A player of mine throughout a campaign that the players have just hit level 12 (from level 1) at, has constantly been challenging my rulings, my setting of scenery, how strong a monster with 30 strength is, or explanations of magic.
A few examples:
EX1: The player says that an Ancient Red Dragon can't tear through a castle tower even though it has 30 strength. I acknowledged the fact that it was a large tower, and ruled that they could at the very least tear out rather sizable chunks of the tower, but the player (and another player) seemed to take issue with that as well.
EX2: The player challenged me in the fact that climbing up a building takes an athletics check, and argued that it should be an acrobatics check. Last time I checked, climbing up something takes strength, not agility, and then asked if they could throw a grappling hook, once again, I ruled a strength check to throw a metal object that weighs a few pounds, they argued a dex check instead, but I decided to ultimately rule a strength check and another player basically had to step in and said for the both of us to quit arguing over the fact, and the player conceded at that point.
EX3: The player said that there is no physical way for a desert to be basically pitch black due to the way the atmosphere and weather allow for the moon to shine brighter on the dunes of sand and making a more reflective surface. I decided to then say that it was a new moon, and so, the player said that the stars could do basically the same. At this point I was extremely frustrated as the party at this point all had darkvison capability and torches, so it wouldn't affect anything too terribly much, just make for possibly a cooler and more horrifying setting for enemies to possibly spring from underneath the ground in the dark.
EX4: Okay, second to final rant, my party is being introduced to a large group of powerful enemy creatures to be face later a la the Chroma Conclave. Two of the players snuck into the castle of the city that they were staying in that was under siege from an undead army underneath am Arch Lich's control. The players came down into the throne room where the very same Arch Lich was talking to/insulting the king, who was alone in the room due to all the guards being dead at that point. I made sure that I spent appropriate spels for the Arch Lich, so, he didn't have much to work with. One player decided to distract him while the other player (the one giving me grief) snuck up next to the king and turned him invisible to get out. The distracting player shot at the Arch Lich with a Heavy Crossbow and managed to get 52 damage on the guy twice due to a surprise attack, but the initiative then rolled out to determine that the Arch Lich ended up at higher initiative than the distraction, and the save the king player. The player got the king invisible, revealing himself, ending the surprise, and the Arch Lich cast Finger of Death (his last 7th level spell slot) at the distraction, the player failed, and ended up being killed and zombified from the damage. Then the saviour got on a capet of flying with pulling out the rug from a bag of holding (a bonus action thanks to being Thief subclass) and put the king on there (using the kings turn)and began flying away. The Arch Lich chased after them and cast Hold Monster, which he immediately began arguing shouldn't work on him due to him not being a monster, I quickly countered that by showing him the text from the PHB that said it works on a creature, which he is, and he quickly backed down from that arguement. The King then took quick control of the carpet and began dashing with the carpet, and I decided that Hold Monster should keep the Saviour in place as per the paralyzation condition. The player decided to argue the fact that since he was on the carpet and that it, not he, was moving, that he would be carried along with it, and that he would be gripping on to the carpet due to his muscles being lock in the position of gripping. At this point in the session I was getting too tired to argue further, so I let him have that one and he escaped the Lich (which I planned for him to do anyway, just give him trouble due to the villain being, well, an Arch Lich). The session ended soon after and the party reached level 12.
So, yeah, clearly, I need to have a face to face talk with this player about the trouble we have been having, as clearly, it removes the fun from the game, and if no one is having fun, we shouldn't play the game. I'm just...getting exhausted at this point from feeling like I have to defend my rulings and even the scenery/environment for my sessions, and i'm really close to kicking the player out for their behavior, but I am choosing not to yet to give them a second chance and the fact that we are old friends .
Well, I just had to deal with a very similar situation, and I was one of the players in question. Ultimately the DM in our session decided to take a step back, due to personal issues and the fact that the table was becoming more of a chore than a game for her.
