave it at that. End of that discussion, and move on with the encounter.
3. I've actually never encountered that, and so can't given an actual example. There's a bunch of things I'd like to think I might do, but I'm pretty wimpy and don't do confrontation well, so I'd probably be just making stuff up. You can just go back to "this is how I'm ruling it right now," and discuss it later. You don't have to change your mind or anything, but you can move the session along. It also gives you more time to come up with an argument.
Otherwise, they can be not invited to future sessions. Though, should probably tell them that you didn't appreciate how they acted, or the way they went about it, or whatever. Again, I'm not quite sure, as I've never actually had to do it before. I do know that you should probably focus on saying "me" and "I" so you don't sound accusatory and all that. "I felt like it (not you) was mean, and I felt more hostility than I like while playing a game."
Players with bad tempers? And always have to be right?
Ouch. As described, you sound completely correct. I view the cultivation of a cohesive group as a difficult (but necessary) part of the GM's job. I generally do not play again with anyone with a bad temper (halting the campaign if needed, and creating a new one). I'd imagine your other players would be on-board with this... and they might be unhappy if you didn't remove him.
As for dealing with arguments from more reasonable players, I generally say something like:
"Until we can research this later, let's just roll for now: high we use your interpretation, low we'll use mine"
"Well, this NPC is pretty smart. He probably knows how to cast his own spell so that it works correctly, even if I don't." or
"As a neutral arbiter, I don't have a stake in it, but this works both ways. How would you expect me to rule if you were casting the spell?"
3. Players with bad tempers? And always have to be right?
4. Thank you, because this was a lot
1.) The effects of Suggestion are clear. The player had no call to make any decision, let alone the one he made. As Vexedent said, the correct DM response would have been to simply have the PC perform the act, because the player has no agency after failing a save against Suggestion. If the Suggestion is valid, they do the thing. The player could've tried to retake the banner after handing it over, because the influence ends once the action Suggested has been completed, but until it is? if they fail their save, they do the thing.
2.) This is one of the reasons DMs should only rarely make use of mind-manipulating magic against the PCs. Some tables are cool with it, but a lot of players don't tolerate their character being made to act against their own wishes well at all. If it's important to the plot, let the players know that later if they balk - "this was a big turning point in the game, it needed to go down the way it did after you failed your save" - and for most parties, reminding them of the dozens and dozens of times they've gleefully used mind-controlling magic to **** over an NPC is enough to get them to give it to you when you do. But unless you know your table is good with it - and in this case you know precisely the opposite thing - I would be sparing with mind-affecting magic.
3.) Discuss it with the player. Let them know that the game doesn't work unless the DM is the DM, and that once you rule on something it's resolved. Players are allowed, and should be encouraged, to ask for clarification. They get to do so once, and a good DM will listen and consider their words. But arguing with the DM breaks the game. Let them know you can't be tolerating that at the table if everybody wants to keep playing. If the behavior persists, discuss it at the table. Let everybody know all at once that this behavior is unacceptable. If the behavior persists after a private talking-to and a public talking-to, then the player can find a new table. One bad seed can wreck your entire campaign. I say this having been a player in a campaign that came apart violently because of just such a bad seed. It sucks to have to make that call, but trust me - the sooner you make it, the better your game will be overall.
We had a player that argued with almost every ruling. I use the term ruling lightly because most of the time, it was just following the rules, not a specific ruling.
Whether it was something they felt didn't go the way they expected, or they felt that slashing a sword through the air should hit multiple opponents, or a crossbow shot at short range should go through one target and hit another, or they said they attacked something first as the DM was in the middle of describing how the party were surprised. It was a constant battle.
If this player is willing to argue this much over a "capture the flag" game, I imagine they argue about a lot more than that.
We ended up having to not play with them anymore, because it was exhausting for the DM and players, and it sucked up 1/3 of every session with arguments and the DM trying to justify every decision. After that, our sessions got a lot more fun and we got a lot more done.
I've found out that you can be really good friends with people, but it's also impossible to play D&D with them.
I just want to sincerely thank everyone who’s replied, every response has been incredibly insightful and helpful. Even Veth’s even if you misread, because it gave me something to watch out for that I hadn’t even thought of. I’ve talked to the player, and they weren’t the most understanding about it— but it was addressed and I’m hoping they’ll take note. And if not, I’ll do what is necessary. Even if it sucks.
