Hey everyone, I know this post is kind of late, but since you were all following the post and leaving advice I thought I'd update you on the situation involving the problem player.
First, to summarize for anyone reading this post without seeing the one that preceeds this, one of the original group members when I first started this campaign was using his character to live out megalomaniacal fantasies and I gave him SOME leeway because he was willing to play by the rules such as taking turns in combat, accepting when his attack rolls missed or he didn't meet the DC check for a skill. However, after he left to start an internship program in another city, he took things too far when he didn't communicate properly and told me and my friend who helps co-DM to do whatever we felt like.
We made him a war criminal who'd fled to the continent from overseas and the authorities had finally caught up with him for extradition. One of the other members of the group decided to text him this and he flipped out, screaming, ranting and of course telling us we were bad DMs and demanded we change his write out immediately. Well, I agreed with everyone that this was problematic behavior which leads me to the update:
The guy was a college student for a local disability program for young adults and they have mentors who help the people with developmental disabilities (the program is open to all disabled adults looking for an independent lifestyle, including physical disabilities) with their social behaviors. And this guy's mentor is more or less the program's liasion to the group. Well I explained the situation to him and why it was uncalled for and he called up the student and spoke with him.
Now this is the point where I kinda had to respectfully disagree with the student's reason attempting to justify what he did: "You know him. How did you not know he was joking when he behaved that way?" EXCUSE ME? The guy throws a massive temper tantrum and tries to make me and my friend the bad guy for his lack of communication and I should just accept that he was just playing? Look, I can admittedly take SOME blame that I didn't clarify before doing this right out such as say "Are you sure you're ok with us doing as we please? You don't have ANY special requests," as I should have done to avoid this situation, however, I feel that the player was still out of line in his behavior and simply asking if he could me later to discuss why he didn't like it was the correct way to go.
And now a confession that I left out of the the original post: In an attempt to defuse the situation and get this ex-player to stop blowing up the player at the table's phone, I told him to send a text saying "We'll make you a boss at some point in the future" to which the response was "Thank you."
Full honesty? I'm kinda thinking that if I honor that, I will be normalizing bad behavior that has no place at the D&D table so I'm actually considering leaving the original write out where he was extradited to stand trial intact, without making a him a boss later on, as a form of punishment to show that the way he behaved will NOT be tolerated by me and my co-DM, who also hosts the game because my place isn't big enough to do so.
I don't want to be a bad DM by making promises to my players I won't keep but I also don't want to be a bad DM by rewarding that kind of behavior as well. Anyway, that's the update for you. If I disappear for the rest of the day and tomorrow, I've been invited to holiday parties by some friends and will, at some point, not be near my computer, so if I'm delayed in responding to posts at all, that's why.
Anyway, I hope everyone's enjoying the December Holiday season and that you all have a safe and happy new year.
The next time a player says "Do whatever you want to write my character out" ask for clarification before coming up with anything and remind them "Do whatever you want means you're giving me the final say, so if you're gonna regret that speak now or forever hold your peace." Cause that IS how I would say it.
I get not "rewarding that kind of behavior," but be careful with "punishment" talk. the last thing you want is to end up apologizing for for putting yourself in a parental/authority role or going too far or something. if you don't end up making the guy a boss, then it just doesn't happen. there not always time for every cool thing that could happen. life goes on.
also, my follow-up question to "do whatever with my character" would be 'what if they retire and begin farming?' if the player is not okay with their character becoming boring, then they're not going to be okay with most other changes either. sometimes "whatever" is short for "as long as my legend keeps growing in an awesome direction."
You didn't say when you'd make their ex-character a NPC. In 6 months, no one is likely to care and if someone asks you will likely be able to honestly say you forgot if enough time has passed. Alternatively, you can mention that there hasn't been a good point in the plot for it. The only issue you might run into is if the player returns and wants to play again.
However, people should never confuse the real world with the gaming table. You should never "reward" or "punish" real world behaviour using in game/in character actions. There should be no connection. The game is the game, the real world is the real world. The only common element is the same people are participating. However, real world behaviour needs to be dealt with in the real world with real conversations and discussions. Character actions happen in the game world.
If a player has their character take in game actions that bother another player in the real world then that needs to be resolved with a real world discussion about what the players consider appropriate in game behaviour. On the other hand, if another character is bothered by a character's actions then that can and should be resolved in game though might merit a session 0 discussion of PVP and what the player's consider reasonable.
P.S. Finally, from your comments, it sounds like the person in question is a member of a group with developmental disabilities focused on working on social behaviours. The person had a mentor whom you contacted and who subsequently spoke with the student. Although being a member of a group requiring help with social interactions doesn't justify negative behaviour, it might make it a bit less surprising that the reaction wasn't what you expected and might make one ask why you didn't look for more clarification when working with someone whose communication skills might need work.
