I figure these questions (and similar ones) have been answered a thousand times, but it's difficult to search for considering each situation is unique. This is the DM only group, and my first time posting on forums here. I don't technically DM dnd, but I'll get to that in a second.
I have a group of friends I've known for a long time. We wanted something fun to do together. I've been wanting to do tabletop for years, and slowly built up a library of books for various tabletop games. At the start of this year, my friends and I decided to have a sort of game night where we would do tabletop or other things. Something fun. We needed somewhere independent to have the game and ...let's call this person 'Bob'... volunteered to host. Bob is also the our kind of group leader. I volunteered to write the campaign and DM.
Since then, I have had continued issues that have not gotten better with each session (I think we're on session 4 now). In addition, the same problems arose with 2 different tabletop games. The problems are all exhibited by Bob, which puts me at a conflict of interest as if I just make any overextensions the friend group might fall apart (plus Bob is hosting). I didn't turn to the forums until other players began to show similar problems. That means it's either a DM problem or I'm missing something.
TLDR; Problems
The player does not agree/believe the campaign. This happens every session without fail and with every campaign and multiple players have complained about this. Examples include the player randomly saying they are petting a kitten and then rolling to see if that's true and then getting mad when it turns out that they are just delirious. Another example is when the players are trying to infiltrate a high-tech state-of-the-art security system in a tower and the player getting frustrated by the impracticality of the system.Several players complained about the rules not aligning with the 'rules of fantasy'. - Is this really a thing.
The player interrupts/narrates over the DM. ---oh boy the bold won't go away. Anyway, this is frustrating. I want players to feel able to express themselves freely, but I'm a little concerned that them hijacking the campaign is detrimental to the others' experience. The players will enter a new scene and I'll begin to describe it and Bob will interrupt and continue. I have talked about it both individually and as a group multiple times. It has not gotten better. Bob claims that it's his first time doing tabletop, so I have been patient. I've tried letting them talk, having moments where I specifically ask Bob to narrate to try to encourage moments, but getting the players to be consistent has undermined any flow.
There is -bold still won't go away (anyone feel free to fix this >>)- There is probably one other thing, but they are all similar and I haven't found much out there online for 'players do not believe my campaign makes sense and therefore won't go along with the story'. That's a game-breaking problem. I ask them if they really want to play. I made sure that they understood they did NOT have to play the game just because we are friends. The group stepped in last week and ask that I take a break and have someone else DM. I told them gladly and look forward to someone else DMing. That said, I'm still curious if this is a common thing?
Encourage Bob to DM. One of two things will happen:
Bob becomes a great DM because he really wants to have that narrative authority for his ideas (this is something every DM needs to a degree).
Bob does not like being a DM but now better understands how hard it is for you to handle narrative disruptions. Going forward he starts to contribute in a better manner.
Ok, there's a third possibility - Bob is unchanged. That's part of a possible reality and at some point you accept it, decide if you enjoy DM'ing enough to handle his disruptions, and then either DM or move along.
I have a player who's done this for years. I'm her first DM and she really has the creative spark but has consistently failed to register the narrative dozens of other players are bought into (we are running a West Marches campaign). She's finally getting to the point where she understands that cooperative play registers better with everyone else at the table and is starting to pay attention to what everyone else is doing and contributing there vs. throwing wild curveballs into everything.
I think that there is a group within a group thing going on like they are wanting to engage in the campaign differently than you expected you could either go with it, or try to get everyone to follow instructions. If you go with it you might try looking at it like a tv show where the players are funny and in order to succeed they need to be on a certain path and explain to them that there is 3 paths in every situation and if they want to be funny they have to all stay on that path and then you can put think of ways that that they go off the right path like they dont want to do what dm bob wants to do if they want to do with you want to do then they are starting a group to be like a dramatic tv show instead.
First, as the DM, you do have to establish yourself as an authority on the game. I’m not talking about being hostile or anything, but its really important that when it comes to the game as the DM you should always know more about the game, the rules, the setting.. all of it. The players should always feel like they can ask you a question and that you likely know the answer. This rapour is important to ensure everyone has that sense that you have a good handle on the game.
