New DM here running my first campaign. I haven’t played since 3.5 and I’m at a table with new players. One of my players is extremely vested in the game (min maxer) who has some experience with 3.5 as well. We all know understand that we as a group are learning and changes and understanding of rules are going to happen.
The issue that I have currently is the min maxer and myself have misread a class feat (barbarian beastial soul- climbing) and I need to now correct them and I’m not sure how to go about this. The reason for teaching is because this player is one that I’m correcting and adjusting more than the other players because they are asking for more off the cusp requests (I.E. an elephant as a mount, being able to handle 2-handed weapons with 1 hand because they have 20 strength; the butcher’s bib) all while only currently at lvl 6. I’m all for the rule of cool and we have come to agreements on some things and compromises for others but lately he has been getting more annoyed when I correct something that affects his character. Also; they are a bit of a rules lawyer but haven’t taken the corrections well lately when the corrections are directed at them. I don’t want them thinking I’m picking on them because I correct/compromise with them more than the other players
Any suggestions as to how I could approach this situation?
If you ask me, any player that's asking for things that are clearly outside of the rules and would give them a huge advantage (e.g. one-handing a two-handed weapon) and then gets upset when they when they don't get it is trying to take advantage of you. You're not picking on them by enforcing the rules everyone else agreed to play by; they're trying to guilt-trip you into gaining an advantage in a co-op game.
Hard for me to say what's the best way to broach the topic of your latest ruling, but I do think you need to stand your ground.
New DM here running my first campaign. I haven’t played since 3.5 and I’m at a table with new players. One of my players is extremely vested in the game (min maxer) who has some experience with 3.5 as well. We all know understand that we as a group are learning and changes and understanding of rules are going to happen.
The issue that I have currently is the min maxer and myself have misread a class feat (barbarian beastial soul- climbing) and I need to now correct them and I’m not sure how to go about this. The reason for teaching is because this player is one that I’m correcting and adjusting more than the other players because they are asking for more off the cusp requests (I.E. an elephant as a mount, being able to handle 2-handed weapons with 1 hand because they have 20 strength; the butcher’s bib) all while only currently at lvl 6. I’m all for the rule of cool and we have come to agreements on some things and compromises for others but lately he has been getting more annoyed when I correct something that affects his character. Also; they are a bit of a rules lawyer but haven’t taken the corrections well lately when the corrections are directed at them. I don’t want them thinking I’m picking on them because I correct/compromise with them more than the other players
Any suggestions as to how I could approach this situation?
Let me see if I understand this. The players are rules lawyers, but ask for things that break the rules?
My suggestion is to "sit" with your players and set the expectations and ask them to trust your judgement, that you are trying to make the story challenging and fun for everyone. You can talk about rewards for good roleplay and cooperation as well (heroic inspiration and your players asks). When I say good cooperation I mean making the session better for everyone (including the DM).
About the player asks. It can become part of the character goal and roleplayed during a major downtime (i.e. finding a weapon master to teach one-handed heavy weapon wielding, etc).
About rule lawyering: my experience with that is more rule lawyering, more time spending arguing about rules, and less time playing and having fun, and goes against to the first thing I said about trust.
Min/maxing: I think that comes to the feeling that failing a roll means no fun, death of your character, or just being frustrating. The option I see is reward failure through roleplay, and character building: * failing a Perception check means you might be surprised, but your reward is finding a nice bit of information about your ambusher, like seeing a tattoo that might give a clue about who are them, and why they are after you. * if you die, you could have chat with your god (or your god messenger, etc) while your party is working on rezzing you back.
Thanks everyone, I appreciate all the guidance. I want to clarify that this is about only one player. Because his character has a few high stats due to impressive rolls at creation (which I am going to try a different route if/when new characters are rolled) I have a feeling they have main character syndrome and because their strength is effectively maxed out that they should have effectively Demi-godlike strength.
We are meeting and I’ll explain that I’m there to facilitate an enjoyable experience for everyone which means that not one character should not be doing everything. I also like the idea of around downtime roleplaying to play into some of the not absurd things that they want but, shouldn’t really have at the first leg of the campaign.
Again, thank you for the support and guidance. Much appreciated.
Thanks everyone, I appreciate all the guidance. I want to clarify that this is about only one player. Because his character has a few high stats due to impressive rolls at creation (which I am going to try a different route if/when new characters are rolled) I have a feeling they have main character syndrome and because their strength is effectively maxed out that they should have effectively Demi-godlike strength.
We are meeting and I’ll explain that I’m there to facilitate an enjoyable experience for everyone which means that not one character should not be doing everything. I also like the idea of around downtime roleplaying to play into some of the not absurd things that they want but, shouldn’t really have at the first leg of the campaign.
Again, thank you for the support and guidance. Much appreciated.
Firstly, I wouldn't say 20 strength is demi-god like. Many characters with decent starting stats have 20's in their main stat by level 6, it's not that uncommon. They're not so strong as to supercede the welding requirements of a weapon that was crafted and weighted with the understanding that the user would have two hands on it. It's not all about 'can you lift it?' but also 'can you aim it? Can you brace it? Can you put your weight into it?'
I wouldn't let a player character one-hand a two-handed weapon unless some magical effect allowed them a strength score greater than 20, putting them at truly supernatural strength levels rather than simply peak human.
To be honest it sounds like you need to be more assertive as a DM. If he's whining and being demanding, you need to just simply learn to say "no". I literally had a fellow DM ask me if he could use a 2h weapon as 1h as well. I said no. He said "sad but ok", and that was the end of it. I don't permit anything that will imbalance the game; using a 2h as 1h is in the realm of a 'ridiculous' request in terms of balance.