Problem 1 at our table: I, and another ex DM, wouldn't stop spouting off rulings and interpretations of rulings before giving the DM a chance to put her own rulings into effect. It was never malicious, it wasn't meant to be degrading, it was the whole "best of intentions" scenario for the most part. However, it was slowly chipping away at the DM's confidence and patience, we messed up pretty good there.
Problem 2 at our table: I, being the husband, and most experienced DM/player in the room, ended up backseat DMing trying to make things easier on her. She's new, I wanted to be helpful, and instead I made her feel like I didn't trust her ability to DM.
Problem 3 at our table: The group had expelled a player who pretty much put us one step shy of a TPK every session. Going forward, after those situations had skewed our perception, we felt anything that happened to threaten us was trying to TPK us. We became very defensive against the DM and fought back against rulings and situations that felt like we were being set up to fail, even if it was just a story bump.
All of that to say:
1) Talk to your player(s), put your foot down and give them the most basic understanding again: I'm the DM, my rule is final. However, try to keep it a dialogue so that you can try to see what it is the players feel is going askew from their side of the table.
2) When/If the game becomes a headache, walk away. Tell them you're taking a break and explain, in non-accusatory terms, the reason you're taking the break. Many of us at our table never realized exactly how far we'd pushed our DM until she said "I'm putting the adventure on hiatus".
I think you're allowing too much in the way of challenge of your rulings. Your player sounds hellish, to be fair, and the type to challenge every ruling, essentially to try and gain some form of advantage, such as not suffering penalties, not having their strategy undone, or to get around a limitation you've imposed. As you're friends, he probably feels confident he can abuse your authority as arbiter, without fear of consequence – and so far he's right.
He's forgetting you're in control of the world –it's not a negotiation. If you say the dragon can tear apart a tower, then it can. No ifs or buts. If you wanted a goblin child to tear down the tower it could, because you say so. Sure, as a player, I'd find it a bit silly, and it'd probably break my immersion, but you could. As it stands, the idea of a dragon tearing down a tower isn't even remotely unreasonable.
Similarly with the athletics check. That's just correct. This is an example of a player wanting to change the rules to suit them – don't let it fly.
Your third example is a classic example of thinking your players are on earth. If you say the desert is pitch black at night, then it is. Just because something happens here on earth, doesn't mean it happens in your world.
Same with your final example. You're allowing debate about rulings you're making. I've found a simple solution is to nip it in the bud, with a quick: "this is the ruling I'm making; I've made a note, and I'll chat to you about why after the session. Let's keep it moving." And not entertain any further discussion. If they want to continue to be petulant and derail the session by sulking like a child, then they can, quite frankly, find another table to moan at.
As a quick aside, this is different to a player amending their original description of their action. For example, if an acrobatic player wants to jump from a tree to a nearby wall, I'd call for an athletics check, regardless of how much they protested 'it should be acrobatics'. Because jumping is an athletics check. However, if they then wanted to creatively come up with a solution to use their acrobatic skills to solve the problem, they might ask instead whether they could cautiously balance along a narrow tree branch, before dropping down onto the wall, I might consider it if I think it's viable. This is different to simply wanting to argue that they should be able to use their favoured skills because it suits them.
A big problem I see at tables is a DM that is afraid to challenge players. I get it – you want them to have a good time, because that's how you have a good time. But you're not having a good time, and your player seems perfectly happy to challenge you at every opportunity. You're well within your right to remind him of his place at the table, and ultimately, deciding if he's not a fit for your campaign.
Talk to him. But remember. This is how he enjoys playing the game. If he didn't enjoy it on some level, he wouldn't engage in this.
I can't say what his motivations are for being like this. The way you describe it is he's always trying to get you to change things, so he can take advantage of the situation using logic. Possibly because he wants to avoid having to roll dice to determine success. I've seen plenty of players do this.
But in the end, if you get him to agree to play a different way, he's not going to be happy. And so he'll act up, push the situation until there's a blow up.
