Hi! Just made my acct bc I’m kinda sorta at my wits end. I just wanted some advice on how to feel with one of my players, a draconic sorcerer.
For context this my second game but by first time running a game with this person (let’s call them K). K is really good friends with my best friend and an overall fun player. The other players are my best friend and their bro.
But K and I don’t really have a good relationship. Part of that comes from the way they try to derail sessions (I.e. jumping off a cliff, a balcony, and etc. just to see what happens) and how they have a history of exploding with out of character outbursts whenever something happens that they don’t like. I guess I’m scared of their reactions bc they’re so intense.
So whenever K and I have had a disagreement over the above things or not, my best friend takes their side. And it stings every time. It’s stupid and childish I know, trying to work on it.
Recently, K messaged me asking to take feats for their draconic sorcerer. I only really use our campaign book and the player’s handbook as the only sources of reference for our game bc I’m still very inexperienced.
And the player’s handbook doesn’t mention that draconic sorcerers take on feats (feats like sentinel, swashbuckler, etc.). I could be wrong if so feel free to tell me that the players handbook does allow draconic sorcerers to take feats.
Basically, I’m scared K is going to run to my best friend and I’m going to be made into the overreacting, hypersensitive idiot again.
So I try to let them down gently. Saying that no, the PH doesn’t mention any of that so let’s not do that.
But they don’t stop.
They start badgering me. Links to feats lists. Additional literature - everything from Tasha’s and beyond really. All topped off with just so much blatantly manipulative behavior that, as of posting this, I’m still avoiding our discord server. This was about midnight and I was so tired and scared of social repercussion that I just give in.
Some of the gross behavior? “I don’t think my character is strong enough, everyone is strong than me, *i* haven’t found anything that says we can’t take feats so…” and so on. All over and over, pinging on my phone for what wasn’t hours but definitely felt like it.
I don’t feel comfortable with this person and I feel really gross about that encounter, do y’all have any tips on how to go about this? Am I overreacting? I honestly don’t know anymore…
UPDATE/EDIT: Thank you all so much for your thoughtful and honest advice! Especially when pointing out that feats are optional and that sorcerers can take them. I've been checking this thread here and there and have seen so much knowledge and empowerment, it's really helped me view my game a bit more clearly. Thank you, everyone, for that peace. And, as of today, my group has another session planned tomorrow, during which I'll set my boundaries and do right by myself for a change. For a really new DM posting on here was anxiety inducing, but I feel better having heard for y'all on not only your own experiences but your individual playstles. I can't understate how helpful posting to this forum was and, hopefully, the next time i do, it'll be some good news!
Sorry that you are having challenges with your players/friends here. You really have two different questions here; what are the rules of the game, and then how manage your players.
Lets just get the rules stuff out of the way here, because its the simpler one.
The Rules:
Feats are technically optional rules. However they are as a group used so frequently, that many players just assume they are part of the game, like they were for prior editions. A feat can be taken at any level instead of an ability score increase (ASI). So any sorcerer could take a feat at levels 4,6,8,12,16 and 19, and again that is instead of an ASI. So could K take a feat? Yes, if you as the DM have chosen to permit using the optional rule for feats. The rule is here: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/phb/customization-options#FeatsAG and note the second sentence or the second paragraph : "Using the optional feats rule..." Key word. Optional.
So, part of the start of a session zero is setting expectations, and what rules are/not in play, and what homebrew you are/are not using. Since you are a starting DM, you are within your rights to say what rules you are going to allow, and not worrying about feats and the mess they could create is perfectly valid. Now if they are experienced players, they probably expected feats to be part of the game, because so many groups do. That's why having the session zero can help set the ground rules.
And just like the choice about feats, the choice of what source books to use is another DM perogative. You are using the basic three books, and as a starting DM, you shouldn't have to worry about anything else yet if you aren't ready for the complexity. Again, another topic for session zero.
Those are the rules. But we now we get to the stickier part; what could you do now. And I am very certain there will be more opinions here on that, than the rules themselves.
What do you do?
As I mentioned, Session zero is a great place for this, but we are already past that. And you sound like you are stressed and not having fun, which is a legitimate problem. Role Playing is supposed to be fun, and while I can see where K is coming from, their approach isn't cool to say the least. But here are some options on what you could do; but don't take my phrasing word for word; these are your friends/players.
Reset: Do a session zero, and discuss the rules and books you are going to use. Yeah using all the bells any whistles is fun, but they aren't required. But more importantly the why: Because you aren't an expert, and you haven't read materials you don't have.
Agree with K's demands: So you could shrug, and let him do what he wants. You could actually choose to do this as you are reseting. You would need copies of the rules of course, and all the players should have access to the same material that everyone agrees on. Why would you do this? Because in the end it is just a game, and it isn'[t worth the time. However, I personally see you being bullied here, and your friend is enabling K. I don't want to over read into this, but this isn't a healthy social dynamic.
Compromise: You could also say; "Right now no, until I get familar with the rules in question. But when I am, I will allow everyone to make changes to characters (substituting ASIs for feats. Because I am still learning how to run the game. So lets keep it simple for the moment" It could difuse it, but you are commiting yourself here to get comfortable.
Decline: You could also just say; "No, not for this game. Perhaps the next one." Based on what you wrote, this will probably escalate things as they are already badgering you about it. It might end up breaking up the game, which will lower your stress, but limit everyones fun.
Uninvite K: You also aren't required to have K in the game at all. However, your best briend and K appear to be close, so this could lead you to #6 below. It happens though; some groups don't fit well together. I just had one recently, and we all went our separate ways. It feels bad, its annoying, but it happens.
Move on. You might decide that enough is enough, and it isn't worth it. This is #5 for everyone. No one would be happy in the short term, but your stress would drop long term. There are other groups in the world after all.
I personally would go with number 1 and then fall back to number 3. Learning more about the game will make you a better DM in the long run. But your friends/players have to compromise too. DMing is challenging enough the first time. They should be helping, not badgering. And they need to remember that the DM sets and enforces the rules to make thing fair and fun for everone, and they should respect it. Because if they don't on the matter of feats, it will be less fun on other rule questions. DM's make mistakes, and in an ideal world, players would be tactful about issues. And if they don't respect the fact you aren't having fun as part of game, perhaps this isn't the game for them.
I hope it helps you in some way. I admit having a low tolerance for badgering (having raised two kids does that), so if it seems very direct above, it is because it is. I don't know your friend or K, but I would have probably kicked them just for badgering alone. We haven't discussed K's other antics, and I don't have a firm read on them, but it certainly appears to be impacting you running the game. And I have less clarity on how the others feel about K, but as described this could turn more toxic real quickly.
@Nthal hit a bunch of stuff on the head, first go. Video posted below might help as well.
There are a couple of things that stand out from my perspective.
The rules in question are indeed optional. But they are optional to all classes that meet a pre-requisite and get an ASI. They forgo the ASI in lieu of the feat abilities. You can find the information on Feats in Ch. 6 - Customization Optionsin the PHB.
Bottom Line: DM decides what is appropriate for their game, at their table. If you're not comfortable with it, that's that.
In Game Shennanigans/Outbursts - There is often a fine line between player agency and players failing Wheaton's Law. If it feels like K is trying to find out what the limits of the video game's physics engine are, it's because they're treating your game like a video game, not a TTRPG. There are ton's of passive-aggressive methods to attempt with this (killing off a PC or 6, maiming and crippling the PC..), but *NONE of them will solve the problem*. This is a player behavior problem and needs to be settled out of game. Trying to solve a player problem in-game will likely make things worse.
From the context that you've provided, K is bullying you. The game only works when everyone involved trusts each other. You might strongly consider asking the other player(s) (not K and Enabler) how they feel about the situation. If the general consensus is that your problem player makes everyone at the table uncomfortable, then your choice isn't just about you anymore. If you are the stand-alone opinion about this person, and their way of interaction in-game, it might be time to have a good-faith chat with K. Some good topics of conversation might be the same topics you would see during Session Zero. There are plenty of versions on the internet, you don't have to stick with the one in Tasha's. Here's one from SlyFlourish. (Last point in the checklist is player behavior.) And you might want to have the same good-faith conversation with the person that you consider to be your best friend. In the end, you will either need to confront and compromise with this problem, or you will need to move on and halt the campaign. The players-in-question enjoy something about the game, otherwise they would stop coming to game sessions. I would suggest sticking to what makes the game fun for them, as well as for you. In the end, if you can't have fun running D&D, stop running it for this group.