It is greatly worth noting that this rapport and authority can be established without actually knowing more of the rules or more about a setting than your players. Actually being more knowledgeable than your players can be replaced by being open to the input of a more knowledgeable player, but being confident in your own decisions and rulings and clear with your players that you, not they, and not some book, are the source of information to be considered most correct.
Finally, from what I can tell from your post you are very inexperianced and based on some of what you said here it sounds to me like you took on a few unescessary challenges in your first efforts as far as the setting, story and type of game. For a first time I would strongly recommend running something like a module (printed material), sticking to simpler and more direct D&D classic style modules like the basic starter adventure for example. Get the feel for it first, focus on learning to DM well first before you take on more complex challenges like creating and running your own setting for example and creating a lot of custom content. This will simplify things for you and let you focus on running the game rather than trying to manage complex story, setting or situations that even veteran DM’s might struggle with. There are many levels of complexity when it comes to running games, start at the begining and work your way up.
I would also revise this advice in a minor fashion. Specifically, it is absolutely good advice to start yourself off as simply as you can when first beginning to DM - but thanks to the fact that various activities that go into DMing are different difficulty from one DM to the next, what form the simplest start you can give yourself differs from one DM to another.
While many will find an easier time learning how the rules work by spending time playing the game before DMing, many others will have a firm grasp of the rules simply from reading the rule-books once through. While many will find an easier time following a published adventure to get a feel for how to arrange challenges, many others will find less difficulty and more rapid learning by diving in to building their own adventure. While many will find it less taxing on their psyche to have an established setting to reference should anyone need information about the world around the characters, many others will be better off answering with the first thing that comes to mind and jotting that down for later reference to create their own setting as they go along. And so on.
Maybe they would enjoy playing a very different kind of roleplaying game (story games like Fiasco or so). It sure looks like they can't handle the typical roles of authority between GM and players. Games like Fiasco don't have that problem, because every player is also a storyteller, and there are clear rules for who gets to talk when. Just saying, maybe they have a very different understanding of social conduct during games. But otherwise? Go with what Agile said, it probably is a good idea to have them DM.
HOWEVER
Don't put the blame on yourself. Really. To me, it doesn't look like it's your misunderstanding. It's rather in Bob's nature to center themselves, and the problem here can also get out of hand if he DMs. I have played in a campaign by a very similar player who always "stole the limelight" of others. A very loud, strong personality. When they DMed, it led to all sorts of problems, with Players being denied agency; players suddenly didn't have any way of affecting the game/story, and that's a very, very bad way to DM. It might be that they simply aren't up to this.
My boyfriend, for example, won't ever play with me, because he is a similar type. He wants narrative control, and doesn't like playing along rules. We do freeform RP, and that works perfectly fine, but he doesn't like rules, restrictions and the fact that other people might have similar authority. That's why he doesn't play TRPGs with me.
Yeah I'm going to have to totally disagree with that with every fiber of my being. You're the DM, quite literally by the definition of every DM guide ever written you are the rules referee. You have to know the rules better than anyone and more than that you have to know them well enough to know where to adapt/change/evolve them for the needs of the game/theme/style/setting you are trying to create. RPG's are not board games, you don't follow rules to the letter, they are guidelines, but as the DM you have to know what the rules are, so that you can have the confidence in the decisions and rulings you make and receive the confidence from your players.
Your disagreement seems inconsistent to me. On the one hand you insist that the DM absolutely must know the rules better than their players (which I have specific issues against that I'll address below), and on the other hand you are aware that the rules need not be followed to the letter - which if they don't (and I agree they don't), why should the DM have to know what the rule in the book is rather than just know that the ruling they have made works for them and their group?
As for having to know the rules better than your players, and why that is absolutely nonsensical to require of a DM, you are effectively saying that no one can ever DM for me because I happen to be exceptionally good at retaining rules knowledge (I can keep differences between multiple editions of the same game straight in my head, and also remember the majority of regularly used rules for numerous different game systems well enough to barely have to crack a book during a typical session).
