I think, having read this thread, my advice is this:
Not every group has good cohesion, especially right off the bat. A lot of actual play and other media about D&D has convinced people about how everything should be perfect. There are probably a couple things going on here. One is that your players want to play a different game than the game you're running, and they've let it hurt the game you're running. It's not really either party's direct fault (and, likewise, both parties are somewhat responsible here). Now, I'll show my bias: I hate when players do ripped from anime/tv/movies/books characters, especially if they're chaotic evil, edgy, or otherwise primed to be disruptive. I think that's one of the worst (best?) ways to disrupt a campaign, because you're trying to play the character from the source media instead of working with the DM to tell a story alongside the party. These characters (and often players) are very difficult to work with- you either throw them a bone and scuttle your campaign to do it, or you get a disruptive player who doesn't want to follow any of the plot arcs, work with other players, and generally is disengaged because they're not doing what *they* want to do, rest of the party be darned. That's a problem.
I'd have a conversation about the character with the player, let them know that you expect some amount of cohesiveness in the party, and say that they can play their character, but you won't change the story to make it like X show and they need to be invested in *your* world, not the world their character is inspired by. If that's a problem, they're welcome to roll up a new character or find a different campaign. I can guarantee you, as someone who has played with this type of character in the group, it *does* really bring down the experience for your other players.
As a DM, you have the responsibility to entertain your players and work with them to tell a good story, and problem characters and players can scuttle that. Now, I would always try to have a productive conversation before booting a player or forcing them to make a new character that fits better with the group, but that's just courtesy. You can also "punish" characters who do things that have real world consequences. I don't like punishing players, but if you have a character who breaks laws, offends people, constantly breaks immersion by spewing lines from other shows, etc., perhaps there are consequences. They might burn bridges with NPCs, get arrested, be ostracized for being a weirdo, or other in game consequences that should fit their in game behavior. It's a middle step, but it can sometimes help players realize that their play is disruptive.
Then you get the "I gotta bring homebrew to the table." No dice from me. I have no sympathy for a player who, when told there is no homebrew unless the DM creates/approves it (I do the same, so I get that), brings a homebrew character and basically holds the DM hostage- either you deal with forcing the player to make a new character (and I'm guessing that it was sprung on you at the session, which is what my past offenders have done, which means derailing the session with character creation) or you allow it because you don't want to cause a conflict. It's a jerk move. Definitely not your fault here.
When someone needs to bring their own (or their favorite) homebrew into a session, it makes we worry that they're running a campaign in their head- they want the world, setting, and story to look a particular way, whether or not it's something that other players or the DM envision. One advantage of sticking to the books is that (more or less) people have a shared understanding of races, classes, monsters, items, etc. That doesn't mean you can't ever add to the books, take things across settings, etc. But homebrew is a disruption of that environment, and it makes much more work for the DM (now you either have a special snowflake Corgi running around or you have to make it something that exists in the world whether or not you prepared for it) and can break the immersion of other players.
You're 100% in the right here in telling the player to make a character from sources in the book. DMs have ultimate authority on the rules for a system, and introducing a new class, subclass, race, or item violates that authority unless it's done in conversation with the DM. Your player won't like it, and if it's not a big deal, you don't necessarily have to do a whole lot about it, but you've got my approval to do whatever you want, including boot the player. Not all players fit all groups, and sometimes you have to recognize that some players, or characters, are disruptive. Doesn't mean they're bad people, just not a good fit for your DM'ing style. I tend to do fairly serious games (not, like, grimderp, but pretty grounded and real feeling) and so players who want a quirky or humorous campaign don't fit well with my DM'ing. Just a fact, no one's at fault, but I'm not going to cater to them and compromise everything else, especially if I feel it will undermine the quality of the game for everyone else.
