I am a relatively new DM (just a couple of months shy of 1 year, bi monthly games). The group I am DMing are all first timers to DnD (myself included) so we are still learning after all this time.
Backstory: A while ago, I got into an argument at the table with one of my players, who happens to be my best friend, over the application of a home-brew thing I allowed in. I felt terrible with how I handled it. After apologizing and working with him so we were both happy, we both moved on.
Fast forward to today. He and I are chatting on the phone (thanks Coronavirus), and he brought up the fact that as a player, he was going to look for loopholes constantly in the rulebooks in order to exploit as much advantage as possible, and would question a ruling at the table if that is when it came up in order to gain that advantage. I, immediately, went into a rant about how stuff like that at the table pisses me off because I have other players at the table and I am trying to make sure they aren't bored... yada yada. While everything I said makes sense, the venom with which I said it made me realize that I am still not quite over the argument from a few months ago, but more importantly, I don't like it when I get questioned at the table. Which in my opinion is part of the nature of the job.
As such, I am concerned that maybe I am not really cut out to DM, even though I absolutely love it. I am wondering if other DMs deal with this and what strategies do you employ to make sure that you are ACTUALLY open to hearing your players' arguments and not getting upset for being "questioned." Thanks in advance!
Take a deep breath and say "We can talk about that after the game". Rules arguments at the table are boring for people who don't like rules arguments (it's totally possible to have a group that enjoys rule arguments, but IME it's uncommon).
At the table, apply 2 rules. Reason and "The Rule of Cool". Make sure everyone understands that is how you make in the moment judgement calls, and that your decision (at the time) is final so that you can keep the game moving. Be open to discussing rules afterwards to either confirm your call, or change it going forward.
ALSO. And this is a biggy. If players are going to be like this, let them know they can discuss it BEFOREHAND. So if they've read Mage hand and think they have a really clever and unusual way to use it, talk to you before hand to make sure you're both on the same page. If you're a good DM, they'll know you're trying to facilitate the game, not be their opponent. You're not trying to kill their fun. So there's no point "suprising you" with a weird rules idea. Just talk it out beforehand, get on the same page, and when it happens in game, the other players get to go "WOW, that's nuts!", the player gets to look hella sneaky and creative, and you get to look like you handle some weird sideball off the cuff with aplomb and finesse. Everyone wins.
One thing my DM does right now if we aren't sure about a rule at the moment he will roll for it. 1-10 nope! 11-20 yep! lol it works well enough. BUT like the person above said, if they find some clever use of the rules, tell them to discuss these things as they find them, out of game. And if they are right, then allow it. Explain to him you aren't looking for weird stuff like that constantly so making those calls in the moment is difficult and takes away from the experience. But he is also going to have to respect that he might not get everything he wants, which would be super toxic anyway. there is a give and take to it all. Everyone's gotta have fun.
I had a player who looked for every loophole he could. All he did was piss off the other players. I was not to happy with it myself. He would also question every final call I made. DMing was not even remotely new to me. However this was his first game. The game broke up and some of us went on to play warhammer for a while with a great group of players at a local hobby shop. We invited the problem player to join us. It did not go so well. Once again he would question and look up every rule for whatever faction a player was playing and question them. Note that this was his first time playing warhammer other then a game we had at my house just so he could get a feel for it. He questioned players who had been playing warhammer from back when it came out. In the end he no longer plays D&D or Warhammer because he burned all of his bridges down.
I don't know that anyone can be "cut out" to be a DM. You have to learn by doing, and gain experience as you go. I ran my first online session ever, and my first session for a table top RPG in probably 30 years, last week, and although I didn't do anything terrible, I can already see like 20 things I would have done better if I had been more thoughtful. One thing I already see is that I need to slow down when asked a question and take more time to think about the answer.
However, in terms of your reaction... You need not to be venomous, yes. You need to be calm and collected, yes. But... a player who openly declares he is going to look for loopholes in the rules? That's someone who is not acting in good conscience. The aim of a player ought not to be to try and find ways to exploit the rules. In fact, that is called cheating by everyone I've ever played with. Your friend's position is equivalent to "resource dupers" on MMOs, which are the spiritual descendants of games like D&D. These are people who find a way to "trick" the game engine into giving them more gold or resources than they are supposed to have -- they found a coding loophole. Universally the response of MMO admins to these people is to ban them from the game. Again, because it is cheating.