The next time a player says "Do whatever you want to write my character out" ask for clarification before coming up with anything and remind them "Do whatever you want means you're giving me the final say, so if you're gonna regret that speak now or forever hold your peace." Cause that IS how I would say it.
Not the lesson i would have picked up. Not only should you not have asked you could have avoided the entire episode by just saying your character leaves party to pursue his own interests
I don't want to be a bad DM by making promises to my players I won't keep but I also don't want to be a bad DM by rewarding that kind of behavior as well.
He isn't your player anymore; your commitment to him and his character is over. He also isn't around to be rewarded, and any messages you send about what behavior you will or won't tolerate are irrelevant for him. Time to focus on moving the story forward for the players you do have.
Also, if your motivation for this villain arc stems from good-natured creativity, that's one thing. But given the strong and lingering emotions in your posts, I'm wondering if this future boss idea isn't an outlet for personal feelings over how you were treated. If so...that's not cool. It's never wise to address out-of-game issues with in-game events. It's a form of metagaming that often just perpetuates problems instead of solving them.
If you want to send a message to your current players about what you will or won't tolerate, check in with your co-DM and have another mini session zero to lay out your expectations clearly. And if this situation continues to eat away at you, maybe it's best to step back and let your co-DM take the wheel for a little while until you put it behind you. It's normal for players to frustrate us from time to time, and if we're in emotional react mode instead of collected respond mode, it only makes the DM job that much harder and less fun. And we all know that if the DM isn't having fun, pretty soon no one will...
Good luck, and I hope your holiday parties were a 10/10.
This is an ex-player. He is not just pining for the fjords. Forget this guy exists, and if he phones you or anyone in the group, simply hang up. Do nothing with this ex-PC. Simply have it disappear from memory.
As a multi decade DM Theologyofbagels and Justafarmer (above posts) hit it on the head. Just read those two posts till you let it go. When something is no longer fun. It's no longer worth pursuing. Nothing more to be said
I will openly admit that I did say I would make him a boss to diffuse the situation, but that's mostly because he was escalating by blowing up the other guy's phone and even if he ignored the texts that just agitated the ex player further. So I felt as the DM I had to do SOMETHING to make put a stop to the situation...especially since another player was getting visibly uncomfortable and looked ready to leave.
Consider what everyone here is saying, I'm thinking it's best to just never make this "boss encounter" happen and if he has a problem with it, well I'm sorry but his behavior is the stuff that RPG Horror Stories about problematic players are made of, so I can not under any circumstances believe his temper tantrum was him joking around. And, as I responded to someone else, I'm using this as a lesson to encourage better/more solid communication at the table and behind the scenes when discussing a character write out.
Thankfully, outside of this incident, most of the group loves D&D though one player is struggling to understand it's NOT a guided tour with battles, but IS making an effort to get a bit more involved outside of combat. One of them is a newcomer who took to the game so quickly, I WOULD find it hard believe he hasn't played before if he wasn't asking questions to understand how it works. And the third is a D&D playing veteran who's taught me somethings I was never aware of even after learning how to play.
So it's generally a good group, the only other incident was a player who didn't understand the point of going on a quest (During Waterdeep: Dragon Heist they said they didn't want to get involved in the storyline quest because what happened in Trollskull Alley was "none of our business so why are we getting involved) but they did end up embarking on the quest and became MVP with a nat 20 deception to the dragon in the finale of the adventure). That situation was resolved quickly and peacefully though.
So it's generally a good group, the only other incident was a player who didn't understand the point of going on a quest (During Waterdeep: Dragon Heist they said they didn't want to get involved in the storyline quest because what happened in Trollskull Alley was "none of our business so why are we getting involved) but they did end up embarking on the quest and became MVP with a nat 20 deception to the dragon in the finale of the adventure). That situation was resolved quickly and peacefully though.
OK, starting to think this is troll thread substituting a soap opera for a D&D game. But you said you are done with the disruptive person, and good riddance. However, considering you are a new DM, I want to set you straight on a game mechanics issue. Under no circumstances is a Nat 20 a auto-success for a skill check, any more so that a Nat 1 is a auto-failure. That is something you may have picked up from a famous show where actors pretend they are playing D&D, while they most certainly are not. Do not allow Nat 20's to be auto-successes. It can ruin so much of the game if you do.
