The example given in the Suggestion spell for a "reasonable" suggestion is "For example, you might suggest that a Knight give her Warhorse to the first Beggar she meets."
So doing something detrimental for no benefit (but no direct harm) seems exactly what the spell is for.
Bit a different though. A Knight is traditionally somebody who wants to do good, help the people, serve the king and all that. Not, all, of course, but on the whole a job that is specifically "fight to defend the King and realm" and has such requirements as "be willing to give your life to protect the people" is rarely sought by the mal-hearted. Especially since it takes about 6 years to become one.
So in most cases a Knight could find giving a warhorse - something they can easily replace - to a beggar whose life would be drastically improved by such a gift is not some out of the realm unreasonable thing. If the Knight were an NPC they could probably be persuaded to do this without the spell if you rolled high enough. But an NPC who wants to win a game being persuaded to lose "just because"? That be a DC of Nope.
Suggestion is a Level 2 spell. It's low-powered and this focus on the reasonability of the suggestion is so the suggestion isn't an instant-win button. Want all the secrets? Suggest they tell you. Want to take all the gold from somebody, suggest they give it, want to win every contest, suggest they give up, want to rule the Kingdom suggest the monarch makes you ruler. This line of thinking makes this an insanely OP spell. That's why there's a clause about it being reasonable. It must be something the target could have otherwise been persuaded to do, even if with great difficulty.
Where Charm Person gives you advantage to persuade, Suggestion makes you win the persuasion without needing to roll.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
It's the DM's world, and the DM has the final say, period.
If he can't handle that, then he should find another group.
I'm not sure I would take it that far. The point of the DM's authority isn't to be the master of everything, there are rules to the way the game functions, to the way reality functions, to the expectations of how things will function under normal circumstances and as someone already mentioned, setting a precedence, so when something functions a certain way, it will do so the next time its used. The DM is in many ways bound by far more rules then any player at the table.
Sorry, but I have zero tolerance for people who take up a lot of my gaming time by arguing with the DM. You can always contact the DM later, and if necessary, the DM can"roll back" somethings if he ends up agreeing with you. It's happened a number of times with my current gaming group. A player voices a quick objection, the DM makes a ruling, and at the next session, the DM announces that based on his off line conversation wit the payer, he's going roll back some of the events.
The example given in the Suggestion spell for a "reasonable" suggestion is "For example, you might suggest that a Knight give her Warhorse to the first Beggar she meets."
So doing something detrimental for no benefit (but no direct harm) seems exactly what the spell is for.
Bit a different though. A Knight is traditionally somebody who wants to do good, help the people, serve the king and all that. Not, all, of course, but on the whole a job that is specifically "fight to defend the King and realm" and has such requirements as "be willing to give your life to protect the people" is rarely sought by the mal-hearted. Especially since it takes about 6 years to become one.
So in most cases a Knight could find giving a warhorse - something they can easily replace - to a beggar whose life would be drastically improved by such a gift is not some out of the realm unreasonable thing. If the Knight were an NPC they could probably be persuaded to do this without the spell if you rolled high enough. But an NPC who wants to win a game being persuaded to lose "just because"? That be a DC of Nope.
Suggestion is a Level 2 spell. It's low-powered and this focus on the reasonability of the suggestion is so the suggestion isn't an instant-win button. Want all the secrets? Suggest they tell you. Want to take all the gold from somebody, suggest they give it, want to win every contest, suggest they give up, want to rule the Kingdom suggest the monarch makes you ruler. This line of thinking makes this an insanely OP spell. That's why there's a clause about it being reasonable. It must be something the target could have otherwise been persuaded to do, even if with great difficulty.
Where Charm Person gives you advantage to persuade, Suggestion makes you win the persuasion without needing to roll.
Nah, I think "give away a flag in a capture-the-flag" game is a really low bar. Not hard to persuade someone to do that, it's just a momentary advantage in a game.
Actually giving away an expensive possession like a warhorse is a heck of a lot harder. I probably would never have someone just give away a warhorse to a random beggar just based on a persuasion check.