I once played with a group that had a player who was literally a game board flipper when she was losing. She held up the game every time we meet, and there was 8 of us, so getting 8 people to meet for a session was hard enough as it was. When she was in full jerk mode, she would literally sit there refusing to take her turn simply because. The DM talked to her privately several times. In the end, he said, anyone that causes any problems or has a tantrum, you are immediately out of the game.
The thing is, no one else had ever caused a problem, had a fight or held up the game. So we were all paying for her constant bad behavior. So i quit. I am not a fight picker in games, but I felt this was just ridiculous.
I easily found others to play with. There's always other people.
*I could not be bothered to read everyone else's responses and may repeat advice.
1) The castle is as durable as you say it is.
2) Climbing is athletics (much to my dismay as I tend toward low strength, nimble characters). As for throwing the grappling hook, ask him to describe that action, if he says he throws it, strength check 100%, but if he spins it, building up its speed and releasing it, let him use dexterity as that is more of a precision task than an athletic one.
3) Agree with him that it is not "pitch" but argue that there is not enough light for it to be considered "low light," and is therefore darkness.
4) I'd have to agree with your player that Hold Monster does not fix you in place. But if you really wanted it too, you could always just say "this arch lich's hold monster does" and there really is no argument. Monster stats change the mechanics of spells all the time, and campaigns mess with monster stats all the time.
Going forward, address his concerns, but remind him you are the DM. But don't say "that's just the way it is" say "that's what we're going with now, and I'll check it later." That at the very least moves the argument to after the session and makes it less personal as the player is not subconsciously fighting to gain something.
Ex 1: I find the attributes of DND odd when translating to real life. On one hand it says that at 25-30 you're god tier at that specific thing. In case of strength translating to actual weight you can move its a joke. Apparently I'd have 28str in real life. That said I have been a competitive powerlifter for many years. Still it would be odd to be considered God Tier. That means this ruling can be up for debate. If you go by actual calculation then you wouldn't be able to destroy the castle's walls. If you go by the definition of 30str being god tier...well gods are far more powerful then mortals. Destroying a castle would be easy for them. As a DM make the call which definition/ruling you want to use from now on and the player just has to accept it.
Ex 2: Depends on how your player describes how they wish to perform a certain action. A barbarian for example would indeed use its strength to climb up. The monk however has other techniques to wall jump or something. This is what determines which check to use for the character in question.
Ex 3: Your player should shut up about how you describe environments. Especially in a fantasy setting where the laws of physics follow what you as DM decide them to be. Just make sure that once you make a ruling that it will be consistently applied everywhere.
Ex 4: Holding Monster does paralyze the creature. It can't move of its own accord. However if it is already on an object, which is moving without the creature's involvement, then let it move on said object. However who was steering, in control of, the flying carpet? If it was the paralyzed creature then the carpet would stop receiving commands and thus stop flying all together. Crashing down to the ground with the paralyzed creature tumbling across the floor away from the carpet.
Now the underlying problem. You need to be strict and stop that bullshit from the player if it keeps leading to full blown discussions. It is ok to make a comment and ask: "wouldn't it work like x?". Then you as DM give a short answer and the game keeps moving. From the start make it clear that you don't take shit and that the pace of the game is more important to you. That you'll make a call on the spot, it might be the wrong one, but they'll just have to deal with it. And that after the game you'll look up the exact ruling for future instances.
I find the attributes of DND odd when translating to real life. On one hand it says that at 25-30 you're god tier at that specific thing. In case of strength translating to actual weight you can move its a joke. Apparently I'd have 28str in real life. That said I have been a competitive powerlifter for many years. Still it would be odd to be considered God Tier.
So you can lift 800lb? It's possible, I looked up world records and they go that high. In the case that you meant you can lift ~420lb (still more than I can lift), unless you can throw it on your shoulder and run at full speed, your STR would not be 28, it would be 14.