I would also worry less about trying to railroading players. That's the reason why I don't like recommending that people start DM'ing with modules. It does take care of a lot of the work for you, but it also means that if things go off the rails or the group is weaker/stronger things get dicey. Although it can be difficult, letting players go where they want takes care of a lot of the inattentiveness that can come up during play. If players feel invested, they pay more attention, enjoy the campaign more, and tell better stories. It is infinitely easier to manage a party if they're playing a role in the story, whether it's where you're leading them or if it's where they've happened to wander. Now, that doesn't mean you can't limit their behavior at all. The environment, NPCs, and situations can all compel your players to work together or do particular things. But forcing players to follow a script tends to go poorly. However, I've found that the best stories are told when players do things I don't expect. It does help to have groups that naturally want to work together and follow hooks, but it sounds like that's as much a problem with your players (since it sounds like three of them aren't interested in playing ball) and all you can do then is your best to try to make the story compelling.
The only really good advice I've heard, in my opinion, about players who break the railroad when you really need it, is to have an honest conversation with your players. Tell them that you're running a module, and there's only so much tolerance there for random decisions, so you need them to cooperate, just for now, while you're running through the module. Once the module finishes, work on telling a more dynamic story. But, if your players are mature enough to listen, you can really avert the worst disasters. It's not a silver bullet, but it's better than muddling through. Worst case scenario, your players do or say rude things or leave the game, but even then you're likely to prune the disruptive players and keep the good. That's not a bad thing, though it can suck for the moment.
Remember that even though you're new, your authority comes from your position as the DM, not your experience. No one likes playing with a tyrant, but you do have the right (and obligation) to tell a story. If your players are disruptive, you don't have to worry about whether you're in the right or wrong. Just don't be a jerk- to any of your players. Ignoring bad player behavior not only encourages that player to do disruptive things in the future and prevents their growth, but it makes other players have worse experiences of your campaign. Disciplining a player for breaking the rules, undermining the story, or causing trouble at the table is not being mean to that player- their behavior (assuming that it's not because of a DM'ing issue) justifies a reaction. If you're looking at how to make things better for your other players, you'll avoid the worst new DM mistakes, which is usually getting too focused on telling your story or using your characters and not focusing on what your players want.
If you ask your two engaged players, odds are that they will say that the disruptive players are negatively impacting their experience. Ask if they have suggestions, work with them to make their experience better, and take that feedback into your conversations and working with the disruptive players. Don't narc on them (e.g. "X said that what you did made the game worse.") but do use that feedback constructively (e.g. "When your Naruto rip-off shouts 'Believe it!' after every move in combat, it gets stale and annoying and breaks player immersion.") so that your players realize it's not just you being a jerk, it's you looking out for everyone else at the player. Heck, it's quite possible that one or more of your inattentive players aren't paying attention because of the other disruptive players at the table. Sure, there might be problems they need to work on, too, but if you're fair and work with everyone to make the experience better, if they don't play ball, that's not on you.
I hope this helps. I know first campaigns can be rough. I look back on a lot of my early DM'ing and cringe. There are many ways for things to go wrong, so just focus on everyone having fun. If some rules get messed up, that's fine. Work on fixing it if you care, or if it makes things fun and no one minds then just roll with it. Remember that your best outcome isn't perfectly following rules, storylines, or character arcs but your players enjoying the campaign. If you get that down, everything will be worth it in the end.
it was sprung on you at the session, which is what my past offenders have done, which means derailing the session with character creation
One solution to this: I won't even hold the first session until all characters are fully finished, created, and approved, including background and everything else. You want to start? So do I... finish your damn character!
EDIT: I will hold session 0 first... Ideally before char gen. But once session 0 is over, I won't even schedule the next session until I get finished copies of characters from all players. And once that happens, that's it. No bringing an "update" to the session.
And if that doesn't work, "No D&D is better than bad D&D." (I'm looking at you Bio ...)
Don't look at me... I'm only quoting Colville. Look at him.
I wished to convey the point that you said it first (after Colville) and I didn't wish credit for saying it as a solution when you had already made the point.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
In terms of the chaotic evil player it’s obvious. If they start breaking the law, then have the law go after the player. I’d say have a scenario which results most likely in the chaotic Evil player breaking the law, and the characters sentence being having to slay the dragon or get a punishment.