The spell gives examples of things that are unreasonable - stabbing yourself, throwing yourself onto a spear, self-immolation. I don't think anything whose biggest potential (not even certain!) consequence is losing a game would be treated like that.
ftl, I think at this stage we're just going to have to agree to disagree.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
It was a game of capture the flag, but there were multiple teams playing and they had three flags in their possession, that is why. Trust me I really did consider that when creating the encounter. Her character only held one flag, the others were held by another party member. So in no way would they have lost and they also all knew that. So by all means, it was reasonable. Because it wasn’t an instant lose and they were well in the lead
And unfortunately on researching suggestion, I know I’m not entirely correct on the way I used it. But when my player responds back to me saying that she doesn’t give a damn about how the spell works, I had no right to make her look like a fool at the table— when nobody once thought of it as such. It was a pride thing for her, and the fact that another player had her temper rising and I was just the target she exploded at. This is also a player who cannot see her character and herself being separate, and also believes she shouldn’t ever have to apologize for her anger because that’s how she feels. So I appreciate the comments trying to see from the point of view of the player, but the rest of the group came back and apologized to me because they all thought it was ridiculous. It was a completely uncalled for outburst, one that was made before trying to calmly clarify the situation. It went from 3 to 100 just like that
It was a game of capture the flag, but there were multiple teams playing and they had three flags in their possession, that is why. Trust me I really did consider that when creating the encounter. Her character only held one flag, the others were held by another party member. So in no way would they have lost and they also all knew that. So by all means, it was reasonable. Because it wasn’t an instant lose and they were well in the lead
It's not that you couldn't make an argument that giving the flag would be reasonable, it's that you didn't try. The suggestion as phrased is at best a command, at worst a statement about your state of mind. If you instead said "You guys have plenty of flags, you don't need to waste effort on that one. Just give me the flag." That would be far more likely to be seen as reasonable.
The NPC had no way of knowing how many flags they had. So to the npc, it was the only one because their perception check had been well enough to see that the player had stowed it away in their boot. Something I had allowed even when the player never stated they had done so. As I said in a previous response, afterwards I realized I could have done better— but the player’s reaction wasn’t one of
“Hold up, I’m confused on what’s happening. I think we need to discuss this more.”
it was immediately into complete high security defence where I tried explaining, and when that didn’t work I said we could talk about it after— and she rejected it because I was completely wrong. This is also the same person who told me to my face if her character dies that she’s out. Which I think from a DMs point of view is such a horrible thing to hear. She also knows that yelling is a trigger of mine, and got in my face regardless. So of course I shut down.
Im not remotely in the right and I get that, I’ve only been DMing for a little over a year so mistakes are going to happen. And that’s okay it’s how you learn. But the player made no effort to ease back and rationally talk things out over one mistake I’ve made, while I have always done so for them. Like when they fumbled on their words, or don’t specify certain actions they do. I don’t explode at them
Dude if a player at my table told me "If you kill my character I'm out", in the first 2 minutes of the next session that character was as good as dead. Get the F out of here with that BS!
My group is a bunch of good-aligned characters. I jokingly told my DM that if my character dies (a warlock), my next character would have a pact with Asmodeus, disrupting the group dynamics... :)
...Im not remotely in the right and I get that, I’ve only been DMing for a little over a year so mistakes are going to happen...
Get that nonsense out of your head. You are the DM. You created a situation, and the PC had a chance to avoid the situation, failed and then the PLAYER decided to not allow the game to progress, got personal with YOU, and created a big issue. That player has the issue, not you. That player needs to adult up, come to you with apologies and maybe expensive candy and promise to never do anything like it again. If she cannot, you do not have to abide sitting with her at the table making a mockery out of the game and social contract. Seriously, this is one step away from shouting at you "No, you didn't hit my PC! She ducked!"
Regardless of all the discussion here about how to interpret the spell and the wording used, you cannot have a player talk that way to the DM, otherwise the game falls apart very quickly.
Here is a quote from the introduction of the Dungeon Master's guide:
A Dungeon Master gets to wear many hats. As the architect of a campaign, the DM creates adventures by placing monsters, traps, and treasures for the other players’ characters (the adventurers) to discover. As a storyteller, the DM helps the other players visualize what’s happening around them, improvising when the adventurers do something or go somewhere unexpected. As an actor, the DM plays the roles of the monsters and supporting characters, breathing life into them. And as a referee, the DM interprets the rules and decides when to abide by them and when to change them.
If the DM says that's how the spell works, that is the end of the discussion. If a player feels wronged by a ruling, they should discuss it away from the table so that play can continue. If your player is arguing this much about an inconsequential game of capture the flag, how will they react to more serious scenarios? As a DM, you have done nothing wrong, except maybe you need to shut down the arguments before they start. It's clear your players are also fed up with it.
Dude if a player at my table told me "If you kill my character I'm out", in the first 2 minutes of the next session that character was as good as dead. Get the F out of here with that BS!
That doesn't make the GM any better than the problem Player.
I agree the GM should never be pushed around by the Players - which I believe is the intent of what you're trying to convey there - but targeting a Character because you're personally annoyed? That's a dick move.