The reality is that anyone could DM for me, regardless of their rules knowledge. In fact, they could even rely upon me for rules knowledge along the lines of asking me what the standard rule is should they need to make a ruling, and then they decide either to go with that or make a different ruling - the only requirement on them being that they be confident in doing this, rather than going the "Uh... I dunno, what would you do?" route. And the only requirement of the rest of the table being to have the basic respect necessary to not argue against the DM's ruling once they have made it whether it follows the book, copies my own house-rulings, or is something entirely different unless the DM's ruling is actually unfair.
And I can tell you from experience, both as a fledgling DM/GM of various games along the years and as a player alongside numerous fledgling DMs/GMs, that actually knowing the rules in the book and having confidence in the decisions and rulings you make are entirely independent of each other. In fact, some of the most confident DMs I've ever seen appear to have never even read most of the rules for a new edition - they just confidently rule as they have in prior editions, and their players confidently follow those rulings, and when someone points out that what the book actually says on the matter has dramatically changed, they then confidently keep on as they have been (and sometimes call the change "stupid" or express the belief that it doesn't matter what the new book says, everyone is still doing it the old way anyways).
I do agree with you that DM's learn the rules in different ways and what is "easier" in terms of running games differs from DM to DM, but when a new DM asks for advice in what he has already defined as a problem group/game, that's not the time to offer advice that basically says "hey there are lots of ways to do it, here is a list of them, pick one you think will work for you"
That too seems inconsistent. You acknowledge that DM's learn differently and that what is "easier" differs from DM to DM, and then insist that the advice given - a supposed one-size-fits-all solution - is superior to me pointing out to the new DM that likely has no idea there are no one-size-fits-all solutions, because of that fact we agree upon that DMs learn differently and what is "easier" differs from one to the next, and providing some guidance as to how to figure out which thing will actually be the simplest/easiest for that specific DM.
Then the setting. You cannot play heroic game whem your players(friends) do not want to be heroes. You cannot play space wars game if your players do not want to fight in space and so long.
Players and DM have to agree "ok tonight we play MightyHeroes V Bad Villans". And players should act as heroic as they can. DM should plot as evil as possible. It can be funny for players "oh what a silly paladin and a cheese bard want to rescue princess " BUT for characters (not players) this is their world. This is in what characters believe. And this is what META-GAMING (which is very strong in your examples) kills
Before we continue talking about this i need to ask OP something, can you elaborate on what this means?
Examples include the player randomly saying they are petting a kitten and then rolling to see if that's true and then getting mad when it turns out that they are just delirious.
Because it's unclear to me if you mean that there is a kitten there that they say they pet, and then you make them roll to see if they really pet it or not, or if your players are inventing a kitten which they are apparently petting. If it's the second thing you need to talk to your players about the way DND fundamentally functions (the DM presents the world, the players react to it, they can't react to something you haven't presented) using the examples of play at the beginning of the player's handbook as examples to illustrate this. Either way though it doesn't make sense, there's nothing to roll for, you either say "Yes, you find a stray kitten nearby and begin petting it" or "No, there are no kittens anywhere near this place." if it's the first, that's a pretty annoying thing to be dealing with, the players can trust their character's senses in terms of what you tell them.
Whenever I DM with people I do not know, or know that they are players who might try to wrap everything around themselfs, I paint the surrounding and a glimpse of a plot and then lean back for an hour or two and react only to what the players are doing. To learn what their ambitions and their thoughts may be.
When I know that, I take the more interesting things they did and incorperate them into the plot I wanted to DM and gently move them towards the entry points of the plot. I try to use the things they tried to do against them without them recognizing it as such.
Normally this works really well, because all players can act how they like. The downside is, that you as DM has to be extremely creative and cannot prepare every inch of the campaign.
When I am creating a campaign for such a group I start from the end - I think of an end what I want to achieve and then think of points in the plot which could lead to that end. Also I create some entry points based on the knowledge what I guess how the player might act. Everything in between is role-play and improvisation.
I think the general problem with your response is that its based on absolution, aka, everything must be black or white, a common forum discussion practice. What I was doing was offering the DM some advice based on his situation, not determining how every DM MUST do it or they are doing it wrong.
You will have to excuse my misunderstanding, which arose from me saying that there are more possibilities and no single answer, and you responding with "Yeah I'm going to have to totally disagree with that with every fiber of my being."