The corgi player I’d say is have an anchorite of Talos show up early and put a curse on the character that revokes all benefit of the race or something like that. Or maybe have the gang of wererats appear earlier in the module and attack the group via ambush, but retreat from the fight despite having a huge edge to the gold mine. The leader could put an even more potent wererat curse on the corgi player or something turning them into a wererat permanently with the benefits of the curse but due to the potency, strip all race benefits from the player.
For the other players, maybe have early on events that make their characters want to peruse a certain goal in the module due to what happened to them. You could perhaps have a character in the backstory of a player step into the module and connect it to a quest or something like that.
n terms of the chaotic evil player it’s obvious. If they start breaking the law, then have the law go after the player. I’d say have a scenario which results most likely in the chaotic Evil player breaking the law, and the characters sentence being having to slay the dragon or get a punishment.
The corgi player I’d say is have an anchorite of Talos show up early and put a curse on the character that revokes all benefit of the race or something like that.
No offense meant but, I don't think these are going to work, or are advisable. These are in-character punishments for out-of-character behavior issues. You can't solve an OOC issue by taking it IC. Don't punish the character for the player's behavior... it won't make the player see your point. It will just upset the player.
Rather, talk to the players out of game, and explain the situation. If they are reasonable, you can solve the problem that way without ugliness. If they are not reasonable, no amount of trying to make them see reason through IC punishment will work.
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.
n terms of the chaotic evil player it’s obvious. If they start breaking the law, then have the law go after the player. I’d say have a scenario which results most likely in the chaotic Evil player breaking the law, and the characters sentence being having to slay the dragon or get a punishment.
The corgi player I’d say is have an anchorite of Talos show up early and put a curse on the character that revokes all benefit of the race or something like that.
No offense meant but, I don't think these are going to work, or are advisable. These are in-character punishments for out-of-character behavior issues. You can't solve an OOC issue by taking it IC. Don't punish the character for the player's behavior... it won't make the player see your point. It will just upset the player.
Rather, talk to the players out of game, and explain the situation. If they are reasonable, you can solve the problem that way without ugliness. If they are not reasonable, no amount of trying to make them see reason through IC punishment will work.
I can see what you mean. Although I do think that this would engage the players more, and it would deal with the corgi situation entirely. I get that in game punishments aren’t good, but I do think this would at least engage players more.
I agree with talking to the players out of game. As an update I’d say only should anything like this be done If the players relent.
it was sprung on you at the session, which is what my past offenders have done, which means derailing the session with character creation
One solution to this: I won't even hold the first session until all characters are fully finished, created, and approved, including background and everything else. You want to start? So do I... finish your damn character!
That is great advice. Sometimes, every once in a while, someone will get a character to me late or need to meet right before a session to work on a new character, but it certainly helps to require things to be done first. That said, there are sometimes cases that are particularly egregious and betray that your player has no intention of working with you. The worst is the bait and switch- a decent character sheet substituted for one that wouldn't pass the rules, hoping that you're not going to turn them down in the heat of the moment. The other is backstory bloat, where relatively inoffensive backstory content is constantly grown to the point where it becomes derailing, either in terms of gameplay bonuses or demanding the story's direction change, which I watched another player do to the DM of a campaign I was in. They're easy enough to deal with for experienced DMs, but new DMs often don't recognize and respond to these (I know I wouldn't have back when I started DM'ing). It's important to put your foot down, have a conversation with the player, explain your concerns, and lay down the law if you absolutely have to intervene. Again, it's for the good of the other players as well- you're not being a bully, you're making the game run smoothly.
Although I do think that this would engage the players more, and it would deal with the corgi thing entirely...
I disagree. I don't think it will deal with the "corgi thing" at all.
The problem with the corgi thing isn't that the character is a corgi... it's that the player was told, explicitly, not to use homebrew races, and did it anyway, in direct defiance of the GM's stated table rules. I don't care what the race was, or whether it was something other than race. When the DM says "This is how we are playing," then the player has to accept that or not play. It's one thing, to ask for a conversation or a discussion. It is something quite different to just show up with whatever you darn well please.