That player is basically refusing to accept that they failed the saving throw and are now under the spell's effects. You can't do that. Like, wow.
Okay. Part of DnD is that sometimes, things happen that you don't want to happen. Such is the fate of leaving things to a d20 roll. If that player can't accept that, maybe DnD isn't for them. They definitely aren't a good fit for your group if this behavior is common.
I don't think I am adding much to the advice for what to do since that has already been added, but if the player was that upset, just wait till the spell effect wears off and try and get the banner back. :)
It sounds like the player is confusing the command effect with the charmed effect. Charmed means you regard the person as a trusted friend and they have advantage trying to persuade you of things, but your character is still your character and some persuade DC's are just too high if the thing they're trying to persuade you of is anathema to your character.
Command magically COMPELS a character to obey, they do not get to interpret, and their personality is not taken into account. And when it says you can't make someone damage themselves, damage means damage, not metaphorical "but my character wouldn't do that!"
As Matt Coville might say, you cannot Wangrod Defense your way out of a failure against the Command spell.
This was Suggestion, which is a bit more nebulous than Command.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blood Frenzy. The quipper has advantage on melee attack rolls against any creature that doesn't have all its hit points.
Bite. Melee Weapon Attack: +5 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 1 piercing damage.
How would you have ruled if the positions were reversed?
If you are going to analyze the players wording every time the PC casts Suggestion, then you have to accept some nitpicking by the players.
You’ve created a precedent on how Suggestion works in your campaign. If you are fine with it when the roles are reversed then stand by your ruling and assure the player that if they cast Suggestion, you will rule the same way.
While I say you're right, and that they shouldn't have argued, that's kinda mean to do. Why'd you have them play a capture the flag game, just to have them lose instantly from suggestion?
The Suggestion spell does not charm the target. Those immune to charm will also happen to be immune to the spell but absolutely nowhere in the spell text does it say it charms the target - they are not charmed by the caster. This is important to note because it means nothing about how they think or regard the caster will change - an enemy remains an enemy, an ally an ally, and opponent is still an opponent.
The suggestion you can give is limited by two restrictions: the first is that you cannot suggest the target do anything obviously harmful to itself otherwise the spell ends. The second restriction is that the suggestion, and I quote: "must be worded in such a manner as to make the course of action sound reasonable."
That second limitation is the kicker. Reasonable means something fair, moderate, of sound judgement or sensible. It means being 'open to reason', the willingness to hear somebody out and ponder.
Note: there is nothing in the spell's description that alters the target's sense of reason in any way. So ask yourself: is it reasonable to give your flag away to your opponent, causing you to lose the match, for absolutely nothing in return?
Nope. Not reasonable at all. Quite daft really. Not even a closed doorway to reason, this is a pure wall.
Now, does it sound reasonable to give your flag away to the opponent, lose the game, but get gold or similar compensation? Why, yes, possibly. NOW we get something: an open door to invite reason, the opportunity to persuade. Except, thanks to the spell, there is no roll for persuasion: you assume a flying a success automatically on the persuasion and now the target does what is suggested: of course, there is absolutely nothing forcing the caster to honour any agreement or offer made.
So, yes, the player was quite in the right to say that suggestion would not work since the suggestion so presented offers not even smidgeon of reason.
Now, as for arguing with you - no, the player was in the wrong there. You as the DM make the calls and have final say. You could say "OK, I understand what you're saying but I am ruling it works this way for now and we can discuss after the game." - if this flag match was important and you later think "they had a point" then you can explain and find a way to make it up to them in-game. They get the reward another way, they're invited to a new match or something. Or you can decide the Suggestion spell now works differently but this also applies to any instance of the spell, making it a more appealing option (since you're house-ruling it into being stronger) for your party spellcasters if there are any: If they had the option to take Suggestion but did not, I'd ask if they would have taken this new version: if they say yes you can let them swap their spell).
So to summarise: Suggestion is not "do whatever I say" spell. It is, essentially an auto-win on a standard Persuasion check. The player was completely right about the spell, but was wrong to argue with you about it after you had made your decision. Neither of you handled this as well as it could have been. Going forward, if the player disagrees, make a decision and if your feel inclined, offer to discuss it after session, then move on with the game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
In my experience, players usually argue when they feel the DM's decision is unfair. In this particular case, I'm inclined to agree with the player. Suggestion requires you to make the idea seem reasonable, which you made no effort to do, and no course of action was actually suggested, just a statement about the caster's beliefs.