The advice you are giving this player is essentially what he already did in his game. Aka he has a player who knows the rules better than he does and was ok with it. The result is a game that fell apart.
No, that is not the advice I gave. Also no, the tale told by the original poster is not one in which the cause for the game falling apart is a player knowing the rules better than the DM does - because that, by itself (read: that, and no actual problems alongside it), is not a cause for a game to fall apart.
...Its not a big deal if there are players who also know the rules well...
This statement is at odds with your earlier statement of
As for the OP’s game falling apart, its so crystal clear that the issue is that he has a DM, a player who knows the rules inside and out, estbalishing himself as the authority in the game he is not running. This is the EXACT problem the OP is having. Grant it, a DM should know better than to execercise that authority if he is acting as a player in a game, but that is the issue. DM’s who become players have to bite their tongue, otherwise their knowledge of the game becomes a disruption. If the OP knew the rules, ran the game with strength and authority from the first session he would not be having this problem.
You are conflating "knows the rules inside an out" which is not an issue (you say so yourself, when you say your claims that the DM has to know the rules better than anyone and it's not a big deal if other players also know the rules) with "establishing himself as the authority in the game he is not running."
Those two things are not inherently linked in any way, and while the later is absolutely a problem, it does not rely upon and is not created by the former. The problem is a player challenging, rather than supporting, the DM's authority - not a player knowing the rules.
Come on now, that just double talk. The guy wouldn't be questioning the DM if he was so knowledgeable and experienced with the game rules. Thats the whole point here. An experienced player who knows the rules, is questioning everything the DM is doing because the DM is not familiar with the rules of the game. Its obviously a player problem, but the root cause is the experience difference between the two players.
It's not "double talk." It's cold, hard, observable facts.
Constantly questioning the DM's rulings and trying to get your own desired ruling instead of what the DM has decided upon does not require the player to know the rules, nor the DM to not know them - it just requires the player trying to get their way.
The root cause of the problem being a player not willing or not able to support their DM, rather than attempt to be the authority at the table.
The experienced player is questioning everything the DM is doing because the experienced player is acting like a jerk - if here were not acting like a jerk, and was using his own rules knowledge and experience to aid, rather than undermine and overrule, the newbie DM, there would not be any problem.
Edit to add: If what you were saying is true - that it is the rules knowledge, not being a jerk, that is the cause of the problem - then you would be saying that it is impossible for an experienced DM to teach a new DM how to be a DM by being a player in the new DM's campaign and providing insight or advice without being a jerk about it.
I disagree with you and I think your absolutely wrong. This IS an issue of a difference of experience, the player is more experienced and knowledgeable about the game. The result is that the DM makes errors in the course of the game, the player points them out and the DM becomes frustrated as do the players with the constant interruptions.
Are you saying that it is impossible for an inexperienced DM and an experienced player to have any other social dynamic or outcome? For example, do you think it is impossible that the DM makes errors in the course of the game, and no one interrupts, but the experienced player has made agreement with the DM that they will provide advice or input if asked, and discuss any errors made between sessions?
Your assumption that the experienced player is "being a jerk" is very very wrong.
If the player isn't being a jerk in the way they are using their superior experience and knowledge, then how is the result of the interaction a problem?
I'm seriously going to need an answer, because if what the player is doing isn't irritating the DM and/or the rest of the table (which is what I mean by "being a jerk"), how is it possible for the game to be ruined by it?
And you did not address my supposition, so I'll ask directly: Do you think it is impossible for an experienced DM to teach a new DM by being a player in the new DM's campaign and providing insight and advice without being a jerk about it?
...the fact that an inexperienced DM, running for a game for an experienced player is more often than not (no Im not saying always or its impossible, just saying very commonly) a problem.
While it is a fact that inexperienced DMs commonly encounter problems, none of those problems are actually caused by there being an experienced player at the table.
Another fact is that an experienced player can use their experience in a way that irritates the new DM, or can use their experience in a way that doesn't irritate the new DM. Experience != irritating your DM.