I'd tell the Player that Character death is a possibility in the game, and that I'm not going to pull punches for them, and that their Character can die, and they do and the Player wants to walk away from the game, that's their call, but I'm not changing the rules to accommodate them personally.
And if they end up leaving, they end up leaving. That's on them, not the GM, at that point.
The trick to that is to actually not care if a Player is there or not; you can have a preference, sure, but it's not the end of the world to lose any one Player.
It doesn't sound like losing this particular Player would be much of a loss.
IMO, Hawksmoorand _Morgoth_have it right. You need to assert control over the table, and you need to keep it during the Session.
Rules lawyering is something that happens away from the table.
You will make mistakes. We all do - even after years and decades of practice. That's just being human.
Rulings you make as a GM, in the moment, made in good faith, to the best of your ability, are "in the right" - by definition. Level of experience doesn't matter.
You may change your mind and reverse decisions later. You may decide that - moving forward - the spell will work this way now (although be clear about communicating those changes to your Players) but unless you want to stop in the game, dig into the rules, and look up Forum and online postings by the designers to clarify the issue - and you don't - then the GM ruling in the moment stands, and is the working answer, until changed.
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.
Who would even care about the opinion, or the "trash talking", of a GM and a table of Players who act like that? It doesn't "sting"; the problem Player doesn't feel "punish[ed] brutally hard" for not playing with people who treat them like that. Instead, they feel relieved that they dodged a bullet by not having to honor a commitment to socializing with people that are willing to act like complete ******** towards them. Most importantly - they dismiss all your opinions and arguments out of hand because they can write you off as just some ranting jerk whose opinion they don't value in the slightest. Whether or not you actually have a point, they are free to think they are in the right.
If you wanted to ease them out of your Group, there are easier ways to do that.
If you wanted to make a point about their attitude and behavior, your behavior pretty much guarantees that your points won't even be considered. They don't have to deal with you anymore, and you, and your opinions, become irrelevant.
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.
They won't give a crap about you, or your opinion, and they won't worry about the fact that you were upset, 2 minutes after they're out the front door. They certainly won't consider your opinions as having any merit, or feel obligated to change their approach to the next gaming group they're part of: your attitude pretty much guarantees that. They might understand you mean "F U", but they'll just write you off as an *******. You're just not that important to them. So - I'm not sure what practical benefit you think acting like that has - apart from the GM getting to beat their chest and display how much they're in control ( of a game; about a make-believe world ) - but if you want to put in that much effort being unpleasant towards someone, when they won't care for more than 10 minutes, knock yourself out.
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.
...Im not remotely in the right and I get that, I’ve only been DMing for a little over a year so mistakes are going to happen...
Get that nonsense out of your head. You are the DM. You created a situation, and the PC had a chance to avoid the situation, failed and then the PLAYER decided to not allow the game to progress, got personal with YOU, and created a big issue. That player has the issue, not you. That player needs to adult up, come to you with apologies and maybe expensive candy and promise to never do anything like it again. If she cannot, you do not have to abide sitting with her at the table making a mockery out of the game and social contract. Seriously, this is one step away from shouting at you "No, you didn't hit my PC! She ducked!"
This.
Much as I have said I think your use of the spell was wrong in my opinion - the player should still have been respectful and you are the DM. Spells work the way you want them to. You can see me and ftl disagree on the spell, so as DMs we would adjudicate the spell differently. However, if I was in a campaign run by ftl and had suggestion used on my character in a way I disagree with I would politely voice my concern, they can either stick with their decision, go with mine or make a ruling now and invite to discuss later - and I would be fine with all three. Hell, you don't even need to stick with the spell anyway! Maybe the NPC had a special ability, a different version of the spell, all sorts: you as DM are not restricted to any text in a spell, monster stat or anything. If you want an NPC with the ability to make a PC do something you can (I mean, use it sparingly but it can certainly create interesting moments and plot twists!).
The DM is never wrong. They just make interesting choices.
The player you describe is being immature, and they shouldn't be getting angry at you. I would remind them everyone should be giving due respect to everyone else at the table and any disagreement should be discussed rationally and calmly. If it turns out that player is just not having fun but you and the other players are, well then, that player should probably go find a different game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Realized something relevant to this discussion. As a player, I have no problem if the DM changes the rules, even if the game is hardly recognizable as D&D anymore. However, I have a very hard time dropping the subject if the DM changes the rules and denies that the rules were changed. As long as the DM is arguing based on what the book's authority instead of what their own, I will almost always continue to fight the point, even after realizing that I should just drop it and go back to playing.