"No D&D" is better than "Bad D&D"
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
Being a DM is tough at times if you're intimidated by aggressive players or anxious about potential conflict, as it is bound to occur at some point. As DM you are GOD for this world and your word is IT. Nothing more, nothing less, YOU are able to dictate, with absolution, what is and is not going to be accepted, used or employed.
From your description, K is acting a bit like a petulant and entitled child, thus I, personally, would have no issue shutting the door on some of these things, at times, with some sarcasm. "Everyone is stronger than me." Uh, ok, you are a full caster and the Fighter is stronger than you. Oddly, that makes SENSE. "I want a feat" This game will NOT include feats, I'm sorry. "<nerd rage bullying rant>" There are other games and tables out there and perhaps one of them might better suit you. I am here to have fun with friends and that doesn't include ongoing conflict and fighting. If it did, you might consider your position, in Mortal VS God in this battle.
You set the rules and as someone mentioned, a redo of session 0 might be in order, to ensure as many aspects of the game are addressed as you can cover. That's the time to say "No Feats" and if they ask why, you can offer whatever reason you want, OR, as DM, simply state you don't want them in your game. I feel for you, as it's clear confrontation makes you very uncomfortable and it sounds like you have a player who thrives on it. In my group, we've only had one point where a player got a little pushy with the DM and before it got too far, the DM asked "Since this is such an issue, I better ask now, how do you feel about PC deaths?" Pretty clear that if the player started pushing too hard to derail the campaign, there wasn't likely to be a "lifeline" in a combat going bad. No place for bullies in D&D.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
would it be so bad to let all players take a feat? From that point on feats are part of levelling up - depending on the class you are allowed a feat at certain levels. But not random in between.
you are the DM, and it’s your game. But it’s a game to bring players along with you. If it doesn’t hurt you, the game or other players, why argue? If it does, then don’t allow it
I think a bigger challenge is the relationship with the player, not how he wants to play the character. I play on Discord, and any game chat is done through that, not personally messaging me. So I think you need to look at how to shut his harassment down. Set up a chat group or Similar for your dnd group, and if he’s messaging you directly, ask him to him to post to the group chat instead.
if you don’t feel comfortable in your games with this player, then you might just have to tell the group that the style of play isn’t for you and then step away.
It’s a game, it’s supposed to be fun, but if it’s making you unhappy in anyway, step away.
I ran into some situations like this when I started as a new DM.
Regarding players trying to add stuff to their sheet, I had one player in particular that kept adding things like feats and magic items to their sheet just because they found them on the digital sheet and thought it was cool. I had to reach out to them privately a couple times about it. I just said, listen, I'm new to this and I'm already struggling to keep up with all the rules and features. So I think that thing is cool too, but I just don't have the brain bandwidth right now to figure out how to implement that into our game. Maybe next time.
In a few cases, the player was adding things that were against the rules. Mostly feats and magic items. I had to just say, that I think those things are cool, but those things need to be earned as part of the gameplay. The adventure we are playing is assuming the characters are of a certain level and ability. If we start boosting them up just because we want to, the adventure won't be fun anymore because nothing will be challenging. Then I took note of the things the player was interested in and tried to find a way to include an opportunity to earn those things during the game.
As for disruptive playing styles. It's best just to speak openly about that as a group. There was one time in our last adventure where the circumstances developed to a point where a few of us started roleplaying some distrust and intrigue among the adventuring group. Characters keeping secrets from each other, not distributing treasure openly and evenly, characters lying to each other. Personally I thought it was fun and made sense for the story but one of our players spoke up at the end of the session and said that they really weren't comfortable with that kind of gameplay. They play D&D to get away from that kind of stuff that is part of their everyday life. They want to have an experience where the characters work together toward a common goal, trust each other, and succeed and fail together. He said that if the rest of us wanted to play a game about characters who were hiding, lying, and deceiving each other, that was fine but he wasn't interested and would rather leave the group.
We all responded saying that was cool, thanks for sharing, we want everyone to have fun. We'll try to avoid that kind of stuff in the future. And we did. And then everyone had fun.
Regarding the comment that a player feels like their character is underpowered. My response would be ok cool, sounds like you've realized you don't really like this kind of character. Let's find a way to kill him off in-game in some sort of exciting way. Then you can make a different character that is more like what you want to play. You made a physically weak spellcaster and now you realize you want to play a tank. So make a big fighter with strong armor and big weapons and we'll introduce that character into the game instead.
This is a tough situation, and I have been there too. I don't know what's best for your situation, but I'll recommend a few things.
Before that, though, it sounds like you have some preconceptions about feats, and unfortunately this isn't entirely accurate. Feats are not related to classes in any particular way, and are an (optional) feature to customize further. However, other than the prerequisites for each feat, there is no restriction on who could take a feat. A buff wizard could take the Grappler feat provided they have the 13 strength required, or a fighter could take the Skulker feat if they had 13 dexterity. Some feats have no prerequisites, and by rules as written can be taken by any character without needing any particular class or ability score. However, that doesn't mean that you *have* to allow feats. So, here we go:
1. Feats are an optional feature. If you're concerned about a particular feat, be honest about it. Explain that you're not comfortable using feats from content that you don't have access to, or if you have any particular concerns about the suggested feats, communicate that to the player. I would avoid things like "I don't think sorcerers take feats." This is not only inaccurate (as a veteran DM and player, I can guarantee you that draconic sorcerers take feats, particularly Elemental Adept), players only have their characters in the campaign, while you have the rest of the world, so if something is permissible by the rules, which feats are, I wouldn't disallow it without reason. However, that reason can be as simple as "I'm not letting other players use feats, so if I let you use feats, it would be unfair to them" or "I don't know if that feat makes sense for your character (not because the character is a particular class- more because it doesn't match their backstory or other features and feels abrupt, such as taking the Fey Touched feat at level up without having any interaction with the fey). I wouldn't worry too much about feats in general, but if you do feel like a feat is particularly unbalanced or not what fits your campaign, explain that, and if the player doesn't listen, you have the authority as DM to say no. Also, if you don't let other (less manipulative, hostile) players take feats, then forbid K from taking feats - bad behavior is no excuse.
2. Assert that you are sitting at the head of the table. Players shouldn't be ganging up on their DM, and that sounds like what's going on. As a DM, you have responsibilities to the players at your table- but they also have responsibilities to you. Arguing, shouting, harassing, out of character outbursts are abusive towards the DM. This isn't just bad for you as a DM; it seems like, as a good DM, you care about your players having fun and enjoying the game, otherwise you would either just roll over to K's demand or stop running sessions. Not only is it just scummy behavior to bully a DM to get what you want, it is important to set boundaries. Even if you don't realize it, this bad behavior is making the game worse for everyone else- you will be less confident as a DM, worry about running content, and eventually burn out if you don't address this issue. You already mentioned avoiding the server because of concern over the issue, so ultimately you may need to just say "It isn't appropriate for players to harass DMs to get what they want. If you want something in the future, I'm willing to listen to a calm, reasonable case, but I won't tolerate poor behavior." It is important to do this for your sake but also for other players- most of the time, one player shouting or arguing with the DM eats up session time, makes everyone uncomfortable, and causes issues in the long run.
3. Take a step back and assess the situation. From where I'm sitting, it looks like K has several different player issues that, while similar, might have different causes and solutions.
"... part of that comes from the way they try to derail sessions (I.e. jumping off a cliff, a balcony, and etc. just to see what happens)..." - this implies that they have a different expectation for the campaign or game play style than you do. Sitting them down and explaining that you're trying to keep a narrative going, and treating the character as a puppet instead of a lived creature with self-preservation, interests, goals, and character development just to see if something interesting might happen makes it harder for you to run the game well and takes away from opportunities for other players to develop their characters.
"...how they have a history of exploding with out of character outbursts whenever something happens that they don’t like." - this implies that they have a problematic response to "no". Explain that D&D is a game, and sometimes things don't go well, or rules are put in place to make things more challenging or interesting. Even losing a fight is often just down to the dice or luck or mistakes being made. You are trying to entertain, tell a story, and help everyone enjoy the time together in session. Bursting out reflects a lack of confidence in your role as a DM. Additionally, this behavior is just unacceptable in general. I don't know your ages or context, but typically that's unacceptable behavior in most contexts- yelling at your boss (which is the equivalent of yelling at the DM in D&D) gets you fired, not promoted.