I would describe over 20 stats to be less godlike and more just superhuman.
And the impact STR has on carry, lift, and push strength doubles with each size category over medium. So a gargantuan ancient red dragon with 30 STR would have a push force around 7200lb maximum. It can carry half that unencumbered.
You're tired of having to justify your decisions, and I completely understand where you're coming from. I had a situation where one of my players got furious with me and stormed out of the room because an NPC (who I mad very clear was a creep and untrustworthy) betrayed and almost killed him. Then after talking about it with the rest of my players for HOURS, we were able to finally get him to sit down and voice his complaints. He told me he felt he had been targeted all campaign. Then, I had to explain why that wasn't the case (how the campaign was supposed to be tough and how other PCs have suffered much worse), why HIS choices led to the effects they did and it only moderately placated him. I was exhausted and I was angry that he abandoned the session and most of all didn't trust me to rule fairly. I felt disrespected and unappreciated for all the behind-the-scenes work I put in and told him as much. That changed his tune quite a bit.
I think some players think that when bad things happen to their character that it's berasure of some unfair ruling or decision on the DM's part. I'm all for voicing why you're upset directly and give a possible solution ("I don't like having to stop the session multiple times for rulings, but would be okay with checking afterwards for future sessions"). Have you talked to your other players about this? They may be able to give you insight on how to talk to him better than we can. It also helps when you know you have someone at the table to back you up.
As for the dragon thing or the environment...when a player calls me out on that I just flatly say "it's for flavor, guys" , aka "this doesn't affect you, stop being scared" and that usually ends that argument. But if we're going to get technical...an ancient red dragon is really big. Even if he wasn't strong enough (which I think he is) his weight would be enough to crush the thing.
Your examples fall into 2 categories. One, player calling out rule challenges to tactical situations (like the magic carpet).
The other is challenges to your narrative bits.
Personally I think the first type is valid. The player challenged the spell target but quickly backed down when shown the target was valid, and about the hold spell, I think he's right, hold spells prevent you moving yourself. If you can pick up and carry around a held creature, then one on a moving carpet keeps moving with the carpet.
If these type of challenges are taking too much time you put in place a system where you make a ruling in the moment and make a note to research the issue after the session. Next session you give a final ruling moving forward, but your call in the moment, form before, still stands. Tell everyone about the system and use it.
For the other challenge, to your narrative, you have to tell him to stop. Dragons break through castle walls in your game, that's not up for debate they aren't real, nothing in the game is real. Physics is not real. Only the DMs decisions are. Tell him that and tell him you are open to hearing his concerns and ideas one on one outside of group play.
If the character is on DnDB, you can click on skills to see what it applies to - athletics clearly says climbing.
If you want a castle (or anything) to be damaged by something, it gets damaged by that thing. If the players says it doesn't you can tell them, "OK, your character tries to ignore the gaping hole in the tower, but it's still there."
Use darkness. "We can see in the dark!" "For some reason, you can't." "What?!" "Yeah, you can't see." "Bullshit!" "Read the spell."
A lot of stuff is the player being a jerk. Talk to them and explain that being GM is hard enough work already without him giving you grief during the game. Tell him it is making it seriously un-fun.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
A lot of stuff is the player being a jerk. Talk to them and explain that being GM is hard enough work already without him giving you grief during the game. Tell him it is making it seriously un-fun.
A lot of stuff is the player being themselves, I think. It's just how they like to play the game. And to most people, it looks like he's being a jerk.
Telling them they have to act different than what they are normally probably isn't going to work. It could. But when asked to change one natural behavior that's asking a lot of a person.
If this is a case of the Player just being the Player - then perhaps this just isn't a good fit between the Player and the DM.
I agree with what has been said about trying to communicate this as an adult, and taking back control of the table, and putting your foot down and not letting in-the-moment rulings be challenged past a question or two.