Realized something relevant to this discussion. As a player, I have no problem if the DM changes the rules, even if the game is hardly recognizable as D&D anymore. However, I have a very hard time dropping the subject if the DM changes the rules and denies that the rules were changed. As long as the DM is arguing based on what the book's authority instead of what their own, I will almost always continue to fight the point, even after realizing that I should just drop it and go back to playing.
If the DM denies the rules are being changed, when they know they are - I'd agree with you.
If the DM makes a mistake - well, that happens, and hopefully that gets cleaned up later. In the middle of Combat isn't the best time to have that discussion, though.
If I change the rules around deliberately - I let the Players know about it ahead of time, and get their "buy in", and all changes happen at the start of a Session.That's how all our homebrew table rules have been introduced.
No matter the scenario - mistaken rules, or not, or homebrew - the application of those rules needs to be consistent, until they're clearly and transparently changed - ideally between Sessions.
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.
1. Player is wrong. Players are allways wrong when it comes to how you want to play out a spells effect. It’s your story to tell, and you do with it as you will. More experience will help you conceal your rulings and incorporate it to the play at hand. They don’t even have to know what they are rolling against or witch modifier they are supposed to use. You don’t even have to have them making the die roll. You can roll a die at any random moment behind your screen and decide the outcome that suits your needs for a fun outcome for the situation. Eks; you roll a die and tell the player “ for som strange reason you feel compelled to give your opponent the banner, after giving him/her the banner you are feeling nauseous and angry for letting the team down “ They don’t have to know what particular spell it is at all, to be fair only a spell caster with knowledge of the spell would be the only one that could identity its a spell anyway.. you can even be as detailed saying that you even need to be from same school of magic to identify and understand witch spell that’s being cast.
The games power structure are as following as all players should know: Dm- the storyteller, gods, law of the class/school, law of the realm, inhabitants of the realm <— this is were the players are grouped up in ;)
And as a DM... with great power comes greater responsibility. Be fair to the players, only wielding the power of death as a last resort.
2. Now let’s say that the player still is defiant making the game miserable to the other players going into rules details to alter the outcome. I call such players cheaters and you will find them in every game and my theory are that they just don’t like loosing and will do anything to make it favorable towards them, even if it comes to stating rules, and how to use them giving examples from how other do it, your typically kid like arguing with their parents. This’s kind of players have totally misunderstood what this game is about, and how to play it. Rules are there as a guideline on how to play, and learning the game. There’s is nothing that says you need to follow them, and no one will arrest or write you a ticket for breaking a few now and then. Remember the power structure right... on the other hand if you are a loose cannon and just do whatever you want when you want no one wants a part of your story anymore, and you will find yourself without any players. So balance the game towards what’s fun for you and your players. As there’re are Dm’s that need more experience, there will be players with the same need.
So you must decide. Do I continue to let this player ruin the game or do I teach that person a lesson?
The player tells you no that’s not what happen i did not give away the banner cause of rules.. blah blah blah... angrily makes a mad dash to the finishing line and celebrating xp, fame, fortune, and for over ruling the Dm.... Dm signs and continues the story “ as you are nearing the finishing line you suddenly feel a tremendous pain shooting up from your spine, you se the ground disappearing rapidly under you, the pain disappears as your survival instincts kicks in only to be petrified by loud and sinister rawl coming from a huge and ancient red dragon, making you drop the banner. Suddenly you feel indescribable pain like you hole body are exploding and being crushed at the same time, then the pain disappears. You se the banner land if not by magic in the hand of your opponent, who is looking terrified up. As your life essence disappears and your severed, mutilated, ripped body disappears down towards a hungry dragons belly, on your last breath you curse your self for being blinded by your lust for winning and ignoring all signs and warnings.
The remaining players and opponents all standing prettified staring up into to the sky witnessing a horrible sight as their party members got snatched and gobbled up by a dragon out for a snack, but still feel relieved that they got warned by their opponents in time to stop their last push for the win”
Now you solved the problem and story can continue, you will have no more arguments from that specific player the remaining time of your session. And you have given that player a choice, do I make a new toon or do I find a new party? If he makes a new one and continue to play with you, and continue to stop the flow of the story, there’s no limit to how many dragons a Dm can summon or next time his god might appear and say it’ Time to come home, or the ground can magically open and swallow him up. Use your imagination that’s what’s the game is about.