"So whenever K and I have had a disagreement over the above things or not, my best friend takes their side." - that's a rough one. I've been in groups where friends did hurtful things to me as a DM or player, and so I think it's important to address this issue quickly. Explain to your other friend (not K) that as the DM, when he gangs up on you, it makes it difficult for you to DM effectively and makes you anxious. I think, in this case, it might also be worth assessing something- is your friend actually agreeing with K, or just trying to help you become a better DM? In the particular issue of feats, your friend could simply be trying to help you understand the feat rules more clearly (since there does seem to be a misunderstanding here, and I'm sorry to rag on you about it so much and I'm not trying to be a jerk, but RAW K is actually right here, though the way he's going about it is entirely wrong- though you also *DO NOT* need to allow feats, as they are an optional rule). Remember also that if your friend is familiar with D&D or has more experience with the system, they're probably trying to teach, not gang up on you. Now, if it's personal attack, belittling, or going beyond just "Actually, if you check page #..." then maybe it's worth looking at things more critically.
I do think maybe some of this has been over-exaggerated, so let's look at some tools for de-escalation.
"Let's talk about this after the session." "I'm going to look this up later, but for now let's go with..." "I don't think I understand your reasoning, can you try explaining it differently so I can understand better?" These are all good ways to de-escalate when things get heated. I've had a few shouting matches in sessions and they feel bad, but using these avoids most of them.
"You say your character doesn't feel strong enough- what does it feel like you aren't able to do?" "I know you want feats, but I'm hesitant to use them because I'm not familiar. However, I'd be willing to work with you to address those concerns." If a player feels like they're lagging behind, that can be a frustrating feeling. I've felt it as a player, I've noticed it as a DM, and it's hard to fix in general, but putting out specific problems might help you find more specific or helpful solutions instead of just rolling over and accepting demands. Alternatively, if the demand is unreasonable (i.e. "Everyone else has healing and I don't" when playing a sorcerer) it lets you unpack that and explain not everyone needs to be good at everything for D&D to be interesting- in fact, it's better otherwise so that everyone has a chance to do what they really excel at.
"I know that it's frustrating, but understand that I want to make sure things go well, and raising issues mid-session or badgering me about decisions I've made without listening to my side makes it harder for me to focus on (storyline, encounters, etc.- anything you compromise if you have to spend all your prep time arguing about rules)." This might be a better explanation to your friend who takes K's side, but you can try this one if everything else fails.
This is a hard situation, and at the end of the day you may have to say "I'm sorry, but if you and I can't reach an agreement, then perhaps we shouldn't be playing D&D together." Still, I think it's usually worth a try to fix things up.
I really really don't like the "I am god" declaration style of table management, and describing player DM conflict as mortal vs god. I mean, what's a god without followers is an important theological question in this context. DMing is managerial and no healthy managerial style encourages you to lean into your inner divinity.
I prefer DMs and players relate like human beings with respect. Most folks who truly master, well anything really, usually take on a considerable amount of humility in the acquisition of that mastery. Be upfront, with the whole table, as to why this player's conduct (rightfully) bothers you. Just say, "Look folks, as a new DM I only have so much capacity and your playstyle (signalling problem player) is really draining me. All these things you want to bolt onto a character, I don't have the time to spend to ensure we as a table are implementing them properly. Feats for instance are subject to DM discretion, and again I don't have the capacity to run the game I want for you all while having to address systems I'm not including in my game. As far as getting upset for doing something objectively silly like diving off a cliff and throwing a fit when the damage gets dealt. If you're not familiar with how something is going to affect your character, ask before you leap, but if you're going to do something for giggles, I'd rather you not as my game world is going to respond to you realistically, including laws of physics insofar as falling damage goes. That's it, these sorts of behaviors make DMing this game really unfun for me. If you'd rather play the game differently, I'll respectfully bow out and maybe someone else can DM or we look for a new one." It's best just to be upfront that you're a human being not a genie and you have investments in this game to you expect returns on in the form of good play, that's not happening so since you're participation is most integral to this group you should be up front about how you feel your not getting the returns on the investment you're putting into the game. Sometimes dropping the fantasy and reminding everyone you're all people and none of you should be put out by anyone else's excesses is key to game dynamics.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
So whenever K and I have had a disagreement over the above things or not, my best friend takes their side. And it stings every time. It’s stupid and childish I know, trying to work on it.
It's not stupid and childish, your feelings are valid and justified.
This is your best friend. Tell them everything you wrote here.
DM is god, it has a tone, but the DM is an authority figure at the table and without that social contract established, every decision is up for debate and in the absence of that authority, players will manipulate circumstances in their favor if you allow it with increased frequency. This is just natural human behavior. You have to take command of the ship and steer it, though I agree, respectfully and always with the internal knowledge that ultimately you are running the game for your players, not for yourself.
This DM's issue stems directly from his inability to claim that authority and make a call. The players are under the impression everything is up for debate, so they debate everything they don't like. There is no social contract here, the players do not recognize the DM as a referee of the game and firmly believe that if they argue, they will get their way. Until the authority is established, they will not change their behavior and it's only a matter time before the game folds anyway.
You can discuss it, but the behavior won't change no matter what is said as long as there is no social contract that the DM is in charge and makes the final calls and those calls must be accepted whether you agree with them or not.
So there's authoritative and authoritarian styles of management. "I am god" as I implied earlier leans to the authoritarian and just isn't a productive leadership or management style anywhere.
Authoritative is considered the actual brave style of leadership, and centers the idea of the leader as a human being as I outlined. Declaring godhood without confidence is not going to establish confidence, and "manipulative" types see through that easily and weaponize it (ask any teacher mentoring new teachers on problem students). It's hard because the talk talked must match the walk walked. Based on the OP's outline, my outline establishes boundaries and parameters to the game without leaning into the pretentious "godhood" mode which does nothing but invites the antagonism of the problematic player who has proven themself capable of turning the table into a conflicted space.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I have stopped posting to this forum for many reasons, but I had to comment here, because I think the OP is suffering and I'm not sure any of these posts above are helping, despite how well-meaning they are.
To the OP - If I were in your shoes, suffering the way you are, I'd quit DMing. I haven't had to do this with my D&D group, but I have been in your shoes, more or less, as a guild leader, twice, in different MMOs. Both times, after suffering for weeks or months, I finally made the decision to just resign as guild leader (and in one case quit the game entirely). I could not believe the level of relief and happiness I felt upon making that decision. It was uncomfortable, of course, to make the announcement and deal with the shocked and dismayed reactions by all the guild members who had been most especially making my life miserable in the first place. What? You're leaving? Why? We're stunned! Etc., etc. (Both times, after I stopped leading, someone else took over, did a much worse job, and the guild was dead in < 2 months, after I'd kept them running for a year plus.)
Like running a Guild, DMing is in part an act of self-sacrifice. You are subordinating your own direct pleasure in the instant, for a more indirect and long-term pleasure of giving your players a fun time and having them enjoy adventures. However, when they are acting like this - backseat DMing (that's what "best friend" is doing by siding with K), bullying, pressuring, etc., this is not fun for any DM, ever. These players need to stop, but I know from experience that polite pleas to let it go and just play the game rarely work with this kind of situation. I don't think even threatening to stop DMing here probably will. In my experience, the ONLY thing that might work is actual resignation. Furthermore, based on their behavior and how miserable they seem to be gleefully willing to make you, they don't deserve your hard work and "deferred gratification" that DMs have to do -- players who behave themselves deserve that, not people like this.
So, my recommendation is, as soon as possible, that you make a post or tell them verbally or however you communicate with each other -- "Guys, I'm not going to be able to DM anymore. Who would like to take a turn DMing?"
When you do this, one of two things will happen. The less likely of the two is, someone steps up immediately -- maybe Best Friend, since BF is already backseat DMing. If Best Friend is arrogant enough to think BF is going to be smarter/better at it than you (BF won't be, I can guarantee, but might think it), then BF might just take over instantly. If so, IMO, great! You can have the much easier job of playing. Don't be a jerk either. Be a model player and just have fun. BF will either be great at it -- bonus! -- or (more likely) suck at it, hate it, and give up after a little while and beg you to come back. At which point you now have the upper hand - OK, but if I come back, we do PHB and NOTHING ELSE - no Tasha, no Xanathar, no Strix, none of it. By that point they're ready to agree.