So it's generally a good group, the only other incident was a player who didn't understand the point of going on a quest (During Waterdeep: Dragon Heist they said they didn't want to get involved in the storyline quest because what happened in Trollskull Alley was "none of our business so why are we getting involved) but they did end up embarking on the quest and became MVP with a nat 20 deception to the dragon in the finale of the adventure). That situation was resolved quickly and peacefully though.
OK, starting to think this is troll thread substituting a soap opera for a D&D game. But you said you are done with the disruptive person, and good riddance. However, considering you are a new DM, I want to set you straight on a game mechanics issue. Under no circumstances is a Nat 20 a auto-success for a skill check, any more so that a Nat 1 is a auto-failure. That is something you may have picked up from a famous show where actors pretend they are playing D&D, while they most certainly are not. Do not allow Nat 20's to be auto-successes. It can ruin so much of the game if you do.
You calling anyone a troll is like a pot calling the kettle black.
The automatic success and failure has been a thing since 3rd edition probably one of the most widely adopted house rules of that era and has not ruined a single game in all that time i doubt it will do so now.
So it's generally a good group, the only other incident was a player who didn't understand the point of going on a quest (During Waterdeep: Dragon Heist they said they didn't want to get involved in the storyline quest because what happened in Trollskull Alley was "none of our business so why are we getting involved) but they did end up embarking on the quest and became MVP with a nat 20 deception to the dragon in the finale of the adventure). That situation was resolved quickly and peacefully though.
OK, starting to think this is troll thread substituting a soap opera for a D&D game. But you said you are done with the disruptive person, and good riddance. However, considering you are a new DM, I want to set you straight on a game mechanics issue. Under no circumstances is a Nat 20 a auto-success for a skill check, any more so that a Nat 1 is a auto-failure. That is something you may have picked up from a famous show where actors pretend they are playing D&D, while they most certainly are not. Do not allow Nat 20's to be auto-successes. It can ruin so much of the game if you do.
You calling anyone a troll is like a pot calling the kettle black.
The automatic success and failure has been a thing since 3rd edition probably one of the most widely adopted house rules of that era and has not ruined a single game in all that time i doubt it will do so now.
It is not in the 5e rules. It is not a table rule at any game I have played at, let alone DM'ed. And the reason is simple. It trivializes many rolls, many builds, and is very bad for the game. This is a new DM, who still has time to correct mistakes.
The DM has the right and responsibility to add, remove, and change rules as they see fit. As such the OP is not making a mistake they are doing as DM's have done for 50 years making the game their own.
I'd like to point out that OP never said the nat20 was an auto-success, just that it was a clutch roll. For all we know, it just happened to be a nat20 and the dragon rolled a 7 Insight against it. (Side note: today I learned that dragons have surprisingly low Wisdom for such iconically sage creatures. I somehow never noticed?) What's more important to me in this thread is the DM-player relationship, as well as that healthy boundaries get set up where they seem to be lacking.
OP, you said one of your players looked visibly uncomfortable with the ex-player's behavior. Granted this was a while ago, but just in case it didn't cross your mind at the time or you didn't do it, it's a good idea to check in with players privately when things happen in-game or out-of-character that are distressing to the player as a person. Also, remember that you have the power to stop the game in its tracks if something egregious happens. You are not powerless at your own table. Stay cool, stay collected, and take the lead when things go sideways.
Also, not all issues need immediate resolutions, and few are helped by panicked reactivity. For problematic but surmountable disruptions, a simple interjection can re-center your players and model how to respond. "Hey guys, this is disruptive. If you'd like to continue playing, let's settle down and focus. We can discuss this after session." It also gives you breathing room to figure out your next move. Then you follow up with the disruptor(s) AND with your other players, to make sure they're still good - playing with you, with each other, and with how you intend to move forward with things. And if they aren't, that's when you can have a (hopefully) productive conversation about what options might be left, ranging from collaboration to ejection.
It seems you're cognizant of curtailing unwanted behaviors before they become ingrained problems, and that's good. If you know and communicate your expectations, are proactive, and can project calm confidence, you'll be in a good spot.
So it's generally a good group, the only other incident was a player who didn't understand the point of going on a quest (During Waterdeep: Dragon Heist they said they didn't want to get involved in the storyline quest because what happened in Trollskull Alley was "none of our business so why are we getting involved) but they did end up embarking on the quest and became MVP with a nat 20 deception to the dragon in the finale of the adventure). That situation was resolved quickly and peacefully though.
OK, starting to think this is troll thread substituting a soap opera for a D&D game. But you said you are done with the disruptive person, and good riddance. However, considering you are a new DM, I want to set you straight on a game mechanics issue. Under no circumstances is a Nat 20 a auto-success for a skill check, any more so that a Nat 1 is a auto-failure. That is something you may have picked up from a famous show where actors pretend they are playing D&D, while they most certainly are not. Do not allow Nat 20's to be auto-successes. It can ruin so much of the game if you do.