3. There’s many good arguments to how this spell works, should work, and not work. But saying it’s not a way of altering the course of action, and not more than a little guaranteed roll on a persuasive skill... come on. There’s no point bothering to gather ingredients, spend time to learn and research the spell. It’s just not worth the time to do it if you can just spend a point on persuasion instead. It’s in fact weaker than the skill if you say you can’t suggest something that the player normally wouldn’t do. As persuasive skill will be used to change your mind or actions. And don’t forget it’s a spell implies magic, and magic= no logic. Do you have pants witch give you +1 to int, wis, dex, or whatever in your drawer? Suggestions works as an impulse, like say your at the grocery shop, standing in line waiting to get payed you grab a snickers. Now why did you do that? It’s not on your list, it might even not be normal for you to eat chocolate, maybe you like chips or fruits, but non the the less you grab that snickers without thinking of it. Yes an impulse buy or is it? Or maybe you saw a commercial on your way to work/school, maybe it was suggested to you instead ?
And that’s my point on how suggestions work, like an impulse. If someone cast a suggestion spell and the player failed the save roll, that’s how it’s treated. And that’s why it’s restricted on the complicated commands, but just handing over a banner? That’s not complicated at all. Had it work as in my suggestion to off the player, he would have not been eaten and saving his life, so this was in the players best interest as a matter of fact.
Other things to look at, are the player in his role, does that character have that kind of knowledge, character traits and flaws, background story that might contradict the action of defiance, or maybe they playing a defiant character and evolved an extraordinary resistance to those kind of spells, or maybe the spell was Devine and no one could rest it? Maybe their opponent has Devine blood dating back to a time the gods walked the realms?
dont limit you’re selves by being hard core rule followers, instead se other options and solutions within the the rules, when a player are so hard on rules, most likely he have found loopholes in the system, or maybe they need you to follow them so it will be easier for them to cheat. If they get aggressive if they die, or if you don’t follow how they want the game to go on, just continue to kill their characters and make them start all over on lvl 1 each time. They aren’t used to loosing and it takes practice to learn how to deal with it, most common with people that were spoiled growing up. Funny saying loosing when talking about d&d as one really never loose when playing this game. It’s all about having fun with people, friends or randoms. If you’re not having fun playing, stop playing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Bit a different though. A Knight is traditionally somebody who wants to do good, help the people, serve the king and all that. Not, all, of course, but on the whole a job that is specifically "fight to defend the King and realm" and has such requirements as "be willing to give your life to protect the people" is rarely sought by the mal-hearted. Especially since it takes about 6 years to become one.
So in most cases a Knight could find giving a warhorse - something they can easily replace - to a beggar whose life would be drastically improved by such a gift is not some out of the realm unreasonable thing. If the Knight were an NPC they could probably be persuaded to do this without the spell if you rolled high enough. But an NPC who wants to win a game being persuaded to lose "just because"? That be a DC of Nope.
Suggestion is a Level 2 spell. It's low-powered and this focus on the reasonability of the suggestion is so the suggestion isn't an instant-win button. Want all the secrets? Suggest they tell you. Want to take all the gold from somebody, suggest they give it, want to win every contest, suggest they give up, want to rule the Kingdom suggest the monarch makes you ruler. This line of thinking makes this an insanely OP spell. That's why there's a clause about it being reasonable. It must be something the target could have otherwise been persuaded to do, even if with great difficulty.
Where Charm Person gives you advantage to persuade, Suggestion makes you win the persuasion without needing to roll.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Sorry, but I have zero tolerance for people who take up a lot of my gaming time by arguing with the DM. You can always contact the DM later, and if necessary, the DM can"roll back" somethings if he ends up agreeing with you. It's happened a number of times with my current gaming group. A player voices a quick objection, the DM makes a ruling, and at the next session, the DM announces that based on his off line conversation wit the payer, he's going roll back some of the events.
And don't get me started on the RP hogs...
Nah, I think "give away a flag in a capture-the-flag" game is a really low bar. Not hard to persuade someone to do that, it's just a momentary advantage in a game.
Actually giving away an expensive possession like a warhorse is a heck of a lot harder. I probably would never have someone just give away a warhorse to a random beggar just based on a persuasion check.