However, the MORE likely scenario is that when you post/state your intention to stop DMing immediately, they will freak out. WHAT? WHY??? How is this possible??? What happened? Then you can calmly say, as a new DM, I don't feel comfortable doing all this optional stuff, and you guys clearly want it, and it is not pleasant for me to keep arguing about the rules, so someone who is more experienced should run things. Then you won't need to argue anymore. And that is when you see if they are going to BACK THE HECK OFF and let you run a game and just play, or whether they are going to insist on optional crap because they want to be overpowered. Again, you hold the cards. Either they play the way YOU want, or they can find another DM.
Yes, DMs by our nature take it on the chin a little to help everyone else have fun, but we get to have fun too. And we must, or we won't want to DM anymore. These people need to stop making you unhappy, or you don't need to make them happy either.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Here is what Tasha, author of the Demonomicon and one of D&D’s most powerful mages has to say about the subject: “Establish boundaries. And if anyone crosses them, speak up. If they don’t listen, there’s always cloudkill…”
Though presented as a joke from a morally questionable mage, there is some wisdom there that can be helpful to new DMs.
From your post, there appear to be two major problems - the player‘a action and your friend taking that player’s side. Each of those should be dealt with in different way.
Starting with the friend, since that is the easier issue. For starters, try not to hold their taking the other person’s side over yours personally. DMs and players are inherently opposed to one another - that doesn’t mean there is a DM vs. Player dynamic, but it still is the case that the DM has an infinite amount of power and players exist within the DM’s world. That can breed solidarity between players, sometimes at the DM’s expense as seems to be occurring here.
Others on this thread have said you should lay out your problems to your friend and see how they respond. I wanted to take that advice a step further - simply telling your friend about the problems with K will be ineffective. Your friend is in a position where they have two friends and would feel caught in the middle, and having someone else - especially a friend - complaining about another friend generally does not go over so well.
Instead of listing all your complaints from the start, make it a discussion. “Hey, I have been having some problems handling K’s play style - I know they are your friend, do you have any advice?”
That puts your friend in control of the conversation, so they will feel less like you are just attacking their friend. It opens your friend up to saying “I have noticed problems also” or asking “what problems?” giving you an opening to list a few issues (do not go overboard) and starting a dialogue. You can generally get more helpful advice if you approach someone by insinuating they have knowledge you want, much better than by approaching them with a laundry list of complaints.
For K, it sounds like you need to start by giving them consequences in game - it sounds a lot like they keep doing things to see just how far they can push you, and that you have not been pushing back overly much (which lots of experienced DMs fail to do also, so that is not meant as an insult).
If they jump off a cliff, assign falling damage. Or if they have feather fall or the like, they are now split from the party, and things like goblins or large monsters often use clifffaces as a place to camp, since they offer protection from the elements - if the person wants to go off on their own, then it is really there fault if they land in a position where the other members of the party cannot help.
Out of game, speak up. Tell the player “debating rules in the middle of a session just slows down everyone’s gameplay - we are going with my understanding for now, but let’s messafe on Discord after game and we can figure out how to address this situation next time.” That puts you in a position where you are advocating for the other players’ time, making them more likely to be on your side, where you remove the chance for other players to weigh in as easily on the conversation m, are firm in your ruling, without seeming unreasonable, and possibly avoid the discussion, since K might just be trolling and not care enough to remember to message later.
If they double down, give them another chance to back out. Do not be afraid to play the sympathy card: “I am new to DMing and I put a lot of effort into preparing for the session so you all can have fun, can we gat back to the game?” You want to make sure your friends are sympathetic to you, not K, in case you have to get to the next step:
Cloudkill. “I am having a lot of fun playing with everyone else, but I do not think your playstyle and my DMing mesh well, and I think it would be best if you leave the party.” This should be done in private (though after the fact you can explain to the players that it was a “meshing” issue, so no one takes it personally that you just didn’t like their friend) - Cloudkill is, after all, an AoE spell and you want the friends you wish to keep around to be far away from its effects when you cast it.
I always limit the sources that my players can use when they’re creating characters. And my advice for a new DM is to do exactly what you’re doing, limit the sources that your players can use and limit the optional rules that you use.
Being the DM is a LOT more work than being a player is. Limiting the rules that players can use while you’re learning makes your life much easier as the DM. Flat out tell that player, “No, you can’t use those optional rules. I’m a new DM and I’m learning how to run games. Adding those into the game will make it too hard for me. Play this campaign with just the Player’s Handbook and no feats.”
D&D is a game that should be fun for both the players and the DM. The DM adjudicates the interactions of the characters with the game world which they create. Unfortunately, it sounds like you aren't having that much fun though I think some of that is due to the level of confidence and lack of experience.
However, the first point to address is your feelings about the game. "I guess I’m scared of their reactions bc they’re so intense." This seems to be the real source of the problem. It seems you are worried about invoking consequences for actions taken by K's character because their reactions are so intense.
A character jumping off a cliff or balcony "just to see what happens", in most games doesn't derail things, the character finds themselves splatting into a hard surface some distance down from the place they jumped. They take damage and survive or not. A DM might say - "you are plummeting down, anything you want to do in your remaining seconds of life?" ... if they have feather fall, they might save themselves otherwise they splat. But if the DM is afraid of imposing reasonable consequences for unreasonable actions due to the personality of the player then your best choice might be as BioWizard suggested and just saying it is time to get someone else to DM.
I'm also not sure that this situation can be resolved with an open and honest conversation since it requires the OP to admit to being intimidated by K. K is likely to deny they are a problem and it becomes a personality conflict between the DM, K and the DM's best friend with no guarantee that the others will understand the DMs feelings on the matter. There isn't enough information in the first post to figure out how the players would react but open and honest discussions require a minimum level of maturity that I am not sure is present in the current situation. If this is the case, the DM might be best off just saying that it isn't working out and pass the DMIng along to someone else.
----
However, if the OP wants to continue DMing then they need to be able to adjudicate the interaction of the characters with the game world with confidence. They need to be able to say what happens when a character chooses to do something stupid without being concerned about player reactions or being questioned about the rules.
The first part of confidence comes from knowing the rules as well as or better than the players. Players come to a D&D game expecting it to be played pretty much as they have read (rules as written or close to it). A DM is free to change anything but they really should let the players know up front what is different in their game from others.
In your case, it sounds like K disputes a ruling or raises a rules question, or questions how the DM rules a situation, which your friend then supports. If the DM knows the rules then they can say the game doesn't work that way with confidence and if the players still question it - you can tell them that you will discuss the ruling at the end of the session. This at least covers rules questions. However, the DM makes a lot of rulings.
As an example:
A character which tries to jump from a balcony, swing on a chandelier and then drop onto a bad guy, driving their sword into them on the way down. Very cinematic, could be pretty cool. However, players will sometimes argue how the DM interprets it and the skill checks they require for success since the player ALWAYS wants their cool thing to work.
A DMs ruling could vary from just describing how the cool cinematic moment succeeds and getting them to roll an attack roll to hit and saying if they hit it is an automatic critical (this is the result the player would likely want). However, a more reasonable ruling might involve an athletics or acrobatics check (or both) for jumping off the balcony and swinging on the chandelier followed by a to hit roll on the way down (with no special bonus or benefit). In the second case, the result may not match the players dream if they fail a skill check, miss on the attack or only roll a 1 on damage.
This type of situation is resolved by telling the player exactly how their action will be resolved BEFORE you go ahead and resolve it. This lets the player decide whether the chosen action has a reasonable chance of success or not - something the character would likely be able to estimate even if the player has no idea. The player can then change their mind. If the player decides to go ahead then they know how it will be resolved and can face the consequences. Keep in mind that the example above doesn't involve any specific rules, it is all rulings. The only actual rule is requiring a to hit roll on the target. Other than that the DM decides what skill checks are required and what effects the die rolls will have.
The DM has to have the confidence to say this is how the situation will be resolved. In addition though, if a player raises a reasonable objection, then the DM needs to have the confidence to either stick with or change their ruling without feeling they are being bullied into doing so. DMing is always a bit of give and take since the players often have a situation imagined differently from the DM and it is very important to communicate so that the shared image of the situation is understood by both the players and the DM.