You calling anyone a troll is like a pot calling the kettle black.
The automatic success and failure has been a thing since 3rd edition probably one of the most widely adopted house rules of that era and has not ruined a single game in all that time i doubt it will do so now.
It is not in the 5e rules. It is not a table rule at any game I have played at, let alone DM'ed. And the reason is simple. It trivializes many rolls, many builds, and is very bad for the game. This is a new DM, who still has time to correct mistakes.
To clarify: a nat 20 *is* an auto success in combat. Outside of combat it is *not* an auto success with just skill rolls.
That said, I don't think it's the end of the world if you play it that way and a lot of people still do, without the game ceasing entirely to be d&d.
So it's generally a good group, the only other incident was a player who didn't understand the point of going on a quest (During Waterdeep: Dragon Heist they said they didn't want to get involved in the storyline quest because what happened in Trollskull Alley was "none of our business so why are we getting involved) but they did end up embarking on the quest and became MVP with a nat 20 deception to the dragon in the finale of the adventure). That situation was resolved quickly and peacefully though.
OK, starting to think this is troll thread substituting a soap opera for a D&D game. But you said you are done with the disruptive person, and good riddance. However, considering you are a new DM, I want to set you straight on a game mechanics issue. Under no circumstances is a Nat 20 a auto-success for a skill check, any more so that a Nat 1 is a auto-failure. That is something you may have picked up from a famous show where actors pretend they are playing D&D, while they most certainly are not. Do not allow Nat 20's to be auto-successes. It can ruin so much of the game if you do.
You calling anyone a troll is like a pot calling the kettle black.
The automatic success and failure has been a thing since 3rd edition probably one of the most widely adopted house rules of that era and has not ruined a single game in all that time i doubt it will do so now.
In the spirit of 5e ... something that is auto-succeeded or auto-failed shouldn't be rolled in the first place.
Allowing a 20 to auto succeed on a skill check is problematic since players will attempt impossible skill checks and if the DM allows the roll they end up trapped between a realistic outcome and the "nat 20 always succeeds" paradigm. Convince the king to give you their crown and make you ruler of the kingdom, convince the dragon to give you all their treasure, convince the BBEG to follow the path of goodness and light. There are characters that can easily get over 30 on a successful persuasion check and even higher if they roll a nat 20.
In general, I agree that allowing auto success on a nat 20 skill/ability check can be problematic unless the DM makes sure they never have the players roll except when they are prepared to deal with a nat 20 result. Too many DMs have the players roll just because it is fun to have the players roll without considering the consequences of a success.
This is also more problematic for a new DM without the experience to realize when to have the players roll and when it is better to narrate an outcome of success or failure.
So, although I don't think a house rule of nat 20 auto success will break the game, it can make it a bit more challenging to run for a newer DM.
So it's generally a good group, the only other incident was a player who didn't understand the point of going on a quest (During Waterdeep: Dragon Heist they said they didn't want to get involved in the storyline quest because what happened in Trollskull Alley was "none of our business so why are we getting involved) but they did end up embarking on the quest and became MVP with a nat 20 deception to the dragon in the finale of the adventure). That situation was resolved quickly and peacefully though.
OK, starting to think this is troll thread substituting a soap opera for a D&D game. But you said you are done with the disruptive person, and good riddance. However, considering you are a new DM, I want to set you straight on a game mechanics issue. Under no circumstances is a Nat 20 a auto-success for a skill check, any more so that a Nat 1 is a auto-failure. That is something you may have picked up from a famous show where actors pretend they are playing D&D, while they most certainly are not. Do not allow Nat 20's to be auto-successes. It can ruin so much of the game if you do.
You calling anyone a troll is like a pot calling the kettle black.
The automatic success and failure has been a thing since 3rd edition probably one of the most widely adopted house rules of that era and has not ruined a single game in all that time i doubt it will do so now.
In the spirit of 5e ... something that is auto-succeeded or auto-failed shouldn't be rolled in the first place.
Conversely, if there is zero chance of success, then it also should not be rolled for.
If my player tried to convince the king to hand over his kingdom just like that, I would ask them what they say to the king, and then I would have the king say "no."
If I did call for a roll, the outcome doesn't need to be exactly what the player expects. I could say "roll persuasion" and on a nat 20, i could tell the player "the king bursts out laughing and says 'I like you, you've got guts'". If they failed the roll, maybe the king would've had a worse reaction to the flimsily attempted coup. But basically you as the DM decide when the players roll, AND what the roll means.