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.
Right... it's a matter of respectfulness. It is disrespectful to the DM to just ignore rules and expect to be allowed to ignore them.
Just tonight I had a long Google Hangouts conversation with my Sorcerer player. He's about to level up and get counterspell, and he was concerned about how I was handling that spell in terms of house rules. He didn't just say "bleep it I am doing it my way." He sent me a text, I suggested we talk verbally, we spoke for 20 minutes, and came to a compromise ruling that we are both happy with.
This is how you handle it. Not "I show up with what I want and the heck with what you want." RPGs can't work that way. Everyone has to be willing to cooperate.
I know that. I just called it the “corgi thing” to have it as an easy abbreviation that is understandable that pertains to the situation of a player bringing in a homebrew race that he wasn’t allowed to play. I probably should have said “situation” or something like that, which I edited my post to for clarification on meaning.
Just tonight I had a long Google Hangouts conversation with my Sorcerer player. He's about to level up and get counterspell, and he was concerned about how I was handling that spell in terms of house rules. He didn't just say "bleep it I am doing it my way." He sent me a text, I suggested we talk verbally, we spoke for 20 minutes, and came to a compromise ruling that we are both happy with.
Mind me asking what your counterspell house rule is?
Ban the homebrew and tell him, you just can't play that. if it's not in WOTC documents, you can't play it. Ban evil alignments. I have 2e PTSD of people using "but that's what my character would do" for every single disruptive thing they can think of trying.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Mind me asking what your counterspell house rule is?
The text of Counterspell does not provide any ability to know what the spell being countered is, before the Counterspell is cast. XGE states that it takes a reaction to make an Arcana check on another creature's turn, to ID a spell. That means if you take the reaction to ID, you can't also Counterspell. That means Counterspell has to be done blind. He didn't like that, so we came to a compromise that was suggested by someone else here... the reaction is used to ID the spell but you can Counterspell as part of the reaction that IDs the spell.
What he wanted, really, I think, was to be able to Counterspell after learning what the spell is -- thus to be able to decide, with full knowledge, to only Counter the "big spells" and not the cantrips. But that both gives Counterspell extra abilities not listed under the rules (knowledge of the enemy spell before it is cast), and to me, removes an interesting tactical element that "blind" Counterspell introduces. Without full knowledge, it is a lot harder to figure out what to counter or not. Also, as someone pointed out in one of the threads here a few months ago, the "blind casting" element means that a caster can "draw out" an enemy counterspell by throwing out a junk spell (like a Cantrip) and then after the Counterspell is wasted, toss out the real spell, like Cloudkill or Fireball. I wanted to keep that tactical situation both for the party and the monsters -- I like the idea of being able to have one member of the party cast the "decoy" cantrip to lure out the Counterspell and then the next person to go casts the "real" spell.
Our compromise preserves this to a sufficient degree that I was OK with it... Because IDing the spell burns the reaction either way (Pantagruel pointed this out to me on the other thread), you may not use up the spell slot for Counterspell, but the reaction is still gone, and now the next spell can't be countered. So you can still do the decoy tactic, which I think makes combat potentially much more interesting.
That's way off topic but... you asked.
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.
So when somebody says they are casting a spell, how does that work? Usually when I have a monster cast a spell I just say it casts X. The counterspell thing forces you to say," it's going to cast a spell" and let the players mull it over no?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
So when somebody says they are casting a spell, how does that work? Usually when I have a monster cast a spell I just say it casts X. The counterspell thing forces you to say," it's going to cast a spell" and let the players mull it over no?
Yes.
DM: "You see the monster waving its hands and hear it chanting."
Player: "I use my reaction to identify the spell."
DM: "Roll an Arcana check."
Player: "21 with my bonuses."
DM: "It's going to be Fireball."
Player: "As part of my reaction I would like to counterspell that."