Make all reasonably good faith efforts to try and resolve this, and if you can, then great! But don't lose track of unhappy fact that not all semi-random collection of players and a DM makes a compatible group. Sometime you need to ease people out of the group.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hey fellow DMs, here is the situation:
A player of mine throughout a campaign that the players have just hit level 12 (from level 1) at, has constantly been challenging my rulings, my setting of scenery, how strong a monster with 30 strength is, or explanations of magic.
A few examples:
EX1: The player says that an Ancient Red Dragon can't tear through a castle tower even though it has 30 strength. I acknowledged the fact that it was a large tower, and ruled that they could at the very least tear out rather sizable chunks of the tower, but the player (and another player) seemed to take issue with that as well.
EX2: The player challenged me in the fact that climbing up a building takes an athletics check, and argued that it should be an acrobatics check. Last time I checked, climbing up something takes strength, not agility, and then asked if they could throw a grappling hook, once again, I ruled a strength check to throw a metal object that weighs a few pounds, they argued a dex check instead, but I decided to ultimately rule a strength check and another player basically had to step in and said for the both of us to quit arguing over the fact, and the player conceded at that point.
EX3: The player said that there is no physical way for a desert to be basically pitch black due to the way the atmosphere and weather allow for the moon to shine brighter on the dunes of sand and making a more reflective surface. I decided to then say that it was a new moon, and so, the player said that the stars could do basically the same. At this point I was extremely frustrated as the party at this point all had darkvison capability and torches, so it wouldn't affect anything too terribly much, just make for possibly a cooler and more horrifying setting for enemies to possibly spring from underneath the ground in the dark.
EX4: Okay, second to final rant, my party is being introduced to a large group of powerful enemy creatures to be face later a la the Chroma Conclave. Two of the players snuck into the castle of the city that they were staying in that was under siege from an undead army underneath am Arch Lich's control. The players came down into the throne room where the very same Arch Lich was talking to/insulting the king, who was alone in the room due to all the guards being dead at that point. I made sure that I spent appropriate spels for the Arch Lich, so, he didn't have much to work with. One player decided to distract him while the other player (the one giving me grief) snuck up next to the king and turned him invisible to get out. The distracting player shot at the Arch Lich with a Heavy Crossbow and managed to get 52 damage on the guy twice due to a surprise attack, but the initiative then rolled out to determine that the Arch Lich ended up at higher initiative than the distraction, and the save the king player. The player got the king invisible, revealing himself, ending the surprise, and the Arch Lich cast Finger of Death (his last 7th level spell slot) at the distraction, the player failed, and ended up being killed and zombified from the damage. Then the saviour got on a capet of flying with pulling out the rug from a bag of holding (a bonus action thanks to being Thief subclass) and put the king on there (using the kings turn)and began flying away. The Arch Lich chased after them and cast Hold Monster, which he immediately began arguing shouldn't work on him due to him not being a monster, I quickly countered that by showing him the text from the PHB that said it works on a creature, which he is, and he quickly backed down from that arguement. The King then took quick control of the carpet and began dashing with the carpet, and I decided that Hold Monster should keep the Saviour in place as per the paralyzation condition. The player decided to argue the fact that since he was on the carpet and that it, not he, was moving, that he would be carried along with it, and that he would be gripping on to the carpet due to his muscles being lock in the position of gripping. At this point in the session I was getting too tired to argue further, so I let him have that one and he escaped the Lich (which I planned for him to do anyway, just give him trouble due to the villain being, well, an Arch Lich). The session ended soon after and the party reached level 12.
So, yeah, clearly, I need to have a face to face talk with this player about the trouble we have been having, as clearly, it removes the fun from the game, and if no one is having fun, we shouldn't play the game. I'm just...getting exhausted at this point from feeling like I have to defend my rulings and even the scenery/environment for my sessions, and i'm really close to kicking the player out for their behavior, but I am choosing not to yet to give them a second chance and the fact that we are old friends .