The spell gives examples of things that are unreasonable - stabbing yourself, throwing yourself onto a spear, self-immolation. I don't think anything whose biggest potential (not even certain!) consequence is losing a game would be treated like that.
ftl, I think at this stage we're just going to have to agree to disagree.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
It was a game of capture the flag, but there were multiple teams playing and they had three flags in their possession, that is why. Trust me I really did consider that when creating the encounter. Her character only held one flag, the others were held by another party member. So in no way would they have lost and they also all knew that. So by all means, it was reasonable. Because it wasn’t an instant lose and they were well in the lead
And unfortunately on researching suggestion, I know I’m not entirely correct on the way I used it. But when my player responds back to me saying that she doesn’t give a damn about how the spell works, I had no right to make her look like a fool at the table— when nobody once thought of it as such. It was a pride thing for her, and the fact that another player had her temper rising and I was just the target she exploded at. This is also a player who cannot see her character and herself being separate, and also believes she shouldn’t ever have to apologize for her anger because that’s how she feels. So I appreciate the comments trying to see from the point of view of the player, but the rest of the group came back and apologized to me because they all thought it was ridiculous. It was a completely uncalled for outburst, one that was made before trying to calmly clarify the situation. It went from 3 to 100 just like that
It's not that you couldn't make an argument that giving the flag would be reasonable, it's that you didn't try. The suggestion as phrased is at best a command, at worst a statement about your state of mind. If you instead said "You guys have plenty of flags, you don't need to waste effort on that one. Just give me the flag." That would be far more likely to be seen as reasonable.
The NPC had no way of knowing how many flags they had. So to the npc, it was the only one because their perception check had been well enough to see that the player had stowed it away in their boot. Something I had allowed even when the player never stated they had done so. As I said in a previous response, afterwards I realized I could have done better— but the player’s reaction wasn’t one of
“Hold up, I’m confused on what’s happening. I think we need to discuss this more.”
it was immediately into complete high security defence where I tried explaining, and when that didn’t work I said we could talk about it after— and she rejected it because I was completely wrong. This is also the same person who told me to my face if her character dies that she’s out. Which I think from a DMs point of view is such a horrible thing to hear. She also knows that yelling is a trigger of mine, and got in my face regardless. So of course I shut down.
Im not remotely in the right and I get that, I’ve only been DMing for a little over a year so mistakes are going to happen. And that’s okay it’s how you learn. But the player made no effort to ease back and rationally talk things out over one mistake I’ve made, while I have always done so for them. Like when they fumbled on their words, or don’t specify certain actions they do. I don’t explode at them
My group is a bunch of good-aligned characters. I jokingly told my DM that if my character dies (a warlock), my next character would have a pact with Asmodeus, disrupting the group dynamics... :)
Get that nonsense out of your head. You are the DM. You created a situation, and the PC had a chance to avoid the situation, failed and then the PLAYER decided to not allow the game to progress, got personal with YOU, and created a big issue. That player has the issue, not you. That player needs to adult up, come to you with apologies and maybe expensive candy and promise to never do anything like it again. If she cannot, you do not have to abide sitting with her at the table making a mockery out of the game and social contract. Seriously, this is one step away from shouting at you "No, you didn't hit my PC! She ducked!"
Regardless of all the discussion here about how to interpret the spell and the wording used, you cannot have a player talk that way to the DM, otherwise the game falls apart very quickly.
Here is a quote from the introduction of the Dungeon Master's guide:
If the DM says that's how the spell works, that is the end of the discussion. If a player feels wronged by a ruling, they should discuss it away from the table so that play can continue. If your player is arguing this much about an inconsequential game of capture the flag, how will they react to more serious scenarios? As a DM, you have done nothing wrong, except maybe you need to shut down the arguments before they start. It's clear your players are also fed up with it.
That doesn't make the GM any better than the problem Player.
I agree the GM should never be pushed around by the Players - which I believe is the intent of what you're trying to convey there - but targeting a Character because you're personally annoyed? That's a dick move.
I'd tell the Player that Character death is a possibility in the game, and that I'm not going to pull punches for them, and that their Character can die, and they do and the Player wants to walk away from the game, that's their call, but I'm not changing the rules to accommodate them personally.
And if they end up leaving, they end up leaving. That's on them, not the GM, at that point.
The trick to that is to actually not care if a Player is there or not; you can have a preference, sure, but it's not the end of the world to lose any one Player.
It doesn't sound like losing this particular Player would be much of a loss.
IMO, Hawksmoor and _Morgoth_ have it right. You need to assert control over the table, and you need to keep it during the Session.
Rules lawyering is something that happens away from the table.
You will make mistakes. We all do - even after years and decades of practice. That's just being human.
Rulings you make as a GM, in the moment, made in good faith, to the best of your ability, are "in the right" - by definition. Level of experience doesn't matter.
You may change your mind and reverse decisions later. You may decide that - moving forward - the spell will work this way now (although be clear about communicating those changes to your Players) but unless you want to stop in the game, dig into the rules, and look up Forum and online postings by the designers to clarify the issue - and you don't - then the GM ruling in the moment stands, and is the working answer, until changed.