In general, when there's an argument I'll stop to consider whether my actions are fair, sometimes they are, sometimes I have an agenda and I'm breaking the rules to reach it. In the second case, I stop and try to think of a way to manage without being unfair about it. It's almost always more important that players feel the rules of the world are the same for both sides than for any particular agenda to get through.
If I've made my decision, I tell the player that this is how I've decided it works and they'll have to live with it. If that decision is significantly different from the rules, they can rebuild their character to suit the change to the world. If I changed suggestion as significantly as you have, I wouldn't be surprised if someone insisted on rebuilding their entire character to take advantage of the fact that they can tell anyone to do anything.
The example given in the Suggestion spell for a "reasonable" suggestion is "For example, you might suggest that a Knight give her Warhorse to the first Beggar she meets."
So doing something detrimental for no benefit (but no direct harm) seems exactly what the spell is for.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hey,
I’m still a fairly new DM who’s been only running games for just little over a year, but I’m starting to hit a wall with some of my players who just started DND a year ago (I’ve been playing for 4+ ).
The other night at my table, one of the characters rolled a natural one for their saving throw and was restrained. That wasn’t the problem. The problem came with the other NPC cast Suggestion on them. They rolled a 7 or an 8, so a fairly substantial fail. In this situation they were in a capture the banner esque competition, so the NPC said
”I think you should give me that banner of yours.”
and my player said,
”That’s nice that you think that way, doesn’t mean I will.”
despite rolling poorly on their save. I tried explaining to them that they’ve been charmed, and so they would actually listen since like the spell says— if it doesn’t bring their PC into harms way, it’s a reasonable request. But that’s not what their CHARACTER would do. And I can’t make them do what their character would so strongly be against. They’re still fighting me on it, so I offer to read the spell description. And immediately they start listing off loopholes
- It’s not their banner ( I explain it is because it’s on their person, it’s not their team banner but now their’s )
- The wording of ‘ I Think ‘ ( nowhere in the description does it say you have to be extra careful with the way you word it. No harm, and no more than two sentences. DM’s decision )
- Their character would never in a million years do such a thing, so it’s a harm to her person ( I got nothing for this. It’s pretty clear in the description that this doesn’t matter )
At this point one of my other players are jumping in saying that I’m right, and that the irritated player should listen to their DM.
“ I refuse to do something so against my character.”
and I try to explain that it’s not their character making the choice, it’s the power of the magic. It’s like you’ve been hypnotized! And that the roll they did means that they’re a victim to it. And that I really don’t want to pull the line of, “ well DM rules” and if the roles were reversed I would be listening to them.
”well I would never have worded it the way you did. I would have been more direct.”
And as they set their jaw and looked at me with an expression that said “yeah, just try me.” I broke and I deflated and said, “ Fine. Whatever you want, nothing happens.” Because I have a past issue with temper that spikes my anxiety that this player knew very well about. This player has been in a similar situation with another player that pulled the same stunt and said how outrageous it was the way he had reacted. And is constantly miss wording or not saying something, but I’ll still allow if it’s within means because I understand that they’re still learning. We all are.
I like to think that I’m very fair to a group with little over a year of experience, and cater a lot to them to make their time enjoyable.
And the worse part of it all was this was a new players introduction to the group and I’ve been in knots ever since.
so if any of you read through all of this,
1. Was I completely wrong? And my Player right?
2. How do you guys handle this kind of situation?
3. Players with bad tempers? And always have to be right?
4. Thank you, because this was a lot
DM (as NPC): ”I think you should give me that banner of yours.”
Player:”That’s nice that you think that way, doesn’t mean I will.”
DM: "Actually, because you are charmed, it does mean that you will, and as the rest of you watch, ____________ hands over the banner".
If the Player continues to fight, you put it to the table that you're the DM, and it's your job, right, and responsibility to make calls on the rules. They can protest your ruling, but in the end, either they adhere to it, or the game is over, and you can all play Monopoly instead.
And be willing to walk away from that Session. Frankly, I wouldn't be willing to run a table of Players always arguing with the DM rulings. It's not worth it to me; I just wouldn't play with that group.
You do need to listen to your Players, and consider their positions ( sometimes they have actual good points ), but in the end, it's the DM's call.