In brief, any advice?
Well, I just had to deal with a very similar situation, and I was one of the players in question. Ultimately the DM in our session decided to take a step back, due to personal issues and the fact that the table was becoming more of a chore than a game for her.
Problem 1 at our table: I, and another ex DM, wouldn't stop spouting off rulings and interpretations of rulings before giving the DM a chance to put her own rulings into effect. It was never malicious, it wasn't meant to be degrading, it was the whole "best of intentions" scenario for the most part. However, it was slowly chipping away at the DM's confidence and patience, we messed up pretty good there.
Problem 2 at our table: I, being the husband, and most experienced DM/player in the room, ended up backseat DMing trying to make things easier on her. She's new, I wanted to be helpful, and instead I made her feel like I didn't trust her ability to DM.
Problem 3 at our table: The group had expelled a player who pretty much put us one step shy of a TPK every session. Going forward, after those situations had skewed our perception, we felt anything that happened to threaten us was trying to TPK us. We became very defensive against the DM and fought back against rulings and situations that felt like we were being set up to fail, even if it was just a story bump.
All of that to say:
1) Talk to your player(s), put your foot down and give them the most basic understanding again: I'm the DM, my rule is final. However, try to keep it a dialogue so that you can try to see what it is the players feel is going askew from their side of the table.
2) When/If the game becomes a headache, walk away. Tell them you're taking a break and explain, in non-accusatory terms, the reason you're taking the break. Many of us at our table never realized exactly how far we'd pushed our DM until she said "I'm putting the adventure on hiatus".
I think you're allowing too much in the way of challenge of your rulings. Your player sounds hellish, to be fair, and the type to challenge every ruling, essentially to try and gain some form of advantage, such as not suffering penalties, not having their strategy undone, or to get around a limitation you've imposed. As you're friends, he probably feels confident he can abuse your authority as arbiter, without fear of consequence – and so far he's right.
He's forgetting you're in control of the world –it's not a negotiation. If you say the dragon can tear apart a tower, then it can. No ifs or buts. If you wanted a goblin child to tear down the tower it could, because you say so. Sure, as a player, I'd find it a bit silly, and it'd probably break my immersion, but you could. As it stands, the idea of a dragon tearing down a tower isn't even remotely unreasonable.
Similarly with the athletics check. That's just correct. This is an example of a player wanting to change the rules to suit them – don't let it fly.
Your third example is a classic example of thinking your players are on earth. If you say the desert is pitch black at night, then it is. Just because something happens here on earth, doesn't mean it happens in your world.
Same with your final example. You're allowing debate about rulings you're making. I've found a simple solution is to nip it in the bud, with a quick: "this is the ruling I'm making; I've made a note, and I'll chat to you about why after the session. Let's keep it moving." And not entertain any further discussion. If they want to continue to be petulant and derail the session by sulking like a child, then they can, quite frankly, find another table to moan at.
As a quick aside, this is different to a player amending their original description of their action. For example, if an acrobatic player wants to jump from a tree to a nearby wall, I'd call for an athletics check, regardless of how much they protested 'it should be acrobatics'. Because jumping is an athletics check. However, if they then wanted to creatively come up with a solution to use their acrobatic skills to solve the problem, they might ask instead whether they could cautiously balance along a narrow tree branch, before dropping down onto the wall, I might consider it if I think it's viable. This is different to simply wanting to argue that they should be able to use their favoured skills because it suits them.
A big problem I see at tables is a DM that is afraid to challenge players. I get it – you want them to have a good time, because that's how you have a good time. But you're not having a good time, and your player seems perfectly happy to challenge you at every opportunity. You're well within your right to remind him of his place at the table, and ultimately, deciding if he's not a fit for your campaign.
Talk to him. But remember. This is how he enjoys playing the game. If he didn't enjoy it on some level, he wouldn't engage in this.