If your player has been getting annoyed, it's probably because he's been permitted things that shouldn't have been permitted to do in the first, place which is why he continues to push the boundaries. Assert yourself clearly.
If you made a mistake in your interpretation (we all do that), just simply say you made a mistake and allow that player to change their feat. Every DM misinterprets things, but the DM should also own up to it. If the player doesn't like it, too bad.
Any min maxer is calculating every nut and bolt to gain an advantage--good on them too! So they'll take great issue with the minutia of rulings because it disrupts their effectiveness.
In the end, be more assertive and provide logic why and if they don't like the logic, too bad. Your table, your rules--players are your guests, and the house is yours.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hey everyone,
New DM here running my first campaign. I haven’t played since 3.5 and I’m at a table with new players. One of my players is extremely vested in the game (min maxer) who has some experience with 3.5 as well. We all know understand that we as a group are learning and changes and understanding of rules are going to happen.
The issue that I have currently is the min maxer and myself have misread a class feat (barbarian beastial soul- climbing) and I need to now correct them and I’m not sure how to go about this. The reason for teaching is because this player is one that I’m correcting and adjusting more than the other players because they are asking for more off the cusp requests (I.E. an elephant as a mount, being able to handle 2-handed weapons with 1 hand because they have 20 strength; the butcher’s bib) all while only currently at lvl 6. I’m all for the rule of cool and we have come to agreements on some things and compromises for others but lately he has been getting more annoyed when I correct something that affects his character. Also; they are a bit of a rules lawyer but haven’t taken the corrections well lately when the corrections are directed at them. I don’t want them thinking I’m picking on them because I correct/compromise with them more than the other players
Any suggestions as to how I could approach this situation?
If you ask me, any player that's asking for things that are clearly outside of the rules and would give them a huge advantage (e.g. one-handing a two-handed weapon) and then gets upset when they when they don't get it is trying to take advantage of you. You're not picking on them by enforcing the rules everyone else agreed to play by; they're trying to guilt-trip you into gaining an advantage in a co-op game.
Hard for me to say what's the best way to broach the topic of your latest ruling, but I do think you need to stand your ground.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Let me see if I understand this. The players are rules lawyers, but ask for things that break the rules?
Rule of cool ...... only happens when someone is not being an as*******. Put your foot down as a DM or the campaign will fall apart.
Hi,
My suggestion is to "sit" with your players and set the expectations and ask them to trust your judgement, that you are trying to make the story challenging and fun for everyone. You can talk about rewards for good roleplay and cooperation as well (heroic inspiration and your players asks). When I say good cooperation I mean making the session better for everyone (including the DM).
About the player asks. It can become part of the character goal and roleplayed during a major downtime (i.e. finding a weapon master to teach one-handed heavy weapon wielding, etc).
About rule lawyering: my experience with that is more rule lawyering, more time spending arguing about rules, and less time playing and having fun, and goes against to the first thing I said about trust.
Min/maxing: I think that comes to the feeling that failing a roll means no fun, death of your character, or just being frustrating. The option I see is reward failure through roleplay, and character building:
* failing a Perception check means you might be surprised, but your reward is finding a nice bit of information about your ambusher, like seeing a tattoo that might give a clue about who are them, and why they are after you.
* if you die, you could have chat with your god (or your god messenger, etc) while your party is working on rezzing you back.
I hope it helps.
Thanks everyone, I appreciate all the guidance. I want to clarify that this is about only one player. Because his character has a few high stats due to impressive rolls at creation (which I am going to try a different route if/when new characters are rolled) I have a feeling they have main character syndrome and because their strength is effectively maxed out that they should have effectively Demi-godlike strength.
We are meeting and I’ll explain that I’m there to facilitate an enjoyable experience for everyone which means that not one character should not be doing everything. I also like the idea of around downtime roleplaying to play into some of the not absurd things that they want but, shouldn’t really have at the first leg of the campaign.
Again, thank you for the support and guidance. Much appreciated.
Firstly, I wouldn't say 20 strength is demi-god like. Many characters with decent starting stats have 20's in their main stat by level 6, it's not that uncommon. They're not so strong as to supercede the welding requirements of a weapon that was crafted and weighted with the understanding that the user would have two hands on it. It's not all about 'can you lift it?' but also 'can you aim it? Can you brace it? Can you put your weight into it?'
I wouldn't let a player character one-hand a two-handed weapon unless some magical effect allowed them a strength score greater than 20, putting them at truly supernatural strength levels rather than simply peak human.
To be honest it sounds like you need to be more assertive as a DM. If he's whining and being demanding, you need to just simply learn to say "no". I literally had a fellow DM ask me if he could use a 2h weapon as 1h as well. I said no. He said "sad but ok", and that was the end of it. I don't permit anything that will imbalance the game; using a 2h as 1h is in the realm of a 'ridiculous' request in terms of balance.
If your player has been getting annoyed, it's probably because he's been permitted things that shouldn't have been permitted to do in the first, place which is why he continues to push the boundaries. Assert yourself clearly.
If you made a mistake in your interpretation (we all do that), just simply say you made a mistake and allow that player to change their feat. Every DM misinterprets things, but the DM should also own up to it. If the player doesn't like it, too bad.
Any min maxer is calculating every nut and bolt to gain an advantage--good on them too! So they'll take great issue with the minutia of rulings because it disrupts their effectiveness.
In the end, be more assertive and provide logic why and if they don't like the logic, too bad. Your table, your rules--players are your guests, and the house is yours.