You either need to nip this issue in the bud, or ease this Player out of the group. It's going to be 10x harder next time, because this Player has already bullied you out of a ruling once.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I used to run a DND club at a local community center. We had a code of conduct we would pass around at the beginning and everyone would read one bullet point from it. One of the points said something like "Composure. When I encounter bad rolls, unfortunate outcomes, or inconvenient rules, I will accept it gracefully. If I cannot accept it gracefully, I will remove myself until I may."
We never had issues with people arguing with the DM. I think that regularly reading the code of conduct helped, particularly that part. I also think it helps that the kids just had generally good attitudes. But even if they didn't they also got into this awesome habit of asking me (the DM) "Can my character do X?" Which showed they were actually seeing my word as some sort of final authority on the matter. Not sure if I was doing anything specific to earn that trust, or if the kids just came that way. It may have helped that this was the first time playing DND for most of them, making me (the DM and club leader) responsible to make sure they were taught how to play correctly. So they probably got into the habit of following my direction.
Also, thankfully, when they checked the rules as written, my decrees were always in line with them. When I first started playing, I quickly learned to stop accepting my DM's memory and explanation of rules and gameplay, because his memory was often wrong and explanation usually poorly phrased.
And yes. You were in the right. The final portion of our code of conduct said "Rule of thumb: don't be a buttface." Your player was being a buttface.
I've been a player who had a bad temper and always had to be right. More specifically, I hated it when my DM did things wrong. In retrospect I had a bad sense of humor with it all, plus the DM was also DMing in a way I have sworn to not do. I'd throw a fist-sized fireball at someone using the Produce Flame cantrip and it would do 1d8 fire damage, but dousing someone in booze and lighting them on fire only did 1d4. Whether or not that's rules in the book, that's just illogical damage distribution. Or one time my character (an opportunistic urchin) tried to loot a body. The DM said I wasn't allowed to do that. I asked why. He didn't have an explanation. But then the local police chief (in the game) said I couldn't take it. My character asked him why. "Because we don't want you to." My character, who didn't care for law enforcement, looted the bodies anyways. The DM said I took fire damage because we had just toasted he bodies to a crisp and the loot was still hot. "I'm a tiefling. I'm resistant to fire damage." He kept trying harder and harder to keep my player from looting the dead bodies. Now then, should I have listened to my DM when he said I couldn't loot the bodies? Definite maybe. Should he have tried so hard to come up with reasons why I wasn't allowed to, when it became clear he didn't have any good reasons besides "Because I just don't want you to"?" Probably not.
So in that specific story I just told I think my DM and I were both at fault. But I think he was the one mostly at fault. I think the best outcome would have been if he had just let my character loot the dead bodies. It would have been fair and realistic and true to character. The character/player you described having a hard time with, I think it would have been fair and realistic and true to character if they had just handed over the dang banner.
I agree with Vedexent on this. Nip it in the bud. Set a firm precedent: your character can be overcome in strength, in wits, in force of personality, and in free will, when in certain situations. To paraphrase my favorite DND YouTuber, Zee Bashew, if the idea of conforming his character to the play style of your group just makes his skin crawl, maybe he has the wrong group.
I'm so sorry you're dealing with this.
I agree with Vedexent above.
One thing I would point out is to be careful when ever it's a player vs a player. It tends to make hard feelings.
If a dm controlled bad guy did what happened it is not personal just a case of the storyline. A player does it, even cause it was bad rolls the player will often feel he was screwed over by a fellow player. So be careful pitting player against player.
It sounds like the player is confusing the command effect with the charmed effect. Charmed means you regard the person as a trusted friend and they have advantage trying to persuade you of things, but your character is still your character and some persuade DC's are just too high if the thing they're trying to persuade you of is anathema to your character.
Command magically COMPELS a character to obey, they do not get to interpret, and their personality is not taken into account. And when it says you can't make someone damage themselves, damage means damage, not metaphorical "but my character wouldn't do that!"
As Matt Coville might say, you cannot Wangrod Defense your way out of a failure against the Command spell.
Other than echoing Vedexent, I will answer your questions as well.
1. You were completely in the right. The player was absolutely in the wrong.
2. I would just say "this is how I'm going to rule Suggestion works right now. We can discuss it later." and leave it at that. End of that discussion, and move on with the encounter.
3. I've actually never encountered that, and so can't given an actual example. There's a bunch of things I'd like to think I might do, but I'm pretty wimpy and don't do confrontation well, so I'd probably be just making stuff up. You can just go back to "this is how I'm ruling it right now," and discuss it later. You don't have to change your mind or anything, but you can move the session along. It also gives you more time to come up with an argument.