-------
Finally, all of this gets easier with experience, the more rulings a DM makes for a wider variety of players the more they come to understand how to deal with different kinds of players.
-------
On the topic of rules, there are many rules that can be considered optional. Both multiclassing and feats are two examples though most games allow for both. The DM can choose to run a campaign without one or either of these but they really should let the players know at the beginning of the campaign.
If feats are allowed, then they can be taken by ANY class whenever the class would receive an Ability Score Improvement (ASI). Feats are taken INSTEAD of ASIs. A sorcerer receives ASIs at levels 4, 8, 12, 16 and 19. (a poster above included level 6 but that only applies to fighters).
Similarly, if you only have the players handbook then feel free to say to everyone that content from Xanathar's, Tasha's, or other sources are not allowed for characters in this game. People may complain but it is your game and if you only have the PHB then that is the only source you should allow. There is more than enough content in the PHB to run a fun game.
------
The OP also commented:
"So I try to let them down gently. Saying that no, the PH doesn’t mention any of that so let’s not do that."
The problem with this statement is that the rules do allow all classes to take feats instead of ASIs if the optional feat rule is in play. At the very beginning of the section on feats (part of chapter 6) it says:
"A feat represents a talent or an area of expertise that gives a character special capabilities. It embodies training, experience, and abilities beyond what a class provides.
At certain levels, your class gives you the Ability Score Improvement feature. Using the optional feats rule, you can forgo taking that feature to take a feat of your choice instead. You can take each feat only once, unless the feat’s description says otherwise.
You must meet any prerequisite specified in a feat to take that feat."
So, having players complaining about using feats when the DM didn't say at the beginning that feats aren't available becomes a problem and a point of argument between the players and DM ... this is reinforced when the DM cites the rule book saying it isn't allowed when the players can pull out a rule book and say it is allowed if feats are in the game.
Learning the game is hard and being a new DM is probably the hardest. There are a lot of rules (luckily 5e is much better than earlier editions) and it is hard to get on top of it. Watching online games doesn't always work well since they often use their own rules or follow a rule of cool for the sake of entertainment rather than game play. However, one of the best ways to get on top of this is read the rulebook a few times, watch a variety of different examples, try to get in a game with an experienced DM and see how they run it AND keep on running your own game.
There is nothing wrong with wanting to use feats. There is nothing wrong with the DM choosing to forgo using feats either (they're optional). D&D is a game, and as with any game you begin by establishing a social contract. Normally that contract involves "following the game's rules" and "having fun". If the contract is broken, you have no common ground and the game should end. In D&D there is most commonly a part of the contract that goes along the lines of "the DM has the final say". If people in your group are not on the same page regarding the social contract, then the first priority for all of you should be to discuss this. This is what people refer to as "session 0", a session dedicated to getting on the same page and establishing the social contract. I think it is perfectly reasonable for you to say "I would prefer it if we stick with the core rules until I get a better understanding of the game". If they don't respect it, then you don't want to play the same game, and shouldn't feel forced to play.
However you phrase yourself, I'd suggest being clear and concise, so you get your point across without being misunderstood. However I'd definitely recommend not simply saying no. Your situation seems to be a delicate one, and being confrontational and self-righteous is seldom the right move in a social situation where you wish to be on good terms with everyone afterwards.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hi! Just made my acct bc I’m kinda sorta at my wits end. I just wanted some advice on how to feel with one of my players, a draconic sorcerer.
For context this my second game but by first time running a game with this person (let’s call them K). K is really good friends with my best friend and an overall fun player. The other players are my best friend and their bro.
But K and I don’t really have a good relationship. Part of that comes from the way they try to derail sessions (I.e. jumping off a cliff, a balcony, and etc. just to see what happens) and how they have a history of exploding with out of character outbursts whenever something happens that they don’t like. I guess I’m scared of their reactions bc they’re so intense.
So whenever K and I have had a disagreement over the above things or not, my best friend takes their side. And it stings every time. It’s stupid and childish I know, trying to work on it.
Recently, K messaged me asking to take feats for their draconic sorcerer. I only really use our campaign book and the player’s handbook as the only sources of reference for our game bc I’m still very inexperienced.
And the player’s handbook doesn’t mention that draconic sorcerers take on feats (feats like sentinel, swashbuckler, etc.). I could be wrong if so feel free to tell me that the players handbook does allow draconic sorcerers to take feats.
Basically, I’m scared K is going to run to my best friend and I’m going to be made into the overreacting, hypersensitive idiot again.
So I try to let them down gently. Saying that no, the PH doesn’t mention any of that so let’s not do that.
But they don’t stop.
They start badgering me. Links to feats lists. Additional literature - everything from Tasha’s and beyond really. All topped off with just so much blatantly manipulative behavior that, as of posting this, I’m still avoiding our discord server. This was about midnight and I was so tired and scared of social repercussion that I just give in.
Some of the gross behavior? “I don’t think my character is strong enough, everyone is strong than me, *i* haven’t found anything that says we can’t take feats so…” and so on. All over and over, pinging on my phone for what wasn’t hours but definitely felt like it.
I don’t feel comfortable with this person and I feel really gross about that encounter, do y’all have any tips on how to go about this? Am I overreacting? I honestly don’t know anymore…
UPDATE/EDIT: Thank you all so much for your thoughtful and honest advice! Especially when pointing out that feats are optional and that sorcerers can take them. I've been checking this thread here and there and have seen so much knowledge and empowerment, it's really helped me view my game a bit more clearly. Thank you, everyone, for that peace. And, as of today, my group has another session planned tomorrow, during which I'll set my boundaries and do right by myself for a change. For a really new DM posting on here was anxiety inducing, but I feel better having heard for y'all on not only your own experiences but your individual playstles. I can't understate how helpful posting to this forum was and, hopefully, the next time i do, it'll be some good news!
Best Wishes,
Potential
Sorry that you are having challenges with your players/friends here. You really have two different questions here; what are the rules of the game, and then how manage your players.
Lets just get the rules stuff out of the way here, because its the simpler one.
The Rules:
Feats are technically optional rules. However they are as a group used so frequently, that many players just assume they are part of the game, like they were for prior editions. A feat can be taken at any level instead of an ability score increase (ASI). So any sorcerer could take a feat at levels 4,6,8,12,16 and 19, and again that is instead of an ASI. So could K take a feat? Yes, if you as the DM have chosen to permit using the optional rule for feats. The rule is here: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/phb/customization-options#FeatsAG and note the second sentence or the second paragraph : "Using the optional feats rule..." Key word. Optional.
So, part of the start of a session zero is setting expectations, and what rules are/not in play, and what homebrew you are/are not using. Since you are a starting DM, you are within your rights to say what rules you are going to allow, and not worrying about feats and the mess they could create is perfectly valid. Now if they are experienced players, they probably expected feats to be part of the game, because so many groups do. That's why having the session zero can help set the ground rules.
And just like the choice about feats, the choice of what source books to use is another DM perogative. You are using the basic three books, and as a starting DM, you shouldn't have to worry about anything else yet if you aren't ready for the complexity. Again, another topic for session zero.
Those are the rules. But we now we get to the stickier part; what could you do now. And I am very certain there will be more opinions here on that, than the rules themselves.
What do you do?
As I mentioned, Session zero is a great place for this, but we are already past that. And you sound like you are stressed and not having fun, which is a legitimate problem. Role Playing is supposed to be fun, and while I can see where K is coming from, their approach isn't cool to say the least. But here are some options on what you could do; but don't take my phrasing word for word; these are your friends/players.
I personally would go with number 1 and then fall back to number 3. Learning more about the game will make you a better DM in the long run. But your friends/players have to compromise too. DMing is challenging enough the first time. They should be helping, not badgering. And they need to remember that the DM sets and enforces the rules to make thing fair and fun for everone, and they should respect it. Because if they don't on the matter of feats, it will be less fun on other rule questions. DM's make mistakes, and in an ideal world, players would be tactful about issues. And if they don't respect the fact you aren't having fun as part of game, perhaps this isn't the game for them.
I hope it helps you in some way. I admit having a low tolerance for badgering (having raised two kids does that), so if it seems very direct above, it is because it is. I don't know your friend or K, but I would have probably kicked them just for badgering alone. We haven't discussed K's other antics, and I don't have a firm read on them, but it certainly appears to be impacting you running the game. And I have less clarity on how the others feel about K, but as described this could turn more toxic real quickly.