Full stop.
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.
I'm not trying to be polite, I'm being practical.
Who would even care about the opinion, or the "trash talking", of a GM and a table of Players who act like that? It doesn't "sting"; the problem Player doesn't feel "punish[ed] brutally hard" for not playing with people who treat them like that. Instead, they feel relieved that they dodged a bullet by not having to honor a commitment to socializing with people that are willing to act like complete ******** towards them. Most importantly - they dismiss all your opinions and arguments out of hand because they can write you off as just some ranting jerk whose opinion they don't value in the slightest. Whether or not you actually have a point, they are free to think they are in the right.
If you wanted to ease them out of your Group, there are easier ways to do that.
If you wanted to make a point about their attitude and behavior, your behavior pretty much guarantees that your points won't even be considered. They don't have to deal with you anymore, and you, and your opinions, become irrelevant.
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.
They won't give a crap about you, or your opinion, and they won't worry about the fact that you were upset, 2 minutes after they're out the front door. They certainly won't consider your opinions as having any merit, or feel obligated to change their approach to the next gaming group they're part of: your attitude pretty much guarantees that. They might understand you mean "F U", but they'll just write you off as an *******. You're just not that important to them. So - I'm not sure what practical benefit you think acting like that has - apart from the GM getting to beat their chest and display how much they're in control ( of a game; about a make-believe world ) - but if you want to put in that much effort being unpleasant towards someone, when they won't care for more than 10 minutes, knock yourself out.
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.
This.
Much as I have said I think your use of the spell was wrong in my opinion - the player should still have been respectful and you are the DM. Spells work the way you want them to. You can see me and ftl disagree on the spell, so as DMs we would adjudicate the spell differently. However, if I was in a campaign run by ftl and had suggestion used on my character in a way I disagree with I would politely voice my concern, they can either stick with their decision, go with mine or make a ruling now and invite to discuss later - and I would be fine with all three. Hell, you don't even need to stick with the spell anyway! Maybe the NPC had a special ability, a different version of the spell, all sorts: you as DM are not restricted to any text in a spell, monster stat or anything. If you want an NPC with the ability to make a PC do something you can (I mean, use it sparingly but it can certainly create interesting moments and plot twists!).
The DM is never wrong. They just make interesting choices.
The player you describe is being immature, and they shouldn't be getting angry at you. I would remind them everyone should be giving due respect to everyone else at the table and any disagreement should be discussed rationally and calmly. If it turns out that player is just not having fun but you and the other players are, well then, that player should probably go find a different game.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Realized something relevant to this discussion. As a player, I have no problem if the DM changes the rules, even if the game is hardly recognizable as D&D anymore. However, I have a very hard time dropping the subject if the DM changes the rules and denies that the rules were changed. As long as the DM is arguing based on what the book's authority instead of what their own, I will almost always continue to fight the point, even after realizing that I should just drop it and go back to playing.
If the DM denies the rules are being changed, when they know they are - I'd agree with you.
If the DM makes a mistake - well, that happens, and hopefully that gets cleaned up later. In the middle of Combat isn't the best time to have that discussion, though.
If I change the rules around deliberately - I let the Players know about it ahead of time, and get their "buy in", and all changes happen at the start of a Session.That's how all our homebrew table rules have been introduced.
No matter the scenario - mistaken rules, or not, or homebrew - the application of those rules needs to be consistent, until they're clearly and transparently changed - ideally between Sessions.
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.
1. Player is wrong. Players are allways wrong when it comes to how you want to play out a spells effect. It’s your story to tell, and you do with it as you will. More experience will help you conceal your rulings and incorporate it to the play at hand. They don’t even have to know what they are rolling against or witch modifier they are supposed to use. You don’t even have to have them making the die roll. You can roll a die at any random moment behind your screen and decide the outcome that suits your needs for a fun outcome for the situation. Eks; you roll a die and tell the player “ for som strange reason you feel compelled to give your opponent the banner, after giving him/her the banner you are feeling nauseous and angry for letting the team down “ They don’t have to know what particular spell it is at all, to be fair only a spell caster with knowledge of the spell would be the only one that could identity its a spell anyway.. you can even be as detailed saying that you even need to be from same school of magic to identify and understand witch spell that’s being cast.
The games power structure are as following as all players should know: Dm- the storyteller, gods, law of the class/school, law of the realm, inhabitants of the realm <— this is were the players are grouped up in ;)
And as a DM... with great power comes greater responsibility. Be fair to the players, only wielding the power of death as a last resort.