My question would be, why is the guy always purposely looking for loopholes? Is he a lawyer in real life or something? Does he just find that kind of thing fun? If so I might have to say to him, best friend or not, our table is not the place to do that, and if you insist, I will have to ask you to leave the campaign.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
1. Any/all your on the spot decisions should be reviewable after the session. Rule of Cool applies here as well. You may allow something that is “cool” but then realize to make that a standard ruling would break your game. So let the players know that any ruling can be reviewed away from the session by anybody at the table. That takes it purely OOC, doesn’t bog down the game, and provides clarity.
2. Player want to find a loophole? You mean the player wants to bring to YOUR attention additional ways, ways you may never have thought, of screwing the party over? Man, wish my players would do that work for me. It can be a struggle balancing challenging them enough and not TPKing them in the process at times. Sure could go for some of those loopholes from time to time... (remember it is a collaborative game, but what’s good for the goose is good for the gander)
3. Being new in general means the less home brew the better. Things interact in certain ways for certain reasons. Changing that can introduce unforeseen consequences which can vastly alter the challenge of encounters, the pace of play, and the general FUN had at the table.
4. Keep the game moving at the table. See 1. above for any concerns you or the players have on any ruling made (or not made when it should have). Don’t retcon except as a last resort. The players will roll with “well, look, that spell/ability/skill/item/etc. shouldn’t have worked that way. Here is how it will work going forward. It just did that in that instance because of _______”
I generally agree with most of what's been said, but I throw in a little "support" for the player (since no-one has done that).
Remember that there is a quite fine line between looking for "loopholes" and find creative use of new features, spells etc. While the first is usually very annoying (and should not be discussed at the table), creative use of powers are cool.
Also, make it clear that you will not discuss rules at the table. Make a ruling that is as fair as you possible can do, then inform the players you will check out the rule after the session, and inform them before the next.
I’m curious about the player’s motivation. As biowizard was saying, He’s looking for loopholes so he can then do what? I know some people just like to look for clever options that work well, and that’s all fine. But even using the word “loophole” feels like one of two things. 1. He’s trolling. 2. He’s looking for the cheat code so he can win D&D. Like he thinks it’s an adversarial game. the first one is annoying but can be dealt with, and could just be friendly ribbing. the second means he doesn’t really understand the game. maybe ask him what he’s after. Why does he want to find these?
Also, the fact that your friend is telling you he’s going to do this is both a kind of threat and bullying behavior. Like he’s daring you to do something about it. Are you conflict-averse, and he knows you are? If so he’s telling you in order to lay the groundwork so it will be easier for him to steamroll you when the time comes. To your original question, you do need to be ok with people questioning you, but only to a point. When it turns from questioning into being a jerk, that’s not ok. And you need to be willing to make a ruling and let it stand, sometimes, players won’t like your ruling, but more often than not, they should recognize that it’s fair.
Also, though you didn’t ask, this is a good example of a big problem with homebrew stuff, particularly for those without a lot of experience. You can end up creating a lot of these loopholes your friend is looking for.
Thanks for commenting and helping out. I will say, I learned my lesson about home-brew content and that was my mistake. We did talk about it and both came to an agreement on how it would be played moving forward.
In answer to the question of what he meant by loophole, a loophole in this context would be where there are two separate rules that are interacting and leave ambiguity on how they should proceed in game, especially when it is going to be the benefit of his character or the party. Example: Finding Familiar being able to cast spells for the caster, but unable to attack and Booming Blade being a spell but requiring a melee weapon attack. I think a lot of our disagreements come from a fundamental difference in interpreting the rules when it comes to these gray areas. I think I always try to rule the best I can as fair as I can, within the mechanics of the game and the world we are playing, while he is looking at how he can use that gray area to the maximum benefit.
I like the rule of cool, but I think you all are right that maybe we have fallen into the trap of the DM being the adversary. I certainly don't view it that way, but maybe it is good for us to go back over that, individually and as a group. And to be fair, I think that we have fallen into this trap is my fault. I can be kinda headstrong when I want to be, and sometimes I put my foot down on things that are probably not worth the fight ultimately, which probably makes seem like I am against them. So that is something I will definitely have to work on going forward and hopefully play will change for the better at the table.
D&D has its origins in miniatures wargaming, which most certainly was something you played to win, and it's a legitimate way to play the game -- as long as everyone agrees that's the type of game they're playing. The problem comes when different people have different ideas of the type of game they're playing.
D&D has its origins in miniatures wargaming, which most certainly was something you played to win, and it's a legitimate way to play the game -- as long as everyone agrees that's the type of game they're playing. The problem comes when different people have different ideas of the type of game they're playing.
D&D is not a competitive game, it is a collaborative game. The players do not play against the DM, the DM does not play against the players. The characters comes across challenged that the DM both placed and arbitrates using the rules. As W.O.P.R. once said, "The only way to win, is to not play at all."