I don't have to worry about what would happen if the player rolls a nat 20 because I did not call for a roll at all, because the DM is the one who decides when it makes sense for the players to roll. If I did call for a roll, I don't have to worry about a nat 20 for an impossible outcome because the thing they're trying is impossible, I'm just having them roll to see how well they get to walk away from it.
If you're only rolling on things that there's a meaningful chance of success at, then the chance of a nat 20 auto succeeding isn't that much of a threat, since you've likely already planned for if the players succeed.
So it's generally a good group, the only other incident was a player who didn't understand the point of going on a quest (During Waterdeep: Dragon Heist they said they didn't want to get involved in the storyline quest because what happened in Trollskull Alley was "none of our business so why are we getting involved) but they did end up embarking on the quest and became MVP with a nat 20 deception to the dragon in the finale of the adventure). That situation was resolved quickly and peacefully though.
OK, starting to think this is troll thread substituting a soap opera for a D&D game. But you said you are done with the disruptive person, and good riddance. However, considering you are a new DM, I want to set you straight on a game mechanics issue. Under no circumstances is a Nat 20 a auto-success for a skill check, any more so that a Nat 1 is a auto-failure. That is something you may have picked up from a famous show where actors pretend they are playing D&D, while they most certainly are not. Do not allow Nat 20's to be auto-successes. It can ruin so much of the game if you do.
You calling anyone a troll is like a pot calling the kettle black.
The automatic success and failure has been a thing since 3rd edition probably one of the most widely adopted house rules of that era and has not ruined a single game in all that time i doubt it will do so now.
In the spirit of 5e ... something that is auto-succeeded or auto-failed shouldn't be rolled in the first place.
Conversely, if there is zero chance of success, then it also should not be rolled for.
If my player tried to convince the king to hand over his kingdom just like that, I would ask them what they say to the king, and then I would have the king say "no."
If I did call for a roll, the outcome doesn't need to be exactly what the player expects. I could say "roll persuasion" and on a nat 20, i could tell the player "the king bursts out laughing and says 'I like you, you've got guts'". If they failed the roll, maybe the king would've had a worse reaction to the flimsily attempted coup. But basically you as the DM decide when the players roll, AND what the roll means.
I don't have to worry about what would happen if the player rolls a nat 20 because I did not call for a roll at all, because the DM is the one who decides when it makes sense for the players to roll. If I did call for a roll, I don't have to worry about a nat 20 for an impossible outcome because the thing they're trying is impossible, I'm just having them roll to see how well they get to walk away from it.
If you're only rolling on things that there's a meaningful chance of success at, then the chance of a nat 20 auto succeeding isn't that much of a threat, since you've likely already planned for if the players succeed.
I so much agree with not allowing the roll if you as a DM dont believe it should succeed. One of the people I play with, played DnD since almost the beginning and every table hes played at a nat 20 has been a success (which is not to state it is a specific rule in any edition)... however, every table that person has played at nothing was ever trivialized because of a roll.
Also, several DM's appreciate when players find a way to "trivialize" some things because they find it amusing or entertaining... it also doesn't mean that those players get the same reward (which could have been better) than if they followed whatever the DM thought would happen.
So it's generally a good group, the only other incident was a player who didn't understand the point of going on a quest (During Waterdeep: Dragon Heist they said they didn't want to get involved in the storyline quest because what happened in Trollskull Alley was "none of our business so why are we getting involved) but they did end up embarking on the quest and became MVP with a nat 20 deception to the dragon in the finale of the adventure). That situation was resolved quickly and peacefully though.
OK, starting to think this is troll thread substituting a soap opera for a D&D game. But you said you are done with the disruptive person, and good riddance. However, considering you are a new DM, I want to set you straight on a game mechanics issue. Under no circumstances is a Nat 20 a auto-success for a skill check, any more so that a Nat 1 is a auto-failure. That is something you may have picked up from a famous show where actors pretend they are playing D&D, while they most certainly are not. Do not allow Nat 20's to be auto-successes. It can ruin so much of the game if you do.
You calling anyone a troll is like a pot calling the kettle black.
The automatic success and failure has been a thing since 3rd edition probably one of the most widely adopted house rules of that era and has not ruined a single game in all that time i doubt it will do so now.
In the spirit of 5e ... something that is auto-succeeded or auto-failed shouldn't be rolled in the first place.
Conversely, if there is zero chance of success, then it also should not be rolled for.
If my player tried to convince the king to hand over his kingdom just like that, I would ask them what they say to the king, and then I would have the king say "no."