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.
Well, that was how counterspelling worked in older editions. And it is annoying to be forced to decide whether or not to counterspell when you don't know whether the target is casting Blade Ward or Meteor Swarm.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I recently started reading the XDM book from Tracy and Curtis Hickman. There's a great section in there about the three kinds of D&D players:
The Warrior - This is the kind of player that just wants to fight and kill stuff. "If it moves, kill it. If it doesn't move, kick it 'til it moves. Take its stuff. Buy bigger weapons. Kill bigger things."
Social Player - This is the kind of player that really loves the role playing. "If it moves, talk to it. If it doesn't move, talk ABOUT it. Stay in character and speak with an affected voice."
Thinking Player - This is the kind of player that wants to win. They want a goal and they want to accomplish it. "If it moves, how can I use that to help me win? If it doesn't move, how can I use that to help me win? The world is full of obstacles between me and winning, and I'll use whatever strategy I need to overcome them."
Of course, most players are a mix of these things but you get the point. The real gem is where they say that you need to figure out what kind of players you have and then you need to make sure that the encounters offer opportunities for all three. The warriors are not doing it wrong, neither are the social or thinking players. "Every encounter area in the game needs to provide an answer to the following questions: What can I bash or break here? What here will say something to me? What here brings us close to winning?"
So maybe you're just not presenting them with the right opportunities. For example, if you have a bunch of warriors and you keep pointing them toward people they can talk to, that could explain why they're not engaging.
I’m more of a Social player (though I don’t do the affected voice) but I’ve played with all three types. These guys sound like warriors. Worse yet, warriors who don’t care that much.
That being said, @6thLyranGuard has some great suggestions.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I think, having read this thread, my advice is this:
Not every group has good cohesion, especially right off the bat. A lot of actual play and other media about D&D has convinced people about how everything should be perfect. There are probably a couple things going on here. One is that your players want to play a different game than the game you're running, and they've let it hurt the game you're running. It's not really either party's direct fault (and, likewise, both parties are somewhat responsible here). Now, I'll show my bias: I hate when players do ripped from anime/tv/movies/books characters, especially if they're chaotic evil, edgy, or otherwise primed to be disruptive. I think that's one of the worst (best?) ways to disrupt a campaign, because you're trying to play the character from the source media instead of working with the DM to tell a story alongside the party. These characters (and often players) are very difficult to work with- you either throw them a bone and scuttle your campaign to do it, or you get a disruptive player who doesn't want to follow any of the plot arcs, work with other players, and generally is disengaged because they're not doing what *they* want to do, rest of the party be darned. That's a problem.
I'd have a conversation about the character with the player, let them know that you expect some amount of cohesiveness in the party, and say that they can play their character, but you won't change the story to make it like X show and they need to be invested in *your* world, not the world their character is inspired by. If that's a problem, they're welcome to roll up a new character or find a different campaign. I can guarantee you, as someone who has played with this type of character in the group, it *does* really bring down the experience for your other players.
As a DM, you have the responsibility to entertain your players and work with them to tell a good story, and problem characters and players can scuttle that. Now, I would always try to have a productive conversation before booting a player or forcing them to make a new character that fits better with the group, but that's just courtesy. You can also "punish" characters who do things that have real world consequences. I don't like punishing players, but if you have a character who breaks laws, offends people, constantly breaks immersion by spewing lines from other shows, etc., perhaps there are consequences. They might burn bridges with NPCs, get arrested, be ostracized for being a weirdo, or other in game consequences that should fit their in game behavior. It's a middle step, but it can sometimes help players realize that their play is disruptive.
Then you get the "I gotta bring homebrew to the table." No dice from me. I have no sympathy for a player who, when told there is no homebrew unless the DM creates/approves it (I do the same, so I get that), brings a homebrew character and basically holds the DM hostage- either you deal with forcing the player to make a new character (and I'm guessing that it was sprung on you at the session, which is what my past offenders have done, which means derailing the session with character creation) or you allow it because you don't want to cause a conflict. It's a jerk move. Definitely not your fault here.