Just a comment about home brewing. I home brew all of the time when I DM because it makes for a more fun experience than being predictable all of the time. There are a lot of players, including me, who know all of the "normal" things that DM's use so home brewing things that are different makes the game more fun for those more experienced players. It is definitely more work, but it's worth it!
I agree with the "keep the game moving" concept. One thing that I do when a player tries to do something that catches me by surprise is I ask them to roll a d20 and I assign a DC to their roll before they roll based on my on the spot judgement. If they hit the DC then what they're trying works that time. If they don't, it doesn't. It's fair and it's random so I haven't gotten any complaints. It has resulted in some spectacular success and some funny failures! When a failure happens I don't let that failure kill any of the PC's, the goal is to have fun and to keep the game moving without stopping to read through the rules and try to make the perfect rules decision. Making permanent rules decisions should happen outside of a session, not in a session.
My advice for your friend's loopholes is tell him that he needs to run them past you ahead of time so that he doesn't catch you off guard during the game because your goal is to keep the game moving for everyone instead of stopping to read the rulebooks. If he refuses to do that, then start making his loopholes fail when he uses them and tell him that you'll read the rules outside of the session and make a ruling before the next session. Just don't use your pre-knowledge of what he's going to try against him. I had a DM who did that to me and tailored encounters specifically to hamstring the strategies that I asked him about and that really turned me off on him as a DM.
I'm running Ghosts of Saltmarsh right now and my players have met an adversary who is a pirate warlock (kraken patron with pact of the chain) whose familiar is his ship instead of a normal familiar. One of them saw a hint that something weird is going on when he went over to the ship to parley and he gave the captain a bottle of whiskey as a peace offering and the captain dropped it on the deck and the deck of the ship opened up and then closed behind it. That scared them off enough that they left and sailed back to Saltmarsh to regroup. Does that warlock follow the rules? Absolutely not! Is he a unique opponent who is going to be challenging and fun for the PC's to deal with? Yes! Their reward for defeating him is going to be his ship. When they finally defeat him the fiendish spirit that is inhabiting his ship is going to depart, leaving them a large fully equipped ship to replace their boat that's barely big enough for the whole party.
D&D is not a competitive game, it is a collaborative game. The players do not play against the DM, the DM does not play against the players. The characters comes across challenged that the DM both placed and arbitrates using the rules. As W.O.P.R. once said, "The only way to win, is to not play at all."
What sort of game D&D is depends on the preferences of the people playing the game (for this purpose, the DM is a player), and for that matter it doesn't even have to stay constant within the same game.
The genre, the flavor does, but nothing in DnD gives a win condition, nor a lose condition for that matter. There are no measurables in which to compare to create a competitive game in the rules of the game.
In other words, you can use DnD to create a competitive game, but you are not then playing DnD.
In other words, you can use DnD to create a competitive game, but you are not then playing DnD.
Sure you are. All D&D games involve some things that are not part of the rules (for example, the adventure), and competitive win conditions are no more forbidden than any other type of campaign objective. Back in the early 80s there were 'competition modules' that were actually scored for how well the PCs did (I have an original copy of The Lost Shrine of Tamoachan, I doubt that's been replicated in the current Tales from the Yawning Portal version).
I would note that this is not actually the way I play. I just recognize that different groups have different play styles, and as long as they're having fun, one is not inherently more right than another.
1) When dealing with players it is best to remain calm. Getting bothered or venemous doesn't help answer the question.
2) There are no loopholes. This is D&D, not a board game with set rules. The rulebooks are guidelines. That said, when the group gets together they usually decide to play based on an implicitly agreed upon set of rules. The implicit aspect of the rules can be clarified by having a short discussion on what rules you are trying to use for play. This includes homebrew. If you are using a homebrew item or rule you need to be very explicit about what it the item or the rule does.
3) DMs make mistakes. I make them, you make them, the players make them. In my case, it can be misremembering something from a past edition and juxtaposing it with 5e. There is nothing wrong with a player saying "I don't think the spell works that way" or "I think I can do this with the item" or "That guy can't have 3 actions this round, unless you made him special?".