2. Now let’s say that the player still is defiant making the game miserable to the other players going into rules details to alter the outcome. I call such players cheaters and you will find them in every game and my theory are that they just don’t like loosing and will do anything to make it favorable towards them, even if it comes to stating rules, and how to use them giving examples from how other do it, your typically kid like arguing with their parents. This’s kind of players have totally misunderstood what this game is about, and how to play it. Rules are there as a guideline on how to play, and learning the game. There’s is nothing that says you need to follow them, and no one will arrest or write you a ticket for breaking a few now and then. Remember the power structure right... on the other hand if you are a loose cannon and just do whatever you want when you want no one wants a part of your story anymore, and you will find yourself without any players. So balance the game towards what’s fun for you and your players. As there’re are Dm’s that need more experience, there will be players with the same need.
So you must decide. Do I continue to let this player ruin the game or do I teach that person a lesson?
The player tells you no that’s not what happen i did not give away the banner cause of rules.. blah blah blah... angrily makes a mad dash to the finishing line and celebrating xp, fame, fortune, and for over ruling the Dm.... Dm signs and continues the story “ as you are nearing the finishing line you suddenly feel a tremendous pain shooting up from your spine, you se the ground disappearing rapidly under you, the pain disappears as your survival instincts kicks in only to be petrified by loud and sinister rawl coming from a huge and ancient red dragon, making you drop the banner. Suddenly you feel indescribable pain like you hole body are exploding and being crushed at the same time, then the pain disappears. You se the banner land if not by magic in the hand of your opponent, who is looking terrified up. As your life essence disappears and your severed, mutilated, ripped body disappears down towards a hungry dragons belly, on your last breath you curse your self for being blinded by your lust for winning and ignoring all signs and warnings.
The remaining players and opponents all standing prettified staring up into to the sky witnessing a horrible sight as their party members got snatched and gobbled up by a dragon out for a snack, but still feel relieved that they got warned by their opponents in time to stop their last push for the win”
Now you solved the problem and story can continue, you will have no more arguments from that specific player the remaining time of your session. And you have given that player a choice, do I make a new toon or do I find a new party? If he makes a new one and continue to play with you, and continue to stop the flow of the story, there’s no limit to how many dragons a Dm can summon or next time his god might appear and say it’ Time to come home, or the ground can magically open and swallow him up. Use your imagination that’s what’s the game is about.
3. There’s many good arguments to how this spell works, should work, and not work. But saying it’s not a way of altering the course of action, and not more than a little guaranteed roll on a persuasive skill... come on. There’s no point bothering to gather ingredients, spend time to learn and research the spell. It’s just not worth the time to do it if you can just spend a point on persuasion instead. It’s in fact weaker than the skill if you say you can’t suggest something that the player normally wouldn’t do. As persuasive skill will be used to change your mind or actions. And don’t forget it’s a spell implies magic, and magic= no logic. Do you have pants witch give you +1 to int, wis, dex, or whatever in your drawer? Suggestions works as an impulse, like say your at the grocery shop, standing in line waiting to get payed you grab a snickers. Now why did you do that? It’s not on your list, it might even not be normal for you to eat chocolate, maybe you like chips or fruits, but non the the less you grab that snickers without thinking of it. Yes an impulse buy or is it? Or maybe you saw a commercial on your way to work/school, maybe it was suggested to you instead ?
And that’s my point on how suggestions work, like an impulse. If someone cast a suggestion spell and the player failed the save roll, that’s how it’s treated. And that’s why it’s restricted on the complicated commands, but just handing over a banner? That’s not complicated at all. Had it work as in my suggestion to off the player, he would have not been eaten and saving his life, so this was in the players best interest as a matter of fact.
Other things to look at, are the player in his role, does that character have that kind of knowledge, character traits and flaws, background story that might contradict the action of defiance, or maybe they playing a defiant character and evolved an extraordinary resistance to those kind of spells, or maybe the spell was Devine and no one could rest it? Maybe their opponent has Devine blood dating back to a time the gods walked the realms?
dont limit you’re selves by being hard core rule followers, instead se other options and solutions within the the rules, when a player are so hard on rules, most likely he have found loopholes in the system, or maybe they need you to follow them so it will be easier for them to cheat. If they get aggressive if they die, or if you don’t follow how they want the game to go on, just continue to kill their characters and make them start all over on lvl 1 each time. They aren’t used to loosing and it takes practice to learn how to deal with it, most common with people that were spoiled growing up. Funny saying loosing when talking about d&d as one really never loose when playing this game. It’s all about having fun with people, friends or randoms. If you’re not having fun playing, stop playing.