I'm going to have to side with Aaron here. The problem player is being a jerk, and is using his experience as the method to channel it. I've been playing longer than most of my group, and I spend my free time grousing books and reviewing rules. I am the rules authority at my table to the point that I am asked before we consult books. But I am not the only DM in the group. Of the other 3 people who DM, only one has my experience, but never have us have ever interrupted a DM in game. If we have concerns we address them after the game (or during our mid game break). Kahuna, by your logic, people like Aaron or myself will never get to be players without causing problems. By my experience a helpful and knowledgeable player can (and should) help a new DM gain the experience/knowledge they need at an accelerated rate. I've helped all of my inexperienced DMs without detracting from the game, as I'm sure us the case with Aaron (at least I hope).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hi, I'm Squishyyy.
I figure these questions (and similar ones) have been answered a thousand times, but it's difficult to search for considering each situation is unique. This is the DM only group, and my first time posting on forums here. I don't technically DM dnd, but I'll get to that in a second.
I have a group of friends I've known for a long time. We wanted something fun to do together. I've been wanting to do tabletop for years, and slowly built up a library of books for various tabletop games. At the start of this year, my friends and I decided to have a sort of game night where we would do tabletop or other things. Something fun. We needed somewhere independent to have the game and ...let's call this person 'Bob'... volunteered to host. Bob is also the our kind of group leader. I volunteered to write the campaign and DM.
Since then, I have had continued issues that have not gotten better with each session (I think we're on session 4 now). In addition, the same problems arose with 2 different tabletop games. The problems are all exhibited by Bob, which puts me at a conflict of interest as if I just make any overextensions the friend group might fall apart (plus Bob is hosting). I didn't turn to the forums until other players began to show similar problems. That means it's either a DM problem or I'm missing something.
TLDR; Problems
There is -bold still won't go away (anyone feel free to fix this >>)- There is probably one other thing, but they are all similar and I haven't found much out there online for 'players do not believe my campaign makes sense and therefore won't go along with the story'. That's a game-breaking problem. I ask them if they really want to play. I made sure that they understood they did NOT have to play the game just because we are friends. The group stepped in last week and ask that I take a break and have someone else DM. I told them gladly and look forward to someone else DMing. That said, I'm still curious if this is a common thing?
Encourage Bob to DM. One of two things will happen:
Ok, there's a third possibility - Bob is unchanged. That's part of a possible reality and at some point you accept it, decide if you enjoy DM'ing enough to handle his disruptions, and then either DM or move along.
I have a player who's done this for years. I'm her first DM and she really has the creative spark but has consistently failed to register the narrative dozens of other players are bought into (we are running a West Marches campaign). She's finally getting to the point where she understands that cooperative play registers better with everyone else at the table and is starting to pay attention to what everyone else is doing and contributing there vs. throwing wild curveballs into everything.
There's hope. : )
I think that there is a group within a group thing going on like they are wanting to engage in the campaign differently than you expected you could either go with it, or try to get everyone to follow instructions. If you go with it you might try looking at it like a tv show where the players are funny and in order to succeed they need to be on a certain path and explain to them that there is 3 paths in every situation and if they want to be funny they have to all stay on that path and then you can put think of ways that that they go off the right path like they dont want to do what dm bob wants to do if they want to do with you want to do then they are starting a group to be like a dramatic tv show instead.
It is greatly worth noting that this rapport and authority can be established without actually knowing more of the rules or more about a setting than your players. Actually being more knowledgeable than your players can be replaced by being open to the input of a more knowledgeable player, but being confident in your own decisions and rulings and clear with your players that you, not they, and not some book, are the source of information to be considered most correct.
I would also revise this advice in a minor fashion. Specifically, it is absolutely good advice to start yourself off as simply as you can when first beginning to DM - but thanks to the fact that various activities that go into DMing are different difficulty from one DM to the next, what form the simplest start you can give yourself differs from one DM to another.While many will find an easier time learning how the rules work by spending time playing the game before DMing, many others will have a firm grasp of the rules simply from reading the rule-books once through. While many will find an easier time following a published adventure to get a feel for how to arrange challenges, many others will find less difficulty and more rapid learning by diving in to building their own adventure. While many will find it less taxing on their psyche to have an established setting to reference should anyone need information about the world around the characters, many others will be better off answering with the first thing that comes to mind and jotting that down for later reference to create their own setting as they go along. And so on.