I can't say what his motivations are for being like this. The way you describe it is he's always trying to get you to change things, so he can take advantage of the situation using logic. Possibly because he wants to avoid having to roll dice to determine success. I've seen plenty of players do this.
But in the end, if you get him to agree to play a different way, he's not going to be happy. And so he'll act up, push the situation until there's a blow up.
I once played with a group that had a player who was literally a game board flipper when she was losing. She held up the game every time we meet, and there was 8 of us, so getting 8 people to meet for a session was hard enough as it was. When she was in full jerk mode, she would literally sit there refusing to take her turn simply because. The DM talked to her privately several times. In the end, he said, anyone that causes any problems or has a tantrum, you are immediately out of the game.
The thing is, no one else had ever caused a problem, had a fight or held up the game. So we were all paying for her constant bad behavior. So i quit. I am not a fight picker in games, but I felt this was just ridiculous.
I easily found others to play with. There's always other people.
*I could not be bothered to read everyone else's responses and may repeat advice.
1) The castle is as durable as you say it is.
2) Climbing is athletics (much to my dismay as I tend toward low strength, nimble characters). As for throwing the grappling hook, ask him to describe that action, if he says he throws it, strength check 100%, but if he spins it, building up its speed and releasing it, let him use dexterity as that is more of a precision task than an athletic one.
3) Agree with him that it is not "pitch" but argue that there is not enough light for it to be considered "low light," and is therefore darkness.
4) I'd have to agree with your player that Hold Monster does not fix you in place. But if you really wanted it too, you could always just say "this arch lich's hold monster does" and there really is no argument. Monster stats change the mechanics of spells all the time, and campaigns mess with monster stats all the time.
Going forward, address his concerns, but remind him you are the DM. But don't say "that's just the way it is" say "that's what we're going with now, and I'll check it later." That at the very least moves the argument to after the session and makes it less personal as the player is not subconsciously fighting to gain something.
Ex 1: I find the attributes of DND odd when translating to real life. On one hand it says that at 25-30 you're god tier at that specific thing. In case of strength translating to actual weight you can move its a joke. Apparently I'd have 28str in real life. That said I have been a competitive powerlifter for many years. Still it would be odd to be considered God Tier. That means this ruling can be up for debate. If you go by actual calculation then you wouldn't be able to destroy the castle's walls. If you go by the definition of 30str being god tier...well gods are far more powerful then mortals. Destroying a castle would be easy for them. As a DM make the call which definition/ruling you want to use from now on and the player just has to accept it.
Ex 2: Depends on how your player describes how they wish to perform a certain action. A barbarian for example would indeed use its strength to climb up. The monk however has other techniques to wall jump or something. This is what determines which check to use for the character in question.
Ex 3: Your player should shut up about how you describe environments. Especially in a fantasy setting where the laws of physics follow what you as DM decide them to be. Just make sure that once you make a ruling that it will be consistently applied everywhere.
Ex 4: Holding Monster does paralyze the creature. It can't move of its own accord. However if it is already on an object, which is moving without the creature's involvement, then let it move on said object. However who was steering, in control of, the flying carpet? If it was the paralyzed creature then the carpet would stop receiving commands and thus stop flying all together. Crashing down to the ground with the paralyzed creature tumbling across the floor away from the carpet.
Now the underlying problem. You need to be strict and stop that bullshit from the player if it keeps leading to full blown discussions. It is ok to make a comment and ask: "wouldn't it work like x?". Then you as DM give a short answer and the game keeps moving. From the start make it clear that you don't take shit and that the pace of the game is more important to you. That you'll make a call on the spot, it might be the wrong one, but they'll just have to deal with it. And that after the game you'll look up the exact ruling for future instances.
So you can lift 800lb? It's possible, I looked up world records and they go that high. In the case that you meant you can lift ~420lb (still more than I can lift), unless you can throw it on your shoulder and run at full speed, your STR would not be 28, it would be 14.