If I did call for a roll, the outcome doesn't need to be exactly what the player expects. I could say "roll persuasion" and on a nat 20, i could tell the player "the king bursts out laughing and says 'I like you, you've got guts'". If they failed the roll, maybe the king would've had a worse reaction to the flimsily attempted coup. But basically you as the DM decide when the players roll, AND what the roll means.
I don't have to worry about what would happen if the player rolls a nat 20 because I did not call for a roll at all, because the DM is the one who decides when it makes sense for the players to roll. If I did call for a roll, I don't have to worry about a nat 20 for an impossible outcome because the thing they're trying is impossible, I'm just having them roll to see how well they get to walk away from it.
If you're only rolling on things that there's a meaningful chance of success at, then the chance of a nat 20 auto succeeding isn't that much of a threat, since you've likely already planned for if the players succeed.
I so much agree with not allowing the roll if you as a DM dont believe it should succeed. One of the people I play with, played DnD since almost the beginning and every table hes played at a nat 20 has been a success (which is not to state it is a specific rule in any edition)... however, every table that person has played at nothing was ever trivialized because of a roll.
Also, several DM's appreciate when players find a way to "trivialize" some things because they find it amusing or entertaining... it also doesn't mean that those players get the same reward (which could have been better) than if they followed whatever the DM thought would happen.
Someone rolls a 20 and "convinces" the king to give away his kingdom, or for the Ancient Red to switch alignments and work with the party ridding the world of evil, not going to happen....These examples have been given previously and DO trivialize the game. Because what happens next is that the party decides that each is going to take a crack at the task, and the laws of probability quickly make the impossible more than possible. And as has been stated before, ONLY the DM calls for rolls. A wise DM simply avoids such a thing happening by not calling for a roll.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hey everyone, I know this post is kind of late, but since you were all following the post and leaving advice I thought I'd update you on the situation involving the problem player.
First, to summarize for anyone reading this post without seeing the one that preceeds this, one of the original group members when I first started this campaign was using his character to live out megalomaniacal fantasies and I gave him SOME leeway because he was willing to play by the rules such as taking turns in combat, accepting when his attack rolls missed or he didn't meet the DC check for a skill. However, after he left to start an internship program in another city, he took things too far when he didn't communicate properly and told me and my friend who helps co-DM to do whatever we felt like.
We made him a war criminal who'd fled to the continent from overseas and the authorities had finally caught up with him for extradition. One of the other members of the group decided to text him this and he flipped out, screaming, ranting and of course telling us we were bad DMs and demanded we change his write out immediately. Well, I agreed with everyone that this was problematic behavior which leads me to the update:
The guy was a college student for a local disability program for young adults and they have mentors who help the people with developmental disabilities (the program is open to all disabled adults looking for an independent lifestyle, including physical disabilities) with their social behaviors. And this guy's mentor is more or less the program's liasion to the group. Well I explained the situation to him and why it was uncalled for and he called up the student and spoke with him.
Now this is the point where I kinda had to respectfully disagree with the student's reason attempting to justify what he did: "You know him. How did you not know he was joking when he behaved that way?" EXCUSE ME? The guy throws a massive temper tantrum and tries to make me and my friend the bad guy for his lack of communication and I should just accept that he was just playing? Look, I can admittedly take SOME blame that I didn't clarify before doing this right out such as say "Are you sure you're ok with us doing as we please? You don't have ANY special requests," as I should have done to avoid this situation, however, I feel that the player was still out of line in his behavior and simply asking if he could me later to discuss why he didn't like it was the correct way to go.
And now a confession that I left out of the the original post: In an attempt to defuse the situation and get this ex-player to stop blowing up the player at the table's phone, I told him to send a text saying "We'll make you a boss at some point in the future" to which the response was "Thank you."
Full honesty? I'm kinda thinking that if I honor that, I will be normalizing bad behavior that has no place at the D&D table so I'm actually considering leaving the original write out where he was extradited to stand trial intact, without making a him a boss later on, as a form of punishment to show that the way he behaved will NOT be tolerated by me and my co-DM, who also hosts the game because my place isn't big enough to do so.
I don't want to be a bad DM by making promises to my players I won't keep but I also don't want to be a bad DM by rewarding that kind of behavior as well. Anyway, that's the update for you. If I disappear for the rest of the day and tomorrow, I've been invited to holiday parties by some friends and will, at some point, not be near my computer, so if I'm delayed in responding to posts at all, that's why.
Anyway, I hope everyone's enjoying the December Holiday season and that you all have a safe and happy new year.
What Have you learned from the situation and its fallout?
The next time a player says "Do whatever you want to write my character out" ask for clarification before coming up with anything and remind them "Do whatever you want means you're giving me the final say, so if you're gonna regret that speak now or forever hold your peace." Cause that IS how I would say it.