@Nthal hit a bunch of stuff on the head, first go. Video posted below might help as well.
There are a couple of things that stand out from my perspective.
From the context that you've provided, K is bullying you. The game only works when everyone involved trusts each other. You might strongly consider asking the other player(s) (not K and Enabler) how they feel about the situation. If the general consensus is that your problem player makes everyone at the table uncomfortable, then your choice isn't just about you anymore. If you are the stand-alone opinion about this person, and their way of interaction in-game, it might be time to have a good-faith chat with K. Some good topics of conversation might be the same topics you would see during Session Zero. There are plenty of versions on the internet, you don't have to stick with the one in Tasha's. Here's one from SlyFlourish. (Last point in the checklist is player behavior.) And you might want to have the same good-faith conversation with the person that you consider to be your best friend. In the end, you will either need to confront and compromise with this problem, or you will need to move on and halt the campaign. The players-in-question enjoy something about the game, otherwise they would stop coming to game sessions. I would suggest sticking to what makes the game fun for them, as well as for you. In the end, if you can't have fun running D&D, stop running it for this group.
"No D&D" is better than "Bad D&D"
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
Being a DM is tough at times if you're intimidated by aggressive players or anxious about potential conflict, as it is bound to occur at some point. As DM you are GOD for this world and your word is IT. Nothing more, nothing less, YOU are able to dictate, with absolution, what is and is not going to be accepted, used or employed.
From your description, K is acting a bit like a petulant and entitled child, thus I, personally, would have no issue shutting the door on some of these things, at times, with some sarcasm.
"Everyone is stronger than me." Uh, ok, you are a full caster and the Fighter is stronger than you. Oddly, that makes SENSE.
"I want a feat" This game will NOT include feats, I'm sorry.
"<nerd rage bullying rant>" There are other games and tables out there and perhaps one of them might better suit you. I am here to have fun with friends and that doesn't include ongoing conflict and fighting. If it did, you might consider your position, in Mortal VS God in this battle.
You set the rules and as someone mentioned, a redo of session 0 might be in order, to ensure as many aspects of the game are addressed as you can cover. That's the time to say "No Feats" and if they ask why, you can offer whatever reason you want, OR, as DM, simply state you don't want them in your game. I feel for you, as it's clear confrontation makes you very uncomfortable and it sounds like you have a player who thrives on it. In my group, we've only had one point where a player got a little pushy with the DM and before it got too far, the DM asked "Since this is such an issue, I better ask now, how do you feel about PC deaths?" Pretty clear that if the player started pushing too hard to derail the campaign, there wasn't likely to be a "lifeline" in a combat going bad. No place for bullies in D&D.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
would it be so bad to let all players take a feat? From that point on feats are part of levelling up - depending on the class you are allowed a feat at certain levels. But not random in between.
you are the DM, and it’s your game. But it’s a game to bring players along with you. If it doesn’t hurt you, the game or other players, why argue? If it does, then don’t allow it
I think a bigger challenge is the relationship with the player, not how he wants to play the character. I play on Discord, and any game chat is done through that, not personally messaging me. So I think you need to look at how to shut his harassment down. Set up a chat group or Similar for your dnd group, and if he’s messaging you directly, ask him to him to post to the group chat instead.
if you don’t feel comfortable in your games with this player, then you might just have to tell the group that the style of play isn’t for you and then step away.
It’s a game, it’s supposed to be fun, but if it’s making you unhappy in anyway, step away.
good luck, people do make life tricky.
I ran into some situations like this when I started as a new DM.
Regarding players trying to add stuff to their sheet, I had one player in particular that kept adding things like feats and magic items to their sheet just because they found them on the digital sheet and thought it was cool. I had to reach out to them privately a couple times about it. I just said, listen, I'm new to this and I'm already struggling to keep up with all the rules and features. So I think that thing is cool too, but I just don't have the brain bandwidth right now to figure out how to implement that into our game. Maybe next time.
In a few cases, the player was adding things that were against the rules. Mostly feats and magic items. I had to just say, that I think those things are cool, but those things need to be earned as part of the gameplay. The adventure we are playing is assuming the characters are of a certain level and ability. If we start boosting them up just because we want to, the adventure won't be fun anymore because nothing will be challenging. Then I took note of the things the player was interested in and tried to find a way to include an opportunity to earn those things during the game.
As for disruptive playing styles. It's best just to speak openly about that as a group. There was one time in our last adventure where the circumstances developed to a point where a few of us started roleplaying some distrust and intrigue among the adventuring group. Characters keeping secrets from each other, not distributing treasure openly and evenly, characters lying to each other. Personally I thought it was fun and made sense for the story but one of our players spoke up at the end of the session and said that they really weren't comfortable with that kind of gameplay. They play D&D to get away from that kind of stuff that is part of their everyday life. They want to have an experience where the characters work together toward a common goal, trust each other, and succeed and fail together. He said that if the rest of us wanted to play a game about characters who were hiding, lying, and deceiving each other, that was fine but he wasn't interested and would rather leave the group.
We all responded saying that was cool, thanks for sharing, we want everyone to have fun. We'll try to avoid that kind of stuff in the future. And we did. And then everyone had fun.
Regarding the comment that a player feels like their character is underpowered. My response would be ok cool, sounds like you've realized you don't really like this kind of character. Let's find a way to kill him off in-game in some sort of exciting way. Then you can make a different character that is more like what you want to play. You made a physically weak spellcaster and now you realize you want to play a tank. So make a big fighter with strong armor and big weapons and we'll introduce that character into the game instead.
Tell him no. Tell him that he needs to start showing respect to you and the game or leave. If he doesn’t then boot him.
This is a tough situation, and I have been there too. I don't know what's best for your situation, but I'll recommend a few things.
Before that, though, it sounds like you have some preconceptions about feats, and unfortunately this isn't entirely accurate. Feats are not related to classes in any particular way, and are an (optional) feature to customize further. However, other than the prerequisites for each feat, there is no restriction on who could take a feat. A buff wizard could take the Grappler feat provided they have the 13 strength required, or a fighter could take the Skulker feat if they had 13 dexterity. Some feats have no prerequisites, and by rules as written can be taken by any character without needing any particular class or ability score. However, that doesn't mean that you *have* to allow feats. So, here we go:
1. Feats are an optional feature. If you're concerned about a particular feat, be honest about it. Explain that you're not comfortable using feats from content that you don't have access to, or if you have any particular concerns about the suggested feats, communicate that to the player. I would avoid things like "I don't think sorcerers take feats." This is not only inaccurate (as a veteran DM and player, I can guarantee you that draconic sorcerers take feats, particularly Elemental Adept), players only have their characters in the campaign, while you have the rest of the world, so if something is permissible by the rules, which feats are, I wouldn't disallow it without reason. However, that reason can be as simple as "I'm not letting other players use feats, so if I let you use feats, it would be unfair to them" or "I don't know if that feat makes sense for your character (not because the character is a particular class- more because it doesn't match their backstory or other features and feels abrupt, such as taking the Fey Touched feat at level up without having any interaction with the fey). I wouldn't worry too much about feats in general, but if you do feel like a feat is particularly unbalanced or not what fits your campaign, explain that, and if the player doesn't listen, you have the authority as DM to say no. Also, if you don't let other (less manipulative, hostile) players take feats, then forbid K from taking feats - bad behavior is no excuse.
2. Assert that you are sitting at the head of the table. Players shouldn't be ganging up on their DM, and that sounds like what's going on. As a DM, you have responsibilities to the players at your table- but they also have responsibilities to you. Arguing, shouting, harassing, out of character outbursts are abusive towards the DM. This isn't just bad for you as a DM; it seems like, as a good DM, you care about your players having fun and enjoying the game, otherwise you would either just roll over to K's demand or stop running sessions. Not only is it just scummy behavior to bully a DM to get what you want, it is important to set boundaries. Even if you don't realize it, this bad behavior is making the game worse for everyone else- you will be less confident as a DM, worry about running content, and eventually burn out if you don't address this issue. You already mentioned avoiding the server because of concern over the issue, so ultimately you may need to just say "It isn't appropriate for players to harass DMs to get what they want. If you want something in the future, I'm willing to listen to a calm, reasonable case, but I won't tolerate poor behavior." It is important to do this for your sake but also for other players- most of the time, one player shouting or arguing with the DM eats up session time, makes everyone uncomfortable, and causes issues in the long run.