Decide how you want to handle these. They are reasonable questions. One option is to quickly look up the rule or spell, especially if the player already has it out. However, as DM you have to decide if the issue is the rule or the interpretation. If its interpretation then just decide how it will work for this session and review it at the end ... make a note. If there is a rule issue and it will take time to look up, do the same to keep the game moving. As you play more and run more games, this gets much easier since you will have seen it all before and know how you want to rule it. You will also be able to identify some of the more egregious examples ... simulacrum abuse, coffeelock ... and will be able to just say no (or yes depending on the question) to the player and move on. 5e has relatively few real "exploits" and only a few real places you can argue (e.g. does great weapon fighting style apply to just the weapon damage dice or to all damage dice rolled on the attack - the sage advice answer is just the weapon dice but some players might argue it)
Anyway, as you DM more the problem eventually almost completely disappears as you build up experience and can just answer the player without looking into the rulebook. However. occasionally you get people who are stubborn and refuse to accept an answer or don't understand it ... in these cases, again suggest that you will discuss it at the end of the session but for now you will play it this way to keep the game going.
It sounds to me like you are not satisfied with the results of your negotiations. I would suggest you revisit the specific cases rather than brand yourself as not cut out to DM. I am absolutely certain there are 100 ways for you to hammer out a win win situation with your friend. DnD, is a zero sum game i.e. everyone can win without the need for someone to lose.
In answer to the question of what he meant by loophole, a loophole in this context would be where there are two separate rules that are interacting and leave ambiguity on how they should proceed in game, especially when it is going to be the benefit of his character or the party. Example: Finding Familiar being able to cast spells for the caster, but unable to attack and Booming Blade being a spell but requiring a melee weapon attack. I think a lot of our disagreements come from a fundamental difference in interpreting the rules when it comes to these gray areas. I think I always try to rule the best I can as fair as I can, within the mechanics of the game and the world we are playing, while he is looking at how he can use that gray area to the maximum benefit.
Your player doesn't understand the game of D&D... and maybe you kind of don't either.
As David42 said above, "there are no loopholes" in the rules.... Because the rules are there to give you ideas on how to play, but the rules are ultimately made by the DM. Now, I am not suggesting that you toss the rulebook out. I always follow the rulebook unless there is a good reason not to.
However, the ultimate determination of how to interpret the rule rests, and has always rested since the first days of D&D, with the DM. If you, as DM, rule that Find Familiar works a certain way, then that's the way it works. Period.
This is not to say that you should be a dictator. I absolutely listen to players if they feel like my interpretation of the rulebook may be based on a misunderstanding, and if it turns out to be the case, I revise my ruling. However, once the DM has made the decision, that's it. And if you as a DM decide that something works a certain way in your world, as long as you explain that to the players, again, that's it. The players are not supposed to be arguing with the DM during a game session.
Let's look at your example:
Finding Familiar being able to cast spells for the caster, but unable to attack and Booming Blade being a spell but requiring a melee weapon attack.
There are two potentially contradicting statements, within the text of the spell. The first is that the Familiar cannot attack, but can take "other actions" as normal. But then later in the same spell entry, it says that you can cast spells through the familiar, and that "if the spell requires an attack roll" you use your spell attack modifier to make the roll. It also says the familiar uses its reaction to cast the spell for you.
As I read this (i.e., how I would rule), it means that the familiar cannot make its own attacks, nor take the attack "action," and may never roll to hit using its own stats. However, you may use your spell attack focused through the familiar. This is not the familiar making an attack -- it is you making an attack that emits from the paws of your cat or whatever the familiar is. The familiar is just the outlet of the spell. But the familiar is incapable of making, on its own, a melee attack against a target, so consequently, it could not make the melee attack required for Booming Blade to succeed. Therefore I would rule that you would be able to cast a spell like Magic Missile through the familiar, but you would not be able to cast a spell like Booming Blade through it -- or rather, that you could, but, per the text of the BB spell, it fails automatically if you don't make a melee attack while casting it. The familiar cannot make a melee attack, so the spell is cast, and fails. Mark off the appropriate spell slot.
Now, I don't know if this is how other DMs would rule, and my point here is, I don't care how they'd rule. Upon (quickly) reading these spells, this is how I would rule at the table if this came up and I had not thought about it beforehand. Once I have ruled that way -- that's it. The player asked what would happen, pointed out the contradiction, I ruled, end of story. How other DMs would rule, or how Gary Gygax would have ruled, is not relevant to the situation. How the player thinks I should rule, is also not relevant. The rules for our table are decided by me, the DM. This is part of the unstated contract between DMs and players. Whatever the book says, whatever people on the forums say, in a game session, the rules come from the DM, not from the books. Period. A player who keeps arguing about stuff like this isn't holding up his end of the deal.
I can be kinda headstrong when I want to be, and sometimes I put my foot down on things that are probably not worth the fight ultimately, which probably makes seem like I am against them.
You should try to resist being too headstrong and getting into unnecessary arguments. However, as a DM, you should be putting your foot down, regularly, over the course of a game session. It comes with the territory. And the players should accept this. If they don't, you have a problem.