When someone needs to bring their own (or their favorite) homebrew into a session, it makes we worry that they're running a campaign in their head- they want the world, setting, and story to look a particular way, whether or not it's something that other players or the DM envision. One advantage of sticking to the books is that (more or less) people have a shared understanding of races, classes, monsters, items, etc. That doesn't mean you can't ever add to the books, take things across settings, etc. But homebrew is a disruption of that environment, and it makes much more work for the DM (now you either have a special snowflake Corgi running around or you have to make it something that exists in the world whether or not you prepared for it) and can break the immersion of other players.
You're 100% in the right here in telling the player to make a character from sources in the book. DMs have ultimate authority on the rules for a system, and introducing a new class, subclass, race, or item violates that authority unless it's done in conversation with the DM. Your player won't like it, and if it's not a big deal, you don't necessarily have to do a whole lot about it, but you've got my approval to do whatever you want, including boot the player. Not all players fit all groups, and sometimes you have to recognize that some players, or characters, are disruptive. Doesn't mean they're bad people, just not a good fit for your DM'ing style. I tend to do fairly serious games (not, like, grimderp, but pretty grounded and real feeling) and so players who want a quirky or humorous campaign don't fit well with my DM'ing. Just a fact, no one's at fault, but I'm not going to cater to them and compromise everything else, especially if I feel it will undermine the quality of the game for everyone else.
I would also worry less about trying to railroading players. That's the reason why I don't like recommending that people start DM'ing with modules. It does take care of a lot of the work for you, but it also means that if things go off the rails or the group is weaker/stronger things get dicey. Although it can be difficult, letting players go where they want takes care of a lot of the inattentiveness that can come up during play. If players feel invested, they pay more attention, enjoy the campaign more, and tell better stories. It is infinitely easier to manage a party if they're playing a role in the story, whether it's where you're leading them or if it's where they've happened to wander. Now, that doesn't mean you can't limit their behavior at all. The environment, NPCs, and situations can all compel your players to work together or do particular things. But forcing players to follow a script tends to go poorly. However, I've found that the best stories are told when players do things I don't expect. It does help to have groups that naturally want to work together and follow hooks, but it sounds like that's as much a problem with your players (since it sounds like three of them aren't interested in playing ball) and all you can do then is your best to try to make the story compelling.
The only really good advice I've heard, in my opinion, about players who break the railroad when you really need it, is to have an honest conversation with your players. Tell them that you're running a module, and there's only so much tolerance there for random decisions, so you need them to cooperate, just for now, while you're running through the module. Once the module finishes, work on telling a more dynamic story. But, if your players are mature enough to listen, you can really avert the worst disasters. It's not a silver bullet, but it's better than muddling through. Worst case scenario, your players do or say rude things or leave the game, but even then you're likely to prune the disruptive players and keep the good. That's not a bad thing, though it can suck for the moment.
Remember that even though you're new, your authority comes from your position as the DM, not your experience. No one likes playing with a tyrant, but you do have the right (and obligation) to tell a story. If your players are disruptive, you don't have to worry about whether you're in the right or wrong. Just don't be a jerk- to any of your players. Ignoring bad player behavior not only encourages that player to do disruptive things in the future and prevents their growth, but it makes other players have worse experiences of your campaign. Disciplining a player for breaking the rules, undermining the story, or causing trouble at the table is not being mean to that player- their behavior (assuming that it's not because of a DM'ing issue) justifies a reaction. If you're looking at how to make things better for your other players, you'll avoid the worst new DM mistakes, which is usually getting too focused on telling your story or using your characters and not focusing on what your players want.