3. Take a step back and assess the situation. From where I'm sitting, it looks like K has several different player issues that, while similar, might have different causes and solutions.
I do think maybe some of this has been over-exaggerated, so let's look at some tools for de-escalation.
This is a hard situation, and at the end of the day you may have to say "I'm sorry, but if you and I can't reach an agreement, then perhaps we shouldn't be playing D&D together." Still, I think it's usually worth a try to fix things up.
I really really don't like the "I am god" declaration style of table management, and describing player DM conflict as mortal vs god. I mean, what's a god without followers is an important theological question in this context. DMing is managerial and no healthy managerial style encourages you to lean into your inner divinity.
I prefer DMs and players relate like human beings with respect. Most folks who truly master, well anything really, usually take on a considerable amount of humility in the acquisition of that mastery. Be upfront, with the whole table, as to why this player's conduct (rightfully) bothers you. Just say, "Look folks, as a new DM I only have so much capacity and your playstyle (signalling problem player) is really draining me. All these things you want to bolt onto a character, I don't have the time to spend to ensure we as a table are implementing them properly. Feats for instance are subject to DM discretion, and again I don't have the capacity to run the game I want for you all while having to address systems I'm not including in my game. As far as getting upset for doing something objectively silly like diving off a cliff and throwing a fit when the damage gets dealt. If you're not familiar with how something is going to affect your character, ask before you leap, but if you're going to do something for giggles, I'd rather you not as my game world is going to respond to you realistically, including laws of physics insofar as falling damage goes. That's it, these sorts of behaviors make DMing this game really unfun for me. If you'd rather play the game differently, I'll respectfully bow out and maybe someone else can DM or we look for a new one." It's best just to be upfront that you're a human being not a genie and you have investments in this game to you expect returns on in the form of good play, that's not happening so since you're participation is most integral to this group you should be up front about how you feel your not getting the returns on the investment you're putting into the game. Sometimes dropping the fantasy and reminding everyone you're all people and none of you should be put out by anyone else's excesses is key to game dynamics.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
It's not stupid and childish, your feelings are valid and justified.
This is your best friend. Tell them everything you wrote here.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
So there's authoritative and authoritarian styles of management. "I am god" as I implied earlier leans to the authoritarian and just isn't a productive leadership or management style anywhere.
Authoritative is considered the actual brave style of leadership, and centers the idea of the leader as a human being as I outlined. Declaring godhood without confidence is not going to establish confidence, and "manipulative" types see through that easily and weaponize it (ask any teacher mentoring new teachers on problem students). It's hard because the talk talked must match the walk walked. Based on the OP's outline, my outline establishes boundaries and parameters to the game without leaning into the pretentious "godhood" mode which does nothing but invites the antagonism of the problematic player who has proven themself capable of turning the table into a conflicted space.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I have stopped posting to this forum for many reasons, but I had to comment here, because I think the OP is suffering and I'm not sure any of these posts above are helping, despite how well-meaning they are.
To the OP - If I were in your shoes, suffering the way you are, I'd quit DMing. I haven't had to do this with my D&D group, but I have been in your shoes, more or less, as a guild leader, twice, in different MMOs. Both times, after suffering for weeks or months, I finally made the decision to just resign as guild leader (and in one case quit the game entirely). I could not believe the level of relief and happiness I felt upon making that decision. It was uncomfortable, of course, to make the announcement and deal with the shocked and dismayed reactions by all the guild members who had been most especially making my life miserable in the first place. What? You're leaving? Why? We're stunned! Etc., etc. (Both times, after I stopped leading, someone else took over, did a much worse job, and the guild was dead in < 2 months, after I'd kept them running for a year plus.)
Like running a Guild, DMing is in part an act of self-sacrifice. You are subordinating your own direct pleasure in the instant, for a more indirect and long-term pleasure of giving your players a fun time and having them enjoy adventures. However, when they are acting like this - backseat DMing (that's what "best friend" is doing by siding with K), bullying, pressuring, etc., this is not fun for any DM, ever. These players need to stop, but I know from experience that polite pleas to let it go and just play the game rarely work with this kind of situation. I don't think even threatening to stop DMing here probably will. In my experience, the ONLY thing that might work is actual resignation. Furthermore, based on their behavior and how miserable they seem to be gleefully willing to make you, they don't deserve your hard work and "deferred gratification" that DMs have to do -- players who behave themselves deserve that, not people like this.
So, my recommendation is, as soon as possible, that you make a post or tell them verbally or however you communicate with each other -- "Guys, I'm not going to be able to DM anymore. Who would like to take a turn DMing?"
When you do this, one of two things will happen. The less likely of the two is, someone steps up immediately -- maybe Best Friend, since BF is already backseat DMing. If Best Friend is arrogant enough to think BF is going to be smarter/better at it than you (BF won't be, I can guarantee, but might think it), then BF might just take over instantly. If so, IMO, great! You can have the much easier job of playing. Don't be a jerk either. Be a model player and just have fun. BF will either be great at it -- bonus! -- or (more likely) suck at it, hate it, and give up after a little while and beg you to come back. At which point you now have the upper hand - OK, but if I come back, we do PHB and NOTHING ELSE - no Tasha, no Xanathar, no Strix, none of it. By that point they're ready to agree.
However, the MORE likely scenario is that when you post/state your intention to stop DMing immediately, they will freak out. WHAT? WHY??? How is this possible??? What happened? Then you can calmly say, as a new DM, I don't feel comfortable doing all this optional stuff, and you guys clearly want it, and it is not pleasant for me to keep arguing about the rules, so someone who is more experienced should run things. Then you won't need to argue anymore. And that is when you see if they are going to BACK THE HECK OFF and let you run a game and just play, or whether they are going to insist on optional crap because they want to be overpowered. Again, you hold the cards. Either they play the way YOU want, or they can find another DM.
Yes, DMs by our nature take it on the chin a little to help everyone else have fun, but we get to have fun too. And we must, or we won't want to DM anymore. These people need to stop making you unhappy, or you don't need to make them happy either.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Here is what Tasha, author of the Demonomicon and one of D&D’s most powerful mages has to say about the subject: “Establish boundaries. And if anyone crosses them, speak up. If they don’t listen, there’s always cloudkill…”
Though presented as a joke from a morally questionable mage, there is some wisdom there that can be helpful to new DMs.
From your post, there appear to be two major problems - the player‘a action and your friend taking that player’s side. Each of those should be dealt with in different way.
Starting with the friend, since that is the easier issue. For starters, try not to hold their taking the other person’s side over yours personally. DMs and players are inherently opposed to one another - that doesn’t mean there is a DM vs. Player dynamic, but it still is the case that the DM has an infinite amount of power and players exist within the DM’s world. That can breed solidarity between players, sometimes at the DM’s expense as seems to be occurring here.
Others on this thread have said you should lay out your problems to your friend and see how they respond. I wanted to take that advice a step further - simply telling your friend about the problems with K will be ineffective. Your friend is in a position where they have two friends and would feel caught in the middle, and having someone else - especially a friend - complaining about another friend generally does not go over so well.
Instead of listing all your complaints from the start, make it a discussion. “Hey, I have been having some problems handling K’s play style - I know they are your friend, do you have any advice?”
That puts your friend in control of the conversation, so they will feel less like you are just attacking their friend. It opens your friend up to saying “I have noticed problems also” or asking “what problems?” giving you an opening to list a few issues (do not go overboard) and starting a dialogue. You can generally get more helpful advice if you approach someone by insinuating they have knowledge you want, much better than by approaching them with a laundry list of complaints.
For K, it sounds like you need to start by giving them consequences in game - it sounds a lot like they keep doing things to see just how far they can push you, and that you have not been pushing back overly much (which lots of experienced DMs fail to do also, so that is not meant as an insult).
If they jump off a cliff, assign falling damage. Or if they have feather fall or the like, they are now split from the party, and things like goblins or large monsters often use clifffaces as a place to camp, since they offer protection from the elements - if the person wants to go off on their own, then it is really there fault if they land in a position where the other members of the party cannot help.
Out of game, speak up. Tell the player “debating rules in the middle of a session just slows down everyone’s gameplay - we are going with my understanding for now, but let’s messafe on Discord after game and we can figure out how to address this situation next time.” That puts you in a position where you are advocating for the other players’ time, making them more likely to be on your side, where you remove the chance for other players to weigh in as easily on the conversation m, are firm in your ruling, without seeming unreasonable, and possibly avoid the discussion, since K might just be trolling and not care enough to remember to message later.