And the adversarial thing, is definitely a problem. It should not be you against them. You aren't trying to beat the players -- you're trying to give them fodder for great story-telling sessions. And when you make rulings, it should be with an eye toward the consistency and logic of your campaign world, and toward fair and honest interpretation of the rules (always understanding that the rules can be ignored with good reason, but should not be ignored willy-nilly).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
By the way, Find Familiar specifically says that "when you cast a spell with a range of touch, your familiar can deliver the spell as if it had cast the spell.". Booming Blade does not have a range of touch, it has a range of 5 feet. You can't cast Booming Blade through a familiar anyway, by RAW.
Hey all,
I am a relatively new DM (just a couple of months shy of 1 year, bi monthly games). The group I am DMing are all first timers to DnD (myself included) so we are still learning after all this time.
Backstory: A while ago, I got into an argument at the table with one of my players, who happens to be my best friend, over the application of a home-brew thing I allowed in. I felt terrible with how I handled it. After apologizing and working with him so we were both happy, we both moved on.
Fast forward to today. He and I are chatting on the phone (thanks Coronavirus), and he brought up the fact that as a player, he was going to look for loopholes constantly in the rulebooks in order to exploit as much advantage as possible, and would question a ruling at the table if that is when it came up in order to gain that advantage. I, immediately, went into a rant about how stuff like that at the table pisses me off because I have other players at the table and I am trying to make sure they aren't bored... yada yada. While everything I said makes sense, the venom with which I said it made me realize that I am still not quite over the argument from a few months ago, but more importantly, I don't like it when I get questioned at the table. Which in my opinion is part of the nature of the job.
As such, I am concerned that maybe I am not really cut out to DM, even though I absolutely love it. I am wondering if other DMs deal with this and what strategies do you employ to make sure that you are ACTUALLY open to hearing your players' arguments and not getting upset for being "questioned." Thanks in advance!
Take a deep breath and say "We can talk about that after the game". Rules arguments at the table are boring for people who don't like rules arguments (it's totally possible to have a group that enjoys rule arguments, but IME it's uncommon).
At the table, apply 2 rules. Reason and "The Rule of Cool".
Make sure everyone understands that is how you make in the moment judgement calls, and that your decision (at the time) is final so that you can keep the game moving.
Be open to discussing rules afterwards to either confirm your call, or change it going forward.
ALSO. And this is a biggy. If players are going to be like this, let them know they can discuss it BEFOREHAND. So if they've read Mage hand and think they have a really clever and unusual way to use it, talk to you before hand to make sure you're both on the same page. If you're a good DM, they'll know you're trying to facilitate the game, not be their opponent. You're not trying to kill their fun. So there's no point "suprising you" with a weird rules idea. Just talk it out beforehand, get on the same page, and when it happens in game, the other players get to go "WOW, that's nuts!", the player gets to look hella sneaky and creative, and you get to look like you handle some weird sideball off the cuff with aplomb and finesse. Everyone wins.
One thing my DM does right now if we aren't sure about a rule at the moment he will roll for it. 1-10 nope! 11-20 yep! lol it works well enough. BUT like the person above said, if they find some clever use of the rules, tell them to discuss these things as they find them, out of game. And if they are right, then allow it. Explain to him you aren't looking for weird stuff like that constantly so making those calls in the moment is difficult and takes away from the experience. But he is also going to have to respect that he might not get everything he wants, which would be super toxic anyway. there is a give and take to it all. Everyone's gotta have fun.
I had a player who looked for every loophole he could. All he did was piss off the other players. I was not to happy with it myself. He would also question every final call I made. DMing was not even remotely new to me. However this was his first game. The game broke up and some of us went on to play warhammer for a while with a great group of players at a local hobby shop. We invited the problem player to join us. It did not go so well. Once again he would question and look up every rule for whatever faction a player was playing and question them. Note that this was his first time playing warhammer other then a game we had at my house just so he could get a feel for it. He questioned players who had been playing warhammer from back when it came out. In the end he no longer plays D&D or Warhammer because he burned all of his bridges down.
I don't know that anyone can be "cut out" to be a DM. You have to learn by doing, and gain experience as you go. I ran my first online session ever, and my first session for a table top RPG in probably 30 years, last week, and although I didn't do anything terrible, I can already see like 20 things I would have done better if I had been more thoughtful. One thing I already see is that I need to slow down when asked a question and take more time to think about the answer.