If you ask your two engaged players, odds are that they will say that the disruptive players are negatively impacting their experience. Ask if they have suggestions, work with them to make their experience better, and take that feedback into your conversations and working with the disruptive players. Don't narc on them (e.g. "X said that what you did made the game worse.") but do use that feedback constructively (e.g. "When your Naruto rip-off shouts 'Believe it!' after every move in combat, it gets stale and annoying and breaks player immersion.") so that your players realize it's not just you being a jerk, it's you looking out for everyone else at the player. Heck, it's quite possible that one or more of your inattentive players aren't paying attention because of the other disruptive players at the table. Sure, there might be problems they need to work on, too, but if you're fair and work with everyone to make the experience better, if they don't play ball, that's not on you.
I hope this helps. I know first campaigns can be rough. I look back on a lot of my early DM'ing and cringe. There are many ways for things to go wrong, so just focus on everyone having fun. If some rules get messed up, that's fine. Work on fixing it if you care, or if it makes things fun and no one minds then just roll with it. Remember that your best outcome isn't perfectly following rules, storylines, or character arcs but your players enjoying the campaign. If you get that down, everything will be worth it in the end.
One solution to this: I won't even hold the first session until all characters are fully finished, created, and approved, including background and everything else. You want to start? So do I... finish your damn character!
EDIT: I will hold session 0 first... Ideally before char gen. But once session 0 is over, I won't even schedule the next session until I get finished copies of characters from all players. And once that happens, that's it. No bringing an "update" to the session.
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.
I wished to convey the point that you said it first (after Colville) and I didn't wish credit for saying it as a solution when you had already made the point.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
In terms of the chaotic evil player it’s obvious. If they start breaking the law, then have the law go after the player. I’d say have a scenario which results most likely in the chaotic Evil player breaking the law, and the characters sentence being having to slay the dragon or get a punishment.
The corgi player I’d say is have an anchorite of Talos show up early and put a curse on the character that revokes all benefit of the race or something like that. Or maybe have the gang of wererats appear earlier in the module and attack the group via ambush, but retreat from the fight despite having a huge edge to the gold mine. The leader could put an even more potent wererat curse on the corgi player or something turning them into a wererat permanently with the benefits of the curse but due to the potency, strip all race benefits from the player.
For the other players, maybe have early on events that make their characters want to peruse a certain goal in the module due to what happened to them. You could perhaps have a character in the backstory of a player step into the module and connect it to a quest or something like that.
No offense meant but, I don't think these are going to work, or are advisable. These are in-character punishments for out-of-character behavior issues. You can't solve an OOC issue by taking it IC. Don't punish the character for the player's behavior... it won't make the player see your point. It will just upset the player.
Rather, talk to the players out of game, and explain the situation. If they are reasonable, you can solve the problem that way without ugliness. If they are not reasonable, no amount of trying to make them see reason through IC punishment will work.
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.
I can see what you mean. Although I do think that this would engage the players more, and it would deal with the corgi situation entirely. I get that in game punishments aren’t good, but I do think this would at least engage players more.
I agree with talking to the players out of game. As an update I’d say only should anything like this be done If the players relent.
Thanks Biowizard for bringing this up.
That is great advice. Sometimes, every once in a while, someone will get a character to me late or need to meet right before a session to work on a new character, but it certainly helps to require things to be done first. That said, there are sometimes cases that are particularly egregious and betray that your player has no intention of working with you. The worst is the bait and switch- a decent character sheet substituted for one that wouldn't pass the rules, hoping that you're not going to turn them down in the heat of the moment. The other is backstory bloat, where relatively inoffensive backstory content is constantly grown to the point where it becomes derailing, either in terms of gameplay bonuses or demanding the story's direction change, which I watched another player do to the DM of a campaign I was in. They're easy enough to deal with for experienced DMs, but new DMs often don't recognize and respond to these (I know I wouldn't have back when I started DM'ing). It's important to put your foot down, have a conversation with the player, explain your concerns, and lay down the law if you absolutely have to intervene. Again, it's for the good of the other players as well- you're not being a bully, you're making the game run smoothly.
I disagree. I don't think it will deal with the "corgi thing" at all.