Otherwise, they can be not invited to future sessions. Though, should probably tell them that you didn't appreciate how they acted, or the way they went about it, or whatever. Again, I'm not quite sure, as I've never actually had to do it before. I do know that you should probably focus on saying "me" and "I" so you don't sound accusatory and all that. "I felt like it (not you) was mean, and I felt more hostility than I like while playing a game."
Or something?
Ouch. As described, you sound completely correct. I view the cultivation of a cohesive group as a difficult (but necessary) part of the GM's job. I generally do not play again with anyone with a bad temper (halting the campaign if needed, and creating a new one). I'd imagine your other players would be on-board with this... and they might be unhappy if you didn't remove him.
As for dealing with arguments from more reasonable players, I generally say something like:
I apologize I miss read your post and thought a pc cast suggestion, so my advise is not realievnt.
1.) The effects of Suggestion are clear. The player had no call to make any decision, let alone the one he made. As Vexedent said, the correct DM response would have been to simply have the PC perform the act, because the player has no agency after failing a save against Suggestion. If the Suggestion is valid, they do the thing. The player could've tried to retake the banner after handing it over, because the influence ends once the action Suggested has been completed, but until it is? if they fail their save, they do the thing.
2.) This is one of the reasons DMs should only rarely make use of mind-manipulating magic against the PCs. Some tables are cool with it, but a lot of players don't tolerate their character being made to act against their own wishes well at all. If it's important to the plot, let the players know that later if they balk - "this was a big turning point in the game, it needed to go down the way it did after you failed your save" - and for most parties, reminding them of the dozens and dozens of times they've gleefully used mind-controlling magic to **** over an NPC is enough to get them to give it to you when you do. But unless you know your table is good with it - and in this case you know precisely the opposite thing - I would be sparing with mind-affecting magic.
3.) Discuss it with the player. Let them know that the game doesn't work unless the DM is the DM, and that once you rule on something it's resolved. Players are allowed, and should be encouraged, to ask for clarification. They get to do so once, and a good DM will listen and consider their words. But arguing with the DM breaks the game. Let them know you can't be tolerating that at the table if everybody wants to keep playing. If the behavior persists, discuss it at the table. Let everybody know all at once that this behavior is unacceptable. If the behavior persists after a private talking-to and a public talking-to, then the player can find a new table. One bad seed can wreck your entire campaign. I say this having been a player in a campaign that came apart violently because of just such a bad seed. It sucks to have to make that call, but trust me - the sooner you make it, the better your game will be overall.
Please do not contact or message me.
We had a player that argued with almost every ruling. I use the term ruling lightly because most of the time, it was just following the rules, not a specific ruling.
Whether it was something they felt didn't go the way they expected, or they felt that slashing a sword through the air should hit multiple opponents, or a crossbow shot at short range should go through one target and hit another, or they said they attacked something first as the DM was in the middle of describing how the party were surprised. It was a constant battle.
If this player is willing to argue this much over a "capture the flag" game, I imagine they argue about a lot more than that.
We ended up having to not play with them anymore, because it was exhausting for the DM and players, and it sucked up 1/3 of every session with arguments and the DM trying to justify every decision. After that, our sessions got a lot more fun and we got a lot more done.
I've found out that you can be really good friends with people, but it's also impossible to play D&D with them.
I just want to sincerely thank everyone who’s replied, every response has been incredibly insightful and helpful. Even Veth’s even if you misread, because it gave me something to watch out for that I hadn’t even thought of. I’ve talked to the player, and they weren’t the most understanding about it— but it was addressed and I’m hoping they’ll take note. And if not, I’ll do what is necessary. Even if it sucks.
That player is basically refusing to accept that they failed the saving throw and are now under the spell's effects. You can't do that. Like, wow.
Okay. Part of DnD is that sometimes, things happen that you don't want to happen. Such is the fate of leaving things to a d20 roll. If that player can't accept that, maybe DnD isn't for them. They definitely aren't a good fit for your group if this behavior is common.
I don't think I am adding much to the advice for what to do since that has already been added, but if the player was that upset, just wait till the spell effect wears off and try and get the banner back. :)
It's the DM's world, and the DM has the final say, period.
If he can't handle that, then he should find another group.
Vex is right.
This was Suggestion, which is a bit more nebulous than Command.
Blood Frenzy. The quipper has advantage on melee attack rolls against any creature that doesn't have all its hit points.