However, in terms of your reaction... You need not to be venomous, yes. You need to be calm and collected, yes. But... a player who openly declares he is going to look for loopholes in the rules? That's someone who is not acting in good conscience. The aim of a player ought not to be to try and find ways to exploit the rules. In fact, that is called cheating by everyone I've ever played with. Your friend's position is equivalent to "resource dupers" on MMOs, which are the spiritual descendants of games like D&D. These are people who find a way to "trick" the game engine into giving them more gold or resources than they are supposed to have -- they found a coding loophole. Universally the response of MMO admins to these people is to ban them from the game. Again, because it is cheating.
My question would be, why is the guy always purposely looking for loopholes? Is he a lawyer in real life or something? Does he just find that kind of thing fun? If so I might have to say to him, best friend or not, our table is not the place to do that, and if you insist, I will have to ask you to leave the campaign.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
1. Any/all your on the spot decisions should be reviewable after the session. Rule of Cool applies here as well. You may allow something that is “cool” but then realize to make that a standard ruling would break your game. So let the players know that any ruling can be reviewed away from the session by anybody at the table. That takes it purely OOC, doesn’t bog down the game, and provides clarity.
2. Player want to find a loophole? You mean the player wants to bring to YOUR attention additional ways, ways you may never have thought, of screwing the party over? Man, wish my players would do that work for me. It can be a struggle balancing challenging them enough and not TPKing them in the process at times. Sure could go for some of those loopholes from time to time... (remember it is a collaborative game, but what’s good for the goose is good for the gander)
3. Being new in general means the less home brew the better. Things interact in certain ways for certain reasons. Changing that can introduce unforeseen consequences which can vastly alter the challenge of encounters, the pace of play, and the general FUN had at the table.
4. Keep the game moving at the table. See 1. above for any concerns you or the players have on any ruling made (or not made when it should have). Don’t retcon except as a last resort. The players will roll with “well, look, that spell/ability/skill/item/etc. shouldn’t have worked that way. Here is how it will work going forward. It just did that in that instance because of _______”
I generally agree with most of what's been said, but I throw in a little "support" for the player (since no-one has done that).
Remember that there is a quite fine line between looking for "loopholes" and find creative use of new features, spells etc. While the first is usually very annoying (and should not be discussed at the table), creative use of powers are cool.
Also, make it clear that you will not discuss rules at the table. Make a ruling that is as fair as you possible can do, then inform the players you will check out the rule after the session, and inform them before the next.
Ludo ergo sum!
I’m curious about the player’s motivation. As biowizard was saying, He’s looking for loopholes so he can then do what? I know some people just like to look for clever options that work well, and that’s all fine. But even using the word “loophole” feels like one of two things. 1. He’s trolling. 2. He’s looking for the cheat code so he can win D&D. Like he thinks it’s an adversarial game.
the first one is annoying but can be dealt with, and could just be friendly ribbing. the second means he doesn’t really understand the game.
maybe ask him what he’s after. Why does he want to find these?
Also, the fact that your friend is telling you he’s going to do this is both a kind of threat and bullying behavior. Like he’s daring you to do something about it. Are you conflict-averse, and he knows you are? If so he’s telling you in order to lay the groundwork so it will be easier for him to steamroll you when the time comes.
To your original question, you do need to be ok with people questioning you, but only to a point. When it turns from questioning into being a jerk, that’s not ok. And you need to be willing to make a ruling and let it stand, sometimes, players won’t like your ruling, but more often than not, they should recognize that it’s fair.
Also, though you didn’t ask, this is a good example of a big problem with homebrew stuff, particularly for those without a lot of experience. You can end up creating a lot of these loopholes your friend is looking for.
Hey all,
Thanks for commenting and helping out. I will say, I learned my lesson about home-brew content and that was my mistake. We did talk about it and both came to an agreement on how it would be played moving forward.
In answer to the question of what he meant by loophole, a loophole in this context would be where there are two separate rules that are interacting and leave ambiguity on how they should proceed in game, especially when it is going to be the benefit of his character or the party. Example: Finding Familiar being able to cast spells for the caster, but unable to attack and Booming Blade being a spell but requiring a melee weapon attack. I think a lot of our disagreements come from a fundamental difference in interpreting the rules when it comes to these gray areas. I think I always try to rule the best I can as fair as I can, within the mechanics of the game and the world we are playing, while he is looking at how he can use that gray area to the maximum benefit.
I like the rule of cool, but I think you all are right that maybe we have fallen into the trap of the DM being the adversary. I certainly don't view it that way, but maybe it is good for us to go back over that, individually and as a group. And to be fair, I think that we have fallen into this trap is my fault. I can be kinda headstrong when I want to be, and sometimes I put my foot down on things that are probably not worth the fight ultimately, which probably makes seem like I am against them. So that is something I will definitely have to work on going forward and hopefully play will change for the better at the table.