I get not "rewarding that kind of behavior," but be careful with "punishment" talk. the last thing you want is to end up apologizing for for putting yourself in a parental/authority role or going too far or something. if you don't end up making the guy a boss, then it just doesn't happen. there not always time for every cool thing that could happen. life goes on.
also, my follow-up question to "do whatever with my character" would be 'what if they retire and begin farming?' if the player is not okay with their character becoming boring, then they're not going to be okay with most other changes either. sometimes "whatever" is short for "as long as my legend keeps growing in an awesome direction."
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
You didn't say when you'd make their ex-character a NPC. In 6 months, no one is likely to care and if someone asks you will likely be able to honestly say you forgot if enough time has passed. Alternatively, you can mention that there hasn't been a good point in the plot for it. The only issue you might run into is if the player returns and wants to play again.
However, people should never confuse the real world with the gaming table. You should never "reward" or "punish" real world behaviour using in game/in character actions. There should be no connection. The game is the game, the real world is the real world. The only common element is the same people are participating. However, real world behaviour needs to be dealt with in the real world with real conversations and discussions. Character actions happen in the game world.
If a player has their character take in game actions that bother another player in the real world then that needs to be resolved with a real world discussion about what the players consider appropriate in game behaviour. On the other hand, if another character is bothered by a character's actions then that can and should be resolved in game though might merit a session 0 discussion of PVP and what the player's consider reasonable.
P.S. Finally, from your comments, it sounds like the person in question is a member of a group with developmental disabilities focused on working on social behaviours. The person had a mentor whom you contacted and who subsequently spoke with the student. Although being a member of a group requiring help with social interactions doesn't justify negative behaviour, it might make it a bit less surprising that the reaction wasn't what you expected and might make one ask why you didn't look for more clarification when working with someone whose communication skills might need work.
Not the lesson i would have picked up. Not only should you not have asked you could have avoided the entire episode by just saying your character leaves party to pursue his own interests
He isn't your player anymore; your commitment to him and his character is over. He also isn't around to be rewarded, and any messages you send about what behavior you will or won't tolerate are irrelevant for him. Time to focus on moving the story forward for the players you do have.
Also, if your motivation for this villain arc stems from good-natured creativity, that's one thing. But given the strong and lingering emotions in your posts, I'm wondering if this future boss idea isn't an outlet for personal feelings over how you were treated. If so...that's not cool. It's never wise to address out-of-game issues with in-game events. It's a form of metagaming that often just perpetuates problems instead of solving them.
If you want to send a message to your current players about what you will or won't tolerate, check in with your co-DM and have another mini session zero to lay out your expectations clearly. And if this situation continues to eat away at you, maybe it's best to step back and let your co-DM take the wheel for a little while until you put it behind you. It's normal for players to frustrate us from time to time, and if we're in emotional react mode instead of collected respond mode, it only makes the DM job that much harder and less fun. And we all know that if the DM isn't having fun, pretty soon no one will...
Good luck, and I hope your holiday parties were a 10/10.
This is an ex-player. He is not just pining for the fjords. Forget this guy exists, and if he phones you or anyone in the group, simply hang up. Do nothing with this ex-PC. Simply have it disappear from memory.
As a multi decade DM Theologyofbagels and Justafarmer (above posts) hit it on the head. Just read those two posts till you let it go. When something is no longer fun. It's no longer worth pursuing. Nothing more to be said
OK, starting to think this is troll thread substituting a soap opera for a D&D game. But you said you are done with the disruptive person, and good riddance. However, considering you are a new DM, I want to set you straight on a game mechanics issue. Under no circumstances is a Nat 20 a auto-success for a skill check, any more so that a Nat 1 is a auto-failure. That is something you may have picked up from a famous show where actors pretend they are playing D&D, while they most certainly are not. Do not allow Nat 20's to be auto-successes. It can ruin so much of the game if you do.
You calling anyone a troll is like a pot calling the kettle black.
The automatic success and failure has been a thing since 3rd edition probably one of the most widely adopted house rules of that era and has not ruined a single game in all that time i doubt it will do so now.
It is not in the 5e rules. It is not a table rule at any game I have played at, let alone DM'ed. And the reason is simple. It trivializes many rolls, many builds, and is very bad for the game. This is a new DM, who still has time to correct mistakes.
The DM has the right and responsibility to add, remove, and change rules as they see fit. As such the OP is not making a mistake they are doing as DM's have done for 50 years making the game their own.