Bite. Melee Weapon Attack: +5 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 1 piercing damage.
How would you have ruled if the positions were reversed?
If you are going to analyze the players wording every time the PC casts Suggestion, then you have to accept some nitpicking by the players.
You’ve created a precedent on how Suggestion works in your campaign. If you are fine with it when the roles are reversed then stand by your ruling and assure the player that if they cast Suggestion, you will rule the same way.
While I say you're right, and that they shouldn't have argued, that's kinda mean to do. Why'd you have them play a capture the flag game, just to have them lose instantly from suggestion?
Also known as CrafterB and DankMemer.
Here, have some homebrew classes! Subclasses to? Why not races. Feats, feats as well. I have a lot of magic items. Lastly I got monsters, fun, fun times.
I'm just going to clarify something:
The Suggestion spell does not charm the target. Those immune to charm will also happen to be immune to the spell but absolutely nowhere in the spell text does it say it charms the target - they are not charmed by the caster. This is important to note because it means nothing about how they think or regard the caster will change - an enemy remains an enemy, an ally an ally, and opponent is still an opponent.
The suggestion you can give is limited by two restrictions: the first is that you cannot suggest the target do anything obviously harmful to itself otherwise the spell ends. The second restriction is that the suggestion, and I quote: "must be worded in such a manner as to make the course of action sound reasonable."
That second limitation is the kicker. Reasonable means something fair, moderate, of sound judgement or sensible. It means being 'open to reason', the willingness to hear somebody out and ponder.
Note: there is nothing in the spell's description that alters the target's sense of reason in any way. So ask yourself: is it reasonable to give your flag away to your opponent, causing you to lose the match, for absolutely nothing in return?
Nope. Not reasonable at all. Quite daft really. Not even a closed doorway to reason, this is a pure wall.
Now, does it sound reasonable to give your flag away to the opponent, lose the game, but get gold or similar compensation? Why, yes, possibly. NOW we get something: an open door to invite reason, the opportunity to persuade. Except, thanks to the spell, there is no roll for persuasion: you assume a flying a success automatically on the persuasion and now the target does what is suggested: of course, there is absolutely nothing forcing the caster to honour any agreement or offer made.
So, yes, the player was quite in the right to say that suggestion would not work since the suggestion so presented offers not even smidgeon of reason.
Now, as for arguing with you - no, the player was in the wrong there. You as the DM make the calls and have final say. You could say "OK, I understand what you're saying but I am ruling it works this way for now and we can discuss after the game." - if this flag match was important and you later think "they had a point" then you can explain and find a way to make it up to them in-game. They get the reward another way, they're invited to a new match or something. Or you can decide the Suggestion spell now works differently but this also applies to any instance of the spell, making it a more appealing option (since you're house-ruling it into being stronger) for your party spellcasters if there are any: If they had the option to take Suggestion but did not, I'd ask if they would have taken this new version: if they say yes you can let them swap their spell).
So to summarise: Suggestion is not "do whatever I say" spell. It is, essentially an auto-win on a standard Persuasion check. The player was completely right about the spell, but was wrong to argue with you about it after you had made your decision. Neither of you handled this as well as it could have been. Going forward, if the player disagrees, make a decision and if your feel inclined, offer to discuss it after session, then move on with the game.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
In my experience, players usually argue when they feel the DM's decision is unfair. In this particular case, I'm inclined to agree with the player. Suggestion requires you to make the idea seem reasonable, which you made no effort to do, and no course of action was actually suggested, just a statement about the caster's beliefs.
In general, when there's an argument I'll stop to consider whether my actions are fair, sometimes they are, sometimes I have an agenda and I'm breaking the rules to reach it. In the second case, I stop and try to think of a way to manage without being unfair about it. It's almost always more important that players feel the rules of the world are the same for both sides than for any particular agenda to get through.
If I've made my decision, I tell the player that this is how I've decided it works and they'll have to live with it. If that decision is significantly different from the rules, they can rebuild their character to suit the change to the world. If I changed suggestion as significantly as you have, I wouldn't be surprised if someone insisted on rebuilding their entire character to take advantage of the fact that they can tell anyone to do anything.
The example given in the Suggestion spell for a "reasonable" suggestion is "For example, you might suggest that a Knight give her Warhorse to the first Beggar she meets."
So doing something detrimental for no benefit (but no direct harm) seems exactly what the spell is for.