D&D has its origins in miniatures wargaming, which most certainly was something you played to win, and it's a legitimate way to play the game -- as long as everyone agrees that's the type of game they're playing. The problem comes when different people have different ideas of the type of game they're playing.
D&D is not a competitive game, it is a collaborative game. The players do not play against the DM, the DM does not play against the players. The characters comes across challenged that the DM both placed and arbitrates using the rules. As W.O.P.R. once said, "The only way to win, is to not play at all."
Just a comment about home brewing. I home brew all of the time when I DM because it makes for a more fun experience than being predictable all of the time. There are a lot of players, including me, who know all of the "normal" things that DM's use so home brewing things that are different makes the game more fun for those more experienced players. It is definitely more work, but it's worth it!
I agree with the "keep the game moving" concept. One thing that I do when a player tries to do something that catches me by surprise is I ask them to roll a d20 and I assign a DC to their roll before they roll based on my on the spot judgement. If they hit the DC then what they're trying works that time. If they don't, it doesn't. It's fair and it's random so I haven't gotten any complaints. It has resulted in some spectacular success and some funny failures! When a failure happens I don't let that failure kill any of the PC's, the goal is to have fun and to keep the game moving without stopping to read through the rules and try to make the perfect rules decision. Making permanent rules decisions should happen outside of a session, not in a session.
My advice for your friend's loopholes is tell him that he needs to run them past you ahead of time so that he doesn't catch you off guard during the game because your goal is to keep the game moving for everyone instead of stopping to read the rulebooks. If he refuses to do that, then start making his loopholes fail when he uses them and tell him that you'll read the rules outside of the session and make a ruling before the next session. Just don't use your pre-knowledge of what he's going to try against him. I had a DM who did that to me and tailored encounters specifically to hamstring the strategies that I asked him about and that really turned me off on him as a DM.
I'm running Ghosts of Saltmarsh right now and my players have met an adversary who is a pirate warlock (kraken patron with pact of the chain) whose familiar is his ship instead of a normal familiar. One of them saw a hint that something weird is going on when he went over to the ship to parley and he gave the captain a bottle of whiskey as a peace offering and the captain dropped it on the deck and the deck of the ship opened up and then closed behind it. That scared them off enough that they left and sailed back to Saltmarsh to regroup. Does that warlock follow the rules? Absolutely not! Is he a unique opponent who is going to be challenging and fun for the PC's to deal with? Yes! Their reward for defeating him is going to be his ship. When they finally defeat him the fiendish spirit that is inhabiting his ship is going to depart, leaving them a large fully equipped ship to replace their boat that's barely big enough for the whole party.
Professional computer geek
What sort of game D&D is depends on the preferences of the people playing the game (for this purpose, the DM is a player), and for that matter it doesn't even have to stay constant within the same game.
The genre, the flavor does, but nothing in DnD gives a win condition, nor a lose condition for that matter. There are no measurables in which to compare to create a competitive game in the rules of the game.
In other words, you can use DnD to create a competitive game, but you are not then playing DnD.
Sure you are. All D&D games involve some things that are not part of the rules (for example, the adventure), and competitive win conditions are no more forbidden than any other type of campaign objective. Back in the early 80s there were 'competition modules' that were actually scored for how well the PCs did (I have an original copy of The Lost Shrine of Tamoachan, I doubt that's been replicated in the current Tales from the Yawning Portal version).
I would note that this is not actually the way I play. I just recognize that different groups have different play styles, and as long as they're having fun, one is not inherently more right than another.
Just a couple of comments ...
1) When dealing with players it is best to remain calm. Getting bothered or venemous doesn't help answer the question.
2) There are no loopholes. This is D&D, not a board game with set rules. The rulebooks are guidelines. That said, when the group gets together they usually decide to play based on an implicitly agreed upon set of rules. The implicit aspect of the rules can be clarified by having a short discussion on what rules you are trying to use for play. This includes homebrew. If you are using a homebrew item or rule you need to be very explicit about what it the item or the rule does.
3) DMs make mistakes. I make them, you make them, the players make them. In my case, it can be misremembering something from a past edition and juxtaposing it with 5e. There is nothing wrong with a player saying "I don't think the spell works that way" or "I think I can do this with the item" or "That guy can't have 3 actions this round, unless you made him special?".