Maybe they would enjoy playing a very different kind of roleplaying game (story games like Fiasco or so). It sure looks like they can't handle the typical roles of authority between GM and players. Games like Fiasco don't have that problem, because every player is also a storyteller, and there are clear rules for who gets to talk when. Just saying, maybe they have a very different understanding of social conduct during games. But otherwise? Go with what Agile said, it probably is a good idea to have them DM.
HOWEVER
Don't put the blame on yourself. Really. To me, it doesn't look like it's your misunderstanding. It's rather in Bob's nature to center themselves, and the problem here can also get out of hand if he DMs. I have played in a campaign by a very similar player who always "stole the limelight" of others. A very loud, strong personality. When they DMed, it led to all sorts of problems, with Players being denied agency; players suddenly didn't have any way of affecting the game/story, and that's a very, very bad way to DM. It might be that they simply aren't up to this.
My boyfriend, for example, won't ever play with me, because he is a similar type. He wants narrative control, and doesn't like playing along rules. We do freeform RP, and that works perfectly fine, but he doesn't like rules, restrictions and the fact that other people might have similar authority. That's why he doesn't play TRPGs with me.
Zev Georg Mir, creator of Michtim: Fluffy Adventures
Game Designer, Storyteller, UX Gamedev, Homebrewer, Michtim
Get Michtim For D&D
The Tavern (casual RP socializing) game: DM, feel free to join, but read rules in first post and post questions if you have any!
Tym Eisenfuchs: ambiguous Michtim Warlock
Click links to find out more!
Your disagreement seems inconsistent to me. On the one hand you insist that the DM absolutely must know the rules better than their players (which I have specific issues against that I'll address below), and on the other hand you are aware that the rules need not be followed to the letter - which if they don't (and I agree they don't), why should the DM have to know what the rule in the book is rather than just know that the ruling they have made works for them and their group?
As for having to know the rules better than your players, and why that is absolutely nonsensical to require of a DM, you are effectively saying that no one can ever DM for me because I happen to be exceptionally good at retaining rules knowledge (I can keep differences between multiple editions of the same game straight in my head, and also remember the majority of regularly used rules for numerous different game systems well enough to barely have to crack a book during a typical session).
The reality is that anyone could DM for me, regardless of their rules knowledge. In fact, they could even rely upon me for rules knowledge along the lines of asking me what the standard rule is should they need to make a ruling, and then they decide either to go with that or make a different ruling - the only requirement on them being that they be confident in doing this, rather than going the "Uh... I dunno, what would you do?" route. And the only requirement of the rest of the table being to have the basic respect necessary to not argue against the DM's ruling once they have made it whether it follows the book, copies my own house-rulings, or is something entirely different unless the DM's ruling is actually unfair.
And I can tell you from experience, both as a fledgling DM/GM of various games along the years and as a player alongside numerous fledgling DMs/GMs, that actually knowing the rules in the book and having confidence in the decisions and rulings you make are entirely independent of each other. In fact, some of the most confident DMs I've ever seen appear to have never even read most of the rules for a new edition - they just confidently rule as they have in prior editions, and their players confidently follow those rulings, and when someone points out that what the book actually says on the matter has dramatically changed, they then confidently keep on as they have been (and sometimes call the change "stupid" or express the belief that it doesn't matter what the new book says, everyone is still doing it the old way anyways).
That too seems inconsistent. You acknowledge that DM's learn differently and that what is "easier" differs from DM to DM, and then insist that the advice given - a supposed one-size-fits-all solution - is superior to me pointing out to the new DM that likely has no idea there are no one-size-fits-all solutions, because of that fact we agree upon that DMs learn differently and what is "easier" differs from one to the next, and providing some guidance as to how to figure out which thing will actually be the simplest/easiest for that specific DM.I am afraid that your issues could not be fixed with any "gold advice".
You should ask your group if they realy want play pen and paper RPG or they just want to check how to break this RPG mechanic or setting.