The problem with the corgi thing isn't that the character is a corgi... it's that the player was told, explicitly, not to use homebrew races, and did it anyway, in direct defiance of the GM's stated table rules. I don't care what the race was, or whether it was something other than race. When the DM says "This is how we are playing," then the player has to accept that or not play. It's one thing, to ask for a conversation or a discussion. It is something quite different to just show up with whatever you darn well please.
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.
It's also a huge red flag that this player is likely to be a problem- if they're blatantly not following this rule, what else are they going to do?
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Right... it's a matter of respectfulness. It is disrespectful to the DM to just ignore rules and expect to be allowed to ignore them.
Just tonight I had a long Google Hangouts conversation with my Sorcerer player. He's about to level up and get counterspell, and he was concerned about how I was handling that spell in terms of house rules. He didn't just say "bleep it I am doing it my way." He sent me a text, I suggested we talk verbally, we spoke for 20 minutes, and came to a compromise ruling that we are both happy with.
This is how you handle it. Not "I show up with what I want and the heck with what you want." RPGs can't work that way. Everyone has to be willing to cooperate.
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.
I know that. I just called it the “corgi thing” to have it as an easy abbreviation that is understandable that pertains to the situation of a player bringing in a homebrew race that he wasn’t allowed to play. I probably should have said “situation” or something like that, which I edited my post to for clarification on meaning.
Mind me asking what your counterspell house rule is?
Ban the homebrew and tell him, you just can't play that. if it's not in WOTC documents, you can't play it. Ban evil alignments. I have 2e PTSD of people using "but that's what my character would do" for every single disruptive thing they can think of trying.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
The text of Counterspell does not provide any ability to know what the spell being countered is, before the Counterspell is cast. XGE states that it takes a reaction to make an Arcana check on another creature's turn, to ID a spell. That means if you take the reaction to ID, you can't also Counterspell. That means Counterspell has to be done blind. He didn't like that, so we came to a compromise that was suggested by someone else here... the reaction is used to ID the spell but you can Counterspell as part of the reaction that IDs the spell.
What he wanted, really, I think, was to be able to Counterspell after learning what the spell is -- thus to be able to decide, with full knowledge, to only Counter the "big spells" and not the cantrips. But that both gives Counterspell extra abilities not listed under the rules (knowledge of the enemy spell before it is cast), and to me, removes an interesting tactical element that "blind" Counterspell introduces. Without full knowledge, it is a lot harder to figure out what to counter or not. Also, as someone pointed out in one of the threads here a few months ago, the "blind casting" element means that a caster can "draw out" an enemy counterspell by throwing out a junk spell (like a Cantrip) and then after the Counterspell is wasted, toss out the real spell, like Cloudkill or Fireball. I wanted to keep that tactical situation both for the party and the monsters -- I like the idea of being able to have one member of the party cast the "decoy" cantrip to lure out the Counterspell and then the next person to go casts the "real" spell.
Our compromise preserves this to a sufficient degree that I was OK with it... Because IDing the spell burns the reaction either way (Pantagruel pointed this out to me on the other thread), you may not use up the spell slot for Counterspell, but the reaction is still gone, and now the next spell can't be countered. So you can still do the decoy tactic, which I think makes combat potentially much more interesting.
That's way off topic but... you asked.
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.
So when somebody says they are casting a spell, how does that work? Usually when I have a monster cast a spell I just say it casts X. The counterspell thing forces you to say," it's going to cast a spell" and let the players mull it over no?
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Yes.
DM: "You see the monster waving its hands and hear it chanting."
Player: "I use my reaction to identify the spell."
DM: "Roll an Arcana check."
Player: "21 with my bonuses."
DM: "It's going to be Fireball."
Player: "As part of my reaction I would like to counterspell that."
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.
Well, that was how counterspelling worked in older editions. And it is annoying to be forced to decide whether or not to counterspell when you don't know whether the target is casting Blade Ward or Meteor Swarm.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I’m more of a Social player (though I don’t do the affected voice) but I’ve played with all three types. These guys sound like warriors. Worse yet, warriors who don’t care that much.
That being said, @6thLyranGuard has some great suggestions.