Decide how you want to handle these. They are reasonable questions. One option is to quickly look up the rule or spell, especially if the player already has it out. However, as DM you have to decide if the issue is the rule or the interpretation. If its interpretation then just decide how it will work for this session and review it at the end ... make a note. If there is a rule issue and it will take time to look up, do the same to keep the game moving. As you play more and run more games, this gets much easier since you will have seen it all before and know how you want to rule it. You will also be able to identify some of the more egregious examples ... simulacrum abuse, coffeelock ... and will be able to just say no (or yes depending on the question) to the player and move on. 5e has relatively few real "exploits" and only a few real places you can argue (e.g. does great weapon fighting style apply to just the weapon damage dice or to all damage dice rolled on the attack - the sage advice answer is just the weapon dice but some players might argue it)
Anyway, as you DM more the problem eventually almost completely disappears as you build up experience and can just answer the player without looking into the rulebook. However. occasionally you get people who are stubborn and refuse to accept an answer or don't understand it ... in these cases, again suggest that you will discuss it at the end of the session but for now you will play it this way to keep the game going.
It sounds to me like you are not satisfied with the results of your negotiations. I would suggest you revisit the specific cases rather than brand yourself as not cut out to DM. I am absolutely certain there are 100 ways for you to hammer out a win win situation with your friend. DnD, is a zero sum game i.e. everyone can win without the need for someone to lose.
Jesus Saves!... Everyone else takes damage.
Your player doesn't understand the game of D&D... and maybe you kind of don't either.
As David42 said above, "there are no loopholes" in the rules.... Because the rules are there to give you ideas on how to play, but the rules are ultimately made by the DM. Now, I am not suggesting that you toss the rulebook out. I always follow the rulebook unless there is a good reason not to.
However, the ultimate determination of how to interpret the rule rests, and has always rested since the first days of D&D, with the DM. If you, as DM, rule that Find Familiar works a certain way, then that's the way it works. Period.
This is not to say that you should be a dictator. I absolutely listen to players if they feel like my interpretation of the rulebook may be based on a misunderstanding, and if it turns out to be the case, I revise my ruling. However, once the DM has made the decision, that's it. And if you as a DM decide that something works a certain way in your world, as long as you explain that to the players, again, that's it. The players are not supposed to be arguing with the DM during a game session.
Let's look at your example:
There are two potentially contradicting statements, within the text of the spell. The first is that the Familiar cannot attack, but can take "other actions" as normal. But then later in the same spell entry, it says that you can cast spells through the familiar, and that "if the spell requires an attack roll" you use your spell attack modifier to make the roll. It also says the familiar uses its reaction to cast the spell for you.
As I read this (i.e., how I would rule), it means that the familiar cannot make its own attacks, nor take the attack "action," and may never roll to hit using its own stats. However, you may use your spell attack focused through the familiar. This is not the familiar making an attack -- it is you making an attack that emits from the paws of your cat or whatever the familiar is. The familiar is just the outlet of the spell. But the familiar is incapable of making, on its own, a melee attack against a target, so consequently, it could not make the melee attack required for Booming Blade to succeed. Therefore I would rule that you would be able to cast a spell like Magic Missile through the familiar, but you would not be able to cast a spell like Booming Blade through it -- or rather, that you could, but, per the text of the BB spell, it fails automatically if you don't make a melee attack while casting it. The familiar cannot make a melee attack, so the spell is cast, and fails. Mark off the appropriate spell slot.
Now, I don't know if this is how other DMs would rule, and my point here is, I don't care how they'd rule. Upon (quickly) reading these spells, this is how I would rule at the table if this came up and I had not thought about it beforehand. Once I have ruled that way -- that's it. The player asked what would happen, pointed out the contradiction, I ruled, end of story. How other DMs would rule, or how Gary Gygax would have ruled, is not relevant to the situation. How the player thinks I should rule, is also not relevant. The rules for our table are decided by me, the DM. This is part of the unstated contract between DMs and players. Whatever the book says, whatever people on the forums say, in a game session, the rules come from the DM, not from the books. Period. A player who keeps arguing about stuff like this isn't holding up his end of the deal.
You should try to resist being too headstrong and getting into unnecessary arguments. However, as a DM, you should be putting your foot down, regularly, over the course of a game session. It comes with the territory. And the players should accept this. If they don't, you have a problem.
And the adversarial thing, is definitely a problem. It should not be you against them. You aren't trying to beat the players -- you're trying to give them fodder for great story-telling sessions. And when you make rulings, it should be with an eye toward the consistency and logic of your campaign world, and toward fair and honest interpretation of the rules (always understanding that the rules can be ignored with good reason, but should not be ignored willy-nilly).
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
By the way, Find Familiar specifically says that "when you cast a spell with a range of touch, your familiar can deliver the spell as if it had cast the spell.". Booming Blade does not have a range of touch, it has a range of 5 feet. You can't cast Booming Blade through a familiar anyway, by RAW.