Discuss the idea of RPG and how roles are divided. All must agree on the very basic loop/idea of RPG
"DM describes background, Players desccribe characters actions, DM decides and describes outcomes"
If BOB wants to be a DM give him a chance.
Then the setting. You cannot play heroic game whem your players(friends) do not want to be heroes. You cannot play space wars game if your players do not want to fight in space and so long.
Players and DM have to agree "ok tonight we play MightyHeroes V Bad Villans". And players should act as heroic as they can. DM should plot as evil as possible. It can be funny for players "oh what a silly paladin and a cheese bard want to rescue princess " BUT for characters (not players) this is their world. This is in what characters believe. And this is what META-GAMING (which is very strong in your examples) kills
Before we continue talking about this i need to ask OP something, can you elaborate on what this means?
Because it's unclear to me if you mean that there is a kitten there that they say they pet, and then you make them roll to see if they really pet it or not, or if your players are inventing a kitten which they are apparently petting. If it's the second thing you need to talk to your players about the way DND fundamentally functions (the DM presents the world, the players react to it, they can't react to something you haven't presented) using the examples of play at the beginning of the player's handbook as examples to illustrate this. Either way though it doesn't make sense, there's nothing to roll for, you either say "Yes, you find a stray kitten nearby and begin petting it" or "No, there are no kittens anywhere near this place." if it's the first, that's a pretty annoying thing to be dealing with, the players can trust their character's senses in terms of what you tell them.
Whenever I DM with people I do not know, or know that they are players who might try to wrap everything around themselfs, I paint the surrounding and a glimpse of a plot and then lean back for an hour or two and react only to what the players are doing. To learn what their ambitions and their thoughts may be.
When I know that, I take the more interesting things they did and incorperate them into the plot I wanted to DM and gently move them towards the entry points of the plot. I try to use the things they tried to do against them without them recognizing it as such.
Normally this works really well, because all players can act how they like. The downside is, that you as DM has to be extremely creative and cannot prepare every inch of the campaign.
When I am creating a campaign for such a group I start from the end - I think of an end what I want to achieve and then think of points in the plot which could lead to that end. Also I create some entry points based on the knowledge what I guess how the player might act. Everything in between is role-play and improvisation.
You will have to excuse my misunderstanding, which arose from me saying that there are more possibilities and no single answer, and you responding with "Yeah I'm going to have to totally disagree with that with every fiber of my being."
No, that is not the advice I gave. Also no, the tale told by the original poster is not one in which the cause for the game falling apart is a player knowing the rules better than the DM does - because that, by itself (read: that, and no actual problems alongside it), is not a cause for a game to fall apart.
This statement is at odds with your earlier statement ofAre you saying that it is impossible for an inexperienced DM and an experienced player to have any other social dynamic or outcome? For example, do you think it is impossible that the DM makes errors in the course of the game, and no one interrupts, but the experienced player has made agreement with the DM that they will provide advice or input if asked, and discuss any errors made between sessions?
If the player isn't being a jerk in the way they are using their superior experience and knowledge, then how is the result of the interaction a problem?I'm seriously going to need an answer, because if what the player is doing isn't irritating the DM and/or the rest of the table (which is what I mean by "being a jerk"), how is it possible for the game to be ruined by it?
And you did not address my supposition, so I'll ask directly: Do you think it is impossible for an experienced DM to teach a new DM by being a player in the new DM's campaign and providing insight and advice without being a jerk about it?
I'm going to have to side with Aaron here. The problem player is being a jerk, and is using his experience as the method to channel it. I've been playing longer than most of my group, and I spend my free time grousing books and reviewing rules. I am the rules authority at my table to the point that I am asked before we consult books. But I am not the only DM in the group. Of the other 3 people who DM, only one has my experience, but never have us have ever interrupted a DM in game. If we have concerns we address them after the game (or during our mid game break). Kahuna, by your logic, people like Aaron or myself will never get to be players without causing problems. By my experience a helpful and knowledgeable player can (and should) help a new DM gain the experience/knowledge they need at an accelerated rate. I've helped all of my inexperienced DMs without detracting from the game, as I'm sure us the case with Aaron (at least I hope).