I would describe over 20 stats to be less godlike and more just superhuman.
And the impact STR has on carry, lift, and push strength doubles with each size category over medium. So a gargantuan ancient red dragon with 30 STR would have a push force around 7200lb maximum. It can carry half that unencumbered.
You're tired of having to justify your decisions, and I completely understand where you're coming from. I had a situation where one of my players got furious with me and stormed out of the room because an NPC (who I mad very clear was a creep and untrustworthy) betrayed and almost killed him. Then after talking about it with the rest of my players for HOURS, we were able to finally get him to sit down and voice his complaints. He told me he felt he had been targeted all campaign. Then, I had to explain why that wasn't the case (how the campaign was supposed to be tough and how other PCs have suffered much worse), why HIS choices led to the effects they did and it only moderately placated him. I was exhausted and I was angry that he abandoned the session and most of all didn't trust me to rule fairly. I felt disrespected and unappreciated for all the behind-the-scenes work I put in and told him as much. That changed his tune quite a bit.
I think some players think that when bad things happen to their character that it's berasure of some unfair ruling or decision on the DM's part. I'm all for voicing why you're upset directly and give a possible solution ("I don't like having to stop the session multiple times for rulings, but would be okay with checking afterwards for future sessions"). Have you talked to your other players about this? They may be able to give you insight on how to talk to him better than we can. It also helps when you know you have someone at the table to back you up.
As for the dragon thing or the environment...when a player calls me out on that I just flatly say "it's for flavor, guys" , aka "this doesn't affect you, stop being scared" and that usually ends that argument. But if we're going to get technical...an ancient red dragon is really big. Even if he wasn't strong enough (which I think he is) his weight would be enough to crush the thing.
Yep, time for a talk.
Your examples fall into 2 categories. One, player calling out rule challenges to tactical situations (like the magic carpet).
The other is challenges to your narrative bits.
Personally I think the first type is valid. The player challenged the spell target but quickly backed down when shown the target was valid, and about the hold spell, I think he's right, hold spells prevent you moving yourself. If you can pick up and carry around a held creature, then one on a moving carpet keeps moving with the carpet.
If these type of challenges are taking too much time you put in place a system where you make a ruling in the moment and make a note to research the issue after the session. Next session you give a final ruling moving forward, but your call in the moment, form before, still stands. Tell everyone about the system and use it.
For the other challenge, to your narrative, you have to tell him to stop. Dragons break through castle walls in your game, that's not up for debate they aren't real, nothing in the game is real. Physics is not real. Only the DMs decisions are. Tell him that and tell him you are open to hearing his concerns and ideas one on one outside of group play.
If the character is on DnDB, you can click on skills to see what it applies to - athletics clearly says climbing.
If you want a castle (or anything) to be damaged by something, it gets damaged by that thing. If the players says it doesn't you can tell them, "OK, your character tries to ignore the gaping hole in the tower, but it's still there."
Use darkness. "We can see in the dark!" "For some reason, you can't." "What?!" "Yeah, you can't see." "Bullshit!" "Read the spell."
A lot of stuff is the player being a jerk. Talk to them and explain that being GM is hard enough work already without him giving you grief during the game. Tell him it is making it seriously un-fun.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
A lot of stuff is the player being themselves, I think. It's just how they like to play the game. And to most people, it looks like he's being a jerk.
Telling them they have to act different than what they are normally probably isn't going to work. It could. But when asked to change one natural behavior that's asking a lot of a person.
If this is a case of the Player just being the Player - then perhaps this just isn't a good fit between the Player and the DM.
I agree with what has been said about trying to communicate this as an adult, and taking back control of the table, and putting your foot down and not letting in-the-moment rulings be challenged past a question or two.
Make all reasonably good faith efforts to try and resolve this, and if you can, then great! But don't lose track of unhappy fact that not all semi-random collection of players and a DM makes a compatible group. Sometime you need to ease people out of the group.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.