I'd like to point out that OP never said the nat20 was an auto-success, just that it was a clutch roll. For all we know, it just happened to be a nat20 and the dragon rolled a 7 Insight against it. (Side note: today I learned that dragons have surprisingly low Wisdom for such iconically sage creatures. I somehow never noticed?) What's more important to me in this thread is the DM-player relationship, as well as that healthy boundaries get set up where they seem to be lacking.
OP, you said one of your players looked visibly uncomfortable with the ex-player's behavior. Granted this was a while ago, but just in case it didn't cross your mind at the time or you didn't do it, it's a good idea to check in with players privately when things happen in-game or out-of-character that are distressing to the player as a person. Also, remember that you have the power to stop the game in its tracks if something egregious happens. You are not powerless at your own table. Stay cool, stay collected, and take the lead when things go sideways.
Also, not all issues need immediate resolutions, and few are helped by panicked reactivity. For problematic but surmountable disruptions, a simple interjection can re-center your players and model how to respond. "Hey guys, this is disruptive. If you'd like to continue playing, let's settle down and focus. We can discuss this after session." It also gives you breathing room to figure out your next move. Then you follow up with the disruptor(s) AND with your other players, to make sure they're still good - playing with you, with each other, and with how you intend to move forward with things. And if they aren't, that's when you can have a (hopefully) productive conversation about what options might be left, ranging from collaboration to ejection.
It seems you're cognizant of curtailing unwanted behaviors before they become ingrained problems, and that's good. If you know and communicate your expectations, are proactive, and can project calm confidence, you'll be in a good spot.
To clarify: a nat 20 *is* an auto success in combat. Outside of combat it is *not* an auto success with just skill rolls.
That said, I don't think it's the end of the world if you play it that way and a lot of people still do, without the game ceasing entirely to be d&d.
In the spirit of 5e ... something that is auto-succeeded or auto-failed shouldn't be rolled in the first place.
Allowing a 20 to auto succeed on a skill check is problematic since players will attempt impossible skill checks and if the DM allows the roll they end up trapped between a realistic outcome and the "nat 20 always succeeds" paradigm. Convince the king to give you their crown and make you ruler of the kingdom, convince the dragon to give you all their treasure, convince the BBEG to follow the path of goodness and light. There are characters that can easily get over 30 on a successful persuasion check and even higher if they roll a nat 20.
In general, I agree that allowing auto success on a nat 20 skill/ability check can be problematic unless the DM makes sure they never have the players roll except when they are prepared to deal with a nat 20 result. Too many DMs have the players roll just because it is fun to have the players roll without considering the consequences of a success.
This is also more problematic for a new DM without the experience to realize when to have the players roll and when it is better to narrate an outcome of success or failure.
So, although I don't think a house rule of nat 20 auto success will break the game, it can make it a bit more challenging to run for a newer DM.
Conversely, if there is zero chance of success, then it also should not be rolled for.
If my player tried to convince the king to hand over his kingdom just like that, I would ask them what they say to the king, and then I would have the king say "no."
If I did call for a roll, the outcome doesn't need to be exactly what the player expects. I could say "roll persuasion" and on a nat 20, i could tell the player "the king bursts out laughing and says 'I like you, you've got guts'". If they failed the roll, maybe the king would've had a worse reaction to the flimsily attempted coup. But basically you as the DM decide when the players roll, AND what the roll means.
I don't have to worry about what would happen if the player rolls a nat 20 because I did not call for a roll at all, because the DM is the one who decides when it makes sense for the players to roll. If I did call for a roll, I don't have to worry about a nat 20 for an impossible outcome because the thing they're trying is impossible, I'm just having them roll to see how well they get to walk away from it.
If you're only rolling on things that there's a meaningful chance of success at, then the chance of a nat 20 auto succeeding isn't that much of a threat, since you've likely already planned for if the players succeed.
I so much agree with not allowing the roll if you as a DM dont believe it should succeed. One of the people I play with, played DnD since almost the beginning and every table hes played at a nat 20 has been a success (which is not to state it is a specific rule in any edition)... however, every table that person has played at nothing was ever trivialized because of a roll.
Also, several DM's appreciate when players find a way to "trivialize" some things because they find it amusing or entertaining... it also doesn't mean that those players get the same reward (which could have been better) than if they followed whatever the DM thought would happen.
Someone rolls a 20 and "convinces" the king to give away his kingdom, or for the Ancient Red to switch alignments and work with the party ridding the world of evil, not going to happen....These examples have been given previously and DO trivialize the game. Because what happens next is that the party decides that each is going to take a crack at the task, and the laws of probability quickly make the impossible more than possible. And as has been stated before, ONLY the DM calls for rolls. A wise DM simply avoids such a thing happening by not calling for a roll.