If they double down, give them another chance to back out. Do not be afraid to play the sympathy card: “I am new to DMing and I put a lot of effort into preparing for the session so you all can have fun, can we gat back to the game?” You want to make sure your friends are sympathetic to you, not K, in case you have to get to the next step:
Cloudkill. “I am having a lot of fun playing with everyone else, but I do not think your playstyle and my DMing mesh well, and I think it would be best if you leave the party.” This should be done in private (though after the fact you can explain to the players that it was a “meshing” issue, so no one takes it personally that you just didn’t like their friend) - Cloudkill is, after all, an AoE spell and you want the friends you wish to keep around to be far away from its effects when you cast it.
I always limit the sources that my players can use when they’re creating characters. And my advice for a new DM is to do exactly what you’re doing, limit the sources that your players can use and limit the optional rules that you use.
Being the DM is a LOT more work than being a player is. Limiting the rules that players can use while you’re learning makes your life much easier as the DM. Flat out tell that player, “No, you can’t use those optional rules. I’m a new DM and I’m learning how to run games. Adding those into the game will make it too hard for me. Play this campaign with just the Player’s Handbook and no feats.”
Professional computer geek
A couple of comments ...
D&D is a game that should be fun for both the players and the DM. The DM adjudicates the interactions of the characters with the game world which they create. Unfortunately, it sounds like you aren't having that much fun though I think some of that is due to the level of confidence and lack of experience.
However, the first point to address is your feelings about the game. "I guess I’m scared of their reactions bc they’re so intense." This seems to be the real source of the problem. It seems you are worried about invoking consequences for actions taken by K's character because their reactions are so intense.
A character jumping off a cliff or balcony "just to see what happens", in most games doesn't derail things, the character finds themselves splatting into a hard surface some distance down from the place they jumped. They take damage and survive or not. A DM might say - "you are plummeting down, anything you want to do in your remaining seconds of life?" ... if they have feather fall, they might save themselves otherwise they splat. But if the DM is afraid of imposing reasonable consequences for unreasonable actions due to the personality of the player then your best choice might be as BioWizard suggested and just saying it is time to get someone else to DM.
I'm also not sure that this situation can be resolved with an open and honest conversation since it requires the OP to admit to being intimidated by K. K is likely to deny they are a problem and it becomes a personality conflict between the DM, K and the DM's best friend with no guarantee that the others will understand the DMs feelings on the matter. There isn't enough information in the first post to figure out how the players would react but open and honest discussions require a minimum level of maturity that I am not sure is present in the current situation. If this is the case, the DM might be best off just saying that it isn't working out and pass the DMIng along to someone else.
----
However, if the OP wants to continue DMing then they need to be able to adjudicate the interaction of the characters with the game world with confidence. They need to be able to say what happens when a character chooses to do something stupid without being concerned about player reactions or being questioned about the rules.
The first part of confidence comes from knowing the rules as well as or better than the players. Players come to a D&D game expecting it to be played pretty much as they have read (rules as written or close to it). A DM is free to change anything but they really should let the players know up front what is different in their game from others.
In your case, it sounds like K disputes a ruling or raises a rules question, or questions how the DM rules a situation, which your friend then supports. If the DM knows the rules then they can say the game doesn't work that way with confidence and if the players still question it - you can tell them that you will discuss the ruling at the end of the session. This at least covers rules questions. However, the DM makes a lot of rulings.
As an example:
A character which tries to jump from a balcony, swing on a chandelier and then drop onto a bad guy, driving their sword into them on the way down. Very cinematic, could be pretty cool. However, players will sometimes argue how the DM interprets it and the skill checks they require for success since the player ALWAYS wants their cool thing to work.
A DMs ruling could vary from just describing how the cool cinematic moment succeeds and getting them to roll an attack roll to hit and saying if they hit it is an automatic critical (this is the result the player would likely want). However, a more reasonable ruling might involve an athletics or acrobatics check (or both) for jumping off the balcony and swinging on the chandelier followed by a to hit roll on the way down (with no special bonus or benefit). In the second case, the result may not match the players dream if they fail a skill check, miss on the attack or only roll a 1 on damage.
This type of situation is resolved by telling the player exactly how their action will be resolved BEFORE you go ahead and resolve it. This lets the player decide whether the chosen action has a reasonable chance of success or not - something the character would likely be able to estimate even if the player has no idea. The player can then change their mind. If the player decides to go ahead then they know how it will be resolved and can face the consequences. Keep in mind that the example above doesn't involve any specific rules, it is all rulings. The only actual rule is requiring a to hit roll on the target. Other than that the DM decides what skill checks are required and what effects the die rolls will have.
The DM has to have the confidence to say this is how the situation will be resolved. In addition though, if a player raises a reasonable objection, then the DM needs to have the confidence to either stick with or change their ruling without feeling they are being bullied into doing so. DMing is always a bit of give and take since the players often have a situation imagined differently from the DM and it is very important to communicate so that the shared image of the situation is understood by both the players and the DM.
-------
Finally, all of this gets easier with experience, the more rulings a DM makes for a wider variety of players the more they come to understand how to deal with different kinds of players.
-------
On the topic of rules, there are many rules that can be considered optional. Both multiclassing and feats are two examples though most games allow for both. The DM can choose to run a campaign without one or either of these but they really should let the players know at the beginning of the campaign.
If feats are allowed, then they can be taken by ANY class whenever the class would receive an Ability Score Improvement (ASI). Feats are taken INSTEAD of ASIs. A sorcerer receives ASIs at levels 4, 8, 12, 16 and 19. (a poster above included level 6 but that only applies to fighters).
Similarly, if you only have the players handbook then feel free to say to everyone that content from Xanathar's, Tasha's, or other sources are not allowed for characters in this game. People may complain but it is your game and if you only have the PHB then that is the only source you should allow. There is more than enough content in the PHB to run a fun game.
------
The OP also commented:
"So I try to let them down gently. Saying that no, the PH doesn’t mention any of that so let’s not do that."
The problem with this statement is that the rules do allow all classes to take feats instead of ASIs if the optional feat rule is in play. At the very beginning of the section on feats (part of chapter 6) it says:
"A feat represents a talent or an area of expertise that gives a character special capabilities. It embodies training, experience, and abilities beyond what a class provides.
At certain levels, your class gives you the Ability Score Improvement feature. Using the optional feats rule, you can forgo taking that feature to take a feat of your choice instead. You can take each feat only once, unless the feat’s description says otherwise.
You must meet any prerequisite specified in a feat to take that feat."
So, having players complaining about using feats when the DM didn't say at the beginning that feats aren't available becomes a problem and a point of argument between the players and DM ... this is reinforced when the DM cites the rule book saying it isn't allowed when the players can pull out a rule book and say it is allowed if feats are in the game.
Learning the game is hard and being a new DM is probably the hardest. There are a lot of rules (luckily 5e is much better than earlier editions) and it is hard to get on top of it. Watching online games doesn't always work well since they often use their own rules or follow a rule of cool for the sake of entertainment rather than game play. However, one of the best ways to get on top of this is read the rulebook a few times, watch a variety of different examples, try to get in a game with an experienced DM and see how they run it AND keep on running your own game.
There is nothing wrong with wanting to use feats. There is nothing wrong with the DM choosing to forgo using feats either (they're optional). D&D is a game, and as with any game you begin by establishing a social contract. Normally that contract involves "following the game's rules" and "having fun". If the contract is broken, you have no common ground and the game should end. In D&D there is most commonly a part of the contract that goes along the lines of "the DM has the final say". If people in your group are not on the same page regarding the social contract, then the first priority for all of you should be to discuss this. This is what people refer to as "session 0", a session dedicated to getting on the same page and establishing the social contract. I think it is perfectly reasonable for you to say "I would prefer it if we stick with the core rules until I get a better understanding of the game". If they don't respect it, then you don't want to play the same game, and shouldn't feel forced to play.
However you phrase yourself, I'd suggest being clear and concise, so you get your point across without being misunderstood. However I'd definitely recommend not simply saying no. Your situation seems to be a delicate one, and being confrontational and self-righteous is seldom the right move in a social situation where you wish to be on good terms with